Creative fun in
the palm of your hand.
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/1941598
Printer Friendly Page Tell A Friend
No ratings.
Rated: · Thesis · Mystery · #1941598
Why linear thinking will never unravel "Pyramid Theory"
          Its me again: "Theoryman", with some thoughts, and of course, theories, upon the subject of why Pyramids even exist. It is obvious we are late in the day and the whole spectrum of Pyramid discussion seems to me to be totally displaced and guided by linear thinking that has lead us into nothing resembling an answer.

To make it easy here, my whole line of thinking has lead me to believe the whole universe is moving to "square" itself. But what is this "squaring" all about? Can there exist some kind of squaring process we have never touched upon, some thing more than just taking 2 X 2 or 3 X 3 for the answer? I submit it is a basic part of a 3 scheme process, but we need the whole. Because my work has involved going where "no man has gone before" I have no choice but decline playing any part in giving up what is best known as "dimensional" work.

Just like in mythology and ancient lore, wherein the secrets are concealed, though it is right in front of ones face, I have to honor this approach. But we do have more than myth and lore. I will concentrate on the "Egyptian Mathematical Leather Role" (EMLR) in another article to try and support my case. While I appreciate the study and the task that has been undertaken to "resolve" the mystery, I am firmly convinced the Linearist has lead us astray, not deliberately, but because they think "linear". They will never pierce the "Seven Veils of Isis". We can all wipe our brow for that.

My "stories" have dealt with "Mountains in Mythology" and "Twins in Mythology". I want to bring them somewhat together. I will not deal with "circles", but here I will submit an unfolded Pyramid will produce a circle. Circles are nothing more the "cycles". Time and Space are nothing more than measurements that allow us to discuss the object of our thoughts. We have range and distance.

I submit we are in a 3 scheme process, a process of which seeks to "square" itself. We can view this as a trinity. We can view this as past, present and future. As an original matter, it seems "obvious" we are in the "present". I do not honor that view, however. We have 3 phases. I submit we must figure out if we are in the first schemes perimeters. What does that mean? If we are in the present, of the 1st scheme, then the other 2 schemes have yet to run. If the 1st scheme has ran its course, then we are in the present of the 2nd scheme. Said again, are we in the "present" of the 1st or the 2nd scheme? What a profound inquiry.

As another original matter. I submit that each of these schemes has a unique "numeric" system which governs it. Each scheme can interchange with the other two schemes. The first scheme can operate with the second, the first can operate with the third scheme, and the second can operate with the third scheme. We have 1 with 2; 1 with 3, or 2 with 3 then. Collectively, the 3 schemes can operate as a totality, or a unit, of a "master" scheme" by which 1, 2 and 3 are "break outs".

In line with this thinking and approach I ask we turn our attention to the 3 scheme Pyramid system. We can break this out all we want, ask ourselves why is there only a single Pyramid here or there in the parts of the world where their found. I submit its in the single Pyramids structure, they are universally built in 3 layers! I also submit the "mound builders" and "circle" builders way of
expressing things come by way of approach only. I ask, are they looking, or reasoning, from the outside "in", or the inside "out"? Is the Pyramid in it's "folded" (pyramid) state, or, is the Pyramid in its "unfolded" (circle) state? Can anyone wonder why the Circle has never been Squared?

I submit the Circle will never be Squared for this reason, other than because of linear thinking: They do not recon from a rectangle! All is lost due to this, and we are left with mystery, conjecture, and "theory".

Keep in mind I am submitting there are more than one way to square. In fact, over a dozen have been found to exist thus far. It is my belief we are dealing with "19" ways. Why "19". I submit we turn to DNA. We have found the answer. It is short and sweet. What they miss is that 1 of the "19" has a special feature: it is a 4 tier master sequence. There are 4 DNA acids! They are playing with the 4 tiered master sequence without understanding it exist within the main frame of "19". And that is where our "Tarot" people go wrong. I will appreciate they suspect some kind of "break out". They have called it right. They just can't find it. The whole scheme is set under a "19" component configuration with the master sequence broken into "4", and each of those 4 a line in their own right. It is really quite clever. And for most we can we can view it as cunning. Absolutely, out of this world! We appreciate that of the "19" that one is broken into 4 tiers, or components. We can assign one of the "19" as one working unit. Now we add the other three of the four master sequence: It is "22". Both the Tarot and DNA buffs will recognize this, and foolishly overlook it. Wipe your brow! They have not broken into the numeric of "squaring", outside of "linear squaring", or even made the associations here to my knowledge.

Lets go to the fun side of all of this and look at our 3 Pyramid scheme formation. Within its main frame exist "non linear" squaring features. We now call them "secrets" and/or "mysteries". What is this "non linear squaring" called? I refuse to give it a name. My only answer is I call it "squaring the circle". If I had to name it, which carries meaning, it would be Genesis, and it is moving under order to square itself. "I laid the foundation of all things by my will, and all things evolved therefrom. I united myself to my shadow, and set forth Shu and Tefnut out of myself. Thus from being one god I became three, and Shu and Tefnut gave birth to Nut and Seb ...." (See, The Book of the Dead).

I submit when we are dealing with a Pyramid all we are told about is the obvious by just looking at it. A four sided structure with slanted sides coming to a "point", or may I submit a "summit". It is the "tip of the Iceberg" to get to the point here. We are advised there is tunnels and passages below it, but never have I seen a theory which advances that it is inside of a structure "below ground".
The Linearist just don't get it. And authors who proclaim an answer do not even consider it.

Concentrating on the "Giza" scheme of 3 Pyramids. Around each of them there is a "walk way" at the ground level or base. I submit it is no such thing. It is a "retaining wall". (Asgard was built with one). But this "retaining wall" has a special feature: it is the edge, or the lip, of a "box". When we walk on the "walk way", we are walking on the edge or "lip" of the "box".

This box has a special feature: inside it is grooved out into the shape of a Pyramid. A groove that allows a Pyramid to be dropped inside of it! When we are looking at the ground level Pyramid, all we are seeing is the one attached to another Pyramid, their bottoms meeting to form a "diamond". Liken it to the "jewel" in "mythology".

We take these 2 Pyramids, placed bottom to bottom. forming the 'diamond", and now we "drop" it into the "box". Placed into the ground all we see now is the Pyramid above ground level, or the "tip of the iceberg". Now we can talk about what it means, and not concentrate on the scheme set above the ground with it's "underground passages" standing "all alone".

The "box", having been grooved to accept a Pyramid structure is quite unique: once this "box" is cut properly it forms 4 "Pyramids". What is more is that, once cut properly, we can place these 4 pieces, back to back, forming a "Pyramid"! Our "box" is a "Pyramid" in its own right! So now we have 3 Pyramids to this structure to contend with, the 2 placed "back to back", and the "box" itself.

Now, we can understand why those who have attempted to solve the "mystery" have failed. It is "Moses" mountain. Where god delivered to him the "tables" (tablets) for how it operated. When it is said "Moses' broke the tablets, its a reference to having "broken the tables". Those "commandments", deciphered and read properly, are the laws of the "table", or the rules governing its use. Formed on two tablets, five rules a piece, that is, I submit, is the "negative" and "positive" aspects of working the "tables" numeric foundation and secrets. The universe is moving to "square" itself under law, or rules. What is this "squaring scheme" outside of linear squaring"? NOW WE HAVE THE MYSTERY! These 2 "tablets" each in a "rectangular"form, the very object to which I submit we must reason from in "Pyramid theory" understanding. When they are brought together they form a "square". And, by the way, three Pyramids placed next to each other form a "rectangle". Two Pyramids do the same. If you do not know I advise you this: the ancient Egyptians viewed the "universe" as set out in a "rectangle", and supported by 4 pillars (our "box" cut into 4 are those "pillars", and the other 2 Pyramids placed side by side are our "rectangle"). Mystery solved. Thanks for the credit. See, "The Book of the Dead".

I will direct your attention to my writings on "Mountains in Mythology" and the "Twins in Mythology" which opened this discussion. In those articles I gave some incite on using "linear squaring" never before appreciated to my knowledge.

Finally, for this thesis, I will suggest, and I submit, there are only "22" numeric sequences to contend with. Remember, our "Tarot" and the "DNA" issues I have touched upon. May I suggest to you this as well: the "mythology" text are breaking out these "22" sequences in stories! Their a numeric code! "Male is positive" and "Female is negative" in the "mythology" code of numeric's. How many types of twins are there? There are male/male,
"female/female", and "male/female" or (m+m; m+f; f+f) used hereinafter. I submit each scheme of the 3 support one of these types of "twins" for their individual operation. (Beware, look for the "bearded lady"). Two of the same number is a "twin" (2 X 2 are twins). It is then asked to prove I am wrong: how can a "male/female" twin, consisting of a "negative" and a "positive" number, ever be the same by which they form an identical
"pair" or the basis for "the same number"? Said again, a male/female will produce a "negative" number. You see, there the "linearist" goes again. Okay: 2+2=4 (m+m); 1+3=4 (f+f); and 2+3=5 (m+f). Satisfied? That's why you can't see it, linear thinking is the "mystery" here, and I refuse to try and break that code. There are two "positive" results of combination, and one "negative" result. Can I ask you this, how is it a boy and girl can come from the same womb and still be called "twins"? If they are something else, then please, tell all. I have, the answer is in this text itself.

