Extracted text
Part X
IT MAY BE asked, if there are twelve constellations and twelve signs, why do astronomers employ the term the sign, when referring to the precessional movement? It is because the first sign (Aries) is the one defined as the sign, this being the head of the cycle. During the last dispensation the sign Aries has been passing, by what is denominated the precessional movement, through the constellation Pisces; or employing English, the sign Ram has been moving through the constellation Fishes. Ram is the symbol of the begetting principle and love, and the constellation Fishes is the prolificating constellation.
Taking the cycle of the Zodiac and drawing six axial lines, we will discover six pairs of coördinate constellations; Aries and Libra comprising the two poles of the first axis. In order to comprehend the significance of these coördinates, it is well for the reader to become familiar with the language of symbolism, so far as symbolism pertains to the distinctive qualities of each constellation. The prime element of Aries or Ram is the love of begetting; and the prime element of Libra, the opposite pole of the Aro-Libral axis, and therefore the coördinate of Aries, or the begetting principle, implies the science, and hence the power of regulating the begetting desire so as to conserve the begetting potency and adapt it to its highest and best uses.
And further, to comprehend the full purport and importance of the bearings of the Zodiacal axes and poles to the corresponding qualities in human life, it is of the utmost importance that there be acquired a general conception, at least, of a celestial and terrestrial corresponding anthropostic Zodiac, in which there are the corresponding divisions of constellations and signs, governed by corresponding movements. It must be remembered that the twelve constellations and signs (the twenty-four elders) do not comprise all the constellations of the heavens, nor are all the signs on the surface of the earth. They merely comprise the two coördinate governing belts, the extra Zodiacal constellations being subsidiary and subordinate. As the signs and constellations change their relations to each other fifty seconds of a degree every year, any given sign passes through a constellation in a period of about two thousand years.
- There are two movements of the constellations and signs; namely, an esoteric and exoteric. In the esoteric movement the sign Aries, for instance, has been passing through the constellation Pisces from Aquarius to Aries, and is about to enter the Ariel constellation of the exoteric cycle. The sign Aries, in the exoteric movement, has been passing through Pisces to Aquarius, and is now entering that constellation. While in the exoteric, Aries is passing through Pisces (the prolific constellation), Libra, the opposite pole to Aries, has been traversing Virgo. As Aries reaches the extremity of Pisces, and the fruitage of prolification matures, Libra reaches the extremity of Virgo, the ultimates of the power of virginity. Libra, then, is in the hand of Virgo, and justice and judgment culminate in the force of virginity, to counterbalance excessive prolification; hence the doctrine of celibacy as the power of equitable adjustment and regulation of the commercial energy.
The sign Libra, in passing out of the constellation Virgo, is passing into the head of Leo. The Lion signifies the power of truth in ultimates, and, in any given cycle, the power of the truth in which the cycle terminates. In this cycle we are culminating Aries and Libra of the signs in relation to Pisces and Virgo of the constellations, hence the power of truth in ultimates as pertaining to the counterbalancing relations of the prolific and virginal coördinates of life.
Libra is in the hand of Virgo, and the hand of Virgo is the hand of the Lion. As Libra enters Leo, Aries, the impregnator or begetter, passes into Aquarius, the coördinate of Leo. What do these relations of the signs and constellations portend? They are not only indices of the termination of the age, but portray the character of the changes to occur, and the qualities of potency to actuate the impending revolution.
An Illusion Cannot Prove a Theory
Let a man stand upon the tower of the Auditorium in Chicago and look over Lake Michigan, to what is called the horizon, he discovers that the point where the sky and lake seem to meet is on a level with the eye, and that, therefore, the line over which he views the horizon is a horizontal line. The cosine of this line is an extended chord, touching the opposite horizon point. A line extended from the point of vision to the ground comprises the radius vector, and the surface of the earth, from horizon to horizon, constitutes an arc describing the bottom of a dish—the concavity of the earth.
The first objection to this definition of the earth’s contour is urged from the appearance of a distant object, as, for instance, a ship at sea as it recedes from or approaches view. As the ship recedes from view in putting out to sea, the hull of the ship is the first to disappear. It is maintained that this illusion proves the theory of the convexity of the earth, a theory upon which is founded the entire Copernican fallacy.
The first question to settle in the consideration of the subject, from the basis of argumentation, is the apparent depression of what is called, either truthfully or falsely, the horizontal line. Suspend a plumb-line twenty feet, and from the vertical point describe a horizontal line. This line is at right angles to the plumbline or perpendicular, and its extremity touches the horizon. The ordinary picture or diagram given in the school-room to impress upon the juvenile mind the fallacy of the convexity of the earth, is, first a circle, designed to indicate its rotundity and convex surface; related to this is a horizontal line, at the extremities of which are a man and a ship’s mast; the man is at one end of the horizontal, (not at right angles to the horizontal, but oblique to it,) at the other end of the horizontal is the mast, also oblique to it.
