Agape Research

Relating the Glossary

 to the foursquare matrix
 of the city foursquare in Christian Science.


Resolving the Glossary Paradox


We had previously recognized that the nine by sixteen dimension is indicated in the symbolism of the cross and the crown in the last painting in Christ and Christmas. Near the center of this painting we find a brightly colored cross that is overgrown with a living, flowering vine. We also find a group of nine birds at this cross.

Above this cross we see a crown. When we look at the face of this crown we see nine jewels. Please refer to the image below, which shows an enlarged image of the crown.

We see three major jewels, one on either side of it, and one at its front center. Between the three major jewels, we find two clusters of three minor jewels each, for a grand total of nine jewels. This means we have the factor nine repeated.

This aspect of nine must have been tremendously important to Mary Baker Eddy's structure, that it was emphasized twice.

Furthermore, the dimension of nine is linked to the dimension of sixteen in the fundamental design of the crown. If the crown is seen from a top down perspective, we will recognize that the crown carries sixteen jewels in total. 

There are four major jewels all told (one each at the front, back, left, and right), with four clusters of three minor jewels placed in between. This adds up to a total of sixteen jewels. By this metaphor, the nine by sixteen dimension of the matrix structure is directly indicated.

This type of numerically related metaphor can be found at several places in Christ and Christmas. In two of the paintings we find a clock in the background, with their hands pointing to numerics, which, when they are used to reference the book of Revelation, present powerful images that directly relate to the theme of the painting. The cross and the crown present the same kind of numeric symbolism, which therefore cannot be ignored as being irrelevant.

Naturally, one has the personal choice to ignore anything that one likes to ignore. Except this choice is not exercised without a corresponding price in unrealized spiritual unfolding. Mary Baker Eddy, herself, found this 9x16 symbolism so enormously important that she emphasized it to the greatest possible extend by placing the crown in the form of a seal on the front cover of her textbook on Christian Science.

It should be noted that the original seal presented the design of the crown exactly as it is shown in the last painting in Christ and Christmas. It wasn't until much later, sometime after 1901, that the design of the seal was simplified, especially that of the crown, to emphasize another vital element that is unique to the Glossary structure, that will be presented later.

Also, in this modern design, the angle of the crown has been corrected to match the exact angle at which the beam of light is shown in the painting that passes through the center of the crown. 


Since the paintings in Christ and Christmas are totally symbolic, and the construction of the crown that is shown in the painting is highly unique in its design, it is unlikely that the resulting nine by sixteen presentation that is incorporated into the design of the crown is not significant. To the contrary, it appears to be highly significant. The design can, therefore, be safely regarded as a verification that the structure for the Key of David is inherently related to a sixteen-element matrix with nine definitions provided for each element. Except, this presents us with a problem.

The problem is, that the Glossary needs to contains 144 (9 times 16) definitions for this representation to be possible. Well, it doesn't. If one counts all the Glossary definitions, including the dual definitions (some Glossary terms are presented with a duality of different meanings, separated into separate sentences) one ends up with 147 definitions. All the metaphors indicate that we are dealing with a 144-element structure, including the direct reference in Revelation 21:17, but we count 146, or 147 if the dual aspect of the definition of Adam is included. The resulting conflict with the indicated metaphor creates a paradox, doesn't it?

Howard Meredith, who discovered that there exists a link between the textbook Glossary definitions and the foursquare matrix says to himself, and to me in essence, that if the originator of the Glossary, Mary Baker Eddy, provided 146 definitions, then that is what I must work with. I have no choice. I must work within the channels that Mary Baker Eddy has provided. I have to be true to her provisions. I was looking for 144 definitions, but I found 146. That's what I must work with.  Howard Meredith scientific integrity to the accepted standard of scientific definition demands this. 

Howard Meredith  may be contacted in North Vancouver for further information.

I am trained to think differently. My scientific background tells me that the very existence of a paradox suggests that my perception is too narrow and incomplete. I see the existence of a paradox as an incentive to look deeper into the scientific domain to resolve the incompleteness in my thinking that creates a paradox for me. That is how I see the inconsistency between the presented paradox and the recognized number of dual definitions.

But how can one resolve such a paradox? Or does one even need to resolve it? It has been suggested that a 146-element structure is more ideal because of its substantially larger size (the 146-element structure is 21170 larger than the 144-element structure). 

