It is said - although I don't quite believe it - that the Hebrew Bible is the word of God, and that the ancient Hebrew scribe-priests-mystics created,
or perhaps, discovered, the secret semiotic structure of reality, and then embedded it in the Hebrew Bible.
It's a fascinating and interesting perspective, and indeed, according to Alex Shalom Kohav, author of The Sod Hypothesis, the Hebrew bibles narrative
should be understood in terms of the concept of "emergence", so that the setting, topic and object of the narrative can be interpreted in terms of
inferential, conferential, and deferential functions of interpretation. The books quite a hefty one, and requires, as Kohav warns the reader, a
background in many different academic fields. It's a difficult and complex read, but definitely worth the effort if you want to understand what it is
that is being discussed.
And what is being discussed, by the way? Isn't all of this, from the so-called "pythagorean illuminati", going all the way back to ancient Greece (or
so the legend goes) and forming the esoteric core of all world religions, as the Germans were keen to make clear in the 18th and 19th centuries: they
were "Aryans", which meant, apparently, carriers of an ancient and sacred tradition?
The more perceptive gnostic must feel a bit queasy with this revisionist history, and not really believe it. But why?
My thinking along these lines is purely that of a philosophical historian. I do not care for narratives because my education in fields relavant to
human-functioning - neurosciences, anthropology, ethology, psychology, cell-biology - precludes me from not asking "is this yet another deception"?
Were so full of them, Human beings.
Were full of them because people like the Krupps, Rothschilds, Warburgs, etc, live a fantasy-story based upon a metaphysical dualism which has
persisted for a profoundly long time among human beings.
As Umberto Eco alludes to in his opening scene in Foucaults Pendulum
“How could I endure in the midst of that foul concatenation of diesel genitals and turbine-driven vaginas, the inorganic throats that once had
flamed, steamed and hissed, and might again that very night? Or maybe they would buzz like stag beetles or chirr like cicadas amid those skeletal
incarnations of pure, abstract functionality, automata able to crush, saw, shift, break, slice, accelerate, ram, and gulp fuel, their cylinders
sobbing. Or they would jerk like sinister marionettes, making drums turn, converting frequencies, transforming energies, spinning flywheels. How could
I fight them if they came after me, instigated by the Masters of the World, who used them as proof – useless devices, idols only of the bosses of
the lower universe – of the error of creation?”
The language Eco uses conceals the metaphysical image he is painting: the "concatenation of diesel genitals and turbine driven vaginas" is equivalent
to this statement of CS Peirce's:
“There may for aught we know be a thousand other kinds of relationship which have as much to do with connecting phenomena and leading from one to
another, as dynamical and social relationships have. Astrology, magic, ghosts, prophecies, serve as suggestions of what such relationships might
I am picking up on Peirce's trail, motivated by the same sort of insights that he was. Do you see where he is going? The man was a lion of the mind:
willing and able to move purely as a function of what episteme showed him; 'abduction', or his term for how aspects of the environment are
intrinsically linked with the inference-chains of our cognitive-mind, such that we 'abduct', and from abduction, move to infer or hypothesize, after
which we can engage in induction - or experimentation - described the very dialectical structure of consciousness in a way far more clearly than Hegel
was ever able to do with his very general thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic.
Pierce is purer, truer, at a higher level. Europe failed to reach the heights that Charles Sanders Peirce brought the human mind; and from the
influence of Peirce has come many of our most important thinkers: Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Umberto Eco, Thomas Sebeok, John Deely, and the whole
field of modern biosemiotics. The popular new age philosopher Ken Wilbur also considers Peirce an important influence.
Peirce, unlike Hegel, operates from a perspective that tries to make clear the semiotic or meaning relationship that emerges between one thing and
another thing. Jakob von Uexkull importantly thought up the idea of point-counterpoint; but perhaps he took it from a much more ancient way of
thinking popular in the east:
The eternal symbol; the archetype of reality. The very root and base of what we are. There is nothing else but this.
What the biosemiotic perspective allows, in effect, is an understanding of the evolution of meaning on planet Earth. A very exciting and important
Look at the following image for how the various "worlds" of our planet emerge:
This is a neat little image; I thought it all up and it seems to be expressive of a fundamental reality - or so i fancy.
Look at the three elements present within it. The hydrosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere: chemical domains and boundaries; but from these
boundaries, originally starting with the first, but spreading out into the second, and then into the third, the fourth world emerges: the biosphere.
The beautiful biosphere gave rise to a large ecological being - a continuum of energy transformation built around, so says Harold Morowitz, the TCA
cycle - or core metabolism - of life. The logic he uses is brilliant
[I]“We begin with the ecosystem as a level of organization, which we believe supersedes the importance of the organism for both the earliest stages
of origin, and certain aspects of long term organization of the biosphere and constraints on evolutionary dynamics within it. "
As Morowitz titles his book, his interest is the emergence of the "4th Geosphere".
Whereas mine may be described as the emergence of the fifth, and the rules the fifth appear to operate by:
Yes. The star is not an arbitrary figure, but a representamen - an objective emergent symbol (geometric-semiotic) which stands at the top of Jacobs
proverbial ladder, whereas the point-counterpoint of a simple cell-relation stands within - the 'logic' of the organization being organized partly by
the highrst level attractor.
Ok. Understand? This is the logic of the star, and the logic of any geometric figure that is used follows a similar matching. Arithmetic, counting,
and the meaning. Because emergence moves as it does, it cannot help but "abduct" from that which the system is already sensitive to receive. Thus, a
real magical science is here; something unusual, but real, but not so real where we fall into the rut of thinking that there is not some underlying
And what is that structure but I just mentioned above? Yin-Yang. The so-called "gods" are nothing more than emergent qualities - or values of
self-with-other relations. Take the "self-with-other" as a unit, and you are interfacing with Yin. The "you", is the observer of your Yang. The
metaphor of the human body goes like this: the penis is the mind, and the vagina is the body. The power symbol on my and your computer represents this
symbolism vert well: a line protruding into a...
edit on 14-1-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)