Where to start? One two three go! The three ages of man. The three musketeers. The three faces of Eve. Three wishes. The three aspects of supreme deity. Good things come in threes.
Noam Chomsky once suggested that cognition had a built in substrate, that the nature of thought is built on a series of fairly simple basic tracks. I agree. Sort of. I propose that left brain, analytic, thot can be seen to be composed of a reiterative patterns. Right brain synthetic thot is a whole different ball of wax
In his delightful book on popularizing physics, One, Two, Three, ...Infinity, George Gamow talks about a primitive tribe in Africa that has no word for "four". Any number ofobjects beyond three is just " many". I see a wisdom in this.
Hegelian Ontology and Process
Descartes began his metaphysics with the famous "Cogito ergo sum", I think therefore I am. I perfer a translation closer to " I reason ..." as it leads to the delightful conundrum the the reason I am is because I reason.
Having argued recently that a theoretical reduction of analytics to the most basic form would yield no new insights, I'd like to reverse my position. As stated elsewhere, the only thing that can be objectively known is "I am". At this juncture no specific criteria canbe applied to either "I"-ness or "am"-ness. Once having made this observations one is immediately confronted with the observation that " not-I" also exists. I originally concluded that this was as far as the analytic approach to ontology could take us.
Hegel proposed that every proposition contained the seed of its opposite and that these two antithetical s could be synthesized to a proposition that contained the essence of each. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Stretching the meaning of thesis somewhat, we get some interesting ideation around the existential "I am that I am" of the burning bush.
And, at this point, Western philosophy fumbled the ball on the one yard line. They failed to apply the Hegelian dialectic to the Hegelian dialect. Fortunately the movement of mystics of many different credes during the Moorish occupation of Southern Spain ... did not.
Tetragrammaton
It is my understanding that the Judaic mystics of the Moorish period used several names for the deity. None was actually a name so much as a descriptor of the essential attributes of the creator. I don't have any good references here. An example of this is the use of "El", roughly meaning "The" to reference the existential nature of divinity's being while "Elohim" references that aspect of divinity that is the active agent in the world.
Most relevant to this discussion is the term "yod-he-vau-he" for deity. This is not a name at all (Jehovah) but rather a formulaic description of how deity as a process works. Yod, the spark of initiation combines with the ground of creation to form he, a synthesis. In the tetragrammaton the process does not stop here as in the Hegelian dialect but, rather, this new synthesis becomes the proposition (yod) for another cycle of creation.
Yod, he, vau, he becomes disciriptive of the creation process itself. The second "he", becomes the initial spark for further generations of creation. For those fond of the symbolism found in numerology, it can be seen that each cycle generates a new " sacred" number: (3,4), 7, 10, 13 ... Worthy of note is the correlation with the major arcana of the Tarot. As an example: number13 is the card "Death" which corresponds to a cycle of cycles in the Tetragramaton.
Even more note worthy is that this process is self referential - it generates fractals.
Higher Dimensions
Bucky Fuller & Synergetics
No comments:
Post a Comment