The Sacred Mathematics of Spirit

[Gobbo]

This child-like cartoon sums up a bunch of stuff about sacred geometry.











...

[James S Saint]

"According to Thorth", huh.
Yeah, I remember being 13 yrs old and imagining all kinds of plausible non-sense.
But seriously, mean old martian men invading the 13 yr old Atlantian girls causing our shift in evolution?
The Justice League on the 12th dimension?

I suspect someone hasn't been taking their medication.

[Gobbo]

Who cares who said it?

I would listen to this if a homeless man with wine on his breath slurred it to me.

[Flannel Jesus]

He takes interesting knowledge and makes it kinda shitty, in my experience. The whole Flower of Life thing, and its relationship to the Platonic Solids -- REALLY INTERESTING STUFF!!! -- but he tries to tie it in with some retarded thing about a spirit flying around in circles. Nah, that's not really gonna fly. The flower of life would be the flower of life without some spirit flying around in circles. He doesn't explain where he got that idea from, and he doesn't really explain why its relevant. I have a really sensitive nose, and I smell bullshit.

Also, he did a really bad job of explaining the golden ratio. That kinda pissed me off, cuz I fucking love that number. He didn't do it justice.

But still, he did introduce me to some concepts that I wasn't aware of before, so even though he almost succeeded at burying the good concepts under his bullshit, there was still some good stuff seeping through.

[James S Saint]

Who cares who said it?

I would listen to this if a homeless man with wine on his breath slurred it to me.

Maybe you should reconcider that.
Do you know who Thoth is?
He was one of the Egyptian gods, husband to Ma'at. Supposedly responsible for the creation of logic, science, and the written language.
So I had to be a little curious just how the person in the vid was hearing what Thoth had to say about events from merely 15 years ago.
Like I said, someone isn't taking their meds.

[Gobbo]

Thoth is a god who incarnated into a man by the name of Drunvolo Melchezedek.

Man if I had a dollar for every time someone told me that a random Egyptian God couldn't be correct about that as manifested through an even more arbitrary dude with a weird name/title.

Seriously, though. I listen to anyone, and thus guy makes more sense out of anyone I've ever listened to. This video is just a quick summary of much more.

[Gobbo]

He takes interesting knowledge and makes it kinda shitty, in my experience. The whole Flower of Life thing, and its relationship to the Platonic Solids -- REALLY INTERESTING STUFF!!! -- but he tries to tie it in with some retarded thing about a spirit flying around in circles. Nah, that's not really gonna fly. The flower of life would be the flower of life without some spirit flying around in circles. He doesn't explain where he got that idea from, and he doesn't really explain why its relevant. I have a really sensitive nose, and I smell bullshit.

Also, he did a really bad job of explaining the golden ratio. That kinda pissed me off, cuz I fucking love that number. He didn't do it justice.

But still, he did introduce me to some concepts that I wasn't aware of before, so even though he almost succeeded at burying the good concepts under his bullshit, there was still some good stuff seeping through.

I don't see which is more fantastical: everything that is literally coming from overlapping circles (and this was proven in 1984 in the scientific community anyways), or the fact that the most mysterious things on the planet (the pyramids) would act in conjunction with the sun and some disk? The sun is real. giant disks are real. You realize scientists can't figure out (amongst other things) how the the pyramids were BUILT FROM THE TOP DOWN? I'll say that again, the PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT FROM THE TOP DOWN, and you're talking to me about the unbelievability about an ascended master and a big disk? lol. Alright.

Thoth makes more sense than a bunch of people standing around with thumbs off their asses who have no theory whatsoever, like oh... the entire scientific community.

I don't get how people place the line of 'unbelievable' where they do, or at all. I don't think anything is impossible. In those videos they go over how to square a circle. I have no trouble believing people can basically 'master' the body take on a relatively godlike form. There is ample evidence of that through a bunch of cultures.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm sure you thought you made a whole bunch of sense when you were writing that, but it's completely devoid of any actual reason for me to change my mind. "The sun is real. Giant disks are real." That's not a proof that a spirit flies in circles to create the universe. I mean, there's absolutely no logical connection between those two things. You're just ranting on about irrelevant stuff. You sound like an old man with Alzheimer when you do that kind of thing.

[Gobbo]

"The sun is real. Giant disks are real." That's not a proof that a spirit flies in circles to create the universe. I mean, there's absolutely no logical connection between those two things.

Sure there is. Look at the context I'm presenting it in: they exit.

I'm pointing out that you're usage of 'unbelievable' isn't backed by any logical consideration that is apparent. It's an emotional response; it is not a considered thought. You just 'feel' it's unbelievable. In other words, I doubt you could explicitly tell me why Thoth would be any more unbelievable than, say, quantum physics. I can't do that because nothing is any more believable than anything else - that is, in the vacuum sense I'm talking about here.

Every time someone says 'I cannot believe that' it just means that they refuse to because of some emotions. The whole thing is a paradox. In saying 'I refuse to believe in the existence of Thoth' you are refuting yourself in a Moorean way. What they are actually saying is: my social lens sees the probability of that being so low that I think it's a waste of time, or something along those lines.

In fact, Daybreak explains this even better

Why isn't it hard to believe?

Not sure I know how to answer that, Pezer. Same way it's not hard to believe physicists when they talk about parallel universes, how it's not hard to believe the philosophical implications suggested by quantum theory, or how it's not hard to believe time slows down as you approach the speed of light? As a metaphysical, borderline-supernatural hypothesis, I'm just saying I can see it.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=177946&hilit=daybreak

[Flannel Jesus]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I refuse to believe in anything. Not believing is different from refusing to believe.

Or maybe I should just try your ridiculous logic on you: you're refusing to believe that Thoth doesn't exist, but in refusing to believe, you are refuting yourself in a Moorean way.

If it doesn't make sense when I say it to you, then you can bet it didn't make sense when you said it to me.

[Gobbo]

Moore is an actual philosopher.

You can't reverse it like that; it doesn't work.

[Gobbo]

There is something undeniable about the science presented here.

It is the future and the past.

[Mowk]

There is something undeniable about the science presented here.

What are you saying? Are you calling it science? Are you being sarcastic?

While I try hard to allow for all possibility I do have trouble with calling much of what is proposed, science.

I could provide some examples but, I don't wish to be stepping on peoples beliefs with my skepticism.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, a very loose use of the word "science"

[Mowk]

Forgive me if my response appears insensitive. I should have recognized your genuine interest. To ask if you were being sarcastic appears inappropriate as I read it.

[Amorphos]

I think we could look at sacred geometry in a different way, we could take any three informational objects and consider them to be a triangle ~ even if they are in a straight line. On a primary level of information [I.e. prior to objects/physics] what I call the covert level]] there are three relationships; x,y,z, which communicate thusly; x - y - z and z - x, the lines of a triangle mean nothing at this level, here we are only seeing things in terms of relationships of informations communicating. Spatial locations and dimensions [the lines] occur on the overt level, and so are a secondary level.

Perhaps then plants do work [on the primary level] by the Fibonacci sequence or perhaps there is another we haven’t worked out yet. Indeed we and everything in the universe are working by patterns and by different levels of the information sandwich [covert info, objects [the filling], overt info], and we don’t know how that all works especially in our minds.

I wouldn’t give up on sacred geometry yet, what the Greeks considered on a perceptual level may be relating to something far deeper, and they have a habit of ending up being right.

[Gobbo]

Forgive me if my response appears insensitive. I should have recognized your genuine interest. To ask if you were being sarcastic appears inappropriate as I read it.

Don't feel bad. I am un-insultable.


I think this fulfills all the criteria for science. The actual theory parts, and not the history parts.

It's flawless mathematics. I sincerely hope someone tries to disprove the geometry and math, as opposed to focusing on the Thoth, and ostensibly easy targets.

I would love to see an actual mathematician weigh in here.

[Flannel Jesus]

Perhaps then plants do work [on the primary level] by the Fibonacci sequence...

Plants do work on the Fibonacci sequence quite often. As do spiral shells, like he talked about.

It's flawless mathematics. I sincerely hope someone tries to disprove the geometry and math, as opposed to focusing on the Thoth, and ostensibly easy targets.

The math isn't wrong. There's nothing to disprove. The Fibonacci sequence is real, the phi ratio is real, it's true that the Fibonacci sequence approximates phi. The flower of life is an actual shape that's possible to draw, nothing mathematically wrong there.

What he says the math means, on the other hand, is quite far-fetched.

There was a thread on here recently in which some guy tried to prove God by writing "x = 1+1 = 2". Well, 1+1 does =2, that's right. His math is completely right. But does that prove that God exists? Err, I really don't think so.
Likewise, all of his math was right. What he thought the math meant wasn't so solid though.

[Amorphos]

Ok so if the math is ok on a worldly level, could it be right on a level prior to that?

i.e. before the universe [not necessarily in terms of time] or on a level prior to objects, would we say that the background information follows similar or the same rules? ...so nature isnt the cause.

What that could mean is at least that nature doesn’t have to follow mathematical rules and patterns as we read them from the world, it could all be working on a more fundamental level. The stars, planets, nature, 'intuition' [even for things in nature in some way] and even some coincidence could be working by those rules.
what is the world relating to!

is there any way we could see that as 'sacred geometry'?

[Flannel Jesus]

...so nature isnt the cause.

idk about that, i mean, even if sacred geometry is the cause, it might be just accurate to say sacred geometry IS nature.

What that could mean is at least that nature doesn’t have to follow mathematical rules and patterns

sacred geometry is explicitly all about mathematical rules and patterns. geometry is a form of math, after all.

Ok so if the math is ok on a worldly level, could it be right on a level prior to that?

It's not even about whether or not it could be right. Billions of things could be right and aren't. For a theory to be worth considering seriously, "it could be right" is not enough. The criteria are more rigorous than that.

[Amorphos]

idk about that, i mean, even if sacred geometry is the cause, it might be just accurate to say sacred geometry IS nature.

Agreed. We have to make distinctions though. Sacred geometry may not be a direct cause, more of a guide e.g. a flower or shelled creature may grow its petals or spirals according to how it ‘intuits’ what it needs for survival etc. its as if it holds up worldly needs and compares them to the blueprint - if you will. I don’t think that’s an intellectual process on any level btw.

sacred geometry is explicitly all about mathematical rules and patterns. geometry is a form of math, after all.

…from the world; I said! What I meant was they could be following sacred geometry that is not in the created world. We humans can see math in the world and can say that’s how things work, but we are looking at it from the outside, and I doubt if plants or planets can do that.

We could also say that the math is in the patterns in the DNA and that would also be ‘worldly math’. I am not denying that but it seems very likely that there is ‘background information’ [as in the holographic theory] at a sub-level to worldly things.
I cannot imagine how material existence can occur without information, everywhere we look at objects we see info, and the forming of something also relies upon information ~ what else can material existence take its instruction from?

I don’t know how to prove that, but I am sure any theory about material creation will involve info, its self evident [it wouldnt even be a theory without info, nor concerning it].

[incorrect]

i feel dumber for having watched a lot of those vids

[Gobbo]

i feel dumber for having watched a lot of those vids

You learned something you didn't know. By definition you're smarter.

[Gobbo]

http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_o ... thing.html

[Flannel Jesus]

yes, the flower of life is clearly a very important geometrical shape. notice, though, how that physicist didn't ever bring up a spirit flying around in circles. hence my first post in this thread. there are clearly ways to talk about the relevance and beauty of the flower without making up nonsense about spirits flying in circles. he's really diluting the true awesomeness of sacred geometry by throwing in that garbage. it's a shame.