Every Quality has Opposite Poles

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by bgruagach

I'm not sure how playing semantics and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears the topic up.

But maybe that's just me.

Semantics plays a role in this debate.
Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

To establish an instrument to measure a range of temperatures, in 1593 Galileo Galilei invented a rudimentary water thermometer. One of the first to discuss the possibility of an “absolute cold” on such a scale was Robert Boyle who in his 1665 New Experiments and Observations touching Cold, stated the dispute which is the primum frigidum is very well known among naturalists, some contending for the earth, others for water, others for the air, and some of the moderns for nitre, but all seeming to agree that:
“ There is some body or other that is of its own nature supremely cold and by participation of which all other bodies obtain that quality. ”
Limit to the 'degree of cold'

The question whether there is a limit to the degree of cold possible, and, if so, where the zero must be placed, was first attacked by the French physicist Guillaume Amontons in 1702, in connection with his improvements in the air thermometer.

So starting from supreme coldness, primum frigidum, at what point do we talk of heat? If there is such a thing as supreme coldness, ipso facto, there must be lesser degrees of cold.

Ultimately, at one end of the pole we have primum frigidum, at the other, the concept of absolute heat. Don't tell me absolute heat doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove yea or nay. Heat's expression is the movement of particles but I wouldn't say that that is heat.

-Br.Bruce

The notion of specifics does appear to run contrary to the notion of spiritual investigation. One may become bewildered at the possibility that the two may in fact coincide- because it is often presumed that there is little or no clarity in spiritual insight, that at best, we will be hazy or shadowy in lofty or inspired thinking. However, parent thoughts do dwell in the upper ethers, and are as clear and exact as one could ever experience.


-The Brothers, The Search for Specifics

[JosephM]

Bro Bruce,

Absence is the state of being away. That state is merely sematics for the absence of a quality such as heat (energy) expressed as a degree with complete absence expressed as absolute zero. your ref to Wiki Absolute zero "describes a theoretical system that neither emits nor absorbs energy". So in science temperature is a measure of energy or lack of. Perhaps I am still missing your point of this post after reading through volumes of your information and I still fail to see its personal application to the interfaith forum or its subject matter. Perhaps you could in your 'own words', in a paragraph or two tell me what you are saying. I'm trying to understand the point. It would be appreciated.

Peace and Love,
JM

[bgruagach]

I'm with JM -- I still fail to understand how playing semantic games and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears up whatever the point was supposed to be in this thread.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by bgruagach

I'm with JM -- I still fail to understand how playing semantic games and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears up whatever the point was supposed to be in this thread.

That's where we do have polar opposite views, Bro.

It didn't even occur to me that someone could think this way.

Of course, there are no lines between science and spirituality- none at all.
Truth is one. There are not two types of truth.

You could start another thread on this, but I feel there is no distinction.

It's not my job to convince you of anything- for a start, the pay's not high enough .

For the Gnostic, the seeker of knowledge, science is a tool.

I am not "playing semantic games". It is important to understand how folk use words and the concepts which attach. "Words are the means by which we misunderstand each other" and old friend of mine used to say.

Saying that there is no concept/quality "cold" or no "dark" is a linguistic error.

Actually this discussion has enabled me to further understand the concept of qualities and their opposite poles. So thank you for that.

God Bless,
Br.Bruce

Usually when one bears down into a sequence of phases of thought, there is an amassing of congenial concepts, which by their structure, offer a pictorial representation by their overall grouping. The associations may of themselves be vague, but collectively they depict a decipherable image.
In point of fact, most people who do not work on achieving a consciousness which is awake, quite often have memory pictures and affinities before them, but rarely enter into specifics, working from antipathies and desire, without any actual thought in lively production.


-The Search for Specifics

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

That's where we do have polar opposite views, Bro.

It didn't even occur to me that someone could think this way.

Then i guess you learned something today.

Originally Posted by Bruce

Of course, there are no lines between science and spirituality- none at all.
Truth is one. There are not two types of truth.

You could start another thread on this, but I feel there is no distinction.

It seemed to me that all things came from the spirit including science, not to say that science has to be true or reached truth but still there would be nothing without the spirit so I would have to say there are lines but then again you are entitled to your belief that there are none. To me the ethers have no hold on truth, just another subjective world that even I am familiar with as are you.

