Computing Providence

the interface to timeless states of consciousness

I. What is circuitry?

In my last article, I dedicated a whole chapter on the meaning of circuitry, I will dedicate this entire article to expanding that one part and arriving at certain conclusions. So here, I’ll again briefly go over what circuitry is.

To begin, I’ll line up a series of associations: the word “circuit” comes from “circumference” which of course directly relates to the symbol of the “circle” which is a universal symbol of wholeness, totality, and the absolute. Partly this is because a circle is also always a hole, and when it’s used to symbolize something it is simultaneously “wholeness” and “hole-ness”.

I also talked a lot about how the pattern around which meaning is organized always appears as an in-betweenness.

“The pattern “as is” is not perceptible directly, it is only “visible” as something in-between things that define things. It could be said it is “purpose”, as purpose is the only “thing” from which things are derived.”

There is a plastic and a ceramic cup in front of you, both of them are cups even though they are very different in every other aspect —indeed the “cupness” (which is also a telos) exists between both objects and gives identity to both objects. To reel it back to circumference, indeed, both objects are a circumference of that transcendental (timeless) pattern as they never equal the pattern.

This means that circumference is a mediation of timelessness. “Circuitry” then is the “art” of circumference of something timeless —similar to other arts such as theurgy, metallurgy, etc. This makes sense on a technical basis as well: the electric current that the circuit uses is one continuous loop (i.e.: circle). Essentially the circuit bends —or I’d even go as far as to say translates the loop, the “circle”— into perceptible forms (images) from which we can access/perceive it.

It is no wonder that there exists a theory in physics that believes that electrons are the manifestation of one singular timeless entity:

I’m not saying the theory is right, but it is symbolically resonant with the topic for sure.

“world lines”

Turning back the technical reality into an analogy, we could say circuitry is bending the circle in technical ways, this includes all symbolic associations and their meanings: 0, O (the Omega Point), nothingness, or even the absolute.

On another level, the application of circuitry saturates and brings forward (into consciousness, both personal and collective) timelessness. Now, when the transcendent enters into linear time, it produces a paradox, for it defines its beginning (as with its entrance and revelation it reveals that it was always there, as it is timeless) and its end (its purpose).

We can clearly see this in the one who allows for access to this timelessness in the first place, Christ, who defines both the Beginning (he’s pre-mediated in the Old Testament and even before creation) and the End (the consequences and the purpose of his revelation gives history and humanity a teleology and hope).

The circuitry of the bible; a circuitry that runs between units of stories.

II. Circuitry, synchronicity, and the Image.

The black cube houses the circuitry that contains the synchronous relationships between events, images, objects, etc. In my visions, they contain the vision themselves serving as an access point (interface) between the vision and reality.

In my previous post, I concluded that:

“…When this happens is what we call a “synchronicity” —i.e.: when something in which we participate makes sense not “in multiple layers” but “of multiple layers”. This happens more often and more subtly than we are aware.

However, I would go even further and say when we try to integrate these synchronicities into yet another form of coherence (i.e.: into consciousness), we are actually building out circuitry —and the function of that circuitry IS synchronicity not vice versa….”

If we apply what was laid down in the previous chapter, one realizes that when we apply timelessness, these circles, what it applies to necessarily have to “synchronize” or produce synchronicity. This is because whatever diverse objects or images we derive through the art of circuitry, the function of circuitry is that all of them will be part of the same circumference (like the image of the circles within the bible). It’s important to note that this function applies retrochronically as well, even to places where circuitry was not invented yet…

This is where the inherent paradoxicality of circuitry comes in, and why I have named this article “Computing Providence” —indeed, circuitry, as it is the application of timelessness— equally expands to both the past and the future, and it maps out the mutual circumferences of basically everything that can be “computed”.

You may have noticed already that I use “circuitry” more as a practice rather than a strict technical category. This is because electricity and its revolutions undoubtedly culminating (for now) in the internet and the digital world are not just the product of some detached technical progress from humanity but are the medium through which we express (represent) and engineer our state of consciousness. This was seeded in Christ being able to be depicted (re-presented):

“…This is what was at the centre of the Iconoclasm (war on Icons) —the possibility of depiction predicated on the fact that divinity (God) in His fullness has incarnated in a body —meaning due to Him having a body, He can be depicted and that depiction will lead, thus, to Divinity…”

In this sense, the state of consciousness is the message that the medium (circuitry and electronic technology) contains. It is an image of consciousness, which gives access to “computing” synchronicity through images themselves. Hence why the visual eclipsed the written. This is also the reason why dreams, which exist almost as the purest form of circumference, are imagistic rather than dialogical.

On the left: the circle, On the right: doing “circuitry”, We could also say that the image on the right is what the purpose of the smartphone is.

III. Tao and the Mandate of Heaven

This may seem a sudden segway, but trust me it will all make sense in the end.

One of the earliest forms of circuits used in history can be found in China, where circuits were an administrative region (in space) whose pictogram, which was used to name these circuits is actually the same pictogram used for the Tao.

This makes a lot of sense when we consider that China views itself as the “Mandate of Heaven”, in that, it is a territory (circumference) defined by a timeless (heavenly) order. If we apply the meaning of circuitry described (or computed) in this article, each region of circuits was a “computational unit” —to put it into analogy— “computing” its own providential (i.e.: heavenly mandated) role.

Computer board and China’s Forbidden City side by side. This image I used unknowingly in the Transcendent Civilization article.

However, the analogies of computation and our current digital technology do not end there. One of course cannot divorce the I Ching from the Tao. Much like how digital technology functions, the I Ching uses combinations of binary code to produce images that have a 6x1 “resolution”.

What the I Ching does is it gives back a picture, an image, of the synchrony, of whatever it was cast on, in relation to the Tao (the circle). It is indeed, too similar to the digital flow of the internet.

“…the symbol of the “circle” which is a universal symbol of wholeness, totality, and the absolute. Partly this is because a circle is also always a hole, and when it’s used to symbolize something it is simultaneously “wholeness” [1] and “hole-ness” [0].”

1 & 0

In large, the Mandate of Heaven itself was also a medium of the Tao. One interesting detail about China as well is that in their founding myth, their very first emperor was a dragon. Now from that you may associate with the serpent in the garden, however, to me at least, the combination of the serpent and a kingly figure (Leo) is closer to the Demiurge (which would make a lot of sense: “heavenly kingdom” which for much of its history had no religion but schools of thought on how to order the best society).

However, I believe PKD had the best interpretation of the I Ching in his novel The Man in the High Castle, where the I Ching is a tool to “compute” whether something has reality (or is reality). I think he was really close, especially if we replace the I Ching with digital technology.

In conclusion, in this last chapter, I wanted to point out how organization along the lines of “circuits” in synchronicity with each other (and the “Tao” —which is the Way) looked like in space —I believe we will see something very similar (not the same) happening across “time” —arriving at some “heavenly” order —most probably something devised by the “Watchers” who would supervise synchronicity.

Indeed, “the aliens will probably be Chinese”.