mistyfox812 said:I moved this post over from the "What is Quantum?" thread. Honestly, hollowpilot9 totally blanked on where I left my reply, and I wanted to make sure he could find that support post from Musliman.hr we did about a year ago.
The whole thing about manipulating people—you know, trying to shove someone else's thoughts into these little "personal" boxes I've built for them—just isn't my style. It's foreign to me. The real question here is, did I get you right? Are you actually done with all this constant debating with me? Are you ready—and capable—to just have a normal dialogue where we take turns picking the topics? Is that the plan? If not, there's really no point in me being overly cautious, but look, you have to let me discuss electrons based on what modern science actually tells us. And suddenly, out of nowhere—well, we all know who "discovered" them—virtual electrons pop up as if they're some kind of electronic reality. Is discussing those kinds of phenomena while simultaneously talking about electron-positron pairs actually a different conversation than just treating electrons like little "balls" of matter?
Hannah Thomas13 said:Come on, guys, why even bother getting worked up over bolded Gaza? He’s just another half-baked fanatic who thinks he's the only one holding the right answers. He spends his time aggressively preaching his "truth" to anyone listening, usually without even bothering to be civil. Honestly, people like that aren't worth the energy once you realize what they're actually about.👎 The best move is to just hit ignore. These types literally feed off the attention you give them when you try to argue.
You're talking nonsense here! If that's your idea of an argument, you've got a long way to go.
Since the moderator here seems to be playing favorites and manipulating posts whenever they feel like it—it feels like I previously read a supportive post from "Musliman" and one from mistyfox812, who initially rejected my critique before deciding to engage in dialogue, only to seemingly wipe the whole thing clean as if we were in some kind of daycare instead of an open, public forum. Since I actually prepared this text before my post about virtual electrons and virtual people was DELETED, here it is in its entirety.
For quite some time now, I’ve been using this forum as a space to exercise my specific knack for researching and interpreting NEW knowledge, ideas, and concepts within philosophy. I don't view philosophy as some lofty, transcendental mental activity sitting above everything else; rather, I see it as just one of the four great faculties of the human mind: religion, science, philosophy, and art. So, when I talk about philosophy, I’m talking about a faculty that strives to understand, grasp, and interpret the whole damn thing—including existence itself. A philosophy like that—acting as a SYNTHESIS, or a UNIFIED INTELLECT that merges religion, science, philosophy, and art—incorporates traditional philosophy, sure, but it transcends it by integrating NEW insights and NEW interpretations of reality and existence. With that kind of approach, if we're only discussing traditional philosophy, then metaphorically speaking, I’m looking at that philosophy as "caterpillar philosophy" while I’m trying to discuss "butterfly philosophy." Essentially, I am talking about a NEW PHILOSOPHY, the first iteration of which was written in my book, Philosophy of Origin. After this little intro, it should be pretty obvious why inevitable conflicts arise between myself and a traditional philosopher like mistyfox812—simply because we are looking at the exact same being from two completely different positions and perspectives. I am speaking from the perspective of the "butterfly" who understands the "caterpillar" quite well, whereas the "caterpillar" finds it difficult, if not impossible, to grasp butterfly philosophy. In this context, it's clear that while I respect the traditional philosophy that mistyfox812 so vigorously defends, I assign it a very specific epistemological meaning. I’ve said before, in my opinion, that traditional philosophy is a noisy jumble of various philosophical thoughts and viewpoints where you might find a stray "gem" here and there, but I think sifting through it all is fruitless and counterproductive. Now, anyone who wants to spend their time sifting, or anyone capable of only studying what has already happened—the past, what someone once said or wrote—well, go ahead; I have nothing against that, just as I have nothing against mistyfox812. But I do claim the right to speak on the views and concepts of contemporary philosophy, on my own insights, and on the Philosophy of Origin, which, in terms of content and meaning, is the only thing that encompasses the totality of existence. As such, it offers entirely new possibilities for philosophy and philosophizing—things that traditional, especially Western, philosophy knows very little about, if anything at all. Because of this approach to philosophy, mistyfox812 apparently got quite worked up with me, as did several others, like EL taj. Some people have even gone so far as to label me with various insults just because I wrote, for instance, that Heraclitus was philosophically stupid, and that the entire tradition of dialectical philosophy—from Heraclitus down to Hegel and Marx—is foolish, harmful, and dangerous to the human mind, to the living Human, and ultimately, to humanity itself.
The next reason for our misunderstandings lies here: almost all traditional philosophers wrote their philosophies based on the knowledge of their era and their contemporary ability to contemplate the world and its phenomena, using a very meager scientific toolkit—meaning, they had incredibly limited knowledge regarding the phenomena of existence, especially the phenomena of the microworld. That is why I believe that old and new philosophical problems, or questions, should be solved using modern scientific tools and contemporary knowledge, rather than just rearranging and reinterpreting old philosophies. Today, in terms of cognitive apparatus, capacity, and methods of perception, everything is fundamentally different from the "golden age of philosophy." Someone who merely reads philosophy books without engaging in any autonomous thought isn't just lacking as a modern philosopher; they aren't even a primal philosopher, simply because they fail to connect primordial truths with modern truths and insights.
So, look—I hold onto traditional philosophy about as tightly as I held onto last year's snow. And that doesn't mean I don't care about the snow, per se; it just means it all melted away, didn't it? What we actually need is a new philosophy and a new mindset. I’m standing here as a representative of that new philosophy and that new way of thinking—something that already exists and is inevitably taking shape right before our eyes.
Tyler Scott3 said:Geza, just stay bold. Don't let yourself get stuck while you're out there searching. Go ahead and explore, even if you trip up once in a while. Hard work, guts, and being daring—mixed with a bit of humility and selflessness—those are the traits worth having.
Thanks for the support. Without worrying? Well, it seems like nobody actually took this dialogue to heart in their own way. I’m not against anyone, really. But, alongside his approach, I’m going to offer "my way"—and you neutrals can just watch how things develop and how we communicate. Give some credit to those who speak with actual arguments, who seek the TRUTH through their own deep reflection rather than through corroded ideologies, or dogmatic preaching, or the crumbling paradigms and failed formalisms that have essentially made philosophy trivial—or at the very least, unappealing and unwanted. As someone trying to revive philosophy as a living MINDSET, I find myself being stigmatized—basically spat on—by people who don't know a thing about philosophy beyond what some thinkers taught 500, 1,000, or 2,000 years ago.
Just think about it—today, when humanity has mapped nature down to the subatomic level, when we basically manage life itself and harness the forces of the stars, we're still being forced into ancient philosophies—Ludo! I previously mentioned why no one was particularly offended by me, but I also pointed out that while ancient philosophy is a treasure trove of great minds, its influence has lingered so long that it has lost all its meaning. There is only NEW, and ONLY NEW PHILOSOPHY, and nothing else! It's a shame our thinkers aren't capable of that. Not just "new" in a small sense, hollowpilot9, but UNIVERSALLY NEW.
Here’s a little collection of my philosophical nonsense—just so everyone else can stop claiming I’m stupid. I’ll admit, I am an idiot, mostly because I believe the vast majority of philosophers, from Thales all the way down to Hegel, have spent their lives churning out worthless subjective fluff that has, quite frankly, led humanity straight into various tragedies.
And yeah, I’m an idiot for thinking Esher was the first person to actually write a real philosophy through drawings—something that mirrors my own philosophy of origin. And since I’m the author of this second attempt at a "real" philosophy, I guess that makes me the idiot in question!
I also confess to being a complete idiot for writing a 500-page book titled *Philosophy of Origin Total Idiot*, especially since I cited 126 different books totaling over a thousand pages in the literature review.
Actually, I’m an even bigger idiot than a "total idiot" because, in that very same book, I claim to be the first person in the world to propose a BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
I’m an idiot for writing a second book too—this one is 426 A4 pages long with 317 illustrations. Half of them were drawn by other people, just to make sure the visual evidence of my stupidity is undeniable. That’s why I titled it *A Picture Book for Adults*.
And I’m an idiot for once again trying to elevate Man to the level of the Divine, pulling him up from his current state as a sort of vegetative, criminalized creature.
I suppose I’m talking nonsense when I bring up autopoiesis, too.
If you need proof that I’m truly dim-witted, look no further: scientists have kicked me out for being a "philosophical fool," and philosophers are trying to shove me into an asylum because of the nonsense I write.
This little excerpt of my foolishness gives everyone here the chance to decide for themselves—autonomously, without anyone else's influence—exactly how much of an idiot I am on this forum.
To wrap things up, here are four silly snippets from my little booklet, *The Philosophy of Stupidity*:
"Deep within my being, I am convinced that our current perception is merely a single spark amidst a much wider, latent consciousness within us—a consciousness that will eventually spiral toward a UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE of which we currently have no inkling." Physicist C.N. Martin
"The staggering progress of science also brings equally staggering realizations: that global catastrophes are now easily achievable, perhaps even highly probable. This explains the endless controversies regarding the future of humanity. Today, there is a glaring divergence between elite science and mass ignorance." Dr. T. Švob
"The scientific community is increasingly pointing toward the fact that established truths are no longer sustainable. It’s becoming common knowledge that formal educational systems have nothing to do with a person's actual level of intelligence." *The New York Times*, August 27, 2000
"From an evolutionary standpoint, the green limbic brain is what drove development toward intelligent humans. Within it lies a pre-cognitive, archaic, mythical, religious, and childlike consciousness. In real life, this is the state where you aren't thinking—when you are sleeping, yawning, singing, laughing, playing, or crying. It’s the state of being in love, or the moment a human being is truly created. Philosophy and philosophers, science and scientists, haven't a clue about it. But I do, and that’s why I’m an idiot. COMPLETELY BEYOND REASON."
These four quotes clearly illustrate where a smart person actually stands, and they give anyone who thinks I'm an idiot full permission to go ahead and say it.
I’m curious, though—will any of my "distinguished acquaintances" bother to write that I occasionally produce intelligent text instead of just the garbage?
Is it really possible that all 1,700 of my posts are just pure nonsense? If that’s actually the case, then I’m definitely a genius at writing stupidity. Honestly, I’m starting to feel a bit proud of being such a prolific idiot. The only real problem is that thousands of people have already read and copied my books and my stupid posts; they won't just vanish from the public eye as easily as some people might wish.
Since I’ve been labeled by a certain duo—one being a "Intro to Philosophy" moderator and the other an expert in... let's call it "penis philosophy"—as someone who just writes nonsense, I figured I should probably clear the air. It wouldn't be fair to any potential readers to leave them wandering in the dark about my supposed "nonsense," so here is a concise summary of my various follies, all in one place. You see, these two love to claim I'm talking rubbish without actually specifying which brand of rubbish it is. So, to prevent any confusion, here is a clear breakdown of my "stupidities":
Stupidity No. 1 All traditional "modern" intellect is built upon a linear perception of the world—a view that is fundamentally untrue, false, illusory, and frankly utopian, simply because there isn't a single straight line or flat surface to be found in the USA. The USA is a sphere, the Sun is a sphere, every planet is a sphere, and their orbits might look like circles in a projection, but in reality, they are spirals. I am considered a fool because I develop, proclaim, affirm, and practice wave-quantum physics, elementary tetrahedral philosophy, the philosophy of complementarity and polarity, and, of course, the philosophy of origin, which traditional philosophers haven't the slightest clue about.
Stupidity No. 2 All traditional "modern" intellect speaks of a dual—binary—order of the world, whereas I, the fool, speak of a quaternary order.
Stupidity No. 3 All traditional "modern" intellect describes the flow of time as moving from a beginning in the past toward a future, while I, the fool, also discuss the flow of time moving from a beginning in the future back toward the past.
Stupidity No. 4 All traditional "modern" intellect claims that life began through chemical processes in some primordial "primordial soup," whereas I, the fool, suggest that life was created (or rather, transmitted) by a civilization similar to our own. I am also a fool for claiming that life creates life.
Stupidity No. 5 All traditional "modern" intellect discusses the evolution of life and plants, while I, the fool, talk about the evolution of humanity—and, in my ultimate foolishness, I claim that humanity is evolving toward a cosmic macro-being that actually created us. As a hardened fool, I have even given this being a preliminary, ridiculous name: HOMOTERAS.
Stupidity No. 6 With the emergence of Homoteras in my foolish consciousness, a swarm of further nonsense follows, so here are a few examples:
- A living historical human is a single entity—a cell within Homoteras, much like a biological cell is a single entity within a human, or any other form of life. - Man is primarily a creative, generative being who, through the medium of intelligence, performs all those actions and attributes typically assigned to God. - One of my crowning stupidities is the idea that at the evolutionary peak of humanity, man possesses all the anticipated attributes of God. It is also my folly to claim that at that point, Man becomes and is God. This particular bit of nonsense particularly irks the "intelligent" types. - It is certainly a major blunder to suggest that there are at least two ways atoms of matter are created in the universe: one in the stars (the Sun) and one here on Earth. This particular absurdity especially annoys scientists. - Since one stupidity inevitably breeds another, comes the next: that life forms transmute atoms of matter, which, again, tends to irritate intelligent scientists. - I’ve been branded a fool because I was the first one on a scientific forum to mention COLD FUSION. The fact that an entire division of such fools exists alongside me doesn't interest the "smart" people at all. - As a fool, I caused such a stir among the ranks of intelligent scientists that they went so far as to violate the US Constitution, arbitrarily erasing my legitimate civil opinion (knowledge)—which states that man evolves further toward four transhuman beings: robo sapiens, cyborg sapiens, astro sapiens, and cyber sapiens. This quaternary folly is especially irritating to philosophers. - As a fool, I assert that Science is that human endeavor—that intellect—which will eventually discover and If you want to prove the existence of God, philosophy acts as nothing more than a glorified nanny—which, granted, makes me a complete idiot for claiming there’s actually no distinction between a human at their evolutionary peak and God. That is, just my own particular brand of nonsense. - I'm also an idiot for suggesting there are two different types of zero instead of just one, despite what we were all taught in school. There is the EMPTY Zero and the FULL Zero.