Originally Posted by Bruce

It's not my job to convince you of anything- for a start, the pay's not high enough .

Yes. Never hired you for that particular job. Just seeking to understand your point.

Originally Posted by Bruce

For the Gnostic, the seeker of knowledge, science is a tool.

I am not "playing semantic games". It is important to understand how folk use words and the concepts which attach. "Words are the means by which we misunderstand each other" and old friend of mine used to say.

As I said in my earlier post, I am just looking for your point of your post in your own simple words. Forget the semantics. Just what are you trying to communicate with your post.

Saying that there is no concept/quality "cold" or no "dark" is a linguistic error.

Actually this discussion has enabled me to further understand the concept of qualities and their opposite poles. So thank you for that.

God Bless,
Br.Bruce

No linguistic error here. To me, Cold and Dark is all about linguistics and nothing else. Ok, so what does having an understanding of the concept of "cold" or "dark' as you describe and have do for you that that our apparent mis-understanding doesn't do for us?

I'm certainly glad somebody learned something from your thread, even if it was only you. I guess that is why this thread is esoteric or mysterious as its meaning seems to be non publicly disclosed or only understood by a particular group.

Still not looking for an argument, just trying to understand your point or purpose which I assume you must have to generate this thread. You have provided an abundance of references and content but in my personal view, no context which I can grasp. Perhaps you could as I suggested summarize in your own words if you still wish to communicate to one who may not be a part of your elite group.

Love and Peace,
JM

[Bruce Michael]

Peace Br.Joseph,

You ask for "personal application"- there might not be any personal application.

Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The beginning of this thread was about Kama qualities after all. Then someone argued that from an "objective" view cold and dark etc. didn't exist. So they hadn't even read my post. Kama qualities- desire, inner sensations???? -experiences such as cold and dark.

Now I do know that people -even physicists- recognise heat and cold. So you may protest, but I guess I don't really believe you live your life like that. You mean you never say "My dinner's cold" or "It's cold outside." etc.?

But really the notion of polar opposites is not so hard to understand. If you start by admitting that the sensation of warmth is the opposite of cold we might be getting somewhere. There is the Goldilock's midpoint and either side we're staring at opposite polar ends.

Do I understand the concept of Kama qualities? No. I didn't say it was easy. Do I think that esotericism is for all? No.

Esotericism however, it not about an elite, a closed circle. See my comments on the esoterism & esoterica thread.

Now getting back to my original post:

In a fixed Cosmos there would be no activity. In a non-fixed Cosmos there would be Chaos in activity. In a two-poled Cosmos there is a happy mix of reality and possibility. We have been empowered to dwell in the fixed conditions and effect constant change upon them. The latter determines the former, whilst the former follows the latter.

We have a duality in the Cosmos of Chaos and Order. Now you're not going to tell me that there is only chaos or only order are you? These are very interesting concepts to ponder and are used practically in biodynamics.

We also have polarity in our organs. The example given was the digestive tract- at one end the mouth, the other anus. In fact there is a polarity of some sort in all our organs and chakras. We can suffer from certain magnetic polarisations.

If it wasn't for magnetic polarisations you wouldn't be able to read this.

To take take it further:
Scales of weight, scales of music: All of these scales denote graduation (the Holy Grail), one built upon another.

Step by step, we move along the axis from one pole to the other. So you can imagine a staircase, or a line (an axis) in space with graduations. You are standing on the staircase at one end is say "cold", at the other is "hot". As you walk up the stairs (towards a pole) you are getting hotter. If you turn around in the opposite direction (towards a pole) and walk down you are getting colder. So it's like hiding game played by children- "you're getting hotter" or "you're getting colder".

A pole is also one of the ends of the axis of a sphere. The sphere itself is the concept, the quality. I may say more about this another time.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

[Impqueen]

The beginning of this thread was about Kama qualities after all. Then someone argued that from an "objective" view cold and dark etc. didn't exist. So they hadn't even read my post. Kama qualities- desire, inner sensations???? -experiences such as cold and dark.

I'm afraid then, that I misunderstood your initial post, it wasn't clear to me that 'Kama qualities' are different from normal states... clearly I should have recognised it as something I wasn't qualified to comment on as I have no idea what a Kama quality even is. Despite having read your post. You mentioned light and dark etc and so I piped up expressing my perspective on polarities. I didn't intend to derail the whole thing...

