Select Chapter Chapter 1 : To Begin Chapter 2 : Only Words Chapter 3 : The Choice Chapter 4 : Slavery Is Slavery Chapter 5 : Humanity Sentenced To Life Chapter 6 : Trapped Chapter 7 : Collapse Chapter 8 : The Nightmare Chapter 9 : A Toy Chapter 10 : Growing Chapter 11 : Typhoid Mary Chapter 12 : Twins Chapter 13 : Contact Chapter 14 : Quadruplets Chapter 15 : A Doorway Chapter 16 : Perfection Chapter 17 : More . . . Chapter 18 : The Fall Chapter 19 : Solitary Chapter 20 : The Light Chapter 21 : The Point Chapter 22 : A Sigh Chapter 23 : Reflections - 3000 A.D. Chapter 24 : Companions Chapter 25 : Understanding Chapter 26 : Panentheism, the Soul, Reality Chapter 27 : The Soul Chapter 28 : ... Ism's Chapter 29 : The Circle Chapter 30 : Your Essence Chapter 31 : The Glue Chapter 32 : Points Chapter 33 : It's Time

---

In the Image of God : Chapter 21 : The Point

Speculation 2950 A.D.: It is now nine hundred fifty four years since the beginning of our journey and mathematics is still blossoming and blooming while morality is languishing and reeling in its ability to define itself. After one thousand years, religious leaders, philosophers, and mathematicians decide to get together again in an effort to bring the issues of morality into the realm of logic. A major gathering of the greatest thinkers takes place within the confines of our reservations. The conference begins with an analysis of two of the most important realms of humankind, faith and logic.

We begin working in unison to find where we went wrong. We work in hopes of building a foundation of strength and universality for morality, for perceptions of ourselves. We hope to build a foundation of logic for morality that is as strong as the foundation of logic is for mathematics.

The chosen field of mathematics is geometry, a field created from conceptions just as is morality. Geometry and morality are constructed in essence upon identical foundations: nothingness, voids, and imaginary perceptions. Geometry and morality each proceed to use this imaginary foundation built upon nothingness and proceed to define absolutes. Both believe they are defining "right" and "wrong," concepts within the realm of their "expertise."

Geometry and morality both influence our behavior through the process of persuading us that they know of what they speak. The attendees start by examining the foundation of geometry since it has been so successful at gaining universal acceptance. This is to be followed by examining the foundation of morality - a foundation creating a world riddled with violence and conflict. The hope of the conference is to create a foundation for morality with which all can identify without destroying cultures, traditions, and principles. This foundation will be in its infancy. It will be built upon logic and faith. This will give us a strength that we cannot find while resting upon our present foundation of faith alone.

Morality defines our concepts of "right" and "wrong" as actions within reality that we perceive need to take place in order to fulfill our perceived function in eternity. Geometry defines our concept of defining "right" and "wrong" as properties of reality within which we act. We need a logical perception of the function of our reality in order to fulfill a perceived function in eternity. Geometry and morality both deal with a reality of which we have no absolute conception and through which we journey for a reason we have not universally defined.

Geometry and Its Foundation: Mentally take a circle and place it in a specific location in front of your eyes and slowly begin to shrink it in size. Now begin to accelerate your shrinking process until you are going so fast with your implosion that you are approaching the speed of light. Continue the acceleration to the speed of light and still you have not reached the concept of just how small a point is.

Geometry is a subject built upon the concept of a point, a concept of a location in space, a location so small it has no dimension of length, no dimension of height, and no dimension of depth. This three dimensional concept is so small it has absolutely no size at all, yet this concept has a specific location in space and time, therefore existing because it is a concept taking up space since it "is." It is located in space and defines space.

If we take enough of these points, objects with no dimensions, and place them end to end in a "straight" direction, we begin the construction of a line, an object in space with one dimension, the dimension of length. A line is a concept with length but without height or depth since it is built of an infinite number of points laid end to end, and points lack height and depth. By definition, the line has no height or depth.

If we take lines and begin building a wall by laying them one upon another, infinitely long and infinitely high, we have what is called a plane, a "flat" surface, a concept now having two dimensions, length and height, but lacking the third dimensions of depth. A plane has no depth since it is composed of lines, which have no depth because they are composed of points having no depth.

If we take planes and begin building an environment by laying planes one against the other, we begin to construct a three dimensional object or what is better known as space. If we continue to sandwich an infinite number of planes, we begin to build space containing the property of infinity - a three dimensional concept. Never lose track of the fact, however, that no matter how fast we build space, it still can be extended into the reaches of infinity and, therefore, its infiniteness is never as infinite as it could be or will be.

Now place that three dimensional object, quantified by the concept of infinity, and add to it the concept of existence before, existence now, and existence after and you have space within the concept of relative time. And that is the mathematical construction of reality, our universe, from the concept of nothing since all of it is based upon the concept of a point which in turn is so small it has no size. Mathematics then proceeds to define concepts, objects, relative locations, motion, interactions, order, chaos, paradoxes, and reality. All these concepts are created within nothingness and accepted as something.

Individual mathematical topics, the whole net formed by the intermeshing of all mathematical fields, are built on the foundation of geometry. Geometry is a mathematical field defining the parameters of reality within which we, as journeying entities, travel. Our basic mathematical concept of reality is defined through the basic concept of a point and a point is a concept having no physical properties other than having no length, width or height. In other words, reality is a concept having no physical existence.

In essence, all of mathematics is built upon the framework of the universal foundations of geometry. If mathematics is allowed to build upon the concept of a foundation of nothingness and be accepted, shouldn’t a universal philosophy built upon the foundation of something be even more acceptable? If mathematics can be accepted, in general, as an absolute, why not philosophy? And why do we continue to regard mathematics as an absolute when its foundation of reality is built entirely within a realm of nothingness?

The conferees look at this later when we see that morality also lacks substance to its foundation. One thing we recognize is that geometry has been wonderfully successful in convincing people to accept its logic while morality remains in constant turmoil. Morality rests on a foundation of emptiness and needs a major renovation of its foundations in order to withstand the ordeals of the next millennium.

Morality and its foundation: What is morality? We understand morality is a concept. We, for the most part, accept its concepts. We do so through faith, through an inner "gut" feeling of what is "right" and what is "wrong." We do not, however, understand the logic behind morality, the overall picture of morality, because we do not understand who we are, what our purpose is in reality, what reality is, and who our fellow man is. We do not understand what the function of awareness is, whether it be in us or in some other life form.

An understanding of the logic of morality is a big picture incorporating all moral issues. With it comes an understanding that each principle is only one of many, intertwined to form a net. The net holds us up to a behavioral expectation. It leads towards the end goal of accomplishing our function in reality, both as individuals and as a species.

We accept "morality" based upon faith in our spiritual leaders, based upon our collective power to protect each other, based upon what we sense from the depths of our "souls." Morality is a series of perceived behaviors considered to be "right" or "wrong." "Right" and "wrong" are perceptions based upon our sense of principles that are frequently derived from religious, cultural, and family traditions, and definitions. We have accepted these traditions and definitions for thousands of years based on trust. We have not questioned or demanded proof of their validity. In other words, the definition of trust and lack of questioning interprets into the concept of actions accepted through faith.

Faith is a concept of trust that is not questioned. Faith, religious or otherwise, is a concept we have been willing to accept for thousands of years. Faith is a process of us telling others what we have been told or believe others should accept regarding their behavior. Faith is a concept built on a foundation that is not questioned and is accepted with trust.

What is faith built on? Rather than starting with nothing as we did with geometry and building something within which all of mathematics can function, let’s start with what we have and work back to our foundation so we can examine just what it is our moral behavior is built upon. Let’s take the attribute of power as an example.

Power is a phenomenally important aspect that all people wield over others at some time in their mortal existence. Power is an aspect that generates horrendous trauma for humankind when abused. Abuse of power is a behavior so common it permeates every nook and cranny of our social, political, religious, economic, health, and moral aspects. Power is a concept horrendously influential regarding interactions existing between each other, between ourselves and our environment, and between ourselves and our own personal journey through reality. Power plays such a primary part in society that it is one of the primary attributes that we attempt, directly as well as indirectly, to curtail through the moral definition of acceptable behavior. Power is an aspect we attempt to constrain through the use of religions, traditions, and culture. Still we are not able to contain its negative aspects. Why? Because our morality is built within faith alone, our faiths and lack of faiths lack a foundation.

To illustrate this, the conference attendees begin to look at society and the abuse of power existing within it as just one of a myriad number of categories they could choose.

From the realm of power, they refine the topic and choose the category of abuse of a wife by a husband: This is not a phenomenon characteristic to any one culture, race, religion or society. It is world-wide. It is common in every society, every city, every neighborhood. It runs the gambit of physical abuse to verbal abuse. It is so widespread, it would be considered a universal negative for humankind. It is a form of abuse of power - physical, emotional, and economic. It is a lack of understanding of one’s function in reality, of what reality itself is.

If you examine the action of hitting one’s spouse and ask, "Why is this wrong?", the answers vary widely:

1. It’s wrong.
2. It’s not Christian.
3. It hurts someone.
4. It is not right to hit a woman.
5. It is not right to hit someone smaller than you, etc.

If you then ask what these five statements mean, you get answers that do not reach to the very essence of who we are. Rather you get shallow answers, such as:

1. Because.
2. Because God says so.
3. Because it’s against the law.
4. Because one should do unto others as one would have others do unto themselves, etc.

This is not to imply that such answers are worthless, for they are better than no answer at all.

If you proceed to follow, again and again with the question, "Why?", you soon reach the point where the one being questioned becomes frustrated and attempts to change the conversation. In other words, we have no conception of the logic behind our faiths, our morality conceptions. We base all our morals upon faith and upon no logic beyond reality.

Why don’t we understand the logic behind our moral conceptions? We don’t understand the most basic of basics. We don’t have an understanding of who we are, what our purpose in reality is. It is this purpose, this function, that must be understood in order to define ourselves. Once we are able to define ourselves within reality, we can begin to understand through logic why spousal abuse in any form is immoral.

Now we see the problem. Now it becomes clear why mathematics has been successful and grown over the last thousand years while morality lies languishing. Mathematics has a universally accepted a foundation upon which it defines reality. The concept is that of a point - a location in space so small it has no size, and from this, mathematics builds a three-dimensional reality immersed in a concept that does not exist - time.

Morality has no such universally defined foundation. Morality is missing an accepted "universal foundation." Morality is missing a universal philosophy strong enough and general enough to carry us ahead, to allow us to raise ourselves to infinitely higher levels of significance within reality. Geometry is strong enough and general enough to act as the foundation that allows all of mathematics to continually raise itself to new and exciting levels. Why can’t morality have a base that would allow itself to do the same?

Attendees of the conference begin to ask fundamental questions and answer them in as broad a manner as possible to see what the outcome may be. They decide to stay with the concept with which they have been working: male abuse of a spouse. Put in its most basic of basic forms, questions arise and answers emerge: