Page 1 of 1

Sacred Geometry: Bridging Two Worlds

Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 10:33 pm
by Billy
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to attend a conference here in MN, in which Gopi gave a two-day talk on the topic of Sacred Geometry. I took a lot away from it, and wish to share some of these insights. It's a bit difficult to represent most of that which was covered, because we spent a great deal of time both analyzing as well as drawing geometric figures.

Notable Quotations:

"God Geometrizes" - Plato
Willpower = Thinking in three dimensions
A 3D shape = Expand/Project it outside of itself = 4D = a Tesseract
Time incorporated into a physical body = Life/Living Systems/Sentience
Inversion = Going to a higher dimension in a harmonious way
Inversion gives life
Thinking, Feeling, Willing = 1D, 2D, and 3D
Logic = Geometry
Number in movement = Time
Number in space = geometry

Number, Resonance, Frequency = The structure of the Universe
1 = Unity 'of' something
Law of Polarity in numbers is composed of: Continuity, Polarity, Dimension
Outside/Inside = + and -
Zero is not a number. Rather, it is pointing at something, infinitely inward
Law of Polarity = The farther away something is, the closer it is to you
Higher to lower dimension = Projection = Projective Geometry
Point/Plane Duality: Two lines make a point, two points make a line
The polarity of time
"Looking out for the future that is coming to meet us"
"As above, so below"

The Golden Ratio, The Quadrivium, and The Goetheanum were discussed at length. Particular emphasis was placed upon the construction of the original Goetheanum (the Munich Project of 1911). It was an absolutely fascinating building, displaying tremendous depth and insight into the underlying structures of life itself.

Also discussed in depth were:

The geometric configurations of holy sites across the world, including the sacred caves of India, the Pyramids, and a number of others, i.e. moving through history to show the progression of architectural form, and, sadly, the loss of reverence for the forms themselves.

The 'movement', if you will, from a 0D to a 3D object, and then back again (3D to 0D).

Some thoughts that I took from the topics covered (in my own words):

The fact that 'zero' and 'infinity' represent essentially the same thing, but in opposite 'directions', if you will (direction is not the best term to describe this, because it is thinking too much in a linear/vectorial sense). It brought a whole new meaning to the idea of a 'point' as we know it being some sort of arbitrary 'absolute zero' datum base. If you go in the direction of the point, you do not hit a wall that cannot be penetrated, nor some zero point of nothingness. Rather, you 'invert', and go THROUGH the imaginary wall, expanding outward on the other side. In other words, 'inside' the point; if I'm visualizing this correctly.

One of the key ideas taken out of all of this was that of the phenomena of 'inversion'. It appears that this is one of the underlying ways in which life expresses itself across both frames of reference. Here is how I interpreted the concept of biological inversion: Life in the 3D spatial frame of reference grows 'outward' to an absolute magnitude, but it also inverts 'inward', at some point flips over to the temporal frame of reference, and again expands 'outward'. It then 'flows' or 'projects' back again (inward scalar motion?) in a similar manner, from the temporal to the spatial. This leads me to wondering about the notion of matter and mass. When you go 'inside' of a life form such as a plant, down to the smallest level of 'matter', you reach a point at which the life form 'inverts' itself, and expands outward again, but on the opposite side of the mirror, so to speak. It then appears to 'fold' back in on itself, while still maintaining the integrity of its form across both frames of reference. If this is the case, what is the nature of the matter of which the plant is composed in the temporal realm? Does it look similar that part of the plant that expands outward into the spatial reference frame, i.e. a mirror image? And this 'matter' of which the plant's soul is composed: Is it, in a sense, less 'dense' than the matter which comprises the plant's form in 3D space, explaining why perhaps things in the temporal reference frame appear to be more 'magical' in form? (Gopi made the analogy of air and water, both being forms of matter, but with different densities.) Or, does this perhaps have to do with the fact that FTL speeds 'distort', in a sense, the soul of the life form, for someone from the 3D spatial side of things viewing it for the first time?

Essentially, inversion appears to be that of an object 'folding back' in on itself, but while still maintaining the same basic 'form', as it were (harmony). It appears that the nature of life itself works in this sense of harmony, wishing to maintain the same basic form as it moves back and forth between the different frames of reference. So then, it leads me to wondering: What do I look like, as a whole, inverted, folded back up on myself, projected inward and then back outward (in time), inward and then back outward again (in space)?

