Volume 18 Number 43
Produced: Mon Feb 13 22:50:43 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Archeology and Shiurim
[Stan Tenen]
Meru - MNZPK
[Stan Tenen]
Uses of Mathematics
[Stan Tenen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:44:40 -0800
Subject: Archeology and Shiurim
Does anyone know what natural angular measures where in use in the time
of Moshe? We know that the "Babylonian" 360-degree division of the
circle was known in even earlier Sumer (so Abraham would have known of
it) and likely throughout the patriarchal through First Temple periods,
but I am looking for a purely Torah based measure of angles. It is
interesting to note that there are 13-lunar months of approximately
28-days in a 364-day year. (The 13-months form a "13-Petaled Rose".)
364 (or 365) being very close to 360 means that a 27-day (star) or
28-day (earth) month would occupy about 28 or 29-degrees of arc on the
yearly solar cycle circle. Our natural unit of angular measure is the
radian. One radian is approximately 57-degrees - about twice the extent
of the monthly 28-day lunar arc on the 360/364/365-day solar cycle. In
other words, it appears that while our current natural measure is
one-radian, the ancient natural measure may have been approximately
1/2-radian. Either choice is also supported by the ease of marking a
circle in 60-degree or 30-degree sections with a compass. But this is
speculation. Does anyone know?
The reason that this is important is that it appears that the exact
shape of the idealized hand - Tefillin strap that generates the Hebrew
letters is in part determined by whatever the natural angular measure
was. I have been trying to decide between 1-radian, which is natural to
us, and 1/2-radian, based on the reasoning outlined above.
Thanks,
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 21:50:40 -0800
Subject: Meru - MNZPK
For the past several years while Rabbi Fleer has been visiting with us,
he has proposed various challenges in an effort to test and evaluate the
Meru conjectures. One consisted of requesting an explanation for why
the final letters are often listed in "M'Nun-Z'PaK" order (Finals: Mem,
Nun, Zadi, Fe, Kaf) instead of in the standard alphabetical/gematria
order (Finals: Kaf, Mem, Nun, Fe, Zadi).
We now have an explanation for this special order. The final letters
are said to refer to redemption, so I have always searched for some way
in which the final letters could complete or return the other letters in
some way.
As it turns out, when the letters of the full 27-letter alphabet, with
the finals, in standard alphabet/gematria order at the end, are written
out on the umbilic toroid form we found in B'Reshit, the final letters
form the final tip of the last turn. Interpreted geometrically, this
places the final letters around the "ovaries" of the idealized fruit
(the Continuous Creation model) formed by the letters of B'Reshit. (The
exact same umbilic toroid simultaneously displays the AT-BaSh symmetry
of the 22-letter alphabet AND the Base-3 or ternary symmetry of the full
27-letter alphabet. I believe that this construction is unique - except
for topological equivalents, there is likely no other way to show the
symmetry of the 22 and the 27 letter alphabets on the same form
simultaneously and without ambiguity.)
Now all of the models we have found in B'Reshit are models of
self-organization based on an idealized embryonic growth cycle - as
modeled by our idealized fruit or Continuous Creation topology. And our
theory also applies explicit operational meanings (that closely parallel
the traditional meanings of each letter's name) to each letter. We can
read these meanings off of our previously developed table of meanings.
When we combine these two sets of findings, the unusual order for the
final letters makes sense.
The embryonic model suggests the following stages of growth in this order:
1. Seed (in ovaries at center of the idealized fruit)
2. Stem (or sprout emerging from the seed)
3. Maximal growth of leaves & branches at the highest part of the tree
4. Opening of the tree to heaven, opening of all leaves, opening of buds
5. Holding the fullness of the new fruit
The final letters in their special order are:
1. Mem Womb and Ovaries, thus geometrically at the center.
2. Nun Connection, prince, thus a "stem" erupting from the center
3. Zadi "Righteous", Upright, Tree, thus the maximum height of the
"fruit tree yielding fruit whose seed is inside itself."
4. Fe "Mouth", thus puffing, filling and opening up, at the maximum
fullness of the new fruit
5. Kaf Holding the whole fruit in the palm of our hand
Now, to those who are not familiar with the topology and the geometry,
the above may make little sense or it may seem arbitrary or forced.
When you compare the each of the letter's meanings directly with the
geometry of the Continuous Creation / Idealized fruit model, you can not
only see how the descriptions apply but, even more surprisingly you can
see the outline of each of the modern final letters arrayed on the
Continuous Creation / Idealized fruit model.
There is some confirmation of this in the traditional gematria
equivalents. MNZPK = 280 = 10 = 1. The 10 may refer to the 3,10 torus
knot and/or to the 10 s'pherot that make up the model. The 1 refers to
the Unity of HaShem alluded to by the unity and coherence of the model.
Traditional references to the Continuous Creation / idealized fruit
model compare it to a "bull" and to a "fruit". A "bull" is Pe-Resh, and
a "fruit" is Pe-Resh-Yod. The gematria of Pe-Resh is also 280 - as was
pointed out to me by Rabbi Fleer - so the comparison with MNZPK makes
sense.
Anyone who would like to see my sketches of this, should ask and send us
your postal address.
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:43:47 -0800
Subject: Uses of Mathematics
A recent technically trained poster pointed out that those who cannot
follow the mathematical discussions should know that he cannot follow
them either. This is to be expected. I cannot speak for the
statisticians, but with regard to my work I have tried to make it clear
that unless you see the illustrations and drawings that go with the
discussion it is generally not possible to understand what I am
describing. It is thus a bit disingenuous to complain about a lack of
understanding when that was explicitly stated as likely.
This is not entirely due to my limitations. One of the most important
reasons why the materials I have been presenting have been lost to us is
that we have not retained any images or models. This was likely because
they might have become the objects of idolatry, so it is understandable
that we do not have surviving models, but it does limit understanding.
