Diagram 032
Re Talk: 133
Diagram # 032 photo
For everything consciousness believes in completely, there is a corresponding lack of belief. That is how the brain physically operates in the 3-D world.
Keep this in mind as we go back to discussing numbers. For every 2, there is also an unactivated aspect of 2, at a right angle to it. Every 2 has a normally unrecognized negative reflection, or else it could not exist. And I don't mean simply -- in the language of mathematics -- that for every 2 there is a minus 2. In another dimension, the unactivated side of a 2 could be a 3. Another 2 could have an unactivated side that is a 7.5. There could be many different 2s, each having a different unactivated side. Thus, the equation which looks like this in the 3-D world:
2 + 2 = 4
could very well look like this if you added a dimension:
(2 + 3) + (2 + 7.5) = l4.5
Do not get caught in thinking that this has to do with numbers, as you have always used them. It is a reflection of something that is quite real, though. Consider that all you have to do is add one dimension -- move at a slight right angle -- and everything changes.
You cannot think of "good" without thinking of what is not good. You can't think of "2" without being able to think of a non-2. There can be nothing in consciousness standing by itself without some background. That is what I mean, in part, by drawing an unactivated, negative, reflective aspect of the brain. A person could not be conscious of 2 if that was the only number he knew, because then 2 would be no number. There has to be a negative background composed of non-2s. Similarly, a table could not be a "table" if you only knew one word. If you knew only one word, you wouldn't know anything, because for something to be a table, you have to at least know that something else is not a table. There is an unspoken, unrealized, negative aspect to everything.
For a 2 to be a 2, there must exist another dimension -- at a right angles -- in which 2 plus 2 is not 4 only. In that dimension, 2 plus 2 could be 4, or it could be 14.5, literally. So -- on another level and for the purposes of describing another viewpoint -- numbers are as inadequate, as inefficient, as words. JC talk 133
