the Tetrahedron and

the 4 Triplicities

in the Being


In the chap­ter “Aspetti”, at the ¶. on the Third Har­mon­ic, it is sug­gest­ed that the same ar­range­ment of the two axes rel­a­tive to the 4 di­rec­tions in space po­ten­tial­ly en­clo­ses the ends of a sol­id with 4 ver­ti­ces pro­ject­ed on a plane: the Tet­ra­he­dron pre­cise­ly, splen­did, sub­lime con­struct, as an ad­mi­ra­ble syn­the­sis of all im­pli­cat­ed prop­er­ties.
This mag­i­cal struc­ture, made up of four con­tig­u­ous and ex­clu­sive tri­an­gu­lar faces, takes stra­ight the place of our ques­tion mark; and it is rel­a­tive­ly easy to see how the log­i­cal pro­cess­es ex­am­in­ed so far ap­ply to it nat­u­ral­ly ... we just have to pro­ce­ed.
Each of the 4 faces is lim­it­ed by three sides and as such can well con­tem­pla­te the three pas­sa­ges of each sea­son. Let's start from a hy­po­theti­cal base and from the mid­night of the as­tro­log­i­cal year, as­sign­ing to each ver­tex the Signs in anti­clock­wise pro­gres­sion: we im­me­di­ate­ly de­fine the "map­ping" of the win­ter face, leav­ing the up­per ver­tex free.
As you can see by cross­ing for a mo­ment the in­ter­sec­tion of the two axes in the fig­ure as if it were flat, Earth () and Wa­ter () are op­posed, while Air () awaits at the oth­er end a Sign of Fire: what else if not the Ar­i­es (), the first Fire, which con­tin­ues the se­quence giv­ing a spa­tial con­sis­ten­cy to the ba­sic trip­tych?
In the sol­id thus dis­po­sed, the lat­ter goes to the top, as if the base prai­sed its ad­vent and in fact it is what hap­pens, giv­en that the ma­te­ri­al con­forms, and each sea­son pre­pa­res the next.
We have thus as­signed to each ver­tex one of the El­e­ments, in an im­mu­ta­ble or­der.
The next step will con­sist there­fore in at­trib­ut­ing the sub­se­quent Signs to the log­ic of the con­struct, re­spect­ing the guid­ing prin­ci­ple.
In or­der to de­lin­e­ate the in­com­ing sea­son on a suc­ceed­ing ba­sis, a ro­ta­tion (con­stant­ly coun­ter­clock­wise, like the hor­o­scop­ic con­ven­tion) of the sol­id must be ma­de, the­re­fo­re, giv­en the mean­ing of the terms car­di­nal and fixed, all that re­mains is to piv­ot on the Cap­ri­corn-Aquar­i­us side, mov­ing the ver­tex lo­cat­ed just in the mo­bile sign Fish and bring­ing Ar­i­es to­wards the plane, to start the new ref­er­en­ce area.
Since the two faces are set aga­inst, as the ori­en­ta­tion of the re­spec­tive tri­an­gles on the sup­port plane also re­ve­als, the di­rec­tion of ro­ta­tion of the Signs is re­versed and now the fixed is of Earth, pre­vi­ous­ly oc­cu­pied by Cap­ri­corn (as a sea­son­al hinge) and there­fore from Tau­rus; af­ter all, even the ba­sic tri­an­gles with re­spect to the ob­ser­va­tion point are op­po­site, sig­ni­fi­ers of a dif­fer­ent po­lar­i­ty; of co­ur­se, the pin­na­cle is now of Wa­ter and it per­ta­ins to Can­cer.
At the third step the Fixed is of Fire and here the ro­ta­tion of the sol­id, which takes place along the Ar­i­es-Tau­rus axis, pro­pos­es the in­ver­sion of the sea­son­al per­i­plus to the coun­ter­clock­wi­se mo­tion: you can al­ready no­tice the per­fect cor­re­spond­en­ce in the po­si­tions of the anti­thet­i­cal signs (1­/3) from face to face.

