Gain sight of the Invisible
How can we gain sight of the invisible?
Disclaimer: Below is version 1, the murky version of my thoughts. If you don’t like to get dirty, or you are expecting a clear paragraph please don’t. If you want to pick this apart, feel free, but don’t assume I have an argument/case fixed yet. I haven’t. That means if you are a person who likes to take things apart it isn’t built to do so yet. This is still exploratory and shaping phase.
I invite you to please make comments and evolve this: A comment is anything. If reading this confuses you, say so. If one sentence amuses you, let me know. If one example is clear, tell me…and so forth. No comment is too small. Indeed small things have always had big impacts.
Overview
Definition Invisible: Incapable of being seen; not perceptible by vision; not visible.
- Source: 1913 Webster Dictionary
"To us invisible, or dimly seen, in these thy lowest works". – John Milton
I have been thinking about invisible and visible, real and fluff…a distinction that I find continuously confusing yet committed to writing about. The confusion arose from my wondering why is it that so many seem to think that because something is ’invisible’ it isn’t real? This thought germinated into the line "perhaps we have lost sight of the invisible" in a dialogue between myself and Paul.
I have reframed that into: "How can we gain sight of the invisible?" in order so that it can be explored, and in order to keep myself accountable as well. I do know there is a pun and paradox in the question itself, but I have left it as I think that it is precisely the tension inherent in the question itself, that is at the root of the spiralling journey this question seems to lead one,or at least me, down (or should that be ‘up’?). I am trusting that through dialogue answers and clarity can emerge. I am also not convinced I have the question correct yet either, so do feel free to comment on that too.
I do believe there are some nuggets contained, or something that could be interesting exploring, and that is why I have posted it. I have no doubt in time there will be a far clearer paragraph to illustrate and explain my thoughts…I am appreciating the evolution of thoughts and my own ways of explaining the invisible, and how others like you are so valuable in growing new thoughts. I would love to explore what is contained below with you to bring it down, to make it practical and useful. To make the invisible I am beginning to see as visible, visible to those who do not. Happy Plodging in the Clarts
The Mud/Clart
Have you ever found that things ‘abstract’ or philosophical or meta make people experience a range of emotions and responses – from folks like me (joy, delight, energising, muddy, magical and playful…) – to what I see and hear most often: ‘fluff’, fairy dust, makes people uncomfortable, it doesn’t exist, let’s talk about things that are more practical and real…
I want to shout: You don’t see my/your own thoughts but you think them real. You don’t see all the roots of a tree, but you know them to be there, even if they lie hidden beneath the ground. You don’t see love but you know it to exist. You feel it to exist. And what of ideas? We accept ideas are things even though their ‘thingyness’ occurs in their trasnlation, in the making of them into words or knowledge or story or product or…
Why is it so difficult in our current worldview to allow our thoughts to encompass the idea that there could be things that exist outside a tangible physical world, things that exist outside our ‘seeing them’?
We all do and engage with things that are invisible. We are ok with the internet working inivisbly behind our screens. With a flick of a switch shedding light from a light bulb. We are ok with using the word energy – bursts of energy through one tube, a cable, from one part of the world, from a generator or power plant to our offices, our living rooms.
Why is it so difficult to believe that there are things, words and worlds, that exist invisible to us? Why then is it impossible to imagine that there are cords that transmit energy between us in conversation, threads that connect us when we think of each other, when we think together? If I can’t see your mind, does that render your thoughts less real? Is anything more real because it is written in a linear numerical order proven by western science?
Another analogy – we accept that there is a greater range of sound than the human ear can. That there is a greater range of colour beyond the colour spectrum seen by the human eye. Because most of us don’t hear the full range of sound, or see beyond the colour wheel, does it mean the sound or colours outside of this any less real? Is it ok for me to now suggest that they simply do not exist?
If it that invisible things are real yet hidden in this world, as the Milton quote suggests, than is it possible to believe that our senses are dimmed/dulled, rendering things hidden, existing beyond our current realms of perception? We haven’t yet learnt how to see these things. Yet does that make them any less real?
