Dialogue ~ 53

 "Are there ancient beliefs or texts which are indicative of a synergy of the masculine and feminine aspects of divinity, or indeed an association of reason with ratio, notably as it relates to one’s truth?”

Of the Gnostic text from the Nag Hammadi library, ‘On the Origin of the World’, Wikipedia informs, “The contents provide an alternate interpretation of Genesis, in which the dark ruler Yaldabaoth created heaven and earth, and a wise instructor opened the minds of Adam and Eve to the truth when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.”

Who or what is Yaldabaoth? Interesting, in that the etymology has caused for speculation. Wikipedia informs that in 1575, Francois Feuardentius offered a translation to suggest that the name meant ‘the child of the father(s)’. In 1828, Jacques Matter suggested that Yaldabaoth referred to ‘child of darkness’ or ‘element of chaos’.

In 1967, Alfred Adam departed from the mainstream view in that he translated ‘yaldā‘ as ‘bringing forth, particularly in a generative capacity’.

In 1974, Gershom Scholem pointed out errors in previous translation whereby ‘darkness’ and ‘chaos’ had been associated with another word used for the ‘unformed (as without form)’ or ‘nothingness (or empty)’. Also, that the earliest textual data suggested that Yaldabaoth refers to a progenitor or begetter of (armies or hosts) and not a progeny/child (of darkness/chaos).

Rev. Matthew Black disagreed with Scholem’s interpretation of the second noun (baoth) and said that it referred to ‘behūṯā’ lit. ‘shame’, cognate with ‘bōšeṯ‘ or bosheth.

Is it correct to infer from some of these interpretations of ‘Yald/Yaldā‘, that Yaldabaoth implies a ‘progenitor/begetter (generative capacity) of shame’ - and why shame?

The Syro-Phoenicians used to worship the active and passive forces of nature; these forces were personified in Ba’al and Attar(t). ‘Attart being the Northwest Semitic/Amorite equivalent of the East Semitic Ishtar, Astarte being the Hellenized form of Attar(t).

Historically, as conflict between Yahwism and pagan practices in the Levant grew, the names of the pagan deities, including of the epithet Baal were thrown into disrepute. Their names were censored or substituted with words to suggest ‘abomination or shame/shameful thing’ (bōšeṯ/bosheth).

In Gnostic practices, Yaldabaoth was portrayed as a demiurge, trickster or malevolent god. Indeed, Saklas (Aramaic for fool) is an alternative title for the demiurge. In the Apocryphon of John, Yaldabaoth is known as both Saklas and Samael (‘blind God’ or ‘God of the blind’ in Hebrew).

Is it possible that from the pagan perspective, Yaldabaoth meant ‘the progenitor/begetter of the cycles or forces of nature’?  

There is evidence that Yaldabaoth was represented as a lion-headed serpent. This symbology could be an indication that at some point, one nation’s gods were appropriated to fit with the pantheon of another. The serpent has been regarded as a guardian of the underworld, the divine feminine, intuition, fertility, cycles, regeneration, and immortality. The zodiacal lion has been associated with royalty, courage, strength and the generative power and omniscience of the sun.

In ancient Egypt, Ra or Re was recognised as the divinity of the sun. He ruled in all parts of the created world: the sky, the earth, and the underworld. The solar goddess Sekhmet (Sachmis, Sahmat, Sakhmi) was daughter of/associated with Ra. In combination with the mother goddess Hathor, Sekhmet was a warrior goddess and as the vengeful aspect of Ra’s power, she was referred to as the eye of Ra.

Sekhmet had another side: she was a goddess of healing. A regenerative aspect might explain why images of her are painted green, similarly as with Osiris. Sekhmet was portrayed with the head of a lioness and wearing a sun disk and uraeus (upright form of a cobra). Her consort was Ptah, a creator god who conceived and brought the world into being through the power of speech. Ptah was a patron deity of craftsmen and architects.  

Sekhmet had a sister Bastet; over time, the fierce or fiery nature (lioness) of Sekhmet was diminished and she was represented as a cat goddess. It was as if Sekhmet and Bastet had fused, characterised as two aspects of the same goddess: Sekhmet as destructive warrior and Bastet as regenerative healer. Bastet was associated with mystery (as in initiation) as well as being represented with an ointment jar.

I would like to explore whether there is correlation between the lion-headed and serpentine aspects of the Egyptian deities, the Greek mythology of Hephaestus (the artisan) and Athena and of the passages of Gnosticism. Is there a dual aspect, that is to say, evidence of the masculine and feminine energies that are working in synergy to express the creativity of nature?

To glimpse whether Yaldabaoth is ‘the progenitor/begetter of the cycles of nature’, it would be appropriate to approach the spirituality of the Phoenicians - in particular, whether the active and passive aspects of nature were personified through Ba’al (Hadad) and Attar.

Wikipedia informs, “Hadad (Ugaritic Haddu), Haddad, Adad or Iskur (Sumerian) was the storm and rain god in the Canaanite and ancient Mesopotamian religions. He was attested in Ebla as ‘Hadda’ in c.2500 BCE. From the Levant, Hadad was introduced to Mesopotamia by the Amorites, where he became known as the Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian) god Adad.”

"Greek equivalent: Zeus. Roman equivalent: Jupiter. Canaanite equivalent: Baal. Egyptian equivalent: Horus. Hurrian equivalent: Teshub. The traditions provide that his parents were Anu, sometimes Enlil, Sin and Ningal or Dagon/Dagan."

There has almost certainly been an association between the masculine deities and the weather – the storms, lightning bolts, wind, and rain. Are these deities simply the faces of a changing climate or are they representative of something else?

Does Baal/Hadad share any characteristics with Ptah and Hephaestus in being a creator god/artisan - one who conceives and brings the world into being? If so, would this make him a demiurge – akin to Yaldabaoth?

What can we know of the ‘spirit’ or ‘light’ – that of the ‘invisible hand at the potter’s wheel’ so to speak?

Is it possible that in a similar fashion to Sekhmet and Bastet (as the differing faces of one goddess), that Astarte (Attar) had a dual nature?

Wikipedia informs that Astarte “was worshipped from the Bronze Age through classical antiquity, and her name is particularly associated with her worship in the ancient Levant among the Canaanites and Phoenicians, though she was originally associated with Amorite cities like Ugarit and Emar, as well as Mari and Ebla. She was also celebrated in Egypt.”

“In various cultures Astarte was connected to some combination of the following spheres: war, sexuality, royal power, beauty, healing and – especially in Ugarit and Emar – hunting. … Her symbol was the lion, and she was also often associated with the horse… “

There is some indication that Astarte (Attar) had a dual nature. Her parents (in the Egyptian tradition) are given as Ptah or Ra. It is interesting that instead of being associated with the sun, Astarte was associated with the planet Venus.

Wikipedia informs of Venus, “… in old English, the planet was known as morgensteorra (morning star) and aefensteorra (evening star). It was not until the 13^th century C.E. that the name ‘Venus’ was adopted for the planet (in classical Latin, though the morning star was considered sacred to the goddess Venus, it was called Lucifer).”  

“Lucifer corresponds to the Greek names Phosphorus ‘light-bringer’ and Eosphorus ‘dawn-bringer’.” The Latin name of Lucifer was mistranslated as Satan and subsequently absorbed into Christianity as a name for the devil.”

The mistranslation as regards Lucifer is unfortunate, particularly given that whilst the term Baal was used in reference to the various Levantine deities, often with application towards Hadad, it was depicted as a false god. That use was taken over into Christianity and Islam, sometimes under the form Beelzebub in demonology.

To continue, “Venus is the second brightest object in the night sky. It follows a synodic cycle, by which it seems to disappear for several days due to its proximity to the sun and reappears on the opposite side of the sun and on the other horizon. Dependent on the point in its cycle, Venus may appear before sunrise in the morning, or after sunset in the evening, but it never appears to reach the apex of the sky. Therefore, many cultures have recognised it with two names, even if their astronomers realised that it was really one object.”

Given as Venus is viewed in two aspects in relation to the sun, does this explain why the goddesses identified as the consorts of the weather god(s) were attributed with dual natures - peace and strife, for instance?

Is it possible that the personification of Venus is indicative of it being androgynous in its nature?

Is what is being revealed through the representation of Venus in direct proportion or harmony (resonance or ratio) with the ‘nature’ of the weather god? Would this amplify the synergy?

Looking to physics for a moment – a dipole moment occurs when one end of the bond is positive, and the other end is negative.

Interestingly, according to an article dated 2010 and published on the website The Planetary Society, “When Pioneer Venus visited our sister planet in 1979, it found an atmospheric feature called a ‘dipole’ near Venus’ north pole – a pair of eddies swirling and rotating around each other as Venus rotated.”

“When ESA’s Venus Express arrived in 2006, it observed the same sort of thing at Venus’ south pole, and scientists wrote a lot about how Venus was symmetric from north to south and how the polar dipoles were atmospheric features that were stable over decades.”

The article continued to inform “… after four years of watching Venus’ swirling atmospheric patterns, Venus Express showed that the ‘stable’ southern dipole was not stable – that Venus’ south polar vortex changes over time and in complicated patterns.”

It appears also that the Venusian polar dipoles are elongated, warm features, are centred close to the pole and appear to rotate with a period of ~3 days retrograde.

According to an article dated 2016 and published on the website Nature “… This warm polar vortex is zonally surrounded by a cold latitude band located at ~60° latitude, which is a unique feature called ‘cold collar’ in the Venus atmosphere. Although these structures have been observed in numerous previous observations, the formation mechanism is still unknown.”

Is Yaldabaoth or Baal/Hadad representative of atmospheric conditions as Venus moves through its synodic cycle? Does it have to do with the solar winds or is it a representation of earth – even of ourselves as we influence or are influenced through an act of our participating in the cosmos?  

Certainly, Baal has been interpreted with an academic leaning, such as “the dry summers of the area were explained as Baal’s time in the ‘underworld’ and his return in Autumn was said to cause the storms which revived the land. Thus, the worship of Baal in Canaan, where he eventually supplanted El as the leader of the gods and patron of kingship – was connected to the region’s dependence on rainfall for its agriculture.”

The ‘Baal Cycle’ is a series of stories which revolves around Baal (Hadad), his encounter with Yam (representing the sea/other waters) and Mot (death/underworld). 

I would suggest that the Baal cycle is intended to be understood as a fractal or spiral of creativity, rather than of a closed circuit of mortal combat and repetition.

Something is ‘missing the mark’ if we have an intellectual perspective only – a dry dismissal - of the many tales of ‘slaying the serpent’, ‘walking upon or overcoming the water’ or ‘descent into the underworld’, as if they are fanciful stories, created by earlier generations to explain the agricultural cycles or conditions of the natural world.

Recall that “… the Venusian polar dipoles are elongated, warm features, are centred close to the pole and appear to rotate with a period of ~3 days retrograde.”

In describing the Mesopotamian story of the ‘Descent of Inanna’ (goddess) into the underworld, the website World History Encyclopedia informs “… after three days and three nights waiting for her mistress, Ninshubur follows the commands Inanna gave her, goes to Inanna’s father-god Enki for help, and receives two ‘galla’, two transgender beings created ‘neither male nor female’, to aid her in returning Inanna to the earth.”

Is it just coincidence as to the Venusian polar dipoles rotating with a period of 3 days retrograde and of the period of 3 days/nights (cycles) before Inanna’s servant approached Enki for help? Or of the insignificant magnetic fields of Venus and the dual aspects being represented by many goddesses in history, as if androgynous in nature and of the two ‘galla’ beings that aid Inanna in her returning from the underworld?  

The World History Encyclopedia continues, “Modern readers of this poem have available to them a wealth of interpretation of the piece through writers applying a psychological, specifically Jungian, view to the poem as an archetypal myth of the journey an individual must take to reach wholeness. Inanna in this piece, so the interpretation goes, is not a ‘whole person’ until she appears vulnerable before her ‘darker half’, dies, and returns to life. At the poem’s end, this interpretation asserts, Inanna, through her descent into darkness, the shedding of the trappings of her former self, confrontation with her ‘shadow’, death of who she was, and final re-birth, is now a complete individual, wholly aware.”

Incidentally, Matthew 12:40 reads, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Dialogue ~ 52

I have been thinking more on the conversation which took place between Kuhn and Tegmark in an episode of the Closer to the Truth series. Kuhn said, “... it’s impossible for mathematics not to exist - you can devise any possible world that you want to have, but you can’t do one that doesn’t have at least certain kinds of mathematical structures in it.”

Tegmark said “What we learn as logic in school - a type of algebra - it has a particular mathematical structure.”

Kuhn asked, “How about values? Like morality, goodness, beauty … do they exist in the same way as other mathematics exists, or is your claim that only mathematics exists and everything else is derivative of it as a primary entity?”

Tegmark said, “There’s only one thing that we’ve come across that has this transcendent property - that just exists and has no choice but to be this way - and that’s mathematics.”

The questions I have been asking are: “How does Tegmark’s perspective fit with John Archibald Wheeler’s question of ‘Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe or are they central to it?’”

Such that “Does mathematics constitute the fabric or weave of the universe, or do we comprehend the universe by way of mathematics? Are we capable of knowing and if so, who or what might arbitrate?”

It is valid to consider these questions from the perspective of Tegmark having said, “there is only one thing that we’ve come across…”  Energy can be measured after it has been detected, but this does not negate its existence.

More to the point however, does the very essence of thought have a mathematical component?  A definition of ‘logic’ is:

-     Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity; a particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment.

-     A system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device to perform a specified task.

According to Wikipedia, ‘logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking and argumentation theory.”

“Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises together with a conclusion.”

Effectively, logic is a process of utilising a mathematical set or series of premises and generating inferences or conclusions; it yields information. Clearly, as in the parable of building one’s house upon sand or rock, if the data set of logic is flawed, so is everything assumed to be meaningful or true.

The Middle English word logic originates from Late Latin ‘logica’, from Greek ‘logikë tekhnē’ (art of reason) and ‘logos’ (word, reason or plan), plural is ‘logoi’. In ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, logos is the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.

Is it possible that the ancient Greeks chose to sidestep the ‘implicit purpose’ of the natural world? If so, what would have shifted their worldview? Sure enough, they were exploring the mechanism of a city state. At the same time, the Sophists were particularly adept at utilising language to stir passion. We may not know the when, the how or the why, but somehow that which is innately meaningful has been treated as a resource and has been subjected to the lens of scrutiny.

An act of perceiving what is present as a utility gives it an arbitrary value. This is akin to the Cosmos being present and available to communicate with us, but we are putting our hands over our ears and humming away to ourselves by way of distraction. The mind opts for clarity and order from amidst an appearance of chaos but in so doing, it will entangle itself further in complexity.

Further, how does a shift in one’s worldview relate to the perception of time, free will and causality?

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you."

Does this fit with the message I received that “I am to you as you are to me: we are one”?

To consider Wheeler’s question will require for us to suspend judgment and be willing to experience the Logos (whether it is word, speech, message (or act of), reason or plan). It is not an intellectual quest and yet habit compels for us to gather supplies from which to begin.

Firstly, what information do we have concerning that which has been denoted as Logos? The standard rendering of logos is ‘word’. In John 1:1, it said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In the New Testament especially, there is the connotation that Logos is symbolic of the nature and function of Jesus Christ. Jesus is referred to as the ‘Word of life’ in the Gospel of John.

Genesis states that ‘in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’. Particularly as I read 'in the beginning' and 'heaven and earth', for me it raises questions - is this passage, together with that of John as he speaks of the Word, an acknowledgement of ‘what is, was and shall evermore be’ or are the texts intimating that humanity has moved into a state of incoherence?  

Interestingly, Proverbs 8 1:11 reads, “Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? At the highest point along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; beside the gate leading into the city, at the entrance, she cries aloud: To you, O people, I call out; I raise my voice to all mankind.”

“You who are simple, gain prudence; you who are foolish, set your hearts on it. Listen, for I have trustworthy things to say; I open my lips to speak what is right. My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness. All the words of my mouth are just; none of them is crooked or perverse. To the discerning all of them are right; they are upright to those who have found knowledge. Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her.”

“Wisdom is where the paths meet, beside the gate leading into the city”. There are some connotations between this passage and the goddesses who spoke with Parmenides on not erring from a path of one’s truth. Notably, Pythagoras whose teaching I shall touch upon later, said “If you are asked, what is the silence? Respond, it is the first stone of the Wisdom’s temple.”

Another similarity of Parmenides’ and of this verse from Proverbs is that they personify wisdom and truth with the feminine aspects of deity. Is it just coincidence that historically, the feminine aspect has been the scapegoat of an alleged ‘fall from grace’? Did/does the feminine aspect represent an orientation or worldview – effectively a ‘field’? Virginal in as much as it remains unpolluted by one’s thought? Does the Logos emanate from this place, as in the divine being personified? Is this the Hieros Gamos?

The word ‘rational’ (as in having an ability to reason) can be traced back to Latin ‘rationalis’ and before that to ‘ratio’. Ratio can be traced back to the Latin definition ‘reor/reri/ratus’. Reor is from Proto-Indo-European h reh (‘to think’), reanalysed root of h er- (‘to put together’), in which case it would be cognate with the Ancient Greek word for ‘arithmos’ (‘a number’).

The content of reason is not static. So too, reason had its origin in a particular way of thinking, one that has greater commonality with ratio, than of how we interpret reasoning today (which has a greater leaning towards computation or reckoning).

There might be similarities in what I am endeavouring to convey here with that which has been referred to in esoteric texts as the ‘sword and the chalice’ or the ‘philosopher’s stone’. In some famous artwork by the masters, indeed also in ancient masonry, there are inclusions of the Fibonacci sequence – symbolic of the sacred, of geometry and indeed mathematics as emanating from a particular source - not constructed through human inference or augmenting of itself in space time.

Pythagoras is renowned for his work in mathematics, astronomy and music. He established a school whereby his students could explore as to whether the world could be understood through numbers. Pythagoras believed that numbers were either male or female and had their own special meaning.

From this perspective, a count or progression of numbers was synonymous with an act of creation; literally a ‘coming into being’ of the divine, whether harmonic or discordant through the ratio. Music was a mirror of the sublime. He said, “There is geometry in the humming of the strings, there is music in the spacing of the spheres.”

Pythagoras encouraged his students to consider at the end of each day, “where have I turned aside from righteousness? What have I been doing? What have I left undone, what ought I to have been doing?” This moves thought into resonance with what is being; truth is more potent than aspiration.

Notably, Pythagoras is reputed to have said that the soul of man is divided into 3 parts: intelligence, reason and passion. Intelligence and passion are possessed by other animals, but reason by man alone. Of numbers, he said "they have a way of taking a man by the hand and leading him down the path of reason.” In its subtlety or complexity, consider how it is that we utilise thought.

If reason is what makes the logos manifest, what movement is being made through one’s affirmation or contest? What happens when one resonates with this knowledge? Can you feel the torsion within you?

What appears to have happened through the ages, is of a gradual shift in perception - from our being embodied in and present with the natural world, towards an increasingly alienated state, one in which rhetoric replaces authenticity.

If Pythagoras was correct in his saying that “God built the universe on numbers” then to return to Wheeler’s question, “Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe or are they central to it?” then clearly the answer is no, life and mind are not irrelevant to the structure of the universe – the logos is at work within us. A question which might concern us all, is “are we listening?”

Dialogue ~ 51

The Nobel prize-winning biochemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi said, “Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest.” His statement emphasises an importance of energy transfer in living systems.

If energy transfer is ‘the conversion of one form of energy into another’ or movement of energy ‘from one place to another’, then it is a process of communication. Can we say that life is communication – that it is information – or is it something else besides?

In her book ‘The Rainbow and the Worm’, the geneticist Mae-Wan Ho described how they had discovered an optical technique which enabled them to see the vibrant interference colours being generated through the liquid crystalline nature of the anatomy of living organisms. She said that liquid crystals are states of matter between solid crystals and liquids. Ervin Laszlo, in his book ‘the interconnected universe’, has spoken of how a liquid crystalline ‘continuum’ of the body may be a holographic medium.

In an article published in 2014 on the media platform ‘futurism’, Marina Jones wrote about the scientist-philosopher John Archibald Wheeler and his conceptualisation of ‘quantum foam’ and of a ‘participatory universe’; quantum foam being at the foundation of the fabric of the universe in which ‘virtual particles’ pop in and out of existence in space.

Wheeler proposed that everything is particles, everything is fields and everything is information. A question which intrigued Wheeler in his final years was “Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe or are they central to it?”

Wheeler’s concept of quantum foam and of a participatory universe is fascinating. Where does one begin in terms of comprehending spatial relationship; does it not render any means of measuring the complexity as redundant or at best as arbitrary?

Recently, I referred to a conversation between physicist Max Tegmark and Robert Lawrence Kuhn, in which Tegmark said, “A mathematic structure such as Einstein’s space-time - Minkowski space - doesn’t exist in time or space because time or space exists in it.”

Robert Lawrence Kuhn replied to Tegmark, “.. it’s impossible for mathematics not to exist - you can devise any possible world that you want to have, but you can’t do one that doesn’t have at least certain kinds of mathematical structures in it.”

There is somewhat of a chicken and egg idiom being presented in this argument - does mathematics generate the existence of the universe or do we comprehend the universe by way of mathematics?

Is the mechanism of our thought mathematical? If mapping is mathematical, how to interpret nascent thought? What about intuitive or sensory experience which precedes thought, is this mathematical?

If a person contemplates their world through a lens of spatial relationship, how does it frame the structure of what is thought and interpretation of meaning? Does life require increasing complexity so as to reveal itself through one’s being?

Essentially – is consciousness (or that which is thought) at cause or caused by whichever model of the world as appears through mathematics?

Rather than to assume that mathematical structures are timeless and this ‘removes a predicament of having created them somehow’, is it fair to suggest that mathematical structures are congruent with thought; so it is that ‘I am to you as you are to me: we are one’?

It remains pivotal to any debate as to the nature of reality that the topic in hand concerns not only what we know but how we know what we know, given that we apply or ‘become’ our knowing and are influencing what has been dubbed as a ‘field’.  

According to Wikipedia, “Christian scholasticism emerged within the monastic schools that translated scholastic Judeo-Islamic philosophies and thereby ‘rediscovered’ the collected works of Aristotle.”

It appears that these monastic schools attempted to “harmonise his (Aristotle’s) metaphysics and the account of a prime mover with the Latin Catholic dogmatic Trinitarian theology…”

Further, whilst “Scholasticism was initially a program conducted by medieval Christian thinkers attempting to harmonise the various authorities of their own tradition and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism … these monastic schools became the basis of the earliest European medieval universities, contributing to the development of modern science.”

“Scholasticism is a method of learning more than a philosophy or a theology, since it places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions.”

This method of learning has been applied to many fields of study.

What is dialectical reasoning? I came across this definition, “… it is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions.”

Mae-Wan Ho said, “To those of us who do not see our quest for knowledge as distinct from the rest of our life, there can be no permanent boundary between science and other ways of knowing. Knowledge is all of a piece. In particular, it is all of a piece with the knowing consciousness, so there can be no ‘a priori’ dualism between consciousness and science. For from implying that consciousness must be ‘reduced’ to physics and chemistry, I see physics and chemistry evolving more and more under the guidance of an active consciousness that participates in knowing.”

The term ‘A priori’ is from Latin and means ‘from what comes earlier’; it denotes reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction - informal logic, based on hypothesis or theory that is without facts which are derived from empirical observation or experience. The validity of an argument in logic is decided by its form (the relation of its assumptions and its conclusion) and not content.

What does it mean to have no ‘a priori’ dualism between consciousness and science? To avoid making assumptions (judgment) or associations without having direct experience of a thing - potentially that knowledge also is inconclusive? This does not appear to suggest that we suppress reason but it might be that the means by which we have interpreted what we know has been under-utilised at an expense of expediency and influence.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (whilst originally offered in respect of biological evolution) suggested that an alchemical force drives organisms up a ladder of complexity; a second environmental force adapts them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics.

We exist in a time wherein much of our species is preoccupied with experimental science and of validation as a primary means of knowing (and of knowledge). Does this predilection negate the knowing of the synergy of the field (waves) and of particles? We comprehend this dilemma only too well, in that we have given ourselves the Zen wisdom of the ‘overflowing cup’ or the words of Jesus when he said, “… unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Perhaps it is pertinent to ask, “Are we sustaining what is a theological as well as cultural representation of knowledge such that we are becoming increasingly specialised and intent upon gathering and containing data (complexity), at a cost of comprehending its innate purpose in life?”

To return to Wheeler’s essential question, “Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe or are they central to it?” Clearly, he was an advocate for living in the question so as to discover its answer.

He said, “The universe does not exist ‘out there’, independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about what appears to be happening. We are not only observers; we are participators. In some strange sense this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into space and time. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.”

Dialogue ~ 50

Recently, I have been considering how Prometheus could be interpreted as representative of one’s primary thought and motivation (disposition); effectively one’s acceptance of moving towards and into that which is a gift of God. I wrote that Hephaestus has been portrayed as an Olympian god of fire, metalworking and crafts whilst Athena as an Olympian goddess associated with weaving, pottery and crafts. Both were highly skilled as artisans in themselves as well as were working with and through artisans of the human kind.   

I said, “… a true artisan appreciates an innate beauty; that one’s official hallmark is not to be found in what one does but is rather to be found in what one becomes.”

Wikipedia informs “The word demiurge is an English word derived from demiurgus, a Latinsed form of the Greek δημιουργός or dēmiurgós. It was originally a common noun meaning ‘craftsman’ or ‘artisan’ … a figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe … Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else … but gradually it came to mean ‘producer’, and eventually ‘creator’.”

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a ‘demiurge’ is: 

“A Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas; a Gnostic subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world; one that is an autonomous creative force or decisive power.”

In reference to Plato, Wikipedia informs, “The theory of Forms, theory of Ideas, Platonic idealism, or Platonic realism is a metaphysical theory, attributed to the Classical Greek philosopher Plato … ‘ideas’ or ‘forms’  (and Plato used the terms interchangeably) are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations … suggesting that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.”

What about metaphysical?  Merriam-Webster dictionary informs that it is:

“Of or relating to metaphysics; of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses; supernatural; highly abstract or abstruse; also theoretical as in metaphysical reasoning.”

Of religion, this same dictionary informs that it refers to:

“The service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalised system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; conscientiousness.”

It is conceivable that a demiurge is at play in a sandpit of ideas which are inaccessible or transcendent of the physical universe and which shape and maintain its existence.

Correspondingly, a demiurge might reside in the physical world and actively generate or produce (and in this sense, create) content which either preserves or changes the way that the world appears and/or is experienced by itself and others. It is possible that a demiurge is an unconscious memory, perhaps even a genetic one.

It is interesting that the earlier definition states “… the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else” (than a creator in a monotheistic sense).

What is the substance or nature of this ‘something else’? Certainly there are definitions of the demiurge as being ‘antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual’. Still, this merits the questions of what is determining what is and is not spiritual and does creativity require the differential?

Is every person who self-identifies as non-religious, non-spiritual or excludes the validity of the metaphysical participating in the creativity of a demiurge? Is there a worldview which integrates multiple realities within itself?

These are valid questions, given as what they are pointing towards might be acting as a filter through which a person views considerations such as ‘process’ or even ‘progress’.

In an episode of the Closer to Truth series called ‘Why is there anything at all?’ Max Tegmark, a physicist at MIT said, “A mathematic structure such as Einstein’s space-time - Minkowski space - doesn’t exist in time or space because time or space exists in it.” Robert Lawrence Kuhn replied, “.. it’s impossible for mathematics not to exist - you can devise any possible world that you want to have, but you can’t do one that doesn’t have at least certain kinds of mathematical structures in it.” Max said, “exactly - they’re timeless, all mathematical structures - and that gets rid of the predicament of creating them somehow, that there was a time before they existed and a time after they existed, leaving you wondering why (they exist at all).”

Robert said, “… you could also go to the question of abstract objects, why do platonic objects exist - why do the laws of logic exist and you begin to get circular;  it’s impossible for there not to be five of them (platonic solids), so what does that mean for the nature of reality?” Max said, “What we learn as logic in school - a type of algebra - it has a particular mathematical structure.”

Robert asked, “How about values? Like morality, goodness, beauty and other platonic universals - do they exist in the same way as other mathematics exists, or is your claim that only mathematics exists and everything else is derivative of it as a primary entity? Max said, “There’s only one thing that we’ve come across that has this transcendent property - that just exists and has no choice but to be this way - and that’s mathematics.”

Does the value of Prometheus, Hephaestus and Athena ultimately reside in their potential as being artisans of human thought or potential, such that one becomes capable of comprehending the universe through the geometry and language of mathematics? Is this the resting place of all ‘human values – of morality, goodness, beauty and other platonic universals?’ What if it is a stream of thinking which is such that it perceives the world in a manner through which mathematics is its only transcendent property?

Is the mirror image of the universe to be found in the blinking lights and code of a quantum machine? Is this an end game of all creative endeavour - or simply the one of a demiurge?

Dialogue ~ 49

Recently I asked, “What is the purpose of time? Does time provide a ‘medium or space’ for a person to recognise themselves as (in relationship with) life – and for however long that shift of thought and comprehension takes?”

I considered, “… Even that imagery is flawed, in that it suggests something (time as a medium or as space) exists which is ‘other’ than self. Perhaps time as space IS synonymous with movement of mind? Not quantitative (which is how we are accustomed to measuring time) but qualitative?”

Does qualitative refer to happiness? Certainly, we recognise that time appears to speed up when we’re having fun or to drag when we are not; still, that doesn’t say anything about time per se but our perception of it. Does perception (of time) reveal our relationship with (as) life? Intelligence is more than sensation.

Is space-time synonymous with movement of mind? Is it possible that what we perceive of as time is revealing something about ourselves that we are unable to measure, because in the very moment of mind measuring it, we inevitably lose sight of what had been in our vision?

Greek mythology suggests that humanity has ‘developed’, that is to say it has passed through a series of eras or ‘ages’ (mostly named after metals, with each era being less harmonious than its predecessors) and which were characterised by significant events.  Hesiod described these transitions as follows:

Golden Age: the Titan Cronus/the Roman god Saturn ruled. Humanity lived harmoniously with the Gods/one another. There was abundance, provision for life; effort or travel was unnecessary. Humans had long lifespans and died peacefully.

Silver Age: the Olympian Zeus/the Roman god Jupiter ruled. Humans lived for 100 years as children supported by their mothers and for a short while as adults as they clashed with one another. Seasons and cycles were evident and agriculture came to happen. Humans did not pay tribute to the gods and were struck down by Zeus/Jupiter.

Bronze Age: Humans were tough and warlike and destroyed one another in wars. This era was ended by the flood of Deucalion.

Heroic Age: Great warriors, heroes and demigods were recognised and sung about for centuries afterwards. 

Iron Age: Characterised by destruction, struggle and suffering.  Hesiod believed that he was living in this era. It appeared as if the gods had abandoned them. Humans were impious, selfish, lacked shame and regularly fought with one another. 

Similarly, the biblical story of the Garden of Eden refers to how humanity has transitioned from a state of innocence, bliss and virtue towards struggle, suffering and death.

These transitions suggest that we can only hope or have faith that humanity will redeem itself; in so doing, it will redefine its virtue.

Is the golden age of which Hesiod wrote, one in which humanity collectively practised moral excellence? Is this an innate state of one’s being? Why would humanity lose touch with this quality of being? How did it allegedly ‘sin’?

In the Gospel of Thomas, the disciples are said to have asked of Jesus, “Tell us how our end will be.” Jesus replied, “Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and not experience death.”

The ‘beginning’ as Jesus is relating to it, is clearly not located in the midst of chronological time; does this indicate that the conventional way by which we perceive events and the happening of life is flawed?

In another verse of the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is given to have said, “Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.”

In this passage, is Jesus referring to the ‘lion’ as chronological time? When we measure time and conceive of ourselves as existing in its midst, are we literally manufacturing an ‘impression’ of self which is further consumed by what is nothing more than an interpretation or measurement of life? From a philosophical perspective, have we quite literally manufactured death?

Plato’s ‘theory of forms’ asserts that the physical world is not really the real world; instead it suggests, an ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world.

If time serves only to provide construct between one meaningful event and another, does it render the notion of truth and for that matter, of the very nature of existence as following a path which is arbitrary? By what determination is progressive?

If a metaphysical reality exists, is it accessible to us and how does the nature of space-time or ‘movement of mind’ reveal our relationship with (as) life? Do we immerse ourselves in science and of an accumulation of knowledge with regards to the material world? Have we embedded ourselves within what is an eternal streaming of ‘Groundhog Day’, presenting opportunities to become wholly conversant with what we are being – much like an image of an ‘Ouroboros’ or serpent that is eating is own tail?

How do the choices that we make in life play out? What can we say that we absolutely know about this? Consider this: if a ball is in motion, what determines its altitude and what decides its spin?

Recently, my writing touched upon an ancient cult of Athens which had grouped together Prometheus, Hephaestus and Athena. I said that I would like to explore this triad or trinity further, but with the deities being representative of: ‘intent, comprehension (through intellect) and consequence’ - effectively this is being-intellect-life. 

Greek mythology says that Prometheus stole fire from the Olympian gods and gave it to humanity in the form of knowledge, technology and civilisation.

Whilst exploring the etymology of Prometheus, I wrote, “Breaking down the word Prometheus can offer some interesting information to consider. ‘Pro’ from Latin is ‘in favour of, on behalf of’. What about ‘-metheus’? It sounds similar to Latin ‘matthias’. In looking at the etymology of this word, it is contracted from Mattathias, from Hebrew mattityahu, literally ‘gift of God’. So can Prometheus be interpreted as being ‘in favour/representative of a gift of God?’ This is interesting in context of forethought.”

What about Athena? She was an Olympian goddess of wisdom and the defender of towns (she was the tutelary deity of Athens) and of heroic character. She was associated with weaving, pottery and other crafts. She is depicted as wearing a long robe, the famed ‘aigis’ (a snake-trimmed cape), a crested helm and is holding a shield and spear.

Who or what is Hephaestus? A brief internet search reveals that he was the Olympian god of fire, metalworking and crafts. In classical sculpture he was depicted as a bearded man wearing a craftsman’s cap and holding tools.

In the 5^th century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus wrote (in referring to some form of communal event), “The first rider delivers his charge to the second, the second to the third, and thence it passes on from hand to hand, even as in the Greek torch-bearers’ race in honour of Hephaistos.”

Archaeological excavations on Lemnos have confirmed that initiation rites occurred there from as early as 600 BC, likely part of a mystery cult of the Kabeiroi (Cabeiroi, Cabeiri), said to have been chthonic deities and who were the sons or grandsons of Hephaestus.

Aeschylus wrote a piece called ‘The Kabeiroi’ between 499 and 456 BC, of which three fragments survive. The first reads ‘But I do not treat you as an omen of my journey’. The second pledges to ‘make the house scarce with respect to vinegar’ and the final one reads, ‘That there shall never be a dearth of jars, either of wine or of water, in <this/your> wealthy home’.

My intuitive sense of the nature or workings of Hephaistus is that he implicates an aspect of our nature which has been forgotten (chthonic - possibly as in the cultural stories that we have weaved about ourselves and which serve as projections or genetic memory even as we are born) but which can be engaged with (as would an artisan) so as to restore to an original blueprint.

Similar to the idiom ‘the sins of the father’, consider that Hephaistus represents an ‘historical burden’, that which each is ‘born into’ through this Earth and is called upon to work with. Such might be depicted through the ‘ritual of the riders’ which Herodotus had observed.

In a similar fashion, Athena works with Hephaistus, excepting that she is one who ‘fights in front’, which fits well her depiction as ‘virginal’ or as untouchable by human thought, as well as of her being tireless.

Plato, in his dialogue ‘Critias’ wrote, “In the days of old the gods had the whole earth distributed among them by allotment … Now different gods had their allotments in different places which they set in order. Hephaistos and Athene, who were brother and sister, and sprang from the same father, having a common nature, and being united also in the love of philosophy and art, both obtained as their common portion this land (Athens), which was naturally adapted for wisdom and virtue; and there they implanted brave children of the soil, and put into their minds the order of government; their names are preserved, but their actions have disappeared by reason of the destruction of those who received the tradition, and the lapse of ages."

When Plato wrote of Hephaistus and Athene as ‘put into their minds’ (of the children of Athens) an order of government, was he referring to an ‘innate ability’, that which allows for us to experience what has been referred to as ‘heaven upon earth’ or of what Hesiod had referred to as humanity’s ‘Golden Age’?

No doubt there are scholars who will suggest that Athena served as little other than as a ‘figurehead’ or muse; inspiration for an ancient culture such as Athens to have strived for an excellence of virtue and as justification to preserve its cultural status. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering what Plato said, “whilst their names (of Hephaistus and Athene) are preserved, their actions have disappeared (through tradition and time)”. It is possible that we might have lost touch with ‘the thing itself’ (in terms of governance or right conduct) and replaced it with fabrication after fabrication.

Whatever else we might say about time, it does allow for us to contemplate how we utilise the gifts of humanity that we have been given, particularly in light of ‘intent, comprehension (through intellect) and consequence; effectively being-intellect-life’. It is noble if we aspire to build a great citadel but at the same time we must be willing for it to tumble – to remember that a true artisan appreciates an innate beauty; that one’s official hallmark is not to be found in what one does but is rather to be found in what one becomes.

Dialogue ~ 48

The question “Can an idea be right and wrong at the same time?” was put to ChatGPT, to which it responded with, “An idea can be perceived as right or wrong depending on the context and perspective of the person evaluating it. For example, some people may believe in the idea of free speech, while others may find that idea to be harmful and oppressive. Additionally, an idea that is considered to be right in one context may be considered wrong in another. In other words, what is considered ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ can change over time and across different cultures.”

