Can someone clear up some confusion I'm having. If everything is charging and discharging, and whatever is prevalent decides whether the system is young or old. What then determines whether a system is male or female?

Well, if I understand this correctly then: generative is male and radiative is female. But I'm no expert...

Thank you very much!! (I bow to thee, and btw hi to all)

I didn't know this book before, and until now I thought i got all of Dr's books (bought complete set incl HSC some time ago from dowsers.com for $440).

Did you scan it? As I saw, today it is nowhere available to buy.
So I run it through an OCR for easier readability. If you are interested I can send you the PDF.

I have to say, although I read Dr's work incl the HSC I never really grasped the idea. His "view" made sense by itself, but I just couldn't tie this "view" to reality. My mind always thought, no it can't be like that, Dr must have meant this in an abstract way, and not really exactly like that...

But after I only read the first chapter of this book, it made click, and like a domino, a lot of other things, I couldn't understand before suddenly made sense, and this in an very easy way. E.g. the principle of the EM-Waves are so simple. The funny thing is, although I had a very heavy high quality technical education I always thought the way transverse EM-waves were explained to us as very illogical...But Dr's way is so simple, and it even explains very easily why there's a phase difference between near-field and far-field and also the scalar-waves, ...
The problem before was, that my mind always thought, that it can't be that simple. So I thought maybe one has to view this from a 4D view which gets projected in 3D. And now I understand...nope...3D is more than enough to explain the geometric relations...
When i read his first few examples in this book I realized, that it is really that simple. Sure there are still things I don't grasp until now, but I really made a big step forward.

The funny thing is, in this book he explains some things in a way, that he later just describes in the opposite (e.g. here he always says gravity pulls inward from within, later he always states it pushes inward from without...)
But as I read the later work, I now what he means...it's just a matter of convention...

What really astonished me, is, that in this book he writes that he will publish 15 additional books like that to explain the various effects of the cause.
As I didn't even know that this book does exist, my question goes to Justin:
Were these books ever made and published? If yes, where could one get them or at least a copy or electronic version of them?
For me personally he explains in no other book as good and profound the why of the effects as in this one. So I would be really interested in the other books in this series as well!

As I'm new, maybe I should also introduce myself a little...
I'm in the late 20's and started to conciously meditate 8 years ago. Later I realized that I already unconciously meditated already since my early childhood...In had a very technical education and during this time I had a lot of time , so I meditated during this time for about 5-6hours a day.
I always thought, that the truth is very simple, and what is taught to us is way more complex, than reality.
I had a lot of different experiences during meditation. Then ones I like most, if you get catapulted out of this reality, so that you are an observer outside this "reality" of dimension and time. There, all that we are in is nothing but a vast sea of light. Everything, past and future is already done, it is still, and yet it still is able to transcendend itself (something which actually my mind can't really understand;)). If you look into the light you can see different events from different times, all is "at the same time". You realize, that the "thing" which acts in this reality is not you, but only the one.
I personally think that if one gets enlightenment, then this seperateness from everything then disapperas and one realizes, that one is the one, that there's no difference between other things and oneself...
Why I did write that? Because I always wanted to be able to make the connection from that side to the side, when I'm in my body in this reality. And it looks like Dr's work is exactly what the doctor prescribed:D

All love to you all!! Shanti

Thank you for your reply mr4v0.

I understand that the generative movement is male and the radiative movement is female. But both movements exist simultaneously. Systems are both male and female, just as systems are both living and dying at the same time.

I also understand that consciousness as we know it in our bodies is only possible precisely because part of us is dying.

My question is about what is missing in defining a system as male or female, given that a system can be female and still preponderantly charging.

I wouldn't agree on this. If the system is more charging then discharging it's male, and vice-versa. This preponderence is the main characteristic of systems. I don't belive there are female system, which are preponderantly charging. That's my opinion. I mean, what would characterize a system then? How could you tell it's female or male?

Kind regards.

That's what I thought. But I read the following in "In the Wave lies the Secret of Creation" by Timothy Binder, top right of page 75.

Edit: "Confine thy teachings to thy written words translated from thy Father-Mother's rhythmic words in Light."

Can you give an example of female generating system, and male radiative system?

Edit: "Thy strength shall be in writing down thy words and exemplifying them in charts."

I guess you have proven your point and it seems logical. Thanks for taking your time.

I have some more questions or topics to discuss, I hope you can help me here too.
1) What defines an octave? If we imagine conical coils aranged in such a fashion as W.R. suggested (simulate dual polarity...). Is it the angles or is it the voltage or amperage on the coil or perhaps frequency of the current (or all together)? And I don't really follow him when he talks about voltage and amperage. It seems to me he is talking about the same thing, just he sometimes uses voltage and sometimes amperage. What kind of frequencies do you think are needed (what kind of power source was used in the Binder article/experiment?)? I hope you are familliar with this.

Kind regards.

Edit: "Answer no Man that which has not yet been written down by thee, even though thou knowest the answer in the universal language of Light."

I will definitely experiment with the coils, when the time comes. Unfortunately I don't have everything (I think) I need.
How do you think the angles are related to octaves? I mean, are the angles the same (eg. for +2 position) in all octaves? I think they are not, but I'm not sure what or how those positions are defined. W.R. talks about errecting pressure walls (from pressure in oposition) at those positions. Now my guess is that he talks about interference and resonance. And resonant positions are the positions where elements apear on the wave. Well that's my idea...

Kind regards.

ps. Has anyone tried to contact Binder & Co.? I'm thinking about sending him an email.:Cara_2:

I am also a Russell student, his whole philosophy sit so well with me, I have linked it to the Beatitudes and The Sermon on the Mount, and applied it to my every day living, and it has worked wonders, allowing me to create a deliberate life, overcoming all my illnesses, now at the age of eighty I enjoy wonderful health, particularly a clarity of mind.

A man with experience, hehe.:bigsmile: I too find Dr's words very close. Please share more...

I have studied the Russell philosophy now for over twelve years, and I resonate with it 100%. I have linked this philosophy to the teachings of Unity the School of Christianity church, particularly with books written by Emmet Fox 'The Sermon On The Mount', and Joel Goldsmith's book 'Consciousness Unfolding'.

Oh? How do you see the church and Christianity now, and religion in general?

I agree with other respondees, you cannot have (according to Walter) a preponderly FEMALE charging system. Charging sustems are positive and MALe the Father principle. The Mother pronciple desires to return form to inertia. All matter is bi-polar but preponderantly positive or negative. The only element to display TRUE bi-sexual characteristics is Carbon. The other elements @ ++4 position are not perfectly aligned at 90 degrees to the inertial plane and therefore even the other ++4 elements express some sexuality.
Walter makes the point too regarding the 'negative charge'. According to his cosomolgy only positive CHARGES while negative DISCHARGES.

Regards....alan

I see churches and religion, as stepping stones to awakening to know who I AM. Every person, place or thing I notice out there in the material world I know I have created it, and I must let it go so void the cycle, for they are also stepping stones to my awakening. I have applied Russell's philosophy to my every day living, where I now see that I live in a perfect universe, the inner always perfectly balancing the outer (cause and effect). I have moved from being an outer body sensing person, to an inner knowing mind, where I can see with inner eyes only. Richard

Yes I visited Timothy Binder when i visited the USA eighteen months ago, and spent a day with him. A very interesting man, he has a large alternate medical practice, and he filled me in with a lot of the experiments that he was invoved in when he was the president of the university. He gave me a few quarterly magazines called the Fulcrum, which were very informative. I returned to America last fall and spent three months there talking with Russell students and the directors of the university. Richard.