Some have observed that in order for an object to move, space and time have to exist.
This is true. Bear in mind that space and matter are opposites. Matter marks the border of space just as space marks the border of matter. Space is the absence of matter. Matter is at one end of the scale of solidity with space at the other extreme. So while matter is modeled by a single sphere, space requires a more complex arrangement. As the progression begins from single sphere, it is necessary to leave a complete examination of space for a later stage of the presentation.
Which brings us to time. Yes, in order for an object to move, space and time have to exist. But for a single sphere in an apparently limitless void only one aspect of time is required. The past. That sphere has a past.
Let us continue. A single sphere surrounded by the void, alone and at rest. But then a second sphere enters the picture. The two spheres approach one another until they make contact. Smash! Worlds in collision. Energy is released. The event is recorded in the crust of both spheres. At that moment of impact the spheres entered the present.
Consider your own body. Every scar a frozen energy event.
Your body is a record of your past, while your perceptions bring you into the present.
A tap upon your shoulder, the warmth of the sun shining on your skin. Both are special case examples of the generalized principle embodied by the two body model. The tap on your shoulder involved two bodies coming in contact resulting in an exchange of energy causing the tappee to become aware of the tapper. A photon shoots forth from the Sun flying outward at the speed of light until it makes contact with the surface of your skin causing an exchange of energy that is experienced as warmth when combined with the billions of other photons also engaged in this dual body interaction.
Duality results in awareness. The perceiver and the perceived. You experience perceptions as occurring in the present, now. Your body is a recording of the experiences it has undergone in its past.
Friday, May 16, 2003
Beware the Apocryphon of John
The three synoptic Gospels formed a door of sorts, through which one could pass into the inner secrets contained within the Bible. And so a fourth work was prepared by those intent on keeping those secrets secret, one which sealed this opening shut. And in response yet another text was crafted, one designed to by-pass the barrier thrown up by John by opening a backdoor. Thomas was the key text. Thomas asked the right questions, leading one back to both the synoptic Gospels and Genesis. Once again a text was written. One which set about answering the questions raised by Thomas by creating an entire alternative backstory. Classic gnosticism has nothing to do with the message secreted within the teachings of Jesus. Jesus wasn't teaching Greek metaphysics.
So the Apocryphon of John hits the scene. It is supposedly suppressed, along with Thomas and many, many others. but, strangely the church fathers wrote detailed descriptions of the so-called Apocryphon of John. Strange, if they feared the teaching so much, but of Thomas, hardly a word. The classic Joannine forms of gnosticism flourished, at least if the lurid descriptions of the fathers are to be believed. And then came massive suppression. Many texts were destroyed and the secrets contained within Thomas were forgotten by all. Yet the church has kept the memory of classic Joannine gnosticism safe in its stewardship.
Consider what might have happened had Hitler won World War Two. Let us suppose that the Nag Hammadi library was found as before, but was then acquired by the Nazis. The Apocryphon of John is studied and it is announced that the Jews worship the mad creator god. The Catholic church continues to side with Hitler and changes the cannon in response to the revelation. It drops all of the Hebrew books while accepting key texts from Joannine Gnostic cannon. The dawn of a new dark age.
When one reads Thomas through the veil of John its meaning darkens and twists.
21 ... What they resemble is children living in a plot of land that is not theirs. When the owners of the land come they will say, 'Surrender our land to us.' They, for their part, strip naked in their presence in order to give it back to them, and they give them their land. ...
In classic gnosticism removing the clothes is a metaphor for removing the flesh. You see how such a viewpoint could be misconstrued as justification of genocide.
So the Apocryphon of John hits the scene. It is supposedly suppressed, along with Thomas and many, many others. but, strangely the church fathers wrote detailed descriptions of the so-called Apocryphon of John. Strange, if they feared the teaching so much, but of Thomas, hardly a word. The classic Joannine forms of gnosticism flourished, at least if the lurid descriptions of the fathers are to be believed. And then came massive suppression. Many texts were destroyed and the secrets contained within Thomas were forgotten by all. Yet the church has kept the memory of classic Joannine gnosticism safe in its stewardship.
Consider what might have happened had Hitler won World War Two. Let us suppose that the Nag Hammadi library was found as before, but was then acquired by the Nazis. The Apocryphon of John is studied and it is announced that the Jews worship the mad creator god. The Catholic church continues to side with Hitler and changes the cannon in response to the revelation. It drops all of the Hebrew books while accepting key texts from Joannine Gnostic cannon. The dawn of a new dark age.
When one reads Thomas through the veil of John its meaning darkens and twists.
21 ... What they resemble is children living in a plot of land that is not theirs. When the owners of the land come they will say, 'Surrender our land to us.' They, for their part, strip naked in their presence in order to give it back to them, and they give them their land. ...
In classic gnosticism removing the clothes is a metaphor for removing the flesh. You see how such a viewpoint could be misconstrued as justification of genocide.
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
The Monad
Surely it is close to impossible to determine with any certainty what Pythagoras's view of number was. What we can be reasonably sure of is that Pythagoras formed figures from small spherical objects in order to determine the properties possessed by specific numbers. Another thing is clear, were we to examine numbers of spheres in the same manner as he, we are almost certain to receive the same results.
But let us suppose that the explanation of numbers which has come to us was not based on experimentation, but rather formed upon the pillar of abstraction. In such a case the essence of number is derived out of airy ideals. Which is not to say that the results are false, simply that they are not open to verification. Some aspects of the teaching are unarguably correct, odd and even numbers, for example. What is open to question is the sexing of odd numbers as male and even numbers as female. Such a treatment might appear logical on paper, but when one examines structures formed from the appropriate number of spheres its absurdity becomes all too apparent. The question is one of what took precedence, actual properties or metaphysical concepts.
Let us examine One. The Monad. The source of all numbers. Good, desirable, essential, indivisible.
And the first principle of numbers is in substance the first monad, which is a male monad, begetting as a father all other numbers.
Ok, One is the father of all numbers, it is good, desirable, essential and indivisible.
Who can argue with that? Who would dare to question such a self-evident definition of One?
Consider a single sphere suspended in a limitless void. The sphere is alone and the emptiness surrounding it is absolute. Note that the sphere cannot be said to be in motion since motion is a relative term. Without another object to move relative to motion cannot exist. So this sphere is frozen.
Imagine that this sphere is an omnivorous ball of protoplasm, the blob, if you will. It is homogenous, it is one. More importantly, it is dormant. It isn't hunting, it isn't perceiving, it simply is. If this sphere were an eye it would be blind as there is nothing to see. It would not possess awareness there is nothing for it to be aware of.
To be One is to be either asleep or a corpse.
But let us suppose that the explanation of numbers which has come to us was not based on experimentation, but rather formed upon the pillar of abstraction. In such a case the essence of number is derived out of airy ideals. Which is not to say that the results are false, simply that they are not open to verification. Some aspects of the teaching are unarguably correct, odd and even numbers, for example. What is open to question is the sexing of odd numbers as male and even numbers as female. Such a treatment might appear logical on paper, but when one examines structures formed from the appropriate number of spheres its absurdity becomes all too apparent. The question is one of what took precedence, actual properties or metaphysical concepts.
Let us examine One. The Monad. The source of all numbers. Good, desirable, essential, indivisible.
And the first principle of numbers is in substance the first monad, which is a male monad, begetting as a father all other numbers.
Ok, One is the father of all numbers, it is good, desirable, essential and indivisible.
Who can argue with that? Who would dare to question such a self-evident definition of One?
Consider a single sphere suspended in a limitless void. The sphere is alone and the emptiness surrounding it is absolute. Note that the sphere cannot be said to be in motion since motion is a relative term. Without another object to move relative to motion cannot exist. So this sphere is frozen.
Imagine that this sphere is an omnivorous ball of protoplasm, the blob, if you will. It is homogenous, it is one. More importantly, it is dormant. It isn't hunting, it isn't perceiving, it simply is. If this sphere were an eye it would be blind as there is nothing to see. It would not possess awareness there is nothing for it to be aware of.
To be One is to be either asleep or a corpse.
Sunday, May 11, 2003
Pythagoras, Beans, and Jesus
Consider the numerical system based upon the structures formed from groups of spheres. The knowledge gleaned from such a study is universally applicable. Even if it becomes lost it is always right out in the open, ready to be rediscovered. But people will not search for what they believe they already possess. We have been taught an alternative system, a stylized, idealized system devoid of any inherent significance. And we never suspect that an alternative, equally valid perspective exists.
What does it matter, why should we care? It doesn't, and we shouldn't. This is a matter of interest solely to seekers.
A universal system of knowledge. One equally valid regardless of era or empire. Suppose there existed a puzzle which could only be solved by someone in possession of such a system of knowledge. Without the proper key the puzzle is simply an enigma, but over time a variety of false or incomplete solutions are derived as various keys are applied. Until there is no enigma, nothing out of place, the mystery long since faded.
That is where we find ourselves, ahold of a key without a single idea as to exactly where to apply it. It seems that all of the mysteries were solved long, long ago. We have but one clue, one sign of a connection however subtle between the Pythagorean system and the Gospels. It would seem that any further examination would have to be based on a deeper examination of the manner in which the Pythagorean numerical system intersects Judeo-Christian cosmology.
The only problem being that we don't have much of an idea of what made up the original Pythagorean system. What we do have is an explanation of the Pythagorean numerological system as explicated by Plato which is itself highly suspect.
By examining the system and seeing what it says we might then compare that with the results of our own parallel examination based on the properties possessed by like number of spheres. Given that the Platonic version is suspected of being an invention it will be quite interesting to see precisely what it fails to say. Much the same way that out of all the various rationales behind the bean prohibition, the one suggestion never voiced was that of using the beans as counters, the one explanation in unquestionable agreement with the precepts of the teaching.
Jesus said: Recognize what is before you, and what is hidden from you will be revealed to you; for there is nothing hidden that will not be made manifest.
