Pure Conceptuality

Chapter 16: The story is chron-ILLOGICAL

Imagine standing on a railroad track watching the rails converge off into the distance. It would seem obvious, in some sense, that the rails are diverging behind you. But when you turn around those rails are converging into the distance also. This is so natural to us, we do not really notice or think much about it unless we are a graphic artist. The fact is that you and your location are integral to the perception as the rails do not converge or diverge in “reality.” One truth is in the “mind's eye” and the other is in the “eye of the beholder.” Both propositions are true even though they contradict. We could not function in space if both phenomenon were not “true.” It is obvious that we must be capable of “bending” our thinking around contradiction and the contradiction itself allows a larger consideration and a broader understanding. When a small child goes up in a light aircraft he might well imagine the cars and houses below to be toys until he learns from self evident observation that the toys become big as he watches while returning to the ground. That larger understanding is self teaching. It turns out that much computation (re-cognition) is going on in consciousness that we just take for granted. We name it sub conscious and then can dump all kinds of stuff into that box without thinking much about it. In Pure Conceptuality we contend that the conscious and subconscious are exactly the same thing “made” of the same “stuff.” That is the basket of ideas we have explored so carefully in this study.

We are left with the ideas of point of view (perceived location) and perspective (perceived dimensionality) and we know these ideas are mixed up with the the “hard physical world” and the interior software in consciousness. They do not exist separate even though we can separate them in our mind if we make the effort. The orienting utility of the interactions are learned but learned easily and automatically by the self conscious individual as the universal dimensional elements are what we are and how we perceive in consciousness. One obvious lesson to learn from this is that the whole of the idea of relativity is dependent on the idea of the consensus dimensional constant. We alone in consciousness create the fulcrum for the “existence” of the internal and external, (micro-macro). That construct (concept) disappears entirely without the observer. If we think that is not true, we are simply using our ability to bend around contradiction. The contradiction is real and must be accepted as true. Including that truth in consideration does not destroy consideration itself but rather destroys a prime error in consideration.

We have a Common Record which is easily accessible to almost anyone due to database inter connectivity and our access through information technology. The Common Record is massive and contains all manner of data. It could be statistical, historical, fact or opinion, theoretical or physical or simply record of experience or imagined story. Honestly, there is an almost unfathomable resource. We often examine this resource in terms of chronology. For instance we can ask; “What is the first record of a heliocentric understanding of local universe in the common record?” The answer is the Greek astronomer Aristarchos (310 – 230 BC). He correctly observed and understood the basic configuration of the earth being spherical with a spherical moon orbiting and that system orbiting the sun, while putting the other planets in their proper orbital positions. He assumed the stars to be distant suns. We can follow through chronologically from past to present and find radically differing conclusions and opinions each being the “more proven” and authoritatively accepted standard of the moment. It turns out that Aristarchos was generally correct as shown finally and definitively by Copernicus in 1500 and Gallileo in early 1600. Chronologically, this is one long path through the “forest” of the common record which in some sense is meandering for almost 2000 years in the case of Aristarchos which generally ends up verifying “his”(best story) perspective and perception. The “meandering” involves the rational use of the tool of mathematics to twist and bend “reality” into a seemingly obvious, yet false notion of geocentrism. We can see from here that was a lot of error in thinking mainly because “authority” held to an erroneous (and highly invested in) assumption rather than taking an honest look at what is shown and known by someone who simply looked at the truth. The truth was not integrated into state of the art of thought.

Honestly, from another perspective, we do not KNOW Aristarchos even existed yet this story is in the common record here today. The utility to communicate dramatically the point in the previous paragraph remains unchanged due to the authority in the Common Record not necessarily that it is “true.” It is true that it is a story within a story and that alone affords its utility to inform or be used as a tool in an unrelated context and purpose.

It is unarguable that, in plain words, Einstein saw the truth that matter and energy are equivalent (objective) and that time is local to an observer (subjective). This is major news which must change EVERYTHING drastically and suddenly. It has been 100 years and still we think of and use tick tock time unthinkingly as an element in abstract thinking. This results in the serious proposition of theories such as the Big Bang and the even more abstract and obscure String Theory. The historical utility of time as a tool in this way was destroyed by Einstein except as a local tool in ordinary engineering and physics. The conceptual truth that matter and energy are equivalent also requires a revolution in modeling thought. What does that mean – how can that be? Pure Conceptuality proposes an alternate view which, taken as a whole, proffers nice resolutions to many conundrums while also opening windows to fresh perspectives in many fields. We know that the most energetic and “creative” scientists are searching for a way of integrating conundrums in a transcending and unifying system of analysis. If Occams Razor is a valid prescription and “simpler is better,” perhaps a basic simple method of harmonizing the fields of science, math, physics, psychology, sociology, theology, philosophy, history and the arts could be a considered theory, such as presented here, that unifies those fields. Further, if we look at “field” as conceptual matrix eternal organization, we present a simple method of unraveling all that complexity into a simple and almost intuitive understanding, while maintaining the potential of complexity to account for, in principle, what is/seems miraculous in the ultimate manifestation. This area of conceptual field study was the focus of Buckminster Fuller, the genius behind “Synergetics.” He uncovered an integrated conceptual Geometric Heirarchy of Omnirationally phased, Nuclear-centered, Convergently-divergently Intertransformable Systems which he proposed “might” become (accepted) as the Unified Field. See pdfPC16a illustration. Of course, this is an “angle” of perception that side steps the type of resolution mathematicians and physicists would inherently seek and “accept.” This feeling of resolution in Fuller was the result of 90 years of creative investigation using all of his considerable knowledge and skills. That contemporaries could not “get it”must have been a great frustration.

Besides their own creativity, Einstein and Fuller were steeped in and coming out of indoctrination, and investment in the chronological and hierarchical consensus of authoritative interpretation of and established pathways through the Common Record. Rooted in that and in spite of that they each explored fresh paths. Apparently Einstein enlisted “technical assistance” from proficient mathematicians to make it possible to communicate his conceptual discoveries to the established academic “authorities.” It seems that Fuller's creative vision and discoveries are too broad and incomprehensible to academic authority. We go back to the analogy of the video game. In order to play the game one must actually suspend disbelief and engage in the game and get into the spirit of the game in order to exchange with others the essence of the game. Fuller does not seem to step back from his own realizations to integrate them cohesively for the rest of us. Rather, he seemed to go further and further in, recreating what seems like complexity in an attempt to get to a more basic unit in his thinking. He left a compendium of thought which can be integrated logically and with resolution. However even that compendium of his thought would not be available in the common record without the vision and organizational help of E. J. Applewhite. No mind is working alone. Einstein said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Fuller said: “God is a verb.”

In our study we are not satisfied to define and label and then put ideas or phenomenon in a box and then put that box away. We look into the box for message. There is an unarguable human phenomenon of “prodigy.” This is an unexplainable “natural” mastery at an early age (Motzart for example) of what is normally a hard earned skill or talent requiring many years of effort for mastery. The most common instance of prodigy occurs in music and mathematics. In Pure Conceptuality it is the existence of and “signpost” of prodigy which is the message. In other words the phenomenon of Prodigy forces one to consider the Universality and direct accessibility of whole thought forms (prime conceptual structural organizations) as expressions of the eternal truth available to be apprehended in principle rather than having to be additively earned and gained in chronological time. We refer to this as WORD or Language. Word is direct inFORMation.

In its simplicity and step by step approach Pure Conceptuality attempts to describe and explain the conceptual bridge that unifies in principle the subjective and the objective. We have moved specifically into particular areas of some complexity just for the purpose of showing the simple patterns that emerge from brief sojourns into self developing complexity. We contend that one does not have to take too seriously the details of the complexity to understand the inevitable emergence of eternal and inherent pattern. This is a technical approach to a general understanding or realization. The basic connectivity of ideas is what we are interested in comprehending. In essence we have not strayed very far from the original mission of traveling from A to B in a straight path.

Let's investigate “perceived location” and “perceived dimensionality” in the simple terms of our matrix study which, simply stated, is the dynamic understanding of the oct-tet manifestation and the “fractal” transformation potential for replication in regression and progression of rational form and inter- connectivity. We have focused on the notion of stopped time modeling and conceptual fixed eternal dimensions. In the attempt to transmit the “click stop” conception and comprehension we pretty much dismissed the “in between” and the idea of “elasticity” by denying motion. Obviously, to be complete, we must consider “smooth” motion as we perceive it. This is the dynamic understanding referred to above. We have described Dimensional Click Stop in the dihedral of the “hinge” of the right-left equilateral triangle determined by eternal universal dimensions across the hinge connecting the points. And we described the “frequency related click stop” in the conceptual implosion progression of the oct-tet star. In order to describe and imagine these conceptions we have to visualize elasticity in transformation. It is not as difficult as it might seem.

