Monday, February 18, 2008


:: ”an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which some assertible proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertible and apparently contradictory proposition (antithesis), the mutual contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis).”

The Line attempts to define certainty uncertainly in far too crepuscular a domain to succeed; it is more oft noticed only marginally, in passing through the interpolar mists. The White abrades not The Black, the transition traversing rather a finely sophisticated graydient. Geometrically, we move to substitute a Point in place of the Line oppressively demarcating the boundary artificially separating the entirety of the holosphere into inaccurate and opposed hemispheres. The historical imperative disintegrating Unity into misperception of a Dualism of the One vs. The Other enables and activates (de)valuations of multiple co-extant sympathetic modes into counterfactual hierarchies, as a method of institutional control.

::In the Linear Model, whose ubiquity is preponderated only by its tyranny, the sole method of travel available lies along a prescribed bilateral vector (bilateral in the sense that while possible, to reverse is to regress/devolve), which is biaxial at best, and rarely. Such a narrow avenue of evolution can exclusively exist in commensurately fascistic (non)spatial conceptualization of a vertically valuated, hierarchized 2D plane of metaphysical existence moving above the horizon towards the “Good”, mirrored below the horizon regressing exponentially towards the “Evil”, where all progress is depicted in a straight line moving upwards, all beings prescriptively attempting travel to enlightenment via the same artery simultaneously.

It has been formerly proposed that the accepted model of progress as a linear sequence of increments may be replaced by the Annular Model: a series of concentric circles emanating from the local centroid. The individual may circumnavigate the present orbit, exiting to the next outlying orbit at the personally most advantageous point, be the exit three 172º cycles from the entrance point, or be the exit and entrance one. This model beneficially introduces multi-axial possibility, and succeeds in subverting the vertical hierarchy; the plane of travel may be oriented in any direction (although primarily: all beings must travel in the same plane, albeit along divergent tangents), and the system remains whole and without emergent contradictions--as opposed to the Linear Model, which utterly crumbles with the introduction of any assumption other than Up=Good. However, the Annular Model remains (two) dimensionally prohibitive in a rather Flatlander sense.

Conjure visually a sphere: consider in three dimensions—first the surface area, then the entirety of space contained within that sphere, including, but not limited to, a sequentially logical scalar reduction series of the sphere around its center point. Now consider the concentrically nested spheres intersected simultaneously by an infinitely extended plane, set at any angle but intersecting the sphere’s center point. Described graphically by this intersection is the Annular Model. Consider what immense inhabitable volume is omitted by this model!

Thus the (con)temporarily “final” model: a series of inclusive concentric spheres nested about a shared centroid. Each sphere includes and is supported by all inner spheres. Conversely, inner spheres are independent of levels outside them. The solar system nor atoms can exist without neutrons, protons, electrons; protons, however, exist free of worry about the activity of planets. Imposed hierarchies* are absolved of duty and supplanted by multidimensional Holarchies. Nothing is higher or lower, All includes and is propagated by All that came before it. Each “higher” level of existence (consciousness, biological development) depends on, and originated in, the base levels of material existence. Thus the Noosphere “transcends and includes” Gaia, heaven--the basest earth.

The OmniPoint System maps harmonically. The unit One, the radius of the innermost sphere, becomes a reference integer for the entire holistic system relationship, e.g. two initial radii from the OmniPoint is the radius of the second sphere, three intial radii from the OmniPoint is the radius of the third sphere, and so on. Via triangulation, one might find that two points on the surface of a certain sphere are the same distance from each other as from the originating centroid; the centroid of the new triangle may be used to propagate a new OmniPoint System. The set of points at the intersection of the two systems will itself describe an exegesis of the originating system, a tertiary OmniPoint System, containing a universal harmonic set of relationships based on the One unit. Thus the system is a 3-dimensional matrix of points in relationships based upon a universal radial increment, in which each point is a potential OmniPoint. Each point may find its relationship to surrounding points in exactly the same manner as to the OmniPoint Centroid. This simultaneity of multiplicitous origination (or vantage) points begins to point towards the temporal, or Fourth, dimension.

We further propose a contingent polar model: White←→Graydient←→Black.
The Linear Model promotes a hierarchy of white vs. black, where white=good//black=evil, in which White is the supreme pursuit and end. Consider again the sphere, superimpose visually the OmniPoint System onto the Linear Model, in which the Line goes through the centroid. At the unattainable infinite reaches of the opposite ends of the Line lie the opposing concepts (White/Black, Good/Bad). Again, there is only one route of travel possible between them. Now consider again the sphere intersected by that line, at the point of intersection may be placed poles. An immense surface area that may be traversed at will, in any direction, between White and Black—an infinite set of points making a network between the two. Thereby one may need to traverse any and all points from white to black before making the jump to the next sphere; indeed, all spheres include the entirety of The White, the Graydient, and The Black.

In order to move forward, we must learn to exist in, use, be used by, both realms, and more truly, the vast expanse of Graydient between. To refute and and ignore the Black as having utility is not only not possible, but very possibly may prohibit travel to outlying regions. Of particular and problematic interest to us is catharsis—of accepting, channelling, controlling, utilizing one's dark power. Accepting and integrating the Black as the half of What Is that it is, one remains aware of it, keeps it within reach and within control. Existing within it, to understand and use it, rather than attempting to put it in a secret box, out of which it will explode. SImlar to Wilhelm Reich's view of the results of sexual repression, repression of the blacker half of the spheres, or at worst, the Blackness of the Earth Nexus (in which the innermost sphere of the Omnipoint System is Black, the outermost, White, which thereby transcends and includes the Black), inevitably gives rise to perversions. Sexual desire is healthy and natural and good, but to view it as unhealthy, makes it as such, causes it to feel as such--likewise with the darker side of spirituality. But where is the line, over which acceptance and understanding becomes absorption and corruption? To take the experience of Umberto Eco's Belbo and Casaubon as exemplar, the line is much too hazy to be used as a warning marker. It is more oft noticed only marginally, in passing. White does not slam up against Black, traversing rather a finely sophisticated gradient.

*an etymological note on the word hierarchy: “c.1343, from O.Fr. ierarchie, from M.L. hierarchia "ranked division of angels" (in the system of Dionysius the Areopagite), from Gk. hierarchia "rule of a high priest," from hierarches "high priest, leader of sacred rites," from ta hiera "the sacred rites" (neut. pl. of hieros "sacred") + archein "to lead, rule." Sense of "ranked organization of persons or things" first recorded 1619, initially of clergy, probably infl. by higher.” From

No comments: