Dual Definitions in the Glossary

 of the Christian Science textbook.

Five types of dual definitions

There are five types of dual definitions found in the Glossary. Why would Mary Baker Eddy present five different types? Why wouldn't she simply stick with a simple process for presenting dual definitions, related to a single type?

It appears that the answer is obvious. If the natural world of scientifically determining spiritual concepts contains five types of dual definitions, any pedagogical structure on the subject would be incomplete if the five existing types were not represented, each of which is unique in its own way and important in relationships to the foursquare matrix. I have numbered these as Type 1 through 5, for purposes of identification.

Type 1  Horizontal duality
Type 2 Vertical duality
Type 3 Indivisible duality
Type 4 Modified duality
Type 5 Directional duality

 

Type 1. Horizontal duality

Its function is to provide a horizontal bridge between the four columns, or four development steams, of the foursquare matrix, pertaining to different aspects of a certain concept, but on the same level.

In some cases the duality is such that the dual aspects are 'horizontally' separated. (see figure 1) In these cases the defined term has two different meanings, by which it applies to different flows of development or regression, at the same level, or the same general domain in human thinking. An example for this type is found in the definition for, Adam, where we have a denial of the nature of man in the first part of that definition, followed by a second statement of a denial of the nature of God. 

Adam

Error; a falsity; the belief in "original sin," sickness, and death; evil; the opposite of good, - of God and His creation; a curse; a belief in intelligent matter, finiteness, and mortality; "dust to dust;" red sandstone; nothingness; the first god of mythology; not God's man, who represents the one God and is His own image and likeness; the opposite of Spirit and His creations; that which is not the image and likeness of good, but a material belief, opposed to the one Mind, or Spirit; a so-called finite mind, producing other minds, thus making "gods many and lords many" (I Corinthians viii. 5); a product of nothing as the mimicry of something; an unreality as opposed to the great reality of spiritual existence and creation; a so-called man, whose origin, substance, and mind are found to be the antipode of God, or Spirit; an inverted image of Spirit; the image and likeness of what God has not created, namely, matter, sin, sickness, and death; the opposer of Truth, termed error; Life's counterfeit, which ultimates in death; the opposite of Love, called hate; the usurper of Spirit's creation, called self-creative matter; immortality's 'opposite, mortality; that of which wisdom saith, "Thou shalt surely die."

The name Adam represents the false supposition that Life is not eternal, but has beginning and end; that the infinite enters the finite, that intelligence passes into non-intelligence, and that Soul dwells in material sense; that immortal Mind results in matter, and matter in mortal mind; that the one God and creator entered what He created, and then disappeared in the atheism of matter.

I see in the duality of this definition a challenge to my thinking, to recognize the duality of the Adam perception, a duality that represents in parallel, a deep denial of the nature of man, and a deep denial of the nature of God, respectively. Speaking for myself, I want to keep this duality always in mind, by considering this definition as a clear dual definition.

There is a clean duality presented here. Nevertheless, I must ask oneself: Can I separate that duality into two separate, independent concepts?

Obviously, the Adamic belief structure, related to man's loss of his humanity, is fully countered by the Christ, defined in the Glossary, as:

Christ. The divine manifestation of God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error.

I must ask myself therefore, is the Adamic denial of God an aspect of this incarnate error? Or is there another process involved in dealing with the Adamic denial of God? I see two distinct processes involved, pertaining to two different development streams. Must I therefore consider the term twice?

There is a unique need for this kind of dual definition. It has been stated earlier that Mary Baker Eddy has divided the entire foursquare matrix into two halves, a right half and a left half. A horizontally separated dual definition can define a different aspects of a term in each of the two halves. The definition for the term Ark is another example of this type.


The Glossary also contains another definition of the same type, the type of a horizontally separated duality similar to that for the term, Adam. This definition is for the term Ark.

Ark. 

Safety; the idea, or reflection, of Truth, proved to be as immortal as its Principle; the understanding of Spirit, destroying belief in matter.

God and man coexistent and eternal; Science showing that the spiritual realities of all things are created by Him and exist forever. 

The ark indicates temptation overcome and followed by exaltation.

We have three sentences presented here. The first two present different aspects of the same concept:

... the understanding of Spirit, destroying belief in matter...

... Science showing that the spiritual realities of all things are created by Him and exist forever. 

The third sentence stands as a comment on the process that the concept of Ark represents in both of its two aspects. Again, we deal with a horizontally separated duality. We don't have two contrasting 'black and white' type of issues defined here, but two distinct aspects that pertain at the same level to two different development streams. It is a duality that pertains to the same level but distinct in respect to the context in which the development unfolds in the different development streams. I find it important to myself that I recognize this horizontal distinctness which the now expanded rules allow me to acknowledge.

Another 'horizontal' definition, ( where there are no 'black and white' contrast and the two parts are presented in separate paragraphs) is the definition for the term Church.

Church. 

The structure of Truth and Love; whatever rests upon and proceeds from divine Principle.

The Church is that institution, which affords proof of its utility and is found elevating the race, rousing the dormant understanding from material beliefs to the apprehension of spiritual ideas and the demonstration of divine Science, thereby casting out devils, or error, and healing the sick.

Once again, we have a duality here that pertains to two different development streams, and to to indicate this fact, Mary Baker Eddy has the duality separated into different paragraphs,


Type 2, Vertical duality

 

The vertical duality provides us with a bridge between vertically separated concepts for the same idea. In order to understand the vertical dual definitions I need to understand the characteristics of Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure that they pertain to. This structure has four levels, each of which has a unique characteristic, which altogether interlink three different model, which exist simultaneously within Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure.

I have visualized the existence of three distinct models, within the pedagogical structure. 

I have recognized a horizontal model (1st row) where the whole of humanity exists side by side in a lateral fashion on a platform of principles that pertain to God and reflected in our humanity, which we all share. We may call these the aspects of God, universal Truth, Love, Life, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle, the aspects that give us our divinity as the tallest manifest of living beings in the universe. The Principle of Universal Love is native to this lateral domain. It is a part of it. This domain is lateral or horizontal by nature. It has to be lateral, so that everything exists side by side on the same level, because in the absolute sphere of God or God's image, there is no hierarchical differentiation possible. At the top level everything is at the same level. But that's a hard concept to accept, right? We have to get to that first. In fact in general terms that seems to be too good to be true, and too esoteric to put ones teeth in. 

So how do we get to see ourselves to that level, thinking in terms of absolute Truth, and understand ourselves as we truly are as human beings? How do we develop the freedom to do that? That is where the vertical model of Christ Science comes into play.

This vertical model exists below the absolute domain, the domain of God. The vertical model is a hierarchical model. In the pedagogical structure it is basically a model that represents progressive aspects of scientific and spiritual development. I can visualize two separate vertical models spanning the lower three level of the foursquare pedagogical structure, with the third row being shared by both. 

The upper of the two vertical models represents the development of science in human consciousness, in which science furnishes our gateway to the Truth, to the lateral domain above it, to God, man, and spiritual reality. The second row in this context represents the Christ science, which Mary Baker Eddy defined as the spiritual idea of God.

The center row that is shared is the moral domain that Mary Baker Eddy defined as "transitional" (S&H 115). This is the level of Christianity, which she defined as "the outcome of the divine Principle of the Christ-idea in Christian history. Whenever one embraces the Christ-idea, scientific and spiritual development begins and becomes fully developed at the Christ-science level (2nd row), becoming a gateway to God, Truth, and the nature of our humanity (1st row).  

Christ science enables us to explore the domain of Truth and discover its universal principles. It gives us access to to the Truth. I would say that this top level of science is the domain of spiritual ideas where we gain our freedom from imprisoning worn it axioms.

Below the dividing line another vertical structure is located which claims the name of science, but does so falsely. It may be called imperial science (orthodoxy, empiricism, materialism, animal magnetism, mesmerism, hypnotism, etc.) Imperial so-called science puts God or Truth infinitely far out of reach for mankind, which it locates in the dust of the ground. With Truth out of reach, this perversion of science installs an interpreter, a person, a philosopher, a pries, an elite, an oligarchic institution, etc, that tells mankind what the Truth is and what is the will of God. What is communicated by the interpreter are fundamentally lies, mistakenly or intentionally imposed for numerous kinds of imperial objectives. The end result is rape, poverty, greed, hatred, violence, war, fascism, death, etc.

The dividing line is defined by the Type 5 dual definitions (described below) which are located in the middle of the "moral" domain (3rd row) which Mary Baker Eddy defined as "transitional." One might call them the middle ground in the translation of mortal mind. If there is an awakening to the Christ-idea, the transition is upwards oriented. If one falls asleep mentally and scientifically the transition is towards the hell of imperial so-called science, typified by the Adam mythology. All the metaphoric images in Christ and Christmas that pertain to the third row reflect the transitional qualities of the Type 5 transitional duality, as do the elements of the Church Manual that pertain to the third row. (see mapping)

At the bottom level (4th row), well below the dividing line, the scientific development of mankind becomes taken down, prohibited, and perverted for all practical purposes. It is the level of "depravity" (S&H 115). Here the vertical domain becomes an imperial domain where elite interpreters dish out lies to humanity in order to control society to dominate and exploit it, and were personal sense ravishes humanity with envy, rape, disease, hatred and death, etc. All wars, poverty, violence, sickness, and mortality are rooted in this bottom-level 'imperial' domain.  This is certainly not the level where one would want to be living at. Actually, one wouldn't want to be living at the middle ground either, but above it in the vertical structure of Christ-science and divine Science at the leading edge of it embracing immortality and universal Love.

Above the "transitional" dividing line the scientific and spiritual development mirrors the unfolding stages of the seven days of the spiritual account of creation (Genesis 1), the development in thought of understanding reality. Below the dividing line the so-called science of knowledge reflects the total perversion of the spiritual account in the form of a material mythology, the Adam mythology. The perversion too, has seven stages. The following are the key postulates of this perversion.

1. The origin (and value) of man is, dust!

2. God and man are NOT one in being, but divided hierarchically.

3. Ignorance is harmony (Man is divorced from Mind or God).

4. Lies are the gateway to truth.

5. The process of discovery unfolds a sense of nakedness (impotence).

6. The personification of evil, putting the blame on others.

7. Poverty and universal isolation are the will of God (expelled from good).

The middle ground of the moral domain is unstable. It is filled with transitional qualities that cause evil believes to disappear, such as "humanity, honesty, affection, compassion, hope, faith, meekness, temperance (S&H 115). a transitional domain. However, if these transitional qualities, by which we wake up in to scientific perception, cannot be achieved we remain trapped or fall asleep mentally and drift into depravity. Mary Baker Eddy defines the middle ground, the 'moral' domain in detail, but not what lies below, the gray area where we become trapped for a lack of morality, filled with opinions, mythologies, dogmas, impasses, and dead-end pursuits, all of which exposes one to lies and small-minded thinking. One would want to get out there, and wake up to the domain of science where we deal with the discovery of universal principles and not opinions, and so forth.

That's how we gain our freedom to move. That's what Plato was all about. This visualization of the two vertical models, and the lateral model of Truth above it, and their interrelationship, lets one see at a glance how the human world functions and where one wants ones life to unfold. In this manner one can visualize the whole human geometry in its entirety. On this basis it becomes a very simple process to develop profound solutions. 

Now with the characteristic of Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure established in terms of the three models pertaining to the rows, we can begin to explore the vertical dual definitions that bridge across the various levels to highlight specific types of contrasts.

There are exactly 16 (Type 2) contrasting (vertical) dual definitions in the Glossary. They deal with various types of contrasting issues which are therefore vertically separated on the foursquare matrix.

 If one looks closely one finds that there exist actually two different types of these vertical definitions. One type presents an extremely stark contrast, (which I labeled Type 2a) compared to the other type where the contrast is of a lesser nature (which I labeled Type  2b). There are eight dual definitions of each type in the Glossary. What does it mean?

Type 2a

This duality is vertically separated by a wide contrast. (see figure 2) This type of duality sets up a contrast between the highest level meaning, for a certain concept, and is lowest level meaning. We find an example of this kind of definition, in the definition for, Zion.


Zion. Spiritual foundation and superstructure; inspiration; spiritual strength. Emptiness; unfaithfulness; desolation.

This evidently means that we deal with two types of counter-actions in the foursquare matrix. The strongest of these is the counteraction of the divine reality in the lateral domain against the lowest mortal thought of a so-called physical universe that embraces depravities of various types, as shown below, in the imperial end of the vertical domain.

Since we have eight vertical dual definition of this type, Mary Baker Eddy provided us with two for each column. 

The Type 2a dual definitions provide a bridge between the top row (heaven, reality) and the bottom row (reflecting depravity on the level of "hell.") They bridge right across the dividing line between the vertical structures, and reach all the way to the bottom. The bottom domain, however, where depravity unfolds, where mankind is hopelessly stuck in the hell and night of the imperial vertical structure, has been outlined by Mary Baker Eddy with the name Christian Science (which interprets the great example and the great Exemplar - S&H 577:18). Thus, the Type 2 dual definitions come to light as a pathway for Christian Science projecting a sense of Truth into the domain of imperial so-called science where mankind otherwise would be hopelessly trapped. Evidently the process is not designed to uplift imperial so-called science. This is a contradiction. It cannot be done. The object is evidently to uplift human thinking sufficiently that mankind will flee from this 'sewer' and refresh its being in the 'morning' light of Christ-science. The object of Christian Science is therefore to vacate the domain of imperial, vertical thinking, misnamed science, which thereby becomes irrelevant and ceases to exist (there shall be no 'night' there.)

What I see her telling me is profound. I see her telling me that this Type 2a path is essential for rescuing humanity, and that only Christian Science can provide this path. History appears to prove this fact. It is a fact of universal history that the period between 1866 and 1910, during which Christian Science was put on the table and developed rapidly under Mary Baker Eddy's leadership was the most profound period of peace in the world during the last 650 years. The train of major wars and atrocities stopped in 1866. It didn't start rolling again until after 1913 and has not stopped since. The Type 2a (and the Type 4 covered below) illustrate the essential nature of Christian Science to deploy 'heaven' as a resource to eradicate 'hell.' Nothing else in human development has so far accomplished that in the last millennium. 

I have listed the recognized Type 2a dual definitions below. Note, I have separated the contrasting definitions for easier identification.

Rock. 

Spiritual foundation; Truth. 

Coldness and stubbornness.


Wine. 

Inspiration; understanding. 

Error; fornication; temptation; passion.


Zeal. 

The reflected animation of Life, Truth, and Love. 

Blind enthusiasm; mortal will.


Wind. 

That which indicates the might of omnipotence and the movements of God's spiritual government, encompassing all things. 

Destruction; anger; mortal passions.


Jerusalem. 

Mortal belief and knowledge obtained from the five corporeal senses; the pride of power and the power of pride; sensuality; envy; oppression; tyranny. 

Home, heaven.


Sword. 

The idea of Truth; justice. 

Revenge; anger.


Zion. 

Spiritual foundation and superstructure; inspiration; spiritual strength. 

Emptiness; unfaithfulness; desolation.


Son.
(note: this term is actually a Type 4 dual definition, uplifted by the "son of a year" concept - described below)

The Son of God, the Messiah or Christ. 

The son of man, the offspring of the flesh.

"Son of a year."

The wide vertical separation that we find in these definitions represent the operation of Christian Science that reaches deep into the mortal, physical belief structure and overturns erroneous perception, thereby healing the sick and other forms of physical deprivation, including the tragedies of war, poverty, and imperial domination. It is interesting in this respect to note the contrast in the metaphors in Christ and Christmas between the elements pertaining to the 1st and 4th rows, and also between these elements of the Church Manual. (see mapping

What we see happening here is profound. We see Christian Science as an impetus that brings the light of heaven to bear onto the trap of the mortal, material, imperial domination of mankind, to invalidate it. Nothing else except Christian Science, so it appears, can fulfill this function to get us out of this trap. The last 650 years of mankind's universal history proves this point, which was a period of wars and horrible atrocities except for the brief interlude between 1866 and 1910 when Christian Science was put on the map by Mary Baker Eddy and was rigorously applied, promoted, protected, and defended. During this period. Christian Science brought the day-light of heaven to bear onto the night of the mortal scene, to invalidate it. Much of this day-light has been lost with Mary Baker Eddy's passing and has not yet been redeveloped in society's thinking as Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure remains largely unknown, or an enigma, or an object of controversy and strife. Nevertheless, without its light there is no hope found on the human scene and mankind may remain forever trapped in a 'night' that has already largely been taken for granted as the normal state of human existence.

Indeed, without this link to heaven that the Type 2a vertical duality represents, linking the first and forth rows of the pedagogical structure, the officers of the Christian Science church organization will see their place in an imperial vertical structures and be dominant, and so will the membership see them, and the membership will be either subservient to this dominance, or be at war with the officers. This appears to be the case right now, which also appears to be very much reflected in society's self-government. The Type 2a link appears to exist to pour the day-light of heaven onto the scene of 'night' that is invariably filled with conflicts without the influx of that light. Once this process begins, of pouring in the day-light of heaven, the officers will see themselves as one with the membership, merely fulfilling a specific function, and discipline of Christ science will govern all and open the door to heaven. 

This unfolding process of building the 'Church of Christ Scientists' the proper name for a scientific humanity, leads us into the Type 2b dual definition which represents this latter up-linking function. The day when this actually works may not be all too distant once the over-all design of Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure is understood.

Type 2b

In the second group the contrast between the upper and lower definition is softer. Consequently, the separation is not as wide. As illustrated below, we have a different type of action indicated, in spiritual thought (the Christ Science), uplifts our moral perception into the scientific and spiritual domain.

Here the duality is narrower, linking between the middle ground (Christianity) and the leading edge of Christ Science. This duality represents the scientific and spiritual development path for building the Church of Christ Scientist. The development path opens the gateway to Truth, to heaven, to God, to our eternal day. It represents the development of the science of humanity reflecting the operation of the Christ in human consciousness.

I have listed below the eight Type 2b vertical dual definitions that I recognize in the Glossary.  I also recognize the duality to be applicable to the inner vertical elements (not shown) the manifest elements, where the contrast is the greatest since I recognize the inner elements to pertain to below the Type 5 dividing line on the 3rd row, which aspects fall away in the process of spiritual and scientific development. The above illustration illustrates to some degree the principle involved.

Wilderness. 

Loneliness; doubt; darkness. 

Spontaneity of thought and idea; the vestibule in which a material sense of things disappears, and spiritual sense unfolds the great facts of existence.


Believing. 

Firmness and constancy; not a faltering nor a blind faith, but the perception of spiritual Truth. 

Mortal thoughts, illusion.


Jacob. 

A corporeal mortal embracing duplicity, repentance, sensualism.

Inspiration; the revelation of Science, in which the so-called material senses yield to the spiritual sense of Life and Love.


Children. 

The spiritual thoughts and representatives of Life, Truth, and Love. 

Sensual and mortal beliefs; counterfeits of creation, whose better originals are God's thoughts, not in embryo, but in maturity; material suppositions of life, substance, and intelligence, opposed to the Science of being.


Tithe. 

Contribution; tenth part; homage; gratitude. 

A sacrifice to the gods.


Benjamin (Jacob's son). 

A physical belief as to life, substance, and mind; human knowledge, or so-called mortal mind, devoted to matter; pride; envy; fame; illusion; a false belief; error masquerading as the possessor of life, strength, animation, and power to act.

Renewal of affections; self-offering; an improved state of mortal mind; the introduction of a more spiritual origin; a gleam of the infinite idea of the infinite Principle; a spiritual type; that which comforts, consoles, and supports.


Will. 

The motive-power of error; mortal belief; animal power. 

The might and wisdom of God.

"For this is the will of God." (I Thessalonians iv. 3.)

Will, as a quality of so-called mortal mind, is a wrongdoer; hence it should not be confounded with the term as applied to Mind or to one of God's qualities.


Lord. 

In the Hebrew, this term is sometimes employed as a title, which has the inferior sense of master, or ruler. 

In the Greek, the word kurios almost always has this lower sense, unless specially coupled with the name God. 

Its higher signification is Supreme Ruler.

The lower level concepts in this Type 2b category of duality are all concepts that become obsolete and invalid when human thinking becomes uplifted through the spiritualization of thought. They are concepts that belong to the moral domain that is distorted without a scientific awareness of the truth. They need to be uplifted to a higher platform. This idea is illustrated in the confrontational structure where the moral domain needs to be uplifted rather than to be negated.

 

Type 3, Indivisible Duality 

A third group of dual definitions can be recognized for which there exists a duality that cannot be readily separated, without one thereby loosing the meaning for the defined term. (see figure 3) In such cases the defined concept becomes transformed into something quite different when the two aspects for the defined terms are regarded in isolation. 

In other words, we have an interdependent duality here that cannot be split apart, because the duality that is presented creates a single concept for which both definitions are required to correctly define it. The dual definition for, Burial, is an example of this type, as well as that for, Euphrates.

Type 3a

Burial. Corporeality and physical sense put out of sight and hearing; annihilation. Submergence in Spirit; immortality brought to light.

Note: In definition for Adam and Ark the two aspects of their duality are separated into two separate paragraphs, whereas in the definition for Burial, the duality is not separated into two separate paragraphs, but is contained within the same paragraph. With this in mind, since no clear horizontal contrast exist, I must ask myself: What is Mary Baker Eddy telling us? I must ask myself: Can I really split the two concepts apart, or are these two distinct concepts of a nature that must be kept together for the defined concept to be correctly understood?

This is an enormously important question for humanity as a whole to consider, because great harm is done if spiritual concepts, which are valid only in unison, become split apart. History has proven this to have tragic consequences.

I want to be very careful here not to separate these two concepts, because corporeality and physical sense put out of sight and hearing, without an accompanying submergence in Spirit, will cause me to engage in self-annihilation by which immortality will not be brought to light. Neither can one engage in submergence in spirit without corporeality and physical sense being put out of sight and hearing in the process. If this linked combination isn't maintained in consciousness, immortality will not be brought brought to light.

So I must ask myself, am I still talking about the same concept of burial, if either one or the other of the two elements is missing, when they are split into isolated parts. I would say no. I would say that the real concept becomes lost when we take parts of it away.  But even as I say no, I am challenged to consider the duality involved, am I not?

The term Euphrates presents a similar challenge.

Type 3b

Euphrates (river). Divine Science encompassing the universe and man; the true idea of God; a type of the glory which is to come; metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness. The atmosphere of human belief before it accepts sin, sickness, or death; a state of mortal thought, the only error of which is limitation; finity; the opposite of infinity.

Here we are talking about divine Science as "a type of the glory which is to come." We are not there yet. And the reason why we are not there yet, is that we work in an atmosphere of human thought that is encumbered with limitation and finity. These are fundamental errors that we face in the realm of science. Mary Baker Eddy did not define science as a synonym for God. It is a process that unfolds in the mortal real, pertaining to lower three rows of the pedagogical structure. At its highest point divine science gives us metaphysics, taking the place of physics, a type of the glory that is to come. Nevertheless, the process unfolds in the mortal domain, which at its highest point is still marked by a believe in limitation, with she thereby highlights for us to deal with. Limitation and finity are the only errors that would hold us back. Didn't Christ Jesus lament about the finity in mortal thought by asking for what reason the disciples doubted.

By drawing the two concepts together into one, one is encouraged to realize that we have the capacity to meet the infinite challenge of divine Science encompassing the universe and man, in spite of human limitations, and gain a true idea of God. The reason is that Divine Science is not a human invention. I see it at its highest elements an aspect of Mind reflected in our humanity where it remains effective in spite of human limitations. If this were not so, what human process would pull humanity out of the atmosphere of human belief in limitation and finity? For this reason I must keep Euphrates together as single concept, a single river, a single flow. 

Without the assurance that the river Euphrates presents to us, when seen as a single statement telling us that the infinite task can be met in spite of all human limitations, we wouldn't allow ourselves ever to accept the possibility of the end of all evil as a realizable goal, as the Apostle John suggested will happen.

In other words, each of the two statements in the definition for Euphrates defines the other in a fundamental way. 

Can I still separate them into two elements, considering all that,  without me loosing the unique concept that the river Euphrates is evidently intended to represent? Or is Mary Baker Eddy telling me that as a corporeal mortal, in spite of the atmosphere of human belief and its limitation and finity that I find myself working in, my understanding of divine Science can encompass the universe and man, regardless; and that I can rejoice in the glory that is to come; that I can engage in metaphysics and take part of the reign of righteousness and thereby gain a portal to Truth? In this case the two elements cannot be separated without the whole concept of the perfectibility of the human situation becoming lost. 

These unique considerations involve huge questions, do they not? These are questions that are not easily answered. But how would Mary Baker Eddy answer them?

She refers to the principle of the inseparability of a concept in the Glossary definition of Moses:

Moses. A corporeal mortal; moral courage; a type of moral law and the demonstration thereof; the proof that, without the gospel, - the union of justice and affection, - there is something spiritually lacking, since justice demands penalties under the law.

Actually, what is involved here is not uncommon. Whenever for instance, the principles of universal love and universal sovereignty are pursued in isolation, chaos erupts, even war, like the Thirty Years War in the 17th Century, in which half of the population of Europe was murdered.

I believe Mary Baker Eddy is teaching us important lessons by asking us to consider what happens if an essential duality becomes separated into isolated concepts. by which we end up with something that is "spiritually lacking."

The challenge that one is facing here, is to determine if the two definition have any meaning standing alone by themselves. So, let's do that and split them apart, and see what we get.

Euphrates (river). 

Divine Science encompassing the universe and man; the true idea of God; a type of the glory which is to come; metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness.

This would be one of the two definitions. If I consider this statement standing all by itself, as a mortal human being living on this earth, I would have to say to myself that this is pie in the sky stuff that is so far out of reach that I have to become a saint before I can see myself operating in this realm. In fact, I find my state of mind quite accurately defined by the second definition of Euphrates.

Euphrates (river). 

The atmosphere of human belief before it accepts sin, sickness, or death; a state of mortal thought, the only error of which is limitation; finity; the opposite of infinity.

However, I also must acknowledge that Mary Baker Eddy has put the two definitions together into a single paragraph, so that both may be considered as one, and define the nature of the river for me. By uniting the two elements I see her acknowledging the limitations of mortal thought, but she does not acknowledge it as a limit that isolates me from embracing and understanding Divine Science. She is telling me that the barrier that we are facing in the domain of science is our inclination to cling to finity and limitation. I regard science as a process of getting out of that. Jesus dealt with that, and so did Elias. It determines our metaphysics, our perception of Truth, and our freedom. In every aspect of science mankind has had to deal with this sense of limitation, even in mathematics. It was one of the hardest concepts to accept in mathematics that an equation with powers of n has n solutions. For centuries mankind has been looking for single solutions in mathematics. It took 170 years for mankind, from the time that the proposition was made, to prove it, which became known as The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. ( see reference "how big is big" ) The equivalent is also one of the hardest concepts to grasp in divine Science. When working with Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure one is tempted to look for a single finite form for ordering the 144 Glossary definitions to one another. If we were to do this we would limit the further development of science and put the mark of finity on spiritual understanding. I see the river Euphrates as a single river, the ultimate frontier in science, a challenge to deal with finity and limitation in all aspects. The temptation is great to split this challenge off at the leading edge and deal with it at a lower level. I don't think this is possible. It would end human development if it were to encumber science with finity and limitations.

If I were to separate the two elements of Euphrates, I would throw this vital interlinking acknowledgement of the challenges that we face at the leading edge, presented by Mary Baker Eddy, into the trash can. I would throw away what I see represented by the unity of the definition of Euphrates. If I were to separate the two elements I would therefore suffer a deep reaching spiritual loss. However, I also see Mary Baker Eddy telling me, gently: You don't have to make this sacrifice, because I have bound the two elements of Euphrates together for you, into a single paragraph with the challenge for you to see it as a single indivisible concept, and to recognize the science behind it.

How else could she have presented the unity of this dual concept, other than the way she has presented it? She had no choice but to present the two distinct aspects separated in two sentences. If she hadn't done this, but had kept the two aspects together in a single sentence, she would have rendered the resulting definition as a type 5 dual definition (explored below) that pertains to a much lower level of science, by which the Euphrates concept would have been completely lost. The same can also be said about the definition for, Burial, for the same reason. 


Type 4 - The Modified Dual Definition


Another unique type of dual definition is the type where an added definition, in the form of a third definition, has been provided that serves as a modifier for the meaning of the defined term.

We have a similar situation here, as the indivisible dual definition, with the difference being, that the defining element pertains to two terms simultaneously.  In this case, too, the added definition does not serve as an actual definition in its own right, but stands as a part of each of the dual terms. (see figure 4) An example of this type is found in the definition for the term, Son

Mary Baker Eddy provides three definitions for the term, Son:

1 - The Son of God, the Messiah or Christ.
2 - The son of man, the offspring of the flesh.
3 -
"Son of a year."

She tells us in Miscellaneous Writings (p.180) that in Hebrew usage a calendar month is called "the son of a year." She states further that this concept also applies to man, in both the lower and higher meaning. Therefore, the phrase "Son of a year," is not an actual definition for the term son, but
a modifier for the contrasting duality. It gives both of the defined concepts of sonship at unique meaning, which neither of them would have if the term "son of a year" were regarded as a third stand alone definition with no connection to the other two terms. 

I see Mary Baker Eddy telling me: Be careful what you perceive yourself to be a part of, because the "son of a year" concept applies to the son of the flesh kind of perception, or its defines me as the Son of God as the reality of my being. She tells us that man has the power to become the Son of God, to accept that kind of sonship; whereas material sense accepts the mortal sonship in the flesh.

Must I therefore regard the definition of Son in the Glossary to contain only two stand alone definition, or three, each with the connotation "son of the year" mentally added.

The concept that is brought to light here, evidently has a profound implication on how one identifies oneself, hasn't it? Let me therefore, present in part, Mary Baker Eddy's reference to the phrase "son of a year."


BIBLE LESSONS 

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.--JOHN i. 12, 13. 

Here, the apostle assures us that man has power to become the son of God. In the Hebrew text, the word "son" is defined variously; a month is called the
son of a year. This term, as applied to man, is used in both a material and a spiritual sense. The Scriptures speak of Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of man; but Jesus said to call no man father; "for one is your Father," even God. 

