V

The Model...

• THE LAW OF COAGULATION - OR THE INEVITABLE UNIVERSE •

Just as the finite nature of the model makes it easier to describe than the intangible nature of the non-model, the two together are still much easier to describe than the anti-model of the non-universe, or what we are calling the absentia, and its perplexing role in development. So far we have attempted to define the indefinable by creating a paradox that would give us a beginning for a cycle for which there is no beginning. The cycle in question is the cycle that creates the individual parts of our finite model. To identify this cycle, we need to continue with the law of sequence as it evolves into a manifest form. Here’s how.

As the law of sequence continues its hierarchal stepping up, it creates additional stages of development. Eventually though, these stages of development reach a level of order so sufficiently removed from paradox and infinity as to be considered finite and manifest in form. This of course is the result of continuous sequential departure, in unequal measures, from a foundation of paradox toward an inevitable state of order. In other words, by defining paradox as our only possible beginning, order becomes the only possible end result of a developmental process governed by a law of sequence. In my universe, the combined effects of the laws given so far, create what I call the law of coagulation.

Stated formally, the law of coagulation simply combines the laws of opposites, infinity, paradox and sequence to officially state that:

Law of Coagulation: Finite manifestation is in fact born from the non-manifestation of infinity and ultimately from the impossibility of paradox (1, 2, 3 - um, pa, pa). And inasmuch as the law of sequence dictates sequential stages of development, the law of coagulation now defines these stages as that of relative definition, or stabilization of non-manifestation toward definition.

In other words, coagulation is viewed as but a logical continuation of the law of sequence, that ultimately transforms intangible concepts like infinity and paradox, into a finite process of tangible change, a process of change that is not considered complete until all possibilities in the cycle have been exhausted. Thus the motivation behind coagulation is much like a brushfire that won’t stop until is has burned everything it can possibly burn, exhausting itself to a conclusion. As we will see, the continuing path of this fantastic cycle of definition is as much a paradox as its alleged beginning.

Concentric Containment

First of all, by creating a process of change that is not considered complete until all possibilities have occurred, the law of sequence effectively moves us from one extreme to another, i.e. (extreme) paradox, to chaos, to (extreme) order. As these two extremes are separated by hierarchal steps of development, the law of coagulation is used to describe the finite half of this spectrum. Like entropy in reverse, we see coagulation as an inevitable continuation of ‘sequential development’, into tangible steps of stabilization toward definition, similar to that of a gas that is changing to a liquid and then to a solid (an analogous 1,2,3 trinity of development). The steps of coagulation are described in terms of the relative instability of each step in relation to the incompleteness of the whole cycle toward the ultimate goal of definition. Also, because we continue to view things in terms of hierarchal relationships, we can now see how concepts like paradox, infinity, space/time and reality are nothing more than a gradient spectrum of relative incomprehensibility or relative infinity, the diminishing intensity of which leads us to the definition of a finite form. This is the essence of coagulation.

Finally, by continuing to view each successive concept of progress as both a chicken and and egg in the same place (law of sequence) we can now see how all these concepts become theoretically nested within each other (i.e. each concept hatching the next while at the same time being hatched by the previous). Thus by allowing the idea of coagulation to gradually move us away from a paradoxical locationless concept like ‘absentia’, to a highly focused area of finite concentration about a single point of definition, we locate the locationless absentia through its inexorable link to definition.

In the end we begin to see how each consecutive concept in our path becomes a concentric form of containment toward a common goal of definition (i.e. a series of shells around a nut).

The classic ‘pealing of an onion’ could be a good analogy, but I prefer the kernel within a nut within a multiple layered shell, to describe the idea of consecutive concepts of concentric containment.

We now need to examine the results of this process by describing these con-secutive con-cepts of con-centric con-tainment and how they create lines of force that will shape our model.

The Mass

Because the steps of coagulation are defined in terms of relative instability toward an ultimate goal of definition, we must consider the exclusionary nature of the absentia as the most volatile step in this process, as it yields immediately to its sequential opposite or neighbor along the way (infinity/nothingness/non-model). However as finite stages begin to emerge, we see how the nothingness of the non-model must eventually choose a location on which to center this subsequent manifestation. Of course in the scientific world, the choosing of this location might well be determined by some sort of mathematical calculation on the saturation of probabilities in any given area of space/time, or perhaps the determination of some sort of fractal basin, both methods would be acceptable to the logic of our evolving model. But if coagulation is indeed inevitable, as we have implied, the question of where and when is really irrelevant, and in fact cannot be answered by virtue of the inclusive randomness of its origins, that of paradox and infinity.

Of course proponents of theories like the ‘big bang’ would probably argue that in the beginning (if there is such a thing) this profound act of coagulation must have been in only one location. However others may prefer an idea that involves multiple ‘little bangs’, comparing the idea of coagulation to water beading up on a slick surface, or wet earth drying and contracting into individual pieces, each with its own center. Either way the pattern to be viewed is the same, coagulation is an IMploding process of ‘reverse entropy’ creation.

So, by allowing a location for manifestation to emerge out of a sea of random possibilities, we can see how the nothingness of the non-model yields to its sequential opposite of unlike kind - creating the mass or finite form of the model (the ‘solid’ of our gas, liquid, solid analogy). Of course once this happens, the finite model must continue the process of inward definition toward its chosen center, the center of course being the most defined area possible and therefore most distantly removed from paradox.
As this coagulation takes place, and the model’s activity steadily increases the potential for finite tangibility, we begin to see how the steps of coagulation come to resemble a homing process of forces converging upon a center. However in this case it becomes a homing process of forces that converge on a destination that doesn’t really exist until they arrive and define it !! A curious notion indeed, that is followed immediately by still another paradoxical realization...

By converging on a point that does not exist, coagulation again combines contradictory objectives into one entity/event. But, as we arrive at this all important center, we eventually find that we have arrived at something much more than just a home. When we examine the center of the finite area of tangible coagulation, we begin to observe how the ultimate center of any ‘thing’ is not an area that can really be defined in any true sense. Indeed we find that, logically speaking, anything used to define a center must also have a center - in fact the same center! As this realization hits us, we begin to see how this unavoidable contingency of logic creates for us another interesting dilemma - in fact a paradoxical dilemma. The paradox of course is in finding infinity and paradox within the heart of our finite definition! A most unsettling discovery that, by returning us to paradox, marks the completion of this homing cycle and the end of coagulation.

But is it really a cycle? How can we be back at the beginning after a seemingly one directional, inward journey, away from the unstable concepts like paradox, toward the finite concepts of coagulation? The answer is simple. As the tangible lines of force that comprise the finite stages of coagulation stabilize and define themselves, they create a theoretical mass, or forces equivalent to a mass, around the central point of definition. However, as we have just pointed out, within this mass, at the heart of the indefinable center, lies a tiny remnant of the original imploding non-universe, or absentia. Because the heart of the mass is an area that can never be defined, we conclude that in fact it must retain the characteristics of its original uncontained counterpart, thus becoming another absentia, or “excluded middle,” within the mass of the finite model.

Because of this inner absentia phenomenon, we see how an impossible connection is allowed to exist between these two equally paradoxical locations that create a cycle of sorts that contribute to the endless ascent of the law of sequence. Of course this may seem far fetched at first, but wait a moment. If the absentia truly represents ‘that which is not possible’, wouldn’t it logically follow that an impossible connection would be the only kind the absentia could have, between any two parts of itself? If this is true, then this curious phenomenon of endless definition would enable a return to the unstable by two methods.

Transcendence

In the beginning, the paradox just described, of a non-universe, or absentia, at the center coagulation, is not yet formed. Once it is however, it becomes a source of perpetuity, capable of revitalizing the original, uncontained outer absentia. The unity of these distant and yet connected partners, creates for us another cycle within the stages of our evolving model. In this cycle, the cycle of replenishment, we observe how the ‘origin’, or original concept of absentia, is comparatively external to that of the newly formed ‘source’ at the center of the defined form. But because these locations are both ‘absent’, and identical in their exclusionary nature, we are forced to conclude that they are actually the same place (or no place)! This of course means that if it were at all possible to enter into one, you would actually exist in both!

Here’s what you’d see if you could exist in the absentia. You would see yourself leaving as you enter. The further in you get the further out you would be.

But the absentia is by definition, completely exclusionary, so since you cannot exist in either, we must conclude that passage toward, or into, one would mean the immediate passing away from, or out of, the other. Because of this, we can see how these two points of absentia actually become partners in a universal singularity! The instability between their divergent locations being seen as a sliding scale, spectrum or hierarchy of connecting development (i.e. paradox > > infinity > > space/time > > perception of reality > > substance of reality > > convergence of substance > > paradox!).

Here is another example of the futility of trying to enter the realm of the absentia. Because the inner absentia and outer absentia are the same place, you just loop around, without ever leaving the confines of your current reality.

Finally, this impossible condition of a duel singularity creates a cycle in the model that can be read in two directions; either as definition that is endlessly inward or as radiation of the mass that is endlessly outward. Or, if the two points of absentia are to represent a limitation to any finite universe, the cycle can be viewed as an alternating of two directions - like breathing in and out, or expanding and contracting in the case of a ‘big bang’ universe.

Another good analogy that I’ve found, for the relationship between these two points of absentia would be the two pole points of a ‘Harry Ball’ paradox.

The harry ball paradox show the relationship between the inner and outer points of absentia. The axis of this globe would represent the impossible connection between the two points of absentia. The path of the hair would symbolize the path of the connecting universe of sequential development put forth so far.

In the harry ball analogy, we see how the topographical limitations of combing hair on a sphere resemble the theoretical limits of our finite model, i.e. one pole combs hair away to create one singularity (the yielding force of the outer absentia), while the other pole draws hair together to create another singularity (concentration of finite stages upon a center).

In the harry ball analogy, both poles represent the paradox of a singularity, but in two distinctly different forms, with the combed hair between them symbolizing the one way universe of hierarchal stages just described. The implied axis is then analogous to the impossible connection between the two points of absentia, as it too becomes a point of infinitesimal in-betweeness, or an excluded middle, within the mass of a spinning body.

But when we look again, we see how the real beauty of this idea emerges from the fact that, because of this absentia to absentia cycle, our model, or universe, is not only infinitely finite, but also self-contained. In other words, its ultimate insides are the same as its ultimate outsides, thus allowing for the endless traverse of sequential development that we perceive as infinity. In the end we could say that this phenomenon of endless traverse, might also allow for transcendence to multiple universes, or universe levels, and may ultimately unite the ideas of macrocosm and microcosm revealing their essential sameness.

As a final note to this mind-bending discourse of creation, we can also see how the creating of a model, the origins or beginnings of which are not located at its source, and the source of which is created after its beginnings, is merely an additional requisite condition to our original idea of paradox as a beginning, and the idea of contradictory objectives.

Salmon

One of the interesting aspects of transcendence is the idea of self-replenishment through an impossible connection to another absentia. As a visual aid to the idea of replenishment, the perpetual homing action of stabilization, created by the cycle of endless traverse, can be compared to the life cycle of salmon. In the salmon analogy, we see how the impossible connection of the inner absentia, to its outer partner, allows it to replenish the outer absentia by passing invisibly, or impossibly, through the finite stages of definition (see harry ball). As this takes place, we can see how this absentia ‘signal’ must then return as imploding manifestation, to a source it has never met, thereby completing the homing cycle.

In the same manner, and by analogy, we see how salmon are born in a river virtually unaware of their existence or ‘source’. They are immediately washed away into the ocean. After changing into an adult, they ‘begin’ a return journey to their source, a source they don’t know. As part of the homing process, the downward current of the stream offers resistance to progress while at the same time revealing the correctness of the salmon’s chosen path. This resistance is then analogous to the replenishing inner absentia leaving its source and passing through the stages of the finite model.

But, as the salmon converge on their destination they eventually find that altho they are there, in their newly defined adult form they are not able to complete the homing cycle to exact precision (that of returning to an unborn state). This is the idea that creates the mass around the center of definition. The mass of our model is like a conglomeration of [symmetrical/paradoxical] anti-matter that has [broken its symmetry, or] changed into matter, and has converged on its ultimate destination, only to find it can no longer fit through the door!

The salmon analogy is good. And so might be the sperm to egg, except that sperm are not ‘returning’ to where they were born (or are they?). Anyway, a million tiny parts coming together to form a mass around a destination they collectively will never reach, becomes a good metaphor for the idea of homing, and the mass of matter created by converging lines of force in the creation of our model.

The only way it will, is to change back into symmetrical/paradoxical anti-matter and complete the endlessly inward cycle, or bounce off and go back the way it came as the radiant energy of the universe and all its heavenly bodies.

The Fountain

The perpetual act of stabilization toward manifestation by implosion, can also be compared to a fountain, throwing water high into the air where it eventually stops, ‘changes’ in direction and returns to it’s source to fill the supply, and be sent out again. In the fountain analogy we see how convergence of this type can be a very hostile environment.

