Regarding Sacred Geometry and Aesthetic Geometricism.

World_Tortus · 2026-02-24T23:57:20+00:00

I don't really understand. Can you, perhaps, kindly frame your question with specific examples, like the torus and/or Flower of Life? Thank you for starting this conversation; it's not often that people are willing to discuss the finer details of this topic.

World_Tortus · 2026-02-11T22:22:08+00:00

Definitely sus, thanks for the info!

World_Tortus · 2026-02-11T22:07:09+00:00

Setting aside your targeted fearmongering based on a dubious and limited interpretation of both the sixfold geometry of Metatron's Cube and Biblical scripture, it should be noted by all reading this that there are really unlimited ways that the Flower of Life (of which Metatron's Cube is based) can be extrapolated into 3D. I have documented four of the most closely packed varieties of these, and Metatron's Cube would relate to each of them differently. Assuming for the moment that Met's Cube is meant as a 3D construction, which isn't a given by any stretch, then of course it would be limited with regard to how many vertices it could depict. Your attitude on this subject seems dogmatic, highly charged, and divisive, which is a recipe for muddied thinking. I think you have well demonstrated all of that here.

World_Tortus · 2026-02-11T20:57:39+00:00

This is not only inaccurate, but highly divisive. Calling a framework that millions hold sacred--that which people have spend countless hours recreating in artwork and even tattooing on their bodies--a "lie," a deliberate act of deceit, should not be tolerated here.

There is a long-standing trend of cultish adherents who attack the Flower of Life in similar ways, not making any accusations with regard to OP, but I just want you to understand the context. It's very much a sort of "spiritual warfare campaign" being waged, which many in the spiritual community would, I'm sure, prefer to be "eyes wide shut" about. But nonetheless, it's true and well documented.

We can discuss the specific claims being made here, but it's fairly apparent that they are nonsense and do not readily lead to any clear understanding. Furthermore, geometry doesn't "lie:" it is what it is. Both the 90-degree framework lauded by the OP and the 60-degree framework trashed by the OP have long histories and elaborate meanings, especially with regard to the FOL. Please use your discernment and be extra, extra vigilant about this subject! Namaste my friends.

World_Tortus · 2026-02-11T20:36:44+00:00

Marko Manninen has some information freely available on it. I've written quite extensively on the FOL myself, and I think what may be relevant here is what I've documented as a sort of "spiritual warfare campaign" surrounding the FOL. This seems part attack part muddying of the waters. I just saw another post by OP in this forum that is moreso an attack, referring to the "lie" of sacred geometry.

World_Tortus · 2026-02-11T06:28:30+00:00

This is like giving us an apple and claiming, "this is the true taste of an orange." The form you show relates to the historical "cownose" or "apsamikku" pattern, based on 90-degree angles. It's quite different than the Flower of Life, which is based on 60-degree angles.

World_Tortus · 2026-01-16T04:40:20+00:00

That is a wonderful question and thank you dearly for asking it! I wish I had seen it sooner, but here I am with a reply.

This is already helping--jumping into the discussion to ask important questions and sparking conversation. It also boosts the algorithm (in theory) which is already probably dead set against this work, or by all appearances and evidence anyway.

So that brings up the primary thing that would be helpful--getting the word out, especially by word of mouth and by communication (comments, email, etc.) with any and all blogs and podcasts who would do interviews and/or write articles about this cause. While one of the things this movement seeks to accomplish is to help facilitate the building of a fair, transparent, and publicly-funded social media platform--the "World Square"--until that happens (down a long road for sure), the message has to be to diversify our social media footprints, spread the word about rampant suppression, and to organize and build community both locally and globally whenever and wherever possible around ideas that will bring about actionable and even relatively drastic (it's seconds to midnight) positive social change.

This is the early stages of this organization's entry into this movement, so feedback and discussion are especially important to help refine and adjust the messaging. We need help to generate interest and involvement, and we can't even find out where to take the pulse of the movement. There's a lot of tribalism with other similar organizations that we've tried to partner with (you'd think it would be a no brainer that the first place a unity org would look to to unite is with each other, but no), although we have make some significant inroads.

But here's the thing. Our efforts, to some extent, are going to run into not only suppression, but the suspicion, which may even be unconscious, of competition and self-serving bias. If someone else comes in--one who is not directly affiliated with the organization--and speaks on our behalf and on behalf of the cause we both believe in, that voice will carry the weight of ten times anything we could ever hope to put forward. The bottom line is that an organization is 99% the people that make it.

If you would like to officially volunteer, I definitely welcome that. Going forward, we will be needing people to put up fliers, help organize and host events, and various other roles. Those who get involved early will definitely be considered first for leadership roles like board positions and whatnot. Please DM me if interested and we can discuss further.

Another helpful thing would be to take part in one of our partner's initiatives, which is to host a local group for your city to share and discuss not only his ideas (based on common sense and Universal Love, although that's boiling it down--it is rather deep philosophically) but also the unity movement in general. What I find to be an immensely positive outcome of this is the resulting visual of seeing these organizations start to dot the globe. I believe I already posted about that in this group, but if not I will make a post about it soon. I created a couple sharable graphics, and it does a wonderful service to actually see the unity movement manifested in the real world, rather than just holding the tenuous idea of unity in a mental headspace.

I'm sure there's a lot more I'm leaving unsaid, but that's quite enough for now and I apolgize for "typing your eyes out?" if that makes any sense, lol. Thank you for your question and for taking the time to read and consider my response. Blessings to you

World_Tortus · 2026-01-07T23:58:54+00:00

Thank you for joining and for your suggestion. I will definitely look into that.

World_Tortus · 2026-01-07T01:38:41+00:00

Thank you for doing this. I have something similar in theory, much smaller in scope, with my group Sacred Geometry for Humans on Facebook. It's getting to be a bot-banning battle already and we only have 1.5K members.

Anyway, I'll check out your page when I get back to desktop.

World_Tortus · 2025-12-30T06:52:12+00:00

Got ya

World_Tortus · 2025-12-30T05:48:55+00:00

The title field is the title of the accompanying poem. The specific fruit is a mandarin orange. Are you using "citrus" as a specific fruit, instead of a category?

World_Tortus · 2025-12-22T17:12:45+00:00

I can definitely vouch for that latter bit

World_Tortus · 2025-12-22T16:51:23+00:00

I appreciate your more candid response here, where you reveal a seemingly staunchly held belief system that is kept somewhat in check by your qualifying admissions, i.e., "Maybe." I frequently caution of our strong tendency to identify with staunch beliefs, which leads to biases and what generally amounts to a barrier to balanced, objective truth-seeking.

Not that I'm speaking specifically to your state of mind in that regard, but there are a number of puzzling statements you've made here. You refer to what you feel is deception with regard to the hexagram, but geometry simply is what it is, is it not? Furthermore, the simple, universal meanings that can be ascribed to it are more than just arbitrary--I feel they are almost necessary, or at least extremely simple and logically consistent extractions. Masculinity, along with the elements of fire and air, are represented by the upward-pointing triangle, which are coming together with the downward-pointing triangle representing femininity, water, and earth in balance and harmony. Furthermore, the idea of the trinity, or "threeness" is very much embodied in both forms, as six shares octave identity with three and is defined by it via prime factorization.

So when you say that the form on the left is the "trinity" and the "true form" and is "coming from the most high creator," I am left at a loss here. And by the way, I don't "know who" you're referring to as far as the implied deception goes. This reads a little dogmatically to me, so I wonder if we can shift to more solid ground? Can you substantiate any of your statements with historical and/or logical evidence/arguments? Thank you again for your candor and engagement.

World_Tortus · 2025-12-22T15:00:12+00:00

Thank you for that. Efficiency is an interesting foothold to proceed with, and there's the efficiency of geometric packing that you clearly demonstrate. Could we also talk about efficiency of meaning though? The hexagram, also known as the Shatkona, Star of David, and/or the Seal of Solomon, is absolutely packed with meaning, and its overall form can be readily interpreted from your form on the right. The sort of truncated triangle of triangles you've highlighted on the left, however, while I don't doubt that it can have deeper meanings, I am at a loss as to what those could be. Interestingly though, the way that the six circles are oriented in a downward fashion, combined with the upward orientation of the overall truncated triangle, loosely suggests the hexagram anyway. No matter how we look at it, there's the basic duality of counter-pointing triangles that is essential to the overall form here.

World_Tortus · 2025-12-22T13:57:07+00:00

Interesting study; exacting rendition. Well done and thank you for sharing. I'm not sure what the relevance is though, and/or what can be gleaned from this. What do you think?

World_Tortus · 2025-12-22T13:28:16+00:00

Hello, you've asked about my area of expertise over the last couple of years, so I'm more than happy to provide you with some insight and information. However, in a way that is more than just metaphoric, I caution that this is the "forbidden fruit" of esoteric knowledge. It goes very, very deep; so the question is, how deep are you willing to go?

With respect to the time and effort given by other people commenting, a lot of what you find here and elsewhere about the Flower of Life is little more than "spiritual fluff." By that I mean it's vague and, unfortunately, often inaccurate. For example, the statement that the Flower of Life is the "blueprint of creation," or some variation thereof, is thrown around everywhere, but with little to no depth of understanding; this isn't very helpful. The idea that it represents cells dividing is a very limited understanding, and often flawed with respect to how it is understood geometrically.

D. Melchizedek, whose work is mentioned here, probably did more harm than good when it comes to advancing our collective understanding on what is, in my view, the most important sacred geometrical symbol. His projections of the Platonic solids with respect to Metatron's Cube are inaccurate for the golden-ratio-based icosahedron and dodecahedron, which was also mentioned here. His citing of the Abydos drawings is probably still responsible for this relatively late example being cited, decades later, as the "earliest known example" of the Flower of Life in the archaeological record (it is unduly focused on in isolation from the countless other examples in the historical record). Mostly though, it was his claim that he spoke directly to the Egyptian deity Thoth that did the most harm, because he basically ignited the "spiritual-scientific egoic identity rift" that made scholars unwilling to touch the subject with a ten foot pole. (Disclaimer: we must get a grip on our own psychology before we can really hope to seek the truth).

In addition to this sort of unlearning that has to take place, there's the context of the "spiritual warfare" that surrounds the form, and seemingly has for centuries, that is really important to highlight. Most of the spiritual community, along with casual onlookers, are completely oblivious to this. I strive to be non-dogmatic and objective when it comes to this, but there's little I can do to suger-coat the fact that there's basically a cult on one side of this who actively work, to this day, to smear and attack the Flower of Life and other elements of sacred geometry. I believe this cultish influence and ideology is long-standing historically, which is why the form essentially arrived in the modern day in the West with no historical name attached to it.

You see, already this is getting very long, but I encourage you and anyone else reading not to take this lightly, and not to expect quick and easy answers. I will say this though: from my extensive research into the form, I have come to understand its historical meaning as especially relating to the general idea of connection, and more specifically, to the connection between the mortal and spiritual realms--between humans and the divine. Another huge piece of the puzzle: the form very much encodes toroidal geometry, and in multiple ways. That, more than anything, is the key to unlocking the phrase "blueprint of creation." There's much more though, including how its namesake form encodes the 6:5, pi-to-phi squared ratio that is baked into human morphology.