A concern: if we can’t accept that there exists things beyond our realm of perception, that there exists hidden things beyond the visible, we loose our curiousity. If all there is is what we can see then we render ourselves to a bound and closed world…there is no room or space for growth and evoution. We act as if life occurs at the boundaries of controlled and ordered and logical linear structures, when the knowledge that we have in this world, including that being ‘discovered’ and retold by Western Science, shows that growth and evolution occurs on the far fuzzier boundary, the edge of chaos and order. The place where things are not all visible. And yet things live, we live, so there must exist something there.
The thought that follows this is ‘fear’. We have been taught (?) to fear that which is not rational, logical and scientifically sound. I too have it. Yet far scarier is a world that accepts that all that is known by us is all there is. Especially when a lot of how our world currently functions and acts is based on simplifications, on (deliberate?*) misunderstandings of the known - a world that fears the unkown to the extent that they act as if it doesn’t exist. A world taught to fear change when its is change: acts of refreshing and reinterpreting, moving and growing, adapting and learning, stumbling on new things and then doing them again, that gives rise to life, to birth.
If there is no invisible what need have we to exist?
* I sometimes wonder if our misunderstandings of knowledge are deliberately fostered. Milton Paradise Lost
Subscribe to think talk walk
February 7th, 2006 at 3:24 am
You see, first we have the eye, however it is bounded by the contructs of its form. 20/20 doesnt go much further. As humans we create tools to make up for our shortcomings.
We have glasses or lenses that correct the eyes function.
We have the magnify lens that lets us magnify what we put under its lens.
We have the X ray machine that allows us to see beyond the limits of the eye and magically through things.
We have heat imagine systems that let us magically see things our eyes are not capable like heat and energy
As you go higher and higher the futher away you go from the limitations of the physical eye.
So my frame to you is this:
If you could build a machine that let you see the invisible, what would it look like, how would it function, what would it need to be able to do it?
If you can answer this question you are half way there. Where? I dont know. I cant see it. Its invisible silly.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Joel it is so interesting – yesterday when I read this I was like…argh what could it be, and why do we have to build a ‘machine’ to help us see it, why can’t we evolve ourselves to see these things?
But today walking in the sun from a meeting back to work I had a chat with a lady and her two dogs, and said thank you to the tree that lives outside my window and it came to me: A Babel Fish.
Part of what makes things hidden is that we can’t speak the language, don’t know the words/signs/symbols to create the constructs/bridges and translations between what we can glimpse/just barely envision/grasp e.g. right brain thinking and what we can see and hear and say e.g. left brain thinking.
A babel fish is a concept conceived in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galexy series http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/babelfish.shtml (make sure you turn up the sound and listen)…or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babelfish
I would like to extend the concept beyond Douglas Adam’s to incorporate language such as the language of animals and plants and the earth and the wind and…
I choose a Babel Fish as well because it is not a machine, it is a living thing, it evolved and is organic…
PS Those scratching their head on the word “Babel” yes, it is referenced from the Bibical Story “The Tower of Babel” the premise being that prior to the fall of the Tower of Babel we all understood each other and spoke the same language and as punishment for building the tower – built by the population of Babel to have an argument with their maker – a myriad of languages emerged and we stopped being able to understand each other.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Just to get on your nerve :)
Here is machine you might be interested in:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
Go Machines!!!!
a great coincidence
February 8th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Once one gets results from prayers or rituals or spells then there is one’s proof of the invisible world…until science invents machines that can “see” it
February 8th, 2006 at 9:14 am
thanks Joel and Paul
Joel – I have been using the machine but I want it inside my head! A living breathing thing…organic and evolving…
Paul – interesting thought
February 8th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Here’s some things to consider while you work through your thoughts. I’m not trying to break apart your analysis, but I think you need to direct some energy at these concepts.
Sense and Sight:
Sight is one of only 5 senses we have. Though we rely on it more than the other senses combined, it doesn’t mean that we can’t perceive things in another way. Sound is invisible, yet we can still sense it. Are you arguing about things that we can’t see, or things that we can’t sense?