In other words: I am an individually separate and distinct unit of time, connected to a larger whole (unity/'1'), occupying this body, moving through space.

This also got me thinking about the nature of time itself. I have been pondering the concept of 'distance' not being a factor, in a universe composed of motion. In 3D space, distance does in fact matter, as we move 'outward', in a linear sense, towards an object, with the speed of light becoming the fastest speed possible in this particular frame of reference. The distance between a person standing on Earth and, say, a four-armed Fleeble standing on Neptune is fairly vast IN SPACE. However, when we 'invert' into time, we are essentially 'riding' a 'river of time', so to speak, at speeds in excess of the speed of light. When we move, we move in units of time, not space. By riding on this extremely fast-flowing river, spatial distance becomes far less of a factor to deal with. Inverting over, it's not as if the Fleeble is right next to us, exactly, but rather that, moving 'outward' again on the other side, and at great speed, we reach him/her/it fairly quickly. Due to the fact that the speed of light is the fastest speed attainable in the 3D spatial frame of reference, 'time' in this particular frame of reference can only move so quickly. Inverting it into a dimension in which speeds are in excess of the speed of light allows movement across great 'distances' in a far more abbreviated period of 'time'.

Or, am I way off base here, because there is of course the Law of Polarity: "The farther away something is, the closer it is to you." This is where things get a bit hazy; speaking strictly in a 3D spatial sense, that is.

In essence: The universe itself is a vastly intelligent, living consciousness, expressing itself in a 3D spatial frame of reference as well as a 3D temporal frame of reference. Life itself represents the growth and expression of this consciousness. Inverting the physical body present in 3D space moves us 'inside', eventually reaching a point at which we 'flip over' into a different frame of reference, one that again expands 'outward', and one in which movement happens at FTL speeds. This expansion is a 'projection'. So here is a question: If I leave my body, travel inward, and invert into time, do I, in that other frame of reference, occupy a 'physical body' as I would picture it, one that looks similar to the body that is sitting peacefully, eyes closed, in 3D space? Or, is my form (my soul) in 3D time, (assuming of course that I do not take my physical, spatial body along with me for the ride) composed of matter, and thus mass, that is less 'dense' and 'clunky' in nature than that of my body in 3D space?

As a final note: Even before attending this conference, I began to reach a point at which things were finally beginning to 'click into place'. I am beginning to understand the basic structure of the universe - a unified universe of motion, forming geometric patterns of expression (God/Life 'geometrizing'), with life itself actually 'growing' consciousness. The idea of life/living systems/sentience being TIME incorporated into a physical body helps to clarify things. Studying Jung's work on the nature of the conscious and unconscious aspects of the mind, (as well as the different layers present therein, i.e. anima, animus, shadow, and, ultimately, the 'self'), as well as the understanding of how 'non-localized' life presents itself as 'energy' within the 3D spatial frame of reference, providing it with 'spirit', leads to an understanding of just what it is that is meant by the process of 'individuation'. Essentially, sentience is a process of individuation/expression of a unique form of life, the universe expressing/figuring itself out in discrete units, but while remaining CONNECTED to the unity of '1'; where 1 = unity = the universe. 'Ego' is, in essence, a sentient life form gaining an understanding of itself, i.e. consciousness. Yet, when that life form 'forgets' or willfully chooses to ignore '1', then that is when harmony is thrown out of balance. Only by developing an understanding of '1' can we truly begin to know and understand ourselves. Essentially, when presented with a choice between EITHER Order (Ego) or Chaos (Shadow), we choose NEITHER. "Get the hell out of our galaxy, the both of ya!" It is only by sitting down at the table with these archetypal aspects of existence, thus bringing them into harmony with the self and ultimately with the 1, that life can be expressed to its fullest, thus leading us towards Sigma 957, and all points beyond :arrow:

Further Study:

Rudolph Steiner - The Fourth Dimension: Sacred Geometry, Alchemy, and Mathematics

Dr. Ibrahim - Biogeometry

The work of Paul Schatz (The Invertible Cube)

The work of Nick Thomas

Re: Sacred Geometry: Bridging Two Worlds

Posted: Thu May 12, 2016 3:44 am
by joeyv23
Billy wrote:The fact that 'zero' and 'infinity' represent essentially the same thing, but in opposite 'directions', if you will (direction is not the best term to describe this, because it is thinking too much in a linear/vectorial sense).
Consider that infinity for us is the 'zero' of the cosmic sector, and vice versa. To get to infinity and zero, you move 'out' from Unity, and to get from either of these (zero or infinity) back to Unity, you move 'in'. These two (out/in) are scalar directions. The terminology fits/applies.
One of the key ideas taken out of all of this was that of the phenomena of 'inversion'. It appears that this is one of the underlying ways in which life expresses itself across both frames of reference. Here is how I interpreted the concept of biological inversion: Life in the 3D spatial frame of reference grows 'outward' to an absolute magnitude, but it also inverts 'inward', at some point flips over to the temporal frame of reference, and again expands 'outward'. It then 'flows' or 'projects' back again (inward scalar motion?) in a similar manner, from the temporal to the spatial. This leads me to wondering about the notion of matter and mass. When you go 'inside' of a life form such as a plant, down to the smallest level of 'matter', you reach a point at which the life form 'inverts' itself, and expands outward again, but on the opposite side of the mirror, so to speak. It then appears to 'fold' back in on itself, while still maintaining the integrity of its form across both frames of reference.
I imagine this process occurs simultaneously from the reference frame of both sectors. It's (ideally) harmonic resonance. Structures connected via a 'silver cord' in the material and cosmic sectors can be less than perfectly harmoniously balanced and disease (dis-ease) is a result.
If this is the case, what is the nature of the matter of which the plant is composed in the temporal realm? Does it look similar that part of the plant that expands outward into the spatial reference frame, i.e. a mirror image? And this 'matter' of which the plant's soul is composed: Is it, in a sense, less 'dense' than the matter which comprises the plant's form in 3D space, explaining why perhaps things in the temporal reference frame appear to be more 'magical' in form? (Gopi made the analogy of air and water, both being forms of matter, but with different densities.) Or, does this perhaps have to do with the fact that FTL speeds 'distort', in a sense, the soul of the life form, for someone from the 3D spatial side of things viewing it for the first time?
I would suggest that when the conscious point of reference is in the material sector, a cosmic sector structure would appear less dense because you've basically got a situation where the structure 'in there' (inside the point) across the inversion zone of the unit boundary is expanded and growing. From here, localized structures such as the aggregate we know as the anima would appear to be spread out and less dense than the localized matter that we experience on this side of the unit boundary. Essentially, this is best exemplified in my mind by the idea of the contents of the psyche (for all intents and purposes, the point of conscious reference) being an expanded landscape 'in there'. Flip consciousness over to the other side and I imagine the reciprocal could be said about material structures here from that frame of reference.
Essentially, inversion appears to be that of an object 'folding back' in on itself, but while still maintaining the same basic 'form', as it were (harmony). It appears that the nature of life itself works in this sense of harmony, wishing to maintain the same basic form as it moves back and forth between the different frames of reference.
I was quite tickled to see your use of this terminology (harmony) when I opened up the thread to read it, as it was just this very concept that I was hashing out with regards to the atomic building and bonding of aggregates both in this sector and inter-regionally with Spaceman moments prior to coming here to read the thread. Also, your thread title was directly in line with the same discussion. Very cool :)
So then, it leads me to wondering: What do I look like, as a whole, inverted, folded back up on myself, projected inward and then back outward (in time), inward and then back outward again (in space)?

In other words: I am an individually separate and distinct unit of time, connected to a larger whole (unity/'1'), occupying this body, moving through space.
Image

I imagine like this, but within each of the bubbles is the totality of the aggregate(s) of the consciousness that constitutes 'Billy'. Much more than just a face. Get my meaning?
This also got me thinking about the nature of time itself. I have been pondering the concept of 'distance' not being a factor, in a universe composed of motion. In 3D space, distance does in fact matter, as we move 'outward', in a linear sense, towards an object, with the speed of light becoming the fastest speed possible in this particular frame of reference. The distance between a person standing on Earth and, say, a four-armed Fleeble standing on Neptune is fairly vast IN SPACE. However, when we 'invert' into time, we are essentially 'riding' a 'river of time', so to speak, at speeds in excess of the speed of light. When we move, we move in units of time, not space. By riding on this extremely fast-flowing river, spatial distance becomes far less of a factor to deal with. Inverting over, it's not as if the Fleeble is right next to us, exactly, but rather that, moving 'outward' again on the other side, and at great speed, we reach him/her/it fairly quickly. Due to the fact that the speed of light is the fastest speed attainable in the 3D spatial frame of reference, 'time' in this particular frame of reference can only move so quickly. Inverting it into a dimension in which speeds are in excess of the speed of light allows movement across great 'distances' in a far more abbreviated period of 'time'.

Or, am I way off base here, because there is of course the Law of Polarity: "The farther away something is, the closer it is to you." This is where things get a bit hazy; speaking strictly in a 3D spatial sense, that is.
I think Bruce has an answer for that over in a thread in the RS2 forum, since there's essentially "nothing" between structures in space. Maybe the recent post I made might be of some help as well in consideration of the nuance between motion as defined in the RS and what most readily think about as motion, where motion=movement. Of specific interest, and you'll have noticed in my response to your post here, pay attention to how I'm making use of 'in' and 'out'. Moving vast distances doesn't necessarily require travel over a vast (perceived) linear expanse. You're hinting at the solution to this. It's just a quick pop 'in' and back 'out' again at a different spatial location. Think, apparition in Harry Potter. That's not to say that it wouldn't be relevant to develop a technology that doesn't teleport across distances, but the concept for locomotion for these types of crafts is best described in Bruce's words than mine;
LoneBear wrote:That is the way L-M arks do propulsion. Since the shell of the ark is low speed (1-x), it gravitates. Its core, being ultra-high speed (3-x) wants to progress in the same dimension, hence the ark is neutral. Shift the balance slightly off neutral, and you can move either inward (down) or outward (up) from any other body.

Think of it this way... when a flying saucer takes off from Earth, it is actually just stopping in its tracks, and letting the progression of the natural reference system take over. With respect to the natural reference system, the saucer isn't moving at all--the Earth flies off from under it! Doesn't take much power to just stand still.
Billy wrote:If I leave my body, travel inward, and invert into time, do I, in that other frame of reference, occupy a 'physical body' as I would picture it, one that looks similar to the body that is sitting peacefully, eyes closed, in 3D space? Or, is my form (my soul) in 3D time, (assuming of course that I do not take my physical, spatial body along with me for the ride) composed of matter, and thus mass, that is less 'dense' and 'clunky' in nature than that of my body in 3D space?
I like this question. Again, I would refer to the idea that the body 'in there' is only less dense from the perspective taken 'out here'. As to whether it looks like your physical form... that depends. Your consciousness technically doesn't need a body in order to navigate 'in there' since 'in there' is the other half of the mirror reflection of the totality of Billy. It's possible that you could aggregate a body on that side that is 'clunky'. It's also possible that you could find yourself wisping about in the wind without much physical form at all other than an observing consciousness i.e. temporal senses. I think another way that I can make my point here... Imagine what a native being from the cosmic sector projects to our material sector. I think it's quite possible that this has happened before and there has been an issue with identifying what is being looked at here. Perhaps a person saw some floating orbs of light. Or perhaps they saw, for all intents and purposes, a non-corporeal entity that had aggregated the form of a body and then that entity was given a designation like "angel" or maybe even "demon" (bar the association to the Annunaki). I find it equally possible that you could, indeed, manifest/aggregate about yourself the same form/structure that your consciousness is familiar with on this side of the unit boundary.
Further Study:

Rudolph Steiner - The Fourth Dimension: Sacred Geometry, Alchemy, and Mathematics

Dr. Ibrahim - Biogeometry

The work of Paul Schatz (The Invertible Cube)

The work of Nick Thomas
Many thanks for your taking the time to post this and leave these references for further study! :)

