Life Matters, E.C.Nemeth [robert munsch read aloud .TXT] 📗

state of a finite object requires that all other objects be likewise passed on. Here the logic collides with another insurmountable obstacle. Yet it is but another form of the same logical impasse mentioned earlier. The question is: How can a steady state seem to change?
The answer lies within the dynamics of perception. Perception is a wish made true to the perceiver. Such a wish is granted unreservedly to each perceiver. So, in order to interact with one another, those with worldviews must agree on what there is to perceive. It must be a collective venture or else it would be a solitary one. This collective agenda controls its viability via the archetype of four. Although perception seems to see the volatile nature of four, four merely acts as a conduit to deliver or transport events from here to there, or from now till then, or both.
The passage of events in this manner induces tension into the reality of perceivers because problems don’t ever seem to get solved. Or worse, the solution is found and when introduced it is now in conflict with other events that before seemed to be unrelated. These solutions require perception to alter in order to be implemented and it is this change in perception that reshuffles reality so that it seems like suddenly other areas become a problem.
It is perception and its fickle nature that seems to cause conflict and four is merely a means invented to facilitate perception. Four is a trick to elude the truth by repetition and perpetuation. In typical fashion four manages to make it seem as though the fusion of truth and illusion is already accomplished. This is done by defining and presenting the problem in such a way that it is the illusion that seems real while the truth becomes the illusion. But defining and presenting are attributes of perception, four only upholds what it is given.
It is this side-stepping of the issue and sneaking up from behind as if the problem has been solved that is the attempt to emulate the fusion of the trinities. But pretending a thing does not make it so.
Four forms a pyramid of power that washes across reality and includes every dynamic possible. Four provides the impetus to the flesh by thrusting the scope of the box of three to ever higher limits. Yet what is twice removed from two may not be further from the truth, but it is no closer either.
Four does add a flavor of truth to the mix, however. Four represents an intuitive, nonlinear logic that to the perceiver can be explained as nothing else. What it is though, is a vertical or divergent or counter logic that is equally valid to the accepted linear, day-to-day, common or simple logic that perceivers understand. It must always be so because every number merely alters the symbol of the original mistake: two. There is but One and while there seems to be more there will always be two forms of logic, the perceiver’s and the truth.
Finally, four subtends three hundred and sixty degrees in the form of a square and so reflects the truth of the circle. It is curious that the square should contain the same number of degrees as a perfect circle and yet not be seen as round. It is the only shape with any number of equal sides to claim that honor. This is why four merely transports a given state and perpetuates a steady state. It does not alter the state or interfere with it in any way.
Four is the so-called three-sided pyramid which has four equal faces, three sides and a base, each composed of equilateral triangles. This is considered by some perceivers to be the highest truth achievable in their worldviews. It represents the fusion of three trinities into a synthesis represented as a mighty fourth trinity. Although there is a trinity of sixes, a resonant frequency of perception that focuses power at this level, it is no more compelling than the equally valid trinity of three or the more complex harmonic of nine. To connect the three-sided pyramid with demonic attributes and the trinity of six is merely a form of perception and represents but a wish made true to the perceiver. For in truth, where perception is replaced by seeing, there is only one.
Four is the square. It has four sides of equal and indeterminate size. The sum of its four internal angles always equals three hundred and sixty degrees. Being two half circles or triangles, four is a harmonic of two.
THREE
Three offers a glimpse of truth in its ends but not in its means. Three is the synthesis of two opposing viewpoints. However, there cannot be a synthesis of the illusion and the truth. That is why the ends, the actual synthesis, is not a logical bridge between truth and illusion but a correction of the illusion itself to align it with the truth. The alignment of illusion requires it to cease to exist.
Three is the inevitable inclusion of the Source in all relationships. The Source is, by definition, the synthesis of All That Is. The Source is the relationship - every relationship.
Is this clear? All That Is is the only relationship. The illusion is the notion that one portion of All That Is is having an exclusive relationship with another portion. It is like saying a specific brain cell was in a monogamous relationship with a heart cell, and phoned it ten times a day just to check up on it, jealously guarding the status of their special bond. It is plainly ludicrous to consider such a situation. Yet there are countless forms of this very same crazy dynamic at work across the universe. Cells belong to a collective whole, they interrelate, they do not form exclusive relationships.
