Key 10 – The Form TWO & The Birth of the Numeric Possibility

In key 09, we revealed the nature of The Form One. In this key, we shall look into the nature of The Numeric 1.

A Number is a translation of an Identity that precedes the numeric logic itself. In other words, it reflects a Conceptual Form that transcends its accounting significance, similar to how the concept of color (for instance) is beyond redness, whiteness or yellowness etc.

However, The Number One, which is skeletal to The Numeric Possibility itself, unlike redness or yellowness, cannot be verified perceptually.

We’ve already mentioned in key 09 the impossibility of perceptually encountering any particular object in space and time that could be referred to as The Object One. As well, seeking any form of perceptual identification of this oneness, at best, would lead to a rather abstract identity that seems to assume the shape or form of any and every particular object in space and time.

In other words, the numeric possibility (in itself) evidently feeds on the very Three-Dimensional attribute of objects in space and time, which is essentially the manner in which the physicality of a given object visually interacts with the nature of Light and Space. This interaction amounts to a perceptually identifiable presence referred to as The Three-Dimensional Form.

Any perceptual translation of The Numeric Possibility feeds on a certain Mechanism through which The Three-Dimensional Extremities of a given object are reduced and converted into a numeric value. The logic of this reductive mechanism is not yet clear, especially since it appears to be more cognitive than perceptual. However, it evidently seems to claim so powerful a presence that The Perceptual Possibility itself does not end being what it is without this type of mechanism. In other words, in order for any perceiver to register any perceptual awareness of the presence of any physical object or motion in space and time, the perceiver must see the object from a numeric context.

The mathematics of this mechanism, however complex it might seem, is a forbidden simplicity. The reductive conversion process seems to be automatically and instantaneously activated at any level of perceptual interaction with a Three-Dimensional Presence. Whatever the mathematics, it could only be elucidated through analyzing the Perceptual Possibility itself. In other words, what are the most basic and obvious Codes of Perception, what provide for the perception of any given object x at a given space and time?


Then, in turn, how would The Three-Dimensional Form relate to the Mechanism of Perception? Two basic factors theoretically govern this type of relativity (excluding the obvious factor, which is the apparent visibility of The Form):

The Light Factor and The Space Factor

The interactivity between the object’s physicality and the nature of light converts the object’s potentially visible traits into an actual visual projection that resonates with form (shape, volume, color, density, texture etc.), translating the Object’s Conceptual Value (its What-Ness).

Now, the elements more directly responsible for visually highlighting the object’s particularity (occupational weight of presence) are more relative to Space and gravity than Light.

The framing character of Space that naturally surrounds the physicality of any given object visually highlights The Object’s Significance from a numeric context. Hence, Space could be considered as a Key Contributor when it comes to the Perceptual Accountability of an object as a numeric physical value (independent of the Object’s Conceptual Value – its what-ness).

Space highlights this dimension of presence, seemingly through a certain Emptiness vs. Fullness polarity. The idea is that Space is somehow visually divided in two by any given object, into The Space Within and The Space Without The Object. The Polar Axis at which these two parts collide accentuates the perceptual possibility of an ethereal Three-Dimensional Form that somehow contours the collision area. Although this form is more perceptual than visual, and despite the fact that it could not possibly sustain any independent presence of its own, The Mind has an erroneous tendency to somehow index it as a separate identity. To learn more about this tendency, it might be helpful to resort back to the source.

However, since there is no Conceptual Image to hold the frame of this identity, the mind conceptually registers it as A Frameless Frame. The possibility of a Frameless Frame (in itself), as you shall later discover (in greater depth), is a spirit of The Numeric Possibility.

However, do not forget that The Mind sustains this identity through thought; thus, The Mind has the power to dismiss it.

The possibility of reducing a Conceptual Form into a Formless Form nourishes the very logic that inspires the perceptual mechanism of reductive vision by which The Three-Dimensional Extremities of any given object in space automatically and behaviorally are reduced into a numeric value. This behavioral reductive tendency ultimately deprives perception of its full potential, while vision grows accustomed to overlooking the conceptual significance of the mathematics of The Here and Now revealed through the objects and motions of the perceiver’s surroundings. In other words, the object’s Statistical Significance gravitates vision towards it, disguising the Object’s Conceptual Significance (The Relative Significance of its Presence Here and Now To The Perceiver In THE MATRIX OF FINALITY). It carries somewhat of a neutralizing effect over the perceiver’s reality at large, transforming the object, motions, and events of his surroundings into equal numeric values that could happen now or in the future, here or at some other place. The Numeric Possibility dictates that any spatiotemporal object is potentially reducible into a neutral unit of value (referred to as a numeric 1), regardless of its conceptual worth. It is somewhat like Communism applied to objects, stripping all of them of their hierarchal significance in The Kingdom of Forms. All are potentially equal by virtue of their numeric value. A little ant is not any less numerically one than is the grand SUN…

The overall influence of The Numeric Possibility on human perception is similar to the influence of a poor translation on the finality of the meaning projected into translation. The neutralizing effect of The Numeric Context dramatically hinders the perceiver’s ability to register the Gnostic significance of his presence inside the circle of The Here and Now. This impotence materializes through the perceiver’s gradual failure to recognize The Conceptual Unity projected through The Numeric Multiplicity of his surroundings, which implies a failure to register any relativity between Thy Selfhood and The Many Selves projected through the numeric objects and motions around him. He is thus alienated from his surroundings and reduced to a numeric object himself. Accordingly, the object, motions, and events that he experiences are somehow dulled and stripped of their vibrancy and reduced into nothing more than a statistical necessity. Consequently, Space and Time are converted, via this equation, into a Numeric Container that bears no logical connection to the objects and motions occurring within (why and how it is occurring right here right now). Space and Time are dramatically vacuumed of their conceptual significance and reduced into a numeric value that renders all objects identical to each other, and all motions and events numeric news at the end of the day.

This perceptual tendency to view all objects as numeric values reflects a highly deceptive language of translation that becomes increasingly distractive as it resonates cognitively on the level of thought. As you will discover later on, cognitively treating thoughts equally, by virtue of their numeric value in The Internal Space of cognition, is a self-destructive psychological tendency that highlights the deceptively painful mathematics of time speeding up the human aging process.

For now, it is enough to comprehend that The Realm of Forms is Hierarchal in nature, which is quite contrary to the neutrality of the numeric realm.

Judging how certain forms (like The Form One) are prerequisite to the perceptual possibility, and comparing the priority of such over other Forms like The Form Apple or The Form Mountain, it is not difficult to see what is basically meant by The Hierarchal Nature of Forms.

For example, The Form Red is perceptually translated solely through registering perception of red objects, while a form like The Form One (on the other hand) constitutes The Perceptual Possibility in itself, prior to registering perception of any particular object or motion that occurs in space and time. A Form such as this is certainly superior to The Form Red. In turn, The Form Red is superior to the Form Apple (for instance). Simply consider the difference between The Form Red and The Form Apple: Redness perceptually layers upon countless red objects in space and time, while Apple-ness doesn’t layer except upon very limited and specific objects referred to as apples.

It is somewhat clear by now that any time The Perceiver registers perception of any given object in space and time, there is a mechanism that somehow reduces and converts The Three-Dimensional Form of this object into a numeric value (a numeric one). We’ve also gone through the major perceptual factors that contribute to the emergence of this Three-Dimensional Form into visibility, i.e., Light and Space. However, what is yet still to be clarified is the logic underlying the Reductive Conversion Mechanism, which apparently takes form interactively and instantaneously upon any perceptual activity at any level.

It has also been mentioned how space is perceptually divided by a given object into two parts, The Space Within and The Space Without the object. The numeric context of this division not only translates through the reductive conversion of The Three-Dimensional Form into a Numeric 1, but also converts through a similar conversion of the space around the object into a Numeric 0. This is the mathematics of The Emptiness vs. The Fullness polarity, generated by the interactivity of Space and Light with the physicality of an object.

Imagine a universe made up of infinite space with only one object in it and one sole perceiver. Would any perceptual tendency exist in this universe to reduce this object to a numeric value? Would The Numeric Possibility itself make any sense in this universe?