For those of you in search of a big bang, I offer the fountain analogy.

When water in a fountain falls back on itself it does so with a crash of noise that is dramatic. (Die-hard ‘big bang’ fans who did not like the idea of starting our universe with a quiet IMplosion of non-universe, or absentia, should like this).

Yes, in the beginning, our implosion and convergence into a mass did create a big bang of sorts. This occurred as the coagulating model became more and more finite, eventually reaching a level of finite mass, equal in opposition to the level of infinity (and ultimately, paradox) found within the absentia it eventually contained. This collision of extreme opposites, thrown together like cold water on a hot skillet, creates an explosive reaction of cosmic proportions. If you are looking for a big bang we could consider this the beginning of the tangible universe, and the resulting spread of matter throughout.

In continuing with such an analogy we could also compare the convergence of coagulation to a baseball pitcher, winding up and sending a light speed pitch at a destination it paradoxically does not know. The ‘Big Bang’ would then be analogous to the crack of the bat as matter is sent flying out of the stadium we call our perceivable universe.

Yet another analogy might focus on the inability of definition to achieve infinite density about an internal non-universe, or absentia, by comparing it to a clock spring that you can only wind so far. When the spring is finally let go, energy is released.

Of course after the initial collision of coagulating convergence, the mass of our model begins to radiate its own power. The resulting cycle then changes to one of compression and radiance, rather than collision and recoil, thus loosing forever, the characteristics of its beginning stages.

Thee Universe?

So, for those who need to pinpoint the beginning of ‘The Universe’ in a big bang fashion, you need only back up a couple of steps to adopt these alternate ideas. In other words, the universe could have begun with a single explosion, an explosion of paradoxical anti-matter, spreading ‘the absentia’ to the limits of all universes. When fully extended, the absentia would fall back on itself in a fountain-like manner, converging on an unknown source as moving matter and creating the explosion of definition just described, back, into the reaches of the nothingness side of each universe, in big bang style.

This concept, while undoubtedly more comfortable to a finite mind, may appear more logical, as it reduces the severity of paradox involved, and offers a finite point of origin for a single universe. But in my opinion, reducing the severity of paradox in a cycle of infinity is dangerous. The law of the predictable paradox has shown us the need for such conditions within any cycle of infinity, such as the universe. Therefore to limit or eliminate paradox, would be to eliminate the universe it opposes. This is unacceptable. We need the absentia, and all its paradox, to exist. Without the absentia, there is no universe. Thus, acceptance of paradox is essential to understanding any universe - especially this tarot universe.

Also for some, to say that this is the beginning of “The” universe is not considered accurate. If we return to the idea of multiple ‘little bangs’, we can offer the notion of multiple universes. Each little bang creating an entire cycle of tangible model and intangible non-model. Each model then becoming a visible entity, while each non-model blends together with every other non-model to become one continuous non-entity. Each model then appearing to breach the continuum (figure) of a single universe (ground). A million indiscretions, or one pretentious bang? This is how the tarot universe of our model begins.

Summary

This is how our universe of tarot begins. And frankly that is all this is. Don’t be confused at this point into thinking we have done any more than just begin. All we have been doing so far is outlining the meticulous logic and definitive patterns that begin our universe - its first critical steps, and its paradoxical limits.

And so we have, at this point, the basic ideas of how our model comes into being. With ideas like a binary system, contradictory objectives and figure/ground we established a foundation with roots in a basic assumption of opposites. Then, with ideas like the predictable paradox, chicken and egg in same place, violation and restoration and the cosmic waltz we meticulously defined the first three steps of an evolving universe. From there, with ideas like concentric containment, the mass, transcendence, salmon and the fountain we not only defined the model as an imploding mass of finite coagulation, but also made clear the nature of its infinite potential, thereby creating a universe with a simple self-contained design.

Overview

If you choose to continue with this study, we will take this logic to its next level by showing how concentric concepts of containment can be segmented into an abstract diagram that we can use as a reference point for other ideas. Then, we will return to the idea of coagulation to describe, in greater detail, the workings of the model that enable ideas like transcendence to occur. Finally, we will conclude our genesis logic by covering briefly some of the more important patterns common to all finite entities, as these will eventually effect the perception we have of our finite entity.