I have come to see it as misleading to dissect reality with numbers. If you condition yourself into believing you are “in 3rd density,” there’s a real possibility of fixating on where you believe yourself to be. This can lead to stagnation, sticking you in a label when you could be flowing.
Layers of reality aren’t truly built up by sequential numbers. It feels more like a vast spectrum of vibes that we are meant to navigate with our intuition, not by checking boxes against defined numeral conditions.
it’s helpful to understand that Liberation and disorientation often walk hand in hand.
It’s liberating to orient with vibes rather than numbers, it can feel disorienting. But I choose disorientation over stagnation any day. That disorientation is just the path of acclimatizing to intuition as our primary compass, instead of relying on conditional mapping
That’s a very helpful reminder, Raz, and I couldn’t agree more. Thank you for sharing it.
It reminded me of the split between religious vs spiritual thinking; the former being more conditioned and results-based, the latter more intuitive and attempt-based, if that makes sense. The choice between finite security and infinite opportunity.
I’ll just share quickly that I don’t see how thinking you’re in one density or another has any effect on anything, except maybe to annoy yourself. The distinction which matters is the degree to which you can work with 4D light, if any. And that’s a completely different discussion.
Second, “numbers” are a function of the way the rational mind organizes the world for us. It is derivative of the nervous system, the job of which is to (1) sense what is happening in our environment, (2) magically process this information and (3) based on that processing, set in motion responsive actions in the environment.
The rational faculty of mind only looks outwardly, or if it does glance at our inner space, it analyzes it as an outsider.
The intuitive faculty allows us to move into internal spaces as a “native” (not an outsider) and explore areas completely inaccessible to the rational faculty. But intuition can be murky or unavailable, so to use that as your compass incurs some risk.
Intuition is the way we can know our deeper self and find intermediate levels of self to work with. One example of an intermediate level is the form of self that has NDE’s, where it has the conceptual constraints of the personality, wedded to the access to the inner planes of our astral self.
My point is that any numeral significance applied to reality is imposed, not exposed. Does that make sense?
Implying that you can work with something called 4D light is quite similar to assuming you inhabit some kind of numeral density.
The physical plane is a numbers game with plenty of practical applications, street numbers, economics and such. But as a way to imply our location and situation within totality it’s basically clutter in my experience.
First, in the context of 3D (or 12R), 3 (or 12) is a number, not a numeral. If you’re interested, numbers denote a quantity, numerals are the physical items. For example, you might go to the hardware store and buy a numeral six and a seven, then nail these to you home to denote number 67. I just happen to know this because of familiarity with clocks, and having to deal with their numerals from, ahem, time to time.
Second, yes, we interface with the outer world mainly through our mental apparatus, and that modality of awareness stuff just loves to measure and quantify everything.
You don’t explain what you mean by our “situation within totality,” but am I right to guess that you are commenting that we all have alternative modalities of engagement and needn’t be mentally focused all the time?
If so, then I agree whole heartedly because that is the only way to do work in spirit, that is, to shift from an outwardly concerned modality to something compatible with dreams and creativity.
A numeral is a symbol or group of symbols used to represent a number. While a number is an abstract concept of quantity, a numeral is the written or symbolic representation of that number. For example, the concept of “three” is a number, but the symbol “3”, the word “three”, or the Roman numeral “III” are all numerals that represent it.
feel free to Google a confirmation of this, I did
This is my point, that part remains in mystery regardless if we start imposing our selves to be 3rd density beings in a 10 density system, we have no way to confirm that idea within the totality of reality and risk operating from a delusional perspective if we invest in it.
implying the operation of 4d light, is indirectly implying a numeral significance to your present location
The only way to assure that we are not delusional from numeral conclusion, is to let unpractical parts of realty remain self-explanatory and work with it as we go.
While every number is an abstract concept, any expression of that number is done so with a numeral.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe there are other frequencies of reality that inspire our present one, what I’m questioning is the application of numeral significance to those frequencies
That’s equivalent to referring to words as letters. Each word in written form is made up of at least one letter. I prefer to call words words and letters letters, by that’s just me.