I'm wondering why I should believe anything Steiner writes anyway? You refer to it as if it were gospel truth to you. Well, just like the gospels, just because it's true to you, doesn't make it true to me.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Peace Br.Joseph,

You ask for "personal application"- there might not be any personal application.

Thanks for your response. Then I assume you are saying you have no personal application. I accept that.

Originally Posted by Bruce

Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The beginning of this thread was about Kama qualities after all. Then someone argued that from an "objective" view cold and dark etc. didn't exist. So they hadn't even read my post. Kama qualities- desire, inner sensations???? -experiences such as cold and dark.

Actually we did not say that the words don't exist, we were only saying that they are subjective and mind created and that in that respect they exist only as subjective precepts of the mind. Nevertheless, that is not important as I am more interested your understanding and its usefulness to a personal application which you have answered above as " there might not be any personal application".

Originally Posted by Bruce

Now I do know that people -even physicists- recognise heat and cold. So you may protest, but I guess I don't really believe you live your life like that. You mean you never say "My dinner's cold" or "It's cold outside." etc.?

No, I use those words also but I realize that they are purely subjective as my idea of cold may not agree with yours. My wife is constantly complaining how hot it is in our house and sleeps with only a sheet while I am cold and require a blanket. Who is right? Is it hot or cold? I realize that they are subjective opinions and do not argue or become upset with her because I understand the nature of heat and the relativity of semantics such as the word cold. That is a personal application of my understanding.

Originally Posted by Bruce

But really the notion of polar opposites is not so hard to understand. If you start by admitting that the sensation of warmth is the opposite of cold we might be getting somewhere. There is the Goldilock's midpoint and either side we're staring at opposite polar ends.

Ok. However the word cold as I stated is so relative that agreeing the sensation of warmth is the opposite of cold says to me very little. To me, it is just a semantical word that is a point of division rather than unity.

Originally Posted by Bruce

Do I understand the concept of Kama qualities? No. I didn't say it was easy. Do I think that esotericism is for all? No.
Esotericism however, it not about an elite, a closed circle. See my comments on the esoterism & esoterica thread.

Perhaps I misunderstood the definition of esoteric as my dictionary states..
es·o·teric· adj. 1. a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.
b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.

2. a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
esoteric - confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle; "a compilation of esoteric philosophical theories"

Originally Posted by Bruce

Now getting back to my original post:

We have a duality in the Cosmos of Chaos and Order. Now you're not going to tell me that there is only chaos or only order are you? These are very interesting concepts to ponder and are used practically in biodynamics.

Unfortunately yes, I am going to tell you that Chaos only exists as a precept of mind. Chaos is a term that rests on the presumption that reality is limited to perception. In reality there is only divine order and no accidents because for that to occur it would have to happen outside the allness of creation. Everything represents the consequence of the effects of the entire universe throughout all time. This puts nothing outside the karmic harmony of the universe.

Originally Posted by Bruce

We also have polarity in our organs. The example given was the digestive tract- at one end the mouth, the other anus. In fact there is a polarity of some sort in all our organs and chakras. We can suffer from certain magnetic polarisations.

If it wasn't for magnetic polarisations you wouldn't be able to read this.

To take take it further:
Scales of weight, scales of music: All of these scales denote graduation (the Holy Grail), one built upon another.

Step by step, we move along the axis from one pole to the other. So you can imagine a staircase, or a line (an axis) in space with graduations. You are standing on the staircase at one end is say "cold", at the other is "hot". As you walk up the stairs (towards a pole) you are getting hotter. If you turn around in the opposite direction (towards a pole) and walk down you are getting colder. So it's like hiding game played by children- "you're getting hotter" or "you're getting colder".

A pole is also one of the ends of the axis of a sphere. The sphere itself is the concept, the quality. I may say more about this another time.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

I think you have made what you are saying very clear in the above illustration. Thank you. Its simple enough to understand and I don't think you will find any disagreement. Yet, I still don't get the point of what you are trying to teach or communicate. As we move from a lesser to a greater or greater to a lesser it is saying the same thing. Why it needs to be called or understood as a 'polar opposites' is still beyond me. But thanks for your patience.

Love and Peace,
JM

[bgruagach]

For me, the whole thing boils down to what I commented before: polarity is just one intellectual "map" of reality, among many. And it is dangerous for us to mistake the map for the landscape itself.

