• • SO WHAT THE HECK IS THIS MODEL!? • •
• THE LAW OF THE INFINITE - OR THE FINITE MIND •
Defining Intangibles
Theoretically, the system beneath numerology has no real form. In other words, if numbers really do exist in spite of man, the concepts and patterns that describe them must be of a universal form. Therefore we must also conclude that no one system can be used to describe these concepts, and still remain universal. That is to say, any system used to describe intangible concepts will undoubtedly carry with it characteristics of its own that would carry a personal or cultural bias.
In starting with a straight logical approach, one of the first steps I used in dealing with the problem of intangibles was to acknowledge the presence of opposites within the laws that govern any universe. In such a ‘binary’ world, there are obviously many things that are tangible and definable. But admittedly there must also be many things that remain intangible and beyond definition. If in fact such a law exists, it seems only logical for us to respect the right of those things intangible not to be observed by our finite minds, because, logic would dictate that doing so only makes them tangible, a condition no longer representative of their true nature.
So the question is, how can one write or speak about infinite or intangible concepts? The answer of course is that you can’t. You must simply acknowledge the fact that intangibles are an unavoidable and completely necessary part of the dualistic, binary nature of any universe governed by a law of opposites, and as such should remain intact as intangible. As it is, the system beneath numerology, which this book attempts to define, is completely intangible. Therefore, as we attempt to reveal its form, we will eventually find ourselves faced with the impossible task of describing something that isn’t even there! Like the infamous Invisible Man, we will find that indeed you cannot describe these forms in a truly finite fashion, because there is in fact nothing there to describe! The best we can do to describe this 'invisible man' is to recognize his form by observing the clothes he wears, or maybe by pouring a bucket of paint over him! Of course the paint or clothes we observe will always carry with them characteristics of their own, creating the personal or cultural bias that we strive to avoid. In other words, we will be ‘seeing’ the cultural paint, in order to observe the intangible form. This being so, we can see how the only way to continue from this point, is to recognize that all attempts to define intangibles are just that, attempts, toward an end that is never to be. From this point we can move on to build a model of these concepts that will aid in this ‘hypocrisy of description’.
A Model
The purpose of a model is for someone attempting delicate communication to have some way of defining their terms, from which subsequent conclusions can be drawn. The other purpose of a model is to simplify the complex, in order to reveal fundamental patterns and discover correlations between differing points of view. A model is used to test theories, and to show the relationships between ideas. In our case we are describing an ‘invisible man.’ As an hypocrisy of description, numerology will be the paint that we pour over him to see where he is, and our model will be designed around a description of that numerology. The model we build will have its foundations in a series of logical steps and basic assumptions.
The model that follows, and the numerology that reveals it, will be an ambitious attempt to give some order and structure to the elements of ‘being,’ as a strict documentation of these ideas. We will eventually apply these ideas to the subjects of numerology and tarot. Others, however, will be able to see similarities to Tao, Zen, or even Alchemy. Still others may see patterns of scientific laws in the model. Others may be able to use it to describe personality types in psychology. The fact is, you can pour as many different kinds of paint over this ‘invisible man’ as you like, they will all reveal the same underlying form. This book chooses the relatively definitive, primordial, and relatively archetypal expressions of logic, numbers and geometric patterns as its first coat of paint, and the symbolic pictures of tarot, as a cultural embellishment.
A Logical Path of Inquiry
I have chosen logic, primordial, geometric patterns-in-nature and numbers, as my first coat of paint over the invisible man of universal laws, because I consider them to be forms of communication capable of transcending cultural bias. However as we are attempting to define the essence of being we must again remind ourselves of the inherent limitations that even these relatively fundamental forms of communication have when it comes to describing the indefinable aspects of ‘being.’ Admittedly one could sit on a mountain top and meditate his way to nirvana, and know more about ‘being’ than any amount of words could communicate. But when it comes to communicating the ineffable, I choose the relatively universal language of logic, numbers and patterns as a base to work out from.
• THE LAW OF OPPOSITES - OR BALANCE & FLUX •
A Binary System
You may have missed it, but a logical assumption about a universe governed by a law of opposites have already been put forth! As a formal proposition of logic, I consider the law of opposites to be a basic fundamental assumption capable of acceptance by the widest majority of people, without violating current beliefs or distorting personal points of view. To me the law of opposites seems logical, and however unprovable it may be, it certainly seems simple enough to grasp, and not too difficult to accept on faith given the overwhelming amount of physical evidence around us that would seem to confirm its truth. So before we go any further perhaps I should state formally, in my own words, what I perceive the law of opposites to be.
As I see it, the interesting thing about the law of opposites is that it comes in two opposing parts! The first part, we’ll call it the law of balance, states that:
Law of Balance: Everything has an opposite... All things and all concepts throughout any universe will have opposites to balance them.
An idea familiar to the Chinese philosophy of chi, and commonly symbolized by the figures of yin and yang.
 |
A universe of opposites, as summed up by the Yin Yang symbol. Nuff said.
|
Contradictory Objectives
In continuing with the law of opposites, we observe the importance of its second part, for it seems that the law of opposites also carries with it the notion of broken symmetry. The law of broken symmetry states that:
Law of Broken Symmetry: Symmetry alone is stagnant, motionless and without form, and only by breaking such symmetry do we ever achieve any identifiable manifestation.
In other words, a camouflaged insect can only be seen - when it moves! By introducing motion, over what remains a stationary (Symmetrical) background, the insect becomes ‘different’, and as a result, visible - or in the case of our evolving universe, manifest and tangible.
 |
Perfect symmetry is formless. Broken symmetry is not formless. Only by breaking symmetry do we ever perceive manifestation. |
But the curious thing about the resulting manifestation of broken symmetry is the ultimate desire of all manifest entities to return to a perfectly balanced state (law of balance). Thus because of these contradictory objectives within the law of opposites, continued association between opposing parts reveals a cycle of sorts within the universe of divine mechanics, a cycle wherein the purpose of each side is to feed as well as destroy the other. The fun begins when we combine these two opposing ‘law-of-opposite’ ideas together and create one big idea about opposites and cycles in a universe. When we do that, we acquire a new extended law of opposites that now states that:
Law of Opposites: Whereas contradictory objectives create a cycle that alternates between symmetry and broken symmetry, all elements of any universe will also exhibit alternating balance and flux with regard to their effect on each other.
In other words, if the universe is in a perpetual struggle between balance and flux, so too are its individual parts, with each other, because they are in fact what the universe is.
• THE POSSIBLE UNIVERSE •
As I see it the law of opposites starts us on our way toward building a model of divine mechanics and the universe that governs it. When we continue our analysis, we will notice that, as the broken symmetry of a balanced universe gives rise to individual parts, a special relationship will exist between the stasis of nothingness, and the flux of manifest forms, as these two worlds combine to form a universal binary system. In this study, our system of tarot will use this binary system to create a deck design with a definitive, primordial, archetypal source in nature. In other words, by combining, at a primary level, the ‘ons’ and ‘offs’ or yins and yangs created by the law of opposites, we will build out, to form a user friendly system of tarot pictures, and in doing so, create a deck that is fundamentally inspired.
The next step, then, is to test the limits of this law of opposites. By carrying the law of opposites to its logical extreme, I find that I am forced to see our tangible universe as but one half of a universe, and an opposite non-universe! By recognizing the need for any universe to represent all that is possible in scientific laws, I naturally see its opposite as a representation of all that is not possible, or all that is not knowable by finite minds. Next, by employing the idea of balance and flux to these opposite universes, I am able to view the tangible universe around us as a ‘moving insect’ of possibilities, on a background of stationary impossibilities. In this way I see my universe as a universe of possibilities that emerges from the impossibilities of its opposite, as an element of broken symmetry. Finally, because I define the non-universe half of this pair as ‘not possible’, I see it as having no other function than that of opposure to the possible universe that emerges. Because of this I immediately lay it to rest and focus my attention exclusively on the ‘possible’ universe around us.
Next, as the opposing sides of this tangible universe are identified, they will eventually be shown to have a similar relationship to that of the universe and non-universe just described. Because of this we will begin to see how all subsequent pairs of opposites that we create will be taken as subdivisions into smaller and smaller versions of a parent. Thus by creating an extended family of genetically consistent pairs, a hierarchy of development will be established that will enable all things to be traced to our original assumption of opposites and cycles.
Where does it all come from?
The model is the foundation for the numbers of numerology, but what is it? What does it look like? And, most importantly, where does it come from!? Basically, the model is nothing more than a gross simplification of the fundamental parameters that define all finite entities, that of a surface, a mass, a sphere of influence etc.. In order to be universal in form, its simplified shape is spherical in design.
 |
|
The Model + A Thinking Person = Assimilation/Enlightenment. The Model will attempt to show how disparate concepts can be linked into an interdependence of form, and how every manifest entity (including you) has the same “lines of force” governing their creation and subsequent behavior.
|
And, as it attempts to evolve from intangible formless concepts of logic, we will also find that it contains successive stages of ‘relative hypocrisy’ in its descriptive form, as formless intangible concepts, like infinity, eventually lead to more tangible ideas, like substance and reality. The model will attempt to show how these disparate concepts can be linked into an interdependence of form.
• THE ULTIMATE PAIR •
In order to begin this complex process of explaining our model’s origins lets return to the previously stated Law of Opposites as a logical starting point. As stated before, all concepts have opposites to balance them. Of course, as a matter of logic, the ultimate pair of opposites would have to be the one that allows anything to exist at all. Within the confines of this particualr effort to construct a tarot universe, let's define that ultimate pair as "a universe" and a "non-universe." In our tarot universe, this ‘ultimate’ pair of opposites represents; ‘all that is possible’ and their opposite, ‘that which is not possible,’ or... every ruling concept that can ever be, versus ‘no concept at all’ (an obvious ‘hypocrisy of description’ that we will deal with later).