The last han­dle is now ob­vi­ous; we have com­plet­ed a pic­ture of how the Zo­di­a­cal tra­its are mo­dal­ized in re­la­tion to all pos­si­ble for­ma­tions which, from the sim­ple re­volv­ing of two fun­da­men­tal pairs, trace in any con­text of wave con­ti­nu­ity the as­sump­tions of a he­li­cal struc­tu­re, also known as DNA.
The fig­ures should fa­cil­i­tate the un­der­stand­ing of how the Zo­di­a­cal code re­lates to the struc­ture of mat­ter in sim­ple and im­me­di­ate tun­ing with the rhyth­mic tri­par­ti­tion of each sea­son, ap­plied to the 4 El­e­ments.
Of great, per­haps un­ex­pect­ed mean­ing, in the tet­ra­he­dron the com­mon va­len­ces of Signs po­lar­ize them at each of its 4 ver­ti­ces, giv­ing form and sub­stance to the quad­ru­plic­i­ty of the cre­ati­ve Pow­er, while the tri­plic­i­ty, which is its "pul­sa­tion", fol­lows and winds thro­ugh each of the fa­ces.

It must be plain, in com­pli­ance with the scho­ols of mil­le­na­ry tra­di­tion, that the nor­mal fire and wa­ter are noth­ing but the most no­tice­a­ble ex­pres­sions of the re­spec­tive prin­ci­ples and that right for this ev­i­dence the Names were drawn to in­di­cate the ma­tri­ces; that these in turn were called El­e­ments, with a term of na­ture still em­i­nent­ly ab­stract to­day (be­ing "in one's own el­e­ment" me­ans in one's nat­u­ral en­vi­ron­ment and when we say: wa­ter is the nat­u­ral el­e­ment of fish we do not de­no­te H2O with all its com­po­nents, but a re­al­i­ty par­al­lel eg to what air rep­re­sents for birds; and I co­uld go forth…

Since I con­sid­er fit­ting the def­i­ni­tion giv­en by a go­od Ital­ian dic­tio­nary, I won't re­peat the sa­me re­se­arch abo­ut this term through an En­glish so­ur­ce but ple­ase, let me just trans­la­te it.
E
ven more so, from the «Dizio­na­rio del­la Lin­gua Ita­lia­na, G. De­vo­to - G. C. Oli»
Casa Edi­tri­ce Fe­li­ce Le Mon­nier S.p.A., Fi. ©1990

“el­eménto”:
2. Each of the parts that con­cur to form an or­gan­ic whole, a con­cre­te or ab­stract unit: the e. of a ra­di­a­tor; break down a mech­a­nism into its e.; the e. of knowl­edge. In lin­guis­tics, any part of a sen­ten­ce that can be iso­lat­ed from the oth­ers for anal­y­sis: de­com­po­se a pe­ri­od in­to its e. ~ In math­e­mat­ics, each of the en­ti­ties that be­long to a giv­en set: e. of a group, of a fig­ure ~ In phys­i­cal ge­og­ra­phy: e. cli­mat­ic, e. me­te­or­ic, the en­ti­ties by which the cli­ma­te of a re­gion (tem­pera­ture, hu­mid­ity, winds, at­mo­spher­ic pres­su­re, pre­cip­i­ta­tion) and me­te­or­ic phe­nom­e­na (pres­sure, hu­mid­ity, neb­u­los­i­ty, wind, etc.) oc­cur.
The term then end­ed up, right in the last cen­tu­ry, with as­sum­ing a mean­ing that takes us away from the orig­i­nal un­der­stand­ing, lead­ing it back to the first of the def­i­ni­tions giv­en in the same Dic­tio­nary (not with­out the con­cep­tu­al dis­tor­tion oc­cur­red) main­ly ai­med at ar­gu­ments of full-fled­ged phys­i­cal­i­ty (just men­tion the Ta­ble of el­e­ments):

