Zero and the Nine Numbers of Creation

[CCoburn]

it really does look 3d doesnt it this pic also makes the four relams more obvious although the dude having yesod on his junk chakra is a nice touch in the diagram you posted hahaha; here is quote from prisms/veils pretty explanation

i guess if that was all easy to make sense of then life would be a lot less interesting eh

hmm edit to add that maybe my point wasnt clear what i mean is that expanding spherical model can be expanding not on boundaries but on interior too, like sefirot to laddar nodes expand and internal structure becomes more complex, like fractal space filling curves can have infinite length within a finite area. how circle has center everywhere. so maybe dimensions 2d 3d doesn't matter as much because the 2d tree diaggram there already crossing lines and maybe 3d wont fix that because fractal complexity inside expands too

Yeah that's not one of the more popular models I posted although it is one of the most colorful.

When I talk about 2D and 3D renditions I'm mostly referring to relay of information on a 2D medium versus the actual evolution in a 3D(plus time) spatial medium.

It's also said that every sphere contains every other sphere but of a different manner, and this is mostly because the concentric temporal layers of cosmic evolution similar in mechanics to expansion theory(a 3D model), so e.g the third sphere(or phase) of cosmic evolution would have already realized the first(which is actually a 0D point) and the second, but all the others would be potential(or future) development which has not yet come to fruition.

This is a 2D depiction of the 3D model more closely resembling the actuality of expansion theory with keter(the 0D primordial point) situated at the core which would be synonymous with the singularity of cosmology/theoretical physics.

[UltraBudgie]

edit; thank you very interesting and much to think about will follow up later rather than make a loweffort reply

[UltraBudgie]

Circling back to this. I think that one problem in discussing these models is that, since their scope is so wide, they are inherently analogous, and even at that level no analogy is flexible enough to fully encompass the scope of the models. So, I feel left stuck with pure geometry, which beyond making pretty diagrams, is applicably intractable -- it reduces in practice to so many systems of viewing the "Universe": are we talking about the journey of the individual soul? The progress of unifying our relationships with others in the world to our own connection to the Divine? The models via which we conceptualize or are shaped by God? Perhaps our relationship with other intelligences, beyond the sphere of this singular world? When we talk of "moving from sphere to sphere", is that a reformation of the world, or of our mindset and thoughts, our relationships with others, the objects of our attention, our emotional scope, or what? There's so many way to see it. And it seems, the answer is "all of that", and more. Each level of the sphere is one which both affirms the models within, and invalidates any limited conceptions of scope as seen from "within". So the geometric models fail, in being "scientifically useful", as they are unable to helpfully predict; they only guide us and affirm after we have moved beyond them, at which point we view them with new eyes and find them (the good ones, anyway) useful once more. It can be very frustrating! But I suppose that is in some ways an indication that we're on the right track. Thank goodness for the solace of Bhakti, the wanderer's friend.

I feel somewhat lost in a hall of mirrors of mirrors, models of analogies of perceptions, fragments of the Divine attracting and repelling, fulminous and elusive Mercury.

Sorry if I'm going "round in circles". Sigh. It hasn't been an easy month.

[CCoburn]

Circling back to this. I think that one problem in discussing these models is that, since their scope is so wide, they are inherently analogous, and even at that level no analogy is flexible enough to fully encompass the scope of the models.

I wasn't implying to a flying back over here and replying, but more so in leveraging the reply I was trying. I don't expect you to adorn this castle of absurdities with rationalities, but of course you will, because it's what people do.

These models are so ridiculously simple yet unaccommodatingly complex because they deal with existence, and the metaphorical mainstream of Trump and Kamala couldn't be any more at odds with one another – the old David Letterman toss the pencil through the window sound effect.

The two main theories are anything but "analogous", one goes one way, and one goes the other, and I've resolved them down to absurdities and logical tautologies; even sent them to their gender appropriate fitting rooms in anticipation their adorning eternity – the Occams' razor applying quite well to existential garments figuratively as well as literally.