Discussion about Russell Two-Way Universe

@herman phil,

I found the following quotes very interesting I will respond below the following quotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr4v0
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.

Quote by Herman
"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.
Quote:
A youthful system can be preponderantly charging in its life cycle and yet be a female system..."

I thought about this and there is something that may be missing regarding the centripetal and centrifugal forces. While I trust Walter Russell much more than Timothy Binder (not being knowledgeable of his credentials) I will say the following.

Who is it that is creating the body? Let's take a human being who happens to be female. Is it the body who being female is centrifugal (preponderaly, as all have both forces at the same time) the creator of the person? Or is it the mind that creates the body? It would have to be the mind or the personal self conscious.

Now being that the mind or our personal self conscious creates our body then it would be that the personal self conscious is the one whose force direction creates it.

We have another principle which I don't believe Walter spoke about at work here! This principle is that God saw his reflection for the first time in the mirror of the Mother! In this same way when we see our reflection in the mirror this is who our personal self conscious thinks how it itself is! Yes, how we see ourselves and all our surroundings is how our personal self conscious thinks itself to be! Yes how we see ourselves is how the reflection of our personal self conscious (part of God's Self Conscious) sees itself in our personal subconscious (part of the Mother the overall Subconscious) mirror!

So at the time of creation of our body we were male or female but our personal self conscious can become stronger in the other direction and when that happens we will be of the opposite sex in our future incarnation. If we have found the secret of the transmutation of our body then it would be possible to instantly re-do our body's sex but few of us are capable of doing that at this time!

I know that some will not understand this but you will have it in mind for your future experiences.

The Hermit

@herman phil,

herman;14162 wrote:

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.

Now this is a knotty question. Of all the concepts in Keely's and Russell's science and philosophies I think I've spent more time on contemplating the nature of polarity than any other single concept. Yes, there are the two polarities but in the examples presented in this thread they all pertain to the basic concept or ideal of duality. This is correct but contextual only.

A system can be either male (syntropic)* or female (entropic)* the proof is all around us in the form of gender or sex. The answer, in part, is a given system, let's say a female human, can be female because, well, she is (almost always anyway). The difference between a human female and human male is caused and evidenced on several levels. By level here I mean physical, mental and spiritual levels, being the basic three levels as per Cayce. While a physical body may evidence gender specificity the other two levels determine that specificity and may alter it at will. There are a number of animal species that actually do change gender under certain circumstances. So to make a too long discourse short and simple the INNER determines the OUTER and they are not required to be in sync all the time and space. We call these inner attributes as "aliquot parts" meaning they are the parts that contribute to and make up the whole much as bricks, boards and nails contribute to the structure of a house. Each of these aliquot parts have also some degree of polarity/gender. The sum of the aliquot parts with their individual polarities makes up the whole and all of the parts and the whole are dynamic and change over time and space. A good metaphor is an orchestra composed of many instruments all of which can play their own tune in or out of harmony with itself or other instruments. Or they can chose to all play together in time, tune, key and melody.

*Due to the confusion between these two terms (male and female) I've decided some time ago to not use them whenever possible. Instead it is far more accurate and has more clarity to use the terms "syntropic/syntropy" and "entropic/entropy".

@dalesvp,

Just to add to this....you can't have a single anything. Think of the Universal One as a sheet of paper. This is the undivided inertia condition. When this condition is divided to manifast idea, the paper is cut which simultaneously produces TWO divided parts. When the cut is made off centre then it produces preponderently male or female matter. Putting them together again produces ONE. You cannot divide ONE and get One. Regards....alan

@esaruoho,

Phoenix, My understanding there is a Oneness, and there is duality. If I take the concept that we live in two worlds simultaneously, the unseen the spiritual world, and the seen the material world. I see the unseen world as being the real world, where all is ONE, everything that happens un happens simultaneously. the interchange between female and male is happening at the same time. The inbreath is male and the out breath is female, as I give thought to this image I give it motion where it forms matter, and my senses tell me its real. Richard