Let's see how big is big - factorial 146!

Three questions come to mind.

1. Did Mary Baker Eddy intentionally present us with a 146-element structure that does not match the metaphor, which she meticulously provided, in order to teach us a higher lesson?

2. Or is our perception of the rules too limited, so that we cannot see the metaphor fulfilled?

3. Or did Mary Baker Eddy challenge us to raise the issue to a higher level, to the level of the complex domain of universal principles where we can see with the Mind's eye what is hidden to the physical senses?

In answering these questions I can only speak about myself. No judgment is intended or implied on any other person, or persons, their work, and their integrity.

- 1 -

I must answer to the first question that I cannot assume that Mary Baker Eddy has set up a multilevel metaphor, which also agrees with the biblical metaphor, but which cannot be fulfilled by the provisions she has made. I cannot believe that she would present metaphors that conflict with her provisions to fulfill the metaphor as a guide. My perception of Mary Baker Eddy as a scientist is that she would provide checkpoints that enable one to verify along the way that one's discovery work remains on track. 

In this context I recognize the 144-dimension metaphor as a guide or a checkpoint. John the Revelator speaks of a measure of 144, and the visual references in Christ and Christmas, (9 and 16) refer likewise to the same measure (9x16=144). I must therefore assume, as is customary in the case of an ontological paradox, that my perception is incomplete about to the rules for determining dual definitions if I end up with something else.

Is this approach important? Perhaps it isn't, but to me it is. I regard Mary Baker Eddy's provision of these checkpoints as a wise provision for a world in which scientific perception has become increasingly narrowed and reduced to simplistic and small-minded thinking which was already on the horizon in her historic timeframe. In order to appreciate this historic trend a quick historic overview may be useful at this point.

Mary Baker Eddy grew up at a time when the Platonic method for scientific discovery was under attack in America and had been almost completely eradicated in Europe, and been replaced with its opposite, the Aristotelian method. Plato's work has rediscovered in Europe in the aftermath of the 1345 financial disintegration that ravished the population, followed by the Black Death plaque in which half the population died. Plato's work brought a new image of the human being to the scene. It also set the stage for a formal system of education called the Brotherhood of the Common Life. The Renaissance was created out of this background. Here a problem arose. Venice, the slave-trader and financier empire was a sore spot that needed to be dealt with. In 1508 the League of Cambrai was formed to rid the world of Venice, but the Pope intervened and Venice was saved. Venice retaliated against the Renaissance by instigating a religious war of small-minded bickering that became the Reformation and the Counterreformation that gave rise to 80 years of wars, ending with the Thirty Years War in which once again half the population of Europe perished. The madness of war was brought to an end in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia that was built on a paradigm shift back to the Renaissance and the Platonic method of scientific perception.

The intellectual background for establishing a Platonic republic in the world, that became the USA, came out of this paradigm shift in Europe, back to the Platonic method. Naturally, the new independence movement that created the USA threatened every colonial empire in the world, especially the newly created British East India Company that had become the first private colonial empire in the world, and the largest. In order to stop the independence drive, the empire responded under Lord Shelburne, through the CIA equivalent Jeramy Bentham, to stage the French Revolution for the Jacobin terror operations that systematically wiped out the leading edge republican Platonic thinkers, which Napoleon later extended throughout Europe under the cover of over twenty wars. The British Museum may still have the payment records in its archives that put the French leading revolutionaries onto the British imperial payroll. It is also said that the same revolutionaries received the texts for most of their fiery 'oratorios' directly from the writers' workshops of Jeramy Bentham.

Only in America did the republican spirit and the Platonic scientific method remain alive for a while longer, extending into the time when Mary Baker Eddy's scientific work began, although it was radically challenged even then. The Platonic method of scientific enquiry was fast being overlaid in America with its opposite, the Aristotelian method.

It is being said the Aristotle was a student of Plato, which he was for the purpose of tearing it to shreds, possibly in the service of the Persian empire that was very much threatened by the Platonic scientific revolution in thinking, and was indeed defeated by it through Alexander the Great.

The Aristotelian method of scientific recognition became the darling of every imperial age in history, our modern age included, to the present day. Evidently this scientific and cultural regression was put into high gear at the end of World War II, and even more so after the 1950 Congress for Cultural Freedom opened the floodgates to reductionist thinking, which destroyed what was left of the Platonic scientific tradition and the principle of humanist education that once gave rise to the Renaissance.

Although this happened long after Mary Baker Eddy's time, it appears that Mary Baker Eddy was aware of this unfolding trend that society became a victim of, which has become increasingly epidemic in our modern age. The general regression in the Christian Science field, including the regression in its effectiveness, appears to be the direct reflection of this ongoing, accelerating, reductionist trend.  I recognize Mary Baker Eddy's 144/146 element paradox as her bugle call with she urges us to get us back to the Platonic scientific method of searching for higher universal principles in the complex domain that the reductionist kind of thinking has been designed to inhibit.

It is therefore important to me to be true to Mary Baker Eddy's metaphor as a guide, and to raise my thinking to a level of scientific perception that brings it into conformity with it. It is important to me that I do this, and always has been, regardless of the general trend in modern science, which is to embrace the Aristotelian model for looking at the world. 

Aristotle's method of searching for the truth is an extremely simplistic one. He says in essence: what you see is what you get. What you see with the physical senses is the truth. Don't bother looking any further, there is nothing more. There is no truth beyond what you see. If you see slavery, this reflects the truth that the majority of human being is at the stage of a helpless worm that is benefited by being enslaved to a master with superior virtue. This mental despotism that is prominently reflected in Aristotle's theory of natural slavery has indeed reduced the human society to the status of helpless worms in a role that is widely acted out all across the world, politically, economically, socially and religiously, as the imperial 'criminals' desired from distant ages on. But this deeply ingrained reductionism does not reflect the status of the human being as the reflection of infinite Mind, manifest in the cognitive ability of man to see beyond the physical limits to the recognition of universal principles.

I recognize that Christian Science healing rests on the totally opposite platform of Aristotelian so-called science and its radical reductionism. It rests on the reflection of infinite Mind in man and the universe, and the human capacity to understand Truth through the recognition and demonstration of universal principles. What the material senses convey, in the Aristotelian sense, is often far from the truth, as for example the manifestation of disease is, while the truth unfolding in science represents the human being as a spiritual idea of God, which is inherently forever complete and whole, and is demonstrably inviolable by the small-minded concepts of disease and death as reality. 

Christian Science healing rests on our ability to see with the Mind's eye. It rests on our capacity for scientific perception, to discern a higher view of reality that is often hidden to the physical senses and the physical world. Christian Science healing occurs when the higher view becomes substantial enough to reflect itself in our experience. Christian Science healing is a process that uplifts the physical manifest into conformity with the eternal Truth defined by universal principles.

Christian Science healing always begins with the absolute, which never changes, and then brings the secondary, the reflection of the absolute, by a processes of science into conformity with the absolute. In Christian Science God is Truth, Love and Live, while disease and death, which defy the absolute, are regarded as errors in perception. By correcting the process that leads to errors in perception, the forever unity of God and man becomes manifest.

The Aristotelian perception of man denies all of that as a possibility. In the Aristotelian world, what the senses convey is the truth. In the Aristotelian world there is no higher truth, no universal principle, and no mind that sees beyond the physical limits. Its despotism takes away our humanity and our divinity in the image of God. It literally reduces the human being to the status of a helpless worm, a role that society gladly accepts, but which imposes great barriers against health, happiness, and most of all against Christian Science healing and the spiritual and scientific development of society.

I recognize the challenge that is posed in my Question 1 above, is a critical one for me, where the metaphor cannot be translated into reality with the perceived rules. I see it as a challenge to do away with the narrow Aristotelian type of thinking that has been infesting human perception for millennia, and to search deeper with the mind's eye for a scientific foundation that enables me to solve the paradox in Question 1. I see the solving of this paradox as an example of one of the basic processes in Christian Science healing. I cannot avoid taking up this challenge and pursue this process, because the price for not doing so is far too great.

The solution of the paradox was eventually achieved on precisely this platform by the discovery of five unique types of dual definitions existing in the Glossary that raises the principle for recognizing dual definitions to a higher level. The effected Glossary definitions are for the terms Adam, Burial, Euphrates, and Son.  The paradox wasn't resolved by opinion, or arbitration, but by the recognition of a higher order underlying the Glossary.

