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
ok, so I think I’m finally done with this rabbit hole
Numbers are universal and concrete, at the same time as somewhat elusive in defining them.
They 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’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 three main camps are:
1.Platonism (Realism)
The Idea: Numbers are real, abstract objects. They exist “out there” in a non-physical “realm of ideas,” whether humans are around to think about them or not.
The Slogan: We discover numbers (like an astronomer discovers a new planet).
Example: The number “3” and the fact that “3 is prime” are timeless, universal truths that existed before any human mind ever conceived of them.
Formalism
The Idea: Numbers are not “real” objects. They are just symbols (like “3,” “III,” “三”) that we manipulate according to a set of agreed-upon rules (like $2+1=3$).
The Slogan: We invent numbers (like we invented the rules of chess).
Example: Mathematics is just a complex game. “3” is a token, and “prime” is a property defined by the rules of the game. The “truth” of $2+1=3$ is simply that it’s a valid move, not that it corresponds to some deep, external reality.
Intuitionism (or Constructivism)
The Idea: Numbers are mental constructions. They exist only within the human mind. A number is “real” only if we can create a step-by-step mental procedure to construct it.
The Slogan: We construct numbers (like a builder constructs a house, piece by piece).
Example: The number “3” is real because we can mentally construct it (start with nothing, then “one,” then “one more,” then “one more”).
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 numeral “3” is written in various other systems.
Hi Raz. I didn’t understand which of the three approaches is close to your opinion. Or you stopped with conclusion that it’s a strange paradox? Thank you.
I’m leaning towards the idea that ‘all is one’ and numbers are part of the complexity of our oneness.
in a sense, subjective reality seems to consist of numeral static where any part of it can represent numbers. Applying this is a little like drawing a map though, it can help us orient the environment, but it’s essentially not part of the environment.
If I may add some dimensions to this philosophical puzzle;
All is one cannot be overstated, and In a universe of infinite and unbroken unity, numbers can be said to be artifacts of the illusion(s) in which the concept of many-ness still exists. In short, one could posit that wherever separation is experienced, there shall be found numbers.
To paraphrase Ra, numbers - among many distortions - are generated by the action of the Infinite One individualizing from itself.
13.12 “The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity, there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.”
Our friends of Q’uo also shared their perspective regarding the mystery of numbers;
(01/23/2010) "It is an interesting one in that from our perspective, there is no difference between the science of numbers and the science of music. It has often been said by those who are deeply involved in numbers among your people that numbers are entities. And we would agree with this. And yet we would take it further.
Numbers are spiritual essences. The ratios and relationships betwixt numbers is the basis of the Hermetic philosophies, so called, the work of Hermes Tresmegistus and all of the science of alchemy which attempts to take that basic metal which is the unrealized self and to transmute it into the gold of the realized spiritual self.
Numbers have powerful and deep connections to various vibratory levels or states of being. If you feel that you may have a lucky number, for instance, it very likely is so that your particular vibration is comfortable with the powers of that particular number. If you wish to investigate the spiritual or the sacred nature of numbers, there are various ways to do that. You may investigate them according to the discipline of the Kabbalah, for the Kabbalah with its Gematria is a discipline hundreds and hundreds of years old and its pathways are very interesting to travel for one who is interested in numbers.
The reason that we compare numbers to music is that the vibratory nature of each note has a specific numerical value, so that when you are gazing at how harmony works, or how a twelve-tone scale may work, for instance, or how the various modes may differ from the major and the minor scales, you are looking at spiritual pathways that are compatible with various states of being.
The science of sacred geometry may also be a discipline that shall satisfy your resonance with this subject, my brother, and we would recommend that you look into that as well."
a very good addition to the equation of this thread, thank you for adding it Ibn_Aql
All is one, indeed.
Incarnation is a play of perspective
frequency and Limitation,
not separation.
Feeling separate is not the same as being separate, which is fundamentally impossible. The recognition of our oneness implies universal identity within any type of embodied complexity, regardless of scale.
All interaction is self interaction
There’s only one experience,
that experience just happens to have
infinite phases
I resonate with your use of the word “phase” in this context, brother Raz. It just so happens that in the field of electromagnetism, the phase of a wave is subject to modulation by what lens is used to polarize it. One can see how this fact can be appreciated by seekers familiar with Confederation teachings.
