(02.11.2024) [1] This writing is structured as follows: There is the writing/book. This contains chapters. Those contain passages. Those contain sentences. Those contain words. Those contain symbols. Every chapter has a key. That key identifies the chapter through a code. The syntax is as follows: “[x] Title”. Here, the “x” refers to a symbol or more which are the key – a unique code which allows us to identify the chapter. The “Title” is a string of words that describes the chapter. Every passage is preceded by a date and a key. The syntax is as follows: “(date) [x] (...)”. For “date”, there is a date written in the “DD.MM.YYYY” format. Example: “02.11.2024” means: “The second of November of the year 2024”. For “x”, there is the unique key – similar to the keys for chapters. For “(...)”, there is the text of the passage itself. The date refers to the date of composition. This structure and format allows for referencing individual passages across the writing. A passage can be referenced using the syntax “x:y”, where “x” is the key of the chapter and “y” is the key of the passage. For example, “1:1” means: “the passage with key ‘1’ from the chapter with key ‘1’”. To refer to an individual sentence, the following syntax can be used: “x:y;z”, where “z” is the sentence’s position. For example, “1:1;1” means: “the first sentence of passage 1 of chapter 1”. To refer to another writing/book, the following syntax can be used: “a:x:y”, where “a” is the key of the writing/book. For example, “1:1:1” means: “passage with key 1 in chapter with key 1 of book with key 1”.

[2] This writing’s standard language is English. The standard writing system used is the English Latin alphabet. This is important due to e.g. topics of translation and referencing of individual words.

[3] Text that has been written should not be erased or modified in any way. This is important for multiple reasons. If any modification is to take place, this should be done using footnotes with superscript as follows: “This[1] is a sentence.” The footnote can thus e.g. instruct to replace the text using nothing (i.e. “to erase”) or something else (i.e. “to replace”, also e.g. “to add”).

[1] What is “MA”

(30.10.2024) [1] First, there is zero. From it comes one. From it comes two. Thus we call them “MA” and “AM”. From them all the other things come.

(31.10.2024) [2] Where “MA” is dark, “AM” is bright. Where “MA” is low, “AM” is high. Where “MA” is soft, “AM” is hard. Thus they are the two sides of the same leaf, and with “MA” comes “AM” and with “AM” comes “MA”. Some speak of “Yin” (陰) and of “Yang” (陽). Is “MA” equal to “Yin” and “AM” equal to “Yang”? Not necessarily. Why should we speak of “MA” and not “Yin”? This is because “Yin” is embedded in one particular culture and holds its own identity within that culture’s thought. But this “MA” is more general, universal, all-embracing. Why do we write “MA”? This is because human speech comes in consonants (“M”) and vowels (“A”). And from amongst these, “M” is very fundamental, and “A” is very fundamental; they represent the “fundamental sounds”. Because “MA” begins with “M”, the mouth is closed, dark, hidden and opens up during the syllable’s production. But “AM” has the beginning be open, bright and clear and closes during the syllable’s production. Thus “MA” stands for the dark, “AM” stands for the bright. Wherever there is a “thing of two” (“2”), there is “MA” and there is “AM”. Why do we focus on “MA” here, and not “AM”? This is because of the association of the “dark” with certain qualities that we want to cultivate here. Furthermore, whereas we could work with the “1” which is before “MA” and “AM”, there are some problems with that. It can be advisable to write “MA” instead of MA, to ensure clarity. Why do we focus on “MA”? One of many reasons is: Sometimes, calling this or that “philosophy” can be too narrow or too wide. It can lead to confusions. Another reason is: By mentioning “MA”, we abstract the work from a given culture and remind ourselves of the universality of our works. Another reason is: If “MA” abstracts from cultural tinting, this could be good. If it doesn’t but tints it with its own culture, this could be a culture aiming to stand between other cultures. Is “philosophy” a sub-set of “MA”? This confuses what “MA” is.

(01.11.2024) [3] Another way of relating to “MA” is by thinking of it as belonging to a culture of thought. Like the English language, like the Latin alphabet, like algebra, we use tools, techniques and mental products to navigate the world. These ideas related to “MA” are similar – they allow us a specific way of navigating the world. What is part of “MA”? If this relates to a duality, then half of everything could be part of it; technically, this might be the case. However, in the association and usage of the idea here, it relates to more immaterial, abstract and somewhat hidden things. In one sense, philosophy relates to it; in another sense, only one part of philosophy does; in yet another sense, it does not at all. There might also be a paradox, in which the attempt to analyse “MA” yields the dissolution of it; as if we were trying to hold onto water. Is “MA” metaphysically real in the external world, like plants and mountains are? This, we don’t know. Similar to how numbers may or may not be externally real, other abstract principles like “MA” may or may not be. Why “MA”? It has proven useful to work with oneself and the world in ways that make use of this concept. Many cultures don’t require active usage of the principle of Yin-Yang, yet in cultures that do employ it, they may benefit from this. Similarly, it is no necessity to employ “MA”, but it may result in benefits. Instead of writing “MA”, one may also use the following symbol: “●” (a black circle). Is “MA” a mental archetype? It is possible that the only thing that it is, is a deeply fundamental pattern within the human mind. Maybe all things are thus?

(02.11.2024) [4] In Image 2 we can see the three steps of the principles “0”, “1” and “2”: first, there is “0”, represented as an open semi-circle on the top. Second, there is “1”, represented as the black-white circle below it. Third, there is “2”, represented as both the white and the black circles below that one. This last, black circle is “MA”. The white circle is “AM”. The black-white circle is the “1”, which cannot be pronounced. And the open semi-circle refers to the “0”, which cannot be fathomed, nor pronounced.

(08.11.2024) [5] “MA” is also a hypothetical: something that the mind proposes to exist – maybe like everything. It is also a symbol and a principle.

[2] The Glyphs

(31.10.2024) [1] The so-called “Hieratic Script” is a collection of exactly nine glyphs. Their function is to be representations of certain “principles” or “keys”. These principles are also represented by the numbers “0” through “9”. The larger key to represent these is a square of three rows and three columns, thus having nine fields. Using the numbers, the way to label these fields is as follows: The top-left field is “4”. The top-middle field is “9”. The top-right field is “2”. The middle-left field is “3”. The middle-middle field is “5”. The middle-right field is “7”. The bottom-left field is “8”. The bottom-middle field is “1”. The bottom-right field is “6”. Each such principle or key associated with a glyph also has one of these numbers associated. The name “Hieratic Script” stems from the idea of being associated with “those who deal with the sacred”, thus is not part of trivial matters. Another name once given is “Hieratic AM Script”, but it can be seen as incorrect. The script is called a “script” but is not intended for communication of verbal language.

(01.11.2024) [2] What is the usage and purpose of this script? As with any set of symbols or signs, the purpose can vary depending on person and situation. This script is intended to be versatile and flexible. The question arises: “Where do we wish we had this script?” And the answer is partially: “When talking about certain abstract concepts, principles and metaphysical ideas.”

(02.11.2024) [3] In Image 1 we see a representation of the larger key. This is also called a “key”, as it unlocks connections between seemingly unconnected things, such as numbers and sounds.

[3] The Great Principles

(31.10.2024) [1] As mentioned in 2:1, there are certain “principles” or “keys”. The three most fundamental, we may say, are “0”, “1” and “2”. They can help us structuring and organising things. What is “0”? “0” is beyond what we can reasonably describe. Thus it is difficult to say a lot about it. But it is what has “1” emerge from it. What is “1”? “1” is that which is unified, complete, or also the totality of things. What is “2”? “2” is that which is variety, complexity and duality. It emerges from “1”. Some speak of the “Wuji” (無極), the “Taiji” (太極) and “Yin” (陰) and “Yang” (陽). Are these the same as “0”, “1” and the two sides of “2”? Not necessarily. But some may say that e.g. the “Taiji” is a “1”, i.e. it is one possible result or target for “1”. Some associate “the Absolute” or certain divinities with “1”.

(01.11.2024) [2] Why do we use numbers to refer to these “principles”? This is because of at least three reasons: First, there is no name for them in any known language so far. Instead of inventing a neologism, we use numbers. Second, numbers appear to be more universal than words made up of sounds. Third, the mathematical association and structure related to these principles lend themselves to be associated with such numbers and sizes.

[4] The Title of this Book

(31.10.2024) [1] Why is this book called “大書 – The First Book”? This book belongs to a collection of writings, the “無書”; that is, writings associated with “MA” (“無”). Within that collection there are multiple categories. “大書” is to be understood as “Large Writings”. This is because the syntax, structure of the book and of individual chapters and passages is much larger than that of certain other writings. It is the “First Book” because it is the first book written in this style and by this method. Why are there Chinese characters? As elsewhere explained, these Chinese characters are borrowed due to their association with certain ideas and concepts, but are not to be read as Chinese language. Handmade, unique glyphs are more ideal, but for now, Chinese characters are borrowed instead.

(03.11.2024) [2] Why Chinese characters and not another writing system’s glyphs? This is because the Chinese characters have great technological and cultural support for writing, are highly standardised and researched, and they offer the most extensive inventory of semantic associations, where individual ideas may map onto individual characters.

[5] What is “MA Works”?

(01.11.2024) [1] “MA Works” is the idea of “works, projects, constructions” related to “MA” as explained elsewhere. Is this equal to “philosophy”? No, it is not equal to “philosophy”. Depending on the definition of “philosophy”, this disallows more artistic, musical and poetic ways of navigating the world. Diagrams, poems and stories may not be called “philosophy” by many; but those can be part of “MA Works”. Is this equal to “art”? No, it is not equal to “art”. Depending on the definition of “art”, this disallows for rational propositions and logical analyses; but those can be part of “MA Works”. We can say the same for “mysticism”, “spirituality”, “esotericism” and other fields or phenomena. It does not make claims about supernatural existences, thus it is neither “mysticism” nor “spirituality”. It is not secret, thus it is not “esotericism”. It aims to explore the world (both external and internal) using a holistic approach. It is not “science”, as it differs from that in the methodology. It is not “mathematics”, as there are also e.g. ethical ideas explored by it. One might say that it is a combination of many of these, interconnected and filtered through a cultural lens. But this poses many problems, e.g. isn’t thus maybe “philosophy” just a combination of other things, interconnected? Isn’t a cinematic movie a combination of things, interconnected? Thus, even if it were a combination of other things, the product might be something new. Could “MA Works” be a culturally filtered method of doing philosophy and art etc.? It might miss the point. In another way of thinking, we might say that it is about the attitude, mentality and manner in which we approach the world as a whole: “MA Works” is not a field or subject (like e.g. mathematics or philosophy), it is not a cultural phenomenon (like e.g. spirituality might be), but it might be the way in which we explore the world; the behaviour, the values and the manner in which we do so. This, however, brings about it a lot of problems. “MA Works” is “works related to ‘MA’” – it is thus mostly defined by the object of work, not the manner. What differs “MA Works” from e.g. modern, Western, mainstream philosophy might be the inclusion of poetic and maybe mystical methods to explore the world, as well as including objects of exploration that might traditionally fall into such fields as mathematics or art. Is it a “field of study”? It may not study the world with a clear aim of claiming truth and discovering logical propositions that reveal an objective reality, but suggest, present and offer possibilities. If the sciences are about discovering truth, this may not necessarily do so. We may ask ourselves: “What is certainly not ‘MA Works’?”. This is a difficult question and one that might not have a clear answer. “Philosophy” might belong to it, but so might mathematics. If we stretch the definition more, we might say that painting could be part of it, too – it might be work, activity, effort related to this part of things called “MA”. Of course, if we stretch the definition too much, everything could fall within its boundaries. The need for the term “MA” had to do with works that stretched the modern, mainstream definition of “philosophy”. Thus, maybe it is there where we should investigate first.

(02.11.2024) [2] Borrowing the Chinese characters, “MA Works” is written as “無工” and pronounced as “/ma koŋ/”.

(11.11.2024) [3] This also means “the field that relates to how to do things with the mind”.

[4] It also means “to motivate the mind to be in interesting states”.

[5] What about saying that it is “mind work”? This could include e.g. meditation and psychotherapy, which may not belong to it.

[6] It also relates to “how to do things with experience” – one of the most fundamental things belonging to the mind.

[6] On Philosophy

(01.11.2024) [1] What is “philosophy”? Once, it was said that that question itself is part of philosophy. There are many different ways of thinking about philosophy and the definitions are abundant. One of the possible answers here is that philosophy is a field, a discipline, a method, which aims at exploring fundamental questions and objects of reality using reason. Why do philosophy? We may say: “Humans survive using technology and sciences, but they live using philosophy and art.” It may go even as far as to say that “it is not possible to not be a philosopher”. If we ask ourselves: “What should I do?”, in an extreme form of the definition, this could be considered somewhat philosophical (e.g. an ethical question, e.g. “What is the right thing to do?”). One might say that philosophy is the basis for human behaviour, society, culture, etc. If we don’t have a philosophical idea about “medicine”, we cannot do medicine. If we don’t have philosophical ideas about “science”, we cannot do science.

(03.11.2024) [2] Another way of thinking about “philosophy” may be to say that it relates to an “art of thinking”.

[3] What are the results of philosophy? Thoughts may produce thoughts or physical actions. Through philosophy, we “do” something with the mind. We create/discover new ideas, gain new views and perspectives, and develop, change, cultivate our mind, thus ourselves. As such, this may have related practices in e.g. meditation, spirituality and psychotherapy.

[4] Does philosophy answer questions? Some may say that philosophy inquires without answering their questions. This might lead us to think that we merely raise doubts and provoke thought. But without answers, temporary or permanent, how could a point lead to another point? “Does the moon exist?” If we do not answer this, how can we ask more about a maybe-existing moon? We may say that the philosopher reserves judgement and merely lays out the options.

[5] What is a “philosopher”? Are they someone who does philosophy? Or someone who has a degree? Or someone who studied philosophy? Or someone who lives a philosopher’s life? Or someone with the qualities of a philosopher? How much, when, why does someone need these criteria to be a philosopher?

(14.11.2024) [6] To make the subconscious conscious, the not-thought thought, the undecided decided/intentional and the known understood.

(15.11.2024) [7] Why do we do philosophy? Curiosity? Thus, a careful love that instrumentalises the object.

[8] Why do we love it? Because we see something useful in it? Something to give us happiness and increase our existence?

[9] Do we do philosophy due to hunger? A force that is needed when is and ought do not match, whether from necessity or greed.

[10] Do we do philosophy due to longing? To deeply experience, be united with and to be – us and the world, and everything.

[7] The Mind: Beginning

(01.11.2024) [1] Whence do all doings commence? If we raise our hand, this was first a thought. If we think, it is in the mind. All beginnings of our doing are in the mind. If we look at a tree, this appears in our mind. The physical interaction results in processes in our brains that we experience in the mind. All ends of our experience are in the mind. Thus, the beginning and end are in the mind. Should we not make it our first priority to study and cultivate the mind? What we cannot seem to doubt too much is to be within the mind, in some capacity. There may not be an external world, but there is certainly the internal world. Are we asleep in a dream or awake in the world out there? How could we know? Wherever we are, we are within the mind. The strongest athlete may lose their vigour, fall ill, become old, lose all belongings, but the mind cannot be taken from them; until our last breath, it is the mind that is with us, even when everything else fails us. Every explanation of the external world comes from the internal world. Some may even say that the mind can influence the material world.

(08.11.2024) [2] We can be sure that the mind exists; what else is there that thinks? But can we be sure about an external world?

[3] Thus, we ask: “Is this part of the mind?” And only if it isn’t, do we add it to the external world.

[4] The mind thus is the beginning of all reality for us. Here, we begin to ask.

[5] Where does a good world come from? Good actions. Where do good actions come from? Good thought. Where does good thought come from? Good mind.

[6] Thus, we tend to, heal and cultivate the mind with all the arts we know of.

[7] But what is a “good mind”? Is it able, is it both broad and tall in capacity, is it balanced? Is it aligned with the patterns?

(14.11.2024) [8] Is the mind a servant of the body or the body a servant of the mind?

[9] If the mind is a servant of the body, and 46:8, then our own freedom goes against our very purpose.

[8] On This Book

(02.11.2024) [1] What is this book? In this chapter, we would like to illustrate ideas regarding the answer to this question. Whatever we delve into, it seems to be connected to other things we can delve into (e.g. both the “tiger” and the “horse” share to be “animals”). There is a general, a universal, a foundation. Finding such things for many objects, we can begin to see shapes of threads with nodes, akin to a spider’s web – and a web may have a centre, a point of origin. Like a town’s centre, such a hypothetical web’s centre is where all things converge. Such a centre may exist sort of “objectively”, but it certainly exists “subjectively” – we may create it. This relates to the ideas behind such studies, investigations and endeavours as those which are associated herewith. Within this book, such a centre should be shared. Hierarchies upon hierarchies, and at their heart lies the key of the “Hieratic Script” – and at its heart the central glyph, which at its own heart has the heart of hearts, a point at which things from every direction converge. And much like how we calibrate our scales and then derive all measurements therefrom, so can we derive things from more central things: variations from a standard, texts from dictionaries, coins from a mould, the numeral “111” (one-hundred-eleven) from the numeral “1”, and dialects from a language. Thus, within this book lie means for communicating, relating and connecting things across systems; be they languages, cultures or otherwise. If not this book, it should inspire others to actualise such a book.

[2] For whom is this book? For everyone. While the matters and language may be challenging, the intention is to be of assistance to everyone. Thought was sought from every corner of the world, from all times and places, from everyone, then processed and transformed into an expression that should be able to reach everyone.

(03.11.2024) [3] What is never lost, even in poverty and illness? Maybe the mind is. What is the most free of charge and most efficient in energy? Maybe thoughts are. What has the greatest influence in frequency and weight on every action? Maybe thoughts have. Thus, if we could master thoughts, would we not surely be affluent beyond measure? And let us say that the mind and thoughts have an architecture, like anything else: would we not want to understand the foundation more than any other level of this building? Thus it is that this book aims to illustrate such a goal.

[9] The Key

(03.11.2024) [1] What is “the key”? “The key” is a specific kind of “key”. What is a “key”? It is a means by which things are connected in abstract ways, thus “unlocking” ways of thinking, seeing and knowing. “The key” is an abstract - maybe mathematical - object where different concepts, ideas and symbols are arranged in a geometric manner to associate them in logical ways. This is represented as a diagram. The diagram is a square with nine squares within it, such that there are three rows and three columns with nine fields/cells. One illustration of such a diagram and the key is in Image 1.

[2] Why is the key a three-by-three grid? In order to work with certain abstract objects, it can be helpful to arrange them in a two-dimensional space. Diagrams are an easy way of doing this. The size of such elements within the object should be small, so as to be easy to use, but not too small, so as to be able to capture complex things. The smallest number – for these purposes – is one. But with one, not a lot can be done. For example, we cannot even describe the dichotomy of “yes” and “no”. The next smallest number is two. Everything that is divisible into two parts can be expressed using two. Dichotomies, for example. But we cannot yet draw anything in two-dimensional space. For this, we need to multiply two by two – four. Thus we have a grid with two rows and two columns, which can capture more complex relationships. There is, however, one problem: it doesn’t have a middle. The next smallest grid we can draw is one which has three rows and three columns. Now, it has a middle. In order to ensure symmetry, we would need to expand this to a four-by-four grid to find the next size. But, for most purposes, that would not be necessary and become too large. Thus, the key uses a three-by-three grid to capture the most essential things and functions. Furthermore, a three-by-three grid allows for nine fields. This encapsulates many important “principles”. Not very many things are associated with higher numbers – e.g. “12” and the number of moons in a year. But even there, due to the “fractal” and repetitive nature of e.g. the number three, even twelve can be dealt with in some manners using smaller objects.

(06.11.2024) [3] Within every culture, there is a kind of key or many keys – the way we organise things. Learning from different cultures, we need to deal with many keys. Instead, it could be helpful to combine them all into one key, much like one language.

[10] The Fields of Study

(03.11.2024) [1] There are a few large categories of study, investigation and works. Amongst them are: philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences. Depending on the classification, these three (and possibly more) overlap to varying degrees. For each of them there are many different definitions and ways of thinking about them. Others relate to technology, arts and mysticism, amongst many more.

[2] Within what people call “philosophy”, there are different sub-fields. Those can include: metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics. Each of them has further sub-fields. Others relate to history, science and law, amongst many more.

[11] Use of Language

(03.11.2024) [1] We may speak using synonyms, for example. But can an “absolute synonym” really exist? We may lead to a reduction of meaning by establishing untrue synonyms. For example, can one truly replace one word with another?

[12] The Patterns

(03.11.2024) [1] What is a “pattern”? A “pattern” is an abstraction of a relationship between things, specifically when something repeats. In a related usage, this term is also associated with the terms “principle” and “archetype”. Here, we shall refer to a metaphysical idea with the term: a way in which things are connected at a fundamental level and an invisible plan on which things arrange. For example: How is it possible that we can answer “yes” or “no” to certain questions? This is because of the pattern of a duality, related to the “principle” of the “2”.

[2] Where are those patterns? It may be that they exist within every thing. It may also be that they exist within the universe itself. And it may be that they only exist within the human mind.

[3] Do things have every pattern or only some? Metaphorically, it may be that even the black and white moon may hold within it the pattern of “green”, despite never actually being in the state of being green.

[4] Are patterns created or discovered? Some may say that they are discovered, others may say that some are created by human minds. For example, it may not be that the number two was created, but it may be that associating this with that may be created (e.g. the left with “AM”).

(04.11.2024) [5] There are eternal and ephemeral things, universal and particular things. Are all patterns eternal and universal? If it could be found in everything, it might be. Is it thus because it is in everything and/or because it is in the human mind? Are we studying the universe or the human mind? If “red” is emergent from e.g. pure mathematics, does it exist in the external world? Is there a difference between the external and internal world? If the mind belongs to the external world, and “red” belongs to the mind, then “red” belongs to the external world. Maybe certain mathematical patterns have been engrained in the human mind as “their own things”, yet are only illusory, only definitions, only processes. Thus, even physics and chemistry might only be a type of “psychology”. And, if we study the mind, and if the mind were physics in some sense, and if physics were mathematical in some sense, do we not study mathematics, ultimately? A kind of “mathematics with flavour” (e.g. like an algebra of semantics, or an algebra of feelings). Do we study patterns upon patterns?

[6] Are there patterns of patterns, such that there are atomic patterns with atomic rules for how to derive combinatory patterns? Surely, anything divisible by four can be divided by two and two again. Thus, having “two” and “multiply by two”, we can have “four”. If we understood the atoms, could we understand their syntheses?

[7] The human mind has limits: we may understand “1 + 1 = 2” in the blink of an eye with the mind only, but even if given all of the information, many calculations are impossible. If we can calculate “1 + 1” and repeat this five times, we can achieve , even if we could not calculate . Dividing the world into patterns helps us understand and navigate it. Dividing patterns into patterns helps us understand and use patterns. Since thus we can do more with less energy, we both save energy on common tasks and extend our abilities onto uncommon tasks.

[8] If something can be a pattern, it needs to be possible to have an element and a rule. “AAA” in itself might not be a pattern, but it consists of the pattern of “A repeated two times” – thus it has an element (“A”) and a rule (“repeat two times”).

[9] Could patterns emerge without “real patterns”? Both and equal “four”, yet they don’t share any element (i.e. numbers) nor any rule (i.e. addition vs multiplication). Maybe regularities are illusory? Maybe they’re only ways of our minds to save on energy.

[10] Related to this idea of “patterns” is the Chinese concept of “理” (“lǐ”).

(06.11.2024) [11] We find common elements across things, e.g. amongst “AB” and “AC”, there is “A” which is common. We find all the elements across things, e.g. amongst “AB” and “AC”, there are “A”, “B” and “C”. We find their essences, e.g. many words can hide one short essence. We find derived things, e.g. if “A leads to B” and “C leads to B”, then “everything leads to B”; or, if “A leads to B”, we find where B leads to.

[12] That which is found in other things, we may say, is or is related to a “pattern”. If there are patterns of patterns, what are the fundamental patterns?

[13] Are such “patterns” merely “additions” or are they that which is more real than the things they produce through synthesis?

[13] On Questions

(03.11.2024) [1] What is a “question”? A “question” may be defined as a request for information. Asking a question, we open the mental space and create the potential for a new mental creation. Questions provoke thought. Questions stem from curiosity, wonder and interest; maybe expressions of love and of life force. Questions do something and cause things to occur. Like land that is prepared to continue building a house, piece by piece the answers lead to this construction. While a question is active, it is also dark and potent; thus it is associated with “MA” (more than “AM”). Answers, as a counterpart, are the opposite. While an answer is reactive, thus “MA”, it is also decisive, thus “AM”.

[2] What are the big and important questions? If a question can lead to the ultimate good, might it be considered such a big question? Maybe a question that can be answered with the most versatile answer might be such?

(06.11.2024) [3] Within questions there is life; within answers there is death.

(11.11.2024) [4] Does every question imply and/or require a statement, a belief or values?

[5] Questions provoke doing, activity, action – i.e. thinking.

[6] Doubt may lead to questions, but questions may not necessarily involve doubt.

[7] Without interest, there may be no questions.

[8] Questions and doubt can open up the existent. They can destroy – thus create the opportunity to create anew.

[9] Questions provoke delving into the hypothetical. To destroy what is seen as true and to temporarily assume alternatives.

(12.11.2024) [10] For anything we believe in, if questions can lead us astray from belief, wouldn’t this suggest the fallibility of that thing? Discovering the truth about anything should make us believe more, the more we question something – if it truly is.

[11] What are the advantages and disadvantages of (certain) questions? Why should we know what we should know?

[12] It is easy to destroy and difficult to create and find. Questions should be understood in this way.

[13] The right questions lead to the right thinking.

(15.11.2024) [14] Shouldn’t questions be led by love, joy and interest, not by hatred and fear?

[14] The Process of Transformation

(04.11.2024) [1] We make the decision to prepare a meal. So, we gather the ingredients; some apples, some bananas, some carrots. Then we place apples in an apple basket, bananas in a banana basket and carrots in a carrot basket. We ensure their quality. There is something that isn’t quite any of them – it is a date. We place it into the dates basket. We arrange the baskets by weight, then by colour of the ingredients inside. Then, we set out some rules for how to process these: some have to be cut, others boiled, yet others fried. We turn inwards and find a liking for a specific kind of meal that can be done with such preparations. Thus we have decided, and we prepare said meal. From these preparations emerges what can be eaten. This is a process of transforming ingredients into a meal.

[2] The arts of thinking may resemble a process as mentioned in 14:1. We require elements with which we do things. We require methods with which we transform elements into products. There are multiple ways of approaching this: On a semantic level, our atoms/elements are units of meaning. Grammar is methodical in combining these elements into products, e.g. sentences. On an abstract, maybe metaphysical or mathematical level, fundamental “principles” are our elements, and ontological, mathematical and logical ways are methods of combining them into products, e.g. abstract objects such as maybe “keys”, equations or even societies.

[3] In any given system, there are elements and rules. The English language has a vocabulary with words that can be used and grammar that can be applied on said vocabulary. Any valid sentence of the English language obeys both vocabulary and grammar. When writing texts, there may be multiple systems overlapping, thus restricting the possible valid results further: language, logic, metaphysics, culture (incl. morals), etc. We may write an English sentence that makes no logical sense, which may not match up with reality, or which goes against cultural expectations. But usually, such systems’ criteria also get applied onto a text.

[4] The mind can only “move” in certain ways. Within this set, there are only certain ways that feel “sensical” (e.g. “1 + 1 = 3” is not amongst such). And, there are sub-sets of “movements” that we want or don’t want. These restrictions define some boundaries of effective thought.

[5] Before beginning to play, is it not helpful to first define the game? We need to decide on the pieces and rules. This is like marking and measuring land before building a house. If new elements and rules come and go, our product will be within multiple standards and may not be stable, coherent or useful. Thus, we think about the extent of a system, the elements within it and the rules or methods that apply to it. Then we use strategies and techniques to play, create and solve.

[6] The biggest system of thought is “any thought” – there are no additional restrictions and any language or other tool may be used. The next biggest system (for these purposes) is that of “MA Works” – any language and other tools may be used, no cultural restrictions should apply, but there are certain limitations. The other big systems (here) are/include philosophy, mysticism and art, to name a few – each of them places restrictions onto the methods and possible results.

[7] If we do not know the extent of the system within which we are, our calibration might be off. We might say: “Surely, tomatoes are the sweetest.” yet not know about apples. Thus, the definition of a system is of importance.

[15] Composition of Symbols

(04.11.2024) [1] Symbols, as visual signs, may be analysed into constituents. Amongst the qualities and categories for certain purposes are: (a) non-existing vs existing, (b) black vs white, (c) zero- vs one- vs two-dimensional, (d) vertical vs horizontal vs diagonal, (e) round vs angled, (f) closed vs open, (g) connected vs disconnected, (h) inside vs outside.

[2] The point makes up every symbol. With one point, there is the zeroth dimension. With two points, there is the first dimension. With three points, there is the second dimension. The first dimension introduces the line, the second dimension introduces the area.

[16] Struggle

(05.11.2024) [1] Within the state of active changing, there is struggle. Any struggle is suffering. Suffering opposes happiness.

[2] Doing can lead to suffering and happiness. Getting done upon can lead to suffering and happiness.

[3] Struggle is motivated by aversion and/or want – to be averse to the bad and to want the good.

[4] Can there be an end to struggle as long as we’re alive? Is not every moment immersed in struggle, whether conscious or not? The beating heart struggles, every moment; the breath flows in and out, every moment.

[5] Peace is opposed to struggle. Can there be peace while alive? Is not life itself a process?

[6] We yearn for peace and fear struggle. Yet life is full of struggle. We are at a conflict with life.

[7] To be at peace with struggle, with seeking, with walking. Being driven from the back and front, with aversion and want, like fish in a streaming river.

[8] Want and aversion, both are wishes. Both put the mind into tension. Both yield struggle.

[9] To want yet not suffer from not having. To be with acceptance and tranquillity.

(15.11.2024) [10] Life threatens with suffering when it is not being fulfilled.

[11] One is made to struggle, lest they risk to suffer more.

[12] Why is there conflict and struggle?

[13] Where there is want, there is struggle. Is there a state where all want is satisfied? Maybe not.

[14] Opposing forces in this world will never allow for the absence of struggle – at best, one force is strong enough to withstand the other.

[15] Because existence can become non-existence, and non-existence can become existence, each struggle to be itself.

[16] Change seems fundamental. Stability can never be found perfectly.

[17] Limited resources and greed lead to competition and struggle.

[17] Pragmatism

(05.11.2024) [1] Can things be true? Can we know things? How can we know that they are and that we can? Regardless, if it works, it may be good.

(08.11.2024) [2] Related to this is an idea of “उपाय” (“upāya”, “expedient means”).

[3] Something needn’t be true or right to produce truth or good – if this is the case, we can employ such means.

[4] Methods may be relative: one living in a cave must go out to fetch water, one living on a mountain must go down to fetch water – “out” and “down” are different, but for the goal, both are equally true.

[5] Even if we had no “moral responsibility”, “praise and blame” work. Even if we were determined, it works – thus it is a pragmatic solution.

[18] On Great Knowledge

(05.11.2024) [1] What kind of knowledge or experience do we aim towards? What types of knowledge are there and what are their purposes? What does the philosopher, the mystic, the scientist, the artist want?

[2] Is it contact? To the “absolute principle”, to oneself, to the patterns or to the other? Is it calibration? To be attuned to the invisible patterns within the world? Is it healing? To smoothen out the mind and purify it? Is it learning of a method? To know of the ways of quickly moving the mind howsoever one wishes?

[3] What is the difference between knowledge and experience?

[4] What is to be done after achieving the answer, the goal, the ultimate? Is it to be dwelled in? Is it to be applied?

(06.11.2024) [5] When such knowledge emerges within our minds, it may transform us. Our feelings, attitudes and views may change.

[6] How is it possible to learn? Does the outside force us to believe, or does the inside convince us? How do/can we know that we know?

[19] Impermanence

(05.11.2024) [1] All is transient. All is in motion. All is changing.

[2] What once was, is no more. What is, once was not and will one day be no more. What will be, is not.

[3] If the world is impermanent, and everything exists within the world, everything is impermanent.

[4] Is there anything that withstands infinite time and does not cease? Could laws and abstract things defy death? Would this be meaningful?

[5] We want to exist. Everything is impermanent. Therein lies the great conflict.

[6] Should we embrace impermanence? Would this lead to a conflict with life? Can we avoid extremes?

[7] Can there be motivation in the presence of impermanence?

[8] Wanting permanence, much suffering and bad is caused – thus is clinging.

[9] Do not most things, however, cling to existence? Does not our body want to remain, or even the rocks and the molecules?

[10] Clinging is struggling, thus it is suffering. Holding tension in the mind, wanting, urging.

[20] Three Difficulties

(05.11.2024) [1] There is doubt, there is uncertainty, there is unclarity. Both painful and leading to pain, these are undesirable to many.

[2] Chasing away doubt, we become hard. Chasing away uncertainty, we become blind. Chasing away unclarity, we become lying.

[3] Painful, we do not want doubt. Thus also, we do not want questions. For questions lead to thought, and can lead to doubt, too.

[4] Not knowing, we are afraid. Knowing wrongly, we are afraid. But isn’t there beauty in ignorance? Aren’t there wonder, opportunity, fantasy, dreams and hope, too?

[21] Analysis & Synthesis

(05.11.2024) [1] Amongst the patterns are “analysis” and “synthesis”. From “1” come “2” (i.e. analysis) and from “2” comes “1” (i.e. synthesis). This can be written as “1 → 2” and “2 → 1”.

(06.11.2024) [2] We analyse to understand internal composition, we synthesise to treat things collectively. We don’t mention every animal, but say “animals”; thus we use synthesis.

[22] Structure of this Book

(05.11.2024) [1] While this book is aimed at flexibility and encompassing many topics, there may be ways of organising the contents.

[2] One way is to categorise by: (a) related to “MA”, (b) philosophy, (c) mysticism. As for (a), this means: whether philosophy, mysticism or otherwise, but related to “MA”. As for (b), this means: such as is falling under the definition of “philosophy” by some people. As for (c), this means: that which attempts to explore reality (e.g. external and internal worlds) using less philosophical means, such as maybe predominantly intuition, feeling, art, meditation and such.

[3] Two more categories may be: (a) methods/techniques, (b) psychology. As for (a), this can include e.g. “ways of doing things” or “ways of living”.

[4] Some content may relate to mathematics, some to art, some to sciences or other fields.

[23] Culture of this Book

(05.11.2024) [1] Here, we aim to explain and illustrate points regarding “cultural” questions related to this book.

[2] Why do we write in the first-person plural form (e.g. “we”)? This is because of multiple reasons. One of which is distance. Another is politeness. Another relates to impressions. Another relates to the “no authorship” idea related to “MA”.

[3] The biases and the asymmetry also stem from which cultures are dominant during the time of writing. For example, it makes sense to write in English due to the prevalence of the English language in the world during these days. Thus, it matters from which culture and for which culture is written. While it is written for everyone, the need for selecting a language resulted in English.

(06.11.2024) [4] Ideally, this writing does not take stances or include bias. Nonetheless, due to several reasons, this is not the case and might not be entirely possible either. The aim is still to reflect on everything critically, whether question or statement.

(08.11.2024) [5] Even if a sentence is written as an absolute, declarative statement, it is to be understood as a provocation for thought, like a question.

[24] About this Writing: What

(05.11.2024) [1] What is this writing? This writing’s identity requires explanation and illustration.

[2] This writing relates to: (a) a key, (b) a map, (c) a handbook/manual. These are some of the things that can be said about this writing. For (a), it is – as explained in chapter 9 – a kind of “key”; a way of connecting things. For (b), it is – similar to a key – a way of illustrating relations between things and aiding in orientation. For (c), it is a tool for allowing ourselves to reorient ourselves in life.

[25] On Love

(05.11.2024) [1] What is “love”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “a state of mind that holds a positive attitude towards something”.

[2] Many different types and forms of love may exist.

(08.11.2024) [3] If doing for others can give more than doing for oneself, why should we not prefer love and altruism?

(12.11.2024) [4] When we love, do we not love the idea of that thing?

[5] Does this also mean that e.g. the real person is not lovable enough?

[6] Do we love because we are promised to gain something?

(15.11.2024) [7] Love is a means for cooperation.

[8] Compassion is the strength of giving – from the major to the minor, the big to the small, the strong to the weak, the rich to the poor.

[9] Does love make demands to gain something from the other?

[10] Love may mean to swap identities, to be the other, to sacrifice oneself blindly.

[11] Love may extend one’s identity and become more than one was.

[12] Aggressive desire, lust, may want to possess and control. This and love shouldn’t be confused.

[13] Loving something, we are supported by an internal force to be good for that thing. The opposite for hatred.

[14] To treat respectfully that which one hates, thus (25:13) shows greater strength.

[15] Does love always create a spiritual subject in a thing?

[16] Is thus (25:15) love a spiritual function?

[17] Is what we love in the other part of ourselves? Is thus love always self-love? The mind loving itself?

[18] Or is love a mixture of wonder, confusion and familiarity? To love what is both different yet similar?

[19] Is love aesthetical and/or ethical?

[20] Is what we love the idea extracted from experience?

[21] Is feeling an urge and seeking another to love not lesser than to see another thus having such urges? One is worshipping urges, the other is worshipping another.

[26] On Stories

(05.11.2024) [1] What is a “story”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “a description of occurrences”.

(11.11.2024) [2] We may think like this: Experience leads to creation (of mental objects). Creation requires identification (e.g. definition). The identified is connected using e.g. stories. Thus, experience gets translated into stories.

(14.11.2024) [3] Stories (may) contain a perspective through values and beliefs, which make us feel and think differently about things.

[4] Thus, stories can lead to altering reality, to therapy and more.

[27] On Divinity

(06.11.2024) [1] What are the “divine”, the “sacred” and the “holy”? While these words have similarities, they also have differences. Depending on the definition, the “divine” relates to a divinity, deity, god. The “sacred” relates to the exalted, religion and deities. The “holy” relates to the exalted, that which is set apart, religion; it also relates to “whole” and “health”.

[2] What does “spiritual” mean? Depending on the definition, we could say: “that which relates to spirit(s)”. That is, relating to beings without material bodies.

[3] Are there spiritual entities? Of which kind could they be? Do they possess bodies, and/or minds?

[4] What is the reason to treat spiritual entities? How do lives with or without those differ from one another? What can be done, experienced, achieved solely through them?

[5] Why do we worship? Is it gratitude, fear, love, yearning? Is it egoistic or altruistic?

[6] If e.g. the sacred is “set apart”, it may belong to a different category of things – we divide life and its things into categories, the mundane and the sacred.

[7] Why does a deity have to be the way it has to be? Why flawless? Why good?

[8] Why should a creator be the highest?

[9] Why and when do we make things holy or sacred?

[10] Could divinities influence our thought? Could they influence matter?

(09.11.2024) [11] If, as with 29:16, a divinity were the Ultimate and couldn’t be made up of parts, it couldn’t communicate with us. Would it not need “the part that can communicate”?

(11.11.2024) [12] If a divinity is to be the Ultimate, because of 29:17, it might not be able to change.

[13] If communication requires to be in more than one state – e.g. (a) “before/after communication” and (b) “during communication” –, the Ultimate cannot communicate and not communicate.

[14] The same as for 27:13 goes for “to create” – it can only create and not not-create, or the opposite, but not both.

[15] Because of 27:13-14, a divinity that is (a) the Ultimate, (b) a creator, (c) a communicator, might not be possible.

[16] If a divinity were to communicate with us, would this require a stuff that mediates between them and us, like physical force particles?

[17] If a divinity were omnipotent, they couldn’t depend on a force. Thus, they might have to be in contact with our mind directly.

[18] Could a divinity intervene by changing the probability of quantum mechanical outcomes, thus altering the universe at a fundamental level?

[19] Many people desire there to be “sacred stuff”, i.e. stuff that is not of the same category as the stuff we’re made up of – e.g. the elementary particles.

[20] Many people desire complexity without mechanistical constituency – a “mind” that is complex yet isn’t made up of simple matter and mathematics.

[21] Many people desire the “other” – the experience of there being something that is like us, yet unlike us.

[22] Being human is inherently lonely – without other humans, but as humanity collectively. Thus, we seek the “other”.

[23] Which of these (27:19-22) desires do we project into the divine, and which are there?

[24] If “God” were the “first cause”, and since then all things have been chains of causation built on that one, each and every thought of ours is a divine thought – a part of God’s doing.

[25] If (27:24) is true, and all of our bodies’ and minds’ processes belong to this chain of causation, we are imbued with God’s doing.

(12.11.2024) [26] If there were a maximally great divinity, would our existence not diminish such a divinity’s extent?

[27] If there were an all-good divinity, anything they do is how it should be.

[28] If we came from such a divinity, anything we could do would therefore have to be good, too. Otherwise the divinity did something that holds non-good in itself.

[29] If there were an all-good, omnipotent divinity which created humans, humans would be good and good cannot go against good while being good, thus the divinity couldn’t go against humans.

[30] If there were an all-good divinity, it couldn’t decide – for in any situation, isn’t there always one best possible action? Thus, such a divinity would never have to decide, as there’s nothing to decide from amongst – only the perfectly good option is valid. What freedom could it have?

[31] Would divinities require effort and calculations when thinking?

[32] If an all-good divinity created humans, and all-good cannot give rise to less good, the divinity had to create an equal to itself in humans.

[33] If 27:32, the divinity cannot be the Ultimate, as/if the Ultimate cannot have equals.

[34] Thus (27:33), such a divinity could either be all-good or the Ultimate, but not both.

[35] Would divinities interfere in the world to help non-human animals?

[36] If God is unchangeable, how could prayers work?

[37] If God knew of our future prayers and already prepared a response, are we thus bound and predestined to pray in the future?

[38] Do we fulfil God’s knowledge of the future or does God change according to our free will?

[39] Is God subject to their own motivations, desires and urges? Would this diminish their absoluteness?

(14.11.2024) [40] If something is truly sacred, could we even question, analyse, look at it?

(15.11.2024) [41] Do we worship, pray and treat due to wanting to change fate and luck? What is luck?

[42] If God is perfect, they cannot gain. Since love is giving, thus, God is only love.

[43] If 27:42 is true, God might not be able to choose love – they are determined to love.

[44] Why do we give (e.g. praise) to a divinity if they are complete? Does praise not motivate and motivation is unnecessary or even impossible? Is it a type of self-satisfactory act with which we rejoice?

[45] Is happiness not a type of reward for a thing that sustains itself?

[46] If there were a perfect divinity and 27:45 is true, then such a divinity wouldn’t have a need for happiness.

[47] If 27:45 is true, then only incomplete things can experience happiness.

[28] On Definitions

(06.11.2024) [1] Before treating thought through language, one should be clear on definitions.

[2] Within definitions there is no philosophy. “That which is both round and square.” can be a definition, even if it disobeys certain mathematical or logical laws.

[29] The Ultimate

(06.11.2024) [1] What is the “Ultimate”? Is it that which is beyond all, above all, complete and perfect? Is it the “1”, or a “1”?

[2] Is it the same as the “Absolute”? It might be.

[3] Can there be more than one Ultimate?

[4] Can the Ultimate be spiritual? That is, can it be a being, with or without “intelligence”?

[5] Is the Ultimate more or less important than other things?

[6] Is the Ultimate the entirety of all other things?

[7] Can an Ultimate be? If, for example, it is in the perfect state, it cannot change, move or do. Can such a thing be?

[8] What would it mean to be “perfect”, i.e. whole and complete? Complete relative to what? A triangle is perfect relative to requiring three sides.

[9] Is the Ultimate a metaphysical necessity, a logical necessity, a mental archetype or something else?

[10] Could the perfect be a relative (or “relational”) perfect, where no one state is perfect, but a sequence of states is, just like a melody? Changing environment might mean that things within it have to change to remain perfect.

[11] What would it mean to “grow”? Would it mean that something becomes “better” and/or gets closer to a goal and/or becomes more of itself? Could the Ultimate grow?

[12] Could the Ultimate be potentially perfect but not actually yet? If it becomes whatever it needs to become in the right moment, is it thus not actually perfect in some sense?

[13] Is the Ultimate the most complex or the most simple? Do not complex things (e.g. humans) emerge from simple things (e.g. atoms)? Is not the most simple the most fundamental?

[14] From much can come much, clearly. But to have much from few is marvellous. Thus, would the Ultimate not be more exalted were it the most simple?

(09.11.2024) [15] Could an Ultimate be? Could it do anything? If it has no parts, could it not have abstract faculties or organs that “do” different things?

[16] Can the Ultimate be of something that is in e.g. ourselves? If it cannot have parts, it can only be made up of one thing. If it is made up of things not shared with other things, how can it interact with things?

(11.11.2024) [17] Because of 38: 26-28, the Ultimate might not be able to change.

[18] If, for 38:32, “yes”, then the Ultimate must be made up of at least one part that is also found in us, if it can interact with us.

[19] If the Ultimate isn’t made up of parts and 29:18 is true, then one of our parts is equal to the Ultimate.

(12.11.2024) [20] Through treating the Ultimate, we can treat everything – for everything may be within the Ultimate and/or the Ultimate within everything.

[21] This (29:20), however, might be called “putting no effort into treating”.

[30] About this Writing: Why

(06.11.2024) [1] Why do we write this writing? An answer for this question requires elaboration.

[2] Observations have led to the view that helpful writings could be good for people. To give and to assist.

[3] This writing aims at giving something that may be thought of as new. Anything repetitive should be due to contributing to something new that can be derived from it. For example, if we repeat what others have said, this is to derive something from that.

[4] Some things, however, may be repeated. These then serve as a pointer to other sources. As such, something new may still emerge from this.

[5] One purpose and goal hereof is to get in touch with the patterns.

[6] Another purpose and goal is to remember; to remember the patterns, certain ideas and methods.

[31] On Relativity

(06.11.2024) [1] What does it mean for something to be “relative”? We may say that it means that something depends on something (else) for how it is. The elephant is big relative to a tiger, but small relative to a mountain.

[2] What are the relative things? Is truth relative? Are values relative? Are we relative – do we not depend on other things to be the way we are?

[3] Within relativity, there is abundance; within absolute, there is reduction.

[4] If values are absolute, there might be an authority behind it; if they are relative, each instance (mind) might be authority.

[5] The relative may not mean “to be dependent” and may not mean “to be able to get affected”.

[6] Can only mental things be absolute and relative? Or only sentences?

[32] On Language

(06.11.2024) [1] What is “language”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “a system of communication”.

[2] Are there multiple sentence types? Or are they all merely a “situation” that is either declared, requested, commanded or exclaimed?

[3] Beyond the capabilities of language, what do we do? That which is not defined can be defined. That which is not known can be described. Other things require non-language means and/or personal experience, i.e. instructions for arriving at those.

[33] On Connections

(08.11.2024) [1] Between things there are connections. These may only be mental.

[2] One type of connection is the “association”.

[34] On Things

(08.11.2024) [1] Everything is a “thing”.

[2] There are things that do not connect and things that connect – “elements” and “connections”.

[3] These two may be like “AM” and “MA” – like ○ and ●.

[4] There are things that relate properties to things. These are called “properties”.

[5] Are properties real and do they exist? What are they?

(11.11.2024) [6] Is a property a part of something?

[35] On Experience

(08.11.2024) [1] What is “experience”? It may be the content of consciousness.

[2] It is the only thing we are in contact with, and the most direct metaphysical layer.

[3] Everything else is mediated through experience – the external world emerges in experience as a kind of sign, indirectly, reactive.

[4] Is consciousness equal to the mind or a part of it? It may be a part of it.

[36] Ontological Definitions

(08.11.2024) [1] The ontological threshold of definition is where one thing ends and another begins.

[2] Is something a thing because it has a specific part and/or property?

[3] Is something “red” because it has at least one bit of “red”? Or because it has more than half of itself as “red”? Or because it has only “red”? Or because a specific part is “red”?

(11.11.2024) [4] We remind ourselves of the thresholds in chemistry – e.g. activation energy. Thus we interpret things to have such limits for being.

(14.11.2024) [5] Where one thing begins and another ends might be based on the threshold of functionality – where one process begins and the other ends (e.g. brain and rest of the body).

[37] The Good/Bad

(08.11.2024) [1] What is the “good”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “that which should be”. In a sense, “the goal for the ethical mind”. The “bad” is its counterpart.

[2] Can an “isolated good” be? That is, something that is abstracted from any real “situation”. Could “health” ever be in isolation, without a context and a world in which it is observed and measured?

[3] If an isolated good couldn’t be, then a good must be a complete situation of a world.

[4] If it cannot be a single moment or situation, however, then it must be a pattern of a story of a world. Much like a single sound is not sufficient to be beautiful without being part of a melody, one might say; so, a single moment might not be enough.

[5] If this were the case, either everything is or isn’t good.

[6] Can something be intrinsically good and/or teleologically good? Can something be a goal and/or lead to a goal?

[7] Can there be multiple such goals?

[8] Are those goals differentiated by degree of goodness?

[9] If there were a world with only good, could there be any multiplicity or would it be just one thing?

[10] If it were just one thing, the purpose of “good” would be nought – the thing aiming for itself might be impossible.

[11] A world with more good than bad might be able to exist.

[12] Is the good a singular or relational value? Much like a single sound might not be beautiful before it shows a harmony between sounds, the good might be such.

[13] If, to some, generosity comes easy, is it really virtuous to be generous for them? At least equally as for those to whom it comes difficult?

[14] The perfectly gifted person – what should we praise them for? They are good, and due to their being good only good actions come.

[15] The imperfect person – if from this good actions come, effort can be attested.

[16] Do we thus praise effort more than anything else? Is this expenditure of energy?

[17] The greatest hardship requires the greatest praise.

(09.11.2024) [18] Is the “ethical mind” more highly developed and/or dependent on social phenomena?

[19] If something can lead to bad in something else, is it bad or not? If anger can destroy someone else, but not oneself, would it be bad?

[20] Thus, is the good “good for anything” or “good for ourselves”? For what is the good?

(11.11.2024) [21] Can being be good/bad, or only doings? Being leads to doing. An angry mind leads to acts of anger.

[22] If “health” were good, which health? Our health, the health of others, everyone’s health, the health of a specific, the health of the majority, the minority, etc.?

[23] Can there be a general good that is not “for” something? Could “health” be good independent of its manifestations in entities?

[24] Is the point of ethics to manage social life? Would there be ethics for one human alone in the wilderness? Or is it a type of “second ego”?

[25] If ethics is for social life, isn’t any egoistic end nonsensical? But without any egoistic element, surely it’d be difficult to imagine.

[26] Thus (37:25), the ingredients of ethics might be a sort of balance between what helps oneself and the others. Thus it is an art of balance, an art of dialogue.

[27] Thus (37:26), does it really make sense to do ethics alone? Thus, it may be about knowing, loving and caring for others.

[28] Is “good” a property or quality of things that we see in things in order to navigate the world?

[29] Whence does the “good” come from? Does our mind communicate this to us?

[30] If so (37:29), does this originate in the mind or elsewhere?

[31] Is “beauty” the egoistic or individualistic counterpart to an altruistic or social “good”?

[32] If the good originates in the mind, is it thus based on evolution’s patterns and genetics?

(12.11.2024) [33] Could something that is perfectly good give rise to something that is not perfectly good?

[34] If so (37:33), then it could not go against itself. For going against itself (a “good”) would be non-good (“bad”).

[35] If bad is needed for good, is that bad still bad or is it good? For example, if a lie (“bad”) serves to help someone greatly (“good”), is the lie good or bad?

[36] Since nothing – until a hypothetical end of causation itself – is final but always leads to something else, how can we say that something is perfectly good/bad? It could lead to more good/bad.

[37] Is nothing perfectly good/bad except for the ultimate goal – or its opposite – itself?

[38] If the good gives rise to something, is that one less good because of its distance to the original good?

[39] Is the close or far effect more important? If a bad leads to good, is the first (“bad”) what counts or the second (“good”)? Is it about the final or about each moment?

[40] Since the final of a life is death, surely the good/bad isn’t always about such a final.

[41] Why do we choose the axioms which we choose? Is there an ethical thought related to it?

(14.11.2024) [42] Is there a foundational good? Does it change like the flickering of a candle within our minds?

[43] Is “ethical progress” merely the education, healing and training of the mind towards clarity, accuracy and freeing from pain?

(15.11.2024) [44] Is it possible to do what one thinks is wrong/bad? Is it by definition not right/good? Or are there two separate instances, parts or sides in the mind?

[45] Amongst values and rules, are there kinds? Like the “romantic ideals” and the “pragmatic values”? More or less basic ones?

[46] Should we do ethics by looking at things in isolation or consider their consequences, then retroactively alter the thing?

[47] Is something good to an amount of how close it is to a fundamental good? Or how directly it leads to one of them?

[48] If “truth” matches a mental thing with another thing, does “right” match a statement with an imperative by an authority/source?

[49] Is the “right”/”good” relative to a world, mind or system?

[50] Does something within us project these values into things? Or are they within the thing, there to be discovered?

[51] Do we remember these things as if we had forgotten a past divine life?

[52] The good and “to be what should be for this self”. Is it thus to fulfil the wishes of a mind?

[53] Is the good a concept that functions to coordinate society? Is it thus subjective but also socially universal? Does it stem from the “tribe-mind” within the mind?

[54] The good signifies an “optimal situation for a thing”.

[55] It is possible to go from suffering to happiness, but not to go from death to life.

[56] Dialogue can create compromises. In a compromise, both gain and lose.

[57] Compromises can lead to a greater overall good, but less singular good.

[58] The opposite of a dialogue with compromises is conflict and force. Agreement and opposition/difference.

[38] On Metaphysics

(08.11.2024) [1] Can laws change? What does it mean to be a law?

[2] What does it mean for a law to “determine” something? Is determination a force from the outside, inside, or completely different?

[3] Can there be change? Or is not all of it destruction and creation in every moment? Or can destruction and creation not be, and all there is, is change?

[4] Do moments exist? Is there division of time? Or are those mental creations?

[5] Can a thing be perfectly the same in two (consecutive) moments?

[6] There may be things that can be in multiple ways (e.g. perspectives) and things that can only be in one way (e.g. “objective truth”).

[7] The logic of the external world may not be the same as that of the internal world (i.e. mind).

[8] “Logic” and such systems themselves may be only mental creations and not exist in anything other than thoughts’ products and/or maybe the architecture of thought.

[9] Thinking of “forces”, are they mental representations of an idea, such as an invisible entity that pulls or pushes things around? Like the ox pulling a cart?

[10] Might a “force” merely be an abstracted experience of an ox pulling a cart, imposed onto mathematical objects?

[11] Do we not talk about the external world with words, which, however, refer not to anything outside but always to experiences inside the mind?

[12] If the external world has a green tree and we see it as a red tree due to a play of light and mental processes, and we call it “red tree”, we refer to the experience, not the actual tree. It may be thus with every word we use.

[13] The mind has to construct an external world. It is constructed to the mind, by the mind. Like an author and an audience, the mind entertains itself.

[14] Does the mind not create an experience of personal identity and locus as being somewhere within the head of a human body? But aside from this, what can really be said about our identity and locus other than that it is created by something to be like such?

[15] Might we be the physical particles that constitute the brain or parts thereof? If so, truly we might be like a drop in the ocean, or rather, the ocean itself.

[16] We may not be able to say that “This is like that.”, only that “our mind’s logic will explain the mind’s experience in this way”.

[17] Is there multiplicity in the external world? Or do we see it due to having a logic of quantity in the mind?

[18] Some metaphysical ideas may not be possible to prove – what are their consequences and do they require faith?

(09.11.2024) [19] How can we know that the smallest physical particle could be without parts? Could it have non-matter parts?

[20] What are the constants of the universe that allow for things to exist? If they were perfectly symmetrical, they might not be possible to create anything.

(11.11.2024) [21] Can there be a thing that affects other things but isn’t affected by other things?

[22] Can something be existing independently of conditions? Thus it is always. Would it be existence itself?

[23] If a thing is made up of parts, but those parts cannot not be in such a configuration as to give rise to that thing, would that thing be contingent?

[24] What does it mean to be “possible/impossible”? According to which system of rules/laws?

[25] Does any system of logic – once applied – not carry metaphysical connotations and presupposed beliefs with it? Can we talk without metaphysical beliefs in our systems?

[26] If something can change, it needs to be both itself and not itself – if it were only different after change, it’d not be itself and not have changed but simply gotten replaced by something else; if it were only the same after change, it’d not have any difference and not have changed.

[27] If something thus has to be both same and different, it needs to be made up of parts (and/or aspects) – one remains the same, the other will become different.

[28] Thus, anything that can change is made up of parts and anything that isn’t made up of parts (e.g. the “Ultimate”, possibly) cannot change.

[29] For 38:27, this can be challenged by saying that an atom that travels needn’t be a different atom nor be made up of parts when its location changes, yet something about it is different due to movement.

[30] If something can be seen in different ways depending on perspective, is this a property of that thing, the “observing thing”, both or something else?

[31] Can there be something that is in time and doesn’t change?

[32] If two things can interact, do they require a common part?

[33] For 38:32, it might also be “the same stuff”, thus maybe a shared property.

[34] Does interaction always lead to change? And if so, both ways?

[35] What are the metaphysical layers of reality? For example, as there is the dream world and the waking world, how many others are there? And are they a gradient?

(15.11.2024) [36] If we had free will, and free will means to have a first cause within will, would this not challenge an unequalled God – being the only first cause? Would this be “something from nothing”?

[39] Self and Other

(08.11.2024) [1] The focus on oneself and/or the individual, as opposed to the focus on the other and/or the collective – egoism and/or individualism vs altruism and/or collectivism.

[2] Is not every motivation driven by egoism, at least ultimately?

[3] Is it not easier to be egoistic?

[4] If egoism focuses on oneself, and society is an other, egoism is opposed to constructions and society.

[5] If the individual needs society to survive, and egoism opposes society, egoism opposes the individual, ultimately.

[6] To give and suffer means others may have and be happy.

[7] “I want to be well.” say both, taking from the other. “I want you to be well.” say both, giving to the other.

[8] If egoism is perfectly good, there is conflict – for nobody should give anything, only get. If altruism is perfectly good, there is conflict – for nobody should get anything, only give.

[9] To be able to extend the self into others is difficult, but skilful. They have great vision.

[10] Sacrificing the individual for the group may have us fear to devalue people.

[11] To maximise the worth of people means to make gods out of them.

[12] But can social space really be divided thus? Can gods co-exist?

[13] Because the sexes are incomplete without each other, they can share space.

[14] Two absolutes may not be able to exist together.

[40] Beautiful Beliefs

(08.11.2024) [1] What is a “beautiful belief”? This can also be known as a “pragmatic belief” as opposed to an “epistemic belief” – i.e. a belief we hold not because of rational evidence and conviction, but because of e.g. emotional motivation, bias and usefulness.

[2] Should philosophy be about finding truth and/or useful beliefs? Would the latter be the poet?

(09.11.2024) [3] Do we believe things on a gradient? With things being percentual in how much we believe it as opposed to an alternative?

[4] Is it possible to choose what we believe? How could we do that?

(12.11.2024) [5] If logic and intuition doesn’t dictate what to believe in, what does? Desire?

[41] Epistemology: To Know

(08.11.2024) [1] Is understanding linguistic, below language, besides language or something else?

[2] When do we understand something? Is understanding a gradient?

[3] If we truly understand something, do we not understand the entirety of reality?

(11.11.2024) [4] Different reasons can provoke the same insight from different angles and/or levels of profoundness.

[5] How do we know that/when we know? How do we distinguish between knowledge and “falsity”?

[6] Is knowing a percentual approximation of conviction and laziness towards deciding on being sure?

[7] Knowing, we believe and trust in something. This relaxes the mind and leads to negligence.

[8] We might have a threshold of tolerance towards imperfection and imprecision – when reached, we doubt and question. Otherwise, we may conserve energy.

[9] When do we require more or less degrees of certainty and evidence?

[10] Is pure rationalism possible? Can there be an object of thought that is not “sense”-based? Isn’t the sensational the content of a thought? Or of some thought? Is not even mathematics abstracted from the senses?

(14.11.2024) [11] Is it possible to think, believe or do without bias or (self-)deception? Isn’t all doing motivated by an interest in one’s own wellbeing?

(15.11.2024) [12] What are the limits of good knowledge? When does knowledge turn against us? Which knowledge should not be obtained?

[13] There is knowledge that has us not feel at home within our mind anymore.

[14] Partial thinking may lead to falsity and thus can lead to dangers.

[15] Is there knowledge à priori in dreams, as there is no contact to the external world?

[16] Can there be à priori knowledge at all?

[17] Does knowledge not require multiple perspectives tested against one another, thus at least profits from multiple minds communicating?

[18] We may never know our back without other minds, yet communication itself is at best an approximation, too.

[42] The Will

(08.11.2024) [1] What does it mean to make a “decision”? How can we make decisions?

[2] Is there a point in weighing when evidence is seen as enough, thus decisions take place?

[3] Is deciding an illusion?

(09.11.2024) [4] What does it mean to “do” something? Is it merely steps in a bigger process of interactions?

[5] What is an “action”? Where does it begin and where does it end? What belongs to the action?

[43] Logic and Mathematics

(08.11.2024) [1] What is “quantity”? What can be “multiple”? Is it a creation of the mind alone, and do only mental objects have quantity?

(12.11.2024) [2] Are there things that on the surface defy logic but if one went below the axioms, would make sense?

[3] Are there things that don’t make sense but are true and good?

[4] If there are things that defy human sense and logic, why do the latter work so well?

(15.11.2024) [5] Is a mathematical statement an instruction or a kind of proposition?

[6] Is a mathematical statement empirical or rational?

[44] On Systems

(09.11.2024) [1] What is a “system”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “a set of interconnected things working together as a whole”.

[2] There can be systems of abstract objects, rules, beliefs and more.

[45] On Might and Power

(09.11.2024) [1] What is “power”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “the potentiality to cause change”.

[2] There may be soft and hard power – words and body, ideas and physical forces.

[3] Soft power borrows hard power. Every king borrows soldiers.

[4] As many things can only be accomplished by working together, armies emerge, led by soft power.

[46] On Freedom

(09.11.2024) [1] What is “freedom”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “the absence of restrictions”. These states can then remove additional restrictions (e.g. physical limitations) and/or extend original ability (e.g. to augment one using technology).

[2] Freedom allows potential to become actual. This includes good and bad.

[3] How can thus anyone say that it is entirely good or bad?

[4] Doesn’t everyone want freedom, for they think of themselves as being good?

[5] Doesn’t everyone have a degree of worry about others’ freedom, for they do not fully trust them to be good?

[6] Should everyone be made gods or captives? Ultimate freedom or ultimate restrictions?

(11.11.2024) [7] There can be “freedom from ‘must’” and “freedom from ‘must not’” – the freedom to not have to do, and the freedom to be able to do. No compulsion, no restriction.

(14.11.2024) [8] If we are pure thought and want maximal freedom, all must be subservient to thought.

[47] On Society

(09.11.2024) [1] What is “society”? Depending on the definition, this can include: “a group of people living together”.

(14.11.2024) [2] Does society have a balancing and equilibrium-seeking function? Own beliefs get averaged through sharing them with others. Emotions can get balanced out. Through connection, equilibrium might be achieved.

(15.11.2024) [3] Society means sacrifice of the individual for the individual.

[4] Sacrifice leads to tension. Hidden dissatisfaction.

[5] Laws and rules lead to laziness.

[6] For this and that to have an average, neither truly has, as the result is neither nor.

[7] Extremes may lead to or require destruction, but lead to maximal gains.

[8] The major doesn’t need society – the minor does.

[9] Laws and rules remove both dangers and ingenuity of the intellect.

[10] The minor takes/receives the power of the major.

[11] We don’t know the absence of society. For, born to a mother, we are born into a social environment.

[12] Born into luxury, is there a responsibility to give, as one didn’t earn it?

[48] The Self

(09.11.2024) [1] What is the “self”? The “self” is that which we are.

[2] Are we our body, our mind, a part thereof, both, neither?

[3] Do we have a definable self?

[4] Do we have a static self that always obeys the same description?

[5] We say: “I am happy.”, indicating that we relate to the mind. We say: “Feed me!”, indicating that we relate to the body.

[6] In language, we seem to be mind sometimes, body sometimes.

[7] Yet we say: “my mind” and “my body” – are we thus neither?

[8] Is the self created in every moment by the mind, and in different ways?

[9] Like an imaginary master over mind and body.

(14.11.2024) [10] To really be, does it correlate to agency? Is being agency or amount of deliberation?

[11] Do we think or do we judge thoughts? Do thoughts emerge and we merely react to them, thus we are reaction? Do we merely respond to suggestions?

[12] To be maximally oneself, does it mean to rebel against what is the other? Does it mean to rebel against outside influences on determination by the other?

[13] To be maximally oneself, does it mean to go against one’s own inner influences where those are strongest? To completely “self-determine”? Doesn’t this lead to self-destruction?

[14] Is there a fixed and/or static self?

(15.11.2024) [15] Consciousness is empty like the sky.

[16] Within consciousness, the idea of ourselves is created.

[49] Happiness and Suffering

(09.11.2024) [1] Happiness is the opposite of suffering.

[2] Happiness is any positive state of mind, suffering is any negative state of mind.

[3] How much happiness is sufficient?

[50] On Meaning

(11.11.2024) [1] What is “meaning”? Depending on the field, this can include: (a) that which e.g. words “do” or “hold”, (b) the beliefs and values attached to things (e.g. the “meaning of life”).

[2] What is a “belief”, in this context? It might be a logical way of connecting things in the world to e.g. make sense of everything.

[3] What is a “value”, in this context? It might be a kind of logical quality of how something is or can be. This can help us orient ourselves towards things that hold values we cherish and find to be “good”.

[4] We want the grounds and the roofs to be meaningful – the reasons and the goals.

[5] We might see something, find its characteristics suitable for a projection of “meaning”, and thus do so.

(14.11.2024) [6] Is “meaning” separate from anything that can be described with other words and a fundamental unit of thought? Is it a kind of “metaphysical intent”?

(15.11.2024) [7] The rarer, the more meaningful (e.g. words).

[51] On Ontology

(11.11.2024) [1] Whether there is a house or only parts thereof, does neither truly apply to reality, as “thingness” may be a mental creation? There is no house, there are no parts.

[2] Is it not so that a tiger might not have stripes, but merely fur? Are the stripes our doing?

(14.11.2024) [3] There is both the noumenon and the phenomenon – everything has two sides to its reality.

[4] Is there something with only a noumenal or phenomenal side? Are our experiences only phenomenal?

(15.11.2024) [5] If something moves within dimensions, did it change or not?

[52] Mental Additions

(11.11.2024) [1] What is a “mental addition”? A “mental addition” is the difference between what is there and what the mind creates. It is a type of “mental creation”.

[2] What can be seen by some but not all is clear evidence of an addition and a subjective, mental thing.

[3] If reasoning can lead to seeing or not seeing something a certain way, is it thus an addition if we see it that way, or is the not-seeing a mistake?

[4] If one person sees something, others might not be able to see it. If every human ever saw it (i.e. “anthropocentric universal”), maybe a non-human being could not see it. If every mind-possessing being saw it (i.e. “mental universal”), still, it might not be there.

[5] Mental creations and intuitions might be merely evolved patterns of recognising sense patterns and associating them with mental responses.

[6] Even for that which is there, the mind has to create it within itself, first.

[7] The mind doesn’t create the thing, nor the correct representation thereof, but a perspective-relative projection onto the canvas of the mind. For example, the external world seems to be three-dimensional, yet our mind has a (mostly) two-dimensional way of seeing and thinking.

[8] Thus (52:4), even if every human were to come to the same conclusion about something, how could we say that it is “objectively” the case? That is, independent of mind.

[9] Values might be mind-only. Statements might match reality, but are mind-only, too – in a sense, every “true” statement is subjective and thus “false”, too. We approximate the objects of the mind onto external objects; thus, they are as if we called our shadow our body.

[10] If values mean that they are ways in which an organism can navigate the world, they might not be possible to be objective – since they depend on an organism.

[11] Thus, values might have been made actual with the creation of organisms.

[12] If values relate to mental responses or patterns, again, they would be dependent on mind, thus be subjective.

[13] If we see a red apple and say that it is red, surely this is merely repeating what our senses provide us with.

[14] However, if we say that it is an apple, this is a mental creation.

[15] The “red” might be pure sense experience, the “apple” might be pure creation.

[16] Once more than one thing exists in the mind, this might be an addition. Whether we connect two things across the experience, in the abstract realm, or in the external world.

[17] Thus, to see red and name it “red” is naming. But to see another red and refer to it by the word “red”, is logic – thus a mental creation.

[18] Since the experiential “red” might differ from the external, real “red”, we may not be able to connect the experience to the external world and be accurate.

[19] Both “naming” and “connecting” are thoughts, but not both are mental creations.

(12.11.2024) [20] In naming, the mind creates something, but which differs from a “mental creation”.

[21] Naming is an association of a thing with a sign as a sign; and not as its ontology. That is, it is instrumental.

[53] The Techniques & Tools

(12.11.2024) [1] There are techniques and there are tools. “Techniques” refer to “how to do things”. “Tools” refer to “things that are used to do something with”.

[54] On Afterlife

(14.11.2024) [1] If there were an afterlife, what is it that transfers to it?

[55] The Mystical

(14.11.2024) [1] Only things of the same stuff can meet/touch.

[2] If we are mind, we can only meet other mind.

[3] Thus (55:2), we can never meet another person other than in/through their mind.

[4] If we only have representations and models of another in our mind, we don’t even have contact to their mind.

[5] We can only contact ideas, as ideas are mind.

(15.11.2024) [6] The other is evidence that we exist, and that we’re awake.

[56] On Aesthetics

(14.11.2024) [1] Can we ourselves be “beautiful”? Is beauty instrumental to serve ourselves? Thus, is it always the other that is beautiful?

