Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:25 pm
2. The Law of Cohesion

This is one of the branch laws of the cosmic Law of Attraction. It is interesting to notice how this law demonstrates in this Love-System in a threefold manner:
  • On the plane of the Monad, as the law of cohesion, the law of birth, if we might use that term, resulting in the appearance of the Monads in their seven groups. Love the source, and the Monad of love, the result.
  • On the plane of buddhi, as the law of magnetic control. It shows itself as the love-wisdom aspect, irradiating the ego, and eventually gathering to itself the essence of all experience, garnered, via the Ego, through the personality lives, and controlled throughout from the plane of buddhi. Magnetism, and the capacity to show love, are occultly synonymous.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
  • On the astral plane, as love demonstrating through the [577] personality. All branches of the law of attraction, demonstrating in this system, show themselves as a force that ingathers, that tends to coherence, that results in adhesion, and leads to absorption. All these terms are needed to give a general idea of the basic quality of this law.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
This law is one of the most important of the systemic laws, if it is permissible to differentiate at all; we might term it the law of coalescence.

On the path of involution it controls the primal gathering together of molecular matter, beneath the atomic subplane. It is the basis of the attractive quality that sets in motion the molecules and draws them into the needed aggregations. It is the measure of the subplanes. The atomic subplane sets the rate of vibration; the Law of Cohesion might be said to fix the coloring of each plane. It is the same thing in other words. We need always to remember in discussing these abstract fundamentals that words but dim the meaning, and serve but as suggestions and not as elucidations.


In manifestation the cosmic Law of Attraction controls all these subsidiary laws, just as the Law of Synthesis governs pralaya and obscuration, and the law of Economy deals with the general working out, along the line of least resistance, of the logoic scheme. During manifestation we have most to do with the Law of Attraction, and it will be found, on study, that each subsidiary law is but a differentiation of that law.

This second law of the system governs specially the second plane, and the second subplane on each plane. It might be interesting to work this out and trace the underlying correspondence, bearing in mind always that all that can be done is to point out certain things, and indicate lines of thought that may lead, if pursued, to illumination.

Ray Two and Law Two are closely allied, and it is [578] interesting to realize that it is on the second subplane of the monadic plane that the majority of the Monads have their habitat; there are a few Monads of power or will on the atomic subplane, but their numbers are not many, and they simply form a nucleus in evolutionary preparation for System III, the power system. The majority of the Monads are on the second subplane and they are the Monads of love; on the third subplane can be found quite a number of the Monads of activity, but numerically not as many as the Monads of love. They are the failures of System I.


There is a direct channel, as we know, between the atomic subplane on each plane. This is more or less true of each subplane and its corresponding higher subplane numerically, and there is, therefore, a direct and quite expansive channel between the second subplane on all planes, enabling the Monads of love to link up with peculiar facility with all their vehicles when composed of second subplane matter. After initiation, the causal body is found on the second subplane of the mental plane, and monadic control then commences.

The Monads of love return (after life in the three worlds and the attainment of the goal) to their originating second subplane, that being also the goal for the monads of activity who have to develop the love aspect. In the five worlds of human evolution both groups of Monads have to control atomic and molecular matter as well and this is done by the utilization to the full (as full as may be possible in this second system), of the will or power aspect.

The "Kingdom of God suffereth violence and the violent take it by force," or by Will or power. It is not Will, as we shall know it in the final system but it is Will as known in this system, and it has to be utilized to the uttermost by the evolving Monad in his struggle to control each atomic subplane. The Monads of power have [579] a much greater struggle, and hence the fact so often apparent that people on what we term the power Ray, have so often a hard time, and are so frequently unlovable. They have to build in on all the six planes the love aspect, which is not prominent in their development.


A hint has been given us as to the approximate figures governing the Monads:
[LIST]
[*]35 Thousand million Monads of love,

[*]20 Thousand million Monads of activity,
[*]5 Thousand million Monads of power,[/LIST]making a total of sixty thousand million human Monads. The Monads of power, though in manifestation, are as yet very rare in incarnation. They came in, in large numbers, at the close of the moon chain, and will come in again in full numerical strength in the last two rounds of the present chain.

We might now briefly trace the correspondence in the second round and the second root-race, showing how the Law of Cohesion was specially active at these periods. A condition of nebulosity of a pronouncedly volatile condition, marked the first round and race. Movement, and the accompaniment of heat, is their distinguishing quality, much as in System I, but in the second round, and also in the second race, a definite cohesion is noticeable, and form is more clearly recognizable in outline. Cohesion is also plainly to be seen as the distinguishing feature of our present system, the second. It is the aim of all things to unite; approximation, unification, a simultaneous attraction between two or more is ever to be seen as a governing principle, whether we look at the sex problem, or whether it demonstrates in business organization, in scientific development, in manufacture, or in politics. Well might we say that the At-one-ment of the many separated is the keynote of our system.


One more suggestion may be given: On the path of [580] involution this law governs the gathering together and the segregation of matter; on the evolutionary path it controls the building of forms. It has been stated that the matter of the lowest subplane forms the basis of a new plane; therefore we have on the atomic subplane a point where merging takes place, which makes it a plane of synthesis, just as in the same way the first or logoic plane is the plane of synthesis for this system. There takes place the merging of evolution into an inconceivably higher state.

http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/fire/fire1223.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,286 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:25 pm
@Electra phil,
Leibniz's best known contribution to metaphysics is his theory of monads, as exposited in his Monadologie. Monads are to the mental realm what atoms are to the physical. Monads are the ultimate elements of the universe, and are also entities of perception. The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal, indecomposable, individual, subject to their own laws, un-interacting, and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). Monads are centers of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal.
The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity.

...

Since we really do have knowledge of these supra-sensible realities, knowledge that we cannot possibly have obtained through any bodily experience, Plato argued, it follows that this knowledge must be a form of recollection and that our souls must have been acquainted with the Forms prior to our births.
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 12:33 pm
@Electra phil,
Taking notes, excuse me please and feel free to say anything!


http://www.williamjames.com/History/leibnitz.JPG
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz
Carrying on the Pythagorean-Platonic doctrine of universal harmony, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, who with Isaac Newton was the co-inventor of calculus, developed an elegant grand philosophy based on the concept of an evolving unit of consciousness called the monad. Monads for Leibnitz are the most fundamental metaphysical points which have always existed and can never be destroyed.
Leibnitz felt that all matter is alive and animated throughout with monads. The monad is the principle of continuity between the physical and the psychological realms. The same principle that expresses itself within our minds is active in inanimate matter, in plants, and in animals. Thus the nature of the monad is best understood by studying the spiritual and psychic forces within ourselves.
Monads themselves vary in the amount of consciousness or clarity of their perceptions. Certain physical facts, such as the principle of least action, indicated to Leibnitz an intelligence within the most basic particles in creation. On the other hand, the findings of psychology have indicated that there are areas of the mind that are unconscious in their nature. In the lowest monads everything is obscure and confused, resembling sleep. While in humanity, consciousness attains a state of apperception -- a reflexive knowledge of the self.
Every monad discovers its nature from within itself. It is not determined from without; there are no windows through which anything can enter; all of its experience already exists within each monad.
Both organisms and inorganic bodies are composed of monads, or centers of force, but the organism contains a central monad or "soul" which is the guiding principle of the other monads within its body. Inorganic bodies are not centralized in this way, but consist of a mere mass or aggregation of monads. The higher the organism, the more well-ordered will be its system of monads.
Every monad has the power to represent the entire universe within itself. It is a world in miniature, a microcosm, a "living mirror of the universe." Yet each monad has its own unique point of view, with its own characteristic degree of clarity. The higher the monad, the more distinctly it perceives and expresses the world; the monads with which it is most closely associated constitute its own body, and these it represents most clearly. Leibnitz stated: [INDENT]Every body feels everything that occurs in the entire universe, so that anyone who sees all could read in each particular thing that which happens everywhere else and, besides all that has happened and will happen, perceiving in the present that which is remote in time and space.[/INDENT]The monads form a graduated progressive series from the lowest to the highest. There is a continuous line of infinitesimal gradation from the dullest piece of inorganic matter to god, the monad of all other monads -- just as the soul is the presiding monad over the other monads within the human body. There is a parallelism between mental and physical states here. The body is the material expression of the soul. However, while the body operates according to the deterministic laws of cause and effect, the soul acts according to the teleological principle of final causes towards its ultimate evolution. These two realms are in harmony with each other.

The Roots of Consciousness: History, The Age of Enlightenment
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 07:00 pm
@Electra phil,
Electra, that's one of the best definitions of the monads that I've ever come across. Thanks.

Also, I believe that Leibnitz wanted to use the monads to invent a universal reasoning machine. A machine that would answer any question?
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 10:14 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Electra, that's one of the best definitions of the monads that I've ever come across. Thanks.

Also, I believe that Leibnitz wanted to use the monads to invent a universal reasoning machine. A machine that would answer any question?


Too bad it already exists.

icegrass
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 01:21 am
@Electra phil,
Electra wrote:
Too bad it already exists.

icegrass


Ha, Ha! Yeah, but who knows about it?

Nice photos by the way. It is freezing here in the NorthEast (and quite dark too)Smile .

--Pythagorean
starchild phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 01:56 am
@Electra phil,
Monads.... why would we need anymore speculations from other egos when we have the TRUTH directly from Universal Mind

Starchild
0 Replies
 
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 04:33 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Ha, Ha! Yeah, but who knows about it?

Nice photos by the way. It is freezing here in the NorthEast (and quite dark too)Smile .

--Pythagorean


Thanks. Smile
0 Replies
 
starchild phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 07:08 am
@Electra phil,
Your comment Electra just proves how you belong to the group of people who, having read some of the Russells' books think they have understood the message and, in trying to show off how much they think they know, they talk so much and conceptualize so much

Starchild
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 07:14 am
@starchild phil,
starchild wrote:
Your comment Electra just proves how you belong to the group of people who, having read some of the Russells' books think they have understood the message and, in trying to show off how much they think they know, they talk so much and conceptualize so much

Starchild


I am very uncertain why you attempt to be antagonistic with me. In my experience, what APPEARS to be antithetical is in ultimately and always in service to the PRIMARY. There is a fundamental operating principle that requires this to function, in my experience...and that is LOVE (magnetism, the Law of Attraction), which I am not experiencing with you, Starchild, for WHATEVER reason.

The best thing for us both to do is to remain completely away from eachother until this comes to some kind of resolution for you.

I don't have any problem--but you seem to--

Best Regards--

Electra

XX
0 Replies
 
starchild phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 12:26 pm
@Electra phil,
Is the problem always somebody else's?
Do you really think any of the philosophers of the past come any close to Dr. Russell?
Look at the complexity of Leibnitz speculations and look at the simplicity of God's Message instead
Best regards to you,

Starchild
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 05:00 pm
@starchild phil,
starchild wrote:
Is the problem always somebody else's?
Do you really think any of the philosophers of the past come any close to Dr. Russell?
Look at the complexity of Leibnitz speculations and look at the simplicity of God's Message instead
Best regards to you,

Starchild


No starchild

The problem is not always somebody's elses. Only in this particular instance. I do not appreciate your lack of simple manners with me, as you are hellbent on character attacks rather than a genuine sharing or learning experience.

If you want to share Dr. Russell's teachings in this thread, be my guest.

Perhaps it is always good to look at different teachings from different points of view, for the simple fact we are all different and so learn and absorb things in different ways.

Even perhaps I myself was getting to Dr. Russell's teachings before you barged in here with your rotten eggs and tomatoes, carried over from my previous interactions with you.

If there was any lack of clarity in my previous post to you, then let me make it more clear: I don't like you too swell, and am therefore not listening at this time.

