The Chandelier

9/21/03:

It is a SunDay, and I have arranged a job for the afternoon. I am going to a couple’s home to help a machine there to stop malfunctioning, which will in turn help the people there. I have been doing this for many years: finding ways to keep machines from malfunctioning in order to help the people who are with the machines. I think most people believe I do this to make money — but I have never created money — and if I am to create something, I prefer it to be something that directly eliminates peril and stress for others — or is fun, and connects people. I don’t even like money, and I do not believe that it serves those purposes well. I think that it’s a bad idea, and a very dangerous one. However, like other people, money is required for my continued subservience to it...

In my duties as a troubleshooter, I can sometimes be pretty impatient once I discover the pathology of a problem (which linguistically seems related to ‘that from which a blemish will arise’) — and my desire is usually that it be quickly reSolved (in)to a better arrangement.

Though I am careful in my work — I do not have the sorts of concerns that I would be subject to were I working on living creatures instead of machines. Having once spent a significant amount of time next to a surgeon who was performing a craniotomy and brain surgery upon a living person — I was struck quite deeply with the significance of a strange sort of reversal: I pretend machines are people, in order to repair them. Surgeons pretend people are machines in order to think they are repairing them — which sometimes actually succeeds.

Why is there a difference? Because the surgeon must cause vast intersystemic trauma in most cases, in order to effect ‘repair’. In other words — they must weigh the threat, the possible outcomes, and their tools, understandings and techniques — against the incredible storm of harm they must first bring directly to a creature — in order to somehow effect its repair or survival. Frankly, this has always struck me as more than extremely suspicious, but, for the most part, I appear to be largely alone in this suspicion.

Luckily, my own position is far safer, and to my eye, more sensible. I work with a machine, the typeWriterMemoryBoxToy that people use (to varying degrees, of course) to connect with themselves, their work, and other people . I don’t usually have to attack anything, or cause any sort of real invasion to effect my cures, and almost every time, when I succeed — my cure results in significant ‘relief’ in the owner of the machineToy — who may then resume their activities of relation with it with less concern.

Essentially, then — I fix toys of a certain kind — and most of the time (almost all of the time) this helps people feel better. I won’t talk here about what I think about these toys in general, or the strange uses to which toys and people are put by such relationships. That would require a book.

I don’t have to break or attack anything to accomplish my work, and I get a feeling of satisfaction from helping others that is immediate and nurturing — in every possible way. It’s one of my favorite feelings, because it always feels like we are/were something becoming unbroken again, and these sorts of somethings are more magnificent to me each time I attend them. That is a very unique quality in an age of information — or whatever the name we ascribe to the morph that comes after it.

And all of this merely serves to explain how I was to find myself at the home of a couple; one of whom is an artist, and the other of whom is an artist. It being a SunDay — one may avail oneself of the traditional or sacred map that generally or specifically prohibits work. But the Sun itself takes no ‘day off’. When one is in need of ‘earnings’ — generally speaking, the need rises above such metaphoric niceties. Besides, one can decide, essentially, to work for the Sun...on a SunDay.

The woman, a painter — is the one I had come to visit, in hopes of wrangling one of her machines into a state where she can relax and use it. During our conversation, I inquired about her husband’s occupation, and she replied that he was involved in metalwork — and then she added: “He works on chandeliers, and light fixtures — restoring them. Sometimes he also creates other forms of metalwork.”

At the time, I was not yet aware of my client’s relationship to the arts — other than my sense that she was herself creative — but when she mentioned that her husband was a metalworker my interest and curiosity were strongly aroused. As I considered for the first time (since my contact with toyMaker) what a ‘light fixture was’, my mouth practically started talking without my permission (as it often does when I am startled by what the toys I play with are doing in response to my attentions).

“That’s fascinating. The crafting of toys that are involved with the creation or transmission of light has an ancient lineage of sacred connectivity with and remembrance of the source of light. It’s a situation where because you’re making something very essential, you cannot avoid becoming more like the source of what you are crafting — especially with long familiarity.”

My client thought this was interesting — and didn’t seem to think — as many might — that I had broken contact with reality. She remarked that she was uncertain if her husband was aware of these apects of his work. Later, during a break, she took me into the metalShop that her husband keeps. At first I was overwhelmed by the size of the building, because their house was connected directly to this large shop, and I‘d had no idea this was the case during the visit. As my surprise faded, my ‘following’ skill started to awaken, and I began to ask questions about how various production problems were resolved (casting of customized parts for the light fixtures, etc).

There was a variety of large and small equipment there, and a number of chandeliers and other similar fixtures were hanging at various altitudes from a wire in a line alone our side of the shop. My client explained that many of these were antiques, and that one in particular was a 19th century french antique, and was in the process of being restored. She mentioned in passing that her husband had fashioned a cross for an orthodox church nearby, amongst other things. We wandered around a little bit, and eventually came to the French chandelier.

At first, I was nonPlussed — I have always had a bit of a personal judgment issue with gaudy objects — and this appeared to me more like something made to look expensive and fancy, rather than being essentially well-crafted. It was painted gold (or so I presumed, perhaps it was gilded), had 4 cherubs on a ring with candleLights and an assortment of what many structuralists consider ‘gingerbread’ — or artful but unnecessary adornment.

I began to experience toyMaker’s push — which is something that happens where my own attention is pressed toward domains I am unfamiliar with — and he was humorously indicating that my earlier babble about lightToys had something more interesting within it. About that time, my mouth started talking without my permission again, explaining (even though I was not yet personally clear on this) that the chandelier should have 12, 13, or 24 lights, and that, while other systems were possible, these were the bases.

I went on about how 24 corresponded to the two houses (or faces) of the Sun, but that it was not so much a matter of hours, as of characters...or angels — which we rePresent with the angles used in creating our toys. I was actually learning a whole series of ’small books’ about this, while I was talking, which included a rather humorous and perilous history of the human attempts to preserve the understandings that were fundamentally relevant— poetically and mechanically — and in a kind of lost third domain of integration. I had to struggle to not fall into a long dissertation, because it was out of place — so I encapsulated what I was receiving in a nutshell that I hoped would not appear overly bombastic.

I mentioned that this knowledge had been deeply and experientially understood by those who crafted toys that share light — in a way similar to the discovery by masons of a ‘grand architect’ who was, in fact, the teacher and guide of their art, rather than a symbol of it — in their living hands and eyes. toyMaker was showing me ‘groups’ of artisans and craftspeople in different ‘times’, and they were speaking of preserving and elaborating their knowledge, whilst keeping it generally obscured from common notice.

For obvious reasons, it would have probably been absurd (and possibly even rude) to attempt any explanation of what I was actually experiencing — which was something like the angels of their families, and my angel, talking in me simultaneously. I have at least learned not to attempt to explain what I am experiencing to those unfamiliar with it — and I must admit that it seems an unfortunate thing to have had to learn. We talked a bit more of simpler matters before I took my leave for lunch, and during the break I considered the structure and numerism implicit in the chandelier’s design, as well as the general template with which it was founded and expressed.

On returning, we spoke somewhat further of the matter (the craftsman had been resting during these conversations, and was not available) and I drew a diagram similar to the VII phase (below), and explained how the template of the creation of the object followed a map that was a replica of something very essential about circles, spheres, wheels, knobs – and making almost anything at all.

The remaining activities kept me occupied, and it wasn’t until later that evening, after I had returned from travel and travail, that toyMaker began to play the old game with me from afar — and soon I could understand something quite remarkable indeed about the chandelier I had seen, which I here record for those who may find interest or enlightenment therein.

In order to communicate this freely, I will speak in a way that recapitulates how it was shown to me. The essential form is largely emergent from christic biblical metaphor, however the meanings of these forms are not what they at first appear — and were to my experience a revelation that was at once playful, staggering in its poetic simplicity, and alive with the power and mystery of a forgotten holophore — a lost root that connects one directly to its source, rather than a replica, or mere rePresentation.

The chandelier recapitulates 6(7) tiers of creation, which in turn have to do with the birth of light...the recapitulation is general and specific, being present in the object, its construction, relations of symmetry and structure, contexts, and assemblies simultaneously...

(I)0: I pierce the veil of the living waters, I AM (before all).

This is the core from whence all else in the chandelier arises, and from which it must balance properly when hung.

The core or center represents the primeval penetration of immanence by manifestation — causing both to irrevocably intermix — and produce entirely new self-inclusive folds.

I: I AM the Alpha (aleph) and the Omega (tav).

In the living waters (0) I AM the panscalar immanence of (1). Nothing shall fail to refer to me first, and yet be.

