“A datum that can answer a single yes-no question is called a bit—a familiar computer-age term that is short for binary digit, meaning a 0 or a 1, which you can think of as a numerical representation of yes or no….Notice that the value of the entropy and the amount of hidden information are equal. That’s no accident. The number of possible heads-tail arrangements is the number of possible answers to the 1,000 questions – (yes, yes, no, no, yes,…) or (yes, no, yes, yes, no,…)…With entropy defined as the logarithm of the number of such arrangements—1,000 in this case—entropy is the number of yes-no questions any one such sequence answers….a system’s entropy is the number of yes-no questions that its microscopic details have the capacity to answer, and so the entropy is a measure of the system’s hidden information component….[in note] Stephen Hawking showed mathematically that the entropy of a black hole equals the number of Planck-sized cells that it takes to cover its event horizon. It’s as if each cell covers one bit, one basic unit of information.” (The Hidden Reality, 289-290)
At each point, there is being/energy, non-being and again being. This fundamental pattern of energy is also the fundamental pattern of energetic movement as well, as movement of objects is a transference of energy from one state of affairs to another, as light itself encodes information. That is why the symbol for an open and closed energy current is the binary “I” and “O” combined to impede or allow the flow. The on/off symbol, as you see, is also the obelisk in the circle.
Thus, the entire process of nature and energy is contained in this one symbolic form. One needn’t be afraid of the “gods” or paganism in this regard, since all pagan exoteric religion has ever done is personalize or hypostatize the divine powers of God into chaotic, multiple powers (polytheism). These “natural forces” personified are energies of the One True God, not countless demigods. To the inner priesthood of Egypt, the knowledge transmitted was that these gods are symbols for “natural forces.” In Egypt, symbols were magic, not representations of magic, and that is because the symbol participates in the “meaning” of the referent: the prototype participates in the archetype. This is so radically different a worldview from post-enlightenment anti-metaphysics and deconstructionism that is very difficult for modern man to divest this assumption. Modernity assumes that symbols have no primeval, archetypal significance or meaning. Symbols and signs for modern man simply evolved at random from randomly evolved “consciousness” (whatever that is), which was then accepted in some kind of linguistic social contract, where the villagers all decided “CAT” would stand for that thing over on the rug.
Such are our great, learned academicians and professors. But to sober minds the fundamental nature of energetic process also has a correspondence to civilizations and ages. Writer Mark Hackard has translated an excellent essay by Russian thinker Natalya Irtenina that describes the traditionalist assessment of our age, citing Guenon:
Analyzing the worldview of the Middle Ages, one embodied in the aesthetic conception of Thomas Aquinas, the author Umberto Eco defines it as a “philosophy of cosmic order.” In such an understanding of the world, “God is regarded as the Prima Causa in relation to Himself and to his creation, for which he appears as the Actual, Final and Creative Reason… Here everything, beginning from the creation of the angels, world and man, the determination of passions and habits, and ending in the sacraments as instruments of redemption and death as the gates to eternal life- none of this is accidental, all of this has its explanation and functions within this integral whole.” (Eco, “Aesthetics of the Chaosmos”)
At the base of what is called traditional consciousness or thinking lies the principle of hierarchy, strengthened by the idea of an absence of randomness, the impossibility of reasonless, acausal being. For the person located “within Tradition,” “all things have a traditional character since they are regarded in direct connection with foundational principles.” (Guénon)
All of these sufficiently simple and well-known truths are repeated here only to demonstrate the nucleus of logical relationships in the system of traditional thinking and from this to cross over to the topological plane of the given analysis. On the topological plane, the integrity of traditional thinking is structured according to the principle of the “tree”: the roots (basic metaphysical principles), the trunk (the One, the highest level of hierarchy), and the widely branching crown (the Universum of the Cosmos, particularly human culture). Within the parameters of modern scientific rationalism (in the projects of philosophers, linguists, semioticians, structuralists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.), the tree principle has already long been legitimized as an epistemological, methodological reality, as an archetype and in general as “one of the strongest ‘universal’ structures of man’s thought and practice in apprehending the world.”
The reference to tradition here is crucial, as meaning can only be had in a context, just as words only having meaning in a context, just as stories only have meanings in some context. Modernity is premised on the new as new. But nothing can be truly “new” in the sense the modernists and nihilists want. The overwhelming sense of boredom and bondage engendered by liberalism from the Enlightenment on is a result of this impossible, erotic desire for the purely new. This desire for the continually new is actually modernity’s slavery, despite its false assumption that it is its greatest freedom. The “new,” where the past is supposedly discarded and atomized individual meaningless “consciousness” creates its own meaning and foists it upon the world is the direct result of liberalism’s inherent nihilism. Russian geo-strategist Alexander Dugin brilliantly sums up this nihilistic impulse of modern liberalism as follows:
“There is one point in liberal ideology that has brought about a crisis within it: liberalism is profoundly nihilistic at its core. The set of values defended by liberalism is essentially linked to its main thesis: the primacy of liberty. But liberty in the liberal vision is an essentially negative category: it claims to be free from (as per John Stuart Mill), not to be free for something. It is not secondary; it is the essence of the problem.
Liberalism fights against all forms of collective identity, and against all types of values, projects, strategies, goals, methods and so on that are collectivist, or at least non-individualist. That is the reason why one of the most important theorists of liberalism, Karl Popper (following Friedrich von Hayek), held in his important book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, that liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests that human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning. (It should be noted that George Soros regards this book as his personal bible.) Any goal, any value, and any meaning in liberal society, or the open society, should be strictly based upon the individual. So the enemies of the open society, which is synonymous with Western society post-1991, and which has become the norm for the rest of the world, are concrete. Its primary enemies are Communism and fascism, both ideologies which emerged from the same Enlightenment philosophy, and which contained central, non-individualistic concepts – class in Marxism, race in National Socialism, and the national State in fascism). So the source of liberalism’s conflict with the existing alternatives of modernity, fascism or Communism, is quite obvious. Liberals claim to liberate society from fascism and Communism, or from the two major permutations of explicitly non-individualistic modern totalitarianism. Liberalism’s struggle, when viewed as a part of the process of the liquidation of non-liberal societies, is quite meaningful: it acquires its meaning from the fact of the very existence of ideologies that explicitly deny the individual as society’s highest value. It is quite clear what the struggle is attempting to achieve: liberation from its opposite. But the fact that liberty, as it is conceived by liberals, is an essentially negative category is not clearly perceived here. The enemy is present and is concrete. That very fact gives liberalism its solid content. Something other than the open society exists, and the fact of its existence is enough to justify the process of liberation.”
In other words, liberal modernity post-enlightenment has lost all conception of birth/nature, and resurrection/eternality. There is only the futile thrust for the ever-new, which represents a vain grasping for the “O” (Osiris), while being perpetually enmeshed in the “A” (Apophis/entropy). The acceptance of Darwinian theory itself by all of modernity is nothing but the acceptance of the principle of perpetual chaos and entropy. Although early Darwinian “progressives” assumed man was evolving into more and more progressive states, once it becomes evident that “progress” (in that worldview) is a subjective value judgment with no objective reality, “progress” is meaningless (as is everything). The jettisoning of metaphysics by the Enlightenment, exaltation of the atomized individual and apotheosis of the “new” is simply to be caught forever in the cyclical wheel of natural chaos. It is the implicit worship of Apophis, and is, as Dugin says, pure nihilism.
In terms of geo-politics, the western elite have come to embody the full incarnation of what Spengler correctly described as ‘Faustian.” Dr. Faustus made a deal with the devil for power, but as a result lost himself and his soul. What better description for Western man that “Faustian,” given the insane, nihilistic goals of technological transhumanism, in a universe simultaneously divested of any meaning or significance as a result of modern liberalism, where this nihilistic tech-utopia version seeks to attain immortality through a mass creation of chaos (Apophis). But the process of I-A-O, if it does have any historical connection, is not caused and created by power-mad technocrats who wreck everything thinking they will remake everything. That is the folly of communistic metaphysics – order out of chaos. Suicide does not make for immortality.
Irtenina comments again:
“If the model of traditional thought can be signified by the letter Ψ (everything grows out of and is nourished by a single trunk), then the neo-pagan model will look like a Ψ inverted (of course both definitions are quite conditional). In the latter case, although subordination of the system’s elements to the “one” is distinctly obvious, the space of the Universum unfolds not in the crown of the tree, but in the ramified system of roots. The culture of this “Brave New World” is steeped in the militant heritage of a pagan past bursting upon the present scene and sweeping away all in its path.”
The inverted Greek psi, an inverted tree, also resembles a pyramid, as does the “A” of Apophis (which actually embodies the uncapped pyramid). The triadic pyramid itself is not evil, but when inverted is symbolic of evil, the negation of being. The reality is, nothing is truly “new,” because nothing is relative. No meaning is purely contingent that suddenly emerges as a brute fact in history with no historical context. But objects in history are also not purely historical and subject to constant flux. History itself is contained within the infinite, as every point in space and time also manifests the infinite, as I showed here. And that means truth itself is also eternal, not temporal and meaningless. In short, the entire universe is the opposite of what the Faustian degenerate Western so-called “elite” have proffered. Apophis is not the ultimate force in the universe, but merely an aberration that marks temporal reality itself. Apophis/entropy cannot be universalized and apotheosized because it is not a thing – it has no being. It is the negation of being, being no-thing. The nothingness of nihilism is the very thing liberalism tends towards as Dugin accurately noted.
In terms of geo-politics, the race of modernity centers around energy. The fiat dollar is itself a symbolic representation of human energy. To bind all of the world to a fiat currency of ones and zeros in a computer gird is to enslave mankind to a central, virtual grid of nihilistic monetarism. Most nations in the world utilize the same fraudulent central banking model that we have here in the US – the “federal reserve” model, based in turn on the Bank of England model. The binding of masses to a single binary electronic “currency” thus encapsulates the transference of human energy into virtual “energy,” yet even more susceptible to centralized fraud and manipulation than the older fiat paper models. It is therefore the liberal, nihilistic negation of currency and “money” (for the masses, that is). Our era of reign of quantity and monetarism is perfectly summarized with an Apophis “A” on the “dollar.”
With these deep ruminations in mind, the context of the Anglo-establishment’s war on Russia for the last hundred years represents a race for energy. The Anglo elites, enmeshed in Satanism and their Faustian tech bargain, have adopted wholesale the lie that the control of natural resources, and in particular energy will give them, not merely some classical geo-political advantage, but rather immortality. This immortality will (they believe) be achieved by the utter dominance and cutting off of natural resources. The complete and total control of energy, in all forms and means, is the essence of full spectrum dominance. It is not merely the control of natural gas, coal, nuclear energy or emergent energy technologies – it is the control of all movement. All movement is energy, as I noted at the beginning, and the tracking and tracing of all things is merely another example of full spectrum energy dominance. Control of currency is control of energy. Control of food is control of the consumption of energy. Control of breeding is control of sexual energy. The name of the whole game is cornering the market on energy – all energy. This is the meaning of the evil, Apophis version of the eye. The palantir-style magic crystal ball that is the Internet and Google is the ring of power, or, the ring of energy. But the ring of energy does not end with entropy and Apophis. It ends with resurrection and immortality, and that is a symbolic reassurance and guarantee that the forces of destruction, chaos and Apophis will not, and cannot win in the long run. A is also Alpha and O is also Omega.
God transcends the dualist metaphysic exemplified in nature and the energetic process. Eastern theologian Vladimir Lossky explains:
“According to St. Maximus, God is “identically a monad and a triad.” Capita theologica et oeconomica2, 13; P.G. 90, col. 1125A.He is not merely one and three; he is 1=3 and 3=1. That is to say, here we are not concerned with number as signifying quantity: absolute diversities cannot be made the subjects of sums of addition; they have not even opposition in common. If, as we have said, a personal God cannot be a monad — if he must be more than a single person — neither can he be a dyad. The dyad is always an opposition of two terms, and, in that sense, it cannot signify an absolute diversity. When we say that God is Trinity we are emerging from the series of countable or calculable numbers. St. Basil appears to express this idea well: “For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to plurality, saying ‘one, two, three’ or ‘first, second, third.’ ‘I am the first and I am the last,’ says God (Isaiah 44:6). And we have never, even unto our own days, heard of a second God. For in worshipping ‘God of God’ we both confess the distinction of persons and abide by the Monarchy.” De spiritu sancto18; P.G. 32, col. 149B. The procession of the Holy Spirit is an infinite passage beyond the dyad, which consecrates the absolute (as opposed to relative) diversity of the persons. This passage beyond the dyad is not an infinite series of persons but the infinity of the procession of the Third Person: the Triad suffices to denote the Living God of revelation. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 23 (De pace 3), 10; P.G. 35, col. 1161. Or. 45 (In sanctum pascha); P.G. 36, col. 628C.If God is a monad equal to a triad, there is no place in him for a dyad. Thus the seemingly necessary opposition between the Father and the Son, which gives rise to a dyad, is purely artificial, the result of an illicit abstraction. Where the Trinity is concerned, we are in the presence of the One or of the Three, but never of two.