It's obvious to all who partake in the sacred medicines that Geometry reveals itself
again and again. Why is this?
Why is the geometric/fractal forms a constant in dmt, ayahuasca, psilocybin, ... ?
What if the very presence of geometry is itself a message!

What if Pythagoras was in "the know" as he explained:
All is Law and Mathematical Order ... God Geometrizes!

Oh it most definitely is. One of the most overwhelming parts of the DMT experience for me is the fractal patterns that zoom in at you. These fractals change and morph at light speed and with every variation of every fractal, I will feel a certain understanding and emotion also zoom through me.

I buy this, absolutely. There is something about the relationship between abstract constructs that can show us deep things about the way Creation is put together. If you've ever dabbled in number theory, you see the same patterns, the same relationships and the same constants appear over and over again.

To me that suggests an underlying structure to the universe that we can't readily perceive.

@Tyler, in complete agreement.
Can't wait to my first changa experience next week

@Nathaniel
yes!

its almost enough to make one start a platonic/pythagorean cult...

won't be surprise if Pythagoras in his Schools used entheogens
i'd love to have seen that

Completely. Once you understand entheogenic awareness(or just awareness itself), you are able to navigate the fractal dimensions much more readily and swiftly. IME, fractal awareness can be subtly gained and can be seen practically everywhere with close observation. Perhaps to remind us not to be afraid, all is well here; we shall return to these realms.

--

Go to your local university and find the folks working in the 'Pure Math' department. Light up a bowl of The Good Stuff (you know what I'm taking about, Parshvik) and just spend some time munching on cookies and shooting the sh*t. I guarantee you'll find that there are a lot of people thinking Pythagorean thoughts out there. No one ever talks about it because people in the academic world look at you like you escaped from a padded room if you bring it up in a formal context, but most of the folks I know who truly love math think of it as a kind of spiritual practice.

Andrew Wiles, the man who proved Fermat's Last Theorum, has a great take on it (I'm paraphrasing here):

"Working on a proof is like exploring a mansion in the dark. You stumble around, you find maybe a chair, or a corner of a table and slowly you start to get a sense of what the room might look like. And then you find the lightswitch and suddenly it all becomes clear."

I think anyone who is serious about entheogens understands what he's talking about here, even if they haven't done a formal proof since high school geometry.

"To me that suggests an underlying structure to the universe that we can't readily perceive."

For the sake of speculation, could there not be some projection of the underlying cellular structure of the brain or eyes going on here as well, beyond what one can readily perceive. Not saying that explains all of it by any stretch, but I do thing part of the visionary architecture of the experience induced by DMT and other psychedelics is a projection of internal structures.

I'm really not sure about the nature of patterns we perceive. And if we even can conclude _anything_ from the nature of those patterns.

We peceive patterns, cause we don't have any other mode of perception. We perceive by recognition of patterns, cause that's all we are able to do.

Our whole reality construct is founded on pattern recognition.

The structure of any pattern a person recognizes differs from person to to person. The perceived structure of a certain pattern is determined, by the structure of another pattern. Namely be the structure of the pattern of thoughts a person has.

The pattern of thoughts a person has is determined by another pattern structure. The pattern structure of experiences a person has had.

We can and must regard everything as a pattern, caus patterns are the only things we are able to perceive. But we'll never know if those patterns we perceive are actually the way we perceive them. And we can't even say for sure, if those patterns really exist.

I like this.

Ahh the joy of witnessing sacred geometry flash by inscribed with various glyphs and symbols, you know youve vaped properly and are in for a good ride.
Ive had some wild Mckenna esque theories from it being the language of the subconcious to it being a new language being programmed into us by plants.
Its been a subject of interest officially too this study attached is interesting.. Damn couldnt find the pdf heres the link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih....pmc/articles/PMC4034428/
You may also like this series that was on a few years back..
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Code_(UK_TV_series)

You pack a loaded question, so I will try to tease it apart the best I can. There are a lot of things that can affect or modulate the visual aspect to the experience, but it should be noted that many of these things are rather superficial, especially when examined alone. External lighting, afterimages, cellular phosphenes, etc...can all leave their mark on hyperspace. The issue becomes when you have the experiences in which contextually significant information is conveyed, or when valid information is conveyed for which you have no former basis for knowing.

For example, let's examine two different scenarios. In the first one we have a DMT experience in which the bright lighting of the external room allows you to see the cellular phosphenes behind your closed eyelids as you would normally be able to see sober, except with the additional dimension of DMT, their afterimages become well ingrained in the visual nature of your experience and the cellular afterimages self-replicate, become more sophisticated and may form the visual basis for the unfolding scene.

