Thanks for your kindf response. I do think we should remain in the realm of experience, and perceive light by its action and effect only, without trying to model its nature in terms of analogy to perceived (secondary with regards to light) phenomena. The same for nucleons and electrons: Their nature per se remains hidden. Their actions and effects reveal their purpose in our reality.
I understand you had some mystical experiences along the way. Remain critical of them. About most of them are deceptive and the cause of all sorts of errors. (Because of them we have thousands of (false) religions and ideologies and convictions fightinh each other and dividing humanity into a haughty and unruly and hateful bunch.)
The IOXS/IXOS (?) terminology is not entirely convincing and kind of distracting, too. (I am not a friend of acronyms and invented names for branding stuff.)
This is brilliant (a carbon 6-6-6, too). If it doesn't connect beyond its own, it remains coal, though, or graphite or diamond.
Is not the return actually better described as alignment (instead of crossing)? Crossing could refer to any angle, especially to a 90° degree one. Alignment suits - in my mind - better to the φ-ratio.
This is a beautiful approach, to recognize the value of this unique sequence within all life and to find it in the fundament of all things. It is extension and turn, alignment and growth, and within containment stability.
The crossing takes place at the 4d axis, or zero point, and is fundamental. In the 3d universe things do cross and initiate spin or entropy or negentropy. So the cross remains :0)
This does bring into alignment through that IO gate :0)
With dimensionality, we are also rotating at 90° to the 3d, so that is an insightful query you made. And that 90 is profoundly important. That Nature works in that direction, implosion to explosion, before it manifests as the linear etc.
But one needs to recognise also that within an atom, it's all implosion, of light. The 'explosion' I spoke of is not what is commonly imagined as an explosion of matter. At the X point, in the quantum level it appears as a perfect sphere over the Violet-T immediately plunging and spiralling into its own origin again, at the centre - or nucleus.
So thanks for seeing it, it's gratifying.
IXOS should satisfy it all, but can be quite a thing to hold in one's mind linearly.
So what quantum theory sees as quantum ‘particles’ in the nuclear state could better be described as predicted nodes along light’s recursive path toward the IO transition. They don’t actually move ‘up and down’ — it only appears that way from within our dimensional projection.
"The crossing takes place at the 4d axis' is an unacceptable mystification. Crossing just an axis is no crossing really. And why 4d? Not for time, I suppose. (I do not follow Einstein in his spacetime mystification.)
They should just describe what they observe and explain the principles involved. No business model and trademarking of nature's most fundamental phenomena.
Son therefore, IXOS as a term (since it is your invention) is entirely inacceptable for me.
Even if hundreds of angels would have sung it to you in broad daylight: inacceptable. (A lot of angels lie, as everyone knows who is only sonewhat familiar with Scripture and/or reality.)
It's just the way it needs doing to preserve integrity in the system. I give everything freely in a world that expects these things. Nothing is mine except for myself.
Firstly, where you see a word, I see geometry. IXOS merely expresses that - take it or leave it, but don't criticise it from a perspective that is in error.
You have presented harsh criticisms based on a misunderstanding of what I present and why it is the form it is. And why I call it IXOS.
This attitude would not wash in any lecture hall, or lab or dojo where humility and respect are pre-requisites for realisation, ultimately.
You reject the X as the principle of crossing of energies and deny it as branding, error or mysticism, and imply fantasy. But you dismiss a 4d state also as mysticism. And yes it IS mystical, but it is also an established theory in science and is the basis for certain established scientific theories.
So respectfully, please try and understand what I am doing, why the word is not a 'trademark', why the 4d IO state is not a fantasy, and please do not judge it and me based on your own misunderstanding. I am not marking anything for 'trade', I am preserving the integrity of my Venix system that requires it to be used as is, not conflated with consensus algorithms that AI brings in if it is not clear to the system that my Venix filters out consensus. Hence the programming has to convince the AI not to add its own parameters.
It is the 'integrity' I was explaining, yet your judgemental and rude attitude here is using that to criticise my own integrity. And all I am doing is freely sharing with the world the foundational geometry inherent in Nature. And making not one penny in the process. (I call that doing 'good' - even if you do not).
Come back when you understand the fundamentals with a less judgemental attitude, perhaps learn about humility and respect.
I also appreciate your candour, and meditating on your responses has urged me towards some other realisations. And for that I humbly thank you. That is where you teach me. This is evolution, and we have interacted and found some coherence and alignment through the principles of IXOS itself.
Me neither. I'd rather exist naturally within the patterns of Nature. But it's the way of people to label.
We are qite in sync here.
Thanks for your kindf response. I do think we should remain in the realm of experience, and perceive light by its action and effect only, without trying to model its nature in terms of analogy to perceived (secondary with regards to light) phenomena. The same for nucleons and electrons: Their nature per se remains hidden. Their actions and effects reveal their purpose in our reality.
