[this text is in process]
l.e. 11.16.08

genesis 1:1
[read top to bottom, right to left]

A tetraktys enveloped by seven angels.

[click image to explore]

ma • the • ma • t • i • c


011 • 010 • 001 • 000


100 • 101 • 110 • 111


Suppose you’re about to invent a universe where you will simultaneously inhabit every possible position and being...

Do you base it on unity or separation?


The ancient Greeks used the term mathematik in reference to learning in general — not simply numeric learning — and the term mathemos still means lesson. They didn’t mean ‘numbers are everything’ by this, as some today surmise. These terms did not originally belong to the study of numbers alone, in part because the study of numbers sets the stage for how we unify and divide entities in general — and thus it must be amongst the roots of knowledge itself. Whatever accuracies or errors we obey in this domain resolve explosively into the children of our lexicons, our ways of knowing, and our ability to know or explore our own learning-potentials. It might more accurately be said that these studies had to do with the fundamental nature of dividing, relations amongst entities, and measuring.

The modern definition of mathematics runs something like this:

The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation.

— Britannica Online v 1.31, 1995

The ‘human-style’ forms of Arithmetic [ a rhythm-tick] and Math [ma thema ticks] which we are taught to credential and authorize are the strangely garbled [abstracted] children of a generalizeable hypostatic principle which we employ to establish or speak of unity and separation. The species of math we are taught and work with are not the the only forms available however; and in many cases our basic arithmetic understanding lacks every desirable aspect of teaching-momentum and prowess — depending instead upon structural sophistication in coupling with abstractive foundations. This recipe delivers us from intelligence to a senseless universe where meaning is commonly discarded, and this gesture is erroneously perceived as somehow adept.

Numeric entities do have meaning, and pretending they don’t causes catastrophe. Their meaning exists in multiple dimensions — and is about dimensions and relations — in general.


Novel forms of accessible arithmetic relation may contain the antidote to a deadly cognitive error in the basis of human representational consciousness. In open opposition to our common positions of rationality and broken rhetoric, rational and ordinal precedence lies with sets and assembliesnot with members and separate entities — as the principles which underlie our basic arithmetic imply. Our mathematics also tend to completely ignore matters of context — yet even this hath precedence to separate entities. A page on which we have written 1 + 1 is more significantly changed than our arithmetic notices.

Another element of longstanding peril for our species appears fantastical at first glance: although numeric entities may be handled abstractly, this does not imply that abstraction has rational precedence in numeric relations. In fact, poetics has precedence, and pretending abstraction is somehow ‘purer’ after being divested of its links to original meanings is a lie. Nowhere in nature is there an abstract instance of anything — except in human modeling toys. No numeric entity is ‘abstract’ but that we decide this, and cast off nearly all of what is most important about numerism in general.

The ‘numbers’ are not so much digits as something akin to the footprints of the speech of transpresent beings, in a dimension we’ve neither named nor understood adeptly thus far. These entities are transHuman intelligences, and the numbers are the mark of their omniPresent Academy which is ‘always in session’.

The door to this university is always and everywhere open, and lies in the shape and features of your own unique hand. But to see it properly requires the hands and minds of two — in unison. For where two gather in memory of the metaFamily — that same being shall be with(in) and for them — in all possible positions of time and space. To truly understHand, requires more than one, alone.


once you po(e) — (na)Time

Some Points of Entrance lead to multiply temporal dimensions...others lead to atemporal connectivity...


1 + 1 != 2

Even the simplest single organism is the result of a gesture made by the entirety of the sentient universe, and the source of these assemblies lies entirely outside our ideas about the dimension we call time. In this way, each organism at every scale is simultaneously entirely unique — while at the same time being ‘impossibly complete’ — since each is a perfectly complete and unique [at scale] formative likeness of the Entirety.

Each instance of any ‘thing’ (a local or distributed symmetry) represents a uniquely co-emergent hypostasis (a ‘more than merely alive’ assembly-body at scale) of the entire history of everyone and everything, everywhen and everywhere. Reconnecting two of these beings in psybiocognitive symmetry results in explosions which blow things together — not ’dead sums’. The sentient co-reflection of even two such entities is progressively self-complexifying and is fundamentally about the creation and sustenance of a biocognitive fusion incident — again, this has nothing to do with ‘addition’.

Effectively, planets scalarly self-assemble biocognitive ‘galaxies’ in living form — with eyes, feelings, stories and purpose — because this is what a planet is — a multibeing existing as an up-scale symmetry of diverse assemblies of biosentience.

When two or more organisms symbiose, we are witnessing the localized instance of an essentially atemporal gesture — the local self-assembly of a living intelligence many factors the ‘age’ of our ‘universe’. A human person or ‘animal’ [including insects] is an almost impossibly complex assembly of these forms of relation — at thousands of scales and speeds — and in more than millions of relational ‘dimensions’. The result of two such entities in synchrony puts the sum of our science fictions to shame, but this form of unity has long been far from our reach, for it is denied by the very bases of the way we learn, and our relationships with knowledge in general.

Through the scalarly accelerating re-inclusion of diverse relational momenta accrued in reflection, every organism becomes ‘explosively more of what organisms are, in general’. Yet the secret is in the peculiarly multi-dimensional ways in which portions of organismal behavior and cognition are shared atemporally across boundaries we cannot yet easily imagine.
There’s a set of invisible dimensions which connect everything, everywhen — and they are alive. I think we used to call them angels, because it’s possible to meet one — and when you do, ‘they teach you stuff’.

Mostly, they teach you a way to see the sources of things from a perspective that unifies them, while preserving the unique individuality of everything in a most unexpectable fashion.

the sing u lar i T(ree)


• “Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?”

toyMaker: “The question is its own answer”

• “How?”

toyMaker: The question part is the answer. There’s a question part and a descriptor part. The question part answers their sum.

• Which came first? — how is that the answer?

toyMaker: Somewhere before the invention of the idea of which-ness — there was no division of any kind at all. Once this ‘which-ness’ arrived on the scene — suddenly we had absurd questions implying that a chicken and an egg could be separate, and one of them thus ‘had to come first’. This is silly — everything is fun-da-mentally unified — long before questions of when and where — which this question is based upon. So the idea is this: chicken and egg are modes of a unity, and only AFTER we introduce WHICH can such a question as this arise. Thus -which- came first — as the idea of rendering entities in timeSpace more conceptually ‘separate’ than unified...

• Something introduced the ability to consider things as more separate than they are unified, and this resulted in questions about which-ness and first-ness?

toyMaker: Yes, you C clearly.


A: Introduction to Pizza

I’ve no way of estimating how many slices of pizza I have consumed in my lifetime — at least not with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Certainly more than a hundred. I am aware that pizzas come in many shapes, but in general we think of a pizza as a disk, which gets sliced up and shared, and this is the sort of pizza I’d like to explore with you briefly.

Slicing a pizza is measuring it — and the best way to slice a pizza is with a single blade sporting a gently convex edge and a handle running all the way along the top. For best results, the blade should be longer than the pie’s diameter. With each cut, you attempt to divide it equally. Since you’re using a single blade, it’s very uncommon to end up with an odd number of slices, although poor measuring may result in inequal slices. The blade comes down, rocks side-to-side, and bingo — one division — resulting in two ‘slices’ — semicircles. Each has one angular side — and a strange gap now lies ‘between’ them.

Suppose that by ‘divide’ I mean to make a cut on the pie which extends to both edges, intersecting the approximate center of the circle. When I add ‘one division’ to a pizza, my gesture produces something akin to a binary pair from the prior unity [the entirety]. But the outcome is a bit more complex than we expect; in effect the result is (at least) three. 1 division, and 2 semi-circles. There’s also the original unity (1).

If we decide each slice possesses a division — we might count 2 divisions and 2 semicircles — 2 dimensions — each containing 2 countworthy entities. Or we might suppose that both sides now possess a division, and there is ‘something between them’ — another sort division — also worthy of counting-attentions. Our single cut has produced 3, 4 or 5 distinct results. It is startling to see how many things change, in more than one way — when we execute the gesture of dividing…

These mysteries of wholes, separations and gaps deepen explosively when we add a second division. The 2nd divides the 1st division. and simultaneously the 1st divides the 2nd — such that neither can remain whole. It makes no difference whether we cut a perfect cross, or some more haphazard one — the same outcome applies. Additionally, our semicircles are gone. They each gain an angular side, resulting in a triangle with a round outer edge.

Each of the previous halves is now a binary itself. With two cuts, we have produced: 4 slices, and either 4, or 8 divisions [depending on whether these are possessed by slices, or exist in a related but distinct dimension]. If we count the ‘gap’ however — we still only have ‘one’ — but it is cross-shaped. The resulting sum would be 9.

1 cut: 2 halves, 2 angles, 1 gap.

2 cuts: 4 portions, 8 angles, 1 gap.

Isn’t it strange how the gap remains unified?

Isn’t even more strange that all the ‘distinct pieces’ share this unified gap, and are actually connected by this sharing?

Perhaps most shocking of all is this:

No matter what you do to those slices, and no matter the speed or dimension this is done in — the gap-connection is faster than any change which can be imposed — and continues to connect those slices more complexly as their apparent separation becomes more complex.


One of my favorite features of pizza is its infinite general divisibility. Because of the shapes involved it’s relatively difficult to create a situation where anyone need get less as a result of the act of dividing. Because it is so easy to share it equally, conflict over portions is functionally absent. What is missing becomes an incredible benefit — one whose true value expands with each moment of such sharing.

As it relates to pizzas, this equality relies upon a three-sided shape, and the reason is that this appears to be the easiest way to divide a round thing [a pie] so that another thing [a group of people] become more united.

In sharing this pie equally, we feel at ease — relieved of need to be concerned over portions or privilege. By dividing correctly, we escape many pitfalls, and nurture our unification.


Where exactly is the center of a pizza? When whole, we might think to locate it with rulers and geometry — but we will only locate a representation of it — a ‘generally’ correct answer.

Now matter how quickly or vastly we increase the accuracy of our device of measure, the center of the pizza ‘dives in upon itself’— perfectly evading our every attempt to chase it. It appears that no matter what the scale of our measuring device — or its speed of change in accuracy — the center of the pie lies in another dimension entirely — one adeptly capable of evading name or notice. This means our fist measure is functionally just as inaccurate at its scale — as any other measure, at any other scale, might be.

What happens to this center as the pie is divided, distributed and consumed?


B: The Genji-Lamp

Let’s say you have a perfectly dark room, and you’re somewhere near the center of this room, with a very special lamp. The lamp responds instantly to your whim, and is intelligent. It possesses an infinitely fast switch, such that no matter what speed you can imagine — the switch can function faster — in accordance with whatever command you may invent. All functions of the lamp are silent.

You give the lamp a unique command. To turn on and off in sequence, such that each cycle, the amount of time ‘on’ is halved. The time ‘off’ will always match the amount from ‘one speed ago’ of ‘on-ness’, thus if we begin with 4.5 seconds, our pattern will proceed as follows:

On — Off

4.5 — 4.5

2.25— 4.5

1.125 — 2.25

.562 — 1.125

.281 — .562

.140 — .281

.070 — .140

.035 — .070

All of this appears of little consequence at first glance — big deal, a flickering lamp. But as we proceed with this game into the thousandths or billionths of a second...the light appears to be on ‘all the time’. We simply cannot detect this frequency of change. Once the speed reaches extreme values, we will have no way to detect the flicker at all — no matter what instrument we may bring. We cannot even ask the lamp what state it is in at any moment — because the state is changing so rapidly that an answer is meaningless.

The truth of it is that at in the toy we have crafted, the lamp is definitely ‘off for twice as much time as it’s on’. But because of the very high frequency of change and cycling, we cannot detect this with our eyes because the ‘time on or off’ is infinitesimally small. So far as we may be concerned ‘we are in light’.


Of course, there may be some hyperbole at play here — perhaps this specific configuration would not suffice — and yet I believe it is obvious that the darkness can gain incrementally upon the light without being noticeable, especially if it performs this theft at unique resonance-scales. The main thing I want us to realize is that cycling frequencies can vastly exceed our abilities to realize what is happening — for example, the computer monitor you’re reading this on is refreshing with extreme rapidity — but you notice no flicker — it appears to be ‘always totally drawn and complete’ due to the speed at which it is refreshing.