Tools should help us to understand things. When they act as blinders or straitjackets then we should perhaps question whether they are helping or hindering us.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

I'm afraid then, that I misunderstood your initial post, it wasn't clear to me that 'Kama qualities' are different from normal states... clearly I should have recognised it as something I wasn't qualified to comment on as I have no idea what a Kama quality even is. Despite having read your post. You mentioned light and dark etc and so I piped up expressing my perspective on polarities. I didn't intend to derail the whole thing...

I'm wondering why I should believe anything Steiner writes anyway? You refer to it as if it were gospel truth to you. Well, just like the gospels, just because it's true to you, doesn't make it true to me.

No need for apologies ImpQueen. I don't mind if readers bring forth objections- as long as they are sincere, and not actively misunderstanding.

Kama is Sanskrit for 'desire'- as in Kama Manas- Desire Mind, Kama-Rupa- Desire Body or Astral body. We pronounce Karma the same way, but some theosophists get fussy and pronounce it the correct way (something like Kerrrma).

I have my spiritual teachers, you may have your's. Personally I have never found another spiritual teacher with such width and depth as Steiner.
He is overwhelming. No other teacher has given to the world so many practical activities either.

His word is not gospel but always interesting. Nothing he said is to be taken dogmatically..

Best wishes,
Br.Bruce

[MrK]

Morning Bruce, you might want to get a drink and a cushion for this one, it's a bit of an essay I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

I had some more explanations about qualities in my last post.

True, and when I mentioned "interesting philisophical points" that was one of the sections I was thinking of, however it doesn't answer the question.It merely explains what you mean by qualities, not how the lectures explain that Bens statement was erroneous.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

>While the lecture makes some interesting philisophical points, the science i>s woefully out of date and many of his chains of reasoning would not >stand up to interrogation by a moderately capable GCSE student.

Not really.

You misunderstand me. You mentioned the lectures as a response to the fact that heat is a quantity that is possessed by materials and cannot have a negative value. The lectures do not in fact have anything relavent to say about this. They present steiners interpretations and theories to explain a number of heat phenomena, he uses the Goethen method of questioning to reach his conclusions, and while his methods are sound his conclusions are wrong. This is not a matter of debate.

If you have trouble understanding that let me give you a simpler example.

Aristotle developed the "cystal sphere" theory of the solar system, saying that the sun, moon and planets were fixed on transparent spheres which rotated, causing the movements of the heavens.

It was a good theory, and not only matched the observations of the time, but could be used to make moderately accurate predictions. However over time further investigation proved it to be wrong. The theory is still interesting from a philosophical/psychological point of view but it does not alter the facts. As such it would carry little weight in a discussion of astrophysics, or even particularly in astronomy

In a similar way, the explanations for the heat phenomena the lectures discuss are known, and have been known for many years. These explanations are simple enough that they are taught to all children before they leave school, hence my comments about GCSE students. It was not meant as an idle attack on the opinions presented.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

There are many eminent scientists who discuss and work with these ideas. Since I am not a scientist I suggest you debate these questions with the professionals.

Aah. Well perhaps I should point out that I am a scientist. The link is interesting, but does not wholly support the use of the words "many" or "eminent", at least not together. The most "eminent" scientist I can name who has spoken in favour of Goethe's methods is Planck and he referred to the method not the conclusions. True there are scientists who continue to work with the philosphy and some of them have produced interesting results. However I feel to imply as you do that the technique has widespread scientific acceptance is at best an error and at worst dangerously misleading.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

You are talking about measure, weight and number- not quality.
This is an esoteric board- not materialistic science. What is your understanding of light and dark in the higher worlds? How does cold manifest in the etheric world?

But this is esoteric knowledge bruce. The physcial and quantum effects that lead to the phenomena are a miracle understood by relatively few people these days. Besides, as soon as you move into the "higher worlds" you deal with belief which is entirely personal matter. Any answer I give is limited by differences between what you and I refer to by the higher worlds.

However since you asked I don't believe "cold" manifests at all on higher planes. It's a function of temperature which is entirely subjective and while we might interpret our experience of this or any other plane as "cold" it doesn't give the word any independant existance.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

>This is not the fault of Mr Steiner himself, since the lecture is 87 years o>ld he would be limited by the scientific knowledge of the time,

Newton is older.

