RE: virus: Evaluating Math

Schneider John (
Fri, 29 Nov 1996 02:11:08 -0500

Lior asked:
> Ok, so 'ordinary' math counts the amount of objects,
> and cohesive math counts the kind of objects [feel
> free to correct me here David]. Can we construct a
> math which evaluates objects? i.e. Which counts their
> quality?
> I don't mean scores like 'ten of ten' or 'one in a
> million' etc., but a real count of the quality of
> objects?
> This could be interesting...

I think we've been attempting this already for centuries;
see below...

David Leeper responded:
> Unless I'm using the word "quality" in a different way
> than you, Cohesive Math does "count their quality".
> For example, let's assign the American Flag to 1. We
> all know that a nation's flag tends to represent more
> than just the nation proper, it represents popular
> feelings for that nation, such as patriotism and pride.
> Assigning "Patriotism" to 2 and "Pride" to 4, we can
> say that an American Flag is 7 (1 + 2 + 4), that is,
> the flag is something more than just colored cloth
> sewn together in a particular pattern. There's
> genuine emotion intrinsic to its nature.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Begin Zero Sneak Preview =-=-=-==--=-=
> This is why in my own religion, Zero, I've used Cohesive
> Math as the foundation for Magick. I've defined the
> Qabalistic Tree Of Life and the Elements using it.
> For more information, see:
> The next step after this is to build a system of
> Magick using these tools. For those of you unfamilar
> with Magick, it's the art of causing change. This
> system will be completely new and different from any
> system which has come before it (and, I believe, much
> more powerful).

I don't think it is terribly different from what we're
already doing.... see below.

> I'm not going to let the cat all the way out of the
> bag, but one of the key ingredients to this system is
> Cohesive Math. With it, one can easily recognize the
> latent potential in any object or concept. Here's a
> short example:
> Take Einstein's famous e=mc^2 equation and assign it
> to 1. Note that we can add 0 to 1 without changing
> anything, 1 + 0 = 1. Also note that 0 = 2 + -2 or
> 3 + -3 or 4 + -4, etc.
> Therefore, by adding zero to Einstein's equation, we
> see that it is not simply a statement about the
> relationship of energy and mass, but that it also
> contains latent within it an infinite number of
> additional concepts, each of which can be invoked and
> manipulated by the Magickian. For example, I find
> the notion that our bodies are simply a form of pure
> energy to be spiritually fulfilling, while others may
> find it degrading, being one more step in turning
> the human into a collection of algorithms. We can
> assign these opposing viewpoints to 2 and -2. Because
> 2 + -2 = 0, we see that the concepts lay dormant within
> Einsteins equations. In other words, e=mc^2 = 1 _and_
> e=mc^2 = 1 + 2 + -2.
> This, of course, is yet another reason why the religion
> is named Zero.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= End Zero Sneak Preview =-=-=-==--=-=-

I think physics is busy doing a much more 'scientific' job of
implementing "Cohesive Math". Certain 'qualities' of things
we see around us are:

1) things 'are'
2) time 'is'
3) things are 'here' or 'there' (they have 'location')
4) locations change with time: 'motion'
5) all things are attracted to one another
6) some things repel/attract each other in interesting fashion
7) the things in (5) exhibit other interesting behavior when
they're set in motion.
8) etc ....

Based on our observation (5), we assign to every object a 'mass',
(or, an "index of mass-ness" telling us how it will behave, based
on what that index is); observation (6, related to 7) can be
explained by assigning an 'electromagnetic charge'.... 'Mass'
has no use whatsoever, other than that we may write down formulae
which use our knowledge of an object's "index of mass-ness", which
will tell us how the object will behave, when surrounded by other
objects with known "indices of mass-ness".

Nowadays, objects have qualities like: mass, charge, strangeness,
charmness, etc .... and these qualities, working along with simple
(well, maybe not-so-simple) 'laws of nature' allow us to understand
how objects with certain qualities will 'behave'. And scientists
have discerned the importance of various qualities, the insignifi-
cance of others, our ability to utilize reliably some qualities in
making predictions, etc... they have utilized continuous indices
and discrete indices wherever whichever is most appropriate...

It seems to me that we are already 'magickians' of the very
first rank.