59
edits
Mcp358
Joined 27 June 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
It appears to me, that we are faced with the issue of either saving mysticism, or saving natural science, and the true foundations of computational systems which extend well beyond Plato, and well beyond the construction of Stone Henge, whilst Stone Henge indicates a higher degree of complexity, and instantiation of a relatively transparent system that remains obscure only in the failure to support the greater numbers induction into the primary attributes of astronomy and foundational systems of mensuration. | It appears to me, that we are faced with the issue of either saving mysticism, or saving natural science, and the true foundations of computational systems which extend well beyond Plato, and well beyond the construction of Stone Henge, whilst Stone Henge indicates a higher degree of complexity, and instantiation of a relatively transparent system that remains obscure only in the failure to support the greater numbers induction into the primary attributes of astronomy and foundational systems of mensuration. | ||
==Regarding the relation between the preceding work and the single chirality Klein Bottle== | |||
There are a number of permutations of the Kleinbottle. The most common, or classic figure of the Kleinbottle is discussed in various volumes of Carl Gustave Jung's work on Alchemy, and as Jung described, is a reiteration of both the Pelican Flask of the Ancient Alchemists, and its resonance with the iconic and mystical symbol known as the Pelican Christus. Another, far less known, is related to an altogether different, yet mystical structure known as the "Purse of Futunatus". | |||
After writing a Masters of Fine Arts Thesis on Alchemy and the Creative Process, called "A Point in Time As We Create The Future.", I was vexxed by the issue of antithetical relations, dialectics, and the potential to reconcile apparent extreme opositions which tend towards a point of similarity. Indicating antithetical relations in a manner that presupposes a common center, appeared to me constitute a far too simplistic structure. Whilst I had a significant knowledge regarding Alchemical structures, narratives, signs and symbols, I did not have have the means of comprehending the underlying relations between the two dominant structure figures, commonly known as the Pelican Christus and Oroborean Ring, or snake eating its tail. | |||
[[File:Dialectical complexity.jpg|thumb]] | |||
The common models which flourished in the Middle ages and beyond, employed by both Raymond Llull and Leibniz, exploited the classic division of the circle, primarily into 12 parts, and variations on this theme, leading to divisions of numerous equally proportioned segments, which included various combinations of such wheels, as in the work of Llull. This is not unlike a classic cololur wheel, which is also related to the 12 half tones of the musical octave. The primary motivation for the use of these models by both Llul and Leibniz, was to create some form of rigorous proof for the concept of God. | |||
[[File:Raymon llull primary secondary tertiary and quatra figures.jpg|thumb]] | |||
[[File:Relationship between light and sound.png|thumb]] | |||
[[File:Music.jpg|thumb]] | |||
Additionally the means through which an astrological wheel is constructed, preserved the integrity of the geometrical method which can be seen in the two circle model used by Copernicus; discussed in Plato's Timaeus from the standpoint of a process of reverse engineering what the "artificer" had done; discussed in Vitruvius with regards to the construction of a sun dial, whose model is directly employed by Ptolemy | |||
even though both he and Copernicus preferred to underpin their astronomical studies with the technological tool of the Astrolabe, is reconstructed in the image below, through the inclusion of the method of rulings pertaining to the complex isometric matrix. | |||
[[File:Copernicus, Pythagoras and the Ancient Egyption geometrical system.jpg|thumb]] | |||
With regards to astrology, the presumption that the apparent forward and backward motion of a planet, as it traces its epicyclic spyrographic pattern, as viewed from the planet looking outwards, inferred positive and negative attributes, constitutes a man made imposition, based on appearances which are transcended in the understanding of the higher degree of information that constitutes counter intuitive intellgiible information. | |||
With this vexation regarding the need for a more complex structural analysis of antithetical relations in mind, I decided to engage with the Philosophy Department at Newcastle University, with the intention to work on a PhD, whilst lecturing on issues in PostModern philosophy and a short course on the compartive structural relations underpinning Architecture and town planning from the ancient world. It is here that I first met Shiela Morgan, a retired science teacher and weaving enthusiast, engaged in exploring the structural relations of the Moebius strip and Kleinbottle, from the standpoint of a diagonally woven single joind thread. | |||
[[File:Shiela Morgan's investigation of complex figures from the standpoint of a single joined thread woven structure..png|thumb]] | |||
It was the end of 1993, and I had twin boys aged about 6 months old. I was so deeply affected- moved- enthused and excited by Shiela's demnstration of the motion inherent in her models, that I rang my partner to say I was not coming home, at least for some time as I had to stay and speak with this exceptional woman. | |||
After waiting for the majority of people from the audience to leave, I went up to Shiela, and tried to hold back my tears as I gushed out these words: "Shiela, you have created the Mercurious. It unifies the Pelican Christus and the Oroborus. Its extraordinary." This would be the beginning of an wonderful decade, and both of us consider each of our work to be likened to two sides of the one coin. Hers, continuing with the formal lineage of explorations in apparently "higher dimensional" spacetime structures, which began with her study of the 1976 publication of Australian Philosopher and humanist Graham Nerllich's "The Shape of Space". Coming from a Fine Arts background, and having studied Alchemy from the work of Carl Jung, Robert Hargraves, Silbere, Kircher, and more, as well as being fully cognisant of Theosophical, Anthroposophical, Rosecrucian, Platonic, Neo Platonic, Neo Pythagorean and mystical works that flourished throughout the middle ages, and from the anals of speculative philosophy, all of which underpinned my research interest since 1978, which continued with the American school of Popular New Physics publications, my world view was, at the time, leaning heavily towards an antirealist standpoint. It is the rejection of this specific standpoint that occurred to me after I persisted in seeking to comprehend whether or not there were any real geometrical foundations that could underpin the natural sciences, as I finally began to understood that many including myself, generally mistook the Veil of Mysticism, for the things that this veil concealed. This was a somewhat terrifying realisation. It was now 2008. Siela had passed away in 2006, and although I did all I could to get her work out to the world, discussing it, as well as mine at all conferences I participated in, any mention of her work in Wikipedia for example wa constantly shouted down, and any mention of the various elements from my research, also was met with a constant rejection. This in itself began to speak rheims. As all of the speculative works didnt simply hint at a general unification of geometry, they- largely English philsophers such as Roger Bacon for example, were in fact quite explicit, and named reasons for the separation of the disciplines. I became familiar with how non disclosure of the elementary facts that underpinned everything from basic Astronomical studies to Ludwig Wittgenstein's Logic, from the "Laws of Form", by Spencer Brown, to the principles of Growth and Form by Darcy Wentworth Thompson, and the structural principles of "Art Forms in Nature" by Haeckel, to his monumental works on Histology and speculations on Quasi liquid crystals in his "soul in matter" to the studies in Conchology by Australian scientist and friend Chris Illert, and my investigations on Ultrastructure reseach from the 1960's, leading to my study of Crystallography, all of which informed an awareness of how nondisclosure not only burnt people from the antipodean sphere, who became marginalised, even after the fact of having serious interest expressed from outside of this nation, it show how non disclosure functioned as a binary tool, and how it was so easily exploited by socio-political and religious forces. Behind this research, was my thorough knowledge of the many voices of Post Modern Philosophers on the one hand, and spiritualist from the New Age sphere on the other hand, which now began to make far more sense, as I always felt that they were all intentionally failing to reveal the fact that alchemy informed most of their ideas, and their failure to identify this fact, appeared to me to infer a form of plageristic pomposity. But then, I am a female, not privy to the exclusive circle that males frequent. And this more than anything else, represented an exposure of a Pythagorean social system, where the elevation or reduction of an individual according to the merit of their work, would effectively inform a hidden hand of cultivation, that could have both positive and negative outcomes for any given society, depending on what the objective of that society was. That is, if sucess was measured by financial gain, and the accumulation of patents from the application of natural sciences towards the progression of technologies, or by the merit of one's critical interrogation of the philosophical issues that prevailed in both the sciences, the arts, and mathematics. Indeed, from this standpoint, which is obviously where my heart was at, such merit is considered not just irrelevant, it is abhorrent to those seeking to gain wealth and power beyond reasonable limits. | |||
To be continued tomorrow. As I have lost my library, it will take some time to write this all out off the top of head. I apologise for the numerous spelling mistakes, as there appears to be no spell check here. Here in the antipodeans, Google is the dominant force, which has concealed so much and all of your sites. I have now found them, and am studying as much a I can. Very much enjoyed your discussion with Lissi, but have numerous points that vex me, from both sides of the discourse. It is such a pleasure to listen to such intellects. I hope you dont mind me writing to you in this way, Eric. If so, you now have an email address. Thankyou for your brilliant mind and inspiring work. | |||