Abstraction and Applicatoin:
We developed abstractions to concepts and physical entities in order to easily analyze, relate to, and process information. Try to figure out planetary motion without mathematics or Kepler’s laws and you’ll be left in the dark ages. At the same time, the abstractions also limit us from analayzing things which are unnecessary for the task at hand. Try walking down the street and sensing everything around you with all 5 senses, and you’ll never get where you’re going… unless you wanted to get to the emergency room. Our brains are built to tune out things we don’t think are important for our goals. If you want to introduce concepts to people, you have to provide them with a method of abstraction as well as a purpose/application. With the abstraction, people can understand what you’re talking about. With a purpose, people will want to understand what you’re talking about.
Limits:
Imagine if we used all 5 our senses as much as we do our sense of sight. I’m reminded of a quote from a Bell labs engineer who said that he wished his computer would be as easy to use as his phone, and then slowly came to regret his wish because his phone had become as difficult to use as his computer. Assuming we were able to fully develop all 5 of our senses, without negatively affecting our sense of sight, think about how much information the brain would have to process. Would it be too much for the normal person to handle? We all have limits, and though they may change on a regular basis, they still exist (time is probably the best example I can think of to emphasize just how limited we are). Just because we cannot see something right now, doesn’t mean that we can’t see it at all. And, as Joel mentioned, just because we cannot see something with our eyes, doesn’t mean we can’t come up with a device to “see” it for us.
I like where you’re going… or at least where I think you’re going with this. And I think that the hardest part of this is how to relate it not only to others, but also to yourself. What language will provides the best mechansim to do so. Art, math, spanish, some combination of, or something completely different?
In regards to the Babel fish, do you think that if we didn’t have all these languages, that the words that exist in some languages but not others would still exist. Would our common language have all the expressiveness of Yiddish, the symonyms and homynums found in English, the beauty of art, or the structure of mathematics?
February 9th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
faith renders the invisible visible
February 11th, 2006 at 7:08 am
thanks Yoav and Paul – much for me to consider!!
I need to come back to this but in the meantime wanted to add this:
“There are two forms of knowledge: one legitimate, one bastard. To the bastard sort belong all the following: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The legitimate is quite distinct from this. When the bastard form cannot see more minutely, nor hear nor smell nor taste nor perceive through the touch, then another finer form must be employed.”
—Democritus, Fragment 11, The Symmetry of Life
Democritus is an ancient greek philosopher who said this somewhere in the 460-370 BC. He is also the man who talked of the concept of the atom ‘atomos’
February 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
I agree with Democritus!;and his comments above have stood the test of time.Wonder what he has reincarnated as over the centuries!?!
By the way my faith in Angels(I link twice weekly with THE SEEKERS TRUST using a method known as “triangulation” which jesus and the 12 disciples inc the 13th disciple mary magdalene used originally ;see
http://www.theseekerstrust. or obtain their website via google or other search engine;its a little charity in kent england at the original site of the monastery St augustine founded in Uk to spread christianity)
was proven when I asked them my regular linking healing purple ray angels to ensure that Jodie Marsh(a bit of topic that but maybe is nothing ever really off topic on this wonderful thought provoking website and I see why you are drawn to the nautilus shell as it is awondrous “phi” tail encoded in your name itself!)
was NOT DROPPED/SACKED from “beatbullying” uk charity
(www.beatbullying.org)
although their website currently “down” for maintenance;this weekend;
and the angels intervened and made it so(as they have done on many other occasions re many other things).The internet “flame campaign versus jodie marsh”(www.jodiemarsh.tv)who reminds me a bit of mary magadalene re similar sexism to her;FAILED; and the bullies did not win in picking on her as a WOMAN(all women are goddesses in my opinion whatever they look like physically!)
Angels are a much under utilised resource on this Planet!
Communicate with the angels and they will help you they are like software programs set up by god to help people who ask them to help!