And I want to "remind" us of this. No one (human) has ever created a "number". Following the first use of them back as far as we have been able, one thing echoes back to us: those that wrote, and recorded "numbers", all say they got them from "god". The Linearest just don't get it. Wipe your brow. "No mortal man shell ever lift my seven veils" (Isis, The Secret Doctrine). You got it from Isis herself. Freya herself held the "keys" to the house of which Odin dared not breach! It was Loki who repeatedly saved the "gods" asses, though he was deemed "evil"?? (See, the "Eddas, The Prose and Poetic, in Germanic mythology) .

Finally, here anyway, I want to touch upon the mystery of the of the "summit". The Pyramid is "missing it's summit". Factor in this: the "summit" is not "missing"! It is down "inside" the Pyramid structure. Follow this line of reasoning to the "circle with the hole" in it. Again, an unfolded Pyramid will produce a "circle". Once unfolded, the "summit" rises to the center of the "circle" We see it as a "breastplate" in "mythology". A persons "summit" is their "head" (look to "heads" in "mythology". The "head" passes thru the "breastplate" which forms the "summit". Odinist may not want to associate the (Brising) "necklace" versus "belt" controversy in their "mythology" with any of this. But, the answer is, it's a "breastplate" which is in issue. And the European "mound builders" were dealing with "Pyramid" theory, that's why they built "mountains" and "rectangular" houses! The 3 sacred mounds cannot be "ignored" either. The "wall" was built around "Asgard"! Odin got "half the slain warriors". The Goddess got the "other half". They each got the 'same number" of souls! And two of the same number are "twins". Didn't Freya have a "twin" sister"? Where else is the issue of "twins" raised in the "mythology"? Follow Loki, he is of the "master" scheme, that's why he is able to "save the gods asses". In each non master scheme he appears. He is found with "Balder" in the "next scheme". Why? He's from the "master" scheme"! One of the group of four.

Why "mythology" perplexes and confounds readers of their text is quite simple. Is the "text" talking about the whole scheme (the "master"), or one of the three other schemes within the "masters" mainframe? Which one is in issue? Follow the "twins"! (+/-); -/-); and (+/+). Or, said again, (m/f); (f/f); and (m/m). Translation suffers from this defect, because the Linearest, who have all but assumed its "translation", try to make "sense" of the text.
"Common sense" dictated the "world was flat", and those that disagreed were made to suffer, just as the "translations" make us "suffer". It was not "tablets" in Moses "mythology, it was "tables", set out in "tablet form". Don't mention it, your welcome. And it is not "belt" versus" "necklace" (Brising), it's a "breastplate". Mythology makes as much sense as science does. Common sense can't figure either of them out.

Looking at the issue of Pyramid structure much can be learned about "mathematical" concepts, and of course, "numerics". Because we can make a system using numeric as its reasoning point does not mean we have numeric concept under our control. And who are we to take someone else's ideas, use them as we see fit, and discredit those that gave them to us? Indeed, we are indebted to the ones who gave us numeric concepts. Now, all we have to do is figure out how their used "CORRECTLY". No man created a number, not one, not ever. (May I suggest that a cipher is not a number, like "0", and you may just be dealing with the "missing summit").

It is very important we do not pat ourselves on the back because we arrange the numbers into a scheme we fancy is superior to that of those who gave "numbers" to us. Please, the EMLR remains unbroken. What has been clear is that the Linearest, picking a system up they knew not how it worked, or that even existed, found the text, and reasoned it all away. If we were to try the case tomorrow the jury findings would be like convicting the "vowels" in a court of "consonants". Fancy that. If another race of beings from space were to judge us, how do you think they would base their judgment foremost? Technology? Language? I submit they will turn to our "mathematical" concepts. They will already be in possession of numeric understanding. We will have given ourselves away I fear. They will know our weakness. We will not know their strength.

I submit this 3 scheme system of numeric foundation covers anything we can get into. Everybody on the same page, how profound. Maybe even bizarre. E=MC2. Do you see it? It was squared! Even if correct, look at it. There are 3 concepts: "E"; "M"; and "C". Only one was the object of squaring ("C"). I submit they must all be "squared". But how? Those of you who argue against E=MC2 hold hope for the validation of the collective "mythology" of the Earth, which I call "squaring the circle", and the world knows by "Genesis", was always sciences best friend and partner. Religion is another issue all together.

And I submit this. The Linearest, telling us all about the frailty of the ancient "numeric scheme", used as "mathematical" concept, and how they were in "error", cannot even tell us why "doubling" works! Or why there were "thirds" in use! Thirds? Isn't that where something is broken into 3 parts? I challenge you, why does "doubling" work? I challenge you, if your so smart then create a number for us all to appreciate. Or at least quit using the ones sent down through the ages. You can use a "goat" for "1"; a "rabbit" for "2", etc., And may I bring something to your attention I have not seen anyone test. Looking to the ancient mathematical system and their "base". Ten holds hand with six, a dual system it appears. There is also a base 60 system. May I suggest if you add "six", or subtract "six", to or from the "ten", it will produce a "square"! 10+6=16. 10-6=4. 16 and 4 are "squares. As for base "60". What is "ten" times "six"? Wow, it is "60"! And were only dealing with 2 numbers! No attempt to link it up to my knowledge. What a loss.

I would like to look at "numerology", a system which seeks bottom line results by single root digiting. That is to say, if I have a number in issue, say "22", and the way I get it to a single number, a "root", as I am given to understand it, is to just add the string until a single digit is found. "22" is then 2+2 and equals 4, or a single "digit". We have "transformed "22" to "4" (and, by the way, 2X2=4, and 2+2=4). I'm afraid you got it all wrong because, "single root digiting" produces "22" results, not just 1-9 (and the cipher "0"). Called the "Company of the Gods" in the "Book of the Dead" (There is also a second and even a third group of 9). You are missing "13" factors! Wow, isn't "13" a compounded "square" of 2 and 3? 2X2=4; 3X3=9; and 4+9="13". And I can imagine you also know that 10, 11 and 12 "squared" equals "365", and that 13 and 14 "squared" also equals "365". Anyone ever see "365" before? (Hermes played at 'tables' with Selene and won from her the seventieth part of each day of the year, which added up to "5 days". These he added to the "360" days which then existed. (See, the "Book of the Dead"). Using "single root digiting" we add 3+6+5="14" (that is 1, 2 and 3, "squared" equals "14, a compound "square") , then on to 1+4 (both squares) which equals "5". Another "compound square" (1X1=1; 2X2=4; and 1+4=5). You may see why I chose "22" for my discourse. Like the Linearest, you have no understanding of numeric application. You use numbers to form a scheme of your own, as they do. Using "linear squaring" all alone "numerology" suffers the defects the Linearist labor under. And by the way, that is not how to apply "single root digiting" anyways, as an original matter. That is not "single root" technology. If it were you would have the 22 "strains of the chains". The Linarest cheated his way into it, he hacked it! They call it "DNA" (Wow, 3 components: "D", "N" and "A")! At least E=MC2 "squared" something. I have given you "linear squaring" for your "numerology". Use it wisely. Your welcome, don't mention it. The "DNA" strand is called the "ladder" in mythology. (See, "The Book of the Dead"). "Jacobs Ladder" is worth a consideration here as well.

If there is "squaring" we do not understand in play in "mythology", then why couldn't it just have been given? Because, I submit, it had to be "withdrawn". Those who held its secrets chose "mythology" to teach man, because denial outright was an issue that was beyond them and assigned the office that is called "god", But why? Thus, we must all enjoy, and appreciate, "mythology" while we decipher it. But I will look the fool here and answer this "but why": It was called "Atlantis". Until the playing field has been leveled the "codex of creation" must remained under the seal we call "mythology".

