Jump to content

The Quality of Number


Packerbacker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Many a child, when first introduced to numbers, demands to know "what they mean." Two, for example, is expected to have a meaning with respect to its twoness which is entirely distinct from its value as the sum of two ones. It is the quality, or individuality of number that the child is reaching for.

 

But what is the meaning of two? Among other things, it is an expression of duality. It is a way in which to describe existence and the universe. But twoness, or duality is not a law, as such, but one could say it is part of the shape of existence. If this seems obscure, it is because we are venturing down a forgotten and weed choked path.

 

Oneness,(monad), unifies. It is the view of existence as a oneness. Kantor described a set as "a multitude we think to call, one." To be, we must be one in a fundamental way.

 

Threeness, (triad) can be three equal numbers, or it can be a superior unity which encloses two equal, but opposite, sub unities. This is the design of the yin-yang (T'ai-chi T'u) symbol (which can be found on the flage of South Korea, among other places.) Here we have one, two, and three combined into a unity.

 

It is not accidental, I think, that 1,2, and 3 are primes. This makes them unique individuals.Were they not unique they would not exist, for at the fundamental level we cannot use distinction in time and space as a basis of individuality. Like Leibniz, we must make the differences individualities (Leibniz, of course, thought the trigrams of the I Ching were a binary notation,

 

and along with Bruno and Spinoza is one of the great monadologists). The yin-yang threeness pattern will stack in a trinity of threenesses forming a total of--not nine--but seven members, and

 

seven is another prime.

 

In their own way, the basic geometric forms are primes, since they are unique and cannot be reduced into simpler forms (simpler parts, yes). One might venture to call them atoms of form.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear RMT:

 

Let's call our four dimensions A,B,C and D.And let's also assume we live in a 3+1, or ABC+D world.

 

So we can have an arrangement:

 

>>>>>>>G

 

>>>>>E....F

 

>>>A...B...C...D

 

This can be expanded to 15 members, since the next level has eight members.

 

Leibniz thought the trigrams were binary numbers. If you set the yang, or unbroken line as the digit, and the yin or broken line as a 0, and read down (or in), the circular arrangement of the I Ching can be interpreted as

 

>>>>>>>>> 7

 

>>>>>>>6......3

 

>>>>>5..........2......(This is supposed to be circular)

 

>>>>>>>4.......1

 

>>>>>>>>>>0

 

So the progression goes from 0 to 3, crosses over the circle to 4, runs in the opposite direction,

 

and then crosses back over from 7 to 0.

 

Now I read this as a double spin, one of which is at right angles to the other.

 

There is an article on "The Mathematics of the I Ching" by Martin Gardner in the Jan.1 (1974) issue of Scientific American magazine (of course Gardner is of the opinion that the I Ching is merely a divination tool).But in that article there ia a traditional table of values with the values to which I have added a binary interpretation.(The yin method is the opposite of the yang method and the sum of the two is always 7.(This uses the Fu Hsi arrangement).

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yang m..yin m.

 

mother (K'un)>>>>>>>>>0>>>>>>7

 

youngest son (Ken)>>>>1>>>>>>6

 

second son (K'an)>>>>>2>>>>>>5

 

first daughter(Sun)>>>3>>>>>>4

 

first son (Chen)>>>>>>4>>>>>>3

 

second daught.(Li)>>>>5>>>>>>2

 

young.daught. (Tui)>>>6>>>>>>1

 

father (Ch'ien)>>>>>>>7>>>>>>0

 

If we transpose this back to the sevenness stack:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental G Youngest (least) son

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st harmonic E F Second son

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd Harmonic A B C D First (greatest) son

 

Hence there is a description of two octaves. A spin is obviously implied in the yin-yang

 

symbols and a spin can be described in terms of two Simple Harmonic Motions at right angles to one another. Note that in the statue of Shiva the two inner arms are crossed . In the above pattern B and C would be interposed. So we might write:

 

>>>>>>G+

 

>>>>E+...F-

 

>>A+ C+ B- D-

 

So the pattern breaks up into two parts, positve and negative or mother and father. Note that this breaking into two parts can also be represented by the hexagram with one triangle pointing up and one pointing down.

