9, 18, 72, 108.

[SimonM]

add up and reduce the degrees in that sphere or oval there mr. simon.

one side does not make an enclosure, it still takes three single sides to form a united unit to do that.

Just because 360 is divisible by 3 does not make a circle a triangle Uki. Sorry it's the dunce cap for you again... gotta stop seeing patterns that don't exist.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just because 360 is divisible by 3 does not make a circle a triangle Uki. Sorry it's the dunce cap for you again... gotta stop seeing patterns that don't exist.

He may be referring to Height, width and depth, you know, 3-D, all enclosures have to have those 3.

[SimonM]

A perfect sphere, depending on interpretation, has either 1 side or an infinite number of sides. Therefore the 3 thing is irrelevant.

[Scott R. Brown]

We can thank the Sumerians and their base 12 mathematics for the 360* circle. We could just as easily have a metric circular measure and make it 1000 degrees, or any other base ten multiple.

[uki]

We can thank the Sumerians and their base 12 mathematics for the 360* circle.

remember the sumerians understanding of mathematics was derived from the anunnaki, who have 6 digits on each appendage, rather than our 5... obviously it makes counting easier when it can be done harmoniously on the hands.

[Scott R. Brown]

Actually I don't think it was from 6 digits per hand, but 12 planets in the solar system if you include the sun, the moon and their own planet.

[CLFLPstudent]

Actually I don't think it was from 6 digits per hand, but 12 planets in the solar system if you include the sun, the moon and their own planet.

Ok, again - why our moon? why not the 63 moons of Jupiter? Why not Phobos and Deimos? The 15 moons of Saturn? etc.? Why so 'earth'-centric?

-David

[uki]

Actually I don't think it was from 6 digits per hand, but 12 planets in the solar system if you include the sun, the moon and their own planet.

quite possibly, but i am sure i read somewhere that it was because of the 12 fingers. do you remember gath?

[Scott R. Brown]

Ok, again - why our moon? why not the 63 moons of Jupiter? Why not Phobos and Deimos? The 15 moons of Saturn? etc.? Why so 'earth'-centric?

-David

It isn't my theory, it is Zaharia Sitchin's theory, however I would surmise the moon was included because this is the livable planet in the solar system the Annunaki inhabited and the moon is rather prominent in the night sky here.

Or it could have been the theorized planet that smashed into earth and caused the asteroid belt.

There are 12 planets in our solar system in the Sumerian mythology tales, so Sitchin had to theorize on how they got to that number. I believe in the Sumerian writings they included the moon however. You will have to ask a Sumerian if you want the straight dope I guess!

quite possibly, but i am sure i read somewhere that it was because of the 12 fingers. do you remember gath?

Well I do not recall the Annunaki having 12 fingers, but I could be wrong. I do not remember Gath!

[uki]

I do not remember Gath!

how about a history lesson then...

http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/20-6.htm

http://bible.cc/2_samuel/21-20.htm

http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2006/01/th...rs-thrice.html

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18608582/detail.html

[Scott R. Brown]

One man with 12 fingers does not a base 12 mathematics make!!

[uki]

One man with 12 fingers does not a base 12 mathematics make!!

i know.

[mantis108]

If the number 3 is a number of creative power, then which number is the number of destructive power? A viable theory must be clear, logical and self explanatory.

Now, the Golden Mean 1.618... - 0.618.... = 1 or - 0.618 .... + 1.618.... is clear, logical and self explanatory that we can almost certain that the value of 1 is always rendered (excluding the first 12 numbers). So you see being 1, 1 does not create; thus it is being 1 (One).

Hi Scott,

On the topic of selfish vs. selfless actions:

We receive a personal benefit for any act we perform, sometimes the benefit is outward in a material or social sense, sometimes the benefit is inward in a psychological sense, sometimes it is both, but that does not necessarily make the act a selfish act. Selfish acts are generally considered to be acts that “primarily” benefit us as opposed to acts that “primarily” benefit others.

If the act benefits others in an outward manner, but appears to be detrimental to ourselves in an outward manner, then from the social context it is generally considered selfless, however it is correct to say that there is a psychological benefit received, which makes the act appear to include self-interest as well.

The “spiritual” goal is not to be selfless, even though this is the word that is generally used to teach the concept. The goal is to not be “emotionally attached” to the ego. Another way to consider this is to recognize that our “ego” is an artificial and transient construct used for social purposes. When we make decisions for the primary purpose of supporting an artificial construct then we are slaves to a phantom that seeks to reinforce its control over our actions.

In Buddhism, when we recognize that our social ego is an artificial construct, we have taken a step towards freeing ourselves from its bondage and become able to make decisions based upon objective values and not emotional values, values that are designed to support our artificial ego.

I believe the idea of Karma can be viewed in terms of noumena, providing that we acknowledge human being is cable of intelligible intuition as in the traditions of Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism. As such, it does not necessarily follow the logic of phenomena. It would be more about practical reason then theoretical reason. That is to say it's more so of Nous than Logos. Buddhism has to deal with the problem of Atman which is linked with Karma.

Just a thought.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[uki]

If the number 3 is a number of creative power, then which number is the number of destructive power?

obviously it would have to be not a number... nothing... zero; for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction... in this case it would be not a number - any number multiplied by nothing reduces itself to nothing, hence something is destroyed by nothing(and vice versa)

[Exadon]

obviously it would have to be not a number... nothing... zero; for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction... in this case it would be not a number - any number multiplied by nothing reduces itself to nothing, hence something is destroyed by nothing(and vice versa)

no...an opposite and equal reaction to 3 would be -3