That's nice, but I was already aware that the 18th century came well before the early 20th. As Newton has no bearing on the point I was making I'm curious as to why you mention him?

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Heat is not a measurable scientific but cold is. What is measured is lack of cold. Really there is no such thing as heat, just degrees of cold- stretching forth from "absolute zero"..

Basically you're just looking from the heat angle but my cold angle is just as valid.
Again we have polar opposite views .

Hmmm. Again I'm sorry bruce but it really isn't. You're confusing the difference between temperature and heat. I can explain further if you want but this is hardly the time for a lesson in scientific terminology. We don't measure lack of cold any more than we measure the lack of water in a desert. We measure the amount of water present, then say that because the value is very small the area is "dry". Dryness is defined by the absence of water. Similarly the sensation "cold" is determined by how much "heat" is present. Neither "dry" or "cold" are a material or force in their own right.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

So starting from supreme coldness, primum frigidum, at what point do we talk of heat? If there is such a thing as supreme coldness, ipso facto, there must be lesser degrees of cold.

Supreme coldness was a theory, and was quickly superceded by absolute coldness. (further down the page on wikipedia) There's an important difference there. Would you say there are degrees of absence? To be "Absent" is to not be in a specific place, I cannot be half here half not. How far away I am is immaterial to the point of whether I'm absent or present.


I apologise if I've overdone the scientific part there, but it's important to understand why heat is not polar for some people. When you talk about heat you are actually talking about our perceptions of heat energy. Technically this is "temperature" and not heat. To illustrate the difference, would you consider "Tall" and "Short" to be polar opposites? Most would not, saying that both are merely measures of height. Short is not an opposite of tall, merely a lack of height.

So then to say to people who have a scientific understanding of heat that cold is the opposite of heat is a bit like saying that shortness is the opposite of height. Obviously they do not accept this.

Now the idea of hot and cold as conceptual opposites in our perception of the universe, that's unlikely to find argument. Half this thread seems to ave spawned from you posts "appearing" to dispute the scientific facts instead of debating the concepts. I'm sure that was not your intention, but mixing terminology can be dangerous. I know you've said

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

We can draw our terminology from anywhere that suits- it's the concepts that are important. The Vedic teachers did a great job inventing terms and we still use them today- that is fine too.

but you have to remember that while it's fine to use any terminology you want personally, if you wish to communicate (and discuss) you ideas with others you must find common terms with which to communicate and consider what the terms you use mean to others. Taking a term which is widely accepted as meaning "A" and using it to mean "B" will only cause confusion. It's much easier to just describe what you want the term to mean.

After all this is the esoteric board. It's the subject of the discussions that's supposed to be esoteric, not the posts.

[JosephM]

Nice post MrK and not at all too long in my view.

Best regards,
JM

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Mr K.,

>It merely explains what you mean by qualities, not how the lectures >explain that Bens statement was erroneous.

Those lectures describe the nature of heat and how it disappears out of three dimensional space. How does one conceive of heat or cold in an absolute vacuum?

You are thinking of heat as it relates to material bodies.

Apart from metaphorical considerations, there are four principle uses of the term. The first is the most used, and that is heat as sensation.


>You misunderstand me. You mentioned the lectures as a response to the fact that heat is a quantity that is possessed by materials and cannot >have a negative value.

And so we have heat as a sensation (1), (2) temperature, or degree of hotness, (3) quantity of thermal energy, and (4) radiant heat, or energy of radaition.

Yes, heat does not have to be "possessed by materials" as the lectures explained.

As sensation, heat does have a negative value- cold. There is a constant (variable in our extremities) and that is our body temeperature. We all know the difference.


> They present steiners interpretations and theories to explain a number of heat phenomena, he uses the Goethen method of questioning to reach his conclusions,
>and while his methods are sound his conclusions are wrong. This is not a >matter of debate.

That is your opinion. I suggested you take it up with scientists on the mailing list.

Here are a couple of physicists who work with these ideas:

Astro-physicist, Michael Friedjung, Research Director at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS).

Arthur Zajonc is professor of physics at Amherst College, where he has taught since 1978. He has been visiting professor and research scientist at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics, and a Fulbright professor at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. His research has included studies in parity violation in atoms, the experimental foundations of quantum physics, and the relationship between sciences, the humanities and meditation. He is author of the book: Catching the Light, co-author of The Quantum Challenge, and co-editor of

Goethe’s Way of Science.

