Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Raphael the Painter

By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.The Structure of Consciousness John Fudjack - September, 1999

Self-portrait by Raphael

While I am no great philosopher, the idea of truth was very important one to me. Finding some method by which to proceed was very difficult without the teachers handy. So I learned to trust my intuition as I was lead from one place to another. By it's own design, the correlation I termed in relation to cognition were very important discover about my own potential. I had to symbolically discribe the very actions of what goes in, and what comes out, turns through that channel in much the same way a electromagnetic field governs by analogy the principle of life around the human body, as information passes through the center.

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

Will this become part of the greater complexity of the life form, as information becomes part of the larger context of the souls growth? How is that measured? How is t external world brought back in and then turned outward, and the "colors change" as the truth begins to dawn?

For me the story here starts with a painter and from the very painting itself, one can imagine a larger story unfolding, as one peers into the center of the School of Athens.

For now, the music is set aside, for the "foundational perspective" that issues forth from this blog.

I added this biography of the artist himself and "crunched" behind him is a speculation of a kind that becomes the basis of this bloggery. It is about observation and the search for truth as we look at the work of Raphael and the following information that I hold in consideration of this painting.

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

Do we know what Raphael was trying to impart through these images?

Inductive and Deductive

While holding the School of Athens by Raphael then picture in mind and consider the following?

Aristotle from a a posteriori leads perspective in one way, and Plato a prior?

PLato saids, "Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth"

So from that basis look at what is portrayed in the opening statement above with regards to Plato finger pointing up and Aristotle's hand sweeping pervasively?

So while I lead one through a vast maze of links here it is not without doing my own research that I could now point you to wikipedia for examination of the many things that we could learn of Plato. Imagine Plato continues to live through all this information?

Without Plato a a personification of the some of the ideals I have, I know who I am. The sun as a symbol of enlightenement? Then following, Plato's Cave Analogy?

As a beginning, you see I started to point out some of the more important features of the leadng perspective of Aristotle, and the link I see to Robert Laughlins building blocks of matter?

But before I jump so far ahead, maybe it is indeed useful to link wiki here so one gets the jest of what may be implied by an example?

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and scope of knowledge. The term "epistemology" is based on the Greek words "επιστημη or episteme" (knowledge) and "λόγος or logos" (account/explanation); it is thought to have been coined by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier.

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?". Although approaches to answering any one of these questions frequently involve theories that are connected to others, there is enough particular to each that they may be examined separately.

There are many different topics, stances, and arguments in the field of epistemology. Recent studies have dramatically challenged centuries-old assumptions, and the discipline therefore continues to be vibrant and dynamic.

So while some would point to the very functions of perceiving aspects of the higher self, if there is such a thing accept in one conceptual framework, or messages from God, as Ramanujan received the equations in dream time. I think of this as a very dynamical process, that each of us possesses. If without the teacher to guide us, then the teacher most certainly makes it's way into the mind for observation?


Innatism is a philosophical doctrine introduced by Plato in the socratic dialogue Meno which holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a tabula rasa at birth. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses. Innatism is the opposite of empiricism.

Plato claimed that humans are born with ideas/forms in the mind that are in a dormant state. He claimed that we have acquired these ideas prior to our birth when we existed as souls in the world of Forms. To access these, humans need to be reminded of them through proper education and experience.

While it is referred to the young born into this world, what said that any person could not become that "blank slate" that would allow the wider perspective of what has been lived, is not confined to this life, but is exposed as that channel is opened for the wider perspective about life?

I say,"
I mean really, if, each of us is born into this world with such a blank slate, then how is an idea incorporated into such a design of our blank slate. Especially, if there had not been some influence predisposed, to draw ideas into the appropriate environment for consideration?

While we provide for the nurturing aspect of creativity to express itself, we find that such freedoms are encouraged by observation of the introspective attitude we gain by learning about ourselves.

The Medicine Wheel as a Mandala

It is not so much that we learn about the very "drawing here for you" but that it is circular in nature, and by the very discription the mandala is pretty "clear cut" as to what manifested from a deeper level in my own mind.

Now what you do not understand is that the center is very important feature on what we focus on. While the "purity of thought" is presented here. It is the idea that the closer to the source you get, the purer the thought/idea that manifests into the theoretical world.

While I attempt to explain the process this does not disavow you from experimenting and testing, so that the advancement of knowledge and understanding reawakens you to the "nature" of one's being? What is this?

No comments: