Contact with Intelligent Infinity

[Glow]

Sometimes it's easier to simple say something is profound rather than offer muddied and unclear discourse.

It was perfectly clear to me in fact I know the number representing the frequency of light I embody(binary code in colins word) and have for several years.
I greatly enjoyed hearing someone else say it so I think this is a case of some posts are intended for some and not necessarily going to be useful to all.

Well now that's a polite jab at the end. Try offering such an explanation to a scientist. 'New age' pseudo-science is prolific and unchallenged, case in point.

I have little interest in this forum. Admittly, I fell into the New Age jargon and concepts. Flismy explanations don't cut it for me anymore.

Spirituality/new age is rightly criticized for being unchallenged and fluffy, but I think the scientist perspective doesn't appreciate that cognition turns on language and grammar, and for new or rare studied concepts, a new type of language is needed. 

For example, you can't really explain complicated mathematical concepts with the alphabet - you need the numerical system. On the other hand, you can't really explain a Shakespearean play using numbers, because the numerical system was not designed to describe emotions (barring using a mapping of the numerical system to the alphabet, but that's still relying on the alphabet at its core).

You kind of see this issue when our language tries to describe thoroughly studied concepts which are closer to spirituality: How do you do describe romantic love to someone who has never experienced it? And romantic love is a commonly contemplated subject over our history. This issue becomes magnified when you start talking about concepts that are seldom widely considered from a historical perspective, such as unity or oneness, so some problems in explanation in these areas is to be expected.

The problem with your analogy is alphabetic symbols are used in math with rigorous and concise meaning. Language is a reference to communicate. Common meaning is necessary to be understood in a reliable way.

Colinrobertson is word-bating, saying something he barely understands in a tangled and confused way. 

If you can't really explain something, why bother to? Obviously, you can only explain/know what you have attained. In Kabbalah, this is demonstrated by how you utilize the langauge of roots and branches. There's no point talking, in this respect. (Atzmuto)

Hi Cobrien, I wonder why we are getting you agitated? I think it is possible that since you misinterpreted my intentions with my post you may be doing the same with Colin's too. Though I of course do not know him so cannot state exactly what his intentions are.
He may not even return to the forum so maybe it isn't a discussion worth having, I don't know.

Still I think it is a stretch to assume he is saying something he didn't understand. I am having more and more issues with language as I tune in more to the energy that doesn't use words. If he is doing the same it might be why his use of words made perfect sense to me but you found an issue. It was more the energy behind the words I understood perhaps. Anyways I just wanted to comment as you still seem irked by us not meeting your expectations. Mostly this forum was designed as a place for wanderers to gather and connect.

If everyone had to communicate with perfect clarity or even agree on things the boards would be even quieter than they are.
We try our best in each moment but there really is a point to imperfect communication as that is actually all we can achieve with words. Telepathy we will do better.