Report: Breakthroughs in the Study of the Ideal Language

Since my recent insights regarding DNA as the intermediate source of life common to us all, I have begun a renewed emphasis upon a more meticulous study of the human anatomy (that is, human design) as a teaching template to show us what we need to know.  For lessons in language, we look to the way our divine parents have created our mouths.  They are both binary and tetratic (4-fold) in every way).

At the first, I considered these features individually, but then later (at the present) I came to think of the parts of our bodies as what we should count TOGETHER in the basic unit of life — one man, plus one woman — which doubles the number of our parts, and in doing so, reveals new insights.  What at the first seems to be a series of 5’s and 10’s (the fingers on two hands and toes on two feet) all of a sudden melt into units of 2(s) and four(s) instead.

If we consider the thumbs on the hand to be something by design other than a finger (its own kind of thing), and then consider them as a set with two people in mind (an appointed pair), then we have four thumbs and 16 fingers. The same could be done with the toes. We could easily adduce further evidence for this view from an cursory examination of the mouth, which moves me to my next topic: the mouth design and ideal speech.

We each have 32 teeth. As a “married pair” (husband and wife “twins”), this gives us 64.  64 is precisely the number of letters that make up the alphabet of DNA.  Language constructs culture and alphabets construct language.  This looks like to me that we should have 64 letters in the ideal alphabet. The teeth, constituted as they are by enamel, are very hard (enamel is the hardest substance in the human body). But the lips and tongue form soft tissues.  Speaking needs all of these components (hard and soft), and this suggests that we are to speak the truth (which can seem very hard) in kindness and compassion (softly), but never by sacrificing the least important truth.  We are to be hard about maintaining the truth (in other words) but soft in the delivery of it.

Onto the letters of the ideal alphabet — here, it seems that symmetry shows up everywhere. The teeth we have are unique up to the number of eight, and they repeat eight times as sets, giving us a total of 64 teeth, represents as 8 symmetrical units. Each tooth is symmetrical after a fashion, showing a binary character. One is even called a “BI-cuspid.”  The question is, how do we have the same letter, with a different sense, 8 times?  One way it could be done in writing is by giving each of the 8 letters its own distinct color (using 8 distinct colors).

In the math of DNA (with the math-form base “2, 4, 6, 8”), the number 8 is the highest number.  64, of course, squares this number. The four proteins in DNA have a unique status as formative for all life, so none of this takes what we think of as the number of true deities any higher than this number (4).  But when it comes to language, the teeth tell the story, not exactly the 4 proteins (directly).

Another form of reasoning that helps here comes from philosophy. Plato held (with many Greeks) the geometric reasoning represents that form of reasoning most basically constitutive of the human mind — what some would have called “properly basic” to the human design, and other would much later call “transcendental” under the label “Quantity” — as in, “quantities, qualities, modalities and relations.”

In geometry, the square represents a kind of “perfection,” because it is symmetrical and can be formed by two right angles only, with two sides (equilateral) — it is a pair of pairs in other words, like DNA.  A kind of “Double perfection” then, would be represented by the equilateral Octagon. This shape is what I believe best represents the divine Persons we serve by our wisdom quest.  The equilateral Octagon to me represents both the wisdom quest, and the Divine Creators, our blessed parents and beloved gods and goddesses.   Those who favor it could find a way to produce a T-shirt with the “e-o” on it, showing to those who understand it, that we are on the same side. Future architecture will also bear this shape. I plan on living in a two-story octagon-shaped house — two octagons stacked one atop the other — to appear as a kind of double torus “House.”

In any case, 8 is in fact the highest number in the math-form of DNA (life-math).  The Octagon symbolizes the math of life, and the greatest number in a finite world.  It forms the basis also for the ideal language.  And this also suggests that our divine parents may in fact exist as double toruses, since they are ideal and four in number, and yet 8 is its doubling, and since the DT represents the IDEAL situation for energy flow. Admittedly, this much remains speculative on my part, and I do not in any way consider it established, but only worthy of consideration.

One last point about language.  So far as I know, of the influential and modern tongues, only the Russian tongue offers anything close to correct number of letters. It has 33.  Arabic has 28, English has 26, ancient Greek (24), and ancient Hebrew had 22.  It also had no vowels. This brings up the OR question (Ockham’s Razor is “OR”) — do we need vowels for the ideal language, or should we count them profitable (to include them even if not nec.) by the principle of added value (criterion of material adequacy as profitability)?

The written Hebrew language functioned without vowels. Later on, for some, this became a problem — for instance, if we wanted to translate it into Greek (watch out for the Goyim and their trickiness) — which did have vowels, which vowels from Greek do we assign to which consonant letters in Hebrew?  Dunno.  OR seems to favor the Hebrew way.  But does profitability, or symmetry favor it?  I shall continue investigating these questions.

Prior to my new (mister toothiness) insights about alphabets I had narrowed down my search to 16 letters –then the whole “tooth analogy” dawned on me.

I have much more to say about the ideal language, and will continue to report my findings on this topic (and those related to it), as time and providence afford opportunity.

Advertisements

Update on the Wisdom Quest: The Double Helix and DNA as model

And now for something completely new, from the light of nature, that is so obvious (since Crick and Watson, 1961) that I cannot BE — LIEEEEVE that I missed it for so long.  Consider the following — Or beloved Creator (s) is/ are life, and DNA is life.  That is, DNA forms the building blocks for all of life.  God is life; DNA is life. Conclusion? In the world of cause-effect similarity, this means that the divine is very much represented to us (on purpose) as the “building language that shows us the divine.”

DNA is my new model.  I reached the same conclusion as that implied by the DNA model by a different life of critical reasoning I was already following when the “DNA model” epiphany awakened me from my dogmatic slumbers. The creation-event (“BB”) transpired when it did, and not earlier.  This suggested to me that something had to function as a bridge between our PERMANANENT and necessary divine parents (2 as suggested by complementarity), and the CHANGING world of history (post-creation).  This “Bridge” I was beginning to suspect was the offspring (twins) of the union of the necessary and first “2.”  These divine beings actually grew and matured (unlike their divine parents), after the former two united.  The changing and growing two grew up into maturity and became identical to their parents when they united, and this second uniting, which bound all four together in a group of two pairs (like DNA) caused the birth of the cosmos, or creation event.

The second divine “generation” yielded the BB creation event. As some have said, “Two witnesses establishes a matter.” This would in fact explain complementarity of the Inanimate world, and the double helix (complementarity of the ANimate world) as a kind of doublet of pairs, just the way that DNA appears to us.

I believe that duality as ultimate in fact implies this conclusion also: 2 implies the pair, which in turn implies 2 pairs, precisely (4).  DNA does in fact bear exactly four proteins (G, C, T, A), and they bond in pairs only, highly specific ones, never traversing the line between the one (pyramidines) and the other (purines).  Life is in fact a pair of pairs — nothing less, or (quantity-wise) more.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have four gods, or more precisely (by analogy of X and Y chromosomes) 2 finite gods, and 2 finite goddesses on our hands.  They live in a bonded unity or pairs, and form a single divine mind (displayed to us as the light of nature), which is greater by far than any one of them individually, and may be greater than all of them individually — which is why they do not exist AS merely individual Persons.

Although our divine parents may be finite, we should never forget that were we to encounter one of them, we would never be the same, and would probably be spell-bound with awe and wonder. They are IDEAL divine Persons, of unimagined beauty, wisdom and power.  There is no good reason that I know of that would prevent them from taking human form and speaking with us, except our own immaturity and foolishness.

And although they could in fact use language (they would only employ the most excellent and very best, called the IDEAL LANGUAGE — their only and native language — or else the one closest to it that is the best we could use, which looks something like DNA and its base-8 math structure.  Perhaps this would combine with other principles of the light of nature to yield its more mature form.

Our immaturity in part consists in that, after all this time (thousands of years), we have yet to expend sufficient time upon the task of discovering and producing the ideal language which the wise would indeed use to communicate with each other.  We will in all probability not make “first contact” until we obtain the ideal language of our divine parents.  Neither will our prayers be heard in any way as so clear a YES! might be each time we pray (and so often), until such a future moment as we learn to pray in the divine tongue.

I ‘ve Adopted the View Now Known as Hendiadic (Unified) Bi-theism Now

My view of God is best described as:

  1. Transcendent – God existed before, and does now exist “underneath” (at lower levels of scale) the creation. It is proper to say that God was born with the universe (Einstein), meaning in His present (hendiadic) form, which is permanent and represents an extraordinary kind of progress in the development of both our supremely wise and benevolent Parents.
  2. Finite – Both of our divine parents, Father (the God) and Mother (the Goddess) are finite, but supreme, divine Persons
  3. Hen (One) – Diadic (two-) fold = Hendiadic (The two individual, divine, Persons, united at the Origin of the cosmos, causing the “Big Bang” — divine unity created our cosmosgeny
  4. The two divine Parents are as one, in mindset (Wisdom and understanding), love, volition and purpose.  They grow and change together — their relationship is like unto a perfect (ideal) marriage.  They complete each other (are complements One of Another).
  5. Bi – Theism.  Both our divine parents are divine, necessary (Life cannot “not exist”) and transcendent — real Persons. They grow in understanding with the cosmos, and with us, but remain sufficient, inerrant and infallible in their governance of the cosmos.
  6. God is quite free and optimal in every way, and our freedom depends upon His (is derived from Theirs), so that it is quite real, and this limits our divine Parents knowledge of the future (which is considerable, but not total by any means).  Our divine parents love us in the extreme, and desire everything most excellent for all of us.

The Jet Engine and the Double Torus

Some believe that the double torus provides an exciting new avenue for the production of high thrust, extremely efficient, jet engines.  Here is a web page devoted to this idea: you might want to take a look at this:

Image result for power plant as double torusImage result for jet engine as double torus

 

https://www.google.com/search q=jet+engine+as+double+torus&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip3f3trcLbAhVDslMKHcUADyQQ7AkIMg&biw=1280&bih=930#imgrc=9WFSUsvNW5Q2aM:&spf=1528402270150

Then there’s THIS (Might could use a [Computer Model] DT engine remake, who knows):

Image result for jet engine as double torusImage result for architecture as double torus

I’m pretty sure this (SR 72) will fly.  I wonder if they will someday try using this [the Vector Equilibrium as Double Torus] as a design-concept to make a better jet or rocket engine.

“Complementarity?” Yeah. Here, Spooky Quantum Pairs Throw Physicists A (DT like) Curve Ball

Spooky Quantum Particle Pairs Fly Like Weird Curveballs

Date:
June 4, 2018
Source:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Summary:
Some particles that can be in two places at the same time and are not just particles but also waves, in this case, fermions, appear to move in even weirder ways than previously thought. Theoretical physicists applied extreme computing power for a week to predict the movements of fermions by including quantum optics, or light-like, ideas in their mathematical, theoretical modeling.
This is an artist’s depiction of what a group of atoms looks like when they merge to a wave-like state. This occurs under ultra-cooling that drops atoms’ temperature to near absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature in the universe. This is not an image of something done in this Georgia Tech study but is intended to help readers picture the particle-wave duality the study considers along with other factors.
Credit: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Curvy baseball pitches have surprising things in common with quantum particles described in a new physics study, though the latter fly much more weirdly.


In fact, ultracold paired particles called fermions must behave even weirder than physicists previously thought, according to theoretical physicists from the Georgia Institute of Technology, who mathematically studied their flight patterns. Already, flying quantum particles were renowned for their weirdness.

To understand why, start with similarities to a baseball then add significant differences.

A pitcher imparts spin, momentum, and energy to a baseball when throwing a curveball, a change-up, or a slider. Fermions’ funny flights are likewise carved by spins, momenta, and energies, but also by powerful quantum eccentricities like entanglement, which Albert Einstein once called “spooky action at a distance” between quantum particles.

In the new study, the researchers even predicted that the particles can act like different quantum balls called bosons to mimic the manner that photons, or [wave/] particles of light, fly.  A simplified explanation of these ultracold paired particles and their odd flights is below.

Read Complete Article? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180604124908.htm

Comment Summary: Fermions are strange pilots. They fly their “paired particles” in strange ways that imitate a baseball pitcher’s curve-balls and sliders — adding spin and other kinds of “angular momentum,” which, although it may be “conserved,” can still do strange things to one’s flight patterns.  Here, they’ve been caught on cam — in technicolor.

Our Beloved Creator, The Double Torus and the Ideal Language

    We properly refer to our all-wise Creator as the Cosmarch of Wisdom and Love.  The double or dual nature of the Creator has the testimony of nature’s light in the form of a concept the world of physics calls “Complementarity,” following the ideas of the Danish physicist, Niels Bohr.   Divine duality has another very interesting testimony in (receives support from) a kind of shape (that emerges over time), carved out by the ideal pathways for energy to travel that ensures a maximal balance called “equilibrium.”  It is a kind of donut-shape (torus).  This form, like one sock that needs another, has a “symmetrical counterpart” (mate) in the double torus.

The DT is a bit like the game of checkers — as with the making of a king (“crowning” your red or black pieces), since this requires a kind of “doubling” or symmetry of 2 stacked layers.  But these tori (toruses) “feed into one another” in a kind of energy flow “symbiosis.”  Each more or less supports, and flows into, the other — at the ends or poles.

So what does nature testify about our Creator through the ideal process?  It would seem that God has both a uniformity (monotheism) and a duality (two-ness) about him. I have already given my explanation of this (see previous posts).

 This fascinating DT fractal (i.e. a 3-d geometric shapes of an unusual type) shape unfolds over time in a way we could call “stochastic” — seeming random distributions — now a little here, now a little there, now a bit WAY over there — until a whole “picture” or pattern emerges (somewhat oddly) from this host of “randomized” events.

Firecracker-painting does this (sometimes).  But it won’t give you a DT.  Interestingly, there is a single galaxy that displays this shape, in addition to the earth’s wind patterns, and the energy flow of trees.

http://www.cosmometry.net has an interesting explanation for those interested in the dynamics of energy flow (thermodynamics) that reads:  “Whereas the vector equilibrium represents the ultimate stillness of energy, the torus shows us how energy moves in its most balanced, dynamic flow process.  The important thing to understand about the Torus is that it represents a PROCESS, not just a particular form.” [emphasis added].

It continues its explanation then of the double torus: “Another fundamental aspect of this ubiquitous flow process is what’s called the Double Torus dynamic.  This is, simply put, the torus forms stacked together and rotating in opposite directions. In this way, energy flow, either inward or outward at both poles of a system, rather than IN one pole and OUT the other — as in a single torus.”

“This double torus dynamic appears to be quite common in the cosmos as well (as the single torus), appearing in the energy flow of trees, in the weather patterns of the earth and other planets, in solar dynamics and even galaxies.”

This brings me to the question I have been pondering for some time now.  If the double torus (hereafter, DT), represents an ideal trajectory for the flow of energy over time, then it merits our attention, given that this blog aims to discover the ideal, as the foundation of the light of nature.