Is man's spiritual sonship a personal gift to man, or is it the reality of his being, in divine Science? Man's knowledge of this grand verity gives him power to demonstrate his divine Principle, which in turn is requisite in order to understand his sonship, or unity with God, good. A personal requirement of blind obedience to the law of being, would tend to obscure the order of Science, unless that requirement should express the claims of the divine Principle. Infinite Principle and infinite Spirit must be one. What avail, then, to quarrel over what is the person of Spirit,--if we recognize infinitude as personality,--for who can tell what is the form of infinity? When we understand man's true birthright, that he is "born, not . . . of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," we shall understand that man is the offspring of Spirit, and not of the flesh; recognize him through spiritual, and not material laws; and regard him as spiritual, and not material. His sonship, referred to in the text, is his spiritual relation to Deity: it is not, then, a personal gift, but is the order of divine Science. The apostle urges upon our acceptance this great fact: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." Mortals will lose their sense of mortality--disease, sickness, sin, and death--in the proportion that they gain the sense of man's spiritual preexistence as God's child; as the offspring of good, and not of God's opposite,--evil, or a fallen man. 
Miscellaneous Writings, 180:20 - 181:30

Since there is no in between state possible, I perceive Mary Baker Eddy's definition for the term, Son, only as a dual definition, not as a triple definition. However, I see it as a dual definition with the modifying sense, "son of a year," added to each of the spiritual and material definition of the concept of Son. The contrasting pair would then be the following:

Son. 

The Son of God, the Messiah or Christ (son of a Year).

The son of man, the offspring of the flesh (son of a year). 

This means that I can recognize only two distinct definitions for the term, Son, not three.


Type 5 - A Duality in One

 a directional duality. 


The fifth type of dual definition that exists, presents a contrasting duality that is, however, contained within a single sentence so that the contrasting aspects of the duality cannot be split apart from each other, but remain attached to the same definition (see figure 5). We have a kind of definition here that points into two opposite directions simultaneously, depending on what is dominant in ones perception.

This type of dual definition sets up a volatile element, an element with a transitional quality that can lead into opposite directions according to motivating conditions. An example of this type is found in the definition for the term, River, Temple, Valley, and Year.

Let's look at the terms. (Note: we have a duality presented in each case, in a single sentence that cannot be separated.)

River. Channel of thought.

When smooth and unobstructed, it typifies the course of Truth;
but muddy, foaming, and dashing, it is a type of error.


Temple. Body; the idea of Life, substance, and intelligence; the superstructure of Truth; the shrine of Love; a material superstructure, where mortals congregate for worship.


Year. A solar measurement of time; mortality; space for repentance.

"One day is with the Lord as a thousand years." (II Peter iii. 8.)

One moment of divine consciousness, or the spiritual understanding of Life and Love, is a foretaste of eternity. This exalted view, obtained and retained when the Science of being is understood, would bridge over with life discerned spiritually the interval of death, and man would be in the full consciousness of his immortality and eternal harmony, where sin, sickness, and death are unknown. Time is a mortal thought, the divisor of which is the solar year. Eternity is God's measurement of Soul-filled years.


Valley. Depression; meekness; darkness.

"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." (Psalm xxiii. 4.)

Though the way is dark in mortal sense, divine Life and Love illumine it, destroy the unrest of mortal thought, the fear of death, and the supposed reality of error. Christian Science, contradicting sense, maketh the valley to bud and blossom as the rose.

In each case there is a defining factor which determines the direction into which this definition takes one. In the latter case, the defining condition is the introduction of Christian Science into mortal thought.

In Summary

If one considers these five fundamental types of dual definitions, especially the ones which cannot be separated, one finds that the Glossary does indeed contain only 144 definitions, so that the Glossary thereby reflects the dimension that the Apostle John had presented for the city foursquare, and that Mary Baker Eddy has twice defined in metaphor in the last two paintings in Christ and Christmas.

The following images provide a summary and review of the five types of dual definitions found in the Glossary. An exploration of these four types can enable one to recognize the Glossary as a structure of 144 terms.

Review 1 - Nature of dual definitions

Type 1 - Horizontally separated dual definitions (also see figure 4)

Type 2 - Vertically separated (contrasting) dual definitions (see figure 3)

Type 3 - Indivisible Dual definitions that are needed together to define a single concept, rather than two contrasting concepts.

Type 4 - Superimposed of modified dual definitions

Type 5 - Directional dual definitions (defined in a single sentence).

This means in summary, that the technical possibility does exist to create a complete 144 element structure for the city foursquare, utilizing all available definitions in the Glossary.


Rolf A. f. Witzsche

return to index