I have been criticized that my recognition of a higher order for a resolution of an ontological paradox is not a reflection of science. I find that I cannot accept this argument. Science is not a dogma, but systematized knowledge for the recognition of truth and its verification. The resolution of a paradox, therefore, does not violate science, but uplifts it to a clearer representation of the truth. The recognition of a higher order underlying the dual definitions in the Glossary does all of that, and it produces a result that matches the metaphor. I have to acknowledge that the process that leads to such results is a process of science, that in this case uplifts science itself as it brings to light profound aspects that would otherwise remain hidden.


My second question demands me to consider whether the simplistic perception of the rules may be too limited, so that the outcome doesn't match the metaphor?

Obviously, one needs to look more closely at the various types of Glossary definitions that Mary Baker has provided, to resolve this paradox, which can be resolved thereby. I recognize however that there is more to this question than that. I recognize that the biblical foursquare structure that John saw descending from God out of heaven has been adapted in principle by Mary Baker Eddy as a pedagogical structure to furnish a foundation for scientific and spiritual development of the individual and society. Thus, resolving the paradox in this case is far greater in scope than just finding a way to match two conflicting models. 

I see the existing paradox as an ontological paradox that appears to have been created to focus on scientific aspects that might otherwise not be recognized, such as the recognition of the five distinct types of dual definitions. However, I also suspect that Mary Baker Eddy had a still deeper reason for introducing an ontological paradox at this fundamental level. I suspect that it stands as a warning not to become trapped in Aristotelian type of thinking which limits the human being on all sides with impregnable barriers that block off our humanity and divinity in which is rooted our ability to discover and understand universal principles, even God as Principle and Truth. By blocking off our humanity, the Aristotelian type of thinking does indeed render the subject helpless, as helpless as a worm, as it breaks the link between man and God, Life, Truth, and Love which is our help from ages past and for all times to come.

While Mary Baker Eddy makes no references to the Aristotelian model for determining the truth, or to its opposite the Platonic model, one would expect such a reference to be found in her pedagogical structure, perhaps not by name but in essence. It is certainly true that the resulting shape of the pedagogical structure is fundamentally determined by whether it contains 144 elements or 146. Two radically different structures come to light according to whether the paradox is resolved or not. This fundamental determinant is no less radical than the small-minded Aristotelian approach to Truth is, that gave rise to Aristotle's infamous historic theory of natural slavery, which renders mankind indeed as helpless worms benefited by slavery. The Aristotelian concept of man is as radically different than the truth that underlies Christian Science. I suspect that the reason why Mary Baker Eddy does not refer to Aristotle directly, reflects the fact that the reductionist problem has deeper roots, so that Aristotle merely gave his name to a distortion of the human image that Mary Baker Eddy summarized and impersonalized under the terms of mortal mind, animal magnetism, and mental malpractice.

- 3 -

It appears to me that the key element for dealing with the Glossary has at this very foundation the demand on the individual to leave behind small-minded thinking as we find it abundantly manifest throughout the world today in education, politics, economics, and religion, typified by Aristotle's ideology of a dehumanized society and impregnable limits existing for science.

I find that I can answer only the third question that I posed above, affirmatively. However, I cannot make this determination for everyone else. I can only share on these pages what MY determination has become and the reason for it. It may well be, for instance, that the 146 element structure, regardless of its conflict with the metaphors pertaining to it, offers the most ideal presentation of the science and the principles involved, which I may have failed to recognize. I pondered this possibility on numerous occasions, but always came to reject it as illogical and not reflecting the way I have come to regard Mary Baker Eddy as a scientist. Thus, I present my work based on the fundamental discoveries that I recognize as valid and verified in metaphor. I can only present what I do recognize and can understand.

Into this struggle, something profound came to be recognized, from the last painting in Christ and Christmas.

We see a white dove below the crown in the last painting, descending from the crown to the cross that is surrounded by nine birds. The dove is bearing a message as if it were an olive branch. Its flight is towards the cross. The dove is proceeding from the crown representing the city foursquare that John the Revelator saw descending "from God out of heaven." The term Dove is defined in the Glossary as:

Dove. A symbol of divine Science; purity and peace; hope and faith.