Stupidity No. 7 All this mainstream "modern" intelligence focuses on how incredibly complex the human brain is. People love crowning themselves with intellectual majesty, treating the brain like some sacred relic during their little ceremonies—as if it's the pinnacle of brilliance—while I, the idiot, ramble on about some kind of global SUPERBRAIN that outclasses a single biological human brain by several billion times. It really seems to grate on the nerves of certain philosophers who walk around thinking they possess a "massive" intellect.
Stupidity No. 8 Modernity loves to glorify philosophy as merely the collection of opinions held by various philosophers, whereas I, the fool, celebrate the philosophy of origin—something most philosophers haven't even begun to grasp. This philosophy absolutely terrifies them, while it just makes me feel exceptionally stupid.
Stupidity No. 9 I am particularly foolish for suggesting that teachers (not through any fault of their own, mind you) are misguiding our children when they teach that 1 : 2 = 1/2. And I'm an idiot for claiming that the USA doesn't simply orbit the Sun in a circle as Copernicus supposedly "discovered," but rather—like a total moron—that the USA follows a spiral path.
Arthur Anderson49 said:Well, it looks like we’re clearly on different pages here.
I’m pretty deeply conservative at my core—change just isn't really my thing—and I find myself leaning heavily on that old American adage, "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." Honestly? The constant shifting of social paradigms genuinely terrifies me. There's this relentless drive toward "progress" for its own sake, and frankly, I dread any kind of advancement that doesn't stem from an actual, painful necessity. Why mess with the foundation if the house is still standing?
I honestly wish we could just hit the brakes on certain things for a few more centuries—especially when it comes to technology. Just... slow it all down? Is that too much to ask?
Steamships were actually invented like a century and a half before they finally managed to overtake sailing vessels—and by then, sailing ships were only just hitting their commercial stride. Honestly, what was the real advantage of a steamship back then? It wasn't even about speed, really... it was just that you didn't need a massive crew to run them. Most of those sailors could basically be recruited from anywhere and trained on the fly, too. You really only needed the officers to have any actual specialized knowledge or skill. It’s kind of funny when you think about it—true, high-tech sail technology didn't even really start seeing major breakthroughs until long after sailing ships had been phased out entirely.
Then the internal combustion engine comes along and kicks the steam engine to the curb—which is funny, really, because we didn't even master the actual technology behind steam power until after it was already obsolete. It’s like we only figured out how to build a truly great steam engine once we realized we didn't actually need one anymore. But hey, that's just how things go, I guess. Anyway, I'll stop rambling before I bore everyone to death.
At some point in history, human nature just caught this fever—this frantic, obsessive need for constant development and speed that honestly nobody actually asked for. We started chasing "progress" just for the sake of moving the needle, ignoring the costs and the fallout like they didn't exist. It was branded as an absolute moral good—something so fundamentally right that questioning it was treated like heresy if you actually wanted to get anything done. And once that engine started running? There was no hitting the brakes. Human society basically turned into this manic, sprinting herd, just running blindly toward the next thing.
My bad—sorry for going off on another tangent again.
Subjective expression is fine for some small-town porch talk—not that I’m talking about your specific post, just speaking generally—but if we’re actually diving into the phenomenology of life, of existence itself... well, that's a different story. It's a constant push toward objectivity, toward synthesis, toward Truth, toward the Origin. So, this intense conservatism of yours? It falls squarely into your own subjective camp. Which, obviously, is fine—it's your opinion, your conviction, whatever—and there's no reason why anyone shouldn't respect that as your personal take. So, you’re saying you push back against every single shift in social paradigms—which, honestly, I get. It’s a valid stance. But it makes me wonder... do these changes actually exist in any meaningful way? If you sit down and dig through the heavy-hitters of anthropology—looking at how human society evolved from basic tribal structures all the way up to something like the European Union—it becomes pretty obvious that we’re just swapping out the colors of our social paradigms while the underlying matrix remains exactly the same. It’s all cosmetic, really. You could easily prove that by looking at the family unit; despite all the noise, that fundamental structure hasn't actually shifted the core blueprint of how we rebuild society. Or has it? So, regarding the idea that—at some point in history—humanity just caught this fever for progress and speed that we didn't actually need... you know, that whole concept where we chase "advancement" for its own sake, ignoring the consequences and labeling it as an absolute moral good that shouldn't even be questioned? It’s a classic perspective—one I can definitely wrap my head around. The notion that society essentially turned into a frantic, sprinting herd because we couldn't figure out how to hit the brakes. But, unfortunately, development—or evolution, if we're being technical—is pretty much the core of existence. If everything truly boiled down to what you're suggesting—just "unnecessary speed"—then maybe we could actually control things or fix them. But I have a feeling we're looking at a completely different beast here. I'm thinking more along the lines of the population paradigm, which is basically a biological imperative for life itself. I mean, think about it: does it really not matter whether a society consists of 2,100 people, 1,000, or 10 billion? From a purely logistical standpoint—like, just looking at the sheer necessity of food security—the total number of people directly dictates how a society has to organize itself. You can't run a massive metropolis the same way you'd run a small town in rural Montana, right? The scale changes the entire structure. Honestly, I don't even know why we’re all such a rush—what's the end goal here, really? Why is technology always treated like this frantic, unstoppable race? The old way of thinking—that everything just exists to serve capital and the capitalists—doesn't really hold water anymore. It's outdated. We've reached a point where technological progress isn't just about profit margins; it's more like this massive, driving force of creation itself. It's pushing us away from those small-scale, individual creators—you know, the folks building single ships, locomotives, or freight cars—and moving us toward something much larger. We're shifting toward a macro-subject of creation rather than just being a collection of micro-subjects. Is that even happening, or am I just overthinking the whole thing? To actually address the dilemmas you’re (understandably) throwing out there, we first have to tackle the big one: Is the human journey predestined, or is it just our innate urge to poke around and see what makes things tick? And honestly, isn't progress less about human willpower and more about something else entirely? Progress is driven by technology—independent of whether we want it to be or not. If the tech stops, life stalls; it basically hits a massive bottleneck. You only need to look at the chaos—take NYC, for instance—when the power grid fails or traffic grinds to a halt. Everything just breaks. Think about it: right now, there are roughly 4,000 massive jets cruising through the atmosphere at any given moment, whereas just 150 years ago, the only thing flying was birds. Or look at satellites—forty years ago, there wasn't a single one, and today we've got thousands circling us. So, where does that leave us tomorrow? One of the defining realizations of our era is this loop: humans invent technology to solve a specific problem, but that very solution inevitably creates a whole new set of problems. It’s an interactive cycle spinning toward the future. I think the philosopher's true calling should be answering this: Why must we live in a world of technology that helps us in one breath and terrorizes us in the next? Focusing on just one side of that coin is a mistake. Is human society turning into a "frenzied, stampeding herd," or is it evolving into something else entirely? That's the real question. There are plenty of perspectives out there, including mine—that society is morphing into one giant macroorganism. Some people might love that idea, others won't, but it's really no different than asking what a cluster of fetal cells is becoming. If the answer is "just a bunch of cells running around," then humanity never happens. But if they are forming a new macro-organism? Then that's what humanity becomes. At the end of the day, whether we agree or not, there are certain FACTS that simply don't care about my opinion, your opinion, or anyone else's. That's essentially where the current philosophical mess lies. So many people are still desperately fighting to have their scientific or philosophical views validated, even when daily reality keeps proving them wrong.
