Thursday, June 14, 2012
Hidden Codes in the Isolation of the Scientific Method
Hidden Codes in the Isolation of the Scientific Method
L. Edgar Otto 13 June, 2012
The beginning of the alphanumeric age, an awakening of civilization and recorded history worldwide in the West was the doctrine of Pythagoras. Numbers are the general pattern that frames the physicality of the world and yet they are the objects of which such physicality is composed. Have we really come that far from this focusing of view in our application of mathematics to the physics? Have we gone to greater depths in the bringing out the secrets of nature as seems the general purpose at the dawn of science or have we merely pushed aside the meanings in the message that all remains in what is not science in the mystic disciplines is a sense of darkness as if a ghost of which we can ignore or deny in the light of known but concrete mechanism. Still, the not knowing of what such a darkness is composed but that it is merely asserts what we now know, as if a unity of theory, is all there is.
Evidently the string theories, having a little more generality and depth than our more modern physics of fields is indeed foundational. But it seems so only at the beginnings where science and philosophy or religious sentiments were one thing and in the considerations or recording of systems of codes it is distilled a science by the doctrine of Pythagoras with but an arbritary stance of what is science or pseudoscience. Its logic has its counterpart in Newton's search for hidden messages in a Bible code or in the objective meaning emphasized from as above so below, gravity, from his contemplations of the patterns of astrology.
Why or how does this seem the case and state of our science methods of experiment, theory, and repetition of experienced and reliable results? How can both systems of view be intelligible, interchangeable with the force of the reality- and how so it apples as mathematics to the physical and subjective world of our existence?
If one looks in the mirror and makes claims less than a wider vision than we now allow, the isolation into the objective world and its methods could appear if after years of habit our learning, use of words and symbols, age-old traps of thought and intuition, animal instincts that are primary in the race toward or the decent into our counting of infinity that we might appear in our most foundational theories but a mythic beast in the zodiac, a dragon of which we can see only the reflection of his burning eyes while his five fold claws remain distant and outside the logic diagrams that evokes in us a sense of the world as animated shadows?
We in the glorification of the matter within us have made the beast real but we do not always see that we so become the beast. You who so claim to see in denial of what is truly hidden have cast yourself into isolation. If what is right or wrong is so to be the criterion of mental health, an agenda for some concept of time, growth or decay, of such truths you are free to choose but your choice may not give you freedom but isolated blindness. Have you advanced our understanding or merely and predictably looped upon yourselves your lack of vision and this sense of what is the truth of the real and what choices to make for free and honest enquiry? Have you even thought to ask this of yourself and your theories?
It is then not the predictions or the divination or to what percentage these are verified but the control of the agenda for some immediate if not vague purpose of our evolution and stability of social systems requiring vigilance for our crutches in the flat here and now reference holding all up. No wonder the stringers and the loopers fight in the struggle for our minds and hearts. Theirs can be a divergent isolation as well as joint effort for a better future.
The foundations at least from the geometric sense obey the general rule within the experienced and real, and perceptible, of the Pythagorean and thus Euclidean neutral ideal if we face the extremes of our equations. In this sense even the quasic theory is a purification of his doctrine of which one needs not say it is in the realm of the hard science or the mystical- My experience with the general theory is that it nevertheless remains but a steppingstone so to speak to wider awakenings. It is not necessarily a matter of indifference. It is as alive as we sense to some degree our being alive somewhere between the contingent and the necessity.
Who among you in the cathedral of theory, those in the hierarchy or in the pews can be true believers or those who wrap themselves in their Sunday best? Which of your leaders who consecrate the communion merely go though the motion life depleted of their beliefs? Apparently, only.
Who among you so proclaiming the dream can lead the flock as if to lead nature not as true healers but nevertheless allows those in the lay to heal as nature does herself? How much truth in the snake-oil and how much prediction in the sugar coated placebos?
Which of you, and the artist is aware of precious and great moments of his own work, is original and fundamental?
There are the right and the left hands and eyes of a Dragon and outside of the oscillation or contradictions of unity and multiplicity we erect or house of two- in the lesser axioms of numbers and the logic, in the stance toward compliments and inversions, where universe and unified field meets multiverse and fractured atoms, one to one only of individuals in shared existence gather on our strongest sense of the world as continuity. But from this there are wider visions and there is more no matter on which side of the reality we are watching or how accidental the count and patterns of our letters and lost letters intelligible in our reading of the runes as if tarot by the numbers. It is still useful to count by Napier's bones, or multiply by the doubling of the fractions of Aegypt for such things in the human mind at least, if we play with them, each of us recreates and rediscovers. The art of it is the art of arts itself and perhaps the ground on which we wonder.
* * * * * * *