LOCATING TEMPORAL ETERNITY AS THE PHYSICAL SPACE-TIME OF MANKIND

LOCATING_TEMPORAL_ETERNITY_AS_THE_PHYSICAL_SPACE-TIME_OF_MANKIND

Do you know what time it is? A better question may be: Do you know where you are in the universe? Why are these questions important? Because knowing what time it is depends on where humanity is located in the universe, and what space and time you live in depends entirely on the true space-time location of humanity as a whole. The Anglo-Americans and their NATO allies are in the wrong space-time zone and so they can’t figure out what time it is. How do you change that?

Lyndon LaRouche would probably have answered that you cannot know what time it is unless you know the complex changing motion of the human species as it moves creatively within the expanse of the universe as a whole. And that, you will not know unless you understand that mankind is not an Earth species, but an extraterrestrial species.

WHY THE DISCOVERY OF LYNDON LAROUCHE’S TEMPORAL ETERNITY IS THE KEY TO PEACE TODAY

WHY_THE_DISCOVERY_OF_LYNDON_LAROUCHES_TEMPORAL_ETERNITY_IS_THE_KEY_TO_PEACE_TODAY

Saving the world is just a matter of time. However, you may be wondering what sort of temporality peace requires. This sort of temporality is not a time of opportunity in the usual sense of the word, because peace is not a matter of chronological time. Peace requires an unusual kind of time understood from the vantage point of epistemology and of history; that is, a special mental and spiritual moment of temporality which affects mankind’s progress in its totality, such as a moment by means of which you can measure a universal truth about human progress, and which is applicable to all human individuals. Lyndon LaRouche identified such time as temporal eternity.

THE FILIOQUE: THINKING FROM A FUTURE ORIENTED AND TOROIDAL UNIVERSE

THE_FILIOQUE_THINKING_FROM_A_FUTURE_ORIENTED_AND_TOROIDAL_UNIVERSE

In statesmanship, the question of the Filioque (“and from the Son”) comes in historically, as a principle of economics as, for instance, under Charlemagne (747-814), four centuries after the First Council of Nicaea (325-381 AD), where it was first introduced as a religious article of faith. However, the key to solving the paradox of homoousios (“of the same substance”) implied in the concept of the Filioque is not to address the matter as a religious question, but to solve the epistemological and political problem it poses to the mind, as, for instance, represented in the conflict between Plato and Aristotle. The Filioque is the main axiomatic problem which historically has divided the East from the West.

GENERATING THE FIVE PLATONIC SOLIDS WITH NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S METHOD OF FOLDING, UNFOLDING, AND ENFOLDING

GENERATING_THE_FIVE_PLATONIC_SOLIDS_WITH_NICHOLAS_OF_CUSAS_METHOD_OF_FOLDING_UNFOLDING_AND_ENFOLDING

There is a Nicholas of Cusa method for generating the five Platonic solids by way of folding, unfolding, and enfolding. And, you don’t need a compass, a straight edge, or any mathematical calculation to do the work. All you need to do is to wave your hands around like a chorus director. I like to call this the ironic waving around a knotty Divine Proportion, because it causes you to be creative by having your mind make an axiomatic backward flip into yourself to locate a higher epistemological level; that is, into a domain which discards all simple hypothesis of circular folding and takes you into the higher hypothesis of continuous doubly-connected circular action.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

LEONARDO AND RAPHAEL: A PEDAGOGICAL ON LINEAR PERSPECTIVE AND THE GOLDEN SECTION OF DIVINE PROPORTION

https://www.amatterofmind.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/LEONARDO_AND_RAPHAEL_A_PEDAGOGICAL_ON_LINEAR_PERSPECTIVE_AND_THE_GOLDEN_SECTION_OF_DIVINE_PROPORTION-1.pdf

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND DONA NOBIS PACEM

The purpose of this report is to show how to create something as opposed to producing an effect; that is, to create the causal process for an effect to be produced as a thoughtful or beautiful object. That was the method of Leonardo Da Vinci and of Raphael Sanzio who both painted objects as if they were “beautiful.” However, what was actually beautiful was not the objects they painted as such, but the process by means of which they showed how to make those objects appear to be “beautiful.” What is beautiful about artistic composition is not the effect, but the cause of that effect. This is the difference that the Divine Proportion makes.