The Tetrast
Sketcher of various interrelated fourfolds.

Fantastic Four.

April 8, 2005.
.
This message which I sent in response to Gary Richmond at the peirce-l forum on February 24, 2004, seems worth reproducing here. (Since this post raises the issue of my beliefs, I should say that, seriously speaking, I’m not religious, not anti-religious or religion-phobic either, and don’t belong to or wish to join any particularly anti-religious groups. ’Nuff said.)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Gary wrote,

then Osiris/Isis/Seth/Nepthys (are these the 4 Ben adores? :-),

I fully admit that there is a not common craze for tetrachotomies. I do not know but the psychiatrists have provided a name for it. If not, they should not. “Tetrachomania,” fortunately, is tottering ready to be pre-empted for a totally different passion, rife among sale clerks in the US, one for the 25-cent piece; but still the former might be called tetradomany, stressing as de rigueur the junctural vowel, as if to rhyme with “Astronomy Domine.” I am not so afflicted; but I find myself obliged, for sooth’s trace, to make such a large number of tetrachotomies, hexadecachotomies, & the occasional 65,536-chotomy, that I could not wonder at it if my reader(s), especially those of them who are in the way of knowing how rare the malady is, should suspect, or even opine, or flat-out believe, & be willing to wager considerable sums of money, that I am a rare victim of it.

I did once, in spite of the tetradomany or tesserophilia that some might ascribe to me, hit upon a physico-mathematical structure, illustrated below, from which I could not eradicate the threes. It is a mix of threes & fours, at which I arrived when I wondered what other conjecturable particles besides tachyons may be conceived through the exploration of special-relativistic equations. Most of the bizarre particles thence struggling into my imagination baffled me & I didn’t really know what I was doing. The structure’s resemblance to kaleidoscopic view may be more than coincidence. But, as touching upon the case of a conjecture of particles at rest invariantly with respect to all tardyonic (that’s us) frames of reference, I might add that lately I have read about a special kind of standing waves whose interaction with the particles which we call massive would produce their inertial behaviors. At any rate, let it not be said that I have never left a trichotomy as it stood.


As for my imputedly adoring the four deities you mentioned, that’s just a false rumor, or if not, let’s just keep it under our hats, for I prefer Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, & a fourth deity to be named later.

Best regards,
Ben U d e 11
Test
 
Ben, you wrote: "As for my imputedly adoring the four deities [GR] mentioned, that’s just a false rumor, or if not, let’s just keep it under our hats, for I prefer Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, & a fourth deity to be named later."

For my own part I continue to find Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva 'necessary and sufficient'. However, the four Egyptian deities are very great powers, but not as originary as:

Tum (in Nun, the Abyss)
1/2/3 |> Khepri (the Scarab==becoming)
Atum (the Great God)

Nor, for that matter do they appear as originary as Shu & Tefnut, even Geb & Nut (==yang and yin), the off-spring of Shu & Tefnut. Either that or perhaps your four ARE Shu & Tefnut, Get & Nut (see, Lucie Lamy, Egyptian Mysteries: New Light on Ancient Knowledge, 8-18)

Also, even as you continue not to name the fourth God in the Hindu pantheon, would you at least put your photo back up?!
 
I read in Lamy [12-13 op. cit.]the following: "The Pythagorean axiom 'All is Number' was once considered. . . unrealistic . . . until it was discovered that the properties of any given chemical element are governed by a specific whole number: the atomic number, corresponding to the number of protons and electrons belonging to its atom, as well as their distribution on the orbits (levels of energy) surrounding the nucleus. Hydrogen, for example, has an atomic number of 1, with only one electron in orbit, while helium has the number 2 and 2 electrons.

The transmutation of hydrogen into helium is at the origin of the birth of stars and, in our small world, provides the solar energy from which we benefit. Now if we are to believe the above schema [she refers to a diagram I'll represent here as a trikon:

Hydrogen
1/3/2 |> Tritium (isotope of hydrogen)
Helium

], it must be acknowledged that the simplest possible nucleus, having a value of One, becomes triple in order to produce, in addition to itself, the second element having the atomic number
Two. Here, then, matter itself expresses the mystery of becoming in terms of number: One into Two, the mystery of becoming in terms of number."

So, one into two through three. Lamy continues with a discussion of the Pythagorean tetractys and pentactys.

Best,

Gary
 
And what about all those bound trios of quarks?

I'll get around to the Caturmurti of Brahman eventually. Meanwhile I'll keep chowing down on the curry that keeps people smart into such old age in India.

Egyptian gods, Greek gods, I may have to work up a separate post on all this.
 
Post a Comment


HOME || Deductive vs. ampliative; also, repletive vs. attenuative || Plausibility, verisimilitude, novelty, nontriviality, versus optima, probabilities, information, n-ary givens || Logical quantity & research scopes [...] || Telos, entelechy, Aristotle's Four Causes, pleasure, & happiness || Compare to Aristotle, Aquinas, & Peirce. || Semiotic triad versus tetrad. || Tetrachotomies of future-oriented virtues and vices. || What of these other fours? || Fantastic Four. || Why tetrastic? || The Four Causes, their principles, special relativity, Thomistic beauty. || Logical quantities, categories of research, and categories. || Semiotics: collaterally based recognition, the proxy, and counting-as. || A periodic table of aspects of humanity [...]
.
.
.
.