1. Sim­ple, pure sub­stan­ce which be­fore the dis­cov­ery of ra­di­o­ac­tiv­i­ty was con­sid­ered not sus­cep­ti­ble to de­com­po­si­tion by chem­i­cal or phys­i­cal meth­ods; ac­cord­ing to the an­cient: fire, air, wa­ter and land were the four con­stit­u­ent el­e­ments of the phys­i­cal world ... In to­day's chem­is­try, pu­re sub­stan­ce in which all the con­stit­u­ent at­oms ha­ve equal the num­ber and ar­ran­ge­ment of ex­tra­nu­cle­ar elec­trons: e. chem­i­cal; e. na­tive, the chem­i­cal el­e­ments fo­und in na­tu­re as such (e.g. gold, cop­per, sil­ver).
236­/5000 Of course, that jux­ta­po­si­tion and al­le­ged in­ter­pre­ta­tive com­par­i­son of the log­ics of the an­cients rath­er al­lows us to glim­pse that the an­cients are us, but who­ev­er has com­pi­led a dic­tio­nary has do­ne noth­ing but re­flect cur­rent tho­ught.

In es­sence, the flames of a stake, I re­peat, are but one of the prob­a­ble man­i­fes­ta­tions of the el­e­ment Fire (an ex­plo­sion co­uld be the s­ame), but it is fun­da­men­tal to un­der­stand that it is also the warmth of a pas­sion and all that it con­su­mes or ma­tu­res thro­ugh­out each ex­is­ten­ce; dif­fi­cult for a ra­tion­al-sec­to­ri­al spec­u­la­tion ai­med at it­self, to es­tab­lish a com­mon de­nom­i­na­tor to such a het­ero­ge­ne­ous ran­ge of ty­pol­o­gies, ap­par­ent­ly un­con­nect­ed.
Like­wise, sea or riv­ers are only "re­cip­i­ents" (in the Lat­in sen­se of re­ci­pe­re; re­ceiv­ing and re­al­iz­ing at a time, ra­th­er than con­tain­ing) with re­spect to the prin­ci­ple that as­sumes con­cre­te­ness (the Ital­ian term was 'si con­cre­tiz­za' i.e. 'be­co­mes con­cre­te') in wa­ters, like any oth­er ty­pe of flu­id com­po­und; aban­don­ment and lan­guor in char­ac­ter, but also the be­ing mold­able mat­ter are of a wa­tery na­ture, un­equ­iv­o­cal im­pli­ca­tions in ev­ery as­pect of our di­men­sion. It is worth re­flect­ing on how the afore­men­tio­ned Dic­tio­n­ary helps to clar­i­fy "con­cre­te" (ref. to the 'con­cre­te­ness' above):

1. That lends it­self to an eval­u­a­tion, or to an em­ploy­ment in the field of prac­tice, or of sen­si­ble ex­pe­ri­ence; ~ As s[ingular], m[as­culine], the con­tent of ex­pe­ri­ence as a real ob­ject or ap­pli­ca­ble to the real: to come to c[oncrete]
in c[on­cre­te terms], re­fer­ring to the pure and sim­ple re­al­i­ty of the facts.
2. a c[on­cre­te] Name, which in­di­cates a real be­ing or ob­ject; op­po­site to ab­stract, in­di­cat­ing only qual­i­ties or ways of be­ing (…).
4. lit­er­al (not com­mon). Con­sis­tent, sol­id | Clot­ted , con­den­sed.
-etim- From the Lat­in con­cretus (past par­ti­ci­ple of con­cre­sce­re) "thick, co­ag­u­lat­ed".

