The ‘Circle Drawing’ Operation of the CTMU and of Past Metaphysics. Universal of 'Circle.'

You all know the expression ‘think outside the box’ and think naturally that this applies to Metaphysical thought production. I’m writing here to tell you that this is a negation of proper metaphysics

You all know the expression ‘think outside the box’ and think naturally that this applies to Metaphysical thought production. I’m writing here to tell you that this is a negation of the proper way to conduct metaphysical productions. Indeed Chris Langan tells us that we should be thinking of reality in-turn as ‘inside the box’ where nothing exists outside the box.

My own realization is that Langan and other great metaphysicians of the Past all, in some way or another, drew out a ‘Circle’ in which their conception of Being, Nature, and Reality took place. I will give examples below. But just know that not only is philosophy ‘circular reasoning’ (super-tautology), as Hume held it to be, but it is ultimately thinking within the horizon of Circles or more technically ‘Spheres.’ You’ll soon here see what I mean and see why this is the case. But just brace yourself for ‘Thinking-In and Drawing Circles,’ as with Ancient Greeks drawing geometric shapes in the sand then postulating the whole World inside of this.

First let us start with Plato, where the ultimate Form of all Forms would be his envisioned city-state ‘Republic.’ Plato responded that in geometry there are many attempts at drawing a perfect circle but really only ‘One’ form of the circle as such. I cannot claim to know how Plato came about his idea of the Forms exactly in his mind but Isn’t the Circle a perfect paragon of the theory of ‘Forms,’ where the Republic delineated respectively is a circle or sphere in perfection, or the ‘One’ as in ‘One-and-the-Many’ is a circle to which to derive oneness as well as multiplicity from.

Indeed the Earth (Globe) is a Sphere, the Moon and Sun are circles in our direct vision horizon. And even in textbooks depicting Atoms, particles, protons, neutrons, and electrons - all are circles or spheres.

Another example is Leibniz. In his work on the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Alexander Dugin depicts Leibniz’s conception of ‘Substance’ as bigger and smaller spheres of homogeneity. Where God is the biggest sphere in which we are all composite of.

In Hegel’s first half of the Science of Logic. He almost (and I think quite clearly) describes ‘being’ as being in the same sphere as ‘existence.’ Where being and existence pass over to each other as shading or shining in the same ball sphere. One passing over into the other. Furthermost, Hegel’s ‘Absolute Knowing’ to me is best represented imagistically as an ‘absolute’ delineated circle in space, as against a background; the ‘absolute knowing circle’ referred to as the ‘All of Substantial Being’ as agains the background container being the ‘non-all.’ Just my own idiosyncratic view of this particularly arcane philosopher, one who wrote sentences better for his Own understanding than for his readership - the opposite of a proper Analytical Englishmen.

Even in Heidegger you come away with a ‘wholistic’ idea of Dasein as Care; seeing the ‘parts’ or better put ‘components’ of Care being (Existential, Facticity, Fallenness) easily speculated as an inner dimensional circle.

Finally we come to Chris Langan. And I will here draw out three pictures which I came away with partly on my own and partly in conversation with another CTMU enthusiast.

First my own original conception is that the mathematical ‘superset’ or subtending reality of syndiffeonesis between ‘x’ and ‘y;’ Or the reality medium itself; - All are best conceived of as a drawing of a circle that encompasses the things within itself. Encompassing things (identities) in the superset, encompassing x and y, and encompassing identities and reality on the reality medium. Draw a circle around all of the identities such that language can be capable of subtending them in earnest. This is the first powerful levy belonging to my idea/conception of the CTMU’s ‘Circle Drawing Operation.’

Second, as I had carried on in conversation. The Cybernetics of the CTMU being the nodal network of the syntactic operators contained within as a system, yes you must think of these as being contained within a system. SO let us draw a circle to encompass this system and the nodes that are within the circle such that Intrinsic Self-Determinacy takes places only within and amidst the system, our circle. Two down.

Thirdly, Langan explicitly conceives of Conspansion as the ‘Event Horizon’ of the Universe and Syntactic Operators. But how does he represent this visually? As a series of overlapping and concentric spheres which expand, overlap and contract. Where the expansion and contraction of a sphere represent the life-event ‘lapse’ horizon of syntactic operators (the course of a whole life of one person) or maybe a political happening (read political revolution). Also this expanding and contracting takes places through time. I’m just staking that We are here thinking in a language ‘of’ and ‘by’ circles and spheres.

I hope all of this illustrates my conception of the Circle Operations of Metaphysics up to and including the CTMU.

So with all of this evidence go forward into your metaphysical ventures with the inspiration to think in the geometric space of circles and layer reality apportioned inside of such inventions. Simple, naturalistic, God-Given and Universal. Best regards - Greg.