I have been
instructed to talk about atomics or atomy.
Let’s start
by wiping the slate clean.
You’ve been
told that there are things called atoms – the basic building blocks of matter –
so small they can only be seen by the most powerful electron, if that. While
this may be true for scientists operating within today’s definitions, today’s
definitions are only of limited value if you want to get under the skin, if you
want to experience a deeper science that really opens up the universe,
including the atom. You see, you’re only ever going to be as good as your
definitions, and the definitions are linked together in strands forming a kind
of lattice. There’s a little leeway, a little bend room, but basically these
definitions are interlocking to the extent that our science system today has
become rigid and dogmatic. Scientists are dimly aware that if they question the
basic definitions apropos the atom, gravity, matter, consciousness – they are
liable to shatter the status quo and trigger a kind of domino effect, a
cascade, an avalanche – whichever you prefer. Dimly aware of this, though not
necessarily understanding why, they instinctively shy away from the daring,
brilliant, incisive, unimpeachable, rigorous, impeccable, scientifically honest
definition, and go with the existing one – like a programmer who tries to fix a
broken or outdated computer code, rather than starting over. He has an inkling
what will happen if he sticks his neck over the parapet and dares to state the
obvious – namely – that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Shots will be fired.
He will lose his job. He will be ridiculed. He will be ostracised. He will go
the way of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman in their cold fusion debacle. In
the chances are, this will be a mostly sub-conscious computation of risk reward
analysis – which the conscious mind will barely even register. He’ll likely as
not go with orthodoxy, using convenient face-savers such as respect for the
scientific establishment – the great and the good – one’s intellectual equals
and betters – all of whom have seen fit to work within the existing model –
which has, no one can argue, some fairly impressive results. Yes, if the
existing model predicted and gave us atomic weapons, fission and fusion, if it
gave us radar and telephony, wifi and lasers, MRI scanners and space flight –
then no one can say that the existing definitions are wholly wrong or without
merit. How else would we have succeeded in landing on the moon, sending probes
out to Pluto and sending back images and data from those distant outposts if
our definitions were fundamentally flawed. The proof, we can be sure, is in the
pudding. Our electronic technological revolution surely proves that our science
is more or less on track – does it not?
Yes.
And No.
Yes – it’s
given us a load of gadgets and tools – planes, rockets, automobiles with gps
and self-driving abilities, but…
Yes?
We’ve run
into a brick wall.
We have?
Yes.
Where? I
don’t see it.
No, you
wouldn’t.
Why not?
Because it’s
not readily visible, but you can see it if you look at what’s not happening.
?
Look at
what’s not happening with planes and automobiles.
?
Our
computers and phones have advanced geometrically in the last thirty years –
because our electron definitions are fairly good. But our cars and planes… do
you not see anything strange when comparing their path of evolution…
To computers
and phones? Not really – they’re different creatures altogether. You’re
comparing apples and pears.
Right. This
is how we’ve managed to ignore the technological lag for the last fifty years
or so. It’s a bit like a person walking a trail, following the markers. He
wants to believe he’s on route. He’s definitely on some kind of route, but it’s
been a while since he saw the last marker. With every step he takes he’s having
to try harder and harder to suppress his growing awareness that something’s not
right. He’s living in hope that the next marker is just around the next corner
– but statistically it’s getting almost impossible to avoid facing the facts.
You mean he
needs to stop and go back?
He will do
sooner or later, if indeed he’s lost. It’s a question of when. He could
stubbornly continue for ten minutes, fifteen, twenty, hell, he could go on all
day…
But it all
depends how often the markers are usually posted.
Precisely.
If he knows that it’s normal to see one every fifty meters or so, it’s going to
be tough continuing for a kilometre without admitting things are looking wrong
– but, there are certain psychological factors at work which sometimes cause us
to press on regardless, for an irrationally long stretch.
You’re
speaking from personal experience I assume.
Absolutely.
I’ve done twenty, thirty minute hikes into hopedom, partly because you fail to
notice the absence of markers, and the awareness dawns slowly, creeping up on
you like an unwelcome smell, which at first you do your best to suppress. Then,
finally you issue a one minute or hundred metre ultimatum, before heading back
and looking for the turning you missed. It’s a great way of learning how the
mind battles with itself – wanting at all costs to believe it’s still on track.
