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.
1 Horizontal 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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."
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:
Type 5 - A Duality in One
a directional duality.
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.)
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.
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 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