Now that formal computer languages are so common, it is easier to
understad that not everything of importance in our reality can be
communicated with phonetic words alone. (Over reliance on the efficacy
of words alone to convey information can become, in this mathematician's
opinion, a form of hubris.)
I have previously posted an evaluation of my work by Rabbi Gedaliah
Fleer, a recognized expert in kabbalah. Here is an eminent
mathematician's evaluation of this work:
COMMENTS ON THE MERU PROJECT
by LOUIS H. KAUFFMAN, PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS
University of Illinois at Chicago, 2 April 1991
The Meru Project (initiated by Stan Tenen) proposes to study the
text of Genesis, as written in Hebrew, through the hypothesis that
this text is an integral whole whose structure and meaning can be
understood at all levels of its projection.
One usually reads a text at the level of the sentences and
paragraphs, in a context of message or story. Even when pursuing
this approach, the form of the text (lettering, arrangement,
illustration, or physical form of the work itself (scroll, bound
book, illuminated manuscript...)) is an integral component of the
meaning that is transmtted.
In the case of the text of Genesis, the Hebrew language has deep
roots, so deep that an analysis even at the level of the letters
and form of the letters may be required. The Hebrew letters are
also symbols for numbers, and so this language and its alphabet
are particularly intertwined with the numerical, mathematical,
algorithmic basis of language and thought.
It is the intent of the Meru project to take the text of Genesis,
and to subject it to a search for structures that indicate the
nature of mechanisms of production. A religious tradition
(Kabalah) has engaged this kind of study with the intent of
understanding/experiencing creation itself. Meru's admittedly
more secular mode has the similar aim of coming into contact with
the creativity of the text, and with
structures/algorithms/patterns that illuminate relations between
this study and mathematics and natural science.
In the Meru viewpoint a remarkable combination of
geometry/sign/symbol underlies the coherence (is the coherence) of
the text of Genesis. Investigation of these patterns involves a
combination of mathematics, graphics, history and linguistics.
By far the most remarkable feature of Stan Tenen's work is his
highly creative use of the geometry/topology of the third and
higher dimensions. He has seen that the coherence of the text can
be mapped by lifting fragmented lower dimensional structures into
higher dimensional counterparts that project the lower structures.
Alphabets on tetrahelixes, letters as shadows of a hand-held
flame, flat yantras as projections of networks of lines in space,
creative process and recursion in the twisting pattern of the
seven color map on the torus, pattern seeds unfurling into weaves
and spirals and metaphors of relationship, the text itself wrapped
and mapped in and out of these geometric structures.
This unfurling is the creative center of the Meru Project and its
greatest promise. In attempting to unfold the text of Genesis,
Stan Tenen has created the beginnings of a wonderful geometric
language - using real and deep mathematical structures. The
language is a new alphabet, an alphbet of geometric forms that
may solve the riddle of Genesis. The geometric alphabet is itself
not only of great artistic and conceptual value, but I believe
that it will be seen to hold a key for many other questions in
language and science. This project brings together the old and
fascinating questions about origins of language and the self with
the rigorous traditions of modern geometric thinking and
mathematical imagination.
(signed) LOUIS H. KAUFFMAN
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
The University of Illinois at Chicago
Box 4348
Chicago, IL 60680
Professor Kauffman is one of the foremost topologists and authorities on
knot theory. Besides the above evaluation, Prof. Kauffman, as editor of the
series, "Knots and Everything," has asked his publisher, World Scientific,
to have me to write a book on the topology of the Hebrew alphabet for this
series. Also at Prof. Kauffman's invitation I recently presented a paper on
my findings to the Knot Workshop at the Univ. of Minn., Minneapolis,
Geometry Research Center. (It was well received.) Besides Prof. Kauffman,
Prof. Ralph Abraham, past chair and recently retired from the mathematics
department at UC Santa Cruz, endorses this work, and Prof. Jay Kappraff,
(Mathematics, NJIT) is currently drafting a chapter on my findings for his
new book. This work has also been favorably evaluated by several well-known
(and not so well-known) physicists and cosmologists (Sirag, Rauscher) and
computer scientists (Moulton, Wolff). Anyone who is interested can check on
our work by calling one of the several dozen respected professionals on Meru
Foundation's board of advisors which is printed in our introductory booklet.
My work is entirely independent of the "codes in Torah" work, yet it
appears to offer an explanation for the codes that is consistent with Torah
and with science.
So, please, dear mail-jewish reader, take my findings as a serious
work-in-progress with potentially important implications. I need the help
of the Torah community to do this work and to make best use of the findings.
I especially need the help of the very persons who are naturally the most
skeptical and the most critical - mathematicians and scientists who care
about Torah. I openly state my limitations not so that it will be easy for
those who are not interested in these matters to put down this work or
repeat my limitations back to me, but so everyone will know where my
findings and opinions can be trusted and where they cannot be trusted.
These are important findings for the Torah world.
They have been examined by recognized Torah and secular experts.
They are not easy to understand at first, but they are very easy to
understand once you get it.
They depend only on technology we know was available in Moshe's time - such
as calendar-making and weaving (what we might over-impress ourselves by
calling "knot theory").
Even really intelligent persons are not likely to understand this work
without seeing the illustrations.
These findings propose one explicit solution.
No statistics are involved.
These findings resolve many conflicts and ambiguities in Talmud and in
Kabbalistic texts.
These findings are testable and refutable; they are, according to others,
good science and they are, according to others, consistent with and
respectful of Torah Judaism - which they strongly support.
I cannot do this work alone - both because I cannot read Hebrew or Aramaic
well enough and because I do not have sufficient mastery of modern formal
mathematical notation.
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 18 Issue 43
