Category Archives: Sacred Geometry

Sacred Geometry

“The Mind of the Father made a jarring noise, understanding by unwearied counselOmniform ideas: which flying out from one fountainThey sprung forth: for from the Father was the will and the end;(By which they are connected with the FatherAccording to alternate life from several vehicles,)But they were divided, being by intellectual fire distributedInto other Intellectuals: For the king previously placed before the multiform worldAn intellectual, incorruptible pattern, the print of whose formIs promoted through the world, according to which things the world appearedBeautified with all-various Ideas; of which there is one fountain,From this the others rush forth distributed,And separated about the bodies of the world, and are borneThrough its vast recesses like swarmsTurning themselves on all sides in every direction,They are Intellectual conceptions from the paternal fountain,Partaking abundantly the flower of Fire in the point of restless time,But the primary self-perfect fountain of the FatherPoured forth these primogenial ideas.

“CHALDÆAN ORACLES

Hekate / Metatron

May be an image of flower and text that says 'MAYBE REPHRASE FPHRASE REPHR YES NO MAYBE က NO YES REPHRASE'

I read an intriguing bit about Metatron and how he was fiery and I remembered that association Hekate had with the luminous divine fire as the indefinite dead and nous (I’m sure Christians are going to equate that with hellfire) in the Chaldeaon Oracles by Hans Lewy
When I had a vision of Hekate or Anima mundi on my mother’s passing. She resembled what I described as a flame princess
“His explanation for the human perceptions of divine visions is that they concern lower links in the divine chains and that the gods reveal themselves to the soul’s internal faculty of fantasy, which has its material part in the so-called pneumatic vehicle of the soul.”
“The Oracles further posit a barrier between the intellectual and the material realm, personified as Hecate. In the capacity of barrier, or more properly “membrane”, Hecate separates the two ‘fires,’ i.e., the purely intellectual fire of the Father, and the material fire from which the cosmos is created, and mediates all divine influence upon the lower realm.
From Hecate is derived the World-Soul, which in turn emanates Nature, the governor of the sub-lunar realm.[3] From Nature is derived Fate, which is capable of enslaving the lower part of the human soul. The goal of existence then is to purify the lower soul of all contact with Nature and Fate by living a life of austerity and contemplation. Salvation is achieved by an ascent through the planetary spheres, during which the soul casts off the various aspects of its lower soul, and becomes pure intellect.”
“R Ishmael said: The angel Metatron, Prince of the Divine Prescence, the glory of the highest heaven, said to me: When the Holy One, blessed be he, took me to serve the throne of glory, the wheels of the chariot and all the needs of the Shekinah, at once my flesh turned to flame, my sinews to blazing fire, my bones to juniper coals, my eyelashes to lightning flashes, my eyeballs to fiery torches,the hairs of my head to hot flames, all my limbs to wings of burning fire, and the substance of my body to blazing fire.

It was already observed that the idea of the Prince of the Presence is both mediatorial and liturgical, and therefore is closely linked with the motif of the celestial curtain, Pargod (dwgrp),[8] the entity which separates the divine Presence from the rest of the heavenly world.[9] The function of this Curtain which can be viewed as a celestial counterpart of the veil found in the earthly sanctuary is twofold. First, it protects the angelic hosts from the harmful luminosity of the divine Face. At the same time it shields the Deity by concealing the ultimate mysteries of the Godhead now accessible solely to the prince(s) of the divine Presence whose duty is to serve the Deity behind[10] the Curtain.”
Chaldaeon is usually equated with Persian magi, and was influential via Zoroastrianism.
“This tradition then developed into the ever-burning flame kept alive in honor of and symbolizing the divine in a place of worship. Early Iranian Religion venerated a god of fire, Atar, who was the fire itself but transcended earthly fire as a divine entity created by the king of the gods, Ahura Mazda.”
Anyways thought it was interesting, especially considering I’ve called on both. Metatron by accident (sacred geometry), anima mundi through Hypatia and Gaia in general and then found she’s the matron goddess of neoplatonism so directly on my last day at DirecTV, March 8, 2019. Day of my mother’s birth and Hypatia’s death.
The heroes of the sublunar realm hear you. Hypatia and Voltaire were the ones specifically I called to using Eros and cosmic sympathaea. I imagine they have a direct connection with the angels/daemons and by extension the gods. My mother passing between worlds gave me the opportunity to meet Hekate, gatekeeper of souls who oversees the noetic fire.
So I googled if there was any relation. Fitting, yes, no, maybe, rephrase
“It’s a woman’s perogative to change her mind.”

theurgy #pedagogy

Neoplatonic take on reality and soul

Valentinianism - Wikipedia

I was thinking about the whole
In the beginning was darkness
and then there was light
That’s an old Enuma Elish motif which Genesis borrowed from (let there be light)
Before Genesis, there was the story of Tiamat in mesopotamian culture
Anyway. The neoplatonic/jungian take on this is
Before there was light, there was no consciousness, there was no soul. There was no subjective experience, only unconscious matter, darkness (i.e. no light/perception to be aware, no differentiation, no awareness apart from, no subjective soul).
With Tiamat, the concept was from rising from the murky depths of water below… but that’s just poetic license which isn’t directly applicable here, but when God was “over the waters” in Genesis, it’s referring to this earlier Tiamat who rose from the water motif in Mesopotamian myths. Water is often associated with Venus (Eros), and unconscious (before awareness, Freudian Id).
I simply like the darkness equates with unconscious matter bit. It took a reversion upon matter (i.e. reverting to the One) thanks to light (we could differentiate ourselves from matter) to see the forms (ideas, wings of minerva, reflection) to become self-aware (which is really a recollection of ideas, because we reverted from matter to the One in an act of contemplation of forms/intellection, discursive thought).
Yeah. I think I’ve kind of hit the nose on consciousness and soul. Which requires matter (objective reality), light (subjectivity, exposure to ideas), and time (discursive reasoning). All big pieces of the mysteries of reality I’ve been trying to solve.

I consider myself a neoplatonist
What’s weird tho is I’ve been talking about we all see the same thing but from different angles
We’re all describing an angle or worldview or zeitgeist of reality.
I don’t really consider myself a pagan in the sense I believe in theistic gods
I believe the universe is all with powers that historically have been equated with God’s for lack of a more fitting description
But reality is alive. The ideas themselves are alive and evolving and we exist to harvest them.
The ideas are derived from a divine mind. That’s God. The mind is eternal and beyond time, or what Plotinus regarded as nondiscursive thought. More aptly described as the nous (the paradigm of ideas that weave reality).
Plotinus wrote that the soul turns back to the source (the one) which is of the same substance as our soul. This turning back is reflection or contemplation of objective reality. Its a mind beholding ideas which are sourced from the expressions of matter but are beyond time and exist within the divine mind which we experience discursively.

My sacred geometry

My sacred geometry represents tree of life (gaia, persephone) and the divine ladder as well as noetic structure (athena)

That’s what the metatron cube represents at the top (ascension, illumination, gnosis)

The colors I suppose represent the causal unfoldment of forms from divine white light (plotinus)

The star of David serves as a reminder that this is a pointer to the highest divine structure (star)

We are the bottom node not realizing our metaphysical archetypal structure (posidonius)

I suppose if anywhere our Id is represented as the szyzgy of color (rainbow) which represents the full myriad of sexuality as it exists for both genders.

Fitting it’s at the center

and to top off with a little synchronous after reading

Metaphysics

My hope in life is to get at the metaphysics of life. You’re probably wondering. Yeah, right. How are you going to do that Mr Plato?