[2] Is “beauty” that which one wants to hold? One cannot hold oneself, or already does so.

(15.11.2024) [3] Aesthetics is relational. For it reveals both something about the perceived and something about the perceiver, and especially the relationship itself.

[4] To enjoy beauty means to be in touch with one’s nature and be in agreement with it.

---

Images

The key for the Hieratic Script in a three-by-three grid structure.

Image 1 - Hieratic Script Key

(03.11.2024) [1] The “Hieratic Script” is explained in e.g. chapter 2. It is a collection of nine glyphs meant to have the flexibility to connect various things through the great “principles” of “0” through “9”. They are arranged in a three-by-three manner called the “key”.

A diagram illustrating the fundamental principles of 0, 1 and 2.

Image 2 - Diagram of the principles of "0", "1" and "2"

(03.11.2024) [1] As explained in chapter 3, this diagram illustrates relationships between the “principles” “0”, “1” and “2”. The opened semi-circle on top represents “0”. The Taijitu below represents “1”. The white circle below represents the “AM” side of “2”. The black circle represents the “MA” side of “2”. The straight lines indicate a genealogical descent from “0” to “1” to “2”. The curved line between “MA” and “AM” indicates a more complex relationship between those two principles.

An alternative diagram of the principles of 0, 1 and 2.

Image 3 - Alternate diagram of "0", "1" and "2"

(03.11.2024) [1] This alternate diagram adds the numerals to show which part of the diagram represents which “principle”, as well as another element: the implied open semi-circle at the bottom. This represents the further principles that emerge from “2”. The symbol for the “1” features a black dot in a white circle, indicating wholeness but also the combination of both the black and white.

A diagram illustrating the relationships between the 0, 1 and 2.

Image 4 - Alternate diagram of "0", "1" and "2"

(03.11.2024) [1] Another diagram of “0”, “1” and “2”, this one might be more realistic, in that “MA” and “AM” may not exist independently from one another but are merely two sides of the “1”. Thus, the entire Taijitu is the “1”, with two sides within it, representing the “2” – “MA” and “AM”. The “0” is beyond this symbol, yet within, and everywhere and nowhere. Thus it is written apart from the Taijitu.

A diagram illustrating the relationship between the rational and irrational.

Image 5 - Diagram of the rational, irrational and holistic

(03.11.2024) [1] Illustrating e.g. the approach of investigating the world using both “rational” and “irrational” means, i.e. the entire mind, to come to holistic solutions.

Key with sun cycle

Image 6 - Key with the sun cycle

(03.11.2024) [1] The “key” is related to this three-by-three grid, within which symbols are arranged. It relates to the “Hieratic Script” and its relationship to this “key”. The symbols within the key are a sun at noon (top), a setting sun at dusk (right), a barely visible moon at night (bottom) and a rising sun at dawn (left). This maps and connects the sun’s cycle – or a day – to the glyphs and other things. This can also be interpreted to suggest a perspective where the sun rises to our left and sets to our right, i.e. where we look towards south.

Key with directions of development

Image 7 - The directions of MA and AM

(03.11.2024) [1] There are three diagrams: the left, the middle and the right. All three illustrate “MA” at the bottom and “AM” at the top. The left diagram relates to the sun’s cycle during the day, where it rises and sets in an arc across the sky. The middle diagram represents a development similar to the Taijitu: things rise from the lowest across the right side, return to the centre, then rise again on the left in the opposite direction. The right diagram illustrates a more complex path: it begins at the middle-bottom and travels in a specific manner across the “map”/”board” until it reaches the middle-top.

Key with moon cycle

Image 8 - Key with moon cycle

(03.11.2024) [1] This diagram illustrates the moon’s cycle on the “key”. The new moon is “MA” and waxes on the left side until it reaches “AM”, where it becomes the full moon. Then it returns again to the bottom through the right side.

Key with numbers

Image 9 - Key with the numbers

(03.11.2024) [1] This diagram illustrates the “key” with the numerals of the “principles”, “0” through “9”. Due to the transcendental nature of “0”, it is not visible here. This diagram’s arrangement corresponds to the path of Image 7. The arrangement relates to certain “magic squares”. Such arrangements of numbers produce interesting results when calculations are performed on them, among other things. One of the reasons why this arrangement takes place is that it ensures mnemonic qualities.

Key with sky, human and earth

Image 10 - Key with sky, human and earth

(03.11.2024) [1] A diagram of the “key” with three elements within it: “sky”, a symbolic human and “earth”. This illustrates a certain physical relationship between “sky”, “humans” and “earth”. It also maps these concepts onto the key, thus connecting them to the glyphs and “MA” (“earth”) and “AM” (“sky”).

Key with principles of MA and AM

Image 11 - Key with distribution of MA and AM

(03.11.2024) [1] This diagram illustrates the distribution of “MA” and “AM” sides within the “key”. The bottom is “MA”, the top is “AM”, left is “AM”, right is “MA” (in some cultures and traditions, left and right are switched instead). Since “MA” is first and “AM” is second (this, too, can be switched, and it can be argued that neither can be first or second), “left” and “first” are associated and “right” and “second” are associated, resulting in the black-white circles of the two respective orientations.

Key with principles of MA and AM and numbers

Image 12 - Key with MA, AM and numbers

(03.11.2024) [1] In this diagram, both the numeric and “MA”-“AM” distribution arrangements are illustrated. The numeric arrangement is the same as for Image 9. The circles within each field are as follows: the left circle of the group is the “major”, the middle circle the “middle” and the right circle the “minor”. Each of them can be “MA” or “AM”. Thus, a total of eight different distributions can emerge. The arrangement thereof is that which gives rise to the direction of the middle diagram in Image 7. Note that the centre does not have a distribution, only a number.

Key with principles of MA and AM and a Taijitu

Image 13 - Key with MA, AM and a Taijitu

(03.11.2024) [1] This diagram illustrates the “key” with the “MA”-“AM” distribution similar to Image 12. Filling in colours for that, a figure similar to the Taijitu emerges.

Three glyphs related to the Hieratic Script

Image 14 - Glyphs related to the Hieratic Script

(03.11.2024) [1] There are three glyphs related to the “Hieratic Script”. Only the middle glyph is part of the nine glyphs of that script. The other two have different meanings and functions. The diagram illustrates how the right glyph is a combination of the left and the middle glyph.

The individual strokes of Hieratic Script glyphs

Image 15 - The strokes of the glyphs

(03.11.2024) [1] There are the eight different unique strokes that can be used to compose the glyphs. These are themselves composed of three vertical, three horizontal and two diagonal strokes. According to the system used in Image 16, those strokes can be connected to “MA”-“AM” weights/values. The vertical left stroke is maximal “AM”, the horizontal bottom stroke is maximal “MA”, and so on. In this diagram, left is “AM” and right is “MA”. The diagram illustrates the relative “MA”-“AM” distribution associated with the strokes.

The MA and AM weights of the script's strokes

Image 16 - The MA and AM weights of the strokes

(03.11.2024) [1] This diagram illustrates the eight possible strokes that compose a glyph. Each stroke has a unique weight/value of “MA” and “AM”. The vertical strokes are major “AM”, the horizontal strokes are major “MA” and the diagonal strokes are balanced in the middle between those two. The left vertical stroke is minor “AM”, the middle vertical stroke is minor balanced (i.e. equal parts “MA” and “AM”), the right vertical stroke is minor “MA”. Similarly, such rules go for the horizontal strokes. For the diagonal strokes, the stroke that ends top-left is “AM” and the stroke that ends top-right is “MA”. Since “MA” can be represented in binary using a “0” and “AM” as using a “1”, each stroke can be calculated in binary.

An alternative, artistic depiction of the key with the Hieratic Script glyphs

Image 17 - An artistic version of the key

(03.11.2024) [1] The “key” with the nine glyphs in an artistic manner with an abstract, simple frame.

A collection of 39 different symbols

Image 18 - Collection of 39 symbols

(04.11.2024) [1] These 39 symbols do not have one specific meaning, each. Rather, they can be used to link to various ideas and meaning in flexible ways. Regardless, some of the ideas surrounding them are: 1 non-existence, 2 “AM”, 3 “MA”, 4 point, 5 line, 6 triangle, 7 vertical, 8 diagonal towards left-up, 9 diagonal towards right-up, 10 45° angle, 11 corner, 12 open semi-circle, 13 open, 14 closed, 15 hard, 16 soft, 17 (undefined), 18 (undefined), 19 straight cross, 20 diagonal cross, 21 square, 22 diamond, 23 parallel, 24 disconnected, 25 connected, 26 outside, 27 inside, 28 separate, 29 joint, 30 (undefined), 31 circle divided by two, 32 black-white circle, 33 Taijitu, 34 the One, 35 clockwise, 36 counter-clockwise, 37 (undefined), 38 monodirectional, 39 bidirectional.

---

Discussion

(08.11.2024) [1] 39:11: this should not suggest devaluing. The dangers thereof should be understood.

---

Table of Images

Image 1 - Hieratic Script Key. 7

Image 2 - Diagram of the principles of "0", "1" and "2". 8

Image 3 - Alternate diagram of "0", "1" and "2". 9

Image 4 - Alternate diagram of "0", "1" and "2". 10

Image 5 - Diagram of the rational, irrational and holistic. 10

Image 6 - Key with the sun cycle. 11

Image 7 - The directions of MA and AM.. 11

Image 8 - Key with moon cycle. 12

Image 9 - Key with the numbers. 12

Image 10 - Key with sky, human and earth. 13

Image 11 - Key with distribution of MA and AM.. 13

Image 12 - Key with MA, AM and numbers. 14

Image 13 - Key with MA, AM and a Taijitu. 14

Image 14 - Glyphs related to the Hieratic Script 15

Image 15 - The strokes of the glyphs. 15

Image 16 - The MA and AM weights of the strokes. 15

Image 17 - An artistic version of the key. 16

---

Glossary

Word	Meaning
MA	Explained in chapter 1.
AM	Explained in chapter 1.
minor/major	The terms used to describe that which is e.g. small/big, weak/strong, young/old, poor/rich.

---

Bibliography

There are no sources in the current document.

Changes

(There have been no changes made thus far.)