The el­e­ment Air not only al­ludes to what you can bre­a­the or thro­ugh which you can fly, but ev­ery as­pect of gas­eous con­sis­ten­cy, which in turn may be noth­ing else than a flu­id sub­stan­ce sub­ject­ed to the ac­tion of Fire; by trans­la­tion the nerv­ous cur­rents and the same fly­ing with tho­ught are of an ae­ri­al na­tu­re; Didn't Rud­olf Stein­er re­late tho­ughts to the con­form­ing of bird plum­age?
Whilst the min­er­al king­dom can be in­ter­pret­ed as re­sult­ing from a lack of Fire, the sap that ris­es and swells the ar­bo­re­al stems in the spring e.g. it is a mix­ture of Wa­ter and Fire, in qual­i­ty of pow­er and pro­pul­sion; even go­od wi­ne is so tho­ugh with very dif­fer­ent prem­is­es and ef­fects and cer­tain­ly, the­re, it's the fire that ex­cels (if it were for only wa­ter ...); but the mag­ma of a vol­ca­no is more fire or wa­ter? or rath­er earth at a melt­ing tem­pera­ture? all con­cepts sep­a­ra­ble at our gaze, but per­haps not at that of a glob­al Mind, ca­pa­ble of con­ceiv­ing ev­ery­thing in its most ...
el­e­men­tary for­mu­la­tion! pre­cise­ly.


How­ev­er you want to fra­me it, here's how the mat­ter is re­tra­ced to the eyes of to­day's sci­ence:
It was not at all easy to cre­ate this sce­nog­ra­phy in terms of read­a­bil­i­ty, nor to es­tab­lish a rule for the best ar­ran­ge­ment of the sym­bols with­out over­lap­ping them, in or­der to fa­cil­i­tate their im­me­di­ate per­cep­tion whe­th­er they are words, ideo­grams or fig­ures, just to be­cause of its rep­re­sent­a­tive char­ac­ter. I re­de­signed spe­cial zo­di­ac char­ac­ters, as suit­able as pos­si­ble for this ma­nipu­la­tion; and al­tho­ugh the 3-an­gle ra­di­al ori­en­ta­tion was more ap­pro­pri­ate, the over­all im­pact was too com­pro­mised for the dif­fi­cul­ty of dis­tin­guish­ing the mem­bers of the var­i­ous faces in trans­par­en­cy, so I opt­ed - not with­out a fair dis­ap­point­ment - that they re­sult­ed in ver­ti­cal pose as nor­mal text and also ad­dres­sed to the read­er from the rear fa­ca­de: the first of the two un­der­ex­po­sed, so to speak.
Being im­plied that spa­tial­ly we sho­uld not re­fer to an abo­ve and be­low, nor can the fig­ure rest on any pla­ne, this writ­ing will help to avo­id at­tri­bu­tion mis­un­der­stand­ings (also note the ap­par­ent sen­se of in­vert­ed ro­ta­tion of the sa­me face by a fig­ure to oth­er, ac­tu­al­ly de­riv­ing from ob­serv­ing it from the in­si­de or out­si­de of the sol­id).
More­over, the same three-sta­ge ro­ta­tion of the en­tire fig­ure re­pla­ces the ef­fort to fig­ure the un­fold­ing of the zo­di­a­cal se­quen­ce in the spa­ti­al­ity of the sol­id, from the side of each in­di­vid­ual fa­cade.
None­the­less, I con­sid­er of such im­por­tance what em­a­na­tes from this sche­me, for the pur­pos­es of men­tal per­cep­tion and con­se­quent re­flec­tions, to have ded­i­cat­ed days to its con­for­ma­tion; if this con­cep­tu­al ap­pro­ach to know­led­ge was es­sen­tial cen­tu­ries ago, in the ab­sen­ce of to­ols that al­lo­wed us to go fur­ther than the atom, to­day that the to­ols are the­re it is even more, sin­ce the sys­tem­at­ic in­ves­ti­ga­tion, con­nect­ed most­ly by sta­tis­ti­cal cat­e­go­ri­za­tions, does noth­ing but ex­pand a frag­men­tary, util­i­tar­i­an but not con­clu­si­ve en­cy­clo­pae­dism re­gard­ing what lies be­yond the hed­ge.

