Even in a singularity there must be some space and some time immanent--one would think. What can contract (or begin) outside of time and space? If it moves to time and space, was time/space pre-existing? ... or can what we consider that essential paradigms flow from causal actions where causal, actions have no meaning being outside of time and space.??
There was certainly a paradigm shift back in the 19th century when the extension of our senses thru technology allowed us to peer into the microcosm (& the further into the macrocosm )for the first time. As we try to conceive space and time , the nature of our limitations are directly exposed by so much that had lay hidden from us .
Always thought the attempts of describing the metageomoetrical form in 4th dimensional time/space by the Russian mathematician PD Ouspensky was intriguing , to understand in the fullest and newer sense of :
"the height, width, length , and breadth of things"
** its going to be a tough day in the wild "4th dimension" of the market today , so won't even try to get into an attempt to paraphrase his thoughts ,and just post another's brief overview here . But i always often do the best in the market when i am thinking outside the traditional 3 dimensional box .
home.cfl.rr.com
EPISTEMOLOGY
AND METAPHYSICS
Upon our very first steps toward cognition, writes Ouspensky, certain conditions determine both our usual way of thinking and understanding. Much of what we take as known and familiar in our daily lives is, in reality, far from certain and when pondered remains enigmatic. The question of time and its relation to space, problems associated with the mysteries of life and death along with man's various conceptions of God remain distant and, as it were, obscured from unaided reason. Yet a recognition of these problems as enigmas along with attempts at possible solutions remains fundamental to any comprehensive understanding of the world.
Generally we believe in the progress of ideas; we believe we are able to know both ourselves and the world and to a lesser or greater degree we also believe that whatever remains unknown must eventually be revealed through the application of the logic of scientific discovery. But what with certainty can we say we know? Our two primary intuitions of being relate to the division between internal (or personal) subject and external object. Beyond this, that is, beyond the immediate, intuitive recognition of our inner life contrasted with a world outside, all phenomenal knowledge (that is, the knowledge of particular things) must be discovered and subsequently validated by way of reason in conjunction with strict empirical methodology.
Conceptions are not primary intuitions but, instead, result from percepts [sensations] integrated by our cognitive faculty: the process of analysis; and in this we have no direct link between the logical (i.e., conceptual) foundation of our empiricism and its bare object. Derived as it is from conceptual knowledge mankind's intellectual edifice necessarily remains an abstraction dependent upon vagaries inherent within linguistic construction (which, after all, is the means or the tool by which we represent to ourselves concepts). In a real sense reason and experimental knowledge remain aesthetic creations.
We infer the world of objects to be ontologically independent from the caprices of personal sensation but, for Ouspensky, such a view is strictly conventional. Further, Ouspensky writes that knowledge of Being (the fundamental ontological intuition in contrast to empirical or phenomenal knowledge) derives from the degree of correspondence between a noumenal form (which we can never directly intuit but from whence comes, somehow, the phenomenal object of perception and, therefore, empirical knowledge) along with corresponding conceptual formulations derived from experience and reason. Thus, our goal, that is, the goal of cognition, is really the elucidation of an accurate (or at least closely approximate) understanding of a likely world form independent of confluence between our perceptive and conceptual faculties. This is the true theme of A New Model of the Universe.
Ouspensky accepts the first Critique's doctrine called Transcendental Aesthetic wherein Kant argues that the intuition [experience] of both space and time are predicated upon forms particular to our sensibilities and not actual [objective] existents.3 Kant's "Copernican Revolution" dispels a common sensical view whereby we generally think of time and space as discrete objects functioning not unlike a container within which our life and the things affecting our life reside and evolve. From this latter and, perhaps, more traditional point of view it makes little practical difference to the average man whether either the critical philosophy or, for that matter, modern scientific thought premises spatio-temporal relations ontologically different from that reported by common sense. In our lives sensual space exists as an external three dimensional Euclidean continuum while time shows itself as an internal sensation not necessarily grounded upon any preexisting spatial relationship. [Here it would be more correct to state that spatial relationships are predicated on the experience of time as sensation.] Although space is felt three dimensionally, we experience time linearly but, like space, we presume it remains one and the same for all existence. Where time comes from or where it may go remains obscured, and in an effort to communicate to ourselves and by way of an attempt to understand the supposed physical "properties" of both space and time we are forced to offer up vague and indefinite descriptive terms such as "infinity" which, while having a definite mathematical meaning, nevertheless remain tenuous when viewed from the standpoint of physical properties.
By considering space and time as mere perceptual forms and not as direct objects of sensation a critical analysis of our conventional understanding of spatio-temporal relations cannot derive solely from an empirical analysis. Instead, its predicate must be psychological material. Ouspensky argues that we need first specify all necessary psychological parameters inherent within the human conscious faculty prior to constructing theory. In keeping with that line of thought outlined by Kant he accepts a supersensible or noumenal substrate as the material cause or foundation of our world. So, although our world intuition is grounded in spatio-temporally based physical relations, it follows that the noumenal ground upon which the perceptual object of experience ultimately derives its being must possess neither properties of space nor of time.
Now, inasmuch as our form of perception can be said to correspond to (or at least be described by) normal geometrical laws and, likewise, inasmuch as noumena can be understood, phenomenally speaking, it is true, as that base metaphysical something which is extended outward into our everyday world of objective intuition and hence becomes responsible for the things we perceive, Ouspensky finds it reasonable to hypothesize that this substrate which we cannot perceive, i.e., noumena, should nevertheless be amenable to description by means of a corresponding metaphysical (or more exactly, metageometrical) extension of conventional geometric laws. And just as the science of geometry exists to describe phenomena in normal space, a new metageometry postulates properties of an extended or higher space.4
The material form of space has at least until recently been almost always based upon Euclid's geometry. Traditional Euclidean geometric space is conceptualized as a three-dimensional infinite sphere; that is, a line rotated on its axis 360 degrees and, then, bisected by another line perpendicular to the first which is also rotated 360 degrees. Within this sphere any convergent set of coordinates constitutes a point of space. Constructed as an extension or expansion of a geometric point into a solid (the point being one boundary of the continuum and its complete expansion, the three-dimensional solid in time, the other) normal space serves as a paradigm for the science of metageometry. And just as we describe how a "point" of matter (or a collection of such points) becomes a solid of three dimensions so too can we imagine the properties of higher space. First, when extended into space, the point becomes a line of the first dimension. The perpendicular extension of this line "into space" creates the figure of a plane surface, i.e., the second dimension. Likewise, a surface so extended becomes solid--a figure of three dimensions. Far from a purely speculative endeavor it should be noted that the actual existence of a geometrical point in physical space has perceptual reality in that bit of matter of which no smaller can be observed. In everyday life we observe instances of each of these phenomena, although it is generally accepted that each exists, in reality, differently than perception holds, the difference being attributed to an opposition between the relation (i.e., relative position) of the perceiving subject to its object. In A New Model Ouspensky describes a star (the point) in the night sky (a surface). Reason tells us that these appearances are entirely subjective, contingent upon our own unique perspective. Yet, if we consider the previously recounted specifics of geometric expansion we find that the dissimilarity between any "higher" or "lower" dimension is, in itself, strictly a matter of perspective also, for the difference between our abstract understanding of respective dimensions is no more than the alterity between viewing various cross sections of an object: the point is a cross section of a line, the line is a cross section of a surface, and a surface exists as the cross section of a solid. Our obvious concern, then, is how we can possibly represent to our minds the form of a four dimensional "solid" of which our present reality (three dimensional space bounded by time) is but a section? A "point of three-dimensional space" exists as a moment in time, although we remain unaware of isolated static moments just as we are not cognizant of any singular spatial point. Instead, we experience objects [extensions] in motion relative to each other. Motion is our conscious awareness of a sufficient number of discrete points of time and can be represented geometrically as a segment on some greater line of time. We experience segments on the timeline as duration, and for each and every three-dimensional object encountered we know the object's existence by its extension in time. Thus, (and from the standpoint of metageometry) our sense of the present is really no more than the recognition of a cross section of a fuller or extended spatial existence spanning the entire line of time.
Owing to the limitedness of our cognitive faculty we are immediately conscious of no more than fairly short but usually "continuous" episodic moments. Moments past we consider, ontologically speaking, fictional existents known only through the persistence of memory; likewise, are they ordinarily considered fixed and unchangeable. Future events, if they can be said to exist at all, live only as possibility, the Aristotelian entelechy. Nevertheless it can at least be supposed that, unlike the past, the future possesses varying degrees of potential changeability. And if the past remains only a function of memory while the future exists only as uncertainty delimited by various probabilities of occurrences then we must accept the present as the final and true reality. From the metageometer's view, however, these conventional ways of thinking are turned upside-down. Understanding our experience of time as the partial experience of what is in reality the perpendicular extension of a three dimensional object into higher space allows a radical expansion of the definition of actuality, or, to be more precise, the form of the world.
