Fields as Forms and Spirits

We cannot say of the parameter, the field or the wonder, the configuration or the psyche, the form or the spirit, etc., that they are transfer, transmission/reception, or consequence, cause/effect, only of energy or power, or of mass or matter, separately, as the case may be. All the more we cannot say or believe that these fields, forms or spirit are the human/scientific substance or the existence of nature in the sense of classical dictionaries, other conventional philosophies or what we know or believe we know about them, etc. Neither as human or science, nor as their unconventional simultaneous/dialectical nature, of sequences and parts of them. For the simple reason that all these variants are transfer or consequence of their dialectical and unconventional simultaneity of sequences and parts with the substance, respectively the existence of any content or body, etc.

To our aid comes even the conventional language of man, humanity and science, which often says they are “energy fields” or “material forms,” indirectly linking human/scientific configuration and psyche with mass and energy as specific substance, in the classical sense, but also with the fields, direct and indirect, of existence as unconventional matter/power. This justifies the variant of fields as substance or mass/energy, human/scientific, but also fields of existence as form/spirit of matter/power, as the case may be, etc. Fields that may be direct as form or indirect as spirit, generally as nature or only direct and indirect parameters of the human/scientific substance in their particularity. Just as the understanding of miracle, chimera and marvel, direct/indirect, is justified as meaning. Direct as form, indirect as spirit.

If we start from the unconventional definition of the field as parameter or electric, magnetic field, field, miracle, chimera, marvel, secular/theistic, etc., field.system, Field, miracle, chimera, marvel, etc., we can observe the logical/illogical of our simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional variants as paradoxical/absurd and perfect/antiperfect nature. With contraries which both “do” and do not cancel each other out. Where and when any parameter has as dialectic its configuration/psyche or its direct/indirect; the field has its direct/indirect; the existence of nature as form/spirit, and so on.

In the absence of fields or even just of parameters we can say there is no existence—not because, theoretically, it cannot exist, but only because, together with them, any interaction or simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional process would disappear. Gravity, magnetism, weight or influence, etc., of any nature would no longer exist or never have existed, and together with them experiences, emotions and feelings, etc.—in other words everything that means existence.

Going further, in this sense we make the connection with the ideas of any content or body, which by our conventions are defined as direct and indirect projections of parameters or fields, miracles or chimeras, etc. Thus answering the question of how ideas are formed from elements of nature even if they are not nature but only a virtual of illusions and shadows. That is,

“human or scientific virtual as virtual or projection of the parameters, the field, the miracle, the chimera, the marvel, theist/secular, etc., virtual.system, Virtual or projection of the field, miracle, chimera, marvel, etc.”

The philosophical answer is relatively simple, due to their simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional sequences and parts. Just as time is constant due to its simultaneity/dialectic with space, and space is variable due to its simultaneity/dialectic with time. In other words, space is a constant/variable and time a variable/constant as simultaneity/dialectic of unconventional sequences and parts. As paradox/absurd of perfection/antiperfect in general, or only perfection/“imperfect” in their particularity.

In this context we must admit that the evolution of logical nature cannot admit and cannot allow discontinuities in a perfect/antiperfect or perfect/“imperfect” becoming and transformation as everlasting/eternal. In our search or searches we cannot admit that from nonexistence existence is born and vice versa, under these conditions. In other words, fields are the thoughts of nature, and their projections then become or transform into thoughts and idylls as system or only as human/scientific system. As the case may be.

The thoughts and ideas of our human or scientific brain as nature—emitters, receptors, synapses and neurons, etc.—are precursor to the thoughts and ideas of our human/scientific mind, judgment and reason, as projections on the cerebral cortex or only the cortex and cortices of the form of any content or body. Or any other sense organs, direct and indirect, as virtual, illusions and shadows of nature. Otherwise, it would mean, as significance, that they come or evolve from their inexistence as prior existence—which can only be and is only an absurd or “impossible,” human/scientific.

If we analyze in this context their understanding as meaning, we can note that perceived science has its formulas, compared or related to form and spirit, but science as metaphor also has its specific formulas, compared or related to them. Science as perception through the specific formulas of direct and indirect parameters, religion through their extrapolation beyond perception as metaphors, decalogue or parables, etc. Distances, areas, surfaces, tension, color, mass/energy fields, thoughts and ideas, etc., or only experiences, emotions and feelings, thoughts and ideas as their metaphors through extrapolation of perceptions, of measure and measurability, absolute/relative.

Science as metaphor has its own specific unmeasurable perceptions and metaphors, the “red cheeks of maidens” or “common sense,” etc., of harmony as balance/imbalance, of positive/negative or of the simple man, etc. If we go further we can see that many formulas of perceived science do not refer to form and not to spirit either. But more recently we may see that feelings are vibrations/resonances at the level of human or scientific DNA, as experience, emotion and feeling, etc. Specific vibrations/resonances, that is still fields, thoughts and ideas in one variant or another.

The tuning fork emits and receives a field or fields of specific vibration/resonance, and does not transfer as consequence the passage of its own substance as nature to another substance, content or body, etc., as the case may be. Of course in both variants, direct and indirect. Just as we, the planet or any content, etc., transfer, emit and receive permanently (countable/perennial), direct and indirect fields as nature or only parameters. Some perceived, others only metaphors of them.

---

Instead of a Conclusion

The fields, direct of the Earth—gravitational, magnetic or electric, etc.—give its form and spirit, or its form and spirit are mass and energy, matter or power, etc.?

The question is only rhetorical.

Leaving aside the fields of the Unity or of God, it seems evident that all fields give its form and spirit and vice versa. Due to their dialectical simultaneity of unconventional sequences and parts. Just as the thoughts and ideas of our nature give us the form and spirit or configuration and psyche of each of us, and vice versa. Our human/scientific thoughts and ideas specifically modify the nature and existence of each as form and spirit.

In this spirit of understanding as meaning, the direct fields give the form of the Earth. Respectively the gravitational, magnetic, electric or of any other nature, give its form as substance, as mass/energy or matter or power, etc., as the case may be, they give this form and vice versa. At the same moment, as I have already said, we make the connection between direct fields and form, indirect fields and spirit as thoughts and ideas.

The direct fields give the form of any content or entity/universe, the indirect fields its spirit, and vice versa. The indirect fields or of its core give its spirit, and vice versa. Provided we can encompass or define them, know or understand them, etc., without limiting them to classical definitions of other conventional philosophies, what we know or think we know about them, etc.

Moreover, our spirit or that of any content, plant, animal, etc., is also the spirit of the Earth or of the whole world, and vice versa. As proof, climatic or any other changes due to our spirit, human or scientific, good or bad, as the case may be. Which modifies or is modified, as the case may be, compared or related to references, situations or systems of reference.

---

Motto

Let us have the courage to tell the whole world that our asset is the nature we encompass, know, or define within and beyond our human/scientific limits. We cannot be contradicted so easily. Perhaps we have our specific errors and mistakes which must and can be permanently corrected as proof of the limits of any convention or conventional and their necessary corrections. Even if we and our unconventional only give the directions as logical/illogical nature or paradox/absurd of our “imperfect” perfection. And not the specific points of these directions, perceptions or metaphors.

He who is not your friend never was, nowhere, no place and no time, because a friend is for a lifetime as existence is. Either he is, or he is not. There are no shades of his friendship, even if sometimes you quarrel and reconcile the same, or tell each other your truths.