I understand you had some mystical experiences along the way. Remain critical of them. About most of them are deceptive and the cause of all sorts of errors. (Because of them we have thousands of (false) religions and ideologies and convictions fightinh each other and dividing humanity into a haughty and unruly and hateful bunch.)
The IOXS/IXOS (?) terminology is not entirely convincing and kind of distracting, too. (I am not a friend of acronyms and invented names for branding stuff.)
This is brilliant (a carbon 6-6-6, too). If it doesn't connect beyond its own, it remains coal, though, or graphite or diamond.
Is not the return actually better described as alignment (instead of crossing)? Crossing could refer to any angle, especially to a 90° degree one. Alignment suits - in my mind - better to the φ-ratio.
This is a beautiful approach, to recognize the value of this unique sequence within all life and to find it in the fundament of all things. It is extension and turn, alignment and growth, and within containment stability.
The crossing takes place at the 4d axis, or zero point, and is fundamental. In the 3d universe things do cross and initiate spin or entropy or negentropy. So the cross remains :0)
This does bring into alignment through that IO gate :0)
With dimensionality, we are also rotating at 90° to the 3d, so that is an insightful query you made. And that 90 is profoundly important. That Nature works in that direction, implosion to explosion, before it manifests as the linear etc.
But one needs to recognise also that within an atom, it's all implosion, of light. The 'explosion' I spoke of is not what is commonly imagined as an explosion of matter. At the X point, in the quantum level it appears as a perfect sphere over the Violet-T immediately plunging and spiralling into its own origin again, at the centre - or nucleus.
So thanks for seeing it, it's gratifying.
IXOS should satisfy it all, but can be quite a thing to hold in one's mind linearly.
So what quantum theory sees as quantum ‘particles’ in the nuclear state could better be described as predicted nodes along light’s recursive path toward the IO transition. They don’t actually move ‘up and down’ — it only appears that way from within our dimensional projection.
"The crossing takes place at the 4d axis' is an unacceptable mystification. Crossing just an axis is no crossing really. And why 4d? Not for time, I suppose. (I do not follow Einstein in his spacetime mystification.)
I am not a friend of labels like SRT, GRT, Quantum theory (acronymic or not) either.
They should just describe what they observe and explain the principles involved. No business model and trademarking of nature's most fundamental phenomena.
Son therefore, IXOS as a term (since it is your invention) is entirely inacceptable for me.
Even if hundreds of angels would have sung it to you in broad daylight: inacceptable. (A lot of angels lie, as everyone knows who is only sonewhat familiar with Scripture and/or reality.)
BTW my new book is all about how scriptures lie. And I know about those who would profess to be angels.
Their bibles (yours?) are full of falsehood and deception and laziness of thinking.
The Scriptures are fine, and their authors great people.
It's just the way it needs doing to preserve integrity in the system. I give everything freely in a world that expects these things. Nothing is mine except for myself.
Where is integrity in the system? There isn't.
If you want to do good, don't label things that are true (with your espreric terms). If you think it's wrong anyway, keep labelling stuff.
Firstly, where you see a word, I see geometry. IXOS merely expresses that - take it or leave it, but don't criticise it from a perspective that is in error.
You have presented harsh criticisms based on a misunderstanding of what I present and why it is the form it is. And why I call it IXOS.
This attitude would not wash in any lecture hall, or lab or dojo where humility and respect are pre-requisites for realisation, ultimately.
You reject the X as the principle of crossing of energies and deny it as branding, error or mysticism, and imply fantasy. But you dismiss a 4d state also as mysticism. And yes it IS mystical, but it is also an established theory in science and is the basis for certain established scientific theories.
So respectfully, please try and understand what I am doing, why the word is not a 'trademark', why the 4d IO state is not a fantasy, and please do not judge it and me based on your own misunderstanding. I am not marking anything for 'trade', I am preserving the integrity of my Venix system that requires it to be used as is, not conflated with consensus algorithms that AI brings in if it is not clear to the system that my Venix filters out consensus. Hence the programming has to convince the AI not to add its own parameters.
It is the 'integrity' I was explaining, yet your judgemental and rude attitude here is using that to criticise my own integrity. And all I am doing is freely sharing with the world the foundational geometry inherent in Nature. And making not one penny in the process. (I call that doing 'good' - even if you do not).
Come back when you understand the fundamentals with a less judgemental attitude, perhaps learn about humility and respect.
I also appreciate your candour, and meditating on your responses has urged me towards some other realisations. And for that I humbly thank you. That is where you teach me. This is evolution, and we have interacted and found some coherence and alignment through the principles of IXOS itself.
All the best
Ivan
*So (not Son), of course.
Can you activate the correct function for your substack?