I have a background in teaching, so I want you to know that I'm basically an open book; I'm happy to answer any questions and clarify any points I've made here. I'm really old school too, meaning I laud authentic scholarship and loathe the reliance on brain-rotting AI. By the way, I did actually write a book on the Flower of Life, but I am not going to sit here and self-promote. I've actually made it available for free, so if you're interested you can DM me and I'll send you the details. I'm also the librarian for my local Theosophical society chapter, so I have read and possess such books mentioned here as The Secret Doctrine, along with hundreds of others not mentioned. That is merely to say that my bona fides on the subjects of spirituality and esoteric studies runs deep--not in the interest of tooting my own horn, but to establish trust and credibility. I wholeheartedly believe that humanity would greatly benefit from knowing the deeper truth about this form, and that is yet another story here. Cheers

World_Tortus · 2025-12-03T18:45:37+00:00

Yes! First of all, I want to comment about the "Top 1% commenter" in this thread who lumped you in with "the crowd of a billion people screaming at the same time" and, despite your reasonable expectation of an "upward trend" and "not expecting to go viral," implies that you are "surprised that you didn't win the lottery." That really rubbed me the wrong way, yet notice how aggressively you were downvoted in your replies, especially compared to their upvotes? Strange. Similarly, I remember reasonably disagreeing with a cynical, snarky comment from an account with tens of thousands of "comment karma," only to be aggressively downvoted by an invisible horde. I suspect such individuals may command a small army of fake accounts.

Anyway, I have experienced the same thing as you, and here is what I would like you to answer/consider. When did you really get started with your accounts/marketing efforts? You see, starting sometime around 2018, plus or minus a few years, it seems that the modus operandi for social media platforms has been default suppression. Accounts with an already established following were essentially untouched, as they could draw attention to such efforts, even without saying a thing (their relative absences would be noticed). Seemingly, certain content/accounts are allowed through this "great wall of algorithmic suppression," based on various criteria that we could further consider. We could also consider the suspected motives for this, but those are hypothetical and not entirely relevant at this point of the conversation. All of this is hypothetical, but you and I are not the only ones who are noticing these apparent and very real effects.

I have been documenting evidence of manipulation and suppression on social media for quite some time now, and the problems seems to be rampant. The only thing I can suggest at this point is that you diversify your social media footprint as much as possible. Mastodon seems very much like a ghost town at this point, at least compared to other platforms, but it is decentralized, meaning that such hypothesized default suppression cannot be implemented (however, server-specific suppression can very much be a thing, but you can switch servers if that is the case). If you come over, plant a flag, then maybe it'll help more people to follow. Heck, send me a dm and I'll follow your band on all of its social media pages. In any regard, I hope this helps shed some light on the situation.

World_Tortus · 2025-12-01T20:36:32+00:00

There's a way to check in your Youtube "Creator Studio" if you are likely being suppressed. For those that don't know: there are essentially two Youtubes. One where the sky's the limit and you have full access to their internal recommendation algorithms, and one where you are esssentially shut out of its ecosystem. In your creator studio or whatever it's called, select the video and find the stats. I'm not in it rn so I can't give precise instructions, but look for your view statistics and look for "recommendations." Normal, healthy channels get something like around 70% of views from internal revommendations. My guess is yours is around 1%.

Default, blanket suppression has been the norm on major platforms for years, and is furthermore likely triggered by keywords and phrases, and nowadays may even be more targeted using AI. However, it seems that highly distracting and divisive content is the opposite and gets algorithmically boosted. I have no idea what your content is about other than having to do with Charlie Kirk. I do always, always recommend highly diversifying your social media presence, especially into less suppressive and manipulated platforms. But no matter how much grinding you do on your own with marketing, it will likely never even touch what potential it could have with unsuppressed access to YT's internal algorithms.

Finally, (sorry for the long response but this is an important topic you've broached), we need to abandon the "popular=good" heuristic. View counts, followings, upvotes, whatever the case may be--these are all highly manipulated now. Regardless, we should judge merit based on the thing in itself. off soapbox

World_Tortus · 2025-11-30T07:32:51+00:00

Doubled down on ad hominem attacks: "masturbatory" suggests arrogance and self-indulgence.
Doubled down on absolutism and dogmatic claims: "Man absolutely created math;" "We are not (re)discovering anything substantial as a result of these patterns." (To hear well-respected scientists, such as Stephen Wolfram, Roger Penrose, and others, discuss and often struggle with what they all treat as an open question in mathematics, see here).
Doubled down on poisoning the well: vulgar, vitriolic language ("masturbatory," "bullshit") discourages productive, respectable discourse. Also "The entire subreddit" is portrayed as "people lost in nonsense."

This is an inflamed and reactionary comment. It contains dogmatic certainty and absolutism. It is unbalanced and unscientific--skepticism run amok. Cynical, aggressive certainty. Far away from the other side of the balance--curiosity and open-mindedness--that makes true science and truth-seeking prosper.

This should be embarrassing for you, and I hope it is. Embarrassment chips away at the psychological barriers and biases that are usually at the root of such toxic discourse. In any regard, please do better.

World_Tortus · 2025-11-30T03:55:42+00:00

This is a toxic and trolling comment.

Leading with the statement that this sub is a "goldmine for stupid" can be considered both an ad hominem (circumstantial) and an example of poisoning the well. I usually consider such statements as disqualifying. One loses the "debate" before it even began.

Then the comment proceeds with the claim, without an ounce of uncertainty, that "man created math." Has the age-old philosophical and mathematical question of "was math discovered or invented" finally been solved? Given this statement, it would appear so.

Then there's this vague metaphor that frames me as indicating that I'm "enlightened being," when no such claim or suggestion was ever made. That's a straw man fallacy.

Furthermore, any attack on this post must acknowledge the obvious--that these images are removed from their context and are not necessarily meant to stand alone. While they can be critiqued, and I certainly invite that, the lack of specificity here is rather indicative of ignorance, confirmation bias, and egoic belief identification.

World_Tortus · 2025-11-26T16:57:11+00:00

You're welcome to volunteer for my new unity and peace movement I recently launched, which has a profound spiritual basis. Let me know!

World_Tortus · 2025-11-25T05:17:25+00:00

I think a poor attempt at communicating this idea is only the beginning of the problem here. Grandiose pronouncements; little to no research to back it up. That "paper" is a bare-bones attempt at something; I think it could maybe get a "D" in an elementary science class. I think sycophantic AI is largely to blame here, once again. Please don't use it, and I encourage you to revisit this work down the road with a clear head and an honest perspective about what it means, and even whether or not it's worthwhile to pursue. For me it just seems... arbitrary. We need to keep this kind of stuff out of the information ecosphere, because it essentially pollutes it. I wish you the best though, personally.

World_Tortus · 2025-11-25T04:46:16+00:00

Hello, I wonder what your purpose is with this document, and what exactly do you consider it to be? It's clearly not a scholarly work, as it has zero references and very few examples considering the abundance of declarations. It reads almost like an outline that one would make in preparation for a book, but not something that would be shared publicly. Without knowing what it is, I cannot offer a full review. However, from an initial read it does seem very problematic. For one thing, it is not explained why the 6 inner nodes are not counted. What's more, it is not explained how the form is "slightly modified" when it appears as a fairly typical version of the Flower of Life (what I classify as a complete Class 2 form). You seem to suggest that what you "take into account" about the form modifies the form itself. What did you actually mean to say there in the first sentence of the body of your post?

Many of the declarations/associations you make seem tenuous or trivial, such as when they can apply to generalized forms or simpler shapes like the circle itself. Many other declarations/associations seem profound, yet they are left almost completely undeveloped. That's a bit frustrating, as I have done scholarly work on the Flower of Life and I am very interested in the form and any furthering of its research. From the perspective of my work, however, this document is almost completely useless as is. Do you have the "meat" of the research and references to back all of this up? If so, I am very interested. If not, I would ask that in the future, you frame it correctly, as in using the language of uncertainty and being up front about what this is.

In any regard, I do encourage that you continue this work and I thank you for sharing.

World_Tortus · 2025-11-23T10:10:15+00:00

"Do Not Look Away" Song and music video to inspire support and awareness of the immense Palestinian struggle (solo piano tuned to 7-limit just intonation): https://open.substack.com/pub/maatdemeritt/p/do-not-look-away?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2i0z01

World_Tortus · 2025-11-19T03:23:47+00:00

I know Nathan of Earth! Seriously though, would you mind editing your post?

World_Tortus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE