| Saturday, September 29, 2001 - 08:01 am |
While contemplating Patanjali's yoga sutras, especially those dealing with planetary structures, a clear vision of the ultimote theory, presented by George Gillette in The Rational Nonmystical Cosmos, came upon the infnite screen of my inner-consciousness. At the time I was most interested in penetrating the limits of the definable vortex structures: outward, the solar system, the hunreds of millions of solar systems in our galaxy and the galaxy. Beyond that I could not see a vortex structure of greater magnitude. Inward, the atomic structures, nucleii with electron belts, then second to that the pulse of neutrons and protons as partially visable vortices.
Two things stood out as interesting. The first in the midst of the investigation, the second later upon reflection. First, that there is seeming chaos or randomness in anything tertiary to the actual vortex under-observation and that these tertiary pieces actually seemed to be their own sub-universes that somehow lived within the vortex structure. These tertiery-maintained structures seem built of smaller vortex structures which maintain their own relationship to the structure in their own tertiery way. The example of this is: the solar system, with the planets is vortex level 1. The spinning planets individually are vortex level 2 and our phsyical bodies are the tertiary. We are made up of what must be a nearly infinite set of molecular (1) /atomic (2) structures with tertiary sub-atomic structures just like our solar system to human relationship. But then there are big gaps of seemingly random behavior, like our physical bodies randomly moving in time and space, organisms beyond the molecular vortex structures that are not made of a single vortex system, but are somehow coalesced into a single entity. The same is probably true of somthing bigger than the galactic vortices that are as big as I could define with my limited perceptual abilities. What kind of organism is this that we actually live in? Just like those flashses of nested entitites from early stoner days.
The second interesting point is that without being able to define this glue that binds sets and subsets of unimotes, George Gillette's title is a mis-nomer.
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|