practice UNIVERSAL ENERGIES in Y'our Resonant Garden::V

a narrative on DALIN by S'ace

Given the numbers shown in a quadrant erection (oops:)
a fifth number may rise from the ones given ...
In this seedling we let us experience the mechanism of summarizing the lower ones.

Given the Quadrant :: (4 fingertops) of 36: 24, 60, 12, 13 (a right clockwise roundabout/wrap) we summarize 60 and 12 to 72.

What pops up on 72?

... well, or rather weLL (teLL you later), 72 = 8x9 and 7+2 is 9 too ...
and ... ???
well imagine 7 as the sevenworldscomplex that gives life to your phisical body; by then ... it may occur to you that earth and heaven are added (7+2) to your universal entities, added references to your worlds of orientation.
:{ add Y our S }:

One may say GAMMALL facilitates the POWERS, symolized by the 2 L's (rectangulars) to make a full turn over ... by consciencely acting on the pases between the opposites that are bridged by that acts. This is also expressed with the Quarter Circle, or the L-turned over and flipped, all in a circle including the space marked by that circle and "that which remains the Same" (the UnKnown Black Cube Beyond).

the story of the L'arche ...

(quote from Claudia von Werlhof - )
The “Gnostic” Worldview of Patriarchy
BY THE TIME, peoples’ experiences with patriarchal society, war, despotic rule, and ceaseless violence logically led to a complete change in the general worldview, too. The Gnostic worldview thus appeared (Sloterdijk and Macho 1991). Gnosis means recognition: It is recognized that the world is “bad,” “evil,” “low,” primitive, violent, sinful, and not worth living in. A better, “higher,” more developed, “noble” and civilized world, therefore, is the ideal for people living in patriarchy. However, this “higher” world cannot be found on earth, even less so in the matriarchal past or presence elsewhere. The “higher world” is thus perceived as a metaphysical world that can only be envisioned through the imagination.
A metaphysical world beyond physics was not thought of in matriarchal society. SO, the words mater and arché together do not mean “rule of mothers,” but instead mean, “in the beginning the mother,” life stems from mothers. ARCHE IS BEGINNING and “uterus” (MARKALE 1984, 207). Therefore, life, death, the mother, and the goddess, are always here in this world, and they all belong to each other, so that there is neither the need for, nor the idea of, another (metaphysical) world than the one in which we live every day (Chattopadyaya 1973).

In patriarchal society, on the contrary, another world beyond the existing one had to be invented. SO, the words pater and arché together do not simply mean “rule of fathers,” but, instead, “in the beginning the father”—a word unknown in matriarchal times. Or, rather, life stems from “fathers” instead of from mothers; fathers are men with uteruses who are able to give life without needing women at all! (The Pharaoh Echnaton, for example, had himself painted as a pregnant man [see Wolf 1994]). Only on the basis of this fantasy would men be legitimized to rule over those who are not “fathers,” the people, and especially the mothers. The “father,” therefore, is defined as somebody who is a ruling man and as such not only able to take life, but also to give life.
In patriarchy the word arché thus did not only mean “beginning, origin, uterus,” but also “rule” and “domination,” too. This second meaning of arché did not exist before patriarchy, therefore, in matriarchy arché could have never meant domination, much less mothers’ or women’s rule. There simply was no domination, and therefore there was no word for it. Etymology shows that 1) a matriarchal society in which women were in power the way men are in patriarchal society never existed, and that 2) the “father” in patriarchal society has to be related to power as a system of domination, at least as long as he cannot replace the mother.

This means that the political system of patriarchal society can be regarded as a first step in the direction of the development of a pure, fully elaborated patriarchy, in which the fathers would really be “men with uteruses” or with something like “uterus-machines,” who would then no longer need to dominate, because they would be able to do without nature, women, and matriarchal society. The political system of patriarchy would only be needed for the period in which patriarchy moves toward its final realization, toward a “full patriarchy,” conceived of as the end of history. From this point of view, history is only the time in which patriarchy appeared and “evolved” until it became one hundred percent reality.
The patriarchal usurpation, destruction, and perversion of the mother and the wish to replace her thus led to an early sort of “science fiction”: to the idea that what is only—and absurdly—supposed, namely that life stems from the father and not the mother, is considered even more real than what is experienced every day, namely the opposite. This credo quia absurdum—I believe in the absurd—of the early church-patriarchs, began from then on its nearly uninterrupted career on earth. Gnostic metaphysics and the belief in another, “higher” reality appeared everywhere, in every theological as well as philosophical tradition until today. Since then the belief in metaphysical assumptions has become much more important than knowledge about the world in which we live, even more so in the secularized modern sciences of today, as we shall see below.

The historically new concept of the “father” is a triple fiction: it imitates the fiction of a powerful patriarchal “mother” and/or “goddess” and imagines to have successfully replaced her. This way the “father” is defined as a “patriarchal mother,” the god as patriarchal goddess, who—as a contradiction in itself—could never have been thought of before.
This shows that the father originally is not regarded to be a man who relates to a woman with whom he has a child. This type of a father, as we normally define him today, is much less the “idea” of the father than the early fiction of a man with a uterus. The reason for this “loss” in defining the father is very simple: It has until now really been impossible to have new life without women.
But we know that biotechnology and genetic engineering are working hard to resolve patriarchy’s main problem: the desire that only men should be the creators of life. Having to be born from women seems to be the biggest DISGRACE for patriarchal men and society (see Anders’ 1994 description of the “shame of being born instead of being made”). Our actual “soft” understanding of the father who is still dependent on a mother proves every day that patriarchy in reality does not yet exist at all the way it is supposed to. The world—at least in this respect—basically still functions in a matriarchal way.