Here are a few of my current thoughts:

Along with complementarity, the DT seems to reveal the dual and symmetrical character of the divine, that we also see in the double helix of DNA, and its consequent imprint on all the phenotypical (outward) traits of life, meaning here life that reproduces sexually (not plant life — trees do not display symmetry). But note that if one draws a line down the middle of a human, that (just like a fish) the right side mirrors the left as a perfect counterpart. With us humans, the symmetrical “double helix” (at the microscopic level) is reflected (again, with symmetry) at the macroscopic level.

The same could be true of the DT, now at the quantum level, and perhaps at progressively larger scales, up to that of a galaxy, or even the cosmos.  This is the nature of a “self-similar” (at descending or ascending levels) fractals.  Is the cosmos a DT?  And is it fractal?

Clearly the imprint of the light of nature shows us that our beloved Creator undoubtedly bears both a dual and a unified character (as the uniformity of nature testifies).  This is what fooled traditional monotheisms, which focused overmuch on nature’s uniformity, but missed its basic duality.  Both (uniformity and duality) together resolve one of philosophy’s most famous problems, called the “problem of the one and the many.”

The uniformity of nature notoriously forms a founding element for logic, science and morality.  And a strict dualism  — if taken by itself — just breeds the problem of the “evil imposter” of Zoroastrianism.  Here, the liar’s paradox has no resolution.  The unity of nature provides the background against which the idea of duality makes sense.  Some will say, however, that one cannot really derive the concept of “the many” (or even “the few”) particularly well from the idea of “two.”  But if we double it (twice), 8 seems enough to count as “many.”

Here is something well worth considering: it may well be that in considering the DT as fundamental and ideal as the “Duality dynamic,” that we are in fact studying that which most closely represents the actual divine Person (s) by nature’s light, so that we should also bear this in mind:

Space falls out as longitude, latitude and altitude (H x W x L) and time as Past, Present and Future.  These are each transcendental categories, meaning ways in which we humans must think in order to render our experience intelligible to us (set it in order in the right categories).  But each of these remains static, like snapshots, whereas the real world unfolds over time AS PROCESS.  This means we must add to our categories, to set life’s events in proper order,  the relations that obtain BETWEEN space (3d) and time (3d).

Distance and Time are related by RATE (a measurement of change) — distance = rate x time.  Rate of change comes in different packages, but here “velocity” will do well enough.  And then a change in the rate of velocity is known as “acceleration.”

Adding these two categories to describe the flow of energy and its effects in the real world would make the real world 8-dimensional.  Recall that the double torus often takes a great deal of time to unfold AT A GIVEN RATE of energy flow.

The DT might describe (I am here suggesting) the ideal flow of energy as a kind of process in equilibrium as a 8-dimensional “picture,” one that most closely represents our divine Parent(s) — a kind of divinely-appointed fractal of a certain and unique kind.  It is a fractal IN PROCESS that takes shape over time, apparently throughout space.  It seems somehow to transcend both to some extent, and it seems ideal, both in terms of process and balance (permanence [stability] and change [process]).

I shall continue thinking and posting on this subject, divine providence (mercifully) forebearing.

Complementarity, Physics and life as a Gestalt.

As one might infer from reading the heading above, this post concerns life as a “Gestalt.”  These were the old cards containing dual pictures of dots, connected either one way — now yielding the portrait of an old hag, or now that way, showing a dot-portrait of a beautiful, young woman.  Then there is the rabbit that could have been a duck (or vice versa).

Physics shows us a gestalt kind of (dual) world, where matter (or else energy), bears a similar kind of duality (in many ways and at various times) especially on the Copenhagen read.

Here, I intend to show that light of nature, understood well by excellent science, has always been telling us the divine story of (finite) duo-monotheism.  We just weren’t particular good at listening to the story, with a few exceptions.

More about this topic later.

New Studies in Finite Monotheism Updated: My latest Critical Comments

Dr. Craig to the class: “Let us make the sign of the lawn mower, brethren: for here we mow down religion.”

And now, back to my philosophical quest.

Strangely (at first), nature seems to come with a kind of built-in duality, both at the most basic levels and at the “macroscopic,” or large-scale levels of magnitude.  One of our galaxies bears the descriptor of a “double torus,” while at the lowest levels, DNA looks just as dualistic with its “double helix,” or “symmetrical upward-winding staircase” of proteins that make up people and animals.  A “torus” names a kind of cylinder that forms a circle, like a slinky uncoiled, whose ends one forces together in a ring. A double torus, would look like one of the ringed coils atop of another.

Many of our galaxies form (or will form in the future — contents are still settling) a kind of torus shape. Some have estimated that around 51 or so of our (so far) 191 (Doubtless more will attend our future) galaxies.  My study of the persistent “dualities” of the natural world (at the foundational level, and the largest-scale) have led me to form some new ideas I am now exploring.

First, the “highest reasonable” number, one with any number higher having no reference or practical value in the real world, combines the numbers 8 (DNA) and 10 (your fingers/ toes), the two most basic and profitable.  That number is one “octillion.”   Bases 8 and 10 form the “most natural” numbers of greatest use and profit. Any higher number waxes utterly irrelevant.  This is a billion (x) billion (x) billion.

Second, I have derived a plausible account of the cosmos.  “God is not large,” said Blaise Pascal,” He is but a point, that moves infinitely fast, so that He is everywhere at once.”  I believe that God, being finite, was originally 2 supreme beings. To explain the way the real world actually situates and operates, one (I will argue) will need monotheism and duality.  This also explain both love, as having an origin in God (the two), and wisdom and understanding (the light of nature) as the result of love.  Why two?

  1.   This seems required by the nature of love, which requires both a subject (lover) and an object (beloved).  It has to be both given and received.
  2. Ockham’s razor — or what we call the principle of economy — say that what is unnecessary we must “shave off,” which leaves necessity as the primary “cause” of life, and also the cause of 2 supreme beings, since love requires it.
  3. So does wisdom.  It is necessarily INTER-personal, or social.  Very little wisdom obtains in isolation from society.  One of its (wisdom’s) characteristics shows itself by its influence on others and its profitability (which only shows up in economies or markets — social constructions).

With no material world yet in existence, they could both still learn at a blistering pace — super (hyper) quickly — but only by their imaginations.  They could have, after determining the nature of logic and thought, worked through all possible worlds, and their total sets of implicates.  As each worked (together with the other) to narrow down the possibilities, they drew closer and closer to a state of “pure mind,” truly and totally complete accuracy.  This brought them progressively together.  When they converged upon the “right answer,” this universe, they collapsed into one unity, in a sudden moment of great insight, and begat all things.

The material world was thus created from the divine love of wisdom and understanding.  This resulted in the wisdom of love and its unity.

Their divine, rational imagination created the universe, when these two points “Fused.”   Fusion created all things, and this unified, super-intelligent (and ultra-fast) “point,” catalyzed, by their combined energies (and intelligences), causing what we now call the Big Bang — a matter-energy surge extreme.

This was an absolute leap forward in the progress of all.  And this implied further the progress of creation — of stars, solar systems, formation of galaxies, creation of oceanic life (eventually) and of animal life.

Once the creation-event exploded into existence, God (the One, or the Two united) pervaded the whole of it, and expanded (and continues to expand) with it, growing in his knowledge and wisdom along with its expansion.  One might call this “transcendent duo-panentheism.”  But it also remain a form of “finite monotheism.”

Here, the creation of humans amounted to an invitation to join His family.  It was an act of love, and a call to pursue the forever-wisdom-quest — along with God. The most interesting question I am pursuing at this point is this:  How planned, or else (somewhat) spontaneous and unplanned, was the creation event?  If two supreme Persons in fact merged, the act might simply have been one of love more than any design, and it may have cause an unexpected birth — a permanent fusion of two deities (like male and female) into One at the same moment the cosmos burst forth.  This may be a bit too anthropomorphic, but it seems to me that it has far better explanatory power than the other option here specified.

On this account, God was born with the universe, and grows with it (as it expands and matures), though He transcended it earlier  — but only in more primitive, dual form.  Something like this was affirmed by Dr. Einstein — namely the idea that God was born with the cosmos.

This account displays before creation the following principles of nature’s light:

  1. The principle of economy
  2. The principle of reflexive judgment (symmetry)
  3. The principle of progress
  4. The principle of charity
  5. The principle of priority (wisdom first, then love)
  6. The principle of uniformity  (The TWO had to share some traits in common, like necessity and life)

This would indicate that these principles represent (natural) traits of both the TWO, and consequently (post-creation) the One.

In any case, I continue my quest for the GU (meta) T, as an account that explains the real world, its origin, and Creator, and the best one might make of it from what is known to philosophy, history and science, and the other disciplines of the academy.  I shall post those details here if Providence permits.

2000 Years Later, And They Still Haven’t Noticed (The Failed Messiah Challenge)

According to Mark, Jesus went throughout Galilee, healing everyone and casting out demons in their synagogues.  Healing keeps coming up, again and again, and in John these “miracles” of healing form proof that he is the Messiah — “If you do not believe my testimony, at least you should believe the works that I do” (John 5).

This man was supposed to be a prophet with excellent (perfect) foreknowledge — meaning he knew the important future.  Here is what this healing “Messiah” forgot to do:

  1.  He did not tell anyone about germ theory (1870+), or that by washing their hands with soap (they had hyssop) and water 3 times daily, they could live a whole lot longer.  In fact, if everyone in his day had done this, we could have saved hundreds of millions of lives and skipped the middle ages. Oops.
  2. Then there is the wonder of penicillin.  Not one word from our prophetic “Messiah” about this or any other antibiotic, which again, by themselves could have omitted the middle ages, saving millions of lives.  All that healing going on, and not one word about antibiotics, or even good nutrition.
  3. He said nothing about aloe vera, or any other herbals, now known to have excellent effects for helping to treat all kinds of problems.  Many of these were available in his locale and time period.
  4. He told them nothing about the importance of different vitamins, or gave any counsel that was good for their health.
  5. The steam engine was invented in 62 by Hero of Alexandria.  It ran the industrial revolution and still provides much of the power for our cooking, cleaning and hospitals.  Jesus knew nothing about it, and said not one word in favor of it, or of electricity that could make the lives of billions far, far better.

The bottom line here is that, given his supposed “prophetic foreknowledge” — good knowledge of the future, and given his demonstrated desire to heal (Acc. to John to prove he was the Messiah), Jesus was an utter failure as a healer, foreknower (prophet), and as a Messiah.  He was quite possibly the WORST Messiah he could have been, a super-negligent, criminally apathetic, and quite possibly the most idiotic — Messiah we have ever heard of.

Any person with even the slightest inclination to help people, who had his foreknowledge, would have been a better Messiah.  Jesus that guy was a failure.  Just like his jihad followers.  Amen.

The Ideal Language: What Does It Look Like?

For a language to represent what is ideal, it would have to aim to fulfill the human design.  This means it will promote the production and distribution of our primary design objectives:  Wisdom, life, love, value, beauty, success, and joy.  It will also have to pass muster with the principles of the light of nature used as a filter.

Then we would have to remove from it all non-ideal words, word-parts and the like — this would include all violence language and meat-eating language, as well as criminal language — legal documents providing the exception to the rule since necessity operates here where it does not do so elsewhere. The same would hold true for medical literature.  It would also remove all non-referential language since the ideal tongue will repr. the language of truth.  This means it must omit all religious language.