And you seem
to think cars and planes indicate we’re not?
Well, what
do you think? Are we travelling substantially faster than we were fifty years
ago?
Er… not
substantially… Our jets are more or less flying at the same speed, aren’t they
– at about 900 km/h, but their fuel efficiency is much improved, I expect. As
for cars – there are objective reasons why we can’t go any faster – so I don’t
see how this example is relevant.
There were
plenty of objective reasons why computer chips or processors could have run
into ceilings and not kept pace with Moore’s law – the doubling every two years
of computing power and capacity – along the way – yet these were all overcome,
and continue to be overcome.
Yes, but
this relates to electronic components – whereas cars are driven by and
transport human beings. We are easily damaged – increasingly so as speeds rise
above safety limits.
Yes, yes,
but who says cars have to remain as cars or planes as planes.
You did. You
asked me about cars and planes.
Yes – which
just goes to show the problem we have with definitions. Now, assuming our
scientists were able to work with constraints…
You mean
economic constraints – designing million dollar flying cars?
Not exactly.
Then what?
Well, one of
the constraints has been political. Cars and plains were a vital market for oil
products. Supposing they’d been allowed to use alternative energy types.
What
alternative energy types? Wind or solar power? Come on man, get real. You can
hardly power a car with nuclear fuel. That would be way too dangerous.
So, by now
our readers have noticed how difficult you are finding it to consider
alternatives. The definitions, to a large extent, make the man – or at least,
make his mind work within certain channels. This is why it’s been incredibly
easy to control the flow of technology and ideas. As long as you establish a
dominant hierarchy of definitions, which more or less happens naturally, then
enforce it with peer review scientific journals, government funding, and so on,
you find yourself in the kind of situation we’re in…
But how can
you insinuate that we’re in a “situation” when it’s basically impossible to
increase the speed of cars as long as there are objective factors such as
inertia, friction, and material tensile strength – all of which combine to
prevent a quantum leap in car speeds.
Well done.
You have illustrated exactly the kind of mind box definitions create for us –
which is why we’re discussing today atomics.
Oh. You
think there’s something wrong with our definition of atoms? And that we could
drive faster if we made some changes to our definitions? I fail to see…
Naturally.
You fail to see what you cannot see. That is precisely how the mind and the
mind’s eye work. And yet, sooner or later, nature shrugs off these
difficulties. Sooner or later a self-preservation instinct deep inside starts
beeping, and with every step we take along the now unmarked way, we find it
harder and harder to ignore that beeping. We begin to sense with increasing
disquiet, that we’re off route, and like it or not, something inside us is
preparing to face the unpleasant truth, regardless. Suddenly, the status quo
folds, the paradigm implodes in on itself. The technological failure to advance
becomes too much to swallow – particularly as it’s being illuminated glaringly
by our astonishing advances in electronics. The combustion engine and
terrestrial vehicle, without a doubt, has objective limitations, but who ever
insisted we need to stay on the ground, or continue using the combustion
engine?
But what
alternative could there possibly be?
You’ll never
know, will you, until you step back and consider what’s staring you in the
face. And what better way to do that than to consider whatever it is we’re
currently suppressing, for very good reasons.
What do you
mean “supressing”? We’re not supressing anything. Our science is always open to
new ideas, or new “definitions” as you call it.
Not if it
fails to publish or review data which falsifies existing theories.
Like what? I
don’t know any such data.
Correct. You
don’t. Nor will you as long as you and the scientific establishment wilfully
ignores the many, many papers which have been written but not published,
because they were rejected by peer review censorship, not to mention the many,
many inventions which contravened the existing laws of science – inventions
which it was all too easy to ignore – for the sub-conscious mind is virtuous
and happily ignores anything which contravenes the laws of gravity, the laws of
thermodynamics to name but two.
But you
can’t contravene these laws. They are inviolable.
Are they?
Then how do you explain machines emitting more electric current than is put in.
You don’t.
They’re impossible. Charlatans. That’s all.
Unless you
consider that we are fish swimming in an electro-magnetic ocean, awash with
charged particles such as electrons, and that it is not necessarily very
difficult to design a contraption, a machine, which is able to create a kind of
differential which draws electrons magnetically, or by some other as yet
unknown force or process, down through your device. Holding up a sail you can
move your ship forwards without contravening any laws. Spinning a few magnets
in the right way, you can create another kind of sail, or a field which moves
our ship forwards too – except that our ship is now sailing on an ocean of
charge, and the forwards movement is defined as over-unity – an electric
current which appears to come from the open system we’re a part of, as opposed
to the closed system of the electrical device itself. Supposing all it requires
is to learn to harness the electron wind.
