The relative mind understands reality using 3 methods…one of which is analogy. So Pat, your associations are just that.
On Feb 16, 5:57 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought that, since the concept of ‘The Pen’ had been > discussed, that I might take this opportunity to mention a couple of > things. Firstly, the concept of ‘The Pen’ and how it relates to ‘The > Word of God’ might be obvious to some but not others. It was a > concept that was revealed in the very first Revelation to the Prophet > Mohammed (pbuh). > The first 5 lines of Surah 96 (Al Alaq [the Clot]) were the very > first lines revealed and here they are: > > 96:1 Read! In the name of your Lord and Cherisher, who created > Iqra! Bismi rabbika-lladhi khalaq > > 96:2 Created man from a clot of congealed blood. > Khalaq-al-insana min alaq > > 96:3 Read! And your Lord is Most Bountiful > Iqra! Wa Rabbuka-al-Akram > > 96:4 He who taught by the Pen > Alladhi allama bil-qalam > > 96:5 Taught man that which he knew not. > Allam al insana ma lam ya lam. > > If you read the transliterated Arabic above, you can get a feel > for the rhythm and the rhyme that simply doesn’t come across in the > translation. The entire Qur’an of 6,616 verses is like that. That’s > why it was easy to learn for native Arabic speakers, who were used to > oral traditions and story-telling. Also, the word Qur’an means > ‘recital’, as it was intended to be spoken, as it was, originally, > revealed to a man, The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who was illiterate. > And no one has been able since, to create any poetry like it—not in > rhythm, rhyme and depth of meaning. > It dawned on me, over the weekend, that there is another analogy > between ‘The Pen’, ‘The Word of God’, language and matter itself. It > has been a part of Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine that God > created the universe via His ‘Word’. But what, exactly, IS His Word? > Let’s look at language and see how it relates to matter. I think > sentences act like molecules. Each one has a particular purpose, > structure and quality. Yet they are made of words. That makes words > akin to atoms. But atoms are further divided into the sub-atomic > particles of hadrons and leptons like words are comprised of letters > which are either consonants or vowels. Yet even letters can be viewed > as being made of lines, either straight or curved. Here is an > allusion to String Theory and the concept of closed and open strings. > Also, atoms (words) fall into 8 periods in the Periodic Table of > Elements. These are, in a way, akin to the 8 parts of speech: nouns, > verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions and > interjections. Yet some elements fall into transitional groups. > Theses would be akin to the concepts of participles and gerunds. A > participle is a verb-like word that acts like an adjective, e.g., the > word ‘sinking’ in the sentence: “Every time I see the film ‘Titanic’, > I get a certain sinking feeling. The word ‘sinking’, although it is a > verb, acts as an adjective to describe the word ‘feeling’ and is, > technically, a participle. The word ‘feeling’ in that sentence, > although it is a verb, acts like a noun and is, technically, a > gerund. These are transitional parts of speech where one type of word > acts as a different part of speech than it may appear. > So, let’s map out the parts of speech to the Periodic Table based > on Semitic language. Firstly, it’s easy to see that interjections > stand alone and do not combine with other parts of speech; therefore, > the interjection is Period 8 (The Inert or Noble gases). All Semitic > languages have their root words as verbs. Verbs are conjugated, have > tenses, number and person. They are the most configurable and seem > the most likely to sit at Period 1, as the Period 1 atoms combine with > other atoms the most. Period 2, then, would seem to be nouns. In > Semitic languages, nouns are formed from their root verb stems because > every action implies an actor. Also, after Period 2 are the > Transitional Elements. These are the verb forms that act as either > nouns (gerunds) or adjectives (participles). Following that logic, at > the other end of the Transitional Elements is Period 3, which must be > the adjectives. Now, we have to go back to the other end of the > table. Pronouns stand for specific nouns, that is, they each have a > single antecedent, a noun upon which they depend. This seems akin to > the Period 7 Halogen group as they can only combine with one other > atom. Period 6 has two open places for connection with ‘others’ and > so seems to fit in well with the concept of a conjunction, which links > two ‘other’ things together. The Period 5 group has three open places > for connection and seems a best fit for the concept of the preposition > which can relate one object to another either directly or indirectly > or both. That leaves Period 4 as the adverbs. And each period is > covered and directly corresponds to a part of speech. If you think > I’ve left out the ‘article’, then think again. The Lanthanide group > is most akin to the ‘definite article’, as they are all (well, with > the single exception of Promethium) non-radioactive and are stable > elements. This leaves the Actinide group to be representative of the > ‘indefinite article’ as they are all radio-active and unstable and, in > that respect, indefinite, because they are unstable. And now, all > parts of speech are covered by their corresponding aspect of the > Periodic Table of Elements. > It is my hypothesis that God creates through these words or > elements and it is on that basis that the concept of ‘The Pen’ relates > to how God creates. This completes the examples of how God’s creative > Word can be analogous to fermions, that is, the hadrons and leptons > that comprise atoms/elements. > Yet there are subtle inferences that are implied. For example, > the pen and the voice are the forces behind written and spoken > language. And, of course, in each case, there must be an author and a > speaker. These are other forces that act behind the pen and the > voice. So, there are four forces behind this creative ability that > are analogous to the four bosonic forces of electro-magnetism, > gravity, and the weak and strong atomic forces. Of all of these, the > analogy of ‘The Pen’ to the electro-magnetic force is the most obvious > because a pen is useless without ink. So, as the ink goes with the > pen, the electric and magnetic forces are always found together. The > voice, then, must be most analogous to gravity, as it is unseen but > moves us in ways unimaginable. This leaves the weak and strong forces > being analogous to the author (weak) and the speaker (strong). I > believe that the spoken word is more powerful than the written word > simply because one must learn to read in order for the written word to > be understood, whereas hearing is all that is required for the spoken > word to be comprehended. Put another way, an illiterate individual > can be moved by the spoken word but not by the written. Also, like > the strong atomic force, the spoken word is only heard by those who > can hear it (ignoring, of course, recordings OF spoken words, which > have made, only in recent years, the spoken word reach farther); > whereas the written word, like the weak atomic force, can stretch over > longer distances across both space and time. > There! That’s just a few thoughts I had before going to bed last > night. Let me know what you think. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