In metageometrical space objects participate in one or more dimensions than we are able to perceive. Currently, our immediate experience of any object consists of knowing, at most, only a portion of an object's temporal existence. Owing to limitations of sensation we cannot directly intuit the being of an object in four dimensional space, but, instead, perceive three-dimensional objects bounded by unidimensional time (here, time is the boundary which is, in reality, nothing more than our partial experience of higher dimensional space). The temporal moment is, metageometrically speaking, simply a section of some larger four dimensional continua, whereas an object's entire life corresponds to a more sizable "chunk" of this four dimensional "stuff". Hence, if we could suffer objects four dimensionally, we would know them very differently. First, they would be static and never changing, complete, and unevolving. We would simultaneously observe a thing's birth, its subsequent life, as well as its death.5
Let us attempt to visualize the metageometrical form of a four dimensional solid using as a model the planetary world. From this view when looking into the sky we are actually observing cross sections of the sun and the moon. Planetary movement (as is any movement) remains, our perception of a succession of discrete points along the greater line of time. Divorced from its fuller dimensional existence a planetary globe seems to us but a sphere in empty sky. Thus it may be more accurate to describe the path of a planet in space as a spiral band (of which we are only cognizant of a certain section).
In order for us to appreciate the magnitude of a four dimensional form we must take as our subject of investigation a sufficient number of points along the solar system's timeline. But inasmuch as our own individual lives are quite trivial relative to solar existence we cannot hope to formulate an interesting or even approximately accurate representation unless we view a much longer span of time than that occupied by the mere life of either a man or, for that matter, mankind. Therefore, let us take as our "point in time" a one million-year segment.
To simplify our model let us first presume that the direction of the sun comprises a straight line. The four dimensional body or form of the sun over a million years would appear to an observer capable of perceiving such a thing as a large burning rod. Bound and tightly coiled about the rod spiral twelve much smaller concentric threads-the planets. Upon closer examination we detect even smaller ridges spiraling the planetary threads. These are various moons and satellites. We could further complicate our model to include asteroids and comets as they traverse the sun and as a matter of course we would have to significantly expand this now growing model if we were to place the sun in its proper place, because our star itself spirals "through space" on its own predetermined path within the confines of a much larger galactic cosmos. Thus, instead of a straight rigid rod we would likely observe a curved, twisted, and spiraling rod. In fine, within this new model our time has become space.
Imagining space thusly (i.e., in four dimensions) begs the question: what of a man's life? Dissecting tightly wound threads from the central core and subsequently stripping away the outer threads (planets) we would eventually reach the third to the last thread, our earth. If we had a powerful enough viewing instrument we might discover various geologic ages. And if our microscope were capable of finer resolution we might even be able to discern the age of man. As yet, an individual man, or even a single civilization would not be apparent. Perhaps certain age-old relics would be observable such as the Sphinx or the Great Pyramids. And maybe the period between 1945 and 1965 would somehow be detected as the many above ground atomic explosions conducted by the U.S., USSR, and China were measured as strange bursts of nuclear energy. Still, the life of any individual would be missed. The wars, deaths, and all the suffering of mankind would be a minor thing indeed. And what we revere in our science, religion, and art would be nothing. In reality and if such a thing was possible it would be even less than nothing since we must remember that we are dealing with an almost instantaneous fragment of the life of the sun, i.e., a mere one million years.
PHENOMENAL COMMENSURABILITY
Accepting that logic cannot, derived as it is from cognition tempered by unique perceptual forms, grasp noumenal existence there is no reason to suppose that the logical attributes of our phenomenal world have any other than a partial relation to the real (noumenal) world as it might exist separate from sensation. The foundation of epistemology must be based on an understood and agreed upon logic rooted in experience, and the practical results of logical inference must correspond to our actual world expectations. Nevertheless, sometimes even the simplest and seemingly most obvious occurrences remain obscured. Often what we take as known is really something quite vague and indefinite. Something, more often than not, simply labeled for convenience sake and then passed over in silence as if a thing now named were somehow completely revealed. This is undoubtedly the reason why many attempts to explain the world are so often met with incredulity and confusion. For Ouspensky, an example of this type of thinking is found in the physical theory of relativity. Nowadays it is common for the average man to be familiar (at least in name) with the theory and most would unthinkingly affirm the incontrovertible truth of this idea. At the same time the average man would be hard pressed to formulate the theory in any coherent or meaningful fashion. And when one attempts to come to grips with the fundamentals of relativity one is immediately struck by its obvious non logical nature. Nevertheless, we do not usually stop to consider whether this illogic might result from a fundamental misunderstanding of various ideas usually taken as self evident and certain-ideas stemming from the form of our human cognition.
Ouspensky regards the origin of the notion of contradictory properties of observed phenomena to be resident in the idea of scale. To cite an example, our primary misunderstanding and, hence, ensuing misrepresentation of natural law as it relates to relativity originates from the generally accepted notion of phenomenal homogeneity. That is, we have traditionally presumed the consistency of phenomena and made this view a fundamental axiom of theory formation. This conviction was never challenged so long as our perception involved only events which were commensurate with our primary cognitive faculty, i.e., our biological senses and concomitant reason. As a result consistency between theory and experience was maintained.
If we consider the various technologies as extensions of our physical and psychic being, it is probably easier to understand how our present confusion in formulating coherent theory arose. That is, everyday life allows no conflict between what we perceive and what we expect to perceive. This, again, is fundamental to the logic of our perceptual categories and, as Ouspensky notes, is nothing less than the experience of the general consecutiveness of phenomena. Although trivial, it is nevertheless worth repeating that if this were not the case there would be no foundation whatsoever for positive science. Now, beginning in the latter part of the 19th century certain discoveries confounded the usual logical relations which heretofore established principles of natural law. These new "discoveries" which in no way could be explained with existing scientific or philosophic material corresponded directly to the amplification of our senses by technology. Our perception became expanded in an unprecedented manner and, teleologically speaking it is true, a manner unanticipated by our biology. For the first time we experienced events which had been hidden from our natural means of perception.
In our normal everyday world we exist within a three-dimensional continuum bounded by time. Yet, by technologically extending our perception, we became aware of, on the one hand, a higher world of astronomical space and, conversely, a lower electronic world each existing independently from the day to day realm available to direct, non-enhanced perception. And because our preexisting logic was never adapted to or prepared for engaging these new worlds we became confounded in our attempt at logically interpreting fundamentally incommensurate phenomena and its attendant properties. Thus we were unwilling to accept outright the possibility that our given logic would not naturally apply to non commensurate domains when viewed within the conventions of a traditional perspective.
From a common sense point of view the world is one and the same for all phenomena (or possible phenomena). However, if spatio-temporal relations are categories intrinsic to the mechanism of perception and not things separately perceived then there is no organic reason to presume that phenomena not meant to be perceived (again, teleologically speaking) ought necessarily conform to our logical expectations. It is as though the limit of our natural perception delineates a boundary allowing consistent logical relations within its own scale, yet once this proportion is exceeded our logic cannot accurately interpret the data. Hence reason is consequently forced to construct new logical modes. For Ouspensky, relativity theory is an example of this kind of struggle inasmuch as it is an attempt to reconcile at first contradictory intuitions such as the fact that all terrestrial velocities are relative whereas the velocity of light remains constant. A similar paradox can be found in the quantum theory.
PSYCHOLOGY AND THE ESOTERIC IDEA
Tertium Organum is primarily a study of psychology even though its subject is far removed from what we typically consider under this name. The book's theme is not the psychology of everyday life, but, rather, noumenal psychology. That is, the psychology of higher dimensional perception or the psychology of higher mind. For the reason that the science of higher geometric space is called metageometry, perhaps it would be better to call the study of higher consciousness meta psychology, however we know this subject more familiarly as mysticism.
