Translations of the Universe

By Bp. Joseph (Ancient Church of the West)

Chrysalis and Frog

A little boy saw a chrysalis dangling like a jade medallion, hanging from an otherwise bare twig. Filled with curiosity about what kind of treasure this was, he plucked it like a heavy fruit from the dead sprig, and peered at it in his cupped hand. It moved; a very un-fruit or jewel thing to do. It was alive. Life, so different and indefinable from the inanimate was beneath the surface, trapped within an origami box of greenish brown paper and silk. He knew that the thing inside this prison desired freedom. He knew this instinctively, for his heart was already filled with compassion for the wiggler. Pinching the corners and pulling with all his might, the silken strands that held the box together began to unravel. Pulling the tinsel past its strength, a half formed creature was revealed – somewhere between a worm and a wing. When he looked at the shape of the creature, he knew he had made a mistake; the bug was not of a useful form for the bigger world that now surrounded it. With a gentle toss, the worm landed on the forest floor, and the gem that once held it, so admired, was left where it fell. The boy went off to find a new toy. 

Man lives in a cocoon, in a web spun of ideas in which everything connected to everything else by associations, by analogy. His mind is a silk-spinning organ, attaching strand after strand to preexisting strands, eventually encircling his awareness with context and information. His reality is confined to the limited space of his self-enclosing view of the world. This process is necessary for survival: it is the ship in which he sails across the sea; it is the armor that he wears into battle; it is the planet that provides sustenance in a barren cosmos. If he were to suddenly leave this cocoon of the ideas he has assembled that make up his world, he would no more be able to survive than the bagworm dumped on the forest floor. He is not ready for the larger world that lies beyond. 

A season passed, and the boy saw a wild cherry tree, shrouded in a wispy veil, like an apparition. Its branches and leaves were dead, looking as if they had been scorched by fire. Silver gray silk was spun in the branches, like billows of unmoving smoke. He peered closer to see that beneath the layers of the silken gauze, thousands of caterpillars moved up and down the branches, crawling under and over each other, in hurried, thoughtless masses. Attempting to get a better view, he poked through the tightly woven strands with a stick, but although this construction was easier to tear than other cocoon, the effect was not the same. It wasn’t long before he realized that there was little he could do to play with the nest of worms. When one area was exposed, the worms migrated to a safer place higher up the trunk. He could do anything, short of chop the tree down, and it would have very little effect on this giant system of twisted silk strands. He walked away, in search of something that would furnish a more interesting adventure. 

Man is bounded. What he knows is a result of communication with other, equally bounded, positions, which firmly establish his own boundaries, and allows him to understand what is beyond his border by analogy. Experience cannot be trusted because of its dependence on one point of reference and observation, and it is therefore subjective. To gain a more objective position in the universe, man communicates his experiences, and forges strands of association that spun off of by thousands of others. Culture is formed in the process, and can be likened to the tent worm city in the cherry tree. Culture is not as easily torn apart as the singular cocoon of personal experience, and much can be done to culture without any effect on the lives of those that live within it. Culture is all of the inherited strands of association that tell how things work, rather than having to confirm everything through personal experience. Culture is sought for protection.

There are two ways that man finds himself taking shelter from the harsh reality of the universe. The first is like the bagworm, a singular weaver of philosophy and correlations – the man that thinks through things for himself, and sometimes the cocoon is actually their chrysalis, breaking open when they are ready to release them into the bigger world. The second is like the tent worms, relying on joint efforts for protection. This man lives under a flimsier canopy, but it often covers a larger area and has the added advantage of corresponding with thousands of other individuals. Tent worms never transform into winged beauties, however, and the purpose of their large cocoon is not to perfect but to protect from changes. 

The ancient Chinese proverb “jeen-dee-jer-wah” could be translated - “The frog living at the bottom of a well thinks that the sky is just the circle he sees.”

In this sense man is a well-dwelling frog, living at the bottom of the shaft of reality. The structure of reality is observable, but reality obstructs the view of what lies beyond its narrow borders.

It may be likened to the philosophical frog that was born in the well. His reasoning about the outside world may have been incredibly complicated, and his manipulation of the available information may have been agile, but the only way that the frog could come to know reality would be for someone to stick their head into the well and tell the frog what he saw. Even then, it would be hard for our deep-thinking frog to understand, for he would have nothing to associate the views expressed by the helpful head in the sky. The frog would understand more, but he still would not understand the descriptions that had been revealed to him. The one thing that would be clear, however, would be the place of the well. No longer would the well claim exclusive status in the plain of existence. The frog would understand that the well was in something, dependent on a greater structure, and that the earth that cradled the well had a greater relationship to the sky.

Despite all of the reasoning, our frog would not be able to fully define everything is his mind, and it would end as a matter of faith whether to believe the revelation that he had received. He would not have previous associations enough to guide a system of comparison outside of his reality.

Sentiency 

Man’s sentiency has been the most puzzling question for man; why does he want answers? His desire to understand the reason behind his own existence is the underlying motivation for the philosophy, art, religion, and politics of his questioning history. What makes man aware of his self and surroundings, and what gives him the ability to create an inner landscape of ideas and emotions has been the quest of many lifetimes. And at the end of the search, the philosophers that studied the stars and plumbed the depths of volcanoes still do not understand the simplest inner action that takes place within their souls. No amount of shouting on the tops of mountains, or rolling in the surf can reveal the source of his reality. He can discover the source of the Nile, hurl darts at the moon, and read the cryptic inscriptions of cuneiform baked into brick, but he cannot find meaning.

The desire of sentiency is for answers, and maybe the answer is in that desire? He employs observation as a tool, trying to use comparison to decode the information imbedded in the structures that surround him. It is as if the tumbler to the vault filled with answers is missing. No amount of sitting with his back against the cold vault door will succeed in opening it. All he has for a clue is the void where the tumbler used to sit. 

Philosophers have stated what seems to be the only objective thing in all of man’s subjective existence, “The only thing that man can know is man himself.” Man instantly blurts out his reply, the question that has always troubled him – “why am I like this?” If he looks for answers within himself, he finds a confusing pile of broken furniture through which to rummage for the few pieces that hang together with yellowing glue. The answers are not within, neither are they without. They are a puzzle of spindles and rods, cracked and beyond repair, and unrecognizable for the glorious contraption that it once was meant to be. The only other place that the lost information may hide is the place from whence it came – beyond. And neither in or out can get him there.

The Origin of Laws

Science holds that the laws governing observable phenomena are the innate qualities of the object’s material, maintaining that the same principles occur in diverse objects because of their common foundational building blocks. Thus, what we observe as a principle governing the behavior of an object actually emanates from that object. In this view, universal principles are illusory. The principle is actually an attribute of the material, and is thus a physical property of the material. With this perspective, it is expected that objects differing in material will also differ in operational quality. This assumption is true in a majority of cases, but a few exceptions point to a different possibility.

When objects of differing material operate in similar or identical ways, the theory of emanation gives way to the logical implications of animation. If two fundamentally differing objects present common operation, structure, sequence, or behaviors, the logical implication has a far-reaching consequence. The explanation is that the attribute is causal, and the material is effectual, and that the differing materials share the same causal quality. The material thus becomes an attribute of principle. All of the similar behavior observed in the universe then becomes a manifestation of common governing principles, rather than shared materials. The material world exists, or is animated, by principles that are beyond the physical plane. These are prescribed functions set within the foundation of existence.

The theory of emanation fails to explain the anomaly, while the theory of animation explains both the conformity to the rule, and the occasional exception. Animation becomes the logical choice. 

Thus, emanation erases the previously held idea that analogy is irrelevant source of information, which proves nothing more than a similarity of operation. The existence of concordant operations within differing systems is irrefutable evidence that principle links exist behind the actual structures. The universe is now understood to be a hologram, or a series of principle convergences, rather than principles being artificial convergences of unrelated material aspects within the mind of man.

Principle animation also explains the high degree of similarity that all orders of living things exhibit to one another. Evolution insists that this similarity shows a historic lineage, but this theory would insist on identical principle roots for the function of each living organisms information system, which allows it to live above the inert material plain and temporarily contradict the universal trend towards entropy. Thus, it is not lineage that determines life, but life’s connection to reality that allows it to function in its unique capacity. 

Sphere of Knowledge

Picture a single point in space, surrounded by a translucent sphere. The skin of the sphere is linked to its core by almost invisible filaments, which connect the inside surface of the bubble to its innermost point. Now imagine that this sphere, from any angle that you assume for observation, looks exactly the same because of the evenness of its proportions, and the perfect symmetry of the lines that correspond its center with its outer wall. As we examine the orb, we notice that the inner point is nothing more than the convergence of the lines flowing from the outside in, and to contrast, the nature of the outside wall is solid, causal and real, rather than the nature of the perceived point, which is convergent and effectual. 

Now we invert the image, with the sphere forming the center and the perspective, empty on the inside, with its outer wall forming the anchor for the thin strands to stretch out to every conceivable expansion of the visible. The strands extend through our observation point to some infinite place behind us, and before us to some infinite spot behind us. Now the picture is harder to see in our mind’s eye, but conceiving of such an image is not impossible. The sphere no longer retains its attributes of causality, but is reversed in function to the geometric convergence of lines; it has become a point and has ceased to demonstrate attributes of the definitive.

It is impossible to retain the sphere’s causality and definitive position if the image in inverted. The possibility conforms to the foundational law of causality in the universe, which is that causality becomes effectuality through inversion, thus retaining the nonnegotiable primacy of the boundary to create the core. By inverting our imagined picture in the second paragraph, we have simply incased our perspective in another sphere. The seeming boundlessness of the vast horizon to which the core is now connected is illusory to our perspective. Following this law, the lines of association drawn from the sphere to infinity connect to another skin of causality, otherwise the existence of the new sphere that we observe, the new point, would be impossible. 

1) Cause may not be suspended through inversion.

2) Cause becomes effect through inversion.

3) The resultant effect of inversion confirms the existence of another cause.

Now hold the first image in your mind, where the orb is perfectly related to the center, and imagine that you wished to take a cross-section of this orb for study. Where would use choose to slice through the causality skin? The widest area of the sphere, equidistant from all sides and framing the point is where most would choose to examine the sphere. Like cracking a glass marble down the middle with a chisel, once the two halves were split, they would form two equal parts. You could then observe exactly the same pattern of a circle framing a corresponding central point, made of innumerable lines descending from the outer wall to the core. The view on two sides would be essentially the same, but you have added another dimension to the sphere by cracking it, that of the crescent side. From this perspective you will notice that you exactly half of the previous pattern, still observable from two different perspectives. The view that is confirmed by all angles we will chose to call the universal view. The view obtained by an analysis of the crescent we will call the partial view. 

There are other ways in which you may examine cross-sections of the sphere. If you cut the sphere in non-equidistant fashions, of which there is an infinite variety, you get many different variations of the same orb as “slides” of different diameter and composition. If a shallow sample is taken from the orb, the resulting slide will show a pattern of concentric circles formed where the lines of association between the skin and the core were severed, and the core which is featured in the universal view will be conspicuously absent. What is observed in the nature of the sample will relate directly to how the sample was taken. An unbalanced sample will not reflect the truth of the structure of the whole, or reveal the actual structure of the sample itself. These other views we will call subjective views. 

Remember that the point was an abstraction, or a meaningful symbol, of any given object, situation, or thing. The object exists as a convergent derivative of many different properties. The object is a hologram of attributes that exist beyond the singular point of the objects existence. The common term for attributes that exist beyond the material and can be extracted trough the application of Law is information. Each object, therefore, is a punctual manifestation of a system of information that forms the indefinable skin of the orb.

Because subjective samples of attributes cannot establish the view of the entire object, they must be overlapped to create a definitive boundary, which then defines the quality of the observed object. The necessity of comparison between objects arise when the assumption is made that all objects share the same basic material and thus manifest the same qualities. Those that assume unity of governance do not need to compare or overlap, because the laws that govern the creation of the boundary are the same for everything. Those who assume the unity of principle do not need comparison.

Perfectly correspondent comparisons are seen by science as the only way to discern absolute truth, which is seen as impossible for finite man to attain, because of the subjectivity of the scientific comparative method. The order of greatest to least is used to sight the objects upon one another, for the discovery of the ultimate principle. This borrows from an older technique, the Chain of Existence Philosophy, the "Analogia Entis," while denying the original any authority. 

Translations

The universe is the source text for all knowledge in science. Translation of the universe is an indefinite process whereby the comparison of articles establishes boundaries, which enable the Locus (λ) to interpret reality in reverse streaming order, comprehending full correspondences within systems that reveal the reason “why” things hold the places and perform the functions that they do. This view often excludes the point of observation, the Locus, from correspondences with the objects observed, or the motivation is to place direct control over the object studied into the hands of the Locus, rejecting the preexistent system’s structure that may have positioned the area of study outside of the normal function of the Locus. 

