The Fourth Hundred

The Fourth “C”

Introduction to the Fourth Hundred

THE FULL WORKS which constitute The Book of Wesley have been dubbed “Wesley’s 500” or optomistically “The Thousand,” although it is not clear that he had a thousand coherent thoughts, much less that he wrote them down. I have access to only five hundred. Even though he considered the work “irrational,” a more appropriate term might be “non-rationalized.” He simply wrote his own observations and feelings and did not make an attempt to sort and categorize, but simply to express.

Each “C” or Book of One Hundred, explores at successively deeper levels the understanding that this one person came to have of life while living in a suspended state of consciousness. There has been no attempt by this editor to isolate and categorize the topics covered in anything more than the order in which he wrote them. Thus, cross-references are made only to preceding statements, and never anticipate or look ahead to future thoughts.

In the Fourth Hundred, Wesley continues to expound on topics about which he knows little; but even in those areas that he acknowledges mistakes, he presents them with commitment. In this penultimate hundred, Wesley touches on Platonic Ideals, Geometry, Magic, War and Peace, Socio-Economics, Sentience, and occasionally Love. This is the first hundred that contains no sections in colored ink or pencil and may have been written in a shorter period of time than the preceding hundreds.

Nathan Everett, editor

August 1, 1984

CCCX

301. Any strength in excess is a weakness.

302. Use greater strength against itself.

303. No principle, no matter how divine, is perfect once it has been stated.

304. The concept of the Ideal, as Plato would have it, is that once made material, no object is perfect. The Ideal of Table exists only in the mind.

305. It seems then, that these Ideals must be transmitted hereditarily or in some non-verbal, non-visual manner. For how could a person having seen only one table in his or her life develop the Platonic Ideal of Table?

306. Even after exposure to five, ten, or fifty tables, when does the mind make the link to Table as something that may be represented by numerous and various physical objects?

307. One would then have to consider this complexity: If it were possible to materialize a table directly from the workings of the mind, would it come out Ideal as in Table or would it come out as an image of a representation or composite of such, as merely a table?

308. The question of the Plantonic Ideal then might be reduced to this: Are generics Ideal? Is there actually an Ideal of Tree? Of Animal?

309. The likelihood is no. For if there were an Ideal of Animal, for example, we who are human could only comprise a flawed representation of the Ideal Animal, the Ideal Mammal, the Ideal Human, etc.

310. The generalization of our ideals is the flaw.

Editor’s Note: As is often the case, it is unclear whether the last statement applies to the topic of Platonic Ideals, or to Wesley’s own ideals. The word was not capitalized in the manuscript.

CCCXX

311. One might state instead that this creature who writes words upon paper is the Perfect Embodiment of the Ideal of John Wesley Allen. He exists on no other or independent plain.

312. The generic “tree,” which stands before you is, as well, the Perfect Embodiment of the Ideal of which you have not learned the name. Not for Elm, Oak, or Maple, for they are still only generics.

313. The ability to call a thing by its Ideal name is a link to the control of that thing.

314. Innocence is the greatest power.

315. We are creatures of choice and choose our own lives. We create our own embodiment. It is unlikely that such creatures would ever choose lives which they are incapable of living.

316. “Knowing better” is seldom a preventative, never a cure.

317. Changing your mind is not a flaw. In all likelihood, the “mistake” you made yesterday is the foundation of your enlightenment today.

318. If what has gone before is true and 1) all things occupy the same space at the same time (8); 2) it is possible to be in two places at the same time (48); 3) we are simultaneously at all times (113); 4) at rest all things are infinite (262), then... ?

319. Is red better than blue? Is yellow less moral than green? Is one love ever inferior or superior to another?

320. Even if one chose to surround oneself with blue, dress in blue, decorate in blue, one would scarcely wish the grass blue, the sun blue, the roses blue, etc. (“Who painted my roses red?” demanded the Queen.)

CCCXXX

321. Choosing a favorite does not devalue the other options.

322. Thus, one may love many differently and choose one to be surrounded by, yet take none of the value, joy, or quality away from any of the others.

323. Is there then a difference between love and commitment? Yes, for one describes the emotion subconsciously extended past all barriers. The other describes the choice of which love to surround oneself with. One may be committed to that which one does not love.

324. Since at rest all things are infinite (262) we approach a state of all-knowingness when we sleep. Thus, our dreams may prove prophetic or give us insight into past and future events.

325. Sleep is our most creative state. If we can achieve the plateau of rest normally achieved in sleep while we wake, our creativity is unblocked and ideas flow unhindered. This is meditation.

326. It is also possible that we may catch glimpses of past or future lifetimes when we encounter people or situation in our current time/space continuum who are or will be sharers of another time/space continuum.

327. Doubt is the birthing stall of fanaticism.

328. The residue of activity of primitive deities may still crop up in the most modern settings. Some seeds take millennia in the soil to germinate. Thus, we may find ourselves surprised to discover a temple to the most ancient deity disguised as the most contemporary of scientific institutions.

329. If there are no negative (255) all numeric/geometric functions must have a finite origin.

330. Thus, all things (our geometrically defined universe being a numerical system) have a finite past, even if they have an infinite future.