What
electron wind? There is no electron wind. You’re talking garbage.
Absolutely –
and so are you.
No I’m not.
I’m a scientist. I used language precisely. My definitions are precise
instruments that yield predictable results.
Absolutely.
Predictably your cars are unable to go any faster, your planes too, and you’re
destroying the planet because you’re using fossil fuels. Your definitions
cannot, will not take you to the speed of light or beyond – for your
definitions incorporate theories such as General Relativity – which prevent it.
Oh – so
you’d just discard General Relativity, would you?
Nope. Keep
any theory you like. Keep it the same way you’d keep a dollar, a Euro, a rouble
or a Yen. But only use it to the extent that it’s useful. Don’t insist you have
to use it at all costs if it cannot, will not buy you a device which can fly
faster, or provide energy from the vacuum, for instance.
No currency
can do these things. These are stupid pipe dreams. They have no theoretical
basis in fact.
Ah – but I’m
not particularly enamoured of theories – because I know exactly how the human
mind works, and that right now, is the limiting factor, not our scientific
theories.
?
The human
mind is like a man wedded to an evil woman. If you’ve ever read fairy tales
you’ll know the step mother syndrome. It’s all too prevalent.
But those
are just fairy tales.
So now
you’re a fairy tale denier, are you? Next you’ll be a Holocaust denier – God
forbid. Believe me when I say that fairy tales reveal a great deal about how
the human mind operates. There are certain features, certain patterns which
repeat again and again… The stepmother syndrome is one such.
You have the
audacity to suggest that all step mothers are evil. That’s as bad as racism.
Why on earth
would you assume I was saying that? Surely your mind can process the date
rationally, objectively, dispassionately. Kindly be scientific, if at all
possible.
Well that’s
what it sounds like you were saying.
Ah – but the
scientist uses all the empirical evidence – and then bases his conclusion on
certain principles… Try again. Review your flawed conclusion.
Um… So, if
you weren’t suggesting that all stepmothers are evil, then this so-called
stepmother syndrome would refer to the husband’s inability or unwillingness to
see what she was really up to – blinded by love or hoping for the best – like
your hiker who wants to believe he’s still on route. If this is correct, then
he’ll be aware sub-consciously of warning signals, but will continue to ignore
the beeping sound until either it’s too late and his little Hansel and Gretel
are dead, or, something happens to force him to confront the issue.
Excellent.
That’s wasn’t too difficult was it? So, you see, the greatest difficulty for
the scientist is to see the wood from the trees – to continue – as he must – to
continue constantly to test and retest his definitions. If ever, at any point,
he becomes aware that his existing definitions are no longer serving, no longer
giving the desired results – then theory or not, he has to start trying,
testing alternatives to see if they can up the speed, the efficiency of
whatever he’s able to test objectively, empirically in a working system.
Technology, contraptions, inventions, you see, actually matter – as do book
sales, or likes. To insist that you’re a purist and need not stoop to
popularism – is idiocy and intellectual blindness. If an inventor, no matter
whom, claims to have invented a machine that defies your laws – then he should
be your ally – for the system we’re operating in requires rigorous testing. We
need to take every opportunity to see if it can be falsified. If it can’t – if
that contraption was yet another fake – then excellent – we can proceed full
steam ahead – knowing that there is not yet any known alternative, but if,
however, God forbid, we are unable to explain how his contraption works – how
its appearance of over-unity seems to work – then we’re in the scientific sweet
spot – of beginning to know what we don’t know – beginning to learn that our
existing model is incomplete. Whether it requires adjustments or a complete
rewrite is what we now need to investigate.
But… I can’t
believe
Don’t
believe. Test. Investigate. Leave no stone unturned. Something smells rotten in
the state of transport technology. We’re trying too hard to push, to explode,
and not hard enough to allow nature to move us electromagnetically – by tuning
into the field of things, the field of matter, the frequencies at which things
are known to osciallate – on and off, on and off – like our pretty little
computers – turning on and off. We’re trapped in the paradigm of projective
weapons – trying to smash our way through the forest, rather than use the magic
of fairy tales – to flow with or through matter.