HOPE YOUR EMAIL PROBLEM IS RESOLVED NOW TOO NATALIE!
by the way is sean nana (seannana.com) very “big”/well known in New York where you are as he has just been roped into doing a skydive in essex uk/england with jodie and her crew/posse/mates/fellow CLARTS on valentine’s day this feb 14th has he is visiting uk/essex and dropped into see her.Apparently(I never heard of him before today) he is a singer in New York with a band called HARMAR SUPERSTAR (never heard of them before!)
February 13th, 2006 at 8:46 am
re Yoav’s thought;
maybe on other planets or planes of existence where they do not bother with physical bodies just less dense finer “etheric” bodies vibrating at different spreds to the physical ones we have on this “grosser” material plane of existence aliens do have such combined multi-tasking languages which synthesize maths music and langauge into ONE and correlate data to penetrate to the deeper mysteries of the universe better than us humans can at present do/achieve(esp if they have millions of years evolution advance /ahead of us)
I def. think there is some/many good reason this planet is so “babel tower of” orientated – prob. to test us whether we overcome it “eventually” the differences and war etc or in some way to help evolution by “having” as many differences as possible
RE THE OTHER BABEL FISH/COMMUNICATOR DEVICE THREAD YUAV AND JOEL WERE GOING ON ABOUT(and natalie) before they YUAV AND JOEL disappeared:-
BABEL FISH(and christianity is far more mathematical and scientific and based on sacred geometry than people and cynics and skeptics of modern secular age realize today)(MIRACLES were done by advanced manipulation of the etheric planes and by triangulation methods there was a science to them which also involved fasting and meditation and group efforts assisted by army of angels;a hidden science not superstition as secular cynics in theri ignornace claim as its more conveniant to be lazy and cynical and not believe or have faith than it is to do have faith and experiment with these things and occult +religious algorithms)
continuing my theme(as inspired)
the 153 fishes that st peter and the other fishermen caught “on the right side” in John chapter 21
were parable(analogous to or using analogue before the digital age 1900/2000 years later)
re “the 153 varieties of fishes known to fishermen in roman times and in palestine at that time”(ie analogous to in form of parable with hidden meanings to be decoded later)
but were”as caught” all in fact 153 of the “same type” of flat fat big fish and exceeded or seemed to exceed the actual “net”‘s(fishing net not internet that came later but god/the universe knew it was going to come and future
developments too)
capacity to “hold that many fishes the fishermen led by saint peter ” thought
(although the “net” did hold that many AND DESIGNED TO PARABLE/ANALOGY HOLD MANY MANY MORE OVER THE COMING CENTURIES and jesus had already started breakfast on the shore with fishes he also “materialized from the ether” to show faith even before they had started “to fish” “in the sea nearby”)
so the 153 fishes is analogous to say the 153 BABEL DIVIDED OR SEEMINGLY DIVIDED HUMAN LANGUAGES AND TRIBES AND NATIONS AND SECTS AT THAT TIME CIRCA POST 33 AD CRUCIFIXION”
but were “in fact”:-
“the same fat large flat fish”
ie as if to say that behind the BABEL/TOWER OF BABEL LIKE DIVISIONS THEN EXISTING IN THE ROMAN WORLD OF 33 AD
(and the 100,000′s of sects and religions + nations+ political parties and sects and tribes and clubs etc inside the 6 billion and rising human units currently running this planet on this small star system on one side of this small galaxy;compared to size of actual universe;ALSO SEEMINGLY BABEL TOWER DIVIDED BY LANGUAGE AND IDEAS AND DISPUTES)
“its all the same fish and 153 of them”
(as per the greek numerological value of mary magdalene decoded by the author margaret starbird/starbridge in her recent research into MM which is 10000 times better than the da vinci code but if the latter introduces people to idea of mary magdalene being as important as virgin mary and JC then that is good anyway)
so seeming babel tower of/babel fish divisions
whether 153 or 153,000 or 153 million seeming divisions
between human race
and between inanimate objects and souls and spirits and angels and dead and live people and animals and atoms and molecules and proteins in all different forms
(not to mention non earth say silicon based life forms and no physicla plane entities)
are “seeming babel fish/babel tower of divisions”
but there is unity and they are all ONE FISH(whether in pisces age or aquarian age or whatever age)
and the SAME FISH
multiplied by 153(or whatever number of “fish”)
so if you knew that you could communicate(which is what this blog is all about;see intro)
across all language divides and all thought divides
whether with a “alta vista type babel fish communicator”(or like ones ensign hoshi uses in star trek the “recent”enterprise series prequel to the 1960s original series with scott bakula in it now ended due to ratings low but the fans raised some cash to re do it I hear!)
