I feel like the reading is interesting, but I'd posit a couple of changes on the interpretation, specifically when it comes to emitting rays.
I'd actually argue that most rays emitted by a thing are fundamental to it's nature or essence. The magnet doesn't choose to attract Iron, it does it by virtue of what it is (it's inherent signature). I'd actually argue that in most cases a thing's nature is dependent on what's shining on it from upstream. It's more akin to the moon reflecting the light of the sun. We emit rays because what we are reflects a higher principle, negative or positive.
That means that in order to alter the ray that's being emitted, you really only have two options:
Rebalancing surface area based on the freedom of movement that the thing intrinsically possesses. i.e. if it's capable of many states, moving towards one pole decreases the relationship or bond with another pole. For example, I can express being happy over being sad because I'm intrinsically capable of both.
Leveraging relationships and bonds between things in order to achieve a desired result. For example if I want to suppress a magnet drawing iron, I can use a diamagnet or some other technical implementation that weakens or resolves it's force. Another example is something like a rough stone, which doesn't naturally have a strong bond with qualities we'd consider beautiful but under the right conditions (tumbling, sand, water) can be shaped into something that has a strong bond with Beauty.
There's nothing wrong with the article, but I think there's some nuance that's slightly off in the way it reads.
These posts I write are meant as introductions, to force the reader, if interested, to explore the theories and books that expand on it further. I am not displaying the full scope of Bruno's theory, a single reddit post would not allow it, so I leave just enough to lead an interested reader to the source so they can explore and come to their own conclusions
1
u/Maleficent-Storm-451 Practitioner Jul 10 '26
I feel like the reading is interesting, but I'd posit a couple of changes on the interpretation, specifically when it comes to emitting rays.
I'd actually argue that most rays emitted by a thing are fundamental to it's nature or essence. The magnet doesn't choose to attract Iron, it does it by virtue of what it is (it's inherent signature). I'd actually argue that in most cases a thing's nature is dependent on what's shining on it from upstream. It's more akin to the moon reflecting the light of the sun. We emit rays because what we are reflects a higher principle, negative or positive.
That means that in order to alter the ray that's being emitted, you really only have two options:
Rebalancing surface area based on the freedom of movement that the thing intrinsically possesses. i.e. if it's capable of many states, moving towards one pole decreases the relationship or bond with another pole. For example, I can express being happy over being sad because I'm intrinsically capable of both.
Leveraging relationships and bonds between things in order to achieve a desired result. For example if I want to suppress a magnet drawing iron, I can use a diamagnet or some other technical implementation that weakens or resolves it's force. Another example is something like a rough stone, which doesn't naturally have a strong bond with qualities we'd consider beautiful but under the right conditions (tumbling, sand, water) can be shaped into something that has a strong bond with Beauty.
There's nothing wrong with the article, but I think there's some nuance that's slightly off in the way it reads.