This is the ‘firstRing‘ that will act as the foundation of light. It rePresents the kingdom of the unityBeing, commonly referred to as heaven. It is the celestial sphere, represented by a ‘glittering belt’. This might be more accurately translated as a loop...

Taken as a whole it is the first reflection of the trinity — the core, the kingdom, and their unity.

II: I ( di v id e) the Heavens from the Earth :

3 in 1 which is 4 and 5 in me I AM.

The first two candles are set upon the ring, in positions opposing each other at the extremities of this division, which is really a form of sphereFolding — thus it is not so much division as folding a membrane — which results in polarities. Each polarity is represented by a candle. The lines in the diagram are not necessarily part of the chandelier, but instead the template upon which it is being founded.

III: I ( di v id e) the Darkness from the Light.

I AM 5.
[I AM the 7 which is (13 - (itself - 1)...[unto immanence]) in the me I AM]

Produce a second fold (in a new dimension)...in relation to the first at 45 degrees [(4+5 = 9) or 3 x (1 trinity)]. This presages the angels (each standing at 45 degrees from the candles of establishment), who will each hold 5 candles.

The circle, now divided into 4 is also equivalent to 9 (the circle and its lines, as well as the quartile-curves they separate) thus, 4 x ‘itself‘ — or 4 x 9 = the 45 degrees at which the ‘second foundation’ is laid. Two candles mark the polarities of this division as well.

[Start in the center, count the core, then the ring, then count ‘each portion’ and dot (the center is included twice). This results in 15: four ring sections, four line sections, 5 points + 2. Then add one for the unity of the whole, and the result is 16, or 1+6=7.]

(this is actually a form of ‘folding the circle’ — however it was never a circle, really — and is much more than a sphere...).

IV: From what is established as I AM, I (multi Ply) my angels.

From my divisions I multiPly (copyFold) the second domain.The cross now in the circle is copyTurned 45 degrees (angles of source, thus foldings or reflections of the core), and thus, simultaneously four positions of polarity are created, and at each of these is set a golden cherub. The sequence of additions thus far is 2, 2(4), 4(8).

[45 degrees = 9 = 3 trinities = 3 x 1 x 3 = 3+3+3]

This division is the realm of beings. Each will bear a unique reFlection of their quartile of the cosmos — whole, complete — and still unique.

V: Into each angel I multiPly the wor(l)d: (III)

— in each of their hands, breathe 5 living lamps, to enlighten the quarters of the world — and the cosmos.

Each angels is given a unique reCapitulation of the III-phase to hold — whose number is five. Consider the III phase: it has 4 candles, and their source — the core(the sourceLight).

This completes the entire assemblage, which recapitulates the ‘faces of the Sun‘ — two ‘halves’ of 12 each, in accordance with our mechanistic idea of the 24 ‘hours’. What it is actually rePresenting is the 24 elders of the throne, in revelation — as well as an ancient codice related to the persona, personality, phases, movement, emotion, and activity of the Sun.

The chandelier now represents the formation of the cosmos, ‘heaven’, the Sun, and consciousness — being formed geometrically, energetically and poetically in likeness with its roots — as a game of folding a circle or sphere in such a way that great complexity arises from relatively little change — due to the vector and source of the change. It is also, I believe, a poetic replica of the ‘throne‘ of the unityBeing — which is a self-referencing hyperstructure alike with a godelian paradox — a living impossibility of itself.

It is the essential format of universal connectivity, cleverly concealed within what appears to be a common material object, and the reason of its presence is that when one creates toys about light, one cannot fail to refer accurately to their sources.

The sequence of additions thus far is 2, 2(4), 4(8), 20(24).

For in light you were born, and a living lamp are ye
unto every eye and heart in the maiArch.

VI(VII): I AM the unityBeing — the whole, and outside all containers.
I move upon the living waters — I AM lightMaker, and I AM before and after light.

o:0:o

postscript:

In many of my other writings, I am consistently attempting to highlight a single feature of human knowledge and the truly bizarre implications of this feature — which is that we believe it correct to base not only knowledge, but forms of knowing, upon tokens (knowing artifacts) crafted primarily from other tokens (themselves crafted from tokens).

Simply stated, this results in compression artifacts over time, and they can grow larger than what was originally referred to very rapidly. Cognitively, this is like driving a car that eats your body and changes itself into a factory for cars that eat you, without you being able to notice this. Two generations down the road, the factories are built into your body and mind, and are then nearly impossible to notice as ‘not self’.