As for the un­u­su­al char­ac­ter that de­no­tes the El­e­ments at the 4 ver­ti­ces, it re­minds us on­ce more that in them they are not di­scer­ni­ble phys­i­cal-chem­i­cal com­po­nents or bio­log­i­cal agents what­so­ever, nor cells, at­oms or fin­ished sub­stan­ces, but com­po­si­tion­al qual­i­ties in es­sen­ce; the re­sult of dy­nam­ics lo­cat­ed far up­stream of any earth­ly phe­nom­e­non, such as to de­lin­e­ate the na­ture, func­tion­al­i­ty, and pur­pos­es of any ex­ist­ing act, what­ev­er the form as­s­umed in the cre­at­ed by the cor­re­spond­ing mass-en­er­gy; real and au­ton­o­mous­ly en­do­wed For­ces, are dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed ex­pres­sions of the In­tel­li­gence su­pre­me, which en­vel­ops in the plot of the 4 dif­fer­ent di­rec­tions and in the mul­ti­ple warp that de­ri­ves the vec­tors of each com­bi­na­tori­al and re­al­iz­ing man­i­fes­ta­tion.

Of each En­ti­ty, the par­ti­cles or at­oms or in any case the most rep­re­sent­a­tive sub­jects on the ma­te­ri­al pla­ne, even when re­cog­ni­zed as such, are to be con­sid­ered only the last links of a chain, still un­ex­plo­red; and it will be­co­me even clear­er with the now com­ing aware­ness of the fifth El­e­ment: the Ether, syn­er­gis­tic cross­ro­ads of the sys­tem, al­re­ady dis­cus­sed in the es­say I have pub­li­shed in 2002 on the “5 Ti­bet­an Rites”.
Fi­nal­ly, what about Fire? un­like the oth­er three, this pri­ma­ry ir­ra­dia­tion of the Unit is cer­tain­ly not de­tect­able by any "fi­nite" sub­stan­ce; it is at most a proc­ess - to our gaze the re­sult of a re­ac­tion - which obeys a per­pet­u­al­ly la­tent prin­ci­ple.
An ex­clu­sive and in ac­tu­al fact dis­con­cert­ing pe­cu­li­ar­i­ty, not rec­og­niz­a­ble in the oth­er el­e­ments, lies in the prop­er­ty of ex­pand­ing mul­ti­ply­ing in­def­i­nite­ly.
The flame of an al­most fin­ish­ed match – if not a spark ob­tai­ned from the same sto­ne – is eno­ugh to give rise to the most fright­en­ing of fi­res.
A mo­dal­ity that in­du­ces re­flec­tion.

Did our an­ces­tors mis­take it for a sub­stan­ce sui ge­ner­is? this sho­uld shed light on the way of con­sid­er­ing the an­cient sen­ten­ces; whe­th­er they had equ­ip­ment [like ours] or not, de­pend­ing on the type of civ­i­li­za­tion and ap­pro­ach, the bra­ins were pre­sent then as they are to­day - and what we in­her­it­ed pro­ves it when it is not sub­ject to al­te­ra­tions, if noth­ing el­se for the ab­sen­ce of to­ols we are us­ed to - with the ma­in dif­fer­en­ce up­hol­ded by ma­ny fac­tors, that com­pa­red to the fol­low­ing cen­tu­ries up to the last one they we­re mo­re en­light­en­ed and cer­tain­ly in a sta­te of less­er meth­od­olog­i­cal con­di­tion­ing.

It may help to imag­ine oth­er worlds (and there is a go­od deal of it, in such a vast uni­ver­se) in which the struc­tu­re of mat­ter can be di­ver­si­fi­ed, in de­gree to de­gree of the vi­bra­tory evo­lu­tion of En­er­gy it­self; the afo­re­men­tio­ned em­a­na­tions of the Cre­a­tor Prin­ci­ple, Be­ings them­sel­ves al­tho­ugh of a na­tu­re still in­con­ceiv­able for us (but not un­ap­pro­ach­a­ble), will ma­ni­­fest them­sel­ves ac­cord­ing to the sa­me har­mon­ic as­sump­tions, cov­er­ing them­sel­ves with sub­stan­ces of their re­spec­tive di­men­sions; par­ti­cles and ag­gre­ga­tes oth­er than ter­res­tri­al ones, but able to de­vel­op phys­i­cal life in the slo­wed down di­men­sion of the in­her­ent plan­e­tary Sphere.

As far as I was giv­en to know, that's right what hap­pens, nunc et sem­per.

The cel­lu­lar re­pro­duc­tion is made pos­si­ble by the du­pli­ca­tion of the ge­net­ic code DNA con­tai­ned in the cell nu­cle­us.

Ge­net­ic mem­o­ry aris­es from the com­bi­na­tion of only four ba­sic ele­ments, tak­en three by three and pla­ced ac­cord­ing to a pre­cise se­quen­ce and geo­met­ric com­po­si­tion: it is a code that dis­tin­guish­es, with­out any ex­cep­tion, all bio­log­i­cal or­gan­isms on Earth and is com­po­sed of the DNA mol­e­cule, a dy­nam­ic dou­ble he­lix-sha­ped struc­ture.
DNA com­prises many suc­ces­sive seg­ments, each of which con­ta­ins the in­for­ma­tion nec­es­sa­ry for the du­pli­ca­tion of it­self. It is the spe­cif­ic se­quence, that is the par­tic­u­lar com­bi­na­tion of the­se seg­ments, each .. giv­en by one of the pos­si­ble com­bi­na­tions of the only four bas­es of the DNA, that pro­vi­des the in­for­ma­tion of the in­fi­nite forms of na­ture.

(from «La fu­tu­ra scien­za di Gior­da­no Bru­no», by Gi­ul­i­ana Con­forto - ed. Noe­sis 2000)


To tho­se who want to deep­en, I high­ly rec­om­mend read­ing the ci­ted work, in par­tic­u­lar on pages. 136-137.
Fi­nal­ly at le­ast one voi­ce ris­es from the ho­ri­zon of as­tro­phys­i­cal sci­ence, in sup­port of the gre­at As­trol­o­gy, and knows what she says.

The il­lu­mi­nat­ing com­pe­ten­ce of the schol­ar and pro­fes­sor of clas­si­cal and quan­tum me­chan­ics pro­pos­es in an un­equiv­o­cal key the par­a­digms of the eter­nal dis­ci­pli­ne, whe­re oth­er voi­ces can only deny.



Shoot­ing on the fly, dur­ing a na­no­tech­nol­o­gy re­search:
from: … a meth­od for as­sem­bling mol­e­cules …
Mo­lec­u­lar pre­fab­ri­cat­ed struc­tures can be con­nect­ed and as­sem­bled to­geth­er, thro­ugh mo­lec­u­lar strands of DNA or oth­er sub­stan­ces, fi­xed to spe­cif­ic at­tach­ment po­ints on the sur­faces. In tho­se cre­at­ed so far, how­ev­er, ex­pla­ins the pres­ti­gio­us sci­en­tif­ic jour­nal Phys­i­cal Re­view Let­ters, the num­ber and ar­ran­ge­ment of the at­tach­ment po­ints were fi­xed: four po­ints strict­ly at the top of an ide­al tet­ra­he­dron in­scri­bed in the col­loi­dal par­ti­cle.
(1st ver­sion; link up­dat­ed 2020 – Bo­lo­gna, Uni­ver­si­ty)
A new and significant reference is given by the de­epe­ning of the stu­dy on the Sri Cha­kra yan­tra, ma­tu­red in 2020 in a new fa­sci­na­ting site: Sri yan­tra top le­vel de­di­ca­ted to me­di­ta­tion, but not only that!