An Update on the Ideal Language: Letters and Teeth

Imagine that the gods and goddesses, our divine parents prove to be imminently practical in the way they have created us, and intended our structure (structural design) to teach what we need to know.  This would yield to the study of human anatomy a kind of special status.  For instance, suppose we were to note that our teeth are symmetical in several ways, that each of us (male and female) bear 32 teeth, and this means that the minimum required for ordinary discourse (communication) is 64.  Now let us add to our equation that many of the sounds we make (morphemes) that we form involve the use of our teeth.

Imagine that the number of letters in our grasp of the ideal alphabet has been handed to us, and that it stands at 64, the same number as the letters in the DNA “alphabet.”  That is, if you add the number of teeth found in one male and one female adult — 2 forms the complementary minimum for the production of human life (DNA recombination) — we would have 64.  The only letter we have in our alphabet that is formed in a part of the body not from the mouth or throat is the letter “N” in English.  Coincidentally, this “wrongful” (unfitting) letter leads the words in English most often indicating no-reference — No, not, never, negative, negation, the prefix “non-“, none, neither, etc.

In short, I believe that so far, the ideal language forms eight sets of 8 letters that are symmetrical.  This follows the pattern of our teeth (and the language of DNA).  Whether these letters should show as (two-fold) diphthongs (that is, as two letters that combine to make one sound, like “ph” in “philadelphia” makes the sound of the letter “f”), I remain unsure.  As far as I know, the Russian tongue has 33 letters, and is the only one that approximates 32.

The letters should bear (be composed of) straight lines only (these resolve most easily to the reading eye and create greater clarity), and each should receive careful scrutiny as to it symbolic meaning.  The alphabet should use only majuscules (capital letters, not lower case) that can reduce a little in size for the sake of economy — more letters per page.

Advertisements

The Still, Yet Even More New Math

I wish to notify those who might have an interest in a basic change I made recently in my understanding of the quantity transcendental — recall that I. Kant identified quantities as a transc. category.  I used to hold (as previous posts might indicate until I change them) that the most basic numerical sequence for all understanding of quantity was 2, 4, 6, 8.  I then begann to grow suspicious of the 6 because, if one divides it by 2 (another # of the q-sequence), you get an odd #.

I then revised the q-sequence to the following: 1, 2, 4, 8.   Although 1 does also form an odd number, it seems highly unique in that it signifies uniformity, as in the uniformity of nature. No other # does this. In other words, the # 1 might well be the ONLY necessary, odd #.  Unity is as inescapable as plurality.  This sequence therefore indicates my new understanding — progress ho — of the quantity transcendental.  The wise will, of course, take the time to consider such concepts.  This becomes especially necessary in light of the fact that, of all the disciplines, (different forms of) math seem(s) to have led the road into the future as the leader — ahead of all other areas of study — perhaps b/c of the development of the pyramids, whose dimensions provided much of the basis for one of the earliest math forms, with the “sekhed” (a shape describing the top of a pyramid) forming an integral part of the teaching of math in Egypt (acc. to the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, 1650 B.C.).

The Greeks may even have learned their love of triangle studies in (Euclidean) geometry from the pyramid shape — thanks Pythagoras.  This advisory is complete for now.

Textbook Reform and Ideal History (of Everything)

Language constructs culture, and thus civilization.  It is easy to see that different languages (say, Hispanic tongues v. English) yield widely different cultures (e.g. South American and North A.).  Over time, overlapped sharing brings them closer together (via trade and mass communication forms, etc.), rendering them more homogeneous.

Here, I am recommending a two-fold change, a deliberate altering of our language and it primary intellectual capital for teaching across generations — books (more generally) and textbooks (more particularly).

We should write and perfect the multi-topical history (and sciences, as with the other disciplines) textbooks that aim at the ideal.  Consider the following:

1) If you had a biographer writing your history After you had died, you would want them to omit the details that would paint you in a bad light, and include just the ones that would leave the best impressio of you — like your resume that you distribute in the marketplace.  We should do the same for humanity and for our predecessors.  Do to others (ancestors) what you would have others do for you — some day you just might BE (among) the ancestors.

2)  The challenge that this cast too favorable a light upon the past (is too selective so as to portray the past falsely is misguided on two counts — historical (or scientific) writing is ALWAYS highly selective. Two, we do not sacrifice accuracy by following the golden rule.  Rather, we favor it by avoiding “defamation of [the] character” of those about whom we write. Here, truth requires charity.

3) Our writing should neither make any mention of death, use death language, or else any form of conflict or damage language.  It is only necessary to give the birth date and a flourit date for any given historical actor.  We should omit (remove) all death dates.  Ockham’s razor.  The accomplishments and contributions of different persons requires no ref. to their deaths at all.

4) We should omit all languages that does not contribute to the display of the development of progress (rather the point of education and training) of humanity.  The texts should center around value system regarded as universal, based on our design, centrally one of:  Wisdom, love, beauty, value, life, honor, joy and success — the things that make humans flourish.  Here, science, math and other disciplines are regarded as (wisdom) “traditions,” following Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

Comments: Rewriting our history and sciences as a virtuous, progressive (sometimes, or often by replacement of paradigms) has something of an ancient precedent.  But historians such as Cornelius Tacitus, although properly (some would say) moralistic, and fairly critical, did not have the hindsight we now have to estimate a more universal set of values based on the light of nature and the critical reflections of the postmodern era that make more clear to us our design by the nature of what Kant called the transcendental categories.  And we also have the philosophy of language to aid the cause.

Perhaps Tacitus would laud our efforts to start over.  Rewriting these texts amounts to reconstructing our whole human history — multi-topically, by interweaving and referring one set of innovations and ideas with others from varying disciplines to create a more monolithic (wholist) picture of human development — no apocalypse included.  We could and should give ourselves a fresh start, and a new identity, that is ideal — our best foot forward, and all that sort of thing.