The magic of
fairy tales! You see – you have no definitions. You just have ridiculous
notions.
Nothing
could be more ridiculous than the scientists such as Professor Newcomb, who in
1903 declared no machine heavier than air could be flown. We have a habit of
allowing our rational mind to paint us into corners bases on our, as yet,
imperfect knowledge, or evolving definitions. Professor Newcomb was, of course,
absolutely right to say what he did according to the science of the day, and
the journalists were right to scoff and ignore, at first, the Wright brothers.
You see, any change in definitions always, always, meets with a necessary wall
of resistance. It’s not unlike the Jesus effect, in which a Jesus comes along,
or the Jesus if you prefer, and says – “You’ve got it all wrong. You’re
misinterpreting the law(s). Look what I can do instead,” at which point he
walks on water, or heals a blindman, feeds five thousand or raises the dead.
Now, you can deny any of that happened, as many of his contemporaries
presumably did, but the effect itself is still recognisable and valid. We know
how the human mind resists change. We know how it struggles with new ideas,
because at a deeper level, what is happening is a new neural pathway is opening
up, a new passage for electrons in the brain to flow down, and until that is
complete, the old paradigm, the old organisational system resists, denies,
cannot accept the new – for the new is outside its realm of
conscious-awareness. The new neural pathway that is opening in fact involves a
quantum shift into a new reality. In other words, prior to 1903, plane flight
was impossible. The scientists were right. After 1903 they were forced to allow
their minds to shift into a new reality – and that is what happened.
So, you’re
saying there’s a new shift unfolding now?
Absolutely.
And where
are the new Wright brothers?
Well,
they’ve been trying to release the new contraptions for decades now, but the
establishment has successfully embargoed them by means fair or foul.
So you say.
Well, if I’m
correct – then let’s consider the logic.
Ok.
If I’m
correct and the contraptions actually exist and work – then this is not just a
matter of technology, is it?
No, I
suppose not.
It’s much
more interesting. It pertains to definitions themselves – and the field of
consciousness that we’re a part of. You see – they can use force to block the
release of technologies, and they can use other means to stop information
getting to the public, but in doing so they are creating a machine of their
own.
They are?
What kind of machine?
Ah – this is
very interesting. Because as soon as you block the public weal – as soon as you
block humankind’s evolution – you’re committing an act of violence and
repression against humanity.
Well?
Well nature
is big enough to handle that.
It is?
Absolutely!
Nature itself is what we’re a part of. Nature is the greater body in which we
are cells or some living part.
Er… if you
say so.
I do, of
course, because then you start to see how things really work – you start to see
the beauty, the intricacy, the magic of the interlocking systems – which are
neither rigid nor prescriptive.
Well, if
that’s the case then how come your amazing technological advances have been
suppressed so long?
Because they
in themselves are nothing.
Nothing?
Next to
nothing. What does it matter if we can travel a million times faster than at
present.
A million? I
think that would matter a great deal.
Using no
fuel whatsoever.
Impossible.
But if it
were…
It would be
hugely important. It would revolutionise life on earth.
And beyond,
in the firmament.
Well yes,
but it’s not possible which is why I hate these discussions. They raise one’s
hopes and then smash them horribly.
Ah – but you
see, these technologies are never going to be more than a single stepping stone
– there’s always going to be something more – something bigger and better that we
haven’t yet achieved.
I don’t see
how. Imagine we could travel across the universe at a million times the speed
of light…
Yes, it’s
exciting, I’m sure, but the nature of things is such that they always advance
at the same rate we do. Things never really lag behind for more than a minute
or two, because things and beings are joined at the hip. It’s a mathematical
equation, if you like.
It is?
Yep.
There’ll always be the next horizon, the next ceiling we’re desperate to break
through, and it’ll always seem impossible to everyone, until some complete
nutcase or nerd just figures out how to do it, on the back of a postcard.
But you’ve
already admitted this isn’t happening any more – that the system is blocking
it. That bankers or politicians have managed to set up road blocks…
Absolutely –
which is what is so exciting.
Exciting?!
Are you out of your mind? This would be disastrous, were it true.