The position taken by Koreshanity is as follows: First, the earth curves eight inches to the mile, concavely, not convexly. Second, a line of vision extending from the visual point to the horizon is not a straight one, but one curvilineating slightly upward and striking the point called the horizon a little above the exact horizontal direction. Third, this curvilineation of vision is caused by the deviation of the visual substance, deflected through the resistance of the gravic “energy.” Fourth, there are two laws governing the visual deception of convexity; namely, visual curvilineation and geolinear foreshortening. The horizontal line has the appearance of a slight depression in perspective. Fifth, the depression is apparent, not real. Its cause is, first, the simple one of perspective or geolinear foreshortening.
Suppose a visual line from an altitude of five hundred feet to meet the horizon; we will urge this supposition from the conception of a concave instead of a convex surface, the horizon point being on a level with the altitude of the visual point, or point from which the ascension is taken. The natural apparent construction of the geolinear surface would drop the perspective of horizontal, and give it the appearance of being slightly descending instead of horizontal, which it really is.
We are in receipt of a sincere inquiry, by mail, concerning our claim that the surface of the earth upon which (or in which) we live, is a concavity instead of a convexity. The primary element of the premise upon which we predicate the Cellular Cosmogony, or the Koreshan system of astronomic formulas, is the relation of the horizontal to the perpendicular, as comprising the trigonometric and mathematical root of its evolution. A visual line extended from the vertical point of a perpendicular to the vanishing point of the earth’s surface, exhibits two lines at right angles—the perpendicular or plumb-line, and the horizontal. The cosine of the horizontal visual line completes the chord, the two extremities of which are the two horizon points or two points of vanishing distance. The perpendicular is the radius vector, and the arc of the chord is the concavity of the earth.
If the earth were convex, any point on the surface would be the highest point, and a line drawn from an elevated position to the vanishing point or horizon would not be horizontal; the point at which it touched the earth would not be the horizon, and the line called the horizontal would sustain an obliquity to the perpendicular. A horizontal line is one drawn at right angles to the perpendicular. If one stands on an elevation above the sea level and looks over the water surface to the horizon, or to that point where the sky and water seem to meet, the vision is over a horizontal line; and no matter at what altitude the observation is made, the horizon is on a level with the eye. This statement is denied by the physicist and so called critical objector, on the ground that the theodolite or transit instrument indicates to the contrary; for an observation taken through the transit instrument pictures the horizontal hair-line, placed across the focus of the instrument, on the sky, a little above the water-line at the horizon.
Let the critical observer and honest student define a track on a level surface, to the earth’s vanishing point of the horizon, and, at the subjective terminus or plane of observation, elevate a pole fifty feet, from the top of which a line is extended (as a telegraph wire) for some miles. Let the point of observation, or the visual point, be located twenty-five feet above the earth, or half-way between the earth and the top of the pole. The line on the earth will appear to converge upward toward the wire, and the wire to converge downward toward the track, and at the vanishing point the two lines will appear to meet. Hang the transit instrument to the line leveled to it, as the instrument would be leveled to the surface of the earth in surveying, with the longitudinal axis of the instrument sustaining the same relation to the line that it would, in surveying, to the surface of the earth, and look through it; the hair-line in the focus of the instrument would cross the horizon below instead of above the horizontal line.
Look through the instrument, along the parallel of the line from which it is suspended, the distance of ten rods, to the end of a line suspended, perpendicularly, far enough to level with the horizontal hair-line in the focus of the instrument. We may suppose the instrument to hang ten inches from the horizontal line, and the suspended perpendicular line to suspend far enough for the lower end to meet the visual line at the level of the hair-line. At ten rods farther distant a suspended line, to hang pendant enough to appear on a level with the first suspended line, would necessarily be longer than the line at the distance of ten rods. Now, would this prove that the extended wire or line curved upward?
Let us take another relation of the same illustration. Extend two railroad tracks perfectly straight for a long distance, and perfectly parallel. Stand half-way between the two, and they will appear to converge equally toward a point. This does not prove that the two tracks diverge from each other beyond the point at which they appear to meet. Place a transit instrument ten inches from one of the tracks, in a parallel attitude to the track, or so that the longitudinal axis of the instrument sustains the same relation to the track that it would to the surface of the earth in surveying. Two rods from this, a projection from the track must be more than ten inches long to be seen on a parallel with the hair-line across the focus of the instrument, and a projection double the distance from the instrument, or twenty rods away, would have to be longer than the first, and the third at three times the distance must be longer than the second. Would this prove that the track curved away from the other one because it appeared to do so, as observed through the instrument?
Men jump at conclusions from appearances, and upon these conclusions predicate fallacious theories, call them scientific, and teach them as facts. Succeeding generations drop them, and present new hypotheses to their contemporaries and their children. The theories of modern, so called science are too preposterous for scarcely a notice, but that the masses have been taught them from childhood, and believe them. We do not deny the fact that there is an apparent depression of the horizontal line, and that the transit instrument seems to indicate a real depression. The apparent depression is due to foreshortening and not to convexity.
The visual point, or the point from which the visual impression is determined, is at the focus projection, as far in front of the lens of the eye as the convexity of the lens locates it. It is not the same in every eye, because the lenses of different eyes vary. The visual point when a telescope is employed, is a projection of the focus beyond the objective end of the instrument, and the focal axis is necessarily slightly oblique to the apparent horizontal line.
Look over a prairie, to the horizon, from an elevation of ten or fifteen feet. The first mile of the landscape makes a long picture upon the retina of the eye; the second mile, a shorter one, the third, still shorter, and the fourth would make no picture. This is the vanishing point. The landscape appears to drop out of sight. A line drawn from the subjective visual point to the vanishing point will appear to be depressed in proportion to the foreshortening of the geolinear surface. This foreshortening is about five inches to the mile, and allowance is made by civil engineers, as if it were convexity instead of foreshortening.
The surface of the earth is concave. We have reached this conclusion from downright geometrical and mechanical hard work. The absurdities of the old or Copernican system are too many, too apparent, and attended by too much guess-work to be of any value to the critical and analytical thinker. The modern, so called astronomer is a Liliputian, and the time is not far distant when there will be an awakening.
The sun has three primary or first principles; namely, heat, light, and gravity. These primaries are all complex. Heat is composed of degrees; light, of spectra (plural); and gravity, of qualities. These are substantial in character; they are simply the most attenuate solutions of the material substances of which they are the solutions. They are eliminated or emitted from the sun, passing through atmospheres which modify them according to the atmospheric qualities through which they pass.
Each atmosphere has something of the power of reflection and refraction, but not so much influence upon the gravic as upon the heat and light “forces.” Solid metals refract and reflect gravity; every quality of gravic “force” being refracted by its corresponding metal more than by any of the others, though they all have refracting and reflecting power over all the gravic qualities of “force.” The earth is a shell, having seven primary metals in layers or strata, laminæ or planes.
These constitute the rind or outer crust, and act as so many great reflectors and refractors of the “forces.”
The direct reflection of heat is cold; the direct reflection of light is darkness; the direct reflection of gravity is levity. We have, therefore, three “forces—” cold, darkness, and levity, which are just as much substance as the three opposite “‘ones.”” At the points of change, are the poles of these ‘“forces.”” We emphasize the word direct, because indirect reflection partakes less of the nature of the opposite character, as it is less direct or more indirect. These reflex ‘forces’ flow back to the center as cold, darkness, and levity. The contrary flows move toward the sun in circular strata, taking their courses according to order between the qualities of the outflowing “forces.”’
To gain something of an idea of these return flows, let us take the dark “force.” In the examination of spectra there will be noticed the dark lines, that have been termed Fraunhofer’s lines. In gravic analysis corresponding levic lines will be seen; and in heat analysis corresponding cold lines will be observed. These return flows are positive to the sun, but negative to the eye. Those outflowing from the sun are negative to the sun, but positive to the eye. Thus the light is apparent, while the darkness is unapparent to the eye.
As these “forces” flow into the sun they move toward its center into a vortex which, at the center, becomes so rapid that all the “forces” commingle in a homogeneous ‘fusion. The vortex produces a cross circle, which spreads out into a thin diaphragm, dividing the sun into two halves, (one anterior and one posterior), the center part of which (backward) is dark,— as the most intense dark “force” seeks that part,—while the front central part is light. The dark ‘force’ moves out in just the opposite direction from the light “force.” The cold “force” moves out at one side, and the heat “force” at the other; that is, at their most intense points.
The sun has a double revolution, vertical and lateral. The vertical revolution is comparatively slow. The lateral is very rapid at the diaphragm, but less so at the back and front points, or anterior and posterior points, which gives to the mass the shape of two spirals or twists. Examine the heart, which will give something of an idea, as the heart represents one of the vertical halves. The diaphragm is one half-wheel cold ‘“force,”’ the other half-wheel heat “force.”
These ‘forces’ spread out like two great wings, which extend into terminal levic rings that revolve from north to south, but not rapidly, as at the vortex and diaphragm. The gravic ‘force’ is the formative “force.” It is more subtle and diffusive in its reflex than the other “forces,” consequently more filtrative and general in its counterflow or inflow, as it is also in its outflow, than light and heat. Electricity, magnetism, etc., are modifications of gravic and levic “force.”’
We have partially described the central sun or star center of the physical universe; but as those “forces” are let down toward the circumference through the atmospheres, they are reflected by the power of reflection and refraction of the atmospheres.
(To be continued.)
Printed notes
- [Note—This article was written in May of 1892, consequently the relation of the signs and constellations has changed since then. ]
Editorial transcription checked against the cited scans; historical claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 27, No. 10 · Oct 1913 · PDF pp. 5–7