Perhaps this metaphoric rendering is symbolic for resolving the paradox. This appears to be a paradox that Mary Baker Eddy must have realized would inevitably unfold at the moment that one looks at the Glossary definitions with rules of reference that yield 146 or 147 definitions, instead of what the metaphor has established in Revelation 21, and what Mary Baker Eddy herself had established in the symbolism of the crown that she incorporated into a seal, which identifies all of her works.

Since this path of exploration offered hope for resolving the paradox, I pursued it. That is where I stand.


 Resolving the paradox


The shape of the crown could have been designed in countless different ways. It appears therefore that its shape did not come about by accident. Its shape was evidently created in a unique and specific manner in order that its design may correspond with the biblical metaphor. The dove, the symbol of divine Science, bearing a scientific message, metaphorically promises peace. That's what a white dove typically signifies, doesn't it? The cross, in turn, metaphorically typifies what Mary Baker Eddy defined as the cross of Calvary that binds human society into solemn union.

The question arises, as to whether the scientific message carried by the dove contains the resolution to the paradox.

In scientific development, the tool of an ontological paradox is a powerful tool. It is usually used for teaching important lessons. Typically, the existence of a paradox in one's recognition suggests an underlying axiomatic failure in perception. In our case, the existence of the paradox invites one to question oneself as to whether ones perception of the rules may be defective, that yield a total of 146 definitions, or whether ones expectation is defective that the derived number of definitions MUST match the expected metaphor? With that in mind, I chose to reexamine the recognized rules.

It has been my experience that the key element in Christian Science is our divine ability to 'see' with the mind's eye. The physical senses are essential for us to be able to live in the physical world effectively. Humanity would not exist without them. Indeed, Christ Jesus healed many that had lost their physical sight. But the eyes also lie to us, because of their physical limitations. Fortunately, this is not a problem for us as human beings. Unlike animals, we have been endowed with a highly developed intellect; a spiritual sense that enables us to 'see' with the mind's eye to recognize the existence of principles that the physical eye cannot behold. We know for instance that railway tracks do not merge in the distance, regardless of what the eye displays. In such cases, if the eyes lie to us, the mind corrects the false picture with what we know about universal principles, and so spiritual sense presents to us a truthful image.

In the general domain of science, we have come to recognize a vast amount of principles that the eye cannot see, and more so in Christian Science. In Christian Science we have come to depend on our ability to see with the mind's eye; that is, to see with our spiritual senses. Indeed, what the eye beholds as a paradox in the material world, is no paradox at all to spiritual sense. No one understood this better than Mary Baker Eddy. Evidently, that is why she presents us with a paradox at this critical point, which literally forces one to put more emphasis on spiritual sense, to open the mind's eye, and to look beneath the surface of what we see physically. That is the path I pursued.

It has been my experience that if I follow this course in respect to the pedagogical structure that Mary Baker Eddy gives us in the Glossary, a whole new world comes into view that otherwise would likely not be known. I realized that I could live with the result and work with it, and move ahead.

It has been my experience that if I force myself to work with a 146 element Glossary structure, and say to myself, that is it, I find many doors closed to profound concepts that are only possible when I make the effort to resolve the paradox which enables me to work with the 144 element structure. At this point it became actually less important to me that the resulting structure corresponded with all the metaphors that Mary Baker Eddy presented in Christ and Christmas, compared to the utility of the unfolding concepts.


From a technical standpoint, a resolution of the 146/144 paradox is possible if one takes a closer look at what types of dual definitions actually do exist. That process all by itself radically alters the way one looks at Glossary definitions. It brings into view principles that would otherwise be ignored.

Allow me to present the basis for the above statement.

If one looks closely at the design of the crown in Christ and Christmas, one can recognize five distinct areas that are adorned with jewels. One can see five seats for jewels. 

Also, one can see five separate paintings that display a star in the paintings in Christ and Christmas. Evidently the factor five is an important metaphor. We even find it carried forward into the cross and crown seal that Mary Baker Eddy placed on the cover of all of her books (except the Manual). So, it meant something to her.

 In fact, it must have carried a profound meaning for it to be placed on the cover of her books. But what is it?

Well, something similar comes to light if one looks closely at the various types of dual definitions that Mary Baker Eddy has incorporated into the Glossary. One can recognize five different types of dual definitions there. If one recognizes these different types, and one modifies the rule for recognizing dual definitions in consideration of the unique nature of these five types of dual definitions, one finds that the Glossary comes to light as a structure of 144 elements that exactly matches the metaphors. But more important than this, the scope and the meaning of the affected definitions change.