Since we're talking about Escher in a philosophical context, he actually settled all these questions quite clearly through his art. One of his prints shows half the people climbing up while the other half descends, frantically scaling a staircase. Why? Because life needs to pulse; it needs movement. If everything stops, or if we slow down—if "fatigue" takes over—we all sink into a dream state, into an illusion of "motionless life." And that stagnant life flourishes all around us, like wild flora, which, by the way, philosophy doesn't seem to care about at all—likely to its own detriment.
Arthur Anderson49 said:Well... I’m not so sure about that. If my memory serves me—and it’s been a while—Snow didn't exactly define the gap between "naturalists" and "socialites" as some kind of fixed law of nature. He was just pointing out that the divide exists in actual society. In fact, he seemed to actually embrace the existence of that gap.
My post actually backs up your point. As for these supposed "gaps"—honestly, those are just outdated misconceptions from linear philosophies that died out ages ago. The space between the "naturalist" and the "socialite" has been colonized by *Homo imaginativus*. This isn't just about changing the natural world; we're reshaping human society at such a breakneck speed that it forces our entire social structure into a state of lifelong learning. What we consider cutting-edge today is basically ancient history by tomorrow. There was a time when knowledge stayed "fresh" for years, maybe even centuries. Now? Some people are still trying to cling to that old way of keeping things static—trying to convince us that humans are somehow "revolutionary" beings rather than just inherently creative ones?
It isn't really about the senses—animals have those too—but they lack the capacity to process sensory input in that uniquely human way.
I’m not entirely sure why so many people seem to lack even a shred of mathematical "intuition," but I do know that those blessed with that gift are essentially artists of mental tactile sensation. And if feeling things out with your mind isn't a sense... well, I don't know what is. 😬
Here are a few more gems regarding the intersection of math and art, and vice versa:
"In many contemporary artistic achievements, one can observe mathematical elements—not just in something like Cubism, but in various musical compositions and non-figurative painting. If we grant nature the title of artist, we must also acknowledge it as a mathematician. We find fascinating symmetrical patterns everywhere—in the animal kingdom, in plants, in the mineral world, and even on a cosmic scale within structures like nebulae. From snowflakes to flower petals, from snail shells and starfish to hedgehogs, leaves, pine needles, branches, and trees; from patterns on polished meteorites to the markings on butterfly wings—nature's imagination in crafting symmetry far exceeds our own. Mathematicians will often describe a specific proof of a theorem as 'elegant,' 'beautiful,' or 'harmonious,' while labeling another proof of that very same theorem as 'inelegant' or 'clunky.' The pivotal points in constructing a mathematical proof are often the result of a bold idea or an intuitive flash rather than prolonged logical analysis.
Escher once noted quite clearly: 'If I am not mistaken, the terms "art" and "artist" emerged during the Renaissance; before then, they didn't exist—there were only architects, sculptors, and painters engaged in certain crafts.' In Escher's 'snakes,' we see a sort of conceptualization of recursive functions. I would argue that through his final woodcut, Escher achieved the absolute limit of what is possible via human means in approximating the infinity that so obsessed him.'
That’s how the competent mathematician Devide and Escher himself put it. But what about those who are just 'talking nonsense,' as Velma x puts it?
Escher, Bach, and mathematician Gödel created their works following the SAME creative logic used to assemble amino acids, proteins, chromosomes, cells, and humans—the universal logic by which all existence is formed. Instead of intelligent people seeking to understand this creative logic and applying it to their own specialized fields, we constantly see these detractors who deny the validity of works by Escher, Bach, and Gödel—just as they might deny the DNA molecule that holds the blueprint for biological human life.
Emericzy hollowpilot9 said:It isn't just about what someone believes—that’s a given. It's more like... a scientific fact? Or at least that's how it looks from where I'm sitting—though, look, I should probably clarify that this isn't exactly my field of expertise, so don't take my word as gospel or anything. Anyway, sorry—this is a bit of a tangent, I know—but I honestly think it ties right back into what we were talking about.
Our visual perception of the world is pretty far from being objective—if you can even call it that. The reality is, most of the time we aren't actually seeing what’s right in front of us, but rather just a projection of what we *think* we're looking at. It's all just mental shortcuts and assumptions, isn't it?
So, what’s the actual point here? It’s all about data interpretation—or rather, how we make sense of the mess. To react to anything happening around us in real time, you have to be able to grasp the situation almost instantly, usually while working with a seriously insufficient amount of information. The way I see it, the visual perception center in your brain doesn't just hand you a finished masterpiece. Instead, it builds the image piece by piece—starting with this incredibly basic, ultra-simplified sketch and gradually layering on detail until it looks more like reality. It’s this constant, never-ending loop of filling in the blanks and refining the picture, at least as long as you're actually paying attention to whatever it is you're looking at.