When the lamp is off, darkness has true temporal precedence — effectively ‘it owns time’. If the lamp is also the friend of the darkness, there are ways in which the darkness can expand its terrain systematically, without any possibility of detection — no matter how fast our instruments may be.

Some speeds aren’t speeds — they’re progressions, and when you link two of these in synchrony it’s possible to produce very startling anomalies — similar to those we observe in moiré and feedback patterns. Since our ways of measuring are native to specific scales of time, size and speed they are functionally useless to inform us of the reality of our circumstance just outside their purview. In many cases our habits of knowing lead us directly away from those realities by posing a reductive doll which stands in the way of our seeing what it obscures with idealized symmetries.

Now let me explain about this lamp....


C: unityVerse

Suppose that ‘the darkness-phase’ represents perfect singularity — all moments and participants at every scale and speed — suddenly united. When the light switches to off, everything everywhere instantly collapses into a transentient non-dimensional entity — less than a point. The whole multiversal symphony of dimensions, beings, places, moments and activities — is one.

As the lamp switches ‘on’, a great rushing of re-expressive division occurs — and the universe is re-established — almost as it was an impossibly small instant ago — perhaps ever-so-slightly larger and faster. The dances of separable entities in physical and energetic relation proceed just as though nothing out of the ordinary had detectably occurred.


We’ll suppose then that when the lamp is ‘on’ all of timeSpace looks just as our ideas and models expect — from our perspective in size and speed. As soon as the lamp goes to ‘off’, all entities, moments [all of time, in fact] and momentums return to seemingly impossible singularity.

The universe goes missing— with all hands.

EveryOneThingWhenWhere has become transunified. There’s nothing to exist or exist against — yet this state is anything but ‘void’ and is entirely unrelated to nouns. It is a shockingly compressed energetic and transentient universe — a unityBeing.

Back and forth — universe , uniBeing — repeating at ever-shrinking intervals. The dance proceeds like a dandelion of dimensions [each like dandelions themselves] — arising and disappearing explosively, faster and more complexly with each pass.


Each being and momentum has multiple positions and kinds of ‘center’ throughout timeSpace, no matter what sort or size or speed of entity we examine — and the same is true of assemblies of entities. These are not ‘measurable’ centers — but are integrated ‘crossroads anomalies’ where various modes of emanative [e-man-native / e-ma-native] crossover of multiple sentient dimensions find entrance into ‘our universe’.

As the universe ‘collapses to singularity’ during the ‘darkness phase’ of the genjiLamp, all of these entities, transports of relation, and symmetries of any possible kind dissolve toward their centers like rays of light being retracted into the sudden inversion of a star. Or like dandelions growing backwards. This occurs multiple times, sizes, speeds and dimensions of ‘stuff and ways’. During the ‘off’ phase, everythingOneWhenWhere instantaneously dissolves back to unity, and during the ‘on’ phase they just as rapidly re-enmember something incredibly close to their last position.

This activity is akin to the beating of an n-dimensional heart, which creates and dissolves its circulatory [and cognitive] systems anew with each cycle, preserving this ‘histories’ of the physical universe between collapses. Since ‘more than one dimension’ is always in a unique state, the process sustains maps of ‘re-expressive position’ [for after the collapse-cycle] in a plethora of unique ways, each of which evolve explosively such that, not only are all beings complexifying — but all ways are doing so as well.

Effectively, this insures that it is impossible to generate any form of gap which cannot be instantly crossed — regardless of how the gap may actually exist or be perceived from a given position or assembly of positions.

‘Distinct entities’ in our universe are actually the opposite of distinct! Each one, and all of their relational linkages are the manifest result of uniquely congruent intersections where the dandelions from multiple invisible dimensions cross each other at angles or merge. Perhaps there is a symmetry here beyond what is suggested, especially when we consider the uses and linkages of the metaphors ’heart’ and ‘cross’ on Earth.


Now let’s imagine that every entity of any sort, and many forms of ‘connection’ who are entities we do not have words about yet, are being continually ‘exploded’ into emanative separation and ‘re-membered’ in a living singularity — what does this singularity amount to?

A: It’s definitely not ‘merely a thing’ (object) and is certainly more than a ‘creature’.