Since the greek culture is the only one ever to pursue wisdom as of a top priority — inventing philosophy, the pursuit of wisdom — and because of its unique abilities of inventing geometry and trigonometery, as well as the steam engine (which later ran the industrial revolution), we should necessarily begin with the Greek alphabet and language.  Moreover, the Greek adopted the alphabet of the Phoenicians, a seafaring people who ate mostly fishes for meat (not cows or pigs), and that by necessity, since they went as traveling merchants for long periods at sea.

However, as I have shown, the letters used must have no curves, but straight lines only for greater clarity, meaning the capital B, will have to undergo a change or two.  Most other capitals (uncials) have no curves in Greek. The upsilon (U) can be squared easily as the base to remove its curve.  We should simply toss out the minuscules (lower case letters) as redundant and extremely curved.  Ockham’s razor would shave these off.  We can render the capitals a bit smaller since they do not have to wax large to foster clarity.  This allows more letters and words per page.

No letter part should “cut in half” (bisect) any other since this will likely have the effect of creating socio-cultural effects pitting one aspect of cultural development against another (causing a kind of “drag” on profitablility).

We should consider, once we have removed from it all violence-speak, false references, and other faulty language, the use of the Latin vocabulary, translated back into Greek by the skilled use of prefixes, roots, and suffixes, used to create a Greek dynamic equivalent for words we do not have in our modified, Hellenistic vocabulary, offered by the highly regular (other) classical tongue.  This would the new Greek all the strengths of both classical languages (the Renaissance kept both), while having none of the weaknesses or faults of either — and all in Greek at the end of the matter.

What else can we say about the ideal language?  It will have numerous synonyms for the terminology associated with Wisdom [Discretion, understanding, discernment, etc], life [prolific, flourishing, growing, etc] love [kindness, tenderness, compassion, etc], value [profit, profitable, earned, worth, prized, etc], beauty, joy, progress, etc, including a significant number of verbs that indicate the acquiring, producing, managing and distributing of these features of human experience.

Some of the principles of the light of nature to use in sorting which words, word-parts and writing rules to employ in building the ideal tongue are these:

  1. Reflexive judgment
  2. Charity
  3. Economy or necessity
  4. Uniformity
  5. Prefer concrete (empirical) to abstract language
  6. Prefer graphic verbs to verbs of “being” (omit as redundant, save “to exist”)
  7. Omit the infinitive, as non-referential, and unnecessary
  8. Prefer the active voice to the passive (omit passive as unnecessary)
  9. Prefer the sense of technical terms when necessary (these are less culturally-conditioned because the hoi polloi do not use them often — thus they display less “linguistic drift” over time too), but try to find a way to express these in the “ordinary tongue” — by dynamic equivalence.
  10. The question of a DNA pattern to the ideal human language remains.  I am persuaded that “the DNA patterns used to create people represent a kind of language of life.  I intend to continue my investigation of these to determine just which features we ought to adopt and adapt to the ideal language, which should be a language of life, and thus will share some similarities with DNA patterns. Should ideal words have only 2 syllables, else 4, or 6 or 8?  This would create a fascinating kind of uniformity to writing.

There also remains another question: how many, and which, features of formal language, should we adopt and adapt to the ideal language?  This also bears further exploring.  As an example, we might wonder if it is possible or desirable to add a feature to this language from math, say one that allows the final syllable to show as a number, or else to circumscribe a letter with a number — written as a pentagon for “five, ” or a circumscribing square for a “four,” if we want to expand the number of letters in the alpha without adding new letters.

Suppose we keep the Greek 24 letters, but we want a 64 letter alphabet (following DNA), we could simply as the second set of 24 letters by writing them out just as in the first set, but with a line over the top to indicate the second set, giving us 48 letters to work with, and so on.

Then we move onto another fascinating question — what happens when we rewrite time and the calendar using the (even #’s only) base 8 math of the world of DNA?  This also needs exploring as an important part of the question about the ideal way of timekeeping with the ideal math of the ideal language.

I shall more about this topic when convenient.