@Richardgrant,

Hi, you are correct. There is Oneness. This is REAL, itis the only REALITY. The catch is is CANNOT sense it, but you can know it. You Sensed reality is illusionary. It is a reflected manifastation of idea. Idea lies in inertia or the stillness of Oneness. In order for you to sense anything, the one idea is apparently divided in two opposites. These opposites are required to simulate movement. Your senses only respond to movement. Everything in the sensed Universe is in constant movement, because 'matter' is trying to find a place of complete rest and return to Oneness.
Walter describes it as..... imagine the Still Oneness of concept as a projector. The inertial plane which separates the sensed and the unseen is the lens, while the sensed universe is the screen. Still magnetic Light does not cross the inertial plane, but a simulated light is generated at the plane...the dividing of the One in the Two, and we sense the picture. Regards

@Phoenix phil,

Phoenix wrote: " Your senses only respond to movement."

Ever wonder WHY this is so? Or HOW does this happen?

The short answer is Russell's Principle of Reproduction or Reciprocal Action. Undifferentiated (depolar) energy cannot be sensed or measured. Differentiated (polar) can be sensed and measured because of the charge/potential differences created by out of balance (dynamic) states. These then evoke an opposite response in sympathetic centers - what Russell calls higher density media which in turn regenerates the stimulous.

"Consider, for example, the reproduction of the sound of the human voice echoing in the hills. Sound, like all other forms of energy, is an accumulated potential.

Release this high potential and it immediately expands.

Expansion is radiation.

Radiation is discharge of accumulated potential.

As the sound of the voice, as accumulated potential, radiates into the silence of higher octaves of lower potential, and impacts against the closely integrated high potential of the cliff side, the degenerative discharge is reversed and becomes generative charge.

Expanding lowering potential is reversed to contracting higher potential.

In other words, the sex opposites in the radiating sound waves are forced into closer contact by the impact, so that the wave dimensions which originally produced the sound are restored.

The counterpart of the sound as cause has been produced as a reproduced effect of that cause.

It is not the same sound, it is another sound.

It is a reproduced counterpart, a regenerated reincarnation of the state of motion which originally produced the sound.

That which is true of regeneration by echo is also true of reproduction by radio or any other similar process. All are but the reversal of radiation into regeneration by impact against the inertial planes of higher potentials.

Generation or re-generation is an effect of gravitation. An impact of radiative energy against any lower octave of integration will set up the necessary resistance to the radiative energy to regenerate it into its original form." [Russell, The Universal One, Book 1, Chapter 10]

@dalesvp,

Hi Dale....agreed best regards....alan

@Shanti phil,

Shanti;14148 wrote:

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

Dear Shanti:

I have only just recently started studying Walter Russell after a lifetime of business and science "done the old way" ... and I can tell you that there is nothingmore profound in the world of science and philosophy than the words and teachings that Walter received in 1921.

My own desire is to now understand more about how the Universe truly works (ie, to truthfully know the CAUSE of things), since mainstream science concerns itself with stufying only the EFFECTS of Causes with the limited senses that we humans possess in the physical plane.

My major difficulty with this is clearing out my mind that is filled with more than 50 years of invalid science and mathematics ... and even though I excelled in these two areas academically and professionally, I have only now started to find answers to some of the questions that have bugged mefor decades ... particularly now that I am also finally on my spiritual path towards love for all life and and service to others.

"The Universal One" as you know was written in 1927 and was not accepted by the scientific establishment at the time because it was way out of left field and "rocked the scientific boat" (so as to say) to the point where many egos and professional reputations would have been tarnished had his amazing new scientific knowledge and philosophy of life been accepted.

This led him to the conclusion that he should rewrite "The Universal One" and republish his new knowledge in more digestible portions.

Whist he did not end up publishing the 15 books you referred to above, he did produce several great books during the ensuing 33 years of his life that incorporated further new knowledge and corrected some errors in his original thinking. That is why, in some (but not all) instances, things that he wrote later in life differ fromwhat was written in his early works. In particular, his view of magnetism changed quite differently from how he originally perceived it in the late 1920's.

You can purchase all of his life's works and those of his wife Lao Russell (who refolded in 1988) from the "University of Science and Philosophy" website at University of Science and Philosophy - P.O. Box 520, Waynesboro, VA 22980 - Home ... the University was initially "The Walter Russel Foundation" while they were alive ... originally set up to disseminate the science and philosophy of Walter and Lao Russell to the world.

If you are eager to pursue these teachings to their fullest, check out the special deal on their website where you can purchase all of his core books as well as the one year home study course on Universal law, Science and Philosophy. I do not have this yet but intend to make that purchase once I finish reading the Walter Russell books I presently have.

I am presently trying to write my own treatise on a new "Interdimensional Science for Humanity" and, after much review and re-learning over the past few years, I can tell you that my core knowledge for this treatise will come from the works of just four people:

1. Aaity Olson ... the author of "Alchemy Manual for This Millennium" ... a wonderful 2 volume ebook that was channelled to her over 50 years from the "StarPeople".

2. Carla Rueckert ... the co-author of the "Law of One" series of books (also known as "The RA Material") channelled in the 1980's from higher beings in our galaxy the sixth density ... we are in the third density and about to move into the fourth. This is the most amazing truth relating to our heritage and destiny, in my view, ever channelled in modern times to this planet from higher sources.

3. David Wilcock ... the author of "The Divine Cosmos" and several other amazing spiritual science books, audios and videos.

4. Walter Russell ... the author of "The Universal One", "The Secret of Light", "The Genero-Radiative Effect", etc ... which collectively represent undoubtedly toe most astounding scientific knowledge ever given to humanity ... and it is up to each and every one of us who cares about others to understand and apply this knowledge to the benefit of all humanity.

You can Google each of the above authors to get the appropriate contacts and document sources. Please also visit my new website at Interdimensional Science to view someof the initial thoughts on the new science for humanity. A lot of the research I have done is also on my other website at Welcome To Lifeforce Genie on the Science Quest pages.

Cheers,
Wayne.

@lifeforcegenie,

Do you love Walter and Lao Russell's Sacred Science work and writings? Would you like to explore deeper than anyone has gone before into their work and push the very boundaries of science, philosophy and art? Do you think outside the box and are unafraid to challenge the status quo? If you say yes to these questions then check out the SVPwiki wherein Russell's work is explored and developed in depth as it is illustrated along side the almost identical works of John Keely, Edgar Cayce, Phineas Quimby, Wilhelm Reich, Nikola Tesla, Schauberger et al and pertinent modern science.

SVPwiki - community developed Sacred Science
SVPwiki : HomePage

@dalesvp,

dalesvp;64147 wrote:

Now this is a knotty question. Of all the concepts in Keely's and Russell's science and philosophies I think I've spent more time on contemplating the nature of polarity than any other single concept. Yes, there are the two polarities but in the examples presented in this thread they all pertain to the basic concept or ideal of duality. This is correct but contextual only.

Thanks for your response, Dale. In the Russell books I've read he only seems to talk about the Male/Female - Generative/Radiative - North/South polarity. (Although he does cast a glance towards the East and West). I know in alchemy they talk about primary and secondary polarities. Would this make more sense in addressing the male/female issue?

@herman phil,

Here is an article on polarity I write in 2002. It is as accurate today as the day I wrote it.
=========
"He [Keely] had a desperate struggle in seeking to learn these laws of polarization and depolarization. It was necessary for him to understand these laws before he could unfailingly secure rotation and control the reversions which so often had made wrecks of his machines." [from Snell Manuscript]

And in this we can see where our difficulty lies. We do not yet understand the principles of polarization and depolarization (male/female or celestial/terrestrial). If that is not an understatement then I never heard one. (Do you *really* understand your spouse?)

Kidding aside we are faced with a lack of knowledge concerning these two seeming separate states of energy or thought in motion. And I feel it will be through an expanded understanding that will enable us to engineer these forces, successfully and safely.

The older metaphysical knowledge is OK but for the most part is incomplete and therefore can be misleading. The same can be said for conventional science views. Both these sources give us many clues but not the whole picture. A problem we all have is setting aside what we think we have learned from these and other sources sufficiently that we may look with new eyes upon the situation.

First off I must say this is NOT a simple thing to unravel though the principles are simple. This is not unlike a 2000 piece jig-saw puzzle. Each piece is simplicity in itself but putting all the pieces together is a time consuming and tedious affair. Fortunately we have a guide in Russell's "The Universal One". Russell gives the pieces and the overall picture is applied SVP furnished by the examples of machines built by Keely.