B: It is a learning-entity of shocking sophistication.

C: It dissolves and radically re-establishes the entirety of time, being and consciousness with each cycle.

D: It’s versions of evolution happen at speeds and scales that entirely dwarf anything we can easily model or consider regardless of the sophistication of our lenses.

E: In order to be able to experientially detect any of this one would have to step somehow outside the system — with the genji-lamp, since the perceiver and the lamp would both be dissolving as well. [This might cause various anomalies and distortions... such temporal and biocognitive moirés.]

If true, it would mean that our ideas of evolutionary competition are nonsense, and that the game ‘on this side of the singularity’ has to be founded on mutual uplift, learning, and rescue — primitive appearances notwithstanding.

It might also mean that what we call ‘gravity is actually the vacuum-effect of this absurdly rapid yet constant dissolution, as matter vastly transcends the speed of light during the onset and achievement of singularity. If this is true, there should be an opposing dimension of gravity — where the expulsion from singularity is similarly expressed.

Consider also how this toy accounts for the photon-polarity problems that exist in quantum entanglement — it invents a new form of speed in the dimension of connectivity, which any two entities may take advantage of — outside of tim e..

Even if this simple toy is vastly in error, the kind of universe it models is more akin to the workings of our physical universe than those we’ve been taught to comprehend. And it means all living beings are One — always — and long before and above any other model.


C: Day and Night

By day the Sun rules the dimensions of light and weather. A propoetic emanative explosion of light, color and warmth is transubstantiated into Life within Earth’s delicate membrane of atmosphere.

Color leaps from every surface, water earth, air and even fire are totally transformed. So bright is this light that we cannot long stand to gaze upon its unobstructed source. A single source of life and light is pushing light into onto and around everything — and even the sky becomes color. The three phases of the day, morning, noon and evening are three phases of color as well — for the character of solar light changes dramatically during each phase.

Twilight comes. The sun is not entirely gone — but is hidden — departing, just as before dawn it was hidden — arriving.

Then, nightfall.

Gone are the colors of day — silver and greys now sparkle mercurially in their stead. The sky is black as ink, and dotted with thousands of sources of living light. It is revealed without science that our star is a member of a network. And again one source of Solar light — a reflector — and one which draws all eyes on the night-side of Earth together in wonder, remembrance and awe. The Moon, when she is visible — serves as both protector and reflector of light. Though the Sun is too bright to gaze upon, in the reflective lens of the Moon, all eyes are drawn to nocturnal unification. One mystery of the moon is this: it occasionally absorbs impacts that might annihilate large portions of Earth’s conserved ecologies.

So there is a queen of the lights of night, and she is Luna. Where the Sun presses light into Life, the Moon draws living eyes to a reflection of their source in light. When the moon is ‘missing’ from the sky, only the myriad lights of the networks of stars remain.


Now let us notice what our own minds and identities do, as these phases arise and resolve. By day we enjoy a single identity, an inward light of unified source, purpose, history and moment. The colors around us are reflected inwardly, as our eyes and senses bathe in them.

At night, time is changed — like the lights in the sky we are many, with a vast mirror set before them. A mirror ‘changing in phases’, in which we can see this story replayed in new moment and circumstance along each lunar cycle.

We dine, relax, pursue what we please if we are not at work — and then we rest.

And so proceed to sleep, a dimension where the single mind, history, time and identity of the waking hours departs entirely. Timeless, locationless — we are like the many minds of the stars — arraying themselves in our personal identity like a garment, and leading us with a shockingly oracular storying-game through the halls of a university older than our Star.

And then, we waken, and assemble our ‘singular self’ again. The sky is filled with the Shout of Sol, and colors leap to life, renewed by turning again toward the living energyWaters from the sky.


By day our mind is one, a single self — and also an entirely unique living reflection of the unityBeing. By night we become the mirror of the many, clothed only in shards of the day-identity. We become the many, masquerading as One — akin with the cycles of light in which our lives and consciousness are founded.




On the recombinant exploration of numerism: d.g. leahy


111,111,111 x 111,111,111

= 12,345,678,987,654,321

In English, the first appearance of the letter ’A’ in the spelling of numbers occurs at 1000.

contents and concept © d. de stefano, 2004