The process of overlap and knowledge within the human experience can be pictured above, with seemingly random relationships and lines of influence converging on each individual perspective, and leading to a non-defined parameter to each person’s personal universe. The lines can be understood as possible variation within a type, self-estimation of the ability to change, or experience with the world through contact or knowledge defined. These lines are subjective, and drawn towards the center of observation by the center, which is in itself only a convergence of lines, only able to define self by this pattern of overlap. The particular (λ) is defined, but the true outer boundary of divergence from type, or general description of that experience, the generality (γ) is not truly understood. Thus, the larger context is lost, and the peripheries of life’s possibilities are unexplored. Science tries to remedy this problem through allowing knowledge to function as communication, and to establish markers where experience overlaps to create artificial boundaries to the universe, and thus establish true correspondence with the principles in effect through the universe and control their effect on mankind. It can be pictured below.

The more experience can be communicated, and the more lines defining the λ can be drawn, the better able the λ can define the boundary of the γ. The γ can only be filled in when overlap occurs many times and establishes a frequency pattern in the overlap of many different λ positions. The γ can then be defined by fixing its place by an average.

The overlaps with other sentiency fields create new cruxes, which are closed associated with the purpose of those fields, enough to be called the “why zone”, seeing that they sufficiently explain the hierarchy of causality and correspondence of objects within their frame. 

The places of overlap become artificial λ in the observation, and things are tied to those abstract points of information in order to explain the purpose of function within the universe. This removes the true λ from correspondence with its own γ, and promotes a kind of obscurity and abstraction that divorces sentiency from the motivation, the question “why”. The γ then become a manifestation of the subset λ.

Principle can be proven to exist beyond material through logic, and logic itself is the usage of principle. Knowledge only exists through principle, thus establishing the mind of man with the foundations of the universe, and the material plain with information and Principle.

Patterns of similar operation occur through the varied systems within creation, often working in identical processes or serving identical functions, within totally non-related material spheres. These identical operations are called principles, but they are not mere coincidental occurrences of seemingly identical function, which differ in origin; they are manifestations of the same governing principle through many different channels. 

If objects of differing material demonstrate identical or similar operations; then, it can be concluded that their mode of operation is determined beyond their material by principles.

If principle determined the definitive attributes; then, material objects reflect the reality of non-material existence.

If principle exists beyond material reality, governing its function, but remaining unaffected by mater; then, principle does not need material to exist, and thus principle is found causal to material. (If one does not need the other, but the other needs the one for existence, it is then logical that the one is causal and the other is effectual. Principle thus causes function, but function does not cause principle.)

If cause is found in the under girding structure of principle; then, the order reflected in the structure of principle is a governing factor of principle. Order is therefore the structural aspect of principle.

If order exists independently of principle; then, order is causal to principle. 

If order is causal to principle, what is the definition of order?

If differing in material, but behaving in similar or identical manners, may be explained as demonstrations of principles of unified origin; then, the characteristics and qualities of an object exist independently of that object.

If attributes exist as principle, outside of the physical object, and are projected upon particular points by a greater universal position; then, by extension, we may conclude that there are actual entities existing beyond the realm of the material.

If the principles give objects their definition, then they must be equated with the cause of the physically observable qualities.

Postscript

When I discovered this train of thought on my journey through Chinese philosophy and culture, absorbed in the comparative study of Buddhism and Christianity, I suddenly began to make sense of the world and my own experience. I finally was able to see how life, survival, and our correspondence to reality, and even how humanity learns through analogy, were legitimate forms of understanding the world through a principle-based capacity. When I realize this, instantly, I was free to learn and see meaning in my own associations, and see truth in human constructs like culture and religion. Contemporary minds are biased against this kind of thinking from a very young age, but without this very old, very traditional way of seeing the world, all things lose meaning and there is no Truth possible in the world. What we end up with is a Gothic fatalism in which everything becomes a matter of narrative and aesthetics, and in which the completely free and disconnected individual floats in a see of disconnected images, and only finds real delight in pain, suicide, and self-exinction. This IS the necessary outcome of such a philosophy, because life can only occur as a reflection of reality, and this reality can only be understood as our minds find the principles that link our logic to the eternally changing contexts of the universe. “Principle”, the silken strands that tie unrelated and divergent areas together into categories of similarity, ultimately leads to “Mind”, the “Logos” of St. John, Philo, Plato, and the Ancient Sages. It is this Mind that thinks the world into being, the Mind that my mind reflects, and this is the Mind that Christ and His Holy Church reveal to the world. Eternal, Unchanging, All-Loving, All-Creating, Life-Giving, and Full of Light!