Multiplication Through Division
R. Buckminster Fuller described the process of creation from THE ONE as follows. How do you get more things from ONE? You divide! To multiply, you must divide. Division from ONE creates multiplication. Multiplication through division. And to reduce back to ONE, you have to multiply to divide.
Multiplication means to fold many times:
– “from multiplex (genitive multiplicis) “having many folds, many times as great in number,”
– multi: “much, many,”
– ply: “to lay, fold, twist”
Ex:
1 —> 0.5, 0.5 —> 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25 -> etc.
To get more, you divide. To get less, you multiply. Seems odd at first, but it makes sense.
Another way to visualize it is with a piece of paper. You Enfold (divide) the paper to create smaller and smaller subsection/divisions (multiplying the amount of divisions there are). To reverse the process, you Unfold it and get back to the omnipresent, omnipotent, ONE.
This also ties into David Bohm’s implicate/enfolded (symmetry, entropy) and explicate/unfolded (grouping, syntropy) order. As the implicate order of entropic symmetry with everything everywhere, no grouping order of any kind, no anything existing as individuated units, you enfold the ONE into small subsections, which is the sense of “holographic” and “fractal” concepts about our reality, that each region/section contains a holographic/fractal representation of the total structure enfolded within it, in some way, not the literal universe or ALL ONE itself is in each piece.
Each grouping/syntropy unit contains a representation, characteristic, attribute that is likened in an implicit sense, to the total order. A above, so below. I accept this holographic concept, the “-ic” suffix, meaning ‘characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to’. Not identical to, or exactly like. I dislike it whenever anyone makes this claim about the universe being in us, and all of these other New Ageism BS, like Haramein puts out. The universe itself is not in us. God itself is not in us. We are made up of parts of the universe (atoms, subatomic particles, etc). We have a “spark” or “flame” of the ONE in us, just as everything else may have.
People are confusing concepts so much with poor use of words to construct their sentences and formulate ideas. I do not accept the alleged “factual” “knowing” that the universe is literally a “hologram” or literally “fractal”. It is not proven. It isn’t literally like that, it is characteristic of the way a real hologram works, or how a fractal works, but is not one itself. Man always like to use something that already ‘is’ in reality to conceptually associate in the imaginal realm of mind in order to make sense of it. But I do accept the “-ic” suffix description, “holographic” ‘characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to’ a hologram description of our reality. This is the Law of Correspondence: ‘as above, so below’. This conceptual framework is symbolic for the most part in its application, not literal of one existing itself in full, in another. It’s may be a literal piece (atoms, subatomic particles) sometimes, but not always, it depends what is being examined, but it is NOT the whole itself ever. This is how it is “holographic”.