So what you’re saying is that anything that is positive in nature,
or what is sometimes called a “higher vibration” comes
internally and projects outward, where anything that is negative,
or of lower vibration is actually projecting inward, because it originates
as an external force?
Exactly, though one has to be very cautious in how one interprets
the idea of external and internal. When we use these terms we must
always remember that everything is actually internal, that there is
nothing out there but some form of a projection of ourselves. That
is not to say as that one should not be careful crossing the street.
Yes, (laughs) I’m always getting entangled in this. The idea
that the outside world is just a shadow, a sort of combination of
an ethereal collection that we create and is inside us but ungraspable
as trying to hold onto a particular drop of rain in a tempest. And
yet if we do not stay aware that shadow has such force it can consume
the very mind that created it.
Actually you don’t sound that entangled. You’ve got it
exactly right that the world out there is a force, one that plays
on us. And maybe the better way to see it is as not a negative force,
a lower vibration, but as a neutral one. You might then ask, why we
experience this as negative. This is becuase any force acting on us
becomes, as in the physical nature of the universe, a force moving
in the opposite direction. Because we are moving on our own path,
the higher vibration forces internally feel the external forces as
oposed to it. And here we start to see answers to philosophical questions
that have been bantered about since the beginning of human history.
So we can define now the basic nature of humanity? I think you've
had a few too many Jake. Though if you are saying that we can definitively
define the nature which people are born with, I'd like to hear what
you have to say. Can you make a concluding argument of philosophers
like John Locke’s and his idea that we are born as “Tabula
Rasa” or clean slate, and Rousseau’s treatise that we
are naturally good?
Yes I think seeing how we define the difference between internal and
external forces does help us define the nature of human existence,
how we come into the world and then what becomes of our nature. But
both Locke and Rousseau are trying to interpret the internal and the
external as one. They created these interpretations in relationship
to the physical world as they had learned to see it through the teachings
of the schools they built their houses in. This schooling is at its
base rooted in the ideas of mathematics as the Greeks and before them
as the Sumerians taught them. Within that format, one can interpret
the self as fitting into a world that is real and logical. But since
then Western thinkers have been making great discoveries about the
“real” world both externally and internally.
Are you talking about the ideas of celestial mechanics? Concepts like
internal space, anti matter, black holes?
Well yes, those are external discoveries. We now know that what we
thought was tangible, a constant, is actually much more fluid then
we ever imagined. But I’m also talking about the internal discoveries.
That our mind is many minds is a new discovery too.
You mean the conscious and the sub-conscious? But I don’t think
earlier thinkers were unaware of the two sides of the mind, they just
called them the real world and the dream world.
That’s absolutely true, and it’s in that truth that we
see the nature of how these new definitions help lead us to that greater
understanding of our nature. What was seen as dream, some sort of
fantasy or fear being played out in the ehteral world of sleep, now
becomes the battle between the internal self with the external world.