Leave out the rap sheet (bad reports), and include the best resume we could submit to our beloved divine parents.  Our self-concept rules our destiny.  Let’s make it the best that we can, and get it right this time.

The Study in the Topic of Our Beloved gods, goddesses and Life

The math of life (1, 2, 4, 8) or [the “accretive”] math of doubling and DNA suggest that this represents the highest numeral value in the most basic math sequence as 8.  8 exhibits the symbol showing the highest number, or superiority concept — or “the greatest in magnitude.”  In my earlier blog posts, you can read that I had reasoned from life – the two base pairs (and 4 proteins) of DNA — together with other arguments — to the cosmogeny of 4 deities.

The math of life bears positive integers only, nothing negative and no “zero” quantity indicators.  Remember that the transcendent [and necessary] nature of human people — means that the math that we use has a tendency over time to create what it names and identifies as real in the real world. Our math, as a function of our language, forcefully and really tends to create what it allows and promotes.  So negative number math creates extraordinary debt loads over time when applied to the world of economics.  We have seen this in recent history. In the modern period, huge debt loads accrued to almost every nation.  Each was using the non-accretive math of negative numbers and zero q-indicators.  We should (must) go the other way.  The math we employ should promote only the abundance of asset-value in the world of economics.  Instead of subtraction, we can use the concept of replacement of value.   We could do the same for division — that is, we could find a substitute operation for “dividing” that replaces the idea of the “value loss” in math, favoring one of growing abundance instead.

In any case, back to 8 as the superior single-digit #.   Here, I begin to expound why I now believe in 8, and why this number could not be higher for any reason — the superior-magnitudinal [biggest #] nature of 8.  This corresponds to the eight “human design” values — our reason for being here:

Wisdom [and understanding], love [and kindness], life [and flourishing growth], beauty [and majesty], value [and proiftability], joy [and happiness], success [and progress] (very importantly) honor [and dignity].

Why I Oppose the Consanguinity Laws of the Bible

Many lands today actually display laws on the books that remain a kind of invasion of the modern world by the 3,000 year-old Mosaic legislation.  Please remember, this silly stuff has the witch-burning mandates.

The modern world of genetics makes the “family-relative” sex laws obsolete, in terms of what damage one supposes might ensue. Since one can go to a clinic, submit a dna sample, and check in advance of a wedding one’s genetic compatibility with his betrothed, to make sure nothing bad (mutations, physical defects, etc) is likely to follow their union.

DNA restoring and editing technology will continue to make these obsolete as well, with innovations like CRISPR-Cas 9, a very advanced genome editor.

Ancient kings did in fact marry close relatives fairly frequently with little known material consequences (not too many physical defects of note). These can be obviated altogether today.

Moreover, the state is not allowed to prefer the faith of one religion over those of others in its legal codes, and these laws, especially given their obsolescence, clearly violate the separation of church and state.

Finally, the limits of “legitimate unions” set by these laws seems entirely arbitrary.  There is no good reason to allow unions between “third cousins,” or more distant relations, but to allow second cousins; even weirder, forbidding one to marry one’s sister-in-law (the lady married to your brother, after he dies — assuming an untimely demise), makes no genetic sense whatever.  She could be far more distant genetically than your 5th cousin, but she is disallowed. Huh?

Here, superstition should not be allowed to rule as law.  The ancient Mosaic legislation must be removed from legal codes, and a better version adopted (if any) with the advice of medical specialists.  Get real.

Likewise, Sunday and “Holiday” Laws should removed from all modern law.

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.

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 Newly Adopted a View Known as Hendiadic Polytheism

My view of the divine is best described as:

  1. Transcendent – The gods existed before, and do now exist “underneath” (at lower levels of scale) the creation. It is proper to say that they were born with the universe (Einstein), meaning in in their present (hendiadic) and 8-fold 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 (first two) divine parents, Father (the God) and Mother (the Goddess) are finite, but supreme, divine Persons. Others came later from them as by a kind of necessity (birth).
  3. Hen (One) – Diadic (two-) fold = Hendiadic.  The eight individual, divine, Persons, united into pairs at the Origin of the cosmos, causing the “Big Bang” — divine unity created our cosmos.
  4. The eight divine Parents we have think and live as one, in mindset (Wisdom and understanding), love, volition and purpose.  But they maintain their clear and distinct individuality as real persons. They grow and change together — their relationship is like unto a perfect (ideal) marriage, and community (family).  They complete each other (are complements One of Another).
  5. Eight-fold Theism.  All 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. The divinities are quite free and optimal in every way, and our freedom depends upon Theirs (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, especially wisdom and understanding, that causes us to thrive.

“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 Creators, The Double Torus and the Ideal Language

    We properly refer to our supremely wise Creators as the Cosmarchs (Titans?) 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,” (Where one kind of thing COMPLETES another, the way two halves of a thing form a whole) 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 Creators through the ideal process?  It would seem that they have both a kind of uniformity (nature forms a unified field of “something”) and a duality (two-ness) about them. I have already given my explanation of this (see previous posts). Why four “divine pairs” and not 3, or 7?  DNA provides the answer, and so does the binary character of particles (quanta). Science geeks think of these as more like “energy packets,” than say like “tiny billiard balls.”

This fascinating DT fractal (i.e. an unusual 3-d geometric shape that looks a bit like two donuts stacked together) shape unfolds over time in a way we could call “stochastic” — (seemingly 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 — er, sometimes.  But it won’t give you exactly a DT image.  Interestingly, there is a galaxy (just one so far) 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) forbearing.