A Shapely and Handsome Fable, chapter 5

If you want to think about something that is one and absolutely immovable, you need to go in your thought somewhere far from Earth, said Handsome.

His teacher Shapely said, you can’t talk about the True Being as if it was on Earth, because in earthly terms it would be finite and infinite, moving as well as at rest. The perfect stasis belongs with reality other than earthly.

Essences can work on Earth as principles for creativity, but they do not have power over the divine concept. Both Shapely and Handsome speculated, there was some connection between the God’s Instrument and the partible world. Shapely had the rhyme,
All things with mind it shakes, from mental toil
Remote. —

Shaking might suggest violence, but most people on Earth had no thought those times what feedback was. For English, Merriam-Webster notes the word emerged in 1919.

Some ancients noted, “punishment is inflicted according to the order of time”. Evidently, when they thought about something reciprocal, punishment was an idea, because nobody was guilty every second or third bit of any cosmic time when those ancients lived, either. Of course, they all knew it.

Reportedly a disciple of Thales, Anaximander the Milesian said, there was “a certain and infinite nature” that corresponded with natures in all skies, where “payloads” could be furnished only at intervals of time. In simple words, the cosmos is not like an organism that repairs whenever possible. Things can happen only according to interval.

The good or evil of earthly and partible physics was not about morality. The Latin ■malus could phrase a “negative payload”, and negative feedback has always had the potential to be a good thing, the same as positive feedback, however.

We have found “shaking at” and “shaking back”, to come together with rotation and spinning in ancient Greek: ἐπισείω, ἀνασείω, and ὑποσείω (episeio, anaseio, and uposeio), where θεῖος (theios) would mean divine, and σείω (seio) alone would be something that goes to and fro.

Like a kid’s rattle, such feedback would not touch, yet it would have response.

Ancients predicted, the process was going to end, just not any time soon. Today we can learn that ■collision with Andromeda will be the Milky end.

There was an interesting phrase already then, in ancient times, κειμένος υποκάτω (keimenos ypokato), for things subjacent or underlying, where modern science today considers it worthy to derive the word ■meson from the Greek ■μένος, just like in the phrase.

Without mesons all would fall apart, but the ancients resolved to reckon on physical being and state. They did not postulate “non-state”. Here is why.

A physical state of matter can be that of being or non-being, but if we went into “non-state”, we would get options as non-state being, or non-state to be, which would logically be the same as state non-being, state not to be. Non-state not being would mean state being. For a working universe they needed working things, and thus “non-state” did not appeal to them. Things could be even in a state of chaos, but they would be in a state.

All that probably looked complicated to tell those ancient simple people, so their philosophers came up with myths and legends.

Some Hindu guys talk about souls today as if they could be like rainbows. It is probably from that tradition that gave human shapes to physics, where deities might be perfect, but you could not have them around without trouble.

Siddhartha’s rainbow

Let us mind, entire collections of teachings were attributed to Siddhartha from reportedly a tradition that was spoken, and first committed to writing about 400 years after the Buddha’s death. ■More

---

Writes philologue Taylor, in the never-failing generation and change in being, natures are of “ruthmos, trope, and diathige, viz. figure, order, and position”. It is somehow amazing, to think all those tiny physical bits and shapes are spinning and changing all the time, and the reality can be solid stone.

Parmenides said: The one immovable has every name. This is likely about some original constant. The famous mc square by Einstein implies a constant. The world is 3D, and the square can be only 2D — unless you have a constant.

Let us explain, we have gone paradigmatic a bit, and part that paradigm of ours is viewing things as variable and invariable,, in this world of partible physics. The square or power of two is invariable. The power of three is invariable too, or we could say, it has three invariables. The power of two would have three invariables with generally a constant around. The power of three would not be four invariables because it involves limes, a boundary, like for a cubicle of light, if we were about making such. The power of two is enough for talking things like Einstein’s.

In our everyday life, aside from going amazed for a while, we do not need excess complexity. The story here reckons about man and the Great After, or the Other Side, in simple words for everyday living on Earth.

---

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Reckoned philologue Taylor, “It is with non-being that the prefect requirement belongs”. There is no perfect — single, unchangeable — constant in this mortal world, there are designate frames. We remember Handsome said, the partible physics is three in type: there is matter and there are predications from it, in form and default

Our literary illustration, and we remind about the poetic license of course, is Carl Sandburg: Here I know I will hanker after nothing so much as one more sunrise, or a sky moon of fire doubled to a river moon of water. Infinite configurations.