Again, it must be pointed out that arguing for any viewpoint must first agree with the opponent on the grounds or the arena in which that argument will adhere to or abide within. In other words, there must be concessions made, granting the opponent the space to maneuver in, a place of safety from where a counter argument can be launched. This concession however, points at a different and more fundamental aspect of this often overlooked logical conundrum. The granting of concessions implies uncertainty - doubt. Doubt and its companion, guilt, riddle every argument with holes because it begins by admitting, through concession, that other arguments are possible. How can an argument be forcibly put forward without perfect conviction in its proposition and that completely refutes the possibility of counter argument?
Change of any kind is only possible in the presence of uncertainty.
Three triangulates. A thesis is put forth that is then countered by an antithesis. Chaos would result were it not for the concept of three. Three provides the avenue for reconciliation of opposites by introducing a means to include both into a larger and more comprehensive worldview - the synthesis.
Three transcends limits by creating new ones based on the old ones. Three extends the worldview. Three forces thought outside the box. Three creates solutions. From the viewpoint of worldviews, three is the miracle.
Three is an existential doorway to ever newer possibilities. From a position where worldviews matter what could be said to be newer than a miracle? In truth, newness would be considered sameness or even more exactly, stillness.
Three creates the first opportunity to extend beyond the box of convention in a manner sometimes mistaken for magic. It is not magic. It is the momentary crack in reality that inadvertently causes a quantum leap in understanding before another box forms that cancels the strange effect. But the new box soon reveals a similar crack and a reminiscent sense of transcendence is again swallowed whole by yet a new box, and so on.
The triangle is unique in its proportions for reasons that will not be discussed in this section, but it is paramount to consider a certain aspect of this logic. Consider a straight line of any finite length. Now picture another finite straight line drawn where the first ended. No matter how it is drawn it cannot return to the starting point of the first line except by returning along the first line. Only no space would be contained within it. But draw any other line except one that is one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with the first and add a third line from the end of the second one back to the starting point and the box closes. The synthesis has been accomplished.
In terms of worldviews, the triangulation of opposing theories returns them halfway to the truth.
The triangle contains one half a circle and is therefore a harmonic of one.
Three is the triangle, the first defined form.
TWO
Two is the number of the beast, being two sets of trinities, both the true and the false, each mirroring the other. Thus is the number sometimes referred to as 666, the fusion of the trinities. Yet what is the false but a non-issue, a mistake in logic and therefore a non-thing? To fuse the trinity of truth with that of the false can only mean the prior acceptance of the false as real - which is a mistake in the application of logical hierarchies.
To accept the false trinity requires first a renaming of the triune of truth. All, monopole, nopole is the truth but must be recast as the states of being, doing, truth. Only after this initial editing can the trinity of being, doing, truth be reinterpreted as the lines or levels of concept, faith, karma. Then the fabric of reality can take on its familiar appearance. But the renaming of truth and the acceptance of mirror opposites represents an error in logic and must be false.
Two provides the mechanism or the environment for the journey from known to unknown. Two is the other. Two is the ego. Two is the invention of concepts, the usurpation of authority and the belief in hierarchies. Two defines and sets apart. Two classifies. Two distinguishes, which really means: Two extinguishes the Light of One.
Two is the belief in death. This is because there is only one; if there is not one then there will appear to be two, or any of its multiples. Such an appearance can only maintain its form temporally and therefore only temporarily. Eventually it must submit to the truth and be reabsorbed by the One, where, appearances being deceiving, it always was. Thus a death must be experienced by the proponents of two in order to return to The One.
Two is the fear of giving, and so by logical implication - receiving, completely. Although it might be understood that the receiving of something not given is impossible, the reverse is often overlooked: The giving of something never received is equally impossible. These convoluted statements only dance around the crux of the issue at hand. To restate, then: There is only One. For the One to give, this One must already have it to give. If The One already has it, The One must have previously received it. Since there is only One, The One must give and receive simultaneously, to and from Itself. Therefore, to receive is to give, and to give is to receive, in truth. They are synonyms - they mean the same thing.
To those seemingly in the temporal world, to give something means somebody must lose. The true reason for this seeming logic is its foundation in the belief in multiplicity. In such a world the giving of something requires that something to be lost, even though the true result is the receiving of that same thing.
Two is the original error made by the Created One. Every number invented from there on is the seeming journey