Re: Sacred Geometry: Bridging Two Worlds

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:04 am
by Kent
Billy wrote:One of the key ideas taken out of all of this was that of the phenomena of 'inversion'. It appears that this is one of the underlying ways in which life expresses itself across both frames of reference. Here is how I interpreted the concept of biological inversion: Life in the 3D spatial frame of reference grows 'outward' to an absolute magnitude, but it also inverts 'inward', at some point flips over to the temporal frame of reference, and again expands 'outward'. It then 'flows' or 'projects' back again (inward scalar motion?) in a similar manner, from the temporal to the spatial. This leads me to wondering about the notion of matter and mass. When you go 'inside' of a life form such as a plant, down to the smallest level of 'matter', you reach a point at which the life form 'inverts' itself, and expands outward again, but on the opposite side of the mirror, so to speak. It then appears to 'fold' back in on itself, while still maintaining the integrity of its form across both frames of reference. If this is the case, what is the nature of the matter of which the plant is composed in the temporal realm? Does it look similar that part of the plant that expands outward into the spatial reference frame, i.e. a mirror image? And this 'matter' of which the plant's soul is composed: Is it, in a sense, less 'dense' than the matter which comprises the plant's form in 3D space, explaining why perhaps things in the temporal reference frame appear to be more 'magical' in form? (Gopi made the analogy of air and water, both being forms of matter, but with different densities.) Or, does this perhaps have to do with the fact that FTL speeds 'distort', in a sense, the soul of the life form, for someone from the 3D spatial side of things viewing it for the first time?

Essentially, inversion appears to be that of an object 'folding back' in on itself, but while still maintaining the same basic 'form', as it were (harmony). It appears that the nature of life itself works in this sense of harmony, wishing to maintain the same basic form as it moves back and forth between the different frames of reference. So then, it leads me to wondering: What do I look like, as a whole, inverted, folded back up on myself, projected inward and then back outward (in time), inward and then back outward again (in space)?
I remember learning that the inversion you're asking about between the Physical (3D spatial) and Cosmic (3D Temporal) sectors takes the form of flipping vertices and faces in a solid object. So, for instance if you have a cube in the physical realm it has 6 faces and 8 vertices, but in the cosmic sector it would be an octahedron (having 8 faces and 6 vertices).

I can't remember where I learned this, or even if it is in fact correct, but it sticks in my mind from somewhere. Perhaps someone else may chime in to say if this is correct and more importantly what the implications are of this inversion.

Re: Sacred Geometry: Bridging Two Worlds

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:37 pm
by Ilkka
Kent wrote:I remember learning that the inversion you're asking about between the Physical (3D spatial) and Cosmic (3D Temporal) sectors takes the form of flipping vertices and faces in a solid object. So, for instance if you have a cube in the physical realm it has 6 faces and 8 vertices, but in the cosmic sector it would be an octahedron (having 8 faces and 6 vertices).

I can't remember where I learned this, or even if it is in fact correct, but it sticks in my mind from somewhere. Perhaps someone else may chime in to say if this is correct and more importantly what the implications are of this inversion.
I believe it was Daniel that said that or LB maybe in the CH forum or this one in some post. I remember something like this as well.

Re: Sacred Geometry: Bridging Two Worlds

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:26 am
by christs810
Wow! This is an amazing forum!! I had read numbers of threads and all of the answers were so deep that I want to read the whole thing even if how long it has been written.

Geometric duality

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:13 am
by LoneBear
Kent wrote:I remember learning that the inversion you're asking about between the Physical (3D spatial) and Cosmic (3D Temporal) sectors takes the form of flipping vertices and faces in a solid object. So, for instance if you have a cube in the physical realm it has 6 faces and 8 vertices, but in the cosmic sector it would be an octahedron (having 8 faces and 6 vertices).
Yes, it is correct. It is called geometric "duality." The behavior of duality changes depending on the number of dimensions involved:
  • 1D: Points are duals of themselves, since there are no other options.
  • 2D: Points and lines are duals; the (x,y) location of a point can also be the slope of a line.
  • 3D: Points and planes are duals; the (x,y,z) location of a point (a vertex) can be exchanged with the intersection of a plane (face) on the x, y and z axes.
  • 4D: Points and volumes are duals. This gives rise to the concept of "nonlocality," where a location in time can manifest as a volumetric field in space (like magnetism). This is also where the idea of an "aether" comes from, since you start with a volume and reduce to a point.