 

P.S. I hope you can figure out the graphics.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PB,

 

P.S. I hope you can figure out the graphics.

:confused: My finger refuses to find the sexy of complexity. Buddha never consumed so much, when mouthfuls trained fleas on the backs of giants with pride. My tie still won't fly for this pernicious try. Why?

Number, yin-yang, big bang, Iching, all have a fastidious ring, but the latest teams trip over the bling.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At one time wizards did not regard people as important.

 

There was no more regard for a human, that a jungle hiker would have for a dead bleeding monkey, found on the jungle floor.

 

The agreements are Tor, not known to the general public, all changed this condition thousands of years ago.

 

The wizards, specialized ones from off Earth, sealed this agreement.

 

The deal was, however, that successive generations regardless of what country it was, and how powerful they thought they were, would never ever intend sacrifice a wizard human descendent from that Tor area.

 

The questions is, did you want wizards and humans to start arming in a new war, that the humans would more than likely loose?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting, PackerBacker. Can you narrow down the era that this originated from...the reason being that the Qabalah also has similar facets.

 

Would be interesting to compare the dates these principles may have originated.

 

One of the fundamental qabalistical ideals is described within a text entitled " Book of Concealed Mystery ". The doctrine stresses equilibrium and balance.

 

""" The living synthesis of counterbalanced power. Thus "form" may be described as the equilibrium of light and shade...equilibrium is that harmony which results from the analogy of contraries...the opposition of opposing forces being equal in strength.""".

 

The yin-yang symbol reflects this principle of equilibrium and balance, between light and shade.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear OvLrdLegion:

 

Actually, all of the material that I have been posting is derived from a system I have

 

developed over many years. Some time ago, someone sent me a copy of the Scientific American

 

magazine on the I Ching (jan 1974), and I saw the similarities. You might say that I gained

 

and ability to "see" what these symbols meant. You must realize, as a student of esoterica,

 

that much of the interpretation of such symbols has been carefully guarded for millenia. I

 

think must of the reason for this is not that they woud fall into the hands of the unworthy,

 

but that some very bad dudes in ancient times boobytrapped them. You know, in the world beyond

 

space and time, things differ by their intrinsic individuality, so that the symbol is the address.

 

By visualizing a symbol, one goes to the place, or a place, where that knowledge is to be

 

had. But I believe the restrainst have been removed.

 

I almost forgot to add that the symbol described is that of the one element, or the Monad, or what I have called the "self-enclosed wave," that vibrate backward and forward in time and space, and hence eternally contains itself. An almost infinite number of these form the akasa, or the ether, or subspace, or the "parent space" of HPB, or whatever you want to call it.

 

There is an interesting article at web page about a researcher who thinks the Big Bang was more of a Big Hum. Perhaps it was even a Big Aum?

 

By the way, what has set RainmanTime off? At least Creedo is a poet, a real poet, I might add.

 

The story about the red panties and the UFO in the sky is unforgettable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, what has set RainmanTime off? At least Creedo is a poet, a real poet, I might add.

This a classic example of common cartoon drama.

 

You know the scene.

 

The bad guy, despite his best efforts to catch that 'wabbit' and get even, eventually get's fed up, that he ultimately goes Bonkers :confused:.

 

I guess even in reality, some people's actions are just as apparent if not more so, then those childish cartoon antics most of us grew up watching.

 

TTA

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My finger refuses to find the sexy of complexity. Buddha never consumed so much, when mouthfuls trained fleas on the backs of giants with pride. My tie still won't fly for this pernicious try. Why?

 

Number, yin-yang, big bang, Iching, all have a fastidious ring, but the latest teams trip over the bling.

 

Anyone who owns a cell phone, or who has ever dialed a phone number on a touch-tone phone dial pad, has encountered a natural, (3x3)+1 matrix-configuration for the 10 digits used in our human-oriented base-10 decimal number system:

 

Furthermore, if it is accepted as true that Freemasons were the predominant intellectual force in developing America in its early days, as well as its technology boom era where digital electronics were introduced, is it really such an unexpected coincidence that the standard 10-digit touch tone matrix keypad can be directly aligned with the (3x3) + 1 (=10) matrix structure of the ancient knowledge laid out in the Tree Of Life?

 

And is it also just a coincidence that this matrix structure mirrors the (3x3)+1 matrix structure of our human body?

 

Is it all really just one big coincidence, or is it possible that this matrix structure of 3x3 can be mathematically shown to be a dominant structure that co-exists in all intelligent systems that are capable of modifying the universe around them?

 

RMT

Kind of ironic, isn't it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taken the information as laid out in the Qabalah, and given it alot of thought. I DO have a very strong imagination, or ability to watch events upon an imaginary screen within, so to speak.

 

In contemplating the beginning, it isnt difficult to imagine a time when there was nothing and something. Each beyond any words humanity could use to describe exactly what these two factors are in totallity...and this is where I get hung up.

 

We can state there were two forces...however, are these two forces actually -- something acting with nothing, or a positive (type ) force acting with a negative (type ) force, and the nothingness is NOT included in the creative/interaction with... process?

 

I can understand that at one point in time, the something develops an awareness of itself, realizing exisitence. The evolution of that monad, the ONE, now comes into play. Realizing that this something is ONE, is capable of making a decision regarding creation.

 

I can understand that for ONE to make TWO, the only way I can see such a feat being done, as explained in Qabalah, is where the ONE creates a reflection of itself. Now, the dynamics behind how the ONE makes a reflection of itelf is another grey area.

 

Explained as the spinning of the something with nothing, or darkness with light, or positive energy with negative energy, a balanced dance between opposite forces eminating this vibration of creation.

 

I can understand that if it was myself who had suddenly became aware of my own existence, and realized I was but ONE, it isnt a far stretch to understand the WILL to create and not be alone.

 

I know it is said that God is everywhere, and I can understand how this is accomplished. I can understand that God knows many things. However, God knowing "everything", I question that as an all inclusive statement.

 

As it seems to be His WILL for us to learn the difference between good and evil, through experience. Is He Himself, or the ONE also learning from experience(s).

 

And I wonder if that ONE can be classified as God himself, or is a creative force, that formed a Godhead of itself to interact with all creation. The two being ONE, yet, seperate for creative purposes.

 

The creation of TWO forms up the foundation for a vibration to be created. The exact definition or composition of this vibration, is another questionable factor. I believe many are really close to becoming aware of what this basic vibration is...whatever path that has been taken to discover these basic truths, still revealing what lays behind the obvious.

 

Whether Buddhist, or Hindu, or Christian, etc...anyone who truly uses the disciplines for self-discovery, without getting ensnared by the politics or other peoples agendas, will arrive at an undertanding of The Father ( Creator / Creation ).

 

I find it bothersome that people may think the Creator may be so limited in His ability to just focus on ONE culture to lay down understandings of existence. I believe He would be fully able to speak to any culture, with whatever concepts they understand to get the message He really wishes for humanity to learn.

 

If one take the time to research historical legend and myths, many stories exist of a visitation by a "Holy" figure who reveals "sacred" information, using the concepts as understood by that particular culture.

 

When a comparison of the information is done, the basic concepts are the same. As with most of the popular relgions, if one removes the dogma and mumbo-jumbo added on top of the primary ideals, simularities emerge.

 

Thus we even get the finger pointing of who was first and who stole ( or borrowed ) the ideals from whom...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...