This form of knowing is not necessarily a bad idea per se — unless it is the only or primary form of knowing we have free access to, and are obliged to generally and specifically exist with(in) the artifacts of. Along with artifacts, the next most essential problem is perhaps that we are rarely or never empowered to directly experience or credential the other modes — and amongst them are modes that are themselves sentient — and self-expanding (which is equivalent to en•light•en•ment or inward light in the mental worlds).

Should you touch them even once, you will understand that there is, in fact — not fiction — a celestial academy, and it is in no way alike with anything we have a metaphor for. It is also the birthplace of the single tokenized sliver of assemblyMechanism we ‘allow’ to be or act as knowing.

Because the tokens and modes we use have actual roots to which they must refer (underneath metaphors there are protoMetaphrands, or holophores — the essential precursors to which all metaphors must refer) — if those are damaged or mistokenized — they magnify their inaccuracy into everything of which they are a part — and on Earth — the Sun is the most significant, and most easily misapprehended of holophores — for without it, nothing like knowledge exists locally — nor do creatures that play in such gardens.

In these terrains, order of arisal is crucial to understand, and acknowledge. According to this principle, as a game — it is exceptionally difficult to locate a holophore that lies in its genesis-order before the Sun. The concept of God was one of the first holophores of this sort. We’ve been making copies of tokens of its likeness pretty much since its interpenetration into the human cogniscia.

My direct experience is that most of the holophores we assemble our knowledge-tokens and our ways of knowing with are essentially misfounded. When this happens — it breaks knowledge, minds, languages, and living worlds. But by reMembering our sources, and reTracing the roots we can locate the ‘better accuracy’ of entirely new ways of knowing — that have their sources not in tokens, but instead in connectivity and co-emergence with a universe learning itself anew in every moment and position.

o:O:o

Because the Sun is perhaps the most essential common holophore — as well as the source of life and light, locally — its characters and natures (as well as those of its own sources) are universally recapitulated in domains more subtle and diverse than it is possible to imagine.

But toys that are directly related to producing light, heat, or vibration — as well as toys related with time — maintain a more direct and significant relationShip with their source, and this is always recapitulated, intentionally or not, in the structural and poetic anatomy of forms they adopt and morph toward over time.

The ‘eight divisions in the circle’ toy appears in a startling array of not only mechanical artifacts — but cognitive and biological assemblies as well. To offer but a single example, I discovered that the first known seismographic device, from China, in the 2nd century A.D. arises from a very similar and ingenious adaptation of the 8-circle (which is 9) principle.

Records indicate the original device, which was destroyed during the mongol rule of the 13th century, was devised by mathematician and inventor Chang Heng in AD 132. It’s numerism(s) are interesting, and recapitulate those of the chandelier in a unique way: it has 8 rods, leading to 8 dragon-heads (I count these as single ‘elements’). Those hold 8 marbles, which lie above the waiting mouths of 8 toads. This gives us 24. But in addition we have ‘the jar’ and the core — a sort of cross, rendered into 3 dimensions — acting as the detector. 26. Add the digits together, and add one for the unityNumber and we get 9 — which is the rootNumber of an octopus. It might be more accurate to call it an octopus, than a seismograph...

Although this may be the first ‘known’ seismograph-like artifact (or amongst them) we may be certain that it had numerous precursors — and may itself have been born of a ‘mistake’ made while attempting to craft something altogether unrelated.

[click to enlarge in a new window]

The operation of the earthquake compass is is simple enough. A jar contains a freeSwinging center-weight of unique form. Around the jar are the heads of 8 dragons, each holding a small marble, or ball of gemstone, metal, or glass. Beneath the mouth of each dragon, a frog gazes upward with its jaws open, ready to receive the ball, should one of the dragons drop one. In the event of an earthquake, the inner weight moves, causing a mechanism within the jar to jog one of the dragons into dropping its lower jaw, whereupon the inner detector-weight locks. The frog who catches the ball indicates the direction to the source of the earthquake. It occurs to me however, that the first motion of the weight would often be in the opposite direction of the wave, and thus perhaps it was known that it could be either the frog with the ball, or its empty-mouthed opposite that indicated the general direction to the source. Perhaps there was even a subtle way to discern this.

In looking into this matter further, I found some interesting information...which I here excerpt from the Vancouver Courier’s online edition, where there is an article relating to a recent earthquake there and a local replica of this device...which is sadly still untested because it’s balls had been glued in place to prevent tampering or theft.