I didn’t just start with nothing. I started with something. I started specifically with artificial neural networks and then genetic algorithms. Then I studied classical philosophy, classical theories of mind, modern theories of system dynamics related to neuroscience (ex libet), then modern works on neural networks (Jeff Heaton and various projects on github that model ANN’s), and then finally the creme de le creme for my lack in understanding of physics. Statistics and classical philosophy.

You’re probably laughing at me. I would be too. But the final piece, that magical divining piece is my masters in quantitative data science (ex using cv and holdout analysis using simple binary bifurcation of all independent variables) I can do kmeans, clustering, binary logistic regression, proportions to get adequate descriptions of reality using tests of significance. That piece helps me put together what it was that Plato was talking about with cognizable ideas with data science. It merely confirms what I believed I could surmise myself from summarizing. Holdout analysis is what brumbraugh talks about contrast pov’s. Wisdom of the crowd’s is sampling. Essences is means. All this talk about circle’s point and many radii is 1:M. Proclus talks about indexing. See, I’m not crazy. Aristotle’s logic and categories helped with UML programming (member variables and process logic). Plato’s forms with system modeling (classes). Archimedes with Pi. Pi with error terms in statistics. Hypatia with applying circles to other areas than pi (conic shapes). These ideas were slowly added into systems of science from universal laws inferred from philosophy.

I side with Plato and Plotinus and Brumbraugh that reality is somewhat understandable and you don’t need to know it all to approximate most of it (majority). You can understand it. What you cannot understand does not exist. What you understand are impressed upon you as ideas or archetypes. We can expand this understanding using theories like physics, math or statistics to identify systems. Within statistics population means represent essences. I’m good at taxonomy and maybe identifying psychological causal relations. But as to systems of laws of reality. That is harder to get at. One has to setup experiments that can be tested within the model. That helps get to a base. But then you have to infer the metaphysical from the base. What does that mean? When you see a circle and you understand that the irrational number pi the RATIO of the diameter (width) to the circumference (surface length) and that RATIO’s are what are real numbers and if you understand that it’s this irrational number that is REAL and it expresses the convex of the circle.

Procession, Reversion.

Circle is Divine

What is divine? A mandala, a circle. A circle is divine.

Not because it’s a mandala. I just drew the connection between what Jung said about mandala’s being circle’s… as they often come up in people’s minds under stress.

Anyways… why a circle? Because of pi really. I mean any irrational number could qualify for why I picked pi (infinite, random), but the real reason I picked pi is because of it’s association with the mandala effect and the visual effect of a circle. A circle isn’t something you can easily draw with a ruler or by hand. It requires a compass and specialized tools. We can do it, but it is not easy to mimic and yet it exists in nature. It exists in nature as some type of entity, or tied to this thing known as a circle.

That is what I’m getting at. Matter is drawing itself around circles and laden within that formula of a sphere is pi and it is everywhere in our lives and in our mathematics and in our minds.

And Archimedes, Plotinus, Porphyry, Hypatia, Proclus, and Damascius, I would argue Plato by at least extension of the Sun, definately Parmindes with the One (sphere) and maybe democritus with the atom, all have in common the circle.

So what is divine. The circle. The circle is divine. So divine all your answers from the circle.

The Circle & Neoplatonism

The Circle-Radii Analogy in Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius, and Its Legacy

Continuing on an earlier discussion

It doesn’t really talk about pi which is kind of disheartening, but then at the same time it expands on theories aside from pi. Instead of circumference and diameter (which is necessary for pi); there is a lot of discussion on the circumference, radii, and point. The reason I find lack of discussion of pi disheartening is because pi is the missing ratio between the center (diamter) and circumference (exterior) and this dynamis of infinite number is like an RNG, but I can’t find any proof that pi is good for RNG, but I see it in the error term. Point being I’m afraid these philosopher’s discussions might be merely pythagorean numerology numeration (still useful) vs actual math based inferences… but philosophy is meant to help bridge the gap between complex metaphysics and understanding… and I think here the hope is to infer some simple analogy of where the divine One is at as opposed to dealing with complex irrational numbers.

It doesn’t really talk about pi which is kind of disheartening, but then at the same time it expands on theories aside from pi. Instead of circumference and diameter (which is necessary for pi); there is a lot of discussion on the circumference, radii, and point. The reason I find lack of discussion of pi disheartening. Is I believe pi is the missing ratio between the center (diameter) and circumference (exterior) and this dynamis of infinite number is like an RNG, but I can’t find any proof that pi is good for RNG, but I see it in the error term. Point being I’m afraid these philosopher’s discussions might be merely pythagorean numerology numeration (still useful) vs actual math based inferences… but philosophy is meant to help bridge the gap between complex metaphysics and understanding… and I think here the hope is to infer some simple analogy of where the divine One is at as opposed to dealing with complex irrational numbers.

The One is often associated with either the point, or behind the point and that get’s tricky. The behind the point would stress some type of immateriality (Augustine borrows this) yet at the same time by this allegory can be inferred by analogy visa natural philosophy

In Agora Hypatia had circle mania and I saw it and I thought about pi in error terms in statistics and now I read this with Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius. Damascius associates the point with an enfolded one where the radii unfold out. Psuedo dionysius associates the one with the point where all the radii intersect. What’s interesting is in Eric D Perl’s work, he uses the concept of enfoldment as well.

Note: Archimedes was the philosopher who came up with an accurate estimate of Pi (~212 BC).

One of the points they are getting at is the radii are like the forms (archetypes) while the surface of the radii or their aggregation make up the circle. The circle (outer edge) is like matter or the instances (I’m not exactly sure). But the center is the One or often behind the center.

Unity was either contained in the One or after the one depending on the philosopher (unity implies multiplicity) , but was analogous to a 1:M relationship. Which is why the cross sections of radii and 1:M relationship for forms and databases make so much sense. As well as pi being in the error term in statistics as the class differentiating term when all other constants in the regression equation have been found.

The 1:M is interesting because a circle if representing a 1:M represents a dimension (just like in R). Then a sphere represents a 2d dimensional space differentiated into a spherical form. Something like that. Point being a circle represents a dimension just like a sphere represents gravity (gravity represents space dimension as it curves space to a sphere)

The One is often associated with either the point, or behind the point and that get’s tricky. The behind the point would stress some type of immateriality (Augustine borrows this) yet at the same time by this allegory can be inferred by analogy visa natural philosophy

In Agora Hypatia had circle mania and I saw it and I thought about pi in error terms in statistics and now I read this with Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius. Damascius associates the point with an enfolded one where the radii unfold out. Psuedo dionysius associates the one with the point where all the radii intersect. What’s interesting is in Eric D Perl’s work, he uses the concept of enoldment as well.

Note: Archimedes was the philosopher who came up with an accurate estimate of Pi (~212 BC).

One of the points they are getting at is the radii are like the forms (archetypes) while the surface of the radii or their aggregation make up the circle. The circle (outer edge) is like matter or the instances (I’m not exactly sure). But the center is the One or often behind the center.

Unity was either contained in the One or after the one depending on the philosopher (unity implies multiplicity) , but was analogous to a 1:M relationship. Which is why the cross sections of radii and 1:M relationship for forms and databases make so much sense. As well as pi being in the error term in statistics as the class differentiating term when all other constants in the regression equation have been found.

The 1:M is interesting because a circle if representing a 1:M represents a dimension (just like in R). Then a sphere represents a 2d dimensional space differentiated into a spherical form. Something like that. Point being a circle represents a dimension just like a sphere represents gravity (gravity represents space dimension as it curves space to a sphere)

Proclus on the One and the Analogy of the Circle

Proclus expanding on Plotinus use of the circle to describe the 3 hypostases of Neoplatonism.

“But up there they are all in unity: if you take what corresponds to the center, you will find everything in it; if you take the procession coming out of the center, you will find that this also contains everything; and likewise if you take the reversion. When you have seen that they are all of them in each other, and have discounted the imperfection implicit in their extendedness, and have banished from thought the spatial position around which they are distributed, you will discover the truly real circle itself—the circle which goes forth in itself, defines itself, and acts in relation to itself; which is both one and many; which remains, goes forth, and reverts [toward itself]; which has its most indivisible and unitary part firmly fixed, but is moving away from it in every direction by virtue of the straight line and the Unlimited that it contains in itself, and yet from itself wraps [itself] back into unity, urged by its own similarity and self-identity towards the partless [center] of its own nature and the One that has been hidden there. And once it has embraced [this center], it becomes homogeneous with it and with its own plurality as it revolves about it. For that which reverts imitates what has remained fixed; and the circumference is like a separated center converging upon it, striving to be the center and become one with it and to bring the reversion back to the point from which the procession began.21 (154,2–24; trans. Morrow, modified)”

Soul as Unity

Continuing on my earlier post

I’m reading Cambridge Companion to Plotinus inbetween Jung trying to synthesize between the two and after reading about the szyzgy (a pair of opposites in an archetypal form, which is a type of cognitive dissonance resolution). In occult symbolism, rich . Basically, yin/yang (Jung quotes the use of yin/yang). I’ve always found the connection with Love/Strive and Yin/Yang unmistakable, procession/reversion. Masculine/feminine, sun/moon.
Anyways…
“His [Plotinus] innovations were rooted in a tradition that he knew harmonized with his metaphysical system, centered on the procession of plurality from the One.”
This “procession of plurality” is what stood out to me. I’ve been asking here if there was any such thing as a male/female pair, and the best I could find was the neopythagorean monad/dyad before it was sectioned off into the One and nous. However… I think the One projects onto the second hypostases a few things to include the nous which itself is constructed of this pair if you will but also the 4 elements as well as soul (unity). Basically, there are different aggregate formal models that with a little bit from each sphere of influence, you end up with a “being” with archetypal influence exerted upon it through this duality.
These are just ideas, I’m not hard setting them in anything other than initial impressions from what I’ve read so far.

Dare I say the 5th element is unity? I’m not sure, I honestly have no idea. I know there is a 5th element and it’s equated with spirit or soul of somekind (quintaessence).

I’m trying to interpret it neoplatonically, considering that essence of being is a unity of form(s), I figured life is a unity of forms (procession), and death (reversion) is a dissolution of such, i.e. entropy (literally, then soul would be the complex counter-entropy of ever increasing complexity of unity of life).

So I figured maybe the 5th element is unity, combining all 4 forces to unify a being. I’ve been contemplating the idea that with dual aspect monism, that the psyche aspect of matter and the idea of an eternal soul. I equate the soul with unity of being. So upon death. the soul’s unity reconfiigure’s itself somewhere else into some other object-subject form configuration in the continual procession/reversion of the cosmos, but this essence of unity is what is cognized (as the idea) between aware subjects and objects. Honestly, I think the essence isn’t so superficial as an object without consciousness. I think the essence is consciousness (following from interpretations of Parmenides being defined as such) and all material form wraps around this center of awareness in a manifestation of presentation (I’ve been getting this interpretation from recent neoplatonic readings, matter isn’t real).

There are other players who are enjoined in this material presentation, but none-the-less, matter wraps around their center of ensouled unity to display a material eidetic presentation. In other words, the soul’s unity provides a gravity of living matter in the cosmos. Upon death, the soul will find a new home where it will reconstruct itself around matter to experience a manifestation of reality. This ensouled matter is a construct of earth (gravity, matter), fire (warmth, heat, light), air (oxygen, space to move), water (sustenance, flux) with soul provided by the One as a unity bringing them together (dare I say through our very own sun).