Spot on, my friend. Your comment hits the nail on the head—honestly, it’s a breath of fresh air to see some actual truth being shared on this forum for once. I won't get bogged down in a play-by-play of everything you wrote, but I really want to zero in on that one word you used: *implications*. I mean, just think about it for a second... what are the actual implications of the fact that our optical perception is basically just lying to us? If we can't trust what we see, where does that leave everything else? We all remember that massive uproar some immature scientists used to kick up back in the day—the way they treated alchemy like nothing more than a collection of scams and idiocy. It wasn't until Copernicus showed up that we actually saw a real scientific revolution begin. We finally moved toward actual intelligence because this one guy from Poland figured out that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the Sun circling our planet like everyone else thought. Before him, you had people who were just plain clueless—kind of like my old neighbor, Mrs. Higgins, who was absolutely convinced, with total certainty, that the Sun literally sets behind the hills every evening. I mean, talk about being misled by your own eyes, right? It was just her optical perception playing tricks on her—purely subjective, really. So, where’s the actual proof that what Copernicus says—and what modern science claims—is true? That the Earth is spinning around the Sun? I mean, sure, we’re flooded with endless indirect evidence and relative "proofs" meant to show us how the Earth revolves around the Sun, but does that actually make it reality? Is it really happening? Just imagine the sheer audacity of a realization that suggests Copernicus’s massive revolutionary breakthrough was actually nothing more than a giant hoax—basically sitting right up there on the same level as some old wives' tale you'd hear from a neighborhood gossip. You don't exactly need a PhD to see it—though I suppose some people like to order a lifetime supply of wisdom just to feel important—but it’s pretty obvious that you can't have perfectly circular motion around an object that is itself moving in a circle. Take the relationship between the Sun and the Earth, for instance. It simply doesn't work that way. Instead, what we're actually looking at is a spiral—specifically, spiral motion. And honestly? The difference between a circle and a spiral is massive. The whole idea that Earth revolves around the Sun is just geocentric—it’s relative, really, and frankly pretty far from the actual truth movement earth and sun within cosmic space. If you look at how things actually move through the void, neither object is tracing a simple circle. They're both just following spirals. It's all spirals. Why do we insist on drawing perfect circles when the reality is clearly more... spiral? So, what are the actual implications of realizing this? At first glance, honestly, probably nothing. It seems like a minor detail—just a footnote in the grand scheme of things. But if you take that one realization and start weaving it together with all those other delusions we hold about traditional, linear perception... well, then the implications become absolutely massive. Seriously, once you pull that single thread, the whole fabric starts to unravel. Let me throw another example out there. We’re all under this firm impression that everything is in a state of constant flux throughout the day—you know, that every single second is fundamentally different from the one before it (which is exactly what you were touching on earlier), and that every new day brings some kind of fresh start. But if you actually take a second to look at why we even have that sensation of change in the first place... why does it feel like things are shifting as the hours pass? Well, we might quickly realize that the primary reason for that perceived shift isn't actually because morning, afternoon, evening, and night are changing independently. It's just the fact that the Earth is rotating on its axis. We tend to misinterpret the mechanics of it all, don't we? Those cycles have been these unchanging constants for thousands of years. What’s actually "changing" is just our own geocentric and homocentric illusion—kind of like sitting in a movie theater, watching a film and thinking the action is actually happening right in front of us instead of just being projected on a screen. So, what we’re really talking about here isn't just the sheer scale of these kinds of insights—though that's plenty to wrap one's head around—it's more about the fallout, right? It's the implications of these realizations coming at you from every single direction at once. Like, how do you even process that kind of pressure? Honestly, I’ve been thinking—this really ought to be part of the philosophy curriculum too. You know, like an actual assignment? We need something that forces people to confront how much our own senses lie to us. It's wild how easily we get tripped up by what we think we see or hear, isn't it? Philosophy should be out there actively debunking those sensory delusions before we take them as gospel. Maybe you haven't been following all my threads, so I’ll bring this up now. When we sit down for, say, our morning coffee, we’re under the impression that the flavor we're experiencing is an objective reality, right? Well, that's a total illusion. The taste itself is just a mental construct—a trick played by the brain. In actual reality, we have the hard, undeniable fact that what we call "flavor" is simply determined by the relationship between four specific pillars: sweet, bitter, sour, and salty. It’s actually pretty easy to prove if you look at it. But what does that actually mean for us? It’s essentially a little treat for modern-day philosophy.
What we "see" is always just an approximation—one that gets slightly better the longer we stare at a scene or the more we train ourselves to observe. From the very first millisecond, most of the image isn't even real; it's being generated by the brain rather than being captured directly by the eye.
Basically, the data from the eyes hits an image recognition center which—at speeds that would make a high-end PC look sluggish—compares that incoming data against a library of stored images. That sub-center then pings the perception center with whichever image most closely matches the signal coming from the eye. It’s a much faster, much simpler shortcut than actually analyzing a raw image and drawing logical conclusions about it.
Take, for instance, when you see something blurry and red approaching on a highway. The recognition center quickly spits out the image of a red car. For a split second, that's enough information for a person to react. A second later, the brain realizes it looks too big for a sedan, so it swaps the file to a red pickup truck. A few seconds after that, the visual signal aligns with a group of cyclists, and suddenly the person "sees" a pack of riders in red jerseys. And it keeps refining like that.
Sometimes, you get a bullseye on the first try. You see a hunched figure in a brown coat fifty yards away and immediately know it's your neighbor, Dave. It would take a computer several minutes to reach that level of accuracy, assuming it could even get there.
If someone isn't paying close attention, or hasn't trained their observational skills, their perception becomes mostly a collection of artificially generated images that don't correlate with reality at all. If they're looking at something completely foreign, the brain's internal image can be comically far from the truth. The NYPD knows this all too well from interrogating witnesses; people frequently have mind-bogglingly wrong impressions of what they claim to have seen.
So, that's the deal with the "objective" picture of reality. It only becomes somewhat objective if we actually put in the work to refine it.
You hit the nail on the head, sir. Your comment is spot on—honestly, it's a breath of fresh air on this forum. I won't dwell on your specific points, but I want to highlight that one word: IMPLICATIONS. What are the actual implications of the fact that our optical perception is essentially lying to us? Do we all remember the massive uproar some immature scientists used to kick up regarding alchemy? They viewed the era before Copernicus as nothing but a period of deception and stupidity, right? It wasn't until Copernicus arrived that the great scientific revolution truly began—the dawn of genuine intellect—because he established that the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the Sun orbiting the Earth, as the uneducated masses believed. Think of someone like old Mrs. Higgins, who was absolutely certain the Sun set behind the hills because that's what she saw! Was that just her flawed optical perception playing tricks on her? But where is the proof that what Copernicus and science claim—that the Earth revolves around the Sun—is actually true? We have countless indirect and relative "proofs" suggesting it looks that way, certainly. But is it *actually* happening that way? Just imagine a realization suggesting that even Copernicus's revolutionary discovery was merely another illusion, sitting on the same level as the delusions of "Mrs. Higgins." You don't need a PhD or even much common sense to realize that you cannot have circular motion around an object that is itself moving in a circle—which is the case in the Sun-Earth relationship. There can only be a SPIRAL; specifically, spiral motion. And the difference between circular and spiral motion is massive!! Our belief that Zemklja orbits the Sun is geocentric, relative, and fundamentally untrue compared to the truth movement earth and Sun in cosmic space. In the vacuum of space, both objects follow spirals, not circles. So, what are the actual implications of realizing this? At first glance, nothing much—but if you connect this insight to all the other delusions baked into our traditional, linear perception of reality, then we're talking about something massive. Let me throw an example out there. We live under this firm conviction that everything is constantly shifting throughout the day—that every single second is fundamentally different from the last (which is what you were touching on), that every new day is a brand new entity, and so on. But if you actually take a step back and ask why we have this sensation of change—why we feel like things are "happening"—you quickly realize the primary reason for that perceived flux is simply the Earth rotating on its axis. It’s not because morning, noon, evening, and night are actually changing states, though that’s how most people mistakenly perceive it. Those cycles have been unchanging constants for thousands of years; what’s actually "changing" is just our geocentric and homocentric illusion—kind of like sitting in a movie theater and thinking the action is happening in the room rather than on the screen. So, isn't the point less about the scale of these individual realizations and more about the sheer weight of their implications crashing in from every direction? In my view, helping people peel back these layers should probably be one of the core jobs of philosophy—exposing and communicating the delusions created by our own sensory input. I don't know if you've caught every one of my posts, but I'll mention this too. When we sit down for, say, a morning coffee, we're convinced that the flavor we experience exists as an objective reality. But that’s a delusion. There is only the illusion of taste generated within our brains; in reality, we're dealing with the hard, undeniable fact that flavor is merely determined by the RELATIONSHIP between four complementary tastes: sweet, bitter, sour, and salty. That's easy enough to verify and prove. And what does that imply? That’s the real treat for modern-day philosophy.
