I am, for the first time, about to attempt a major, but still informal, (year end?) recap.  I am not sure yet how to handle this, i.e. whether to make it part of the continuing web log, or to have it stand alone.  I will continue chronologically for now. 

The last major theme has been my sporadic struggle with the Monster Group, commencing on 2/26/03 and continuing up until 12/21/03.  I claim partial victory by incorporating the MG and all of mathematics under the aegis of functionality.  I am not thereby claiming that mathematics is merely conventional, certainly no more than a biological cell is conventional.  I am saying that mathematics is a very significant part of the teleological infrastructure of the cosmos.  

A second theme in the same time frame was the Archetypes commencing about 4/29.  I am also claiming success with this endeavor.  In their latest incarnation, they feel reasonably solid.  



Despite these recent efforts, the BPW remains optional.  But I would also claim that in the BPW, the BPW hypothesis remains optional as long as possible.  No?  

However, the human psyche is such that paradigm shifting, gestalt switching, tends to be dramatically unpredictable, especially now that we are living mainly on Internet time.  A uniquely attractive and rational alternative to both religious and scientific fundamentalism, which the BPW claims to be.  If it cannot be dismissed out of hand, it will necessarily take on an insidious, insinuating presence.  That is the next and crucial phase.  To reach that point there will have to be some strategically located links back to here.  I doubt that Google alone could be a substitute for such links.  Once those links are established, the Millennium clock will start ticking.  The Tar Baby effect will kick in: kick these tires more than once, and your foot may not be disengageable.  T'will be a pity. 

Just how optional are we at this point?  Admittedly, the Big Bang materialist cosmology will be a tough nut to crack.  Even the Creationists have almost uniformly given up on their 'young Earth' scenario.  They have fallen into line with a post-Copernican sense of deep space and deep time.  Even my fellow idealists are strangely silent on the problem of cosmology.  I could complain about this lack of competition in the domain of immaterialist cosmology, but I think it is due actually to the logical uniqueness of the BPW.  It is either us or mysticism.  

Cosmic coherence is in extremely short supply in these postmodern times.  If I have indeed cornered the coherence market, if there is only this one corner to cover, the choice will be the BPW or cacophony.  It would take very few articulate spokespersons to make a very big dent in the otherwise incoherence of the present Internet.  In retrospect, will it not be obvious that the Internet existed as a gigantic means, moving us inevitably toward a coherent end, if there be such?  Someone was bound to run the flag of coherence up the Internet pole.  Even Google seems designed and destined to this singular end. 

Over the juggernaut of scientific materialism I cast the fine net of normativity.  Can its thin strands possibly be a match for that clanking mechanism?  From our slumber of materialism will we awaken in the place of Gulliver captivated by the fine thread of the Lilliputians?  That is the plan, anyway.  

Yes, another continuing theme has been norms vs. nature, beginning effectively on 10/10/02: Nature & Plato, etc.  There may be nothing more insidious in the entire materialist cosmos.  Norms, rather like consciousness, seem entirely gratuitous in the larger scheme, that is until you attempt to exclude them or explain them.  At first they may seem merely resistant, but they can quickly turn corrosive of even the most solid materialist fortress.  

A case in point is the functionalism of Putnam, Dennett, & Co. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.).  Functionalism arose from the ashes of behaviorism, but now, in the hands of the biosemioticians, function threatens to break the back of materialism.  Once teleology gets its functional foot in the scientific door, it will not only be impossible to extirpate, it will, in the shape of normativity, simply take over the neighborhood.  As with consciousness, there is nothing that can escape its reach.  Kant clearly saw this inevitability long ago.  At this final juncture, his revived cautions and precautions are much too little and too late.  

Cannot the materialists simply nuke the norms?  What chance does a little norm stand against their deconstructive WMDs?  Can we truly 'normalize' the Big Bang?  The anthropic principle goes only part way.  By itself, it is too susceptible to a dualistic interpretation.  Here is where my struggle with the Monster Group will have to begin to pay off.  My Monster vs. their Big Bang.  Ownership of the Monster, however, may still be in some dispute.  Nonetheless, normalizing the MG is not inconceivable even by the most jaded materialist.  

The normalized MG plus anthropics puts a very short leash on the Big Bang.  Teleology is now raised to cosmic proportions.  Quantum cosmology and a universal observer principle can no longer be set aside, as has generally been the case before.  The anti-Occamist notion of (infinitely?) many worlds is now even less necessary and less attractive.  The normalizing of the MG also undermines the dualist proclivities of the Anthropists and the Intelligent Designers.  The net result is that everyone is emphatically being nudged toward immaterialism and the BPW corner therein.  All we need is a very few in this crowd to jump ship.  It would quickly set off a general alarm.  Normativity when diligently pursued is one more straw that turns into a hefty stone that could, along with all the older baggage, just about break this camel's back.  I wouldn't want to have to bet the farm on this beast's imperviousness.  

It is the Telos that finally confronts the Big Bang.  It has been my contention that teleology is an all or nothing proposition.  There is no such thing as half a Telos.  All politics may be local, but all teleology is global.  Teleology is all about coherence.  It verges on the oxymoronic to posit a partially telic or partially coherent world.  

Of course, the atomists, reductionists, naturalists, etc. would much prefer that we accept a diluted or palliative version of teleology, if we have to accept any at all.  Struggle as they might, you do not and will not see them making sense of any such palliatives.  It is simply a desperate, rear guard distraction on their part.  

Given the Telos, we can hardly avoid the notion of a BPW.  They verge on the synonymous.  We then must ask ourselves if the Big Bang cosmology is the best one possible.  Search as you might, you will not find a materialist touting the intrinsic merits of any of his or her hypothesized worlds.  If you don't like any given rendition, that is entirely beside the point.  We teleologists, however, take the opposite tack.  Everything answers to the principle of sufficient reason.  Presence is what counts.  The Big Bang universe of deep space and quasi-endless time is anyone's trophy for absence.  However, and this is a big 'however', the appearance of absence may serve many esthetic functions.  We'll take that 'natural' esthetic, thank you, but eschew its illusory substance.  Is that not a possible world?  Tell us why it's not possible, please.  So much for saving the appearance of the Big Bang.  Anything else you wish saved? 



The Archetypes emerged here as a counter to evolution: Creation vs. Evolution.  Also they are intended to counter Samuel Johnson's alleged refutation of George Berkeley's immaterialism.  'I refute it thus,' says Sam with a well placed kick at an errant stone.  

The first choices were cycles (and here) and atoms.  The Dream Atom is no laughing matter.  We might also call it the quantum or normative atom, thereby challenging, along with Biosemiotics, the The Epistemic-Ontic Divide.  

The archetypes are simply the organizing centers of Creation.  A minimalist Creation posits a self-organizing cosmos.  But unlike our Santa Fe colleagues, we do not eschew the self.  The primal Self becomes 'X' in our AZO/X/QRP system of archetypes.  It occupies center stage.  

Now, better pay attention.  Here comes almost the whole show.  This may either be the weakest or the strongest link in the BPW system.  X marks the spot. A cosmic self spontaneously emerges from the totipotency of the Matrix.  Teleologically this is the creator, hero and, yes, savior.  It is the Adam/Christos.  It is the Alpha and Omega.  It is the first and last of the Archetypes.  It is the beginning and end of coherence.  

We could do worse than follow St. Anselm's ontological argument.  The only addition here is the Matrix as the ground of that Ontos.  The primal mark of distinction is also the dialectic of the I & Thou.  This schism sets up the main psychic oscillation, the primal cycle.  This duality plus their dynamic relation is the trinity.  This is the necessary buckle of the cosmic bootstrap.  This is both head and tail of the ouroboros.  