Editor’s note: Wesley is all over the map in this set, including items that we must deem as relational, creative, and geometric. Into this, he tosses a gem on fanaticism. In Wesley’s book, it is not the true believer who becomes a fanatic, but rather the one who is plagued by doubt.

CCCXL

331. This says a lot about creationist theology. (330)

332. A point, as defined by classical Euclidean Geometry, has no dimension (length, width, depth). It has only a location defined by its coordinates relative to a point of origin. For the moment, let us assume this is true in tetrahedronal geometry as well.

333. Any point in Euclidean Geometry may be the origin of an axial system designating six directions—north, south, east, west, up, and down. (or x+, x-, y+, y-, z+, and z-) In tetrahedronal geometry, any point may also be an origin described by only four coordinates. For convenience, left, right, forward, and up. (x+, y+, z+ and t)

334. Any point may be observed from any direction (in either system). Thus, any point may be a definition of any and all directions.

335. The point which is the center of a sphere lies in every direction from the surface. Every perpendicular to the surface passes through the center point.

336. The “four corners of the earth” spoken of frequently in mythology and folk lore, are commonly interpreted as being the four points of the compass. But, while north and south are clearly defined by our poles, there is no such “corner” that is either east or west. The Euclidean system would require six corners rather than four.

337. The tetrahedronal approach to this question would assume that the origin of our system lies somewhere near the center of our roughly spherical globe. The four spatial axes would originate from this point. If north is considered as our constant, then the other three directions or corners of the earth would be definable points lying on a parallel at or somewhere below the Tropic of Capricorn.

338. Various sources have discussed “inner space” and “outer space” as two alternatives for exploration which are equally limitless. It may be a reasonable suggestion that our concepts of “inside” and “outside” are reversed.

339. That space that I define as inside my body is all that I can see, hear, feel, smell, touch. What is “inside” is defined by my senses (or perhaps an extension of them). What is outside is that which pumps my blood, that which supplies me with thoughts, that which propels and which motivates me.

340. Thus, the entirety of the universe is finite, defined by and contained within my senses. True infinity lies only on the outside—my mind, my soul, my imagination.

Editor’s Note: What Wesley continues to dance around, but never openly declares, is that tetrahedronal geometry actually assumes four finite points of origin “out there somewhere” against which all points are defined. He searches for an absolute that lies outside the observable from which the distance to all points can be measured. In Wesley’s world, it is assumed that this absolute (even four absolutes) is defined as God.

CCCL

341. If you reduce the size/volume of a body of reference to a non-dimensional point, the ultimate inside/outside relationship is revealed. Outside no longer exists. The entire universe can be defined as lying inside any given point of reference and is therefore finite, bounded on all sides by the same point.

342. Thus, just as the universe lies in all directions from any given point in that system, any given point lies in all directions from anywhere in the same system, contains it, and puts a finite boundary around the universe.

343. It might be suggested that a proponent of tetrahedronal geometry may as well increase the number of axes at will—develop a five-dimensional, six-dimensional, etc. system. There is nothing saying this is not possible.

344. The four axes approach, however, is the simplest model that can account for all spatial relationships without employing negatives. Fewer axes can define only a portion of space; more become redundant. If five axes are used, for example, one must always be defined as exerting null force on the point being located. Otherwise, any given point may be defined with an unlimited number of non-proportional coordinates. Thus, each point would lack a defined orientation. Normal Euclidean solid geometry actually uses six axes to define space, but the coordinates of three of those axes is always null. x and -x are two of the axes, etc. A point cannot have a coordinate on both axes.

345. To change one’s orientation in the universe, one must either “go there” or “be there.” The process of being takes no account of a time-lapse. The speed at which you go defines how much time is created in the interval.

346. Rationale for the development of a numeric/geometric system with no negatives: In a three dimensional spatial system, only one-eighth of the universe is “real” or having +x, +y, +z coordinates. Yet, by definition, that one-eighth is infinite.

347. The other seven-eighths of the system—also each deemed infinite—attempt to measure at least one coordinate as less than nothing. In reality, in order to deal with that quadrant, we must assume that a point within it lies a positive distance from the origin along a fourth, fifth, or sixth axis which we have arbitrarily defined as being negative. In fact, however, negative distance does not exist. Nor does negative space.

348. To go “outside” our system is equivalent to going a negative distance. Outside is, thus, a non-reality, all of our universe being defined as being inside our system, therefore finite, defined by any single point in the system.

349. Our strength is frequently defined in terms of what we cannot do rather than what we can do.

350. When there is motion, motion preempts simultaneity. Our moving, rotating, revolving globe cannot be perceived relative to other realities, but only relative to where realities have been. (17)

Editor’s Note: Wesley almost lost me as I attempted to parse his first point in this section. There is a mathematics joke—which I have on good authority that Wesley had never heard—that goes: Three mathematicians were looking at a flock of sheep. The first said, “The smallest linear footage of a fence that would enclose the sheep is a square. It has the greatest area inside for the linear footage.” The second said, “The smallest linear footage would be a circle as the square would waste interior space.” The third drew a circle around himself and said simply, “I define myself as being outside.” In essence, Wesley has posited the same theory. A point, having no dimensions, can have no inside and outside. Wesley holds that inside and outside are the same. Therefore, any point in the rational universe lies in all directions from any other point. The universe is bounded by that single point.