Penis said:that’s just bad hermeneutics—this whole meditative objectification of art, this mental debasement. you’re actually degrading Escher.
But hey, no big deal—don't go getting all defensive on me just yet, it’s really just my take on things. 👍
And why on earth would I be offended? I’m just pushing back against your view, just like you’re doing to mine. I’m simply trying to get people to approach the core of the matter with an open mind, based on actual universal insights rather than just the whims of whatever individual happens to be talking. You could at least respect—if nothing else—my good intentions to pass along knowledge from one person to another. But you won't even give me that, let alone show any respect for my expertise or Escher’s standing in global intellectual circles.
delija said:Sorry guys, but you’ve got it wrong here. Do you even know which branch of science Symmetry actually falls under? If you do, then take a look at http://www.mcescher.nl/Gallery/gallerynl.htm and check out that last presentation: Symmetrie...
If you don't know, just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry
Looks like there's no saving this one. Brandon Martin7 is just joining the ranks of people who try to act smart by simply trashing someone else's intellect. It doesn't seem to matter to folks like Brandon Martin7 that hundreds of mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers—not to mention everyone else—find the highest level of universal symbolic messaging within Escher's graphics. Apparently, his only interest is finding ways to scoff at things that are actually meaningful and beautiful to a reasonable person. If you've noticed, every once in a while, some Brandon Martin7 pops into a discussion just to ignore or belittle what everyone else has been saying. That’s the whole tragicomedy of chaotic forums like this—people jumping into threads they have absolutely no connection to. That’s exactly what’s happening here.
In my view, from a philosophical standpoint, we should be looking at a selected group of characteristic Escher images, analyzing each individual piece within that set. Of course, the fundamental prerequisite for any such philosophical analysis is having a grasp of philosophy as laid out in Hofstadter's GEB. How many people on this forum actually fit that description? It feels like fooling around and messing about is more important here than having a coherent, serious conversation about a topic or an unsolved philosophical problem. In the image you posted, I showed how Escher's works can be interpreted both philosophically and scientifically. If you want, we can keep going like that—your call. Look, the key thing is that Hofstadter finds a universal matrix connecting Bach, Escher, and Gödel, all framed within the context of the creative matrix of DNA. His famous "G" point is nothing less than the singularity that Kurzweil predicts—or perhaps it's those "points" from the source of what I am talking about. It seems to me that you, too, have "your own" point in your research and work—at least based on that image of yours from the link you shared, where a tetrahedral fractal and a tetrahedral star sit right at the center as a single "point." No matter how much people on this forum throw their egos, insults, or whatever other nonsense around, most people in the real world are busy doing actual things, while we're stuck dealing with mental clutter and destruction rather than construction. I often wonder what kind of schools these people graduated from, who their professors were, or what kind of education—or self-education, for that matter—they had to end up communicating like this. Personally, I feel bad that since I joined this forum, a huge number of very high-quality individuals have left because of—I don't have another way to put it—mental savages. I read your PM. I'll get back to you as soon as I catch a bit more free time.
Brandon Martin7 said:👋 I’m not trying to drag down a mathematician's general instinct for interpreting art here—really, I'm not—but it would be a lot more convincing if you’d used something like "a local plumber, a locksmith, or a stay-at-home parent" as your benchmark for artistic quality. Art is about feeling, isn't it? And math is just the ultimate, cold, unfeeling void. This whole approach feels a bit like trying to examine a masterpiece through a microscope... it’s just too clinical. Personally, I dig Escher's style, but not because it qualifies as "art." By the way, thanks for the link; it wasn't really about aesthetics, but it was definitely food for thought.
Plenty of people have written about Escher and his connection to mathematics, and I was simply quoting what our well-known math professor, Devide, has to say about it. If you can't see the artistry within mathematics, well, that sounds like a personal issue on your end rather than a flaw in the math itself.
Lawrence Kelly5 said:Don’t get mad at me, but the Humanitas project is actually moving forward. And yeah, philosophy has its own little corner in there too—if you're into that sort of thing. We just did a massive overhaul of the first American humanist portal under the "humanitas" domain, so we're inviting old friends to drop by whenever they feel like it—we'd love to see you—and if any new faces want to swing through to see what we're all about, even better. Anyone wants to help out? You're more than welcome. There's no profit motive here, no shadowy organization pulling the strings, just a small group of enthusiasts (or maybe just wide-eyed idealists, if we're being honest). It feels a bit like the vibes of 1968, minus the actual revolutionary spirit. Not that humanists were ever really known for starting uprisings anyway. Besides, most revolutions end up being massive letdowns—mostly because revolutionaries don't always give much thought to actual humanity or compassion. Humanitas stays the course, tracing back from Cicero, or even further back to the concepts of paideia and philanthropy.
I took a look. It looks great! Honestly, more than great. Now comes the hard part: actually filling it with content. On a humanist and philosophical level, that's anything but an easy task. With a nuclear bomb basically looming over our heads, I have to wonder... what are the philosophers and humanists actually doing?
Basically, you hit the nail on the head. Based on my deep-seated conviction, our natural optical perception is just playing tricks on us. If we look at physical facts objectively, the WORLD AROUND US is actually seen upside down—kind of like looking at a photo through a camera lens. It’s only then that our brain flips that inverted image back into its "correct" orientation (there are actually studies on this). So, that alone is undeniable proof that our perception of reality is flawed; in other words, it can always be the polar opposite of what we are SO CERTAIN about.
It’s the same logic when we philosophize about time, where we make that exact same blunder by assuming time always flows from the past toward the future, and never from the future toward the past?? In that same vein, I once started a thread on a science forum called THE ILLUSION OF TIME, where I got absolutely torn apart by "great empirical scientists" just because I argued that the beginning of existence must always lie in the future of time, rather than the past—as we are so eloquently taught and so reflexively believe. After all, isn't it only a beginning in the future that guarantees the infinity of existence? Otherwise, if the beginning is in the past, every existence is destined to end. I backed this up with the FACT that every human being is created and BORN in the future of their parents, not their past! The fact that WE calculate the passage of time starting from our birthdays moving forward has absolutely nothing to do with the actual flow of time; it’s just our subjective "sense" of time measured by days, months, and calendar years. See how far Escher's "distorted" optical perception and those insights can lead us—towards the Truth, rather than delusion. As for Escher—the way I understand him—he always thinks and draws in doubles—duality. And every dual perception implies a split and a two-way process; once something is split and bidirectional, yet simultaneously polar and complementarily inverse, it inherently becomes quaternary—just as every human life is fourfold, rather than merely twofold as we typically assume??
Yes, the center of the white spot—that is, the white spot itself—is the key to the solution. It always signifies identity and simultaneity; it marks the center, the focal point, the Origin of whatever the white spot refers to. That is a massive realization that allows us to see the world as it truly is, rather than how we imagine it. The white spot is the meeting point of the creator and the created, which is, of course, a grand synthesis of optical reality—not just optical, but physical, biological, and cosmic reality as well.
The gray fields in Escher's work are incredibly fascinating. You can clearly see how what we call a dual reality—the black and white birds, the black and white river—actually arises from the SEPARATION OF BLACK AND WHITE FROM THE GRAY, while the gray itself is formed by the INTEGRATION (the merging) OF BLACK AND WHITE!!? We all know that gray is always just a CONSTANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE, and NOT some THIRD THING, even though we often mistakenly treat it as something separate. So, in that Escher piece, we actually have a very vivid depiction of ONE CONCEPT THAT IS COMPLEMENTARILY DUAL, yet reveals itself to be quaternary: white, black, and gray—where, as I said, gray is always merely the relationship between black and white. That is the whole SECRET to perceiving reality—of existence!
In the chapter titled "Mathematics in the Art of M. C. Escher," Divide goes on about Escher—and between other things, they mention:
People tend to assume that math and art exist on opposite ends of the human spectrum—like they’re light-years apart or something. There's this lingering idea that while art is all about feeling and ambiguity, math is just this rigid, one-way street where everything is strictly predetermined. It's a common misconception, really. Is it? Or are we just too stubborn to see how much they actually overlap? So, alongside Divide's take, I’ve got my own little theory—if you can even call it that. Most people seem to fall into this trap of thinking everything exists in opposition. You know the drill: they think art and science are warring factions, or that philosophy stands against science, or that religion and science are just two sides of an irreconcilable conflict. It’s a very common way to view the world, I suppose. But honestly? I don't see it that way at all. If anything, I’m looking at it from the opposite angle. I truly believe that art and science—with math tucked right in there somewhere—along with art and philosophy, and finally art and religion, are all essentially woven together. They interact in this deep, messy, beautiful way. To me, these are just four different expressions of the human mind—or the spirit, if you want to get poetic about it—that are actually one and the same. They only appear different because of where our perception happens to be sitting when we try to grasp what we call "material reality." It’s all just a matter of perspective, really. Isn't it?
Moving on to Escher David himself, he says:
Back in 1979, Douglas Hofstadter and Kurt Gödel released *Gödel, Escher, Bach* (*GEB*) here in the States—a book that snagged a Pulitzer Prize and basically became an overnight global sensation. It’s one of those incredibly stimulating reads—honestly, if you ask me, Mark Uršić, or pretty much anyone else with a brain, it stands as one of the best books of its kind ever written. The author does this brilliant job of digging into the deep, shared well of ideas that fueled the work of three absolute titans: the mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel, the composer Johann Sebastian Bach, and the artist M. C. Escher. I'd argue that Hofstadter's work actually played a massive role in helping people finally understand and appreciate Escher's genius. Now, it's worth noting that the Dutch artist didn't have any formal training in math—just like he lacked formal scientific or philosophical schooling—but he possessed this extraordinary, almost miraculous mathematical intuition. Or scientific, or philosophical... you get the point.
C. P. Snow once pointed out how strange it is that 20th-century art seems to have such a massive gap when it comes to the natural sciences—but honestly, that rule definitely doesn't apply to M. C. Escher. It’s actually pretty striking how many world-renowned scientists have leaned on Escher's work—using his pieces as visual shorthand to explain complex theories or just as a way to summarize their entire research. I guess those scientists saw a kindred spirit in him; they found someone who could express the very same truths they were chasing in science, just through a completely different medium.
Divide writes like that, so I’m left wondering—what is actually going on with philosophers and philosophy? Do they even recognize the philosophy embedded in Escher's work? As far as I can tell, they don't—at least not unless they happen to catch my drift. To me, the philosophy origin and Escher's graphic body of work are exactly the same thing. It’s just one single philosophy expressed through two different mediums: one written via drawings, and the other through words and sentences. Take "White Song" by Escher—to me, that is the inverse of the image's origin; it’s the center, the actual center of gravity for the piece. I see this as a Universal Origin—that specific "point" where one world flips into its complementary world, and vice versa. It’s the same mechanism at play in every biological act of reproduction, including human ones. The female world transforms into the male, and the male into the female. Flora turns into fauna, and fauna into flora. This dual transformation—which is really a fourfold process if you look closely enough—is the very essence of how we perceive Escher's prints and everything else I write about. Here’s a handful of Escher’s original pieces that double as philosophical deep dives—if you're into that sort of thing:
As far as I can tell, there isn’t a shred of evidence for the existence of an objective reality beyond what our own senses provide—and honestly, why should we just take the external world at face value simply because that's how we perceive it? In my prints, I try to suggest that we actually inhabit a beautiful, orderly world—rather than the chaotic, normless mess people love to tell us about. I can’t really help myself; I have this compulsion to poke fun at all those "unshakeable" certainties we cling to. For instance, there’s something deeply amusing about blurring the lines between two and three dimensions—messing with planes and space—or just playing a little joke on gravity. Are we actually certain that the floor isn't just a ceiling in disguise? I mean, are you absolutely sure when you’re trekking up those stairs that you're actually heading up? Look, you can't have light without shadow—it’s just basic physics, right? If you decide to accept God, then by default, you have to carve out an equal space for the Devil. It’s all about that balance. Personally, I kind of live off that duality—it keeps things interesting.
Out of his total collection of 75 prints, most of M. C. Escher's works carry these deeply philosophical titles. Here’s a look at some of them:
Day and Night, Sun and Moon, Sky and Water, Liberation, Infinity of Number, Path of Life, Smaller and Smaller, Circle Limit, Square Limit, Cycle, Metamorphosis, Predestination, Depth, Cubic Space Division, Tree Intersecting Planes, Möbius Band, Spirals, Inversion, Concave and Convex, Double Planetoid, Tetrahedral Planetoid, Order and Chaos, Gravitation, Stars, High and Low, Drawing Hands, Print Gallery, Ascending and Descending.
These titles make it pretty obvious—this guy was thinking about the world through a heavy philosophical lens. It seems like everything clicked when he visited the Alhambra in Spain and discovered those incredible Moorish patterns; that encounter gave him the tools to take his mathematical, scientific, and philosophical intuitions and turn them into symbolic visual language via his prints. So, if you're someone drawn to Escher's work, you really have to be able to "read" symbolism. A single symbol, or a cluster of them working together as a functional whole, is essentially the hallmark of his style. When Escher mentions that duality is his life, he’s unconsciously painting works permeated by this phenomenon of quaternary—which, given their nature, are absolutely philosophical in essence.