There exist much speculation as to what the (EMLR) really is. Most have concluded it was "unit fractions" being expressed in the form of a "table", broken into two sections (Called the "verso" and "recto"). It must be said here we still do not know how "whole numbers" were used and calculated. Nor, more importantly, "squaring" technology. What is for sure, is that the math scheme used concentrated on a "third's" and "doubling" approach. That is breaking things into 3 parts for a working scheme. What is also for sure, is that a system of "doubling" was used. This "doubling system" has never been explained. I do not know of anyone who has dared a "theory" relevant to "why it works"! If we can discern "why it works" then the belief is a major hurdle will have been crossed on the way to the "thirds" resolution. Once again, listen to me here: 2+2=4 (m/m=m or +/+ is +); 1+3=4 (f/f=m or -/- is +); and 2+3=5 (m/f=f or +/- is -). Their interaction is crucial to appreciate. Two of three give us a "positive" result. Only one gives us a "negative" result. Or, in interaction, 1 with 2; 1 with 3; and 2 with 3). NOTE: there are now 2 ones; 2 twos; and 2 threes. Take your pick on which approach fits your fancy. I submit 2/3 is the interaction of "present" with the "future".

I submit the EMLR is an attempt to deal with m/f=f or +/- is - or 2 with 3 in combination! We have the answer, your welcome. Does not matter which approach you adopt: "it's all the same"! Plus/negative is a "negative" result of their interaction. The other 2 give us a "positive" result. The EMLR is trying to deal with it. One must be reminded and it appreciated the Egyptian had a "polytheism" and a "monotheism" way of looking at things. We find in the EMLR: "Accurate reckoning. The entrance into the knowledge of all existing thing and all obscure secrets. This book was copied in the year 33, in the 4th month of the inundation season, under the majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, ..., endowed with life, in 'likeness to writings of old' made in the time of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, ... It is the scribe .. who 'copies' this writing". (In the EMLR itself).

Those that have dealt with the EMLR criticize, as I am understanding this, how dumb the Egyptians approach to "math" was, as opposed to numeric understanding. Yet, we still use their "numbers". We also see in the EMLR they knew geometry. The Western writing focus on the "Greek" for mathematical break through, which is completely false. It is because the EMLR deals with only a "third" of the three scheme system, the "negative", that this means that was their "math", all while admitting they have nothing on how they used whole numbers, or squares, from technology. (There are other works in this line, but, the EMLR is, by far, the most comprehensive, due to the "tables" used in that text, which showed how they worked this issue: a combined "negative" or "2/3"). A "combined" negative (m/f=f; 2+3=5; or pos./neg. (+/-), all produce a "negative" result.

I submit, that lurking in the system the Egyptian was using, is the only way to break two supreme math problems: how to resolve the issue of finding the constituent part of which something is made of; and the squaring of the circle. Go back into it fellows, and try it one more time, you now have the back ground you need. And, by the way, they are not "unit fractions", they "unifying fractions", if we can discern anything about it worth attribution.

It's either that, or someone may come along, recreate mathematics, and claim it all for themselves. Imagine that, changing the world as we now know it. Changing it how though. Start by leveling the playing field. Don't mention it, your welcome.

Finally, I make my case for "Pyramid Theory" (PT) as being something way beyond a stone built structure with 4 sloping sides. The "mound builders" around the world were working off the concept of PT. I would submit, anyone interested, in this topic to see "world-pyramids.com" for an in depth look into all the various structures found world wide (America (USA), Canary Islands, Bosnia, China, Spain. etc.). There is no mention of the 3 sacred mounds in Sweden the German Pagans held "sacred". I am working to have them added to world-pyramids as having been overlooked. In this line of PT, the American Indian "Teepee" will find its association with its shape and entrance of the unique structure for housing.

What puts me behind the eight ball, so to speak, is that in researching "European" mathematical concepts, we have virtually nothing to go on in the way of written form. What we do have is the "Eddas"! By comparison, with those in Egypt standing all alone, we see the remarkable "parallels" one can associate with another. PT has cracked their code and the association is unquestionable. It must wait for another day. What a loss for the study of "mythology". And, by the way, there was a cult in Germanic Europe who was devoted to a goddess. Her European name? Is was "Isis".

And I am far from my babble and rave. Like the study of "science", which we once called "magic", nothings easy. What is for sure, breaking the numeric code, "squaring the circle", or if you prefer, deciphering "Genesis", will break the ice. Science and Mythology will be able to sit and chat. It's a matter of leveling the playing field! Unlike the error of old, where a certain group held it's secrets, and caused human tragedy of the first proportion, everyone should have it. And that is the only way TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. The family of man is not "is", it is "becoming". But what?

© Copyright 2013 theoryman (mikekrese at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates have been granted non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Log in to Leave Feedback
Not a Member?
Signup right now, for free!
All accounts include:
*Bullet* FREE Email @Writing.Com!
*Bullet* FREE Portfolio Services!
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/1941598