It is something a little manners could change quite quickly. The choice is yours and the problem.
0 Replies
 
starchild phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 02:04 am
@Electra phil,
Was it not you who said that you get your knowledge from very deep revelations directly from your Higher Self?.... and that if you did not experience it like that, then it wasn't true? ...as if it was that easy to connect consciously to our Higher Self. And you go around picking up other ego's speculations and putting them up here as if they were great revelations when all it requires is a bit of discernment. You can compare philosophers of the past to each other, but we don't need them in this forum: we already have the best philosophers in Lao and Walter Russell.
And their philosophy is very simple: As God says: "Great art is simple"

And, oh boy, have you shown your true colors!

Starchild
And, oh boy, have you shown your true colors!
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 03:54 am
@starchild phil,
starchild wrote:
Was it not you who said that you get your knowledge from very deep revelations directly from your Higher Self?.... and that if you did not experience it like that, then it wasn't true? ...as if it was that easy to connect consciously to our Higher Self. And you go around picking up other ego's speculations and putting them up here as if they were great revelations when all it requires is a bit of discernment. You can compare philosophers of the past to each other, but we don't need them in this forum: we already have the best philosophers in Lao and Walter Russell.
And their philosophy is very simple: As God says: "Great art is simple"

And, oh boy, have you shown your true colors!

Starchild
And, oh boy, have you shown your true colors!


Starchild,

As far as I know, it is not against the rules of this board to post things that interest me. It is not against higher self to read and learn what others have said from a scholarly approach. I thought the same as you when I arrived here (regarding WR), but since have changed my mind. Reading the great writings of other philosophers is teaching me many things that I ENJOY.

And what true colors? There is nothing wrong with saying here is the limit.
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 05:24 am
@Electra phil,
Besides, I thought you said you gave up trying to save the world? What concern is it of yours what I am doing or if it is even true that I fit into some imagined category of a type of person you have deemed me to be?

For clarifiction, yes discipline is more important than knowledge to me. That does not mean I don't like reading and learning. I have always read and shared things on boards. That does not mean I am proposing them to be truths, but rather am exploring.

The whole issue originated from our conversation about your assertation of the matrix and the existence of evil reptilian ETs. I never took issue with you, or the fact that you state this to be TRUTH. I only said at that time that was not my experience so far.

Since that point, things began to spiral downward. I am sorry you viewed this as some kind of challenge. I stated plainly and clearly I was not challenging you, but challenging myself. This I continue to do, with or without your approval.
starchild phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 12:24 pm
@Electra phil,
And I never called them 'evil reptilian ET's' - I said they were ET of the negative polarity who had the ability to change their shape which they did in order to terrify humans.
Look, I really dislike to debate or conceptualize, so yes, let it stop here.
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 02:36 pm
@starchild phil,
RE-IMAGINING
CASTORIADIS'S PSYCHIC
MONAD
Karl E. Smith

ABSTRACT
(Excerpts)

Castoriadis portrays the psyche in its originary state as a 'psychic monad' - an infantile psyche that experiences itself as omnipotent, omnipresent, undifferentiated and sufficient unto itself. According to Castoriadis, this totality is fragmented in a 'triadic phase' through the experience of desire, which brings to the fore the encounter with the Other. In contrast, Marcel Gauchet rejects the concept of the psychic monad, arguing that the informed psyche enters the world with a primordial openness to being formed and transformed. Psychic tension does not arise from the immersion of the closed monad in a hostile world, but from within the psyche itself, for the psyche must form itself and be formed by the world.


