my mind the geometry of "being" is described by the word
'aedicule'. I think back to its incarnations and know that in my
mind the aedicule is not now what it once was. Moving things are
real, but I say the aedicule cannot be a series of moments.
The idea of the aedicule as a space within a space, comforts me.
Then when I turn the aedicule into a sphere, I see no awkward edges where
'being' might get lost. Today, the aedicule appears as a triangle,
its two feet on the ground like a tent. I can sit inside on a dark
night, watch the new moon and know that I am lost.
Those who would decry the geometry of "being" do so for very
practical reasons. 'Being' is isolated and isolation does not
share. So better to devise a physical attribute that can be
measured, and thereby shared, even if that attribute changes from arch to
sphere to tent through time.
When I look at those shapes described by
ancient texts, I see the issue until I try to interpret them. Were I
one of those men doodling on a cave wall, my imagination would have taken me
from arches to spheres to tents. Comrades might have questioned my
purpose, so I might instead have doodled antelope, ox and hyena.
Others might then have shrugged and said my antelope looked like a
Had I represented my arches and spheres
and tents as belonging to the world beyond our understanding, I probably
would have been asked to leave the cave. Which I suspect is why
priests and shamans wear funny clothes, make funny noises and imply
dangerousness in order to get fed.
I can think back to last Autumn and try
to recall how the aedicule looked and I realize I have fallen to sharing in
that traditional way. An error in comprehension because 'being' is
driven by its slope and by randomness. It does not want, as I do.