or “whatever”(various algorithms and devices usable not just by this species but but by alien ones and animals and even inanimate objects)
thsus at atomic and spiritual level we are united whatever babel divisions at other levels
ALSO when mary magdalene returned to the MALE 12 DISBELIEVING AND SOMETIMES CYNICAL DISCIPLES after speaking at length to jesus after he died and re -appeared she said
“all things will return eventually to their essence”(constituent material plane atomic and etheric version of atomic etc)”and similar remarks”
which is much the same as above
yet they didnt believe her and 1 said:-
“I don’t believe the master jesus christ would say such STRANGE ETC things”
and she said:-
“I could tell you more of what he said but you would not believe me”
and st peter said:-
“I don’t believe he would entrust such advanced and strange teachings to a mere woman”
at which pt. one of the other disciples remonstrated with “peter”
and said angrily topeter that that was “jesus’s/his choice”
so this fish thing above crosses a few t’s and dots a few more “i’s” for me
and for me numerologically speaking(ie numbers can have a peculiar logic all of their own without reference to humans or getting permission from them to have their own logic)
the fact that a to z english alphabet adds up to 351 parallell numerologically to 153(the greek sum re mary magdalene)is significant and another clue to add to my ongoing research
mary magdalene co wrote john gospel inc chapter 21 which ends it and where above 153 fishes(the no. connected to vesica pisces re ratio of square root of 3 inside the diagram created by 2 interlinking circles)(see “wikepedia article re vesica pisces”and the 153 ratio also expressed as 1.73 the square root of the number 3 also significant as was 9 and 7 thru out the bible)
were “caught” after advice by JC to peter re “casting on the right side”
and also the above is mentioned in the “pistis sophia” and other non bible gospels and tracts inc dead sea scrolls and stuff found over the centuries but some pages are missing from these various tracts
soit seems to connect to the babel fish idea after all!
RE OVERCOMING SEEMING AT TIMES INSURMOUNTABLE COMMUNICATION(communication:-ruled by mercury and hermes and thoth) PROBLEMS
whether in organisations or whatever
by seeing the unity and common links and goals whatever the divisions of approach or sect or idea
and allowing for some chaos within the order and rules so thus to allow flexibility and exchange of ideas across many schools of thought or “disciplines” within country or organisation or whatever
as per chaordicism
does this help at all natalie?
PS CORRECTION:-
VESICA PISCES does not have a page of its own to “GO” to on wikipedia
ITS UNDER “SACRED GEOMETRY” wikipedia page
where 153 is mentioned
February 14th, 2006 at 1:26 am
Natalie, I am not exaclty sue how this fits in with this dialogue but it has been ringing in my head since our session in Florida.
Chuang-Tsu
The purpose of a fishtrap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.
The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits. When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.
The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
Perhaps we need to reframe the question yet again. What if we eliminated the word “invisible” to get away from a dichotomy that does not seem particularly helpful. What about; “How can we make sense of what we notice or that which affects us?” We notce and are affected by much more than comes through our 5 senses. How do we indivually and then collectively make sense of it all????
February 14th, 2006 at 4:10 am
thanks for this Neil – it definately fits into the dialogue!! It is so interesting I just came to post this quote and now want to place it with your Chuang-Tsu one
“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
Anaïs Nin
so it doesn’t get lost.
Looking forward to more…
and will come back to this post shortly!