An added take on Meaning in the IRD framework (Part 1)

Just to provide some background to the text below: we are expanding on Bashar’s cosmology, particularly his principle of neutrality — that existence is intrinsically neutral, devoid of meaning, and that we, as it, experiencing itself and further co-creating its/our experience of itself/ourselves, in short co-creators, can give (via its application of free-will or self modulation) or choose from all its inherent and possible meanings, and in this way inform our experience or rather align with and experience it/ourselves in one of its inherent/this or that way. We are also using the holographic principle, wherein each and every part of the whole inherently includes or contains the whole and is itself a unique expression of it.

Just to backtrack here, the holographic principle is or can be understood as a sort of self-looping system; everything that it is or inherently includes and back to itself or its starting point/"position", which is relative within itself - as in from which point/"position", among all that it includes/is, it starts or reflects the whole to itself as infinitely many or more.

position here is placed in quotation marks to signify or reflect it not being subject to or space nor time bound. So everything everywhere all at once. Therefore points is a more accurate term in this case. But since it is not a position or place/point, I rather say a configuration of self, which is an "arrangement" of self.

I will now cover Bashar's ontology or ontological framework as the present many or its articulated aspects in that holographic principle and its present take. A different cosmology might have an entire different multiplicity of concepts or terms to cover its holographic self-looping representational system or encompassment.

Also, we have by now already acknowledged that there is only One focal point—boundless, all-encompassing, and eternally present—that is simultaneously infinitely many, interacting with or simply being itself, knowing itself through its own relational differentiation within or as itself, as consciousness.

We are now relating the above to meaning below, so here it goes;

First of all, is an—or any—exact state of frequency or IRD arrangement, of its present nodes/configuration (other than Zero), an exact meaning-based attribution?

Yes, but an exact state of frequency—down to and inclusive of its entire consideration/range—is more than just an exact meaning-based attribution alone, reflected in or as an exact perspective/self-recognition of All-That-Is of itself.

It is, via the holographic principle and the principle of neutrality, both, or simultaneously; Zero, neutral, a meaning-based attribution, and all possible others (All-That-Is). But relative to its exact state, among those all others/meanings, some perspectives or meanings are more probable than others via relevance.

It is hard to separate meaning from or as a perspective in IRD or its node arrangements/exact perspective/self-recognition of or within itself.

Say an exact IRD node configuration arrangement is an exact meaning based attribution. It is, as said above, but it is also more than that. It is as said; Zero and neutral, and all other meanings, but more so some than others (as related to its probable shifting, evolution or transmutation from its present state). That is because some are more relevant or correspondingly related via relevance to it, or as itself, as here, or presently configured, than others. Meaning, in its present relation to or as itself, it has a higher degree or probability of corresponding some (meaning/perspectives) over others, but also these others are arranged or imagined/configured to its present state or as it stands at present, or it is already configured. As an example human consciousness will imagine all-that-is from its present state in relation to its present state or configuration, its space-time template or experience. It cannot somehow step out of that in terms of having all the other relational nodes and probabilities imagined or possible appear very or distinctly, distantly different. Although possible, it is more likely to fully take place or be liberated when it steps out of its suit or template as such, then all that is imagines or perceives itself differently and more freely, less tailored to this exact filter.

So in this way I am saying that there is a more probable range to - who and what it is now - as configured than others. Despite that, all others, as much as neutral as the base of and in IRD, and Zero as ever possible and concurrent, are not impossible.

So an exact state of frequency as any given point of and in the whole (holographic - as one singular point or whole throughout) is then both Zero (homogeneity), neutral (as a kind of zero in All-That-Is or differentiation, although not exactly Zero), a exact meaning-based reflective interpretation, and all others—yet a large degree of which are more probable via relevance, and of which are somehow tailored in their (re)presentation to it.

So in this way we could say: it is an exact meaning-based interpretation or reflection of itself, and a large degree of others, as presently available by relevance—more so than others—although all are here and available, via the holographic principle, as much as Zero, and neutral as the IRD base upon which or as which they populate, arrange or configure.

Again, any point of the whole includes the whole or is all of it in or as itself, although simultaneously configured as a unique version of self. Our whole or cosmology here of any given point then is: Zero, neutral, a meaning based or perspective, and all possible others (All-That-Is), of which everything that is other than Zero is All-That-Is (as clarified in my previous papers, 1st, specifically), so everything following Zero in this sentence, that is; neutral, a meaning... etc., is all All-That-Is already or we are talking about or referring to All-That-Is in or as All-That-Is/consciousness specifically and already.

*

When we think of meaning as attributed to, or as a reflection of, a specific relational difference (of IRD-node arrangement) in IRD, we must not forget that each and every relational difference does not only have, or is, one meaning alone (based attribution). Rather, via the holographic principle, a plethora—or infinity—of meanings are always possible, each tailored by corresponding availability or probability to that precise and specific IRD-node arrangement/frequency interval (its present or configured nodes that are in differential relation with or among each other, and that are inherent with and constituted from infinity—in other words, infinity as a unique node configured and inherent/possible, and in relation to or amongst itself, offering unique experiences of self).

So the right word or concept to use here would be: associated or corresponding as relevance, in a higher degree of ratio or probability than others.

This means that, in my paper A Focal Point, Focus, or Configuration of Consciousness, and the Modulations of Existence, when we previously thought in line with spectrums—that a spectrum can embody a linguistic opposite (such as hot and cold), which is something upon which consciousness can or does modulate itself in various degrees of or in between those never ending extremes, as its variations, and which can then be conjoined by another meta-concept that includes them both (e.g., temperature), and which by its mere presence already includes or has another opposite, and is itself encompassed by another, while simultaneously having others embedded within it (infinite holarchy or fractal-like structure)—this is not necessarily the exact way to think about meaning and modulations of consciousness specifically in IRD or generally.

So it is not that temperature—and its infinitely macro- or micro-relative linguistic/conceptual shifts or adaptations as per a spectrum (a neutral prop)—on any given level, would be or is something a focus of consciousness modulates itself as. All of these concepts are interrelated, yes, but it is not necessarily the way to think about how meaning arises from or in direct correspondence with modulation.

Linguistics, or meaning conceptual is derived from or in direct correspondence to its organisation of IRD nodes. It is somewhat primary or rather in direct relation/correspondence.

What do I actually mean by organisation? The densities and arrangements, compressions or expansions formed from one particle alone as many or appearing as many different variations of itself, infinity, in (obvious) interrelation or interaction with itself, forming different states of self. Such as water, same essence in different formats; ice or steam. But in this case, we are not limited to water. Instead, it is a free and untailored particle—not limited to any one manifestation alone—such as water. So: one particle, and all manifestations possible — creation. So we can see how some IRD-node arrangements, extremely dense ones, or clusters, for example—almost magnetically bounce off the probability of certain meaning-based interpretations that would otherwise be had or more pronely grounded or adjusted to on a different frequency interval or arrangement of self. (I dive into this briefly in the context of primary subject–object / self-other (meaning based) arrangements or lived experience of various templates in the last section of my paper Frequency is Self-Awareness…, link provided below this post!) Specifically how the experience of object being separate from subject cannot be had on a, for example, higher state of consciousness or frequency, more permeable and revealed as to and what it is, All-That-Is knowing itself.

Rather, the one and only spectrum inclusive of all others—the infinite frequency spectrum—reflects or is the corresponding organisation of IRD nodes, with meaning-dependent or meaning-arising attributions according to any of its frequency levels/intervals or parameters. That is, different IRD-node organisations (consciousness) have pre-determined or dependently arising meaning-based attributions or probabilities as per any different or unique frequency interval on that infinite scale, that reflects its frequency-IRD node organisations. So (different) meaning(s) is(/are) dependent upon or embedded within—or part of—different frequency intervals: specifically, as per the or within/inherent to the organisation or arrangement of their IRD nodes.