In sorting out the meanings and contexts of the terms "harmonic", "enharmonic" and "Dominant" we are in a muddle because these terms may apply (and probably do) to several contexts. Music is just one of these. In the context of rotational motional they apply differently than they would apply to music - though the significance remains the same.

There is only ONE FORCE in and throughout the universe. This force expresses itself in a dipolar (polar) manner. This ONE FORCE 'rests' in a depolar state. In other words it splits into what appear to be two mutually opposing streams, flows, phases, states or conditions. Each of these two streams appear to be different from each other with dissimilar or opposite (mirror) conditions, powers or functions. In reality they are ONE FORCE behaving in a bipolar fashion - first one phase or condition predominating then the other in a sequential dance or mutual antagonism.

@herman phil,

Thank you Shanti and lifeforcegenie, I have been studying Russell for about 14 years and have combined his work with the Sermon on the Mount and applied it to my everyday living with outstanding results so far as health and quality of life, his whole philosophy is infallible. Richard

@herman phil,

herman;76128 wrote:

Thanks for your response, Dale. In the Russell books I've read he only seems to talk about the Male/Female - Generative/Radiative - North/South polarity. (Although he does cast a glance towards the East and West). I know in alchemy they talk about primary and secondary polarities. Would this make more sense in addressing the male/female issue?

Herman,

Thanks for your question and I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Russell used many synonyms for these two seeming opposites as they applied in diverse contexts. I've compiled a table of synonyms including terms from other sources.

Polar and Depolar Synonyms
SVPwiki : Figure 2.12.1

@dalesvp,

Thanks, Dale!

Sometimes just hearing something said a certain way opens up the sky of mind....the last paragraph especially, speaks to me. The imagery of the mirror explained in just that exact way.....much gratitude.

BTW,the first several times I found your website (some years ago) it was before I ever knew of Walter Russell. Now I understand more why I was so drawn to your work - thanks for all that you're doing to help foster further understanding.

Smile

dalesvp;76158 wrote:

Here is an article on polarity I write in 2002. It is as accurate today as the day I wrote it.
=========
"He [Keely] had a desperate struggle in seeking to learn these laws of polarization and depolarization. It was necessary for him to understand these laws before he could unfailingly secure rotation and control the reversions which so often had made wrecks of his machines." [from Snell Manuscript]

And in this we can see where our difficulty lies. We do not yet understand the principles of polarization and depolarization (male/female or celestial/terrestrial). If that is not an understatement then I never heard one. (Do you *really* understand your spouse?)

Kidding aside we are faced with a lack of knowledge concerning these two seeming separate states of energy or thought in motion. And I feel it will be through an expanded understanding that will enable us to engineer these forces, successfully and safely.

The older metaphysical knowledge is OK but for the most part is incomplete and therefore can be misleading. The same can be said for conventional science views. Both these sources give us many clues but not the whole picture. A problem we all have is setting aside what we think we have learned from these and other sources sufficiently that we may look with new eyes upon the situation.

First off I must say this is NOT a simple thing to unravel though the principles are simple. This is not unlike a 2000 piece jig-saw puzzle. Each piece is simplicity in itself but putting all the pieces together is a time consuming and tedious affair. Fortunately we have a guide in Russell's "The Universal One". Russell gives the pieces and the overall picture is applied SVP furnished by the examples of machines built by Keely.

In sorting out the meanings and contexts of the terms "harmonic", "enharmonic" and "Dominant" we are in a muddle because these terms may apply (and probably do) to several contexts. Music is just one of these. In the context of rotational motional they apply differently than they would apply to music - though the significance remains the same.

There is only ONE FORCE in and throughout the universe. This force expresses itself in a dipolar (polar) manner. This ONE FORCE 'rests' in a depolar state. In other words it splits into what appear to be two mutually opposing streams, flows, phases, states or conditions. Each of these two streams appear to be different from each other with dissimilar or opposite (mirror) conditions, powers or functions. In reality they are ONE FORCE behaving in a bipolar fashion - first one phase or condition predominating then the other in a sequential dance or mutual antagonism.

Philosophy Forum

Discussion about Russell Two-Way Universe

Quick Links

My Account

able2know