Superb, including the link to Sesame Street! Just one thing confused me. When you wrote:
"Three sets of complementary statements about points, lines and planes in space:",
you labelled the statements 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3C and 3D. I expected 3A and 3B. Was there a reason for this?
My neuro-divergent brain is always looking for patterns - which is why I love projective geometry! The polarities of point and plane with the line as intermediary is for me truly magical. Thanks for this. Now I need to find lessons 1-10 :-)
And if I may also share, I recently had an epiphany when I realised that the infinitely small inward point and the infinitely large peripheral plane are called the *ideal* point and plane, not because they are perfect (though perhaps they are) but because - like *Ideas* - we can only see them with our minds.
My ambition is to understand the space and counterspace research of Nick Thomas. The mathematics is beyond me but the ideas described strongly indicated support for many of the natural scientific teachings of Rudolf Steiner that I had otherwise struggled to understand.
Thanks, David, that's a typo that you caught. It should have said 3A and 3B. I was playing with how to group them, and got distracted! I spent several years picking up and putting down Nick Thomas's book. I found worthwhile challenges there, and I also can't claim to understand it all by any means. However, in the context of a small study group a couple years ago with another PG teacher, I came to the conclusion that Thomas' approach still contained too many materialistic underpinnings, despite the impressive attempt to portray counterspace as the polar to subatomic particles in real space. Right now, I'm much more interested in George Adams' approaches, and whenever I have time, I plan to take my reading of him further.
My background is very much a materialistic one - which probably explains my attraction to Thomas's Space-Counterspace research. My 'encounter' with Rudolf Steiner's philosophical and scientific research in my 30s was both a revelation and a challenge. At this time I was privileged to play the role of a young and very confused Strader in a scene from Steiner's mystery drama - a role which required very little acting from me! Shortly afterwards I was asked to be a scientific advisor (unpaid) for a small anthroposophical study group interested in furthering the biological transmutation research of the recently departed father of a friend of a friend. Their website is http://holleman.ch
Since then I have occasionally taught Goethean science to adults and received excellent feedback, as well as from my lecturer's and examiners when I was able to take a few undergraduate philosophy modules.
Most recently I have been asked to write a book with the suggested title of Rethinking the Nature of Substance. It is an attempt to understand the nature of being and change, applying Steiner's concept of four elements and ethers (higher and fallen), taking into account new little known evidence of low energy biological transmutations by the Ukrainian nuclear scientist Vladimir Vysotskii. This - and the peer reviewed evidence for the related phenomenon of cold fusion - very strongly indicates that not all nuclear transmutations of chemical isotopes involve high energy radioactive emissions that are deadly for life.
This leads me to propose that if high energy nuclear reactions are associated with Steiner's Third Force, positive biologically enabled nuclear isotope transmutations are most likely associated with the Third Force's higher etheric counterpart - the life ether (which is the higher counterpart of earth). I therefore differ from Ernst Lehrs here. I believe that, following Steiner, the chemical or number ether must be related to chemistry. Biological transmutations of chemical elements (isotopes) involve change of a much deeper order. I am exploring my ideas for writing a book about all of this on my own website; https://rethinkingsubstance.com
Unfortunately Nick Thomas died shortly after I made contact with him - he expressed an interest in my research and was disappointed not to be able attend a presentation I gave in 2006. He informed me that his own protective geometry research was looking promising in terms of a possible understanding of the nature of radioactivity and the possibility of its treatment. However he gave no further details. I had attended a presentation by Nick Thomas, organised by Paul Courtney (whose projective geometry courses I attended at that time), and though Nick Thomas promised to keep it as simple as he could, few if any of us in the room could understand him, though I hope we got the general idea!
Unfortunately, at the time of my contact I hadn't developed my own insight into the possible roles of the ethers, so wasn't able to discuss my ideas further with him. Since then I haven't managed to find someone else with his level of understanding to share ideas with.
I am not a member of the Anthroposophical community. I have not been able to develop an intuitive connection with the more esoteric of Steiner's beliefs such as he published in Theosophy and Occult Science. Goethe's World Conception (and related books) and Philosophy of Freedom (spiritual thinking) are those with which I have a strong connection.
Meanwhile, yourself and Max Leyf have both served me with much food for thought via your superb online Substack postings. You are both powerful reminders that my unconscious materialistic bias continues to dominate my thinking. As a friend informed me - I am still very much a plaything of both 'Lucy' and especially 'Harry'!
Sorry for the huge essay - feel free to edit or remove this as it is somewhat off-topic. Just excited to find another person whose writing I can both connect with and be challenged by. Thank you.
Hey David, Somehow I missed this reply for awhile, sorry about that. So glad to hear of your background and studies, and also very happy to have connected with you. I will check out your links and things as I have time. I would say I'm anthroposophy adjacent myself, certainly not internally active right now, but always wondering if anyone is working on things that dovetail my own lines of inquiry. So if my posts found you then I have achieved one if my goals. I look forward to more interaction. Cheers!
Superb, including the link to Sesame Street! Just one thing confused me. When you wrote:
"Three sets of complementary statements about points, lines and planes in space:",
you labelled the statements 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3C and 3D. I expected 3A and 3B. Was there a reason for this?
My neuro-divergent brain is always looking for patterns - which is why I love projective geometry! The polarities of point and plane with the line as intermediary is for me truly magical. Thanks for this. Now I need to find lessons 1-10 :-)
And if I may also share, I recently had an epiphany when I realised that the infinitely small inward point and the infinitely large peripheral plane are called the *ideal* point and plane, not because they are perfect (though perhaps they are) but because - like *Ideas* - we can only see them with our minds.
My ambition is to understand the space and counterspace research of Nick Thomas. The mathematics is beyond me but the ideas described strongly indicated support for many of the natural scientific teachings of Rudolf Steiner that I had otherwise struggled to understand.
Thanks, David, that's a typo that you caught. It should have said 3A and 3B. I was playing with how to group them, and got distracted! I spent several years picking up and putting down Nick Thomas's book. I found worthwhile challenges there, and I also can't claim to understand it all by any means. However, in the context of a small study group a couple years ago with another PG teacher, I came to the conclusion that Thomas' approach still contained too many materialistic underpinnings, despite the impressive attempt to portray counterspace as the polar to subatomic particles in real space. Right now, I'm much more interested in George Adams' approaches, and whenever I have time, I plan to take my reading of him further.
My background is very much a materialistic one - which probably explains my attraction to Thomas's Space-Counterspace research. My 'encounter' with Rudolf Steiner's philosophical and scientific research in my 30s was both a revelation and a challenge. At this time I was privileged to play the role of a young and very confused Strader in a scene from Steiner's mystery drama - a role which required very little acting from me! Shortly afterwards I was asked to be a scientific advisor (unpaid) for a small anthroposophical study group interested in furthering the biological transmutation research of the recently departed father of a friend of a friend. Their website is http://holleman.ch
Since then I have occasionally taught Goethean science to adults and received excellent feedback, as well as from my lecturer's and examiners when I was able to take a few undergraduate philosophy modules.
Most recently I have been asked to write a book with the suggested title of Rethinking the Nature of Substance. It is an attempt to understand the nature of being and change, applying Steiner's concept of four elements and ethers (higher and fallen), taking into account new little known evidence of low energy biological transmutations by the Ukrainian nuclear scientist Vladimir Vysotskii. This - and the peer reviewed evidence for the related phenomenon of cold fusion - very strongly indicates that not all nuclear transmutations of chemical isotopes involve high energy radioactive emissions that are deadly for life.
This leads me to propose that if high energy nuclear reactions are associated with Steiner's Third Force, positive biologically enabled nuclear isotope transmutations are most likely associated with the Third Force's higher etheric counterpart - the life ether (which is the higher counterpart of earth). I therefore differ from Ernst Lehrs here. I believe that, following Steiner, the chemical or number ether must be related to chemistry. Biological transmutations of chemical elements (isotopes) involve change of a much deeper order. I am exploring my ideas for writing a book about all of this on my own website; https://rethinkingsubstance.com
Unfortunately Nick Thomas died shortly after I made contact with him - he expressed an interest in my research and was disappointed not to be able attend a presentation I gave in 2006. He informed me that his own protective geometry research was looking promising in terms of a possible understanding of the nature of radioactivity and the possibility of its treatment. However he gave no further details. I had attended a presentation by Nick Thomas, organised by Paul Courtney (whose projective geometry courses I attended at that time), and though Nick Thomas promised to keep it as simple as he could, few if any of us in the room could understand him, though I hope we got the general idea!
Unfortunately, at the time of my contact I hadn't developed my own insight into the possible roles of the ethers, so wasn't able to discuss my ideas further with him. Since then I haven't managed to find someone else with his level of understanding to share ideas with.
I am not a member of the Anthroposophical community. I have not been able to develop an intuitive connection with the more esoteric of Steiner's beliefs such as he published in Theosophy and Occult Science. Goethe's World Conception (and related books) and Philosophy of Freedom (spiritual thinking) are those with which I have a strong connection.
Meanwhile, yourself and Max Leyf have both served me with much food for thought via your superb online Substack postings. You are both powerful reminders that my unconscious materialistic bias continues to dominate my thinking. As a friend informed me - I am still very much a plaything of both 'Lucy' and especially 'Harry'!
Sorry for the huge essay - feel free to edit or remove this as it is somewhat off-topic. Just excited to find another person whose writing I can both connect with and be challenged by. Thank you.
Hey David, Somehow I missed this reply for awhile, sorry about that. So glad to hear of your background and studies, and also very happy to have connected with you. I will check out your links and things as I have time. I would say I'm anthroposophy adjacent myself, certainly not internally active right now, but always wondering if anyone is working on things that dovetail my own lines of inquiry. So if my posts found you then I have achieved one if my goals. I look forward to more interaction. Cheers!