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.
* * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment