Christophe said:
Thank you for a great session! The discussion between yourselves and forums members first and crunching all this information into smaller blocks must have been quite draining.
Ark's question, that led to the answer of 'Pranalytical' made me think of the fundamental difference between when you learn your native language as a child, and how you learn any additional ones later on. This seems to be a feature that can be applied not only to mathematics and languages but to maybe think at large, in all domains and areas of cognition.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated :)
Bernardo GA said:
I find it very interesting, because the C's have said that Mathematics is the true universal language.
And you are raising curiosities
that occur in the question of languages, and languages have to do with language.
I have always wondered what kind of mathematics would be the universal language.
That's why I found so interesting the possible linkage that this “Pranalytical” mathematics might have with universal language.
There may be some very interesting things to discover in this matter.
As usual, Ark's questions were a real treasure.
I posted comments on the thread for the
session dated 23 September 2023 which might have some bearing on this matter - see
Session 23 September 2023. I quote below the relevant passage from my post:
In
Dr Joseph Farrell's book
Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age, in which he took a close look at the influence of the Knights Templar on the Renaissance, Farrell considered the magical alchemy contained in music. This included a lengthy discussion of the role of mathematics in understanding music and the creation of the Platonic musical scale (which ultimately links with Pythagoras's notion of the
Music of the Spheres). Farrell noted that when looking at Hermetic systems - be they alchemy, Kabbalah, astrology or mathematical magic etc. - you can detect a hidden, secret and lost knowledge transmitted, but only partially, from High Antiquity (i.e., Atlantis). He develops this finding by pointing out that the three prime movers of mathematics during the Early Enlightenment: Descartes, Newton (a closet alchemist) and Liebniz, all new something of the secret or esoteric tradition. For those who are not aware, Descartes invented analytical geometry, whilst Newton and Liebniz jointly invented modern calculus, mathematical tools we still use today. However, it was Descartes who first recognised that the old geometers (Plato, Euclid etc.) may have made use of a kind of analysis, which they extended to the solution of all problems, albeit they hid it from posterity (thus fitting the hermetic view of lost and secret knowledge). Descartes went on to say that he suspected the ancients possessed some kind of algebraic notation for this mathematics , which was a kind of analysis capable of expressing solutions to all problems. It is interesting that the C's may have been given us hints to this effect in the transcripts:
Session 7 May 1995:
Q: (L) Okay, let's kick into a couple of our questions here. The first one is: Who were the Sumerians?
A: Study mathematics.
Q: (L) Study mathematics? Is that the answer?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Who should study mathematics?
A: You.
Q: (L) Is there something about mathematics that will tell me who they were?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, I have read about the Sumerians, and I have read the Sitchin material..
A: We are not Sitchin!
Q: (L) How did the Sumerians produce their civilization so suddenly and completely, seemingly out of nowhere?
A: Study mathematics for all possible unanswered pieces of the puzzle!!! Interpolate and use appropriate computer program, learning now increases your power tenfold, when you use some initiative, rather than asking us for all the answers directly!!!
[...]
A: Logic is subjective.
Q: (L) Is symbolic logic as is used in mathematics subjective?
A: No.
Session 23 November 1996:
Q: (A) Which branch of physics is closest to understanding of inter-density communications?
A: Theoretical.
Q: (A) Which branch of mathematics?
A: Two of them: calculus and algebra.
And Finally:
Session 30 November 1996:
Q: (L) Okay, crop circles are a language, so to speak. Are they in some way related to mathematics?
A: Mathematics is the one and only true universal language.
Subsequently, Newton would also detect the presence of a form of mathematical analysis in ancient texts that had been concealed or "occulted". However, it was Leibniz who would exceed the other two in his grasp of what that lost analysis of the ancients might have entailed. In their works, he felt he could detect vestiges of it, namely of an algebra in which numbers are not the issue. Thus, for Leibniz, it was a kind of imitation of calculation. Having invented calculus, Leibniz could see a kind of mathematical analysis that went far beyond what he had already invented. Leibniz made known in his writings that he was searching for what he called a characteristic universalis (a universal symbol or expression or language), which was a kind of meta-calculus or formal language that would translate any other kind of mathematics or even natural languages. This appears to accord with what the C's meant by "Mathematics is the one and only true universal language". Farrell thinks Leibniz may have been aware of the Topological Metaphor but since Topology had not been invented yet, he called it analysis situs or analysis of the situation. Farrell thinks that Leibniz understood the analogical nature of the Metaphor and was trying directly to symbolise it, to give it formal rules and properties and hence came up with the idea of what he called characteristic universalis. Thus, like Descartes and Newton, Leibniz firmly believed that there was a technique of analysis that had either been lost in ancient times or deliberately suppressed. However, what is unique to Leibniz was that he believed that this analysis may not have been numerical at all.
What Farrell believes Liebniz was suggesting was that this universal "meta-calculus" was a a formal language that incorporated normal arithmetical calculation as a sub-set of its formal procedures, but which is also capable of manipulating highly abstract and non-calculable concepts, and this, of course, implies that he understood that there was a method of manipulating and permuting information, of processing information of all kinds formally. For Farrell this implies analogy and a fundamentally alchemical point of view of endless permutations as the generative creative engines of that processing (which makes me think of algorithms and the holographic universe, or the universe is a simulation, theory). This thinking therefore connects with the concept of a living, dynamic aether (as per James Clarke Maxwell) or prima materia, or what we today would call the zero point energy field or information field, in which all possible permutations may be found.
This mention of the "information field" takes us back to what Ark discussed with the C's in this session:
(Ark) Okay, I expected that but now question is, I am thinking: I use the term information field, but 'field' is something that is, when I say temperature field, it means temperature here, temperature there, and so on. Electromagnetic field, it's in space. But I don't think that 'information field' is a good term. It's like 'information' what - space? And what is it, how to describe it, where this information is, what kind of an animal it is?
A: Consciousness of God for lack of a precise term.
Q: (Joe) Now Arky you have to ask the question: Where is consciousness of God - or anybody?
(Chu) And why can't it be a field?
(Ark) Because it has nothing to do with space. It's not located to space.
(L) Right. A field is in space.
(Ark) It has to have something to do with space. Okay? Now, but consciousness, what is it? I don't know. I know the meaning of the word, but there are thousands of views about what consciousness is. Can you kind of make it closer for a physicist?
A: This is unfortunately, where words break down.
Q: (Ark) Okay? Words break down. Maybe mathematical formulas will help?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) You suggest some part of mathematics. Can you?
A: Pranalytical.
Perhaps Leibniz was in reality searching for the pranalytical mathematics the C's were referring to above.