Relationalism and idealism are nearly synonymous.  To be is to relate.  We know of nothing more relationally promiscuous than the self.  It is the necessary nexus of all knowable relations.  



The materialists bet the farm on the illusory nature of the self.  I bet the farm on its substantial nature.  The materialists must have us believe that the self is epiphenomenal, accidental in the larger scheme.  

If there is to be anything at all, there must be an ordering principle.  Cosmos derives from the Greek word for order, as opposed to their Apeiron.  Chaos can exist only relative to something more orderly.  To exist is to relate, there can be no relation without order.  For the materialists, space & time are the primary principles, but don't bother to ask from whence they derive.  

There exist many potential ordering principles.  The most potent among them will logically dominate any sort of bootstrapping process.  Everything else will then either go along or be gone.  Something on the order of self-love fits the bill.  Creation is self-realization writ large.  We are each an aspect or reflection of the cosmic Self on its inevitable way to self-realization.  We see this process under the aegis of temporal flux, but that is just our worm's eye view of the matter.  The only end of self-realization is eternal presence.  

So far, so good.  Where many people demur is with the anthropological problem, i.e. when we touch upon the Anthropos.  I see no way to avoid this.  No one does.  The only escape from the Anthropos is abject mysticism.  The only escape from the theos is the pantheos.  The only escape from coherence is incoherence.  

I can sympathize to a degree.  Each of us contains a piece of the cosmos and a piece of the apeiron.  The potential for rebellion and anarchy lies in every heart.  We would not be here without it.  Self-realization is a recreation of the potency of the self.  With every construct there is a de-construct, with every light a shadow.  With every affirmation there is a hesitation.  This is the natural dialectic of being, q.v.  

In hesitating, we are holding out for something better.  No?  That is why we have the BPW.  But there is a caveat.  Within the BPW, there is theistic minimalism.  Atheism is pandered to, up to a point.  I also believe in universal salvation.  I am a Universalist.  But there are limits, nonetheless.  We cannot hesitate forever.  If you have to ask how long that is, you may already be on thin ice.  

Nihilism is nothing natural.  It is pure posture.  It can be a dramatic show, just don't make it your last show.  Yes, Virginia, there is self-responsibility. 

Finally, if we cannot believe in the self, in ourselves, in what else can we possibly believe?  How can you possibly believe in an electron or the Monster Group if you do not believe in yourself.  The self is the logical and phenomenological beginning and end of all substance, all being.  Could there be any other source?  We can try, but we will never be able to totally deconstruct the Cartesian cogito

There will be those who wish to side-step the self in order to more fully embrace the Matrix.  That could possibly be our final act, but do not attempt this at home.  This is not a sport for amateurs.  When you attempt that, you are truly alone.  There will be no recourse.  The self is just designed to point the way back to the Matrix.  Don't leave home without it.  I point to the Mahayana.  For the Hinayana, you are on your own.  Come to think of it, though, is not the notion of a self-salvation from the self oxymoronic?  Don't get hoist on your own petard. 

Let us not forget the ecological objections to the anthropic bias of any ontology of the self.  Just who do we think we are?  Is not the self to blame for all selfishness?  The distinctions between selfishness and Selfishness are many and subtle.  My only caveat is that we not throw out the baby with the bathwater.  The deep ecologists seem bent to that untoward end.  See the previous paragraph.  



If there are going to be any archetypes at all, the psyche is the only place to start.  This is particularly true with immaterialism where we must challenge the ontic-epistemic divide.  We start with psyche/episteme.  This is just our version of the cogito.  

We have ample reason to assume a substantial universality for the psyche.  It must be the basis of any possible coherence.  The microcosm of the psyche is our only portal to the cosmos.  There is indeed a bias toward the anthropos, a bias which we should be ready to amend according to the evidence.  At present there is no evidence for any substantial alternative.  Humans presently own the epistemic franchise.  Unless and until some contender appears, we make do with what we have.  To attempt philosophy without an anthropic bias is simply foolish, if not patently impossible.  Indeed, if there is anyway to overcome human parochialism or anthropocentrism, it would have to be through some form of philosophy.  

But I go further than this.  There is a more specific identity of the psyche with the christos.  I do this out of logical/historical necessity.  The mythos surrounding the X-event is simply an historically unavoidable nexus of archetypes.  No other event in history comes close to matching the semiotic density that has been ascribed to this one.  There are many other teachings and scriptures, but none claim or even pretend to be so personally grounded.  Christianity is indisputably a personality cult.  Its claims on the psyche are unequalled.  If there is a mythic coherence, if there is a metanarrative involving human history, there are no other contenders.  Unless one is prepared to reinvent the mythic wheel, we must be prepared to go along with what is so evidently a given. 

This, in a nutshell, is an argument for the X/christos/anthropos.  If you have a more coherent scheme, it is time to place your bet.  History rides on the outcome. 

X is the nexus of AZO/X/QRP.  We see here the macro/meso/microcosm.  The zodiacal Z is certainly a strong nod back to the Zoocosm, but there is no historicity comparable to the incarnation.  The Z is the primal circuit of the psyche.  I can hardly avoid the apt rendition of 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds'.  That 'Lucy' may also be the name of our mitochondrial, hominoidal Eve may be the closest we get to a scientific incarnation.  

Originally I took Z for Sol, but this was too limited in its scope.  Its brute nature does not conform with the minimalist creation scheme of the BPW.  One could do worse than envision a creation sequence of Zodiac, Luna, then Sol.  Heliotropism kicks in only in the latter phase.  The common connection made between deep space and the psyche is probably no accident.  

Taking Alpha and Omega as the extremes of the primal psyche-circuit of the Zoocosm, is nothing very radical.  Alpha and Omega are the seeds of the metanarrative when history is viewed from a progressive, covenantal perspective.  Can the BPW offer any less than a salvation economy?  That X is also identified with the A&O, but mainly with the Omega, can hardly be a surprise.  This short shrift may do for now, as I wish to turn to the microcosm. 

Where we first had Sun & Atom, we now have Z & QRP.  Much of our Logos is riding on Q, R & P.  This is our contact with science, mainly via mathematical physics.  But right now it looks more like manana



Let's take it from the top again.  I postulate the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the totipotency of the Matrix into a zoomorphic collection of psyches.  These recombine into a semi-stable zodiacal/ouroboric circuit with the symmetry break now focused on the head/tail, Alpha/Omega gap.  This polarity is the primal duality.  The 'air gap' in the nearly complete 'magnetic' circuit becomes the basis of a temporal direction.  The logos of this gap is also the christos.  The christos is both the efficient and final cause of the gap.  Thusly is implanted our salvific economy, from the very beginning.  The salvific dialectic is virtually the precondition of history.  Thus do we have Z, A, O & X, right off the mark.  Q, R & P are more of a stretch. 

What are the common traits and relations between Q, R & P?  They occupy the borderland between subject and object.  They are essentially normative, each in its own fashion.  The biologic/metabolic cycle, R, is a prototype for the Quantum measurement.  Under proper conditions it is a primitive recording device.  Thus there is a mutual dependence between Q & R.  R is the microcosmic analog of Z.  

Q, R & P exhibit crucial symmetries.  Quantum logic is the basis for most of the many symmetries and conservation laws of physics, viz. the theorem of Emmy Noether.  Thereby enters substantiality into physics.  Stable atoms are a direct consequence.  The (molecular) measuring cycles of R complete the quantum measurement bootstrap.  Many 'quantum' philosophers suppose that this bootstrap is the basis of global teleology.  I demur.  Pi is my counterweight. It is my logos, even christos, in its own context.  Through it the anthropos crucially enters the telic bootstrap. 



All roads lead back to Pi and its singular relation to the christos.  If I could bequeath anything to the world, it would be a renewed appreciation for this fact.  First, glance back at 12/20 & 21.  Yes, I am saying that Pi is the number of Jesus.  You cannot understand one without understanding the other.  This is a radical statement.  Perhaps better than any other, it sums up the philosophy of the BPW.  This is all about the reenchantment of the world.  Others talk about doing this, but here you can see it being done in real time with all the vengeance of immaterialism finally overcoming matter. 

Pi is the Achilles heel of materialism: its jugular, to be more specific.  It was Archimedes who said, 'Give me a fulcrum and I will move the world.'  Well, Archie, here it is at last.  It was right under our noses all this time.  Do I detect skepticism?  From the frying pan of zodiacal astrology, I jump into the fire of numerology.  But if we are ever to reenchant the world, what else can a body do?  Yes, Pi is no more or less teleological than a biological cell.  (See 10/30 &ff, 10/13, 9/27 &ff, and other related entries, i.e. Pi anxiety

It is the Platonic absolutists who have done the most to disenchant Pi.  The same absolutism notoriously subverted Christianity.  Luther, Hegel, Adam Smith and Mohammed are just a few of its victims.  Scientific materialism is just the (very) last chapter in that sorry legacy.  But, with a nod to the BPW, we would not be here now were it not for this legacy. There may be many dialectics, but there is ever only one legacy. 

The crux of the matter lies in the anecdote of the freely drawn prefect circle, and also in our attempts to compute away our Pi anxiety.  Yes, we are afraid of ghosts, and especially of any Koestlerian 'ghost in the machine' (69,000 hits).  

Pi is the anchor of materialism.  Nothing in the world has been or can be more precisely fixed.  We've got this one nailed down, Baby!  I demur.  It's all in our mind.  Yes, let's watch as the ground begins to shift beneath our feet. 

There are no absolutes in the BPW.  The closest to such would be cosmic love.  Pi's pretense to absolutism stands to be revealed.  

Knowledge of anything lies only in its proper usage.  To be is to relate, is to be useful.  This is pragmatism and utilitarianism where the ends are eschatological and transcendental.  The final knowledge and being of Pi vastly outstrips any recitation of its digits, a mere exercise in syntax, with little or no semantic value.  Pi is substantial only to the degree that it contributes finally to cosmic love, and I suggest that degree may be far from inconsequential.  

Despite much opinion to the contrary, Pi is has much more to do with quality than quantity; although, in the end, it will hardly be possible to distinguish the two.  Much of its ultimate quality remains hidden.  That it may turn out to be the organic nexus of all math, could stand to revolutionize our conception of Pi.  Anything that is useful will be pliable in the hands of the user.  

The numerical value of any quantity exists only in relation to other known quantities.  The first billion digits of Pi are a pure abstraction, without any intrinsic meaning beyond that to which they might be assigned by some convention or another.  An atom at the center of the earth exists to the degree that it influences the gravitational field at the surface.  The billionth digit of Pi has not even that much influence, and certainly not as an individual. 

A principal influence of Pi is to be found in the syzygy: e^i*pi = -1, a configuration that was not even a gleam in the eyes of Pi's 'discoverers'.  Note that its influence here arises only in conjunction with the other quantities that participate in the context.  There is no such thing as an intrinsic or essential quantity.  That the same goes for qualities is hardly controversial, but we have lately fallen into the habit of thinking of quantity as quite distinct from quality. 

We cannot learn one new fact without modifying every other fact we have ever learned.  Some epistemologists suppose that this constitutes an insuperable paradox for holism.  The fixity of the billionth digit of Pi would be their exhibit A.  Holism is a problem only for the non-vitalist, not for the vitalist or panpsychist.  

Knowledge, like everything else, is alive.  It moves, it 'evolves': all of it together, not just particular parts.  Are there no eternal truths.  None, other than cosmic love, and that exists eternally only to the degree that it is lived eternally.  By the same token, nothing of value need ever be lost.  Yes, each one of us has only a tenuous grip on parts of the eternal truth.  Riding that beast is the task of a lifetime.  