Thus while the psyche is a foritself, which entails the need and capacity to create a world of its own, it is also already being-for- and being-with-others - at least to the extent that the other is always already required to provide the materials and conditions for the formation of the psyche as self. Thus whereas Castoriadis refers to socialization (and sublimation) 4 as an act of violence upon the psychic monad, forcing it to conform (at least to some extent) to the world of others, Gauchet's reinterpretation suggests that the structuring process need not be seen as violent - at least not in the sense of an imposition of something that is wholly resisted - for (some degree of) instauration of the world of the other is also a fundamental necessity for the psyche.5 In other words, instead of a primordial tendency towards monadic closure, the psyche experiences a primordial tension between openness and closedness (2002: 10). In short, the psyche wants it both ways, from the beginning.6


The multidimensional, polylogical magma of psychic representations, affects and intentions are created by the radical imaginary appropriating elements from the social imaginary through cognitive processes that remain opaque. The horse and ground analogy is useful again: although the exact processes by which the psyche is both ground and drive remain opaque, the galloping leaves prints, tracks, indentations - shifting metaphors: it leaves inscriptions, institutions, structures, forms that irreversibly alter the psychic flux from the unformed chaos of its originary state. 'The psyche is a forming, which exists in and through what it forms and how it forms, it is . . . formation and imagination' (1987: 283).


From this perspective, it appears that sublimation/socialization is intrinsically a violent imposition upon an entity that remains hostile - or at least resistant - to the process (1987: 301). One of the implications of this 'violence hypothesis' is the suggestion that the relationship between the individual and society is intrinsically hostile - as is the relationship between self and other. While these relationships are intrinsically problematic, nothing in his argument explains why they are necessarily hostile or violent, alien or oppressive. Given that the psyche must be formed, must be socialized by its own processes of sublimating the social-historical, we must also allow that the relationship between the individual and society, between self and other, is also embraced, desired, nurtured, etc.


As Gauchet (2002: 7-8) puts it, the subject is 'characterized by constitutive polarities'. It is 'caught up in a permanent instituting process'. It 'exists only through the openness to the question of its being'. We constantly fluctuate 'between being-everything and being-nothing' - not primarily at a philosophical or existential level, but 'even at the level of moods: between excitement and depression, euphoria and anguish'. Constituted around acute contradictions even 'in the most ordinary moments of everyday life', we live strung 'between two equally impossible and "mad" poles'. In Castoriadis's psychic monad hypothesis, this polarity appears as an almost pathological wound violently inflicted upon an essential unity. It is a wound that can only be healed - if at all - through some form of reintegration.

Gauchet's reinterpretation of the originary psyche indicates that it is not the tension or contradiction that is pathological, but rather the refusal to accept this tension as constitutive of being human. From this perspective, socialization should not be seen as an intrinsically violent imposition of the social imaginary upon the singular psyche, but a mutual interaction between irreducible and inextricable forces.







http://the.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/83/1/5.pdf
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 02:51 pm
@Electra phil,
4. The Mundane Nature of Conventional Reasoning

23 So far as logical reasoning [or philosophical speculation] based on cognitive perception is concerned, it is an established tenet that one can reflect on existence only within the confines of thesis and antithesis.

24 Therefore any attempt whatsoever to define an object-of-experience (visaya) by means of thought, is an affirmation of a "reality" (pramana) inherently negated by its own logical antithesis.

25 If thought is incapable [of positing ultimate reality], then what valid knowledge (pramana) can there be?

26 Hence, the conventional means of reasoning normal to worldly individuals does not apply to the Path of Yoga.

101 Insofar as the psychic monad (manas) is agitated [with cognitive-construction], one remains caught up in the mortal world. If one practices the authentic way [of meditation]

102 then one should neither abide in agitation nor in thoughtless non-agitation (acala, unmoving), any more so than in any other state.

103 This Middle Path wherein there is no appearance (abhasa, shining forth) is what the Blissful Ones describe as Enlightened-mind.

Dharma Fellowship: Library - The Cultivation of Enlightened Mind
0 Replies
 
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 03:22 pm
@starchild phil,
starchild wrote:
And I never called them 'evil reptilian ET's' - I said they were ET of the negative polarity who had the ability to change their shape which they did in order to terrify humans.
Look, I really dislike to debate or conceptualize, so yes, let it stop here.


Well a lot of things are not what they appear to be, including my conversation here with you.

God Bless.

XX
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Monad
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 08:30:43