GoT 5
What does it matter, why should we care? It doesn't, and we shouldn't. This is a matter of interest solely to seekers.
A universal system of knowledge. One equally valid regardless of era or empire. Suppose there existed a puzzle which could only be solved by someone in possession of such a system of knowledge. Without the proper key the puzzle is simply an enigma, but over time a variety of false or incomplete solutions are derived as various keys are applied. Until there is no enigma, nothing out of place, the mystery long since faded.
That is where we find ourselves, ahold of a key without a single idea as to exactly where to apply it. It seems that all of the mysteries were solved long, long ago. We have but one clue, one sign of a connection however subtle between the Pythagorean system and the Gospels. It would seem that any further examination would have to be based on a deeper examination of the manner in which the Pythagorean numerical system intersects Judeo-Christian cosmology.
The only problem being that we don't have much of an idea of what made up the original Pythagorean system. What we do have is an explanation of the Pythagorean numerological system as explicated by Plato which is itself highly suspect.
By examining the system and seeing what it says we might then compare that with the results of our own parallel examination based on the properties possessed by like number of spheres. Given that the Platonic version is suspected of being an invention it will be quite interesting to see precisely what it fails to say. Much the same way that out of all the various rationales behind the bean prohibition, the one suggestion never voiced was that of using the beans as counters, the one explanation in unquestionable agreement with the precepts of the teaching.
Jesus said: Recognize what is before you, and what is hidden from you will be revealed to you; for there is nothing hidden that will not be made manifest.
GoT 5
Beans, Beans, the Mystical Fruit
The use of beans as a tool for the exploration of number leads to the discovery of triangular numbers. When arranging groups of spheres, the patterns they fall into are dictated by their shape. Three spheres of equal size are going to assume the shape of a triangle.
.....*.....
....* *...
Four spheres brought together in the shape of a square form an unstable structure.
.....* *.....
.....* *.....
The spheres naturally maintain a sixty degree relationship with one another. The power of attraction pulls the square into a diamond shape.
.....*.....
....* *...
.....*.....
Hence it follows that triangles are an inherent feature of numerical structure while squares are less so. The ratios found in the New Testament are built from the first three triangular numbers.
...........*..........
..........* *........
...........*.........
..........* *.......
.........* * *......
...........*..........
..........* *.........
.........* * *.......
........* * * *.....
But once again, the value of these numbers stems from the manner by which like quantities of spheres can be stacked one upon the other.
Consider the one verse within the Gospels which contains the word PSEPHIZO:
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth (PSEPHIZO) the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Luke 14:28
Notice what is being built, a tower, which is perfectly in keeping with the shape of the structure formed from the spheres.
Such clues provide us with a window into an alternative system of numerical understanding, one not based on axioms, but one built around experience. Axioms are 'self-evident' beliefs, while experience supplies one with knowledge.
Consider the classic Platonic dimensional progression. A zero dimensional point moves in a straight line generating a one-dimensional object. A line moving perpendicular to itself in a plane generates a square, the basic object of the second dimension. Move a square perpendicular to itself and you form a cube, a three-dimensional object.
Where are the axioms above? Observe the various imaginary objects. The illusionary zero dimensional point, the one dimensional line, and the two dimensional square. All are abstractions, without basis in reality and yet somehow, from them one arrives at a real object, a cube.
A progression built up from physical experience begins not with an idealized concept of an imaginary point but with a single sphere.
.....*.....
....* *...
Four spheres brought together in the shape of a square form an unstable structure.
.....* *.....
.....* *.....
The spheres naturally maintain a sixty degree relationship with one another. The power of attraction pulls the square into a diamond shape.
.....*.....
....* *...
.....*.....
Hence it follows that triangles are an inherent feature of numerical structure while squares are less so. The ratios found in the New Testament are built from the first three triangular numbers.
...........*..........
..........* *........
...........*.........
..........* *.......
.........* * *......
...........*..........
..........* *.........
.........* * *.......
........* * * *.....
But once again, the value of these numbers stems from the manner by which like quantities of spheres can be stacked one upon the other.
Consider the one verse within the Gospels which contains the word PSEPHIZO:
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth (PSEPHIZO) the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Luke 14:28
Notice what is being built, a tower, which is perfectly in keeping with the shape of the structure formed from the spheres.
Such clues provide us with a window into an alternative system of numerical understanding, one not based on axioms, but one built around experience. Axioms are 'self-evident' beliefs, while experience supplies one with knowledge.
Consider the classic Platonic dimensional progression. A zero dimensional point moves in a straight line generating a one-dimensional object. A line moving perpendicular to itself in a plane generates a square, the basic object of the second dimension. Move a square perpendicular to itself and you form a cube, a three-dimensional object.
Where are the axioms above? Observe the various imaginary objects. The illusionary zero dimensional point, the one dimensional line, and the two dimensional square. All are abstractions, without basis in reality and yet somehow, from them one arrives at a real object, a cube.
A progression built up from physical experience begins not with an idealized concept of an imaginary point but with a single sphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)