I am interested in the correlation between holding that an idea is right or wrong and of one’s concept of truth. If what appears as being truth (or true) for a person is also an idea, then logic suggests that it too will fluctuate according to the context and perspective of the person evaluating it. Why do disputes arise between people, particularly of differing cultures, as to who is ‘right’ and who is ‘in truth’? Do these disputes arise because of a difference of ideas, pertaining as to what constitutes morality or of upholding of ‘one’s values’? Or are these disputes even less complex than that, in that people are simply fighting over available resources?

Emotionally, any given prize is discerned through a perspective of need or want and which the mind is interpreting as being one of necessity. Is that necessarily an indication of one’s truth?

On some level of what it means to be human, it is likely that we are capable of experiencing a greater truth of our being than we are individually given to comprehend; rather than of bringing us closer together, it is the ambiguity of this idea that is stifled in the midst of a worldview of materialism.

It has been popular in recent times to suggest that a schism exists between religion and science. I do not see a schism but that they both persist with trying to interpret life through differing schematics and language. Reality doesn’t need to win votes.

In its earliest formation, philosophy was guided by a ‘love of wisdom’. Its tenet was ‘the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence; a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour’.

The Renaissance revolutionised ideas about what humanity is able to experience of itself in the world; the massive advances in the natural sciences of the early 19^th century brought about changes in ideas about knowledge and of what constitutes progress in the world. Philosophy was inevitably going to become a casualty of this ‘enthusiasm’, in that philosophers were encouraged to apply the ‘scientific method’ (consisting in systematic observation, measurement, experiment and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses) not only to their own domain of thinking but to others. It was not simply that philosophy in itself became specialised, but that it did so in accordance with an impetus of how or where to apply ‘wisdom of thought’ in the world.

Positivism is a philosophical school that holds that all genuine knowledge is either true by definition or positive (meaning a posteriori facts derived by reason and logic from sensory experience).

Auguste Comte, the founder of modern positivism, was particularly influential in advocating that the scientific method must replace metaphysics in the history of thought. He first advocated the epistemological perspective of positivism in a series of texts published between 1830 and 1842. He followed these with his 1844 work ‘A General View of Positivism’ which dealt chiefly with the physical sciences already in existence but also emphasised the coming of social science.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It is derived from ancient Greek ‘epistēmē’, meaning ‘knowledge, understanding, skill, scientific knowledge and the English suffix –ology, meaning ‘the science or discipline of..’. In 1854, the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier first used the word epistemology. In the first section of his ‘Institutes of Metaphysics’ he wrote: “This section of the science is properly termed the Epistemology – the doctrine or theory of knowing, just as ontology is the science of being… It answers the general question, ‘What is knowing and the known? – or more shortly, ‘What is knowledge’?”

Another offshoot of philosophy, that of ‘Pragmatism’, began in the United States in the 1870s. It has been attributed to the philosophers Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey. Pragmatism can be considered as a tradition that ‘considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving and action and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent or mirror reality’. Indeed, pragmatists contend that the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief and science are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

Arguably then, the topic of philosophy together with the context in which it is considered, has given birth to a plethora of ideas about what is knowing, what is known, what is knowledge, as well as how such insights can be appropriated into the service of what is determined as being valid or useful, predominantly in a materialistic way. It is unsurprising then, that this somewhat disciplined approach to thought has meant that other ways of knowing such as intuition, introspection or religious faith were to become increasingly rejected or considered meaningless.

Interestingly, the philosopher Ferrier, as well as coining the word epistemology as representative of the study of knowing and knowledge, devised the word ‘agnoiology’; this refers to the theoretical study of the quality and conditions of ignorance and in particular, what can be considered ‘unknowable’.

According to Wikipedia, “Agnotology (formerly ‘agnatology’) was introduced in 1992 by linguist and social historian Iain Boal at the request of Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor. The word is based on the Neoclassical Greek word ‘agnōsis (ἄγνωσις, 'not knowing'; cf. Attic Greek ἄγνωτος, 'unknown' and -logia (-λογία). It refers to the study of deliberate, culturally induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion or win favour (particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading data) or of where more knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty.”

In Proctor’s book ‘The Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer’ is the footnote: “Historians and philosophers of science have tended to treat ignorance as an ever-expanding vacuum into which knowledge is sucked – or even, as Johannes Kepler once put it, as the mother who must die for science to be born. Ignorance, though, is more complex than this. It has a distinct and changing political geography that is often an excellent indicator of the politics of knowledge. We need a political agnotology to complement our political epistemologies.”

Did the classical Greek philosophers explore their topic to further their quest as to what constitutes a universal wisdom of thought so as to improve the human condition? What a contrast then, if in the last couple of hundred years or so, the science of mind and of what it means to be human has not only become quantified but appropriated by lobbies and vested interests, whose goals have been in the management of information and of language.

Most modern educational establishments excel at covering set materials for students to digest and to be examined with regards to how proficient said students have become in embedding the set materials into their cognitive ability. Critique of some pillars of academic excellence can result in punitive consequences, even more so if powerful establishments are relying heavily upon donations from vested parties.

It has become generally accepted in today’s mechanistic worldview that knowledge happens through time and it requires not only consensus but effort and specialisation in order for progress (momentum) to occur. It is as if Newton’s second law of motion (F=ma) in that net force is equal to mass times acceleration is being put into effect.

In recent writings, I have been exploring the Greek myths of Prometheus and Epimetheus as well as of my speculating on the roles of Theia, Rhea and Cronus as relating to cycles (or aeons) of human consciousness on Earth. I have considered the Egyptian Ogdoad and the myth of Osiris as being representative of the generative capacities of the cosmos and beyond that of the writings of Parmenides and of one’s being in relationship with truth.

How are these seemingly disparate interests related not only to knowledge but are providing for a glimpse into the nature of time?