An analysis of the psychological foundations of our present epistemology finds its basis in the standard logic generally ascribed to and flowing from Aristotle. As mentioned previously, traditional logical convenances carry the weight of describing the form of a three-dimensional world in time whereas the coterminous psychology is idealized by the rational mind. That is, a means of thinking and behaving consistent with laws existing in the everyday world. Also, a way of thinking which allows an explanation of phenomena in a manner consonant with our collective life experiences. Indeed, explanations that portend not the sensual world are considered fantastic and, today, at least by certain philosophical schools unworthy of recognition. In the extreme, non-rational ideas may be considered pathological and indicative of certain psychological disorders.6
Side by side with the rational there exists widely promulgated non-rational beliefs accepted and encouraged by every class of human association from the most loose knit and primitive bands to the great civilizations. Beginning with an oral tradition later codified certain of these beliefs evolved making the major religions. In the West various divisions of the Christian faith emerged prominent. The psychological significance the role religious thought plays in the life of man cannot be underestimated. Contrary to a modernist positivistic thread grounded in an essentially materialist psycho-epistemolgy which understands metaphysical problems to be wrong headed and, maybe, moot at best, the majority of mankind has known either vaguely or explicitly that certain questions cannot be approached (much less solved) using the intellectual material at hand.7 For this group religious thought suffices to assuage the anxieties of not knowing using what at first appears to be simplistic answers to complex questions. Many modern psychological critiques have rightly understood the pacifying effects of seemingly foolish and quite simply, if taken literally, absurd religious explanations. However, in their attempts at criticism they have routinely dismissed not only the drive toward religious activity that has often been incorrectly interpreted as unsophisticated naivete, but also denied the inward or esoteric idea contained within the germ of outward or exoteric religiosity. And it is within the varieties of religious thought that Ouspensky finds a key or a possible avenue for approaching the noumenal world.
Throughout his life Ouspensky believed that mind can operate on qualitatively different levels even though in our day to day existence we typically experience or recognize mere quantitative differences within the same level of mind. Dissimilar levels of mind are directly associated with unique levels of Being and not related to our notions of either genius or idiocy which are but ranges on a continuum within the limits of normal everyday mind. Separate and distinct levels of mind manifest as fundamental differences in the evolution of individual human consciousness. That is to say, higher mind represents, within a single person the development of an entirely new way of understanding. As a qualitative difference in knowledge and understanding there is no guarantee that all men can be privy to such distinctions; the acquisition of esoteric knowledge is not a democratic process, and it remains a big question as to how one may become associated with esoteric ideas and how one begins to recognize higher mind. 8
Acroamatic relics are our only link, albeit an indirect one, with higher mind. Simply, it is the task of certain artifacts to convey ideas that cannot be related in ordinary discursive language due to the paucity or limitedness of speech in passing on superincumbent thought. Just as metageometry is limited in the ways it can convey the idea of higher dimensional space by using surface analogies, so too is esotericism limited in the manner it transmits the science of higher mind. Ouspensky believed that esoteric ideas are necessarily communicated either orally or symbolically within the traditional framework of art, science, and religion, but cannot be approached without special preparation. Generally speaking, modern philosophy (at least the philosophy which has been prominent in 20th century institutions) denies the possibility of a knowledge which surpasses ordinary thought and requires not only specially prepared material but training before it can be addressed. Yet modern philosophy (really, positive thought) has rightly understood its position even if this ultimately meant abandoning what has traditionally fallen within the rubric of philosophy. Therefore, if one is to take philosophy seriously as a means of satisfying man's desire to apprehend the unexplainable we must abandon the line of positivism represented by certain modern schools and look elsewhere. For Ouspensky, the radical embrace of both the esoteric idea and the psychological method as a channel for understanding satisfied this condition.
Ouspensky taught that throughout history certain artifacts were created by "men of higher mind" and those with the ability to translate or decipher the authors' meanings can, themselves, attain at least the possibility of attaining higher mind. Examples in art cited by Ouspensky included the Sphinx of Ghiza, certain Gothic cathedrals, selected religious texts such as the Gospels and the Upanishads (even though the interpretation of each of these as works of esoteric art must necessarily transcend the usual archaeological interpretations and, in the case of the Gospels, the usual religious interpretations).9 For instance, Ouspensky rejects the dogmatic Christian view of the Gospels as popular religious texts considering them, instead, principally psychological arguments the purpose of which was never intended to create and subsequently support an eschatologically oriented bureaucracy. And, for Ouspensky, in the case of the Gospels it has been their usurpation by men of ordinary mind which has led to the creation and popularization of Christianity with its attendant unrealistic doctrines and less than inspired but often base and contemptible history.
