So, set theoretical objects isn't that bad an expression - for atheists wanting to imagine what God is. We directly perceive what IS in the best possible way, an ideally formalized way. Set theoretical objects are identical to the so-called 'transfinite' numbers in that they are infinite, though they are still countable, and so, somehow, again quite finite.

The SHINES / SPEAKS is the ideal formulation of the understanding of Yoga and psychoanalysis (including their mathematics). If this wording can be applied to a method that everybody can practice in subjective reference, then yoga and psychoanalysis would be brought to uniform conjectural science that surveys both methods.

All of these issues have to do with our own finiteness. That is, with ourselves as subjects. We are not infinite objects at all, but rather, finite subjects who gain entry to infinity through mathematical or yoga structures. Freud construes his 'unconsciousness' in a similar manner. He says that it knows neither space nor time. Transfinite numbers stand as finite numbers in infinity in just the same way.

Each individual can only achieve a certain 'transfinite-ness', and within it he is united, limited and finite together with everyone else in infinity. I am going to explain the looks of this (word, 'assignment' of the O) later on, ... It might suffice here, that a word as such may bear too many meanings, thus not yet being a mathematical object, but rather just an echo-discourse. Disquisition, however, will surpass this and produce clarity in meanings. But, a genuinely finite transfiniteness is first the Other's "order", his identification and passwords, codewords, just to continue their characterization.

First remarks concerning the practice

Here we need to clarify the transition of the SHINES (image-like) into the SPEAKS (word-like). The transition continues through the spiral to the A, thus becoming more comprehensible. Some brief remarks on the practice of Surat Shabd Yoga are necessary for a better understanding.