All Numbers Are Magical But The Fibonacci Sequence is Extraordinary And Alive

[rgray222]

The Fibonacci Sequence is the series of numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ... The next number is found by adding up the two numbers before it. Similarly, the 3 is found by adding the two numbers before it (1+2) and so on.


The Golden Ratio

Every breath we take and every move we make are nothing but numbers, all numbers are magical but some are extraordinarily magical like the Fibonacci Sequence. Investigators often say if you want the truth "follow the money"

But...if you want to understand the universe follow the numbers

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=aBzAO72NuIc

Arthur Benjamin scratches the surface.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SjSHVDfXHQ4

[Satori]

Awesome rgray222. Thanks for posting.

[Ciaran]

never get tired looking at this stuff...

[loveoflife]

Great stuff, the whole subject of sacred geometry and fractals is fascinating.

[naste.de.lumina]

I think the Fibonacci Sequence is a product of an algorithm performed by a geometric organization in quantum Planck length scale.

Click to enlarge

[triquetra]

Yes that's right, because the patterns which emerge as a side effect of the sequence apply equally well all along the spectrum all the way up from the Planck length.

4 is a trap, as is 6 and 7. This is true at a dimensional level, meaning that there are densities of experiential reality that are anchor points and are especially difficult to escape from.

The transition from 3 to 5 is what we are undergoing right now. We will jump from understanding of 3D and a passing understanding of the 4th dimension, immediately to an understanding of both the 4th and 5th dimensions. The trick is to realize them together. The trap is understanding only the 4th but not the 5th.

The longer one spends in the 4th dimensional perspective in isolation, the more difficult it becomes to understand the 5th.

Our best aid in this process is the steady stream of information coming down from the 5th dimension to us now, it is going to begin rippling out to everyone via the quantum entanglement 'human internet' and we'll be able to do our best to sort things out from the added perspective the awareness of the true nature of the 4th and 5th dimensions will give us.

There need to be numeric points that set themselves apart from the natural sequence encoding in order to keep the dimensional evolution system proportional and stable.

[triquetra]

Another aspect is that the musical intervals reflect this reality, 4/3 is suspension in music just as it is in dimensional existence. 5/4 is the "happy" interval, which is really the harmonic stability at a more complex level of harmonic relationship.

right now we live in 3/2, the stability but hollowness of the perfect fifth. we need to make the jump to 5/4 without getting suspended in 4/3 as we risk having happen otherwise. then we will be stuck just like the ones that use our dissonant energy as a food supply

[loveoflife]

Nature By Numbers: Fibonacci Sequence Animated In Stunning Video Will Take Your Breath Away. http://thespiritscience.net/2015/06/...r-breath-away/

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by naste.de.lumina (here)
I think the Fibonacci Sequence is a product of an algorithm performed by a geometric organization in quantum Planck length scale.

Click to enlarge

Physicist Katya Walter has an interesting take in this area exactly. She presents it all quite well in this interview here; it's long but I found it quite good. https://vimeo.com/17769179

[Selkie]

[Michel Leclerc]

The Fibonacci pigeons

– and yes, we share a lot with pigeons, as is hinted at by an amusing and profound recent article in Scientific American:

Pre-Crastination: The Opposite of Procrastination –

remind me of an interesting application the Golden Mean may have in social practice and human relationships.

A classic philosophical idea is that the subject-object relationship also holds for what happens between humans. Not only do we manipulate a pencil as an object, we tend to do that with humans as well (as familiar phrases like "be my thing!" and "I'm not your thing" tell us), and are occasionally surprised when the other human, leaving its object status, starts acting as a subject would do and considers us his or her object.

A caricature? Maybe. Psychoanalysis is based on the idea. Maturity, says its application, arises when we fully accept that the other is as entitled to being a subject as we think we are, and/or when we act in such a way that this equal-subject status of our "object" other is always present to us.

"I am another you, you are another I", say the two Indians of different tribes to each other in the desert, happy to meet another another human being.

Yet, how to get there, to that maturity? Because hidden in the Indian phrase is the fact that not only do I say that "you are another I", or, in the subject/object parlance, that "you are a subject just like I am", but also that "I am another you", or that "I am another object just like you are". In other words, it equates "subjectness" with "objectness", "I-ness" with "you-ness", and that may be just one step too far, because if words like "I" and "you" exist universally, why so if they amount to the same?

The Indians may hug after the exchange of the phrases, and then one may kill the other (of the "other tribe") just the same. Let us not jump over-enthusiastically to New-Agey good intentions.

René Girard introduced a sobering complication to the Freudian subject/object pair. When desiring the other as our thing to "subject" to our sexual appetite, he writes, we do not so much and in the first place, just relate to the other and to no one else – there is a second other involved.

This second other is another subject, who also desires our object, who is, in other words, our rival. Then, when we desire this other person as the object of our prospective pursuit of pleasure, we do this in the first place because we want to imitate our rival's, the other subject's, desire. In the classic example of the Oedipus complex (or at least to the extent that it plays at all in the growth of a young boy) the desire of the boy for his mother does not make him meet his father as an annoying obstacle on his road to erotic gratification subsequent to conceiving his desire – no, says Girard, his father had been there all along, and his desire for his mother is not rooted in himself, but rooted in his father, whose desire he imitates.

Not desiring the other is primal; imitating the other's desire is primal. Originality does not exist. (Obviously the other's desire is in itself secundary, and hence, Girard's insight presupposes a regressio ad infinitum.)

I would suggest that the Golden Mean may lead us on another road, with less depression and more promise as result.

As we can perceive ourselves as a subject and the pencil as an object, we can because we can also perceive ourselves, or rather part of ourselves as an object. The little boy will not only see his mother’s breast as an object yielding pleasure, but also his own little willy.

Considering ourselves as an object may be difficult, because psychoanalysis teaches us that it is typical for our "objects" to be "partial" – "bits and pieces" so to speak. And that may lead to horror as we may construe our desire for the other as a desire for his "parts" to the physical exclusion of any other parts of him (the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Abu Ghurayb), but it may also make us understand that the other is always more than the sum of his "parts" so that this sum, his "subject-ness" may be worth while considering when we engage his parts.

The maths in the Golden Mean, being that, for it to hold:

"the larger part" divided by "the smaller part" should equal "the sum of the larger and the smaller part" divided by "the larger part", or:

if A > B, then A / B = (A + B) / A

can be applied to the subject/object relationship in human psychology when we keep in mind that "object-ness" is basically a "part" of "subject-ness"; then the following relationship holds:

if Subject > Object (which it is by definition), then Subject / Object = (Subject + Object) / Subject.

What does this Mean mean? It means that human relationships will only tend to be harmonious (as harmonious as the Golden Mean is) when:

my relationship to the Other is equal to the relationship of our pair (the pair consisting of myself and the other) to myself.

The third party in the play is in this conception of humanity not, as for Girard, the rival, the other subject (whose "subject-ness" is in itself derivational and hence leading to eternal iteration), but something larger than either myself (as subject) and my partner (as my object), namely the pair we constitute.

And it is only when I align my behaviour and attitude towards my other to the behaviour or attitude our "sum", our couple as a whole, should have towards myself, that our relationship will be harmonious.

Obviously if this is my rule of thumb for my social interaction with the other, then I will seek my gratification, my pleasure, in how our couple as a "sum", as a whole, relates to myself – but this couple includes me, is my co-responsibility, and I will "positively" steer the "positiveness" of the couple towards myself by being beneficial to my partner.

The advantage over the classic "rule or thumb" – negatively put: "do not do to the other what you don't want the other to do to you" (to be honest, what a depressing ethics that is!), or positively "do to the other what you wish the other to do to you" or "love the other as you love yourself" (these two not being identical) of this Golden Mean type of categorical imperative is manifold.

The negative first one ("do not do..." etc.) amounts to the classic zero-sum game: "my freedom ends where the other's freedom begins" which has brought humanity so much misery as it goes roughshod over the different conceptions I and the other may have of freedom. (Remember Bush's "they envy our lifestyle" about the Muslim "attackers of America"). The positive rephrasing of the "tit for that" paints a rosy picture of a grim reality: the other may just not wish to be loved the way I wish him or her to love me. "Winning the hearts and minds"... was only the hypocritically whitewashed version of "Shock and awe".

The "Christian" version of the rule of thumb, "love the other the way you love yourself" is a lot better, but, as centuries of psychoanalysis have shown, psychologically naive: we do not love ourselves that well... We love ourselves... well, we love "parts" of ourselves. There are parts of ourselves we do not love that much, so if we have to love the other the way we do us, that will not lead to much good. The imperative only holds ground when we first love the other "completely" (all his parts, and the sum of his parts, and his being greater than the sum of his parts), because then, when we love ourselves the way we love this other, this "adored" Other, like in: God him- or herself (like Jesus, or like Shiva or Parvati in Tantra), then and only then... can we love ourselves "wholly" and hence... love the other the way we love ourselves... But then the argument is circular, and one may ask why the categorical imperative would have to be put that way. Would it not be more correct to phrase it like this: "love yourself the way you love the other"? And indeed, if we conceive of this other as divine, then it may "work"...

More humbly then, the Golden Mean categorical imperative considers the divine to be the "pair", the "synthesis", or, more mathematically speaking, the next step in the Fibonacci series, or the next rung of the ladder leading towards ever more encompassing realities.

It is the couple, the pair, the "synthesis" that is the new instance regulating the subject's behaviour. It is new, because it can not be reduced to the subject or the object, the ego and the other, and, though different from ego and other, it is not alien to them (as Girard's "rival subject" is) but familiar, as it is only the reconciled couple of ego and other.

In a way, it is a reformulation of Freud's Über-Ich or Superego, an instance that is certainly meant to regulate sociality. Yet, instead of introducing a "third" component as Freud does, it just identifies this regulating instance, as in the Golden Mean, with the harmonious synthesis of the two other components – in Freud’s thinking, the ego and the id.

And indeed, applying the Golden Mean categorical imperative to myself may be of help: I can mature when I behave towards the "object of myself", my "Shadow", the way I want the "pair/synthesis of I myself with my Shadow" to behave towards myself. Maybe then the integration of myself and my shadow can even be my "heavenly double", my "higher self".

To come back to the world of "inter-personal relationships": using the Golden Mean as an indicator of their "wholesomeness" has the advantage of not obfuscating the other components. The object will never become the subject: when I engage in an inter-personal relationship, "in a way" I can only "speak for myself", i.e. as a subject... and I can speak for the pair, for the couple, for the synthesis of myself and my partner, because I am co-reponsible for this synthesis. My happiness in the synthesis then, "co-created by myself", will be the yardstick of the happiness I bring to my partner. Nurturing the couple will nurture my partner.

Of course, the partner is a subject. He or she, however, is not my subject. He or she is my object. Even an object more "whole" than any "part" of me can be, as my wholeness resides in my subjectivity, and not, at least not to me, in the fact that I am my partner's object.

But she or he as I, we are the "object" of our synthesis, of the greater "self" that encompasses us both, and to whose value and "wholiness" we contribute. John Lilly’s Dyad, of course.

Always be to the other what you want your couple to be to you.

[rgray222]

These Elaborate Sculptures Are Made Using Fibonacci Ratios



Jack Storms is a glass artist from New Hampshire, but not just any glass artist. Jack produces his brilliant works of art using an incredibly rare and difficult style of glass work that uses a cold-glass process that combines lead crystal with dichroic glass. This method costs quite a bit of time and strength requiring about 8-18 weeks of physically demanding work per sculpture, but the results are exceptionally beautiful representations of the time spend making them. He makes the sculptures using fibonacci ratio sequences which result in these mind bending masterpieces. Because the process is so arduous, there are less than 10 known artists in the world that use this astonishing style of glass work.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PeMGRMwarKI

[mojo]

Firmly believe based on years of observation a certain group of Ultra terrestrial use sacred geometry to expand into our dimension. Psi, the Golden Mean and Fibonacci are the tools they use...

[naste.de.lumina]

Whenever comes to my mind to something that rushes me at Fibonacci geometry, I also remember the influence of the Planck length in this chain.

Planck length: 0,000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.16 meters

I can see the Planck length as fine-tuning degree of the symbiotic projection that generates the matrix.