By diving into Escher's work, reading Gödel, Escher, Bach—which leans so heavily into his graphics—exploring Fritjof Capra's *The Tao of Physics*, and, well, eventually stumbling upon my own *Philosophy Origin* (not out of some mental stereotype, but rather through pure coincidence and synchronicity), I've come to realize we are looking at an INTELLECTUAL TRILOGY WITHOUT EQUAL, without which there is no further path for philosophy.
To put it simply: Hofstadter's *Gödel, Escher, Bach* featuring those iconic prints, Capra's *The Tao of Physics* exploring the parallels between Chinese mysticism and modern physics, and my book *Philosophy Origin*, which uncovers the links between the intellect of early civilizations and modern science—discussing the universal quaternary of religion, philosophy, science, and art (using Escher's images as "proof" of this philosophy)—these three books complement one another to form a singular intellectual whole. The real headache is that American intellectuals—the self-proclaimed philosophers—hardly know these modern texts exist. They aren't really keeping pace with global research trends because they're too busy clinging to traditional philosophies, mostly stuck in that old-fashioned, Marxist-materialist mindset. That’s why I think the contributions from hiddenviper9, Blue Bird, guest, Planinara, Amadeus, you, Vivian, and several others—myself included, of course—are actually quite significant. We're helping push the intellect toward the actual evolution of thought in the 21st century. This philosophy uses the very concepts expressed in Escher's prints, offering a NEW (yet ancient) perspective that might just pull us out of the rut created by Western Euclidean-Cartesian thought, including the rigid mentalities of the 20th century. If this post nudges you to get better acquainted with Escher's prints, *Gödel, Escher, Bach*, Capra's *The Tao of Physics*, or maybe even my *Philosophy Origin*, then the whole purpose of this text and our dialogue has been fulfilled. Of course, if anyone wants to take a serious dive into this polar-complementary world of creation, a much deeper understanding of tetrahedral contemporary philosophy is required. If anyone is interested, I can help out with personal observations or links—and I know Blue Bird does the same—provided people actually show interest in the phenomenology of the tetrahedral logos.
hiddenviper9 said:A minor contribution to the discussion
hiddenviper9, that’s actually the very first Escher print from the four featured on page 475 of Gödel, Escher, Bach, where he writes: Quoting myself here. "Many have noted that Escher's art—his prints, specifically—are depictions of a totality. When I first looked at his graphics, I saw the entirety of the philosophy of origin laid out right there. Perhaps it's the first time an artistic expression has so perfectly aligned with an intellectual realization, with a single philosophy dubbed the philosophy origin." To be specific, I’d describe the image you posted like this.
"Gray quadrilateral fields develop vertically into silhouettes of black and white birds. The birds fly in opposing directions, vanishing into the black and white environments beneath them. These environments mirror one another, joined by those gray fields from which the birds are reborn. Two rivers—one black, one white—act as symbols of polarity, while the black and white birds structure this field of polarity by morphing into one another. The living, dynamic representation of this image is frequency. (I’m drawing particular attention to this statement for our guest.) This image captures the essential concepts of the philosophy origin, including the essence of the Origin itself—the unified state of the black and white birds. All directions are complementary and polar, yet their unity resides in the gray fields where the birds emerge. Therefore, the optical perception of this image is the complementary, interactive dynamics of the birds moving between the river poles. It is an image of the whole—the totality—of Being!" (I'm pointing this out to the fans of traditional philosophy (you know, the 'nothingness and everything' crowd, the Adriatic types, etc.), because here they get a clear picture of the WHOLE, which, based on everything said so far, is the primary subject of the PHILOSOPHY. hiddenviper9, seriously, props to you! Your contribution to this debate is massive, not "minor" at all. You can't have philosophy without images like these. What is THOUGHT must be able to be known and drawn, following the model of Escher.
I promised I’d share some thoughts from people who actually recognize Escher's mathematical, philosophical, and scientific genius—rather than just seeing him as some "ordinary" graphic artist who "has no clue" about math, philosophy, or science. Is it really that hard to see the connection? It all starts with Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach, where those three letters stand for Kurt Gödel, Escher, and Johann Sebastian Bach. But we're focusing strictly on Escher here, and the story begins like this:
I have an essay by Mark Uršić titled "Homo ex machina? — or — The Boundaries of Isomorphism," where he writes:
"The first time I encountered the book Gödel, Escher, Bach, it happened to fall open to page 714, where I caught sight of an unusual print titled 'Print Gallery' by M. C. Escher. Through its hyperrealism—which, in a sort of self-referential loop, twists itself into extreme surrealism—the piece completes a circle." After this transformation, Uršić notes, "My eye, the observer's eye, plays tricks on me, mimicking the author's; so it isn't surprising that Escher tucked his tiny, barely visible signature—his very name—into that central white spot."
"Flipping through Gödel, Escher, Bach, we encounter a canon that grows infinitely: Achilles and the tortoise, artificial intelligence, the reflection of a celestial city in a vast ocean, theorems of propositional calculus, the Tower of Babel, non-Euclidean geometry, the Cretan labyrinth, Fibonacci's numbers, ideal crystals in a magnetic field, hieroglyphs, Bach's crab canon, Zen Buddhism, termites on a Möbius strip, tornadoes and quarks, the structural over-determination of ant colony consciousness, brain neurons, Gödel's numbers, the myoglobin schema, Turing's set, a verse from the Quran, Magritte's pipe, computer programs, the recording of a proud fugue... and so on, indefinitely. What do all these worlds have in common—aside from that white spot in the middle of the circle?"
Who would ever guess that "the isomorphism of Bach's canon has anything to do with Escher's 'Print Gallery'"? And it doesn't stop there. Escher's prints constantly depict continuous repetition: a waterfall that acts like a perpetual motion machine, drawing water from its own depths; a procession of twelve priests walking eternally in a circle, some upward and others downward; strangers descending endless stairs only to find themselves back at the start; three spheres mirroring one another; a Möbius strip twisting into itself so that the outside becomes the inside at every turn; architectural spaces where the perspective shifts from mouse-eye to bird's-eye view; an Ouroboros—the snake-dragon biting its own tail; hands drawing other hands, and so on. All of Escher's graphic loops demonstrate a complete, self-sustaining autopoiesis within a single perceptual act."
And so, Escher—the graphic artist—takes the previously disconnected threads of art and math, art and philosophy, and art and science, and uses them to gently introduce Western philosophy into a world of complementarity, polarity, self-creation, and self-contradiction. It’s enough to drive not just the viewers of Escher's work mad, but anyone trying to assign a different meaning to these written thoughts than the ones captured in Escher's drawn thoughts. To really dive into the implications of Escher's art, my next post will feature excerpts from Vladimir Divide's book "MATHEMATICAL READER," which I bought for a few "pocket change" bucks $3.00, which honestly just goes to show the current level of intellectual depth and academic interest here in the States.