A strictly pedantic or theoretical understanding of higher mind is no more than an approach to a fuller understanding of the real [noumenal] world but does not yet offer legitimate knowledge. An authentic appreciation cannot be gleaned by way of typical intellectual or aesthetic apprehension on account of the character of our present condition. As stated previously, an understanding of esotericism necessitates a qualitative change in being and not simply a familiarity with new concepts filtered through the vagaries of our everyday mind. This is perhaps the most difficult tenant of Ouspensky's teaching to grasp. Usually we approach an unlearned subject with the attitude that although we are presently unfamiliar with a particular argument we can, by the protracted effort of our conventional faculties of apprehension, come to know the unknown. Regarding our present subject Ouspensky tells us that this is not the case. Before we can understand the noumenal world of higher space we must first develop, within ourselves, the beginnings of higher mind. Of course, the obvious question is how does one proceed.10
THE THEORY OF ETERNAL RETURN
A central belief of Ouspensky is the doctrine known variously as eternal return or recurrence. Surprisingly, in spite of the relative popular obscurity of this idea the theory has nevertheless found adherents throughout the ages and influenced many notable thinkers. The most recent well-known champion of the theory was James Joyce whose novel, Finnegans Wake, is based wholly on the idea. As a philosophical tenant we generally associate the name of Nietzsche with this view, and in spite of the relatively lesser impact this idea has had upon many of his academic commentators, within the corpus of Nietzsche's writings it has been recognized as central by certain influential reviewers.11 In Western thought the doctrine is associated by reference to Pythagorus through the commentaries of Eudemus of Rhodes, by Archytas of Tarentum, perhaps Plotinus, and the sixth-centurian Neoplatonist, Simplicius. With its emphasis on eschatology modern Christianity never supported the doctrine, although Ouspensky cites several passages within the Gospels which, in his opinion, indicate that Christ himself was conversant with the notion of repetition, and he offers a passage in Origen's On First Principles as an indication of early Christianity's attempt to discredit the idea.12 Recurrence as a cosmogonical hypothesis was never considered tenable, although as a moral foundation it possesses a certain appeal. That is, if all actions repeat eternally the imperative to maximize one's condition might be heightened. Still, with few exceptions this, too, was found lacking as suitable ground for any deontic theory and today the average man would be surprised to encounter the idea. Of course, for Ouspensky recurrence was neither a physical nor a moral theory but was, instead, a metaphysical ground flowing from his metageometrical conception of the form of the world.
Looking back on our speculative discussion regarding the four dimensional representation of our life we recall that any four dimensional figure necessarily encompasses the entire life of a thing and is not just a series of discrete moments hung together by memory. To understand the relation of the theory of recurrence to Ouspensky's so called new model let us imagine a specific geometrical form in its relation to our life. We start with the line making up the life of a man. One point, birth, begins in the year 1900 while the line ends with the death of the subject in, say, 1970. The entire figure of the complete life of the man constitutes a four dimensional form. Now, let us curve this life line into an angle of 360 degrees. Here, the end of the line connects to the beginning. Death ends in birth. A man is born in 1900, lives his life, dies in 1970, and is reborn again in 1900 encountering the exact circumstances of his previous existence. Consciousness limited to the three dimensional phenomenal form does not recognize an endlessness to the loop of existence, but only the static moment. A man understands his birth but never comprehends what could come before nor, with any real knowledge, does he understand what awaits after death even though, depending upon his life circumstances, there exist numerous religious expositions regarding the supposed afterlife which he might embrace with varying degrees of confidence.
Embracing the fixity of recurrence would seemingly negate any possibility of real change or evolution in the state of an individual man, for if one is destined to relive one's life over in all aspects can anyone hope to escape the hand he or she is dealt? This is an open question but one Ouspensky attempts to address with the doctrine of possibilities. That is, at every moment in time various possibilities of action present themselves, at least potentially. As we move through time a set course unfolds freezing the actualization of certain possibilities. Certainly, as long as we remain unconscious to the several possibilities inherent within each moment we are unwittingly carried along within our particular time. If alternate life circumstances are possible they can only occur after the attainment of a level of consciousness which allows an individual to recognize the potential for conscious change inherent within each moment of one's life. For Ouspensky, a man tied to a particular line has absolutely no possibility of determining his condition, however it is the purpose of the esoteric idea to show a way out of our current unproductive cycle of recurrence.13 |