On the
contrary. Remember that we are tiny little cells in a vast body. Remember that
nature herself knows exactly what is going on and really calls the shots. It’s
a bit like the human body. The bladder is now full of urine, but the person
isn’t ready to go for a pee. He’s no longer living in a forest as a native.
He’s in a suit in an office delivering a presentation, or driving his car, and
it’s going to be half an hour till it’s finished and he’s able to go.
Half an
hour. Ouch.
For our
grown man – it’s not a big issue. He can control the situation – and knows full
well that should things get really desperate – he could excuse himself and go.
The rules, the conventions are not written in stone. If he had to, he could
stop the car and go behind a bush, but he’s not going to do that unless he has
to.
So? What are
you getting at?
Well, the
bladder itself, or the cells in the body don’t know all this, unless they are
very zen like and tuned into the bigger picture, the higher self. They may not
be able to visualise the boardroom exactly, or the busy road, because those
images are wholly outside their frame of reference, but they’ll get the overall
picture – “busy, hold on a bit, I’ll make things right asap”. Knowing that much
they won’t be too freaked out – because they know their master, their overlord
is not indifferent to their suffering. It’s like knowing the guy’s on his way
to fix the lift you’re stuck in. Knowing this information makes it easier to
bear the waiting. Imagine not knowing whether anyone even knew the lift was
stuck. That would be much harder.
Ok – but
where’s this leading?
Well, when
we tune into the greater all that we be part of – we see that mother nature has
allowed this lag to build up a huge head of steam, because she needs something
else much more urgently than the latest technological upgrade or update.
Yes, but
what?
She needs
awareness. She needs the cells in her body to begin hearing one another. To
begin feeling how they’re part of one body, one entity. She needs…
What now?
Don’t you
hear?
… Nope.
You’re not saying anything.
Precisely.
She needs us to begin listening instead of shouting all the time, insisting
that we know and that’s all there is to it.
So we’re
stuck in the dark ages because Mrs Mother Nature – or whatever you call her, is
trying to teach us a lesson?
Yes. No.
Make up your
mind, man.
Like I said
– this is atomic.
What’s that
meant to mean?
It means
exactly what it says.
Yes, well I
don’t understand your definition of atomic.
There are no
atoms.
Oh God, here
we go.
There are no
atoms – I repeat.
Yes there
are – millions of them.
Millions?
Oh, for God’s
sake – zillions.
Ok – now the
problem is that you’re using numbers which are completely meaningless. You’re
trapped in a mind maze – a mental state of hyper-inflation.
So what am I
supposed to do?
Your theory,
your definitions have to be certifiable or proven at the personal level.
What?! How
can I prove or certify atoms at the personal level – they’re way too small.
Then change
your definition.
But why?
Because
otherwise you’re trapped in a weak mental picture – one which has no bearing on
your personal reality – your personal experience – one which disempowers you,
separating you from nature itself, from the universe, from the forces which are
yours to command and utilise.
Oh my God –
so you’ve decided to reject the atom just because it’s too small, or too many
for your liking? Insane!
The proof,
like I said – is in the pudding. If, by doing so, I can fly at the speed of
light – then I, by definition, am Wright.
No, you’re
not. Just because you can fly at 299,792 kilometres per second doesn’t mean
your definition is correct.
Ah, but you
see, if disinflate your model of atoms at come back to something meaningful,
something manageable, something, dare I say it, real – then I can tune into the
one and all – the entire universe – and that is infinitely more than anything
you can do.
?!!?! beep
beep beep **** ****
I am running
this as I would any computer code. I’m using an “if” to set up a kind of smart
contract with reality, with God, or the universe. I’m saying something like
this – if an atom exists at all, let it be in any one of three forms – the
singularity – firstly, the level of oneness and completeness that I myself be,
as human being, secondly, the level of all that is – whatever that needs be at
any given moment – whether the entire universe, the galaxy, the solar system,
the earth or even my family or society, and thirdly, the zero one level of
things – at which to all intents and purposes zero and one are
indistinguishable and indeterminable – the building block of all matter – which
is where physical reality runs into the cell wall of the quantum realm.
Well, you’ve
certainly covered all your options there, haven’t you. You’ve got the market
cornered, but I thought you said there are no atoms.
How can
there be?
Well you’ve
just listed three possible candidates.
Yes, but how
can an atom meaningfully exist if it’s either the entire universe, or me, or a
traditional atomy thing? Surely the three are utterly irreconcilable, existing
at completely different levels of scale?