No, sorry, I don’t understand a word of it. I thought if we could agree an one simple point, we could move on from there, but that failed and I’m over it.
if nothing else, I learned allot about the relationship between numbers and numerals
This statement is out of sync with our collective understanding, the 3 in 3D is literary a numeral referring to the number 3.
That’s like saying we write words with words, not letters.
or Pointing at the written word “blue” and saying, “That is a color, not a word.”
just wanted to put that out there for clarity to other readers of the thread
The history about our present numeral system was an interesting read, I can recommend having a look at it, especially the invention of zero was a highlight
fun fact: the name Google is a misspelling of the word “googol,” that was originally the intended name for google, a numeral that represents the number 1 followed by 100 zeros
Referring to numerals as numbers is common practice in daily life, I don’t have a problem with that, what I’m refuting is the idea that once a numeral is viewed as good as a number, it excludes being a numeral
I understand your point of view to some extent, once I have written a word it transcends being letters, but transcending is not the same as excluding
Numbers are universal and concrete, at the same time as somewhat elusive in defining them. while numerals are symbolic representations of numbers that we condition our selves to represent them. 3 might be viewed as a numeral reflecting a number for some, while gibberish for others.
Numbers are abstract concepts (the idea of “threeness”).
Numerals are cultural artifacts (the symbol “3”).
The symbol “3” only has power because a group of people agreed it represents that abstract concept. Without that shared agreement, it’s just ink on a page, or gibberish.
Numbers feel incredibly “concrete” when we use them (3 apples is a solid, real thing), but they become “elusive” when we try to define the number itself.
Here’s a breakdown of why they are so hard to pin down.
The Abstraction Problem
You can’t point to “three.”
You can point to examples of “threeness”—three apples, three cars, three notes in a chord—but you can never point to the idea of “three” itself. It’s a pure abstraction.
“Three” is the shared property that all those different groups possess. Defining that abstract property without just listing examples is the first major hurdle.
The Circular Definition Problem
How would you define “3” to someone who has no concept of numbers?
You might say, “It’s one more than two.”
…but that requires them to know what “two” and “one” are.
Okay, so “two” is “one more than one.”
…but what is “one”?
You end up in a circle. “One” is “a single unit,” but “single” is just another word for “one.” You’re forced to define numbers in terms of other numbers, which doesn’t define the system itself.
The “What Is It?” Problem (The Philosophy)
This elusiveness has led to major philosophical debates about what a number is. The two main camps are:
Platonism: Numbers are real, existing objects. They exist in an abstract “realm” of ideas, and we don’t invent them, we discover them. In this view, numbers are elusive because they’re non-physical and exist outside our normal reality.
Formalism: Numbers are not real. They are just symbols in a very complex game we invented. “3” has no more inherent “meaning” than a pawn in chess. It’s simply a token that we manipulate according to a set of rules (like 2 + 1 = 3). In this view, numbers are elusive because there’s nothing to define—it’s just a system that works.
The “Formal” Definition (How Math Solved It)
Because of this elusiveness, mathematicians in the 20th century needed a way to build numbers from the ground up using a single, rock-solid concept. The solution they landed on is Set Theory.
This is wild, but here is how they formally define the first few numbers, starting with the one concept of “nothing” (the “empty set,” written as {}):
Zero (0) is defined as the empty set itself.
One (1) is defined as the set containing zero.
Two (2) is defined as the set containing zero and one.
Three (3) is defined as the set containing zero, one, and two.
Why this is elusive: This definition is logically perfect. It builds all of “threeness” from nothing. But does that messy collection of brackets feel like the number “three” to you? Of course not.
So, numbers are elusive because they live in a strange paradox:
We use them concretely every single day.
Their logical foundation is incredibly abstract and un-intuitive.
Their philosophical nature (are they “real” or just a “game”?) is still debated.
This is how the numeral “3” is written in various scripts.
