Transcription
Hello, my friends. Russell here. Before I begin my daily routine, I wanted to address some of the questions that came up next to the photograph of the star mother kit with the extenders created by my friend Dan Winter. And something that we utilize as a teaching tool over a decade ago when we traveled around the world teaching this geometry.
What I mean by fourth dimension—I get a lot of questions like that—and it's a little bit hard to see the fourth dimension. What I'm specifically talking about—the fourth dimension is really the phase tilt of the cube, sometimes called Metatron's cube. Inside the dodecahedron, it's tilted at 32 degrees. And in order to make things a little bit easier, I brought a quartz crystal dodecahedron, because everybody has one of those, and wanted to show you exactly what that is and what we're talking about. There you go. There's a really good angle, so you should be able to see the cube—the corner of the cube popping out at you. You see? If I could not lose the integral—so, little trick is like rubbing your head and petting your stomach at the same time—video. So the intersection of the three pentagrams create the popping forward corner of Metatron's cube, otherwise known as a cube.
Now, if you were to take all the interdigitated lines inside the star mother kit, you would have the only constructively interfering 3D fractal possible in the universe. So, is the fourth dimension actually an optical illusion? Ah, there's the rub. And that speaks a lot to Karen's question: Is it not just an extension of mind via time? What's interesting is we have to define our terms, and I'm going to end this very carefully, otherwise we could go on for a long time. It is not merely an optical illusion, because the perception and the ability to perceive—not the collusion itself—is recursive embeddedness. The math that deals with recursive embeddedness is the same math that you're dealing with when you're dealing with nested platonic solids—or very similar. The difference being that we had—I had to construct this model to build—I had to build the tetrahedrons, I had to build the octahedrons, and I had two distillations on the octahedrons. Then I had to build Metatron's cube, and then you had to build the icosahedron, and had to go to the dodecahedron, and then I can go on forever and a stick and a stick and naps—its infinite frak-tality, like a fern leaf fractal in 2D. This is a 3D version of it, but this doesn't have any of those, does it? There's no interdigitated lines or sticks holding this dodecahedron together; it's just a clear crystal that's been cut in the shape of 12 sides—a dodecahedron. And the only thing that I had to do in order to perceive the phase tilt, or to receive the Metatron's cube in the center, was to tilt it at the right angle—or the right angel—to be able to see it. Okay, that says a lot about perception.
But here's the thing: The point that the cube exists at a 32-degree phase tilt inside the only 3D nested fractal available in the universe—at least that I know, that we currently know of, that Dan knows of—them, probably most other—the new physicists would not be able to give you another example of that. That is very interesting, because there's a great book called *Constructing the Universe*. If perception is also recursively embedded, and the math that gave rise to consciousness itself—this is why I have V.S. Ramachandran's picture up here; he's the latest and greatest cutting edge in the neurosciences—it means that self-awareness—recursive embeddedness—that is similar to the artificial intelligence, and in the programming languages, we have something called recursion—a recursive programming—very crazy stuff. Consciousness itself—the ability that I have to contemplate myself—if I'm pointing to the moon, I can look at my finger, I can look at the moon, I can be aware that that's my finger pointing to the moon, I know what they both are, and then I can contemplate myself contemplating myself pointing to the moon. That's recursive embeddedness. Of all the creatures throughout the animal kingdom, that without V.S.'s study, were the only ones that can contemplate ourselves contemplating ourselves contemplating something—that's recursion; that's frak-tality. The same fractal naf that is implied inside the construction of the dodecahedron, either via design or via phase tilt—perception of the angle or angel in which the cube is perceived—and that math exists whether we know it or not. We could get into the biocentric model, which is something that I'm very interested in, where if we're not there to perceive it, it doesn't exist, but that's hardly the point. The point is that recursive embeddedness in perception is self-self-awareness and probably artificial intelligence and sentience that may arise through computational models, probably related to the same math required to put together the star mom.
Okay. Now you won't find these kinds of explanations about this topic very many places, but this is my current insight into your question. I would also say that we need to define our terms very carefully: What do we mean by thought? What do we mean by time? Because if the new physicists are correct, constructive interference in three dimensions allows for a starting point for gravity itself—a node, if you will—and we already know that gravity itself dilates time, and therefore it's very possible that time itself is merely an artifact of rotation. So, as we begin to look at our terms—language—they all begin to break down as the universe constructively interferes. I know this sounds like out-there stuff. The good news is it's not even New Age. As we move into the new physicist, there's a lot of New Age concepts that spin—spin off—a lot of the sacred geometry models that are out there. There's also a lot of really, really good stuff out there, so we don't want to let our association bias cut us off from understanding the amazing potential that's coming from the world of new physics—physics right now. My interest is in how the neurosciences connect to the new physics. The bottom line is we just need to know the baseline—how these things work—and recognize that we don't know for sure what's going on when it looks—when we're dealing with gravity, when we're dealing with recursion. At the end of the day, you have to build those energy devices; you have to look for capacitance; you have to test these things in the field to determine whether the math works, and if the math works, then we know we're on to something. Look forward to seeing you in the next video. You.