Now that I understand that I can’t – that, as the phrase is, the time is not yet – nothing changes, since that means one can present the esoteric with impunity, so long as one is willing to parry the spiritual thrust of judgment against one’s sanity; something I have been dealing with, however successfully, since infancy.

          Yet, of course, at the same time, everything changes.

          What I see today is that the numbers are theology.

          My long dance with the numbers as basic symbols, as esoteric bodies of experience, as descriptive categories, and so on and so forth, drops through the first fact realization of their symbol status to the point that one recognizes the first seven as sets which define philosophy.

          That is, philosophy cannot be reduced to a single set.

          Historically, the dominant set is One, a natural paradox. But other sets have been tried. The spiritualist gets caught in five. As I have pointed out here, this gift began with Aristotle, but went to India and apparently returned. Much of the esoteric, as literature and practice, is dominated by five.

          But, of course, the seven is ancient, as much because it is seven as from any overt identification. That is, seven is the prophetic, necessarily both the inverse and the obverse of the first moment of self, which also establishes cause and substance, the conditions for history.

          ‘Where there are three gods, they are gods,’ says Jesus in Thomas. ‘Where there are two or one, I am with him.’

          There have been attempts to deflect this in later translations, but the first seems good.

          Presumably this is the source precept leading to ‘trinity’. But, of course, in this context, contrary to the trinitarian barricades, three is the anthropological introduction that allows me to find the same teachings in Zen and Shaivite Tantra. That is to say, I believe the teaching was thus transmitted.

          The three gods are the necessary condition of dialectic.

          Power is power; it has no logical place. That is, it has no place in logic. Necessity is only a power by default; and paradoxically, logic has abandoned cause.

          So what are powers?

          Bodies, perhaps?

          Certainly, the body is not One. This is an illusion of concept. Perception itself denies it.

          Power, then, is perception itself, a spontaneous response to value – one ‘side’ of the value, since the ‘fact’ of value, the whatever of its focus, specifies the power defining force, the rapprochement between consciousness and the perceived world.

          What gives the gods substance, however, is reflection – the reversionary nature indigenous in our present awareness.

          I love evolutionary theory because it’s the sodbusting plow in the fields of pseudo-scientific ‘secularism’. As soon as I acknowledge that consciousness is radical, which I am required to do by the pragmatic reality of reflection itself – evolution thus becoming responsible for awareness as a self-dependent fact – physics goes south by southeast.

          The I is cause, the history consciousness that gives substance to the substantive world, transforming the dream response of the reflective transition into the substantive world of ‘the real’.

          The mirror that is no mirror :

          There is only the figure.

          Did I mention the figure?

          The figure is seven.

          The mirror is the world as we see it now.

          All of these reversals in evolution before the final reversal of awareness itself.

          Gender reverses : the birth of ‘the other’.

          Body reverses as substance.

          Eye reverses as ‘world’.

          Breath ‘reverses’ as feeling.

          Mind is reversal itself, essence and substance: perception

          Dialectic is five. Dialectic is three.