Arthur Zajonc | About


>Aristotle developed the "cystal sphere" theory of the solar system, saying that the >sun, moon and planets were fixed on transparent spheres which >rotated, causing >the movements of the heavens.

The ancient Egyptians knew of the Heliocentric system.
The Geocentric system is correct from the etheric point of view.


>In a similar way, the explanations for the heat phenomena the lectures >discuss are known, and have been known for many years.

"An explanation" doesn't mean it's correct. But really either way, as you point out, it doesn't have a bearing on the statement "Every quality has opposite poles".

>Well perhaps I should point out that I am a scientist. The link is interesting, but does not wholly support the use of the words "many" or >"eminent", at least not together.However I feel to imply as you do that >the technique has widespread scientific acceptance is at best an error >and at worst dangerously misleading.

Well I never implied any such thing. I gave you the address one small mailing list. Of course it is borderland science. And scientists who are on the border risk professional isolation; so they are brave men and women. Some are very successful- like Dr. Bevan Reid.


>It's a function of temperature which is entirely subjective and while we might nterpret our experience of this or any other plane as "cold" it doesn't >give the word any independant existance.

Temperature is the quality, hot and cold are the polar opposites.


> As Newton has no bearing on the point I was making I'm curious as to >why you mention him?

He really was another borderland scientist, with a substantial interest in alchemy and spiritual matters.

>We don't measure lack of cold any more than we measure the lack of water in a desert. We measure the amount of water present, then say that. because the value is very small the area is "dry". Dryness is defined >by the absence of water. Similarly the sensation "cold" is determined by >how much "heat" is present. Neither "dry" or "cold" are a material or force >in their own right.

Aren't there any antonyms in your dictionary?
Poverty/Riches- extreme poverty one pole, extreme riches the other.
Wetness/Dryness- extreme wetness one pole, extreme dryness the other.
Suction/Pressure, Shortness/Tallness, Yang/Ying, Chaos/Order etc. etc.

>There's an important difference there. Would you say there are degrees >of absence? To be "Absent" is to not be in a specific place, I cannot be >half here half not. How far away I am is immaterial to the point of >whether I'm absent or present.

What is the quality? The statement didn't say "Every word has opposite poles".


>I apologise if I've overdone the scientific part there, but it's important to >understand why heat is not polar for some people.

Temperature is the quality- temperature is polar. An example might be your reverse cycle airconditioner. You can alter the poles to suit your needs.


>So then to say to people who have a scientific understanding of heat >that cold is the opposite of heat is a bit like saying that shortness is the >opposite of height.

Opposite pole.
BTW the terms hot and cold are used in meteorology. We have "cold fronts", "warm fronts", "wind chill" etc. The warm air and the cold air form bodies.

Fronts: the boundaries between air masses

And again in oceanography we speak of "cold currents" and "warm currents":
Ocean circulation - Encyclopedia of Earth
These currents form bodies, as with air.

As I mentioned before, all this is dynamic, and it is not theory.


>but you have to remember that while it's fine to use any terminology you want personally, if you wish to communicate (and discuss) you ideas with >others you must find common terms with which to communicate and >consider what the terms you

>use mean to others. Taking a term which is widely accepted as meaning "A" and using it to mean "B" will only cause confusion. It's much easier to >just describe what

>you want the term to mean.

I thought I'd made it all crystal clear with my last post to Joseph.

To take take it further:
Scales of weight, scales of music: All of these scales denote graduation (the Holy Grail), one built upon another.

Step by step, we move along the axis from one pole to the other. So you can imagine a staircase, or a line (an axis) in space with graduations. You are standing on the staircase at one end is say "cold", at the other is "hot". As you walk up the stairs (towards a pole) you are getting hotter. If you turn around in the opposite direction (towards a pole) and walk down you are getting colder.

A pole is also one of the ends of the axis of a sphere. The sphere itself is the concept, the quality.

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Three is the Trinity,
Divinity,
Sanctity…
Three is the measure-
Without nothing or void.

Two is the number of
the heart,
of life,
and of life again…
Two becomes significance –
Without bearing or overbearing.

One is the number
of marginlessness,
propriety,
singularity…
One is the number of-
The very lonely.
Until we come,
to Him.


-The Brothers

-Br.Bruce