I was delighted with the results that I saw. I recognized the changes to be profound.

It is evident that Mary Baker Eddy assigned great significance to the factor of five in various levels of metaphor. In fact, the metaphoric reference that points to the factor five symbolically bridges the cross and the crown. The light that is focused through the crown in Christ and Christmas illumines the base of the cross. The structure that focuses this light is a five-part structure (the crown), which I recognize to represent the five types of dual definitions.

This unifying symbolism appears to have been so important to Mary Baker Eddy, that she combined both the cross and the crown into a symbol which became the symbol that she placed on the cover of every copy of her published works. 

The original cross and crown seal (shown below) was used until about 1901.

 It presents all the essential features that pertain to the Glossary as a 9x16 structure in relationship to the foursquare matrix. The seal presents the crown as it appears in Christ and Christmas. It also symbolizes another important aspect of Mary Baker Eddy's structure for scientific and spiritual development. This aspect is symbolized by the rays of light that surround the crown in the cross and crown symbol.

This symbolism of the rays of light clearly reflects the rays of light surrounding the star on the cover of Mary Baker Eddy's book Christ and Christmas. Howard Meredith pointed out to me that there are 56 rays of light shown surrounding the star on the cover of Christ and Christmas that point to a significant feature of Mary Baker Eddy's Glossary structure.

After 1901, however, probably in 1902, Mary Baker Eddy removed from the seal all none-essential features, including the rays of light. She retained only the structure of five, a crown of five stars, and she retained its unity with the cross.

It is as if she is was saying that the key factor that unites the cross and the crown is found in scientific development. Without scientific development, what can resolve the paradox that exists between the metaphor of the crown and the actual number of Glossary definitions? Science must at last provide the answer as to whether the metaphor of 144 is to be recognized as primary, or whether the 146-element structure needs to be recognized as absolute. Technically it is possible to build both structures.

The real question therefore is: Which one would Mary Baker Eddy have worked with?

I cannot answer that question. I can only explore the trails that she has mapped out, and for myself this exploration has been the cause for tremendous scientific and spiritual development that I would not want to have missed. It is in this sense that I am prepared to share the exploration in this book.

In fact, allow me to explore with you both of the structures that have come to light, as far as I understand them, because the answers appear to be important.

With her modern seal, Mary Baker Eddy evidently confirms what the Apostle John had presented almost 2000 years ago, who predicted that the end of all evil would be the natural outcome of humanity's scientific and spiritual development. If the crown, coming down from God out of heaven in the last painting in Christ and Christmas, represents the city foursquare, representing divine Science, then it is linked with John's vision of the end of all evil.

Mary Baker Eddy's recognition of this inevitable happening evidently motivated her in everything she did. This is evidently also what her new seal symbolizes, if it symbolizes anything at all, because she put this seal proudly on the front cover of all of her books, except the Manual. I assume from this for myself that the key elements that she recognized about her work are incorporated into the symbol of the cross and crown seal, and that this symbol represents the final visual metaphor for divine Science. I recognize this metaphor to symbolize the five types of dual definitions which I recognize to exist in the Glossary, which I recognize to be a key factor for its 144-definition shape.

Howard Meredith alerted me that the cross and crown seal was never applied to the Church Manual by Mary Baker Eddy, nor to the front pages of her books, but was applied there after her death, apparently coincident with rendering the cross and crown seal a commercial patent or registered commercial trademark, together with her signature that likewise became applied as a trademark together with the cross and crown seal as a trademark. Coincident with reducing the cross and crown seal to the status of trademark owned as property by The Christian Science Board of Directors, was added the notation which identified the so marked books as "Authorized Literature."

It appears to me that five-star visual reference in the cross and crown seal represents the opposite to what it has become. It represents to me the boundless development of divine Science in human society that no one can own, nor any individual, institution or organization can authorize. This perception corresponds with the last verse in Christ and Christmas that Mary Baker Eddy provided no painting for, that refers to what she calls the Morning Star, which she attributes to Christ Jesus.

Nevertheless, the question remains: Can one use her statement of authority as ones own authority for making a definite statement to resolve the paradox? The answer must be, NO!

