Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
Shades of Hofstadter, Bateson, Varela, Cantor, Whitehead...Russell, G. Spencer Brown...? You don't get fixed-point recursion from the back of a box of Wheaties do you? I'm going to go on the assumption that the higher mathematics underlying systems theory and the like were intuited by our distant ancestors in India, China, Egypt, Greece, the Middle-East and the Americas and translated into calendar/mythology, alchemy, medicine, geometry, acoustics, music and temple architecture and cosmology. What really hauls my chain is how it translates into ceremonial magick. That is probably another thread, but unless I'm totally off-base you are saying that number is neither a cultural artifact nor yet a Platonic reality but rather a (structural) process.
Post automatically merged:
In which case, number is not a "thing". It is pre-conceptual. It is, in fact, what reality does, and we are participants in that.
Post automatically merged:
It is commonly assumed that sacred geometry was how the ancients understood the laws of nature/the divine by which humankind was to govern their lives when in fact it reflected the laws of human nature projected outward, seeing as how the forms of Euclidean geometry do not actually exist in nature, although the mathematical patterns themselves are everywhere in evidence. Ergo, number is where consciousness and matter actually meet.
I did catch the Spencer-Brown reference — Laws of Form is practically required reading for anyone who deals with boundaries, recursion or operative magic.
Wheaties don’t teach that, true… but neither does listing surnames instead of articulating the structure behind them.
What I’m modelling isn’t the sacred-geometry-as-symbolism approach, but the operational mechanics of differentiation.
A system moves the moment it can choose a direction — everything else is ornamentation.
So yes, we probably agree more than it seems.I just prefer frameworks that survive contact with the field rather than lecture notes.
I did catch the Spencer-Brown reference — Laws of Form is practically required reading for anyone who deals with boundaries, recursion or operative magic.
Wheaties don’t teach that, true… but neither does listing surnames instead of articulating the structure behind them.
What I’m modelling isn’t the sacred-geometry-as-symbolism approach, but the operational mechanics of differentiation.
A system moves the moment it can choose a direction — everything else is ornamentation.
So yes, we probably agree more than it seems.I just prefer frameworks that survive contact with the field rather than lecture notes.
I do have the books and the footnotes, but really, as far as the field is concerned they are pretty much useless. They don't translate to where I am at when I'm doing magick. Like, at all.
Hell, my head couldn't so much as find my face without a recursive mirror. May as well ask a cabbage to run on Windows.
I do have the books and the footnotes, but really, as far as the field is concerned they are pretty much useless. They don't translate to where I am at when I'm doing magick. Like, at all.
Hell, my head couldn't so much as find my face without a recursive mirror. May as well ask a cabbage to run on Windows.
You know, for someone who claims the books are ‘useless’, you reference them with the enthusiasm of a man who secretly hopes recursion will finally wink back.
But alright — if your head needs a recursive mirror just to locate itself,
maybe that is the whole experiment.
Still… I’d love to see what your system actually DOES,