Figure/Ground
The point is, as an hypocrisy of description, the exclusionary nature of the "non-universe" creates for us a paradox of opposition with a one sided result - a universe! This unavoidable act of exclusion, then, leaves us with only one side of our ultimate pair to examine. This half can of course be divided again and studied separately as ‘everything’ and ‘nothingness,’ or the finite and the infinite - the two sides of the universe, in which we exist (we don’t exist in the non-universe, that would make us impossible).
Everything and nothingness make up the universe half of our ultimate pair. And, as predicted, their sides remain genetically similar to their parent. Thus as we apply the law of opposites to this new pair, we observe how the primary difference between them is: That one is active, moving and doing, divided into constituent parts of transient duration, representing the broken symmetry that leads to the tangible, crystalline language of the body. While the other side is passive, dormant, and receptive, a wholistic unity without definition or limits to duration, representing the symmetry that leads to the intangible, amorphic language of the spirit.
In the familiar yin and yang figure this kind of opposition is symbolized by a simple combination of white and black, white being the individual light of manifest form, and black the darkness of infinity. Other examples include the observance of positive and negative electrical charges within nature, as well as opposing sides of a single brain. Left and right brain differences are numerous, and constantly remind us of the law of opposites.
But the real reason for starting our description of a universe with a law of opposites approach is to point out the figure/ground relationship between the opposing ideas of primary creation. For without such opposition, there is no broken symmetry, and without broken symmetry there is no universe, and without a universe there is no model - hence no numerology or tarot icons.
 |
|
Without a universe of opposites there is no broken symmetry, hence there are no figure / ground relationships, hence no model, no numbers, no tarot.
|
Figure/ground analysis is necessary to establishing a reference frame from which to gain a point of view. Without figure/ground, all insects remain camouflaged and beyond description - even hypocritical description.
In this particular instance, the ‘universe’ of possibilities we just described becomes the figure we see upon the surrounding ground, which is thus far defined by the concept of an impossible 'non-universe. Of course there is no picture to be drawn at this point, only contrasting ideas of a universe and no universe. The idea here is that one side of our ultimate pair is indeed passive, as the idea of being excluded becomes a representation of a nullifying and impossible state, like defining a black figure with a black ground. While the other side becomes a ‘possible’ figure of contrasting opposites for us to study. Because of this we define the 'non-universe' as an eternal formless ‘ground,’ out of which is defined an active possible universe (with theoretical ‘sides’ that are genetically similar to its parent).
Sexual Preference
As we continue to subdivide from this foundation of ultimate pair, it should be understood at all times that the less tangible contributors to our binary system are no less significant than their positive counterparts - that of course is the lesson behind the figure/ground idea, interdependence.
And whereas some people may choose to use the figure/ground relationship to perpetuate patriarchal systems of thought that give undo importance to what is commonly referred to as the male-yang-figure over that of the female-yin-ground, this is not my intention at all.
Unfortunately many people take the association of the female form, to the concept of ‘nothingness’ as literal with regard to relative value in universal design, and in failing to observe the interdependence of both forms upon each other, choose to view ‘nothingness’ as ‘value-less.’ This then leads to the aforementioned patriarchal thought systems that tend to ignore the contributions of the less tangible and proceed with undo emphasis upon the male.
My sexual preference is to associate the male form with the penetrative manifest figure and the female form with the frameless womb of the ground, but because of the obvious limitations behind describing the less tangible, most of my descriptions and diagrams will be of the finite yang side of this pair.
 |
Each sub-dividing pair from the ‘ultimate’ maintains genetic similarity. The everythingness, analytical and active are easier to study because of figure/ground reasons, not sexist patriarchal reasons.
|
I feel it is much easier to describe the enclosed figure over that of the less tangible, frame-less ground. Eventually, subsequent reasoning by comparison, will yield an understanding of the less tangible yin ideas and demonstrate their equal value to a universal system. As we follow this line of reason, we will find that the yin will follow the form of the yang, but in a reciprocal, or opposite fashion. This will allow us to reason out the ‘form’ of the formless side of all subsequent pairs.
For example; before we even know what our finite model looks like, we know that because it is divided into constituent parts, it will have a beginning, a middle and an end. A direct comparison opposite would give you a model with no beginning and no end, a wholistic unity without definition. A physical model, or even a diagram, attempting to show these ideas would be impossible, or at least more hypocritical than a model of the other side. But by following the form of the finite side, it is possible to imagine what, and where, these opposing ideas are in their less tangible form. And so, we find that we must begin our journey by identifying our need for both a ‘model’ as well as a ‘non-model,’ to describe all subdividing pairs that come along. This is how I choose to clothe the invisible man - or woman, to see where he - or she is.
If you chose to continue with this study, we will be dealing with our model, and its opposite, the non-model. Together these two tools of decipherment will represent the universe side of our ‘ultimate pair’ of ‘universe’ vs ‘non-universe’.
|