Let us contrast that scenario with this next one in which the eyes are closed and you find yourself looking at a vision of what appears to be a single cell. In this visionary scenario, you are first taken for a tour of the inner workings of the cell before your view is pulled outward and you see the cell dividing and gestating and taking you on an epic vision detailing the development of a complex multicellular life-form. In this scenario, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the vision must have resulted from the pattern recognition of cellular patterns considering the detailed, story-oriented, contextually significant vision that played out.

I can think of a ton of examples off the top of my head of visions I've had in which the notion of pattern recognition would seem like a silly explanation. My first Egyptian experience for example was beholding four multidimensional pharaoh sarcophagi folding through each other in a gigantic pyramid of which the details of the bricks were notable. It strikes me as unlikely that hyperspace geometry would simply converge and the neural process of pattern recognition would fill in the blanks and smooth out the picture to show these pharaoh sarcophagi which looked like the King Tut sarcophagus down to the color and detail, moving about in the contextually significant place of a gigantic pyramid (even though granted no Pharaoh has ever been found in a pyramid).

I could make a list of experiences and go on and on, but it is in the ancient cultural experiences in particular where you have all the elements of that certain culture that all come together in a meaningful way that should seem to deny the possibility of pattern recognition playing a significant part in the process. When you have a cultural being inside the appropriate cultural temple with the complimentary cultural artifacts in a way where everything converges to convey a coherent message, I tend to think that the cellular structuring of the visual system doesn't come too much into play. If we're talking about an Egyptian temple, and it's all turquoise, but virtually nothing else in hyperspace is turquoise, that should signify it as being employed meaningfully and not as the result of the projection of internal structures which may therefore "liberate" a lot of the rest of the content of the vision from the conception of pattern recognition. When we see a "face in the clouds," it's often just that - if you see Michael Jordan's face in the clouds, it's never accompanied by a basketball, a net and a referee.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong because I am all for pattern recognition in a certain light. I think that DMT is phenomenal at enhancing pattern recognition, and patterns do play a humongous role in the process...it's just that it has its time and place...and that's usually somewhere near the surface of the experience.

I think it's funny that you guys bring up Pythagoras because it seems to me that the concept of right angles completely underlies and pervades hyperspace, primarily forming the basis for the entire "multidimensional mode" of geometry. It was demonstrated to me rather explicitly on several experiences how the combination of right angles along with the concept of a foreground, background, and latent background all contribute to the multidimensionality of the experience along with creating certain quite effective visual illusions. In some ways, it can be like a grand puppet show.

Also something in the title that of this topic that no one has really touched on is this concept of "god geometries" or the geometry of the godhead. When I start to see even small hints of such geometry, I know what's waiting behind the corner. Both Hindu as well as Egyptian geometry can come into play at the core of the godhead, but the geometry can be presented in so many different modes as to obscure the cultural element. The slightest shift in "dimensional angle" by altering my perspective via which plane I am viewing the godhead from can cause the most drastic of shifts in what the geometry appears to create. It contains within it so many countless forms that are dependent on the point of the observer's observation. To say it is one of these things or another would be inaccurate, as it seems obvious that it is all (or none...or some) of these things at once. This seems to be a result of its holographic nature.

Let me give an example that is perhaps easier to latch onto. Many people are familiar with the 2D holographic cards of consensual reality in which there can appear to be a moving picture. At my house, I have this holographic card of Mickey Mantle up at the plate, swinging his bat at an incoming ball. Now if you were to remain completely still, and the card were completely still then it would appear to be a single, static image. If however, you decide to change your perspective by either moving your own body or tilting the card, you would notice the motion. The important part is realizing that it's not like the pixels or physical matter of the card is rearranging itself for you, but that it is all of the images at once. If we take two people and have them viewing the card from different angles, we would expect them to say that Mickey Mantle is in two distinctly different positions. The same principle seems to apply to holograms in the upper dimensions, and this notion comes into play when observing multidimensional geometries in general - even those rendered by a computer. So for example, if you were to take a look at a tesseract, penteract, 120-cell, E8, etc... on YouTube, you would note what seems to be certain facets folding through each other etc...there appears to be all this motion going on (much of which is very reminiscent for the hyperspace traveler) and yet from the mathematician's explanation, the geometry itself, the tesseract for example, isn't actually moving at all. It's simply your perspective that's being shifted around the dimensions that's creating the illusion of motion. You could even note the same concept with a solid 3D object like a cube where you could create the illusion of spinning a cube simply by rotating your perspective around it through three dimensional space while the cube itself actually remains completely motionless. This is in part, some of the kinds of things I allude to when I mention "the illusions of the grand puppet show".

yes, fascinating

I've thought about a similar thing, and the conclusion that I have come to (and this is just my interpretation) is that, when we're n Hyperspace and experiencing higher-order spacial dimensions, we think about them in terms of 'right angles' because the intersection of orthogonal lines is how we define our own spacial perception. Think of a 3D Cartesian grid.

Similarly, when we're in a higher-order hyperspace, the right angles stand out too much, because they are the most 'obvious' ways to see that we are in such a space.

Again, just my personal experience thinking about math and hyperspace.

Blessings
~ND

Interestingly enough the math confirms that as you go up in the dimensions, each plane is postulated at having an axis perpendicular to the previous one. This is the concept behind drawing such things as a tesseract (4D) by hand (on the 2D plane).

I think it is definitely a projection of internal structures. The question is: How far does that projection extend? Does it extend past the DMT experience? To what extent is my perception of everyday life merely a projection of internal structures? It hints at Solipsism to me.

Regarding the geometry, when I think of "geometry" I think of visual representations of information. But information has no inherent interpretation. We can take any "geometrical" pattern and reduce it to a representation consisting of a sequence of numbers. This sequence of numbers can sometimes be compressed into an algorithm which, when executed, reproduces the original sequence. I like to think that the best way to juxtapose things like geometrical patterns is to first distill them down to this fundamental algorithmic level. Then we can develop a "physical" model explaining why the universe handles information in these particular ways. I suppose that, in this informational interpretation, the universe is something like a cellular automata. It is simply a database of numbers that interact with each other and evolve according an algorithm. Our interpretation of that evolution is the physical world as we know it.

But I digress... The algorithm resulting in DMT geometries could exist within our own heads or it could be part of how the universe processes information. Perhaps the former implies the latter, since our minds are within the universe.

Either way, this view is kinda anti-geometry. I think that we should be suspicious of the idea of dimensionality. If any geometrical pattern can be reduced to a sequence of numbers that is 1-dimensional, then what are higher dimensions really? What is it about a given sequence of numbers that makes it N-dimensional? As far as I know, we don't have an answer to that question yet, but I think it is fundamental to understanding why physical reality (and consciousness) is the way it is.

From the way I understand it, what makes N-dimensional higher than the next is in direct relation to the number of planes that are perpendicularly juxtaposed to the axes previous planes. Of course making certain distinctions in the midst of hyperspace can be nearly impossible to do (i.e. discerning between 5-dimensional and 6-dimensional geometry), but if you look at the videos on youtube of tesseracts (4-dimensional computer renderings) verse penteracts (5-dimensional computer renderings) and so on up, one will note a difference. Of course the validity is called into question of whether these truly represent the higher dimensions, but since the math seems to imply so, and the aesthetics of these higher dimensions match the aesthetics of a lot of the geometry I encounter in hyperspace, it seems rational to conclude that multidimensionality is a real thing, especially in light of the fact that many of us that have become acquainted with multidimensionality had not been previously aware of such computer renderings or concepts.

That only describes an N-dimensional representation. An N-dimensional coordinate system (constructed of perpendicular planes) is merely a visual construction that we use to organize otherwise 1-dimensional data.

For example, the coordinates of the corners of a cube with sides of length 1 can be represented by the following set of 3D vectors:
(0,0,0)
(1,0,0)
(0,1,0)
(0,0,1)
(1,1,0)
(1,0,1)
(0,1,1)
(1,1,1)

When storing these coordinates, it makes no difference whether I express these coordinates as 8 3-vectors or simply as a sequence of 24 numbers:
(0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1)

When analyzing this data, I can choose to parse this sequence (i.e. chop it up) in such a way that original 8 3-vectors are obtained, but why should I do that? From an objective standpoint, this data is no more 3D than it is 1D. Maybe it represents a cube, or maybe it represents a point in 24-dimensional space. The idea of dimensionality is meaningless when geometrical shapes are formatted in this way.

Of course if you choose to arrange such things as these simple coordinates, it is meaningless...but that does not negate the mindbending aesthetic that beholding them entails, nor would more complex multidimensional figures that don't seem to be rendered on the computers such as the multidimensional aspects of ancient cultural imagery in which the simultaneous folding/unfolding creates a very powerful emotional response. If you reduce it to the cold logic of numbers, it should be no surprise that it's not too interesting, however that would be to remove it from its phenomenological context.

My point is that all things can be arranged in terms of "such simple coordinates". I can sit back and appreciate the aesthetic of geometry, but I would rather roll around in the math a bit and try to understand it. The cold logic of numbers is the essence of reality. That's why I don't find numbers to be uninteresting. I can appreciate the aesthetic even more when I can see past the phenomenological context.