[MF] A thirty-thousand page menu with no food?

[Steve Mack]

Matt – You’re SO CLOSE to the interpretation that I have for my own term; it’s actually enlightened me that what I said WAS indeed fairly transparent for those that choose to ‘look’.

 

OK, MY structure of the triple Helix is roughly as follows; not quite as simple as ‘three interconnected thoughts’, but more a multiplicity of three separately stranded helix pairs.  

 

I’m not talking about three helix’s running parallel or at any given angle, rather from any three arbitrary angles dissecting at a given point.  The individual helix pairs neither grow nor weaken along their length – they remain resilient to change, time or influence.

 

Each flexible enough to encompass a CHOICE of combinations such as one pair of metaphysics and what is ‘unknown’, another pair of say, Rhetoric and linguistics and yet a third pair, lets say of mysticism and what is ‘known’.  It is unimportant WHAT in this example, is attached to the strands - they co-exist in their own right on the same path.

 

The ‘pairs’ may indeed be diametrically opposed science and logic,

because each strand of the helix is equidistant to its chosen partner, there IS no conflict because whilst they run on a dual path, they do not collide, UNTIL they all dissect – THEN what we have is a synergistic effect at that point.

 

It is that ‘meeting point’ that I would like, if I may, to open up for discussion…

 

~Steve Mack

 



Matt

p.s.  If your "triple helix" is important in some way to interpreting what 
you are talking about, then by all means, fill us in.  I just assumed it 
meant something like three interconnected thoughts, like they had to be 
understood more or less holistically rather than atomistically.