The “tutorial” to see and think about “elasticity” and “exact average” between exact dimension is contained within our Universal Dimensionl Click Stop model at Frequency 15. (pdfPC16b) illustrates this message. Let's look first at the F1 Universal Click Stop model (PCpdf12). Notice the Dimension functions for the Pentagonal Decahedron and Phi – the Icosahedron and Pentagonal Decahedron. Remember from the conceptuality12 video that the Pentagonal Decahedron (which is referred to as the pentagonal decagon in the video) also holds the Dimension of the Icosahedron which is Phi. Now here is an amazing thing. The average of those two exact click stop dimensions is a new exact dimension which multiplied by 15 becomes 20 or square root of 400. It is beautiful that this is the square root of a whole number, but also it forces us to consider the range or “elasticity” of that dimension which “ends” with Phi (icosahedron) and the acute dimension for the Pentagonal Decahedron. The “middle” or average between those dimensions is another exact dimension at F15, the square root of 400! Further at F15 all of the click stop Dimensions expressed in square roots are whole numbers divisible by 25. We include the square root of 3 as the dimension which “flattens out” the right-left equilateral triangles. Starting with the Tet that whole number is 225, for average between Pent Decahedron and Phi is 400, octahedron 450, duo tet 600, star Tet 625 and square root of 3 x 15 is square root of 675. See (pdfPC16b and pdfPC16c) Notice the symmetry or pattern of those numbers divided by 25.

What have we accomplished here? We have introduced the idea of elasticity where the exact average screams ORDER and rationality. Also, it is apparent that at F15 the Click Stop Dimensions expressed as square roots are beautiful rational whole numbers. We see that the “elasticity” in principle is exact within limits and even elasticity has exactness which can be described and identified in terms of limits and average. Further we have referred back in principle to the Frequency Click Stop conception for rational “sequenced super rationality” in steps of 15F.

Further we can study the volumes of the implied Tets of the 15F “hinged” equilateral triangles of the Prime Dimensions to discover more whole number rational integration. Remember that classical rectilinear volume is converted to TetraVolume by multiplication by the square root of 72. We can use the accurate tetrahedron volume calculator online using Tet edges to get rectilinear volume of the Prime Dimensional Tets represented in the pdfPC16b illustration. It is easy to see that there is only one variable edge vector in these Tets. Using the six edge volume calculator we get:

15F Dimension | Rectilinear Vol | TetraVolume | |
---|---|---|---|

Star Tet | 25 | 220.970869 | 1875 |

DuoTet | 24.49489743 | 265.1650427 | 2250 |

Phi | 24.27050985 | 281.249999 | 2386.5 |

Square root of 2 | 21.21320344 | 397.74764 | 3375 |

Pent Decahedron | 7.88566 | 244.01315 | 2070.5 |

Tet | 15 | 397.74764 | 3375 |

Phi and the Pent Decahedron call attention but even that attention is interesting. Remember that the Pent Decahedron brought us to the “stretching” idea. The TetraVolume of an F1 Tet with Phi as the long vector is exactly the square root of one half (.5) to six decimal places of accuracy. Again we find whole number rationality in the Oct Tet system which hides in the rectilinear system. Further, it is evident that these systems are in solution together. The Oct Tet System is a useful tool in seeing patterns and connecting ideas and engaging Eternal Truth universally.

Let's consider the model of the unit edge F1 Tet. In making the model with straws of equal length, we know that every dimension is 1 or square root of 1. An interesting thing about perspective is that no matter how much we try, we cannot see all of the vectors as square root of 1 from any one perspective or point of view. We have the choice to turn the model or to “orbit” around the the stationary model by moving ourselves. If we rotate the model the point of view is stationary as the perspective changes. If we orbit around the stationary model, we must continually turn to “face” the model just as the “man in the moon” keeps facing the earth. Even if we were inside the model, we could not look at the whole of it from any one perspective. The point of view changes and the perspective changes. We can never truly see all six vectors as unit length. The best we can do is look at the Tet exactly “point on” to see three equi-length vectors of the equilateral triangle as the Tet “flattens out.” From that point of view the remaining three vectors “shorten” from our perspective radiating from the center of the triangle to the “points.” We can still “see” the Tet in the mind's eye but that is imagination. Honestly, we are looking at an equilateral triangle with three spokes. The dimension of the spokes of an F1 triangle is square root of one third. The universal rule for that dimension is [square root of (F squared divided by 3)]. In maximizing symmetry by adjusting our point of view or adjusting the model to our point of view, we “flatten” the model and discover another eternal truth. This is another case of conceptual elasticity. The square root of 1 shortens to square root of one third every time.

There is one other point of view or perspective of the Tet which results in two equal dimensions when “flattened” conceptually (in the mind's eye). See video conceptuality16a at youtube. If the Tet is observed “edge on” with the square root of 1 edge toward the observer with the equivalent far edge adjusted to perpendicular, the nearer edge is square root of 1 and the far edge is the square root of one third! All of the remaining vectors are square root of one third and appear to be the parallelogram you see when looking at two equilateral triangles flattened out sharing one side. In other words the Tet from this perspective flattens to two hinged equilateral triangles of edge length .577350269 or square root of one third with the dimension across the open points of square root of 1. Now, if you set the Tet up in that orientation and get far enough away from it the front and back perpendicular vectors become equal and the parallelogram becomes a square! The F1 square now has the square root of 2 diagonals from corner to corner. This is the “point on” perspective of the octahedron. So the the Tet transforms in perspective into the octahedron simply by a receding point of view. This phenomenon does not occur when moving away from the “spoked triangle.” If we study the dimension of the “spokes” of the equilateral triangle (in the first example) in 15F “jumps” we identify as “super rationality” which which is whole number rationality. The illustration (pdfPC16d) displays the elegant relationships and patterns that appear throughout the self developing Prime Forms. Here we simply calculate the spoke dimension for frequency jumps of 15. There is no particular objective here except to show the elegance of simple arithmetic patterns and relationships.

Further, we have to point out here that the “flattening out” of the Tet into the equilateral triangle with its radii and from another perspective the square with its radii reveals another planar graphic synthesis illustrated in (pdfPC16g). Here we see the rectilinear grid integrated with the triangular grid simply by including and connecting the centers of the triangles in the triangular grid. The rectilinear grid is seen most easily in the illustration by the green rectangle composed of two triangles' side dimension relationship of 1,2, and the square root of three, which is simply half of an equilateral triangle. In the illustration see a cube in “point on” orientation and an octahedron in “face on” orientation. The red ABCD is the cube face and blue ABCD is the octahedron face and half of two axes of the octahedron. The green parallelogram is the Tet viewed edge on at close range. That parallelogram is simply a right and left equilateral triangle sharing a side. In planar perspective the cube and the octahedron are “made of” twelve of the same triangles of the inherent hexagon and eight of the same triangles for the included rectangle. This whole illustration is simply right and left equilateral triangles and different orientations and perspective achieved in the “mind's eye.”

If we objectively engage Einstein's perception of the eternal simple elegant statement, E=MC squared, we can see that this is a structural statement in terms of the approach we have used to analyze and understand the inherent rationality of Prime Organization in principle. We can just as well see the statement as E/M = C squared or the square root of E/M = C. All of the elements and processes we have utilized and explored are demonstrated here. That is multiplication, division, squaring (triangling) and square root. E = MC squared is very similar to d = rt which is a linear statement. The squaring in E = MC squared manifests conceptually what is normally referred to as two dimensional or “planar.”

If we think simply about the statement E = MC squared, it is simply stating that Everything is MC squared, because it is also stating simply that everything is energy! M represents something manifest, and C represents some kind of constant. This formula states that some value is equal to some function. The function is the description of “manifest” times F squared. In principle F is the CONSTANT divided. F squared is conceptually manifest containment or area and the idea of the increase at the square rate is analogous to the increase of distance by time in falling in to gravity. Of course, this applies to the proportional increase in area of the Prime Concept of triangle exactly by squaring its frequency. If we examine in terms as stated above ALL (everything) divided by Manifest is F squared. So at F1 all is one, at F2 all is four etc. It is apparent from our study here that the planar conception holds all the information necessary for spatial transformation. This can be thought of like a child's “pop up book” of ultimate elegance where the “flattened” images transform seamlessly into spatial image information. The purely conceptual pop up is re-cognition (transformed and re-cognized perception). This is the inherent holographic concept that the theoretical physicists have “backed” in to without realizing the simple prime conception.

When we honestly look at more complex Prime Models such as the oct tet star or the oct tet matrix and “flatten” them out from different perspectives we see triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, rectilinear and triangular grids depending on our point of view and the perspective we choose to see. It is difficult to hold the forms flattened in the mind's eye as they want to “pop” into spacial forms seeming to battle our choice of how to perceive them. Fortunately, consciousness is the ability to “imagine” them in the dimensions we “know” they are so we can imagine, for example, the implosion of the oct tet star. We are automatically bending our perception around contradiction and what is “actually” visually perceived.

We are going to look at a couple more models in the spirit of research. In constructing the models, relationships emerge which are not expected which are cause for reflection. One such model is the octahedral surround of icosahedron. This is a beautiful conception with very interesting messages. See conceptuality16b video at youtube. It self constructs by placing the equal-dimensional octahedron face on each face of the the icosahedron. This goes very nicely at first but then a slight tension builds up in the structure as it requires some elasticity of dimension to resolve. This is a practical instance where the idea of elasticity suggests itself. It is an elegant structure presenting twelve “nests” which can be filled with icosahedrons or pentagonal decahedrons. The pentagonal decahedrons resolve the structure while the icosahedrons presents a field of adjacent and vertex connected icosahedrons. The message structurally of this field is that a small bit of elasticity in the vectors is required to resolve. The pentagonal decahedron has a prime central axis dimension of 1.057371264. Interestingly, if that dimension is squared and that product squared again you get 12.5. So the dimension is the root of the root of 12.5 ! But what we notice here is the small bit more than unity of that dimension. If we subtract that excess from one we get .942628736. If we imagine a range of elasticity between that and the larger number we have about 11% “play” with one as the exact average. That is sufficient elasticity to resolve the octahedral structure around the icosahedron in principle. That adds another consideration to our “basket of ideas” in that, which vectors are “stretching” and which are “shrinking?' The solution to that is, all are doing both in a self accommodating and pulsating or undulating average around the mean dimension of one. In principle, then, this field introduces the idea of a dynamic tension built in due to the icosahedron being slightly out of phase with the resulting unit dimension geometry. This is pretty exciting as it “resolves” the icosahedron in a unique and unexpected way into the basic unit dimension field concept. This could be a basis for integrative resolutions in other fields of study.

The last model we are going to consider is the tensegretity strut. This comes from the mind of Buckminster Fuller and it is full of message. The word “tensegrity” describes structures in tension where the compression members are isolated from one another. See (pdfPC16e) and (pdfPC16f) and conceptuality16c video at youtube. This construction is essentially the octet star with “string” pulled over of the corners of one of the two internal Tets with four “spokes” or struts radiating out from a central compression location at the center of each Tet. What is interesting is that one Tet becomes “invisible” as the next adjacent Tet fills out the necessary corners to give integrity to the whole structure. All of the energies are in perfect balance and the struts self locate and adhere due to tension-compression in the center. No “glue” is necessary. There are many ideas here that must be grasped. The video shows the truth of the structure visually as one can see how it works in fact. The tetra star aspect has to be imagined because if the second intertwined Tet were physically present the struts would be touching destroying the tensegrity concept. But it is valuable in principle to realize that the intertwined Tets in each cubic domain could be alternately “present” in concept. We alluded to that before in the idea of the Tets imploding and pulsing alternately out the faces of the octahedron.

After watching the video it should be obvious that the structure is real and that it is somewhat like an antenna tower we see in daily life. It acts as a linear pole in its wholeness just as the internal struts do in it's own structure. Now imagine that the internal struts were constructed the same way and the struts inside that construction and inside the next on an on. The necessary “matter” resistant to compression would become less and less. It is so important to “get” this straight in the mind. Do not just pass this by. In principle every strut (or anything “solid”) can be imagined in this infinite regression of disappearing matter.

Now here is the clincher going right back to the atomic model of the electron shell and the “everywhere at once” concept of the location of the electron. To stay true to our approach of simplicity and what the average person can imagine, let's just say that the electron is whizzing around the nucleus which is pulling on it, but it is going around so fast that centrifugal force is holding it out and a “line” of tension (gravity, or nuclear pull or a string) holds the electron in orbit like swinging a rock around in a sling. So in principle we have a spheric in balance of forces (kinetic-expanding vs. vector tension - contraction) as we understand them simply inflating while containing the sphere like a balloon. Now it is not too much of a stretch to imagine some elasticity in this conception. Any external compression or internal expansion can be imagined to be accommodated in this dynamic visualization, as there is nothing “SOLID!” We can see that restrained motion can account in principle for dynamic spherics where it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that energy and matter are the same thing in concept and nothing more is needed to account for structure in principle. “Solidity” is simply the afterimage in stopped time of of eternal conceptual structural elements. We contend that time is not continuous like gravity, but is discontinuous at such a high frequency it is not relevant except to the effect of that truth in “giving” us what we sense, perceive and experience as matter. IT'S ALL ONE INTEGRATED AND WHOLE UNDERSTANDING. We get something out of nothing in afterimage in stopped time. The geometry we have described (the triangle-Tet) is FIRM conceptually in stopped time. We cannot get away from that.

The Common Record has “islands of resolved thought” such as describing structure in terms of seven crystal systems and lattice systems and many “exceptions” and overlaps in trying to integrate structure rationally. There is an apparent attempt to rationalize all structure into a three axis x,y, z coordinate system. This leads to rules about angles and lengths in a rectilinear approach to describing “cells.” Through our study here, it seems obvious that a Tet has four axes, duo-tet – four, tetra star – four, octahedron – three, octet star – four, and cube – four, pentagonal decagon – four, and the hexagonal dodecahedron – four and the icosahedron has five vetexial axes. The only Prime Form which can be imagined to have three axes is the octahedron. If we imagine the octahedron in its complimentary state as the oct- tet star, it has the same four axes of the cube plus the three axes of the Octahedron.. Of course, we must keep in mind that the cube is a secondary form, not Primal in the strictest sense. The tetrahedral conception self-resolves all forms rationally and universally. Even the cube is rationally self resolved triangularly and tetrahedrally with the four diagonal axes with exact eternal dimensions without reference to angles and lengths. The problem with highly evolved, entrenched, hard earned, and highly invested “islands of resolved thought” is that they naturally resist a different perspective.

Let's take a simple example of an island of resolved thought. 1 + 1 = 2. That is only true in one self limited and defined context. That is, we are strictly considering simple numbers and their simple defined relationship and not the idea represented in the sentence. We could be adding one basket of two apples and one basket of three apples. Then generally there would be three correct answers to consider. There are two baskets but five apples and seven things. In the first case we are considering the set of one basket (containing two apples) plus the set of one basket (containing three apples) are contained in a set containing two baskets with their contents. In the second case we are considering a set of one basket with two apples and one basket with three apples are contained in the set with two baskets and five apples which is seven objects. Simplistically, 1 +1 = 2 but that is not the foundation of the sentence but rather one instance of other possible inferences. So the apples and baskets is a more universal and accurate understanding of the sentence while including the de-finite. Standing firm in professing an argument against the obvious by saying, “That is like saying one plus one does not equal two!” - is actually not authoritative at all and honestly is an ignore-ant statement. The statement assumes an air of authority which seems obvious, when it is not. That is a very common stance of the unthinking or those that base their correctness on restating learned “facts” which are usually simply definitions or descriptions and are “true” only in the context of learning and repeating a definition.

In plain language: David (subject) ate (verb) the ice cream (object) or Debra washed the clothes. This is a simple form in communication into which unlimited different subjects, verbs and objects can operate. Each sentence is specific but its form has a general usefulness or utility. Let's look at the statement, E = MC squared. This is a simple action statement. It contains subject, verb and object. The subject is Energy. The object is Matter acted on by Constant squared.(action) Squaring is a “geometric” increase while multiplication is a simple linear frequency increase. We can correctly state that E/M = C squared. Now we have Energy divided by Frequency = C squared. Finally we have (square root of E/M ) = C. Taking the square root of something is breaking it into two equal factors. In the final analysis this statement is, 1/1 = 1, 2/2 = 1, 3/3 = 1 `, and so on. If we imagine E to be one (everything) then one divided by two (into two factors), one divided into three parts or one divided into four units is the multiplicative way at looking at division. E = MC squared is a statement of Eternal Equivalence and is a simple Prime Truth.. The root understanding of All is equivalency and duality. Einstein must have been giggling a bit when her came up with this and “shocked the academic world.” This takes us right back to the AB. AB = BA as conceptually simultaneous.

Pure Conceptuality promised you an exciting adventure noting that the trip would be difficult paddling up stream passing though fresh and beautiful terrain while having to trust that the guide was competent just to paddle and steer while the landscape presents itself. As the mountain climber arrives at the peak we too have arrived at the head waters of our river adventure. Having all of the experience of the journey we should be able to cruise nicely back downstream and experience the landscape with a fresh perspective and from a different angle with less effort and a feeling of accomplishment. We now mutually have knowledge of a shared journey and fresh terrain.

Be sure to study pdfPC16a, 16b, 16c, 16d, 16e, 16f, 16g as they elucidate this chapter.