Cosmic intelligence is like the software of an object oriented parallel processing system.  Its infinitely distributed intelligent agents are constantly reconfiguring and reconstructing themselves.  Pi is no exception.  Pi is another, albeit transcendentally important, chip off the cosmic spirit.  It all comes from the same place, and it all ends up there, in perfectly seamless fashion.  That is the one eternal verity.  That is the beginning and end of all coherence.  When we can see the world as Beethoven once saw his Fifth symphony, in one eternal flash, then our job will be done.  The Pi we know today is just a pale shadow of its true Self.  


Permit me to append a personal communication: 

The Matrix as the 'uncreated heaven' and 'cosmic womb' sounds right to me. This is also not unlike the Hindu concept of Nirvana. I see it as the source and ground of all being: pure potentiality, fecundity. It has a feminine connotation, naturally.

Out of the Matrix emerges a primal psychical circuit. This is the original pantheon including zoomorphic psyches, not unlike the zodiacal powers and principalities. These spontaneously organize under the aegis or sign of cosmic love, and this is where the Christos emerges as the preeminent entity. Assume a mixture of genders herein.

Thus we have something like: Matrix -> zodiacal/Logos -> Christos -> Creation proper.

We seem to be missing both Sophia and the Holy Ghost. Also there seems not to be a 'godhead', per se, but I would think that the Christos/Creator entity might be closest to a 'godhead'. I do not see truly distinct forms at these stages. It is still very much a spectrum. With my AZO/X/QRP scheme, I struggle to maintain as much fluidity as possible, even with respect to the entity I arbitrarily designate as 'P' or 'Pi'. What we think of as '3.14...' is a very pale shadow of the living Archetype that is 'Pi'. A, X & P are the core of the Logos, while O, Q & R relate back more to the Matrix. Z is a mixed bag and even less formal than the others. It is almost pure(ly) dialectic.

'Pi' may come closest to pure intellect and wisdom. If there were a Bible 'code', this would be it. The other archetypes are more functionally identified.

My tentative suggestion is that Sophia ~= P. The HG might be subsumed as the dialectic of Z. In the mathematical context it is the sqrt (-1) = i. But recall that the HG is also the Spirit of Truth which, in its turn, reflects Sophia.

A principal point here is that the main archetypes are moving targets. Trying too hard to pin them down is to commit idolatry, Platonism, absolutism. All that you and I can offer is the occasional snap-shot, meant for purely pedagogical purposes. The above dialectic is true of any meaningful relationship in which there is constant give and take, role playing and the like.

All I am aiming for is a minimal identification, and only then as it promotes an understanding of the cosmic dynamic. No eternal verity can or need restrict any living power. Nor need any pedagogical scheme impinge upon anyone's personal relation with the higher powers. The love engendered thereby demonstrates what the most thoughtful words can only dimly echo.




The least discussed of the archetypes is Q.  Following yesterday's communication I am inclined to associate it with the dialectic, picking up this topic from above and on the previous page.  

Hegel's great bequest may well be his (transcendental?) dialectic (246,000 hits), though he might not recognize all of its progeny.  What is it?  What is it to become?  

The great dialectician was Socrates: argumentative questioning in the ferreting out of truth.  The Socratic tradition appears unique in the world, inclined mainly to the West.  It stands in opposition to the mono-logic of rhetoric.  The dialectic finds itself refurbished in Kant's hands where his transcendental version of it is used to defeat the speculative pretensions and excesses of theology.  Hegel, not to be deterred, makes his transcendental dialectic the basis of his cosmology.  Here I take my cue from Hegel. 

Hegel used the dialectic to support his absolute idealism.  I use it to defeat absolutism, following Martin Buber and existential theology.  

Dialectical dynamics avoids Platonic stasis.  I posit but one eternal verity.  Lesser existence is not lost, it is merely subsumed, as the musical notes are subsumed by a symphony.  The notes are transparent to the final effect.  The final effect is the dynamical gestalt. 

Existence is relational and psychical.  Psychical existence is dynamical and dialectical.  The 'internal monolog' is always a dialog.  Gestalts are meant to be switched until the transcendental limit of coherence is grasped.  The switch from materialism to immaterialism portends to be singular in its scope. 

The closest that the dialectic comes to personification is as the third person of the trinity.  The Matrix achieves a similar personification as the Mother of God.  I oppose my personalism to the impersonalism of Hegel. 

The nearest that the dialectic comes to specification is as the 'imaginary' iota in e^i*pi = -1.  It enters physics as the quantum of uncertainty, placing it in a role that remains ontologically obscure. 

In biology the dialectic takes the form of the metabolic cycle, 'R'.  It is also the basis of the ouroboric A, Z & O archetypes.  

Have I gone overboard with the dialectic?  


[1/4] [a

Let me please follow up with Sophia.  The above mentioned correspondent and I have discussed her in the past.  My most significant spiritual encounter was with an entity of a similar quality.  What are we to do with her?  Is she being left out?  

My tentative suggestion was to have her be subsumed by M & P, i.e. by the Matrix and Pi.  Is this not doing her justice?  I picked up the Christmas issue of the Economist.  Mary was on the cover.  Her special connection to Islam was being touted.  It seems that there may be a message here.  Why not just add Mary/Sophia to the pantheon along side of X, christos?  Easier said than done. 

The X event is essentially singular.  This has to do with the singularity of the BPW.  There have been many well-meaning attempts to provide the christ with heavenly and earthly consorts.  Do we not jeopardize the Tao by failing to balance the yin and yang?  Where is the dialectic?  

My best answer at this point is that, in the BPW, balance only serves function.  Balance is not an end in itself.  The dialectic is an unstable equilibrium.  Balance and stability would be tantamount to death.  The Matrix is not the Tao.  The Matrix is unstable with respect to emergence.  X is the primary and singular emergence.  X is the cosmic hinge/fulcrum.  X & M can never be in balance.  The battle of the sexes is essential to history.  The resolution can only be eschatological and transcendental.  

With regard to the BPW, the trinity has been modified: M, X & HG/SoT.  The son has replaced the father.  Yes, Christ's conception was even metaphysically immaculate.  I have suggested that the holy ghost be considered as a personalized dialectic.  For that persona I would suggest Mary/Sophia.  How does this square with the archetypes: AZO/X/QRP?  Are not the Matrix and the Dialectic both missing?  The simple answer is that M & D, being pure potentiality and pure function, respectively, are neither one archetypal.  They are the primal pair from and by which the archetypes logically emerge.  Ontological priority is thereby being given to the feminine, it would seem.  The BPW is her emergent consort.  Sophia is the midwife.  The only qualm here might be that the feminine is made less personal than the Christ.  I would say that it does seem to be a bit more diffuse, but then that was part of the quality that I experienced of Sophia. 

As with every other topic here, there can only be provisional resolution. 


Yesterday I started out with Q, but then got sidetracked onto the dialectic.  Among the archetypes, the Quantum, along with Z, perhaps, comes closest to expressing the pure functionality of the dialectic.  What emerges out of Q's dialectic is metabolism as here represented by R, the self-reproducing, self-recording biological cycle.  

Q is also responsible for the microscopic emergence of mathematical physics.  The mathematical aspect of Q is represented by the 'trinitarian' syzygy of e^i*pi = -1.  Using the previous symbols, this could be expressed as m^d*x.  The instability appears in the negative unit.  

Pi is the stalking/Trojan horse that smuggles every mathematical/physical symmetry into the dialectic of Q.  This is not unlike the redemptive role of X within history.  




<-- Prev      Next -->

Topical Index