# A small number absurdity of the emotional fields

Here again an esoteric excursion. Since it struck me, I wanted to write it down gladly here.

The first prime numbers we know are as follows:

2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,…

I have written down 36 emotional fields. I have further divided these emotional fields into situations (see also my posts on this). To each such situation I have assigned a subset of the emotional fields that match it.

Interestingly, the number of emotional fields in the intended order of the situations corresponds to the first prime numbers.
At the time of the situation “Surrender” the surrender is taken for all following situations as a numerical value so that the prime numbers work out (the 11 of the surrender is taken further,
the other previous situation number-values are not considered then any more. This would correspond also to the real situational behavior, since the surrender as such means! that the previous situations are put away. This is interesting because we can see here a “split” or fragmentation that occurs from surrender. In order to capitulate a previous thing must be put away (just capitulated), otherwise one still alternates around in the previous situations. All situations before the surrender give in their sum 17

2 (Origin – Rescue and Unloved)
3 (Expectation / without Rescue)
7 (Disappointment / without Unloved)
11 (Surrender / without Ashamed and Fading)

a) Path1: It comes to Exit:
13 (Surrender with Ashamed and Fading).

b) Path2: It comes to Bridge.
17 (Surrender 11 and Bridge 6 makes a total of 17).

19
– To get from 13 to 19 we would need 6 (Bridge).
– To get from 17 to 19 we would need 2 (Ashamed and Fading).
– The 19 is therefore here the summation of the total experienced path that unites both exits (path 1, path 2).

We also find the 11 and 6 combination in the Positive and Negative Emotional Fields:

Positive Emotional Fields
11 and 6 = 17

Negative emotional fields
11 and 6 = 17

In the positive and negative emotional fields “Rescue” and “Unloved” are missing. If we add these in each case, the 17 becomes a 19 in each case.

Open: what is it about the 6? The 6 is not a prime number and enters here also as “Bridge” in a unifying/uniting way in relationship with the other situations.
How can the “prime number people” obtain the 6? In this way of thinking the 6 is something otherworldly, since it is not a prime number.

The yin/yang emotional fields contain Rescue and Unloved and are thus prior and all-encompassing, respectively. So, in a poetic way, the prime situation seems to be an individual situation corresponding to a taking out of Rescue and Unloved from a greater context.

Yin Emotional Fields
18

Yang Emotional Fields
18

If we add unloved or rescue to each of the yin/yang emotional fields, we also get the 19

After the 19 comes the 23. The 23 has generally a somewhat negative “reputation”, since it stands symbolically for a shattering. Here one would enrich then however again mathematics (prime numbers) with a meaning context which follows the narrative of a symbolism which is given by powerful ones who prescribe what a number has for a reasonable meaning. This mixing of meaning and symbol (how do symbols receive the meaning attributed to them and how do the meaning of the syntax and the meaning attributed to the symbol lie in (loving) exchange or re-conflict) is an interesting point that I would like to remember (put aside) for further consideration. In this respect my number excursion has already brought me something, because it has led me to this recognition (sense and symbol) and has shown me thus a topic that I would not have come across otherwise, without making seemingly senseless excursions into number series.

I’ll document it here: I do not attach any deeper meaning to number acrobatics per se. But sometimes I like to fall back on such intuitions, because they have proven to be helpful to find threads or open ends. It has been shown for me from the experience that such synchronicities (see also the term of C.G. Jung for this) can help one again via detours to get the actual sense reflected again on another level and to find then again further loose ends on the level of meaning which one would not have found otherwise because of his perhaps limited cognitive or other abilities. So such number games are like sieving and mapping a landscape according to scales of another landscape. In the reappearance of the synchronicities, as said, new aspects can become visible.

Sure, there are also people who say: the way is more important than the goal. That means: if I have recognized a meaning via a nonsensical way, then the meaning is not stable because it was made on an uncertain foundation. But: the sense itself has its sense by its syntax. It was then merely discovered/discovered over a nonsensical way. It is clear to me that people to whom syntax and language is important would perceive such statements of me as blasphemous or monstrous. But, if it is now just so that nonsensical ways can help one (e.g. about synchronicities) to find meaningfulnesses which one would not have reached so easily on a straight way (remaining in the natural step-by-step exchange of a language syntax consisting of sentences). It depresses me a little that I write this here in such a way and stand to it, because I know that the subject loved by the author (by me) this way to interact with the world is unloved. It is not wanted, not sought and not appreciated, because it defines a wandering and changing (incoherently) that does not follow the syntax and the structure of a communication as it is dear to it or leaves this syntax behind in favor of a “treasure hunt” (treasure hunt tends to be egoism ala “I want to have you and I use all ways for it that I can take” – regression into definitional power instead of: “I want to take care of you and maintain the exchange with you” – appreciation of the syntax). I (the author) leave the world of communication with other living beings and use that tool of communication (the language) by leaving behind the most important thing for the Beloved Subject (presumably) (the syntax) and instead make a puzzle out of the atomic components of the language, which I put together and relate without contact with the Beloved Subject (Alone). To leave the syntax behind means: to leave the Beloved Subject.

I know: not all readers will like it that I justify myself for my esoteric excursions, because this reveals, among other things, a self-esteem weakness on my part, in dealing with my preference for esotericism as a stabilizer for my sense of security in the world. Esotericism is a kind of faith or “coherence destabilizer for syntax-loving people”, because the esoteric way of thinking leads the meaning which is in the sentences ad absurdum, by giving them a hidden message (e.g. in the number, in the symbol, in the sign, letter,…). The willingness of the author (i.e. me) to give weight to such esoteric interpretations is a willingness difficult to accept for the Beloved Subject. Because it reveals unkindness and distancing and above all: relativization. Ambiguity instead of taking a stand is sad for the Beloved Subject, because it resembles a game of hide and seek in which the Beloved Subject would have to impute an intention to the Lover as he presents himself. For he alternates back and forth between beauty (syntax) and ugliness (absurdity), so the change from beauty to ugliness appears as an intentional hurt or defect of the lover towards the relationship (“how can he be unfaithful to syntax?”). For syntax is fragile. A subsequent unfaithfulness destabilizes a built-up syntax chain afterwards (i.e. conversations that one has had and in which one has revealed to each other a faithfulness to syntax).

Consideration:

• How is it when we assign an esoteric (that is, hidden) meaning to symbols (numbers,signs,words) and communicate with fellow human beings who know that we are doing this and to whom it is very important that communication is not hidden but open (proximity, close, connected) in order to be closer. Will they ever be able to respect us for giving an additional meaning to the symbols; just by agreeing with ourselves (making it up among ourselves) in this way. It is a stubbornness or a betrayal of communication with the other who loves the meaningfulness in the syntax (in the language) in favor of a construction activity with which we empower ourselves that the minimized signs, the letters freed from words, the small symbols reveal another level of meaning that laps into the language, overlaps it and so always adds another meaning that is always hidden by the syntax-loving people consciously because of the “love of unambiguity” in conversation.

Possibly I write another article on “Wavefunction Collapse” (double slit experiment) and how an observer influences a measurement that originally consisted of many possible states, by measuring (that is also a change) or fixed on a particular state. I put this as a reminder here so that I don’t forget it. It would fit well, because it can be brought close to my narrative of change and dignity and if I dive into the topic I can possibly uncover a few connections. Change as a probability (potential) of a position and dignity as a poignant particle that takes a measurement (crosses the potentials of change at a certain point) for a reason.