One thing is certain, no visual trace would exist to The Concept of Number – no perceptual factor via which the perceiver could be triggered to recollect this existence. However, considering that knowledge would supposedly still be innate in this universe, one could still assume the possibility of The Numeric Context somehow existing conceptually, yet in a state of dormancy, since no perceptual condition exists to trigger its recollection.

However, even in this case, The Numeric possibility would still cease to be known for what it is, because, according to the Law of Gnosis (Knowledge), any identity that supposedly enters the realm of existence must be knowledgeable and, consequently, must somehow be subject to translation. It must somehow possess a perceptually traceable dimension. Accordingly, in order for The Numeric Possibility to materialize at any level of existence, it must possess this dimension. The mathematics of this premise entails the possibility of more than one perceptual object existing in space along with the perceiver. To be more specific, there must exist at least two objects in space in order for The Numeric Possibility to enter the realm of perceptivity. To be more precise, we are specifically referring here to the necessity of a relative space between at least two Three-Dimensional objects. In other words, one could reduce the perceptual mathematics of The Numeric Possibility into an Ethereal Silhouette-like-Emptiness that pauses as a space interval (a relative zero) between at least two objects in space, which ultimately serves to highlight the perceptual reflection of the concept TWO-NESS. TWO-NESS, contrary to what seems obvious at first hand, is the true origin of number and not oneness.

Consequently, not only The Numeric One but also The Numeric Two (as a concept) transcends number in precedence and priority, because number, for all that it is supposed to stand for in terms of being a statistical tool, is somehow totally reliant upon the pre-existence of the concept of The Relative Other. In other words, it could be said that The Form Two precedes The Form Number in The Hierarchy of Forms. Thus, in this respect, what could Two-ness possibly be prior to being a numeric value?

TWO-NESS, like any other concept, in order for it to materialize conceptually, must possess a Platonic Form (A Conceivable Identity). Anything that possesses this Form must translate The Form One, which accounts for this identity. In other words, TWO-NESS must translate oneness, before implying what it implies numerically. This is simply The Gnostic Law, via which any conceptual identity or meaning emerges into knowledgeable existence. Thus, TWO-NESS reflects a Unified Form of Duality, prior to implying the segregated numeric duality of 1 + 1.

What could this duality ever be other than The Gnostic Duality of Knowledge at its very core (Self Consciousness)? ONLY SELF CONSCIOUSNESS COULD EVER IMPLY THE POSSIBILITY OF DUALITY RESIDING INSIDE A CONTEXT OF UNITY. FOR MORE ON THIS, READ: The Gnostic Order of The Holy Trinities


If TWO-NESS is ever to translate ONENESS prior to The Numeric Possibility, it would have to translate the possibility of a form of division or separation that is relative to THE ABSOLUTE INSURMOUNTABLE ONENESS (not the Numeric Oneness). However, this form of ABSOLUTE ONENESS reflects an insurmountable unity that is completely intolerant of any knowledgeable form of division. The only possible image of division or separation that could possibly relate to this UNITY must be reflective of that which characterizes the Logic in which The Absolute Unity of The Creator’s Selfhood is translated into knowledge-ability via The Duality of Knowledge (The Knower vs. The Object of Knowledge).

This is The Gnostic Logic of Creation penetrating The Matrix of Human Perception.

However, it is very important to understand that if the only logical justification for the emergence of TWO-NESS is to translate ONENESS, TWO-NESS (like Eve) must somehow reverse the logic of its numeric significance (somehow working against its own nature), so as to be faithful in any projection of such unity. In other words, in The Gnostic Finality, the degree to which DUALITY could possibly relate to UNITY could only be measured by how far Duality could possibly serve to translate the nature of THE INDIVISIBLE UNITY. This is essentially another way of saying: in as much as two-ness succeeds in denying its own numeric implications, since these implications entail the mathematics of division and separation.

Remember this point, for it reflects The Gnostic Path of Eve (The Pain of Sophia), The Martyr of All Martyrs, whose only path towards repentance entails her giving up her own numeric significance as The Other Self of Adam for the sake of melting back inside Adam in the peace and security of The First Gnostic Trinity.

Leave a Reply