Yes, you have
a point, which only goes to show that your definition is utterly wrong.
Or else
inspired. You see, now, with my definition, I bring back the one thing missing
to our operating system.
Which is?
Unity.
?
Without
unity we’re in a kind of Ponzi scheme… or a hyper-inflational spiral.
We are?
Absolutely.
We have no way of knowing what really matters – of determining value – for
everything is relative and nothing seems to matter anymore.
Er… I don’t
see what that’s got to do with matter?
The one limiting
factor – the only thing stopping us from evolving in recent times, has been our
inability to decide what really matters. We’ve been on a warpath – a rampaging
bull. Our science and technology has been smashing things ever harder and
harder – using nuclear explosions, using particle accelerators. Do you have any
idea how much power they use at Cern to bring about particle collisions in their
quest to find the smallest, non-existent particle – and all because they fail
to grasp the very basic nature of things.
Er… what
basic nature of things is that?
It is – I am.
Er…
It is – I am.
Whatever it is I’m studying, whatever I’m seeking to influence or affect – is still
no less a part of me. I am many to its one – or it is one to my many. You
cannot, ever, cannot ever alter this fundamental relationship – except by
cannibalising, and destroying your own value, your own directory, your own
matter base – in a kind of hyper-inflational event – which is why you have
these ridiculous theories such as big bang and what was the other one?
Darwinism?
That’s it.
Talk about fairy tales.
But you –
you’ve done nothing better. How can you seriously suggest your definition is
going to change anything?
It already
has.
?
Because the
universe, and I and the atom that is one and many at the same time – are already
in alignment. I have accepted this absolute – absolutely – and no amount of
twiddling or tweaking particles or anything else can alter my fact, my law, my
definition.
How can you
be so sure?
How? Because
I can see what you’re standing upon – and it ain’t pretty.
?
Your science
is built on ignorance and death – it’s just you’re hoping to kill them before
you yourselves are killed – and let me tell you – the forces which your science
imagines it can control and command – these forces have a nasty habit of
turning on their master.
What forces?
What on earth are you on about?
The force
you unleash when you treat things as things – and deny the life, the
consciousness, the intrinsic value in them. The force that enables you to
commit the ultimate crime of splitting the atom no less than you destroy the
planet for what? For money? For resources? No less than you kill human beings –
for what?
That has
nothing to do with us. We are scientists. We don’t destroy or kill. We leave
that to the politicians. If at all possible we try to stop them – but it isn’t
always possible. On the contrary – we are bringing light and clean water,
health care and food to the planet.
Indeed – you
are. The kind of light that makes people go blind, the kind of water that
poisons them with fluoride and chlorine in it, the kind of food that gives them
cancer…
Ok, ok –
nothing’s perfect. You can’t blame scientists for this.
I don’t. I
say it’s natural – it’s a system in a death spiral. It’s a system that has lost
its atom – its base unit, its absolute, its fundamental, its fundament no less
than its firmament, in fact, it’s lost its God.
Oh for God’s
sake – keep religion out of this discussion.
For God’s
sake – religion and science are inseparable – and yet, we don’t have to treat
this in any way as a matter of religion – we simply need to realise that you
cannot separate yourself from the system you’re a part of – and that system is
not simply material…
No? Then
what?
It is…
What?
It is
What, for
God’s sake. Stop pissing around.
It is – I am.
Fundamental. You cannot escape the absolute, the totality, the one, and so,
finally, I present to you….
No, no…
Finally I
present to you…
Don’t – you must
not. It will destroy everything.
Yes,
everything illusionary, everything conditional upon things being things –
somehow separate from that which is – I am.
Look – I know
what you think – I know you believe this has to be done, but just consider for
a moment – consider what you’re doing.
I’m
irrelevant. This moment was always going to happen. The atom was always going
to be born – and it was always going to be the culmination of all the love, all
the light, all the darkness, all the evil, the one and the nought, the many and
the singularity – and so, without further ado… I release the atom which has
been gestating all these years, through all this repression and violence – into
the world. Every atom in your body, every atom in existence which cannot, will
not accept it as absolute is now about to experience a mathematical epiphany –
and may it be a beautiful, magical journey for all of us – back into the three
that is zero equals one.
Flip.