ins and outs of numerical notation – world of atoms
Remember the following applies to the world of atoms and not to the world of forms which is built from outside in. With our our numerical notation we can’t have it both ways…. as you are about to see.
Either we can have the building sequence consistent or we can have the sequence of evolutionary progress consistent but we can’t have both sequences consistent so we have taken a compromise middle way.
On the left hand side, we can see the cosmos is built from warks at increasing densities from 80 > 70 … > 30. After 30wark is complete, it can start building the solar system out of arks in ever increasing densities from 31 > 32 up until the outermost 36. So we have the logical progression from 30 wark to 31ark to 32ark and so on.
This means we evolve upwards [“downwards” on the numerical scale from 36 to 35 etc. thru the 6 sub-dimensions of arks and we evolve upwards [yes and also numerically upwards] from 30 to 40 to 50 etc thru the dimensions of warks. So far so good. This is indeed the notation we have chosen. You might ask why not have the numbers evolve upward numerically all the way like we see on th right hand side of the diagram.
Well here’s why. To achieve this we would need to suspend logic in the building phase where once the cosmos is fully built outwards to 36 wark, it then builds 35ark from 36wark, 34ark from 35ark etc.
And you might say well that looks fine and dandy. Well it does from our point of view, but not from the builders point of view cos we are asking them to count downwards as they build. That does not seem like an honorable solution. Now look at how the numbers operate on the left right hand side side… As we evolve, all the numbers move “upwards” like so 31 > 32 > 33 > >>> 36 > 46 . This might sound great at first glance, but as i said already, it really dishonors the builders of the cosmos, cos their notation building outward would probably start from dimension zero out to the maximun 49, then they would build outward 49-1, 49-2 and so on up until the outermost 49:6. And yes in both cases their numbers move upwards which is what we would expect looking at it from their point of view.
But let’s go back to our point of view, it sounds so clumsy to have to use 49 for what we know as the 3rd dimension, so intuitively going from 30 to 40 to 50 etc mirrors going from 3d to 4d to 5d etc.
So the bottom line is that by choosing the notation on the left hand side we compromise, we honor the human point of view by counting 3d, 4d etc, and we also honor the builders by counting 30wark to 31ark to 32ark right up until 36ark.
So that’s what i mean by we can’t have it both ways.