However, Plato had presented a totally different method for scientific perception, which gets us back to seeing with the mind's eye, which Aristotle overturned and became famous for. Aristotle became famous for his method of thinking that ignores the recognition of spiritual sense. He focuses on what the eye sees, if that, rather than what the mind brings into focus. On this basis Aristotle was able to proclaim as fact what spiritual sense totally denies. His most profound statement on this basis is his theory of "natural slavery" that defines the existence of a master race due to some people's supposed superior intellect, and a race of natural slaves by their apparent, demonstrated lack of this 'virtue.' Aristotle became loved for this theory which appeared to be true when seen from a simplistic standpoint, though it totally distorts the image of man. Aristotle was love, because the distortion justified every slave owner and empire around the world. To the very day, Aristotle's name defines a segment of society that has its root in Aristotelianism and proudly calls itself the Aristocracy.

The Platonic method of scientific inquiry, for obvious reasons, became increasingly under attack. The Platonic method became first stamped out in Europe following the American declaration of its independence. This was done in order to prevent the threatened total breakup of the British Empire. However in America, which was somewhat out of reach, which was founded on the Platonic paradigms, the Platonic method remained still strongly ingrained in the scientific and scholarly community far into Mary Baker Eddy's time.

It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that Mary Baker Eddy, through her scholarly background was familiar with this method, had utilized it herself, and had incorporated it into her pedagogical structure. But what makes the Platonic method so radically different? What sets it profoundly apart from the Aristotelian method?

Plato himself perhaps best explains this difference, in Plato's allegory of the cave. Plato explains in the allegory that what you see is not necessarily the way it appears. In the allegory of the cave some long-time prisoners had become accustomed to a perception of reality, based on images they saw. The images didn't reflect reality at all, but reflected their perception of it. This perception was radically overturned when one of the prisoners escaped to the real world, and began to see things how they really were.

Plato suggests with this allegory the existence of an ontological paradox, where a reality is discovered that differs from what appears to be when one's perception of the reality at hand is too shallow and too narrow. It appears that Mary Baker Eddy has intentionally incorporated this kind of an ontological paradox into her pedagogical structure in order to cause us to begin to see with the mind's eye, rather than relying on what the senses suggest to be real, no matter how real this appears to be.

An example of such an ontological paradox is the suggestion by the senses that a pair of railway tracks merges in the distance. One wouldn't be likely be concerned about this strange phenomenon unless one becomes involved in operation trains.

Of course we know that the tracks don't merge in the distance even though we see with our own eyes that they do. In this case one immediately rejects Aristotle's notion, that what one sees is what one gets. In this case we immediately begin to see with the mind's eye. That's our method for resolving the differences. It happens almost automatically. It happens, because we have previously discovered the nature of the principle of optical perspective that explains to us why the phenomenon that we see isn't true. In many other cases, however, we don't make this immediate jump to spiritual sense, at least not that easily. We tend to shut down the mind's eye, especially when it poses some difficult challenges.

With the aid of the mind's eye we can see the truth in terms of discovered universal principles, or through their discovery, which lets us 'see' the world as it really is. Christian Science healing is very much founded on this process of evoking spiritual sense. We can also find this process reflected in the pedagogical structure that Mary Baker Eddy has created for us. She created a paradox for us that requires one to begin to look at a higher level for evidence that we can see with the mind's eye. That's the scientific method to discover what the physical eye cannot see. This is also the path on which the Glossary presentation in this book is based, and by which the Glossary comes to light as a structure of precisely 144 definitions. This is the path that came to light to resolve the 144/146 paradox.

Howard Meredith suggested to me that this resolution of the paradox involves an invalid pursuit. His method of seeing with the mind's eye involves the meticulous exploration of the historic development of the Glossary terms as they emerged in Mary Baker Eddy's thinking. This involvement required several journeys to church archives in Boston in order to explore the various stages of the development of the Glossary. In the 1884 Glossary (the 9th Edition) for instance, there were 119 terms defined, 16 as double definitions, for a total of 135 terms. The 214th Edition in 1901, on the other hand, closely resembles the present Glossary, although with numerous changes in wording. In the 214th Edition addition, for instance, the second sentence for the term Believing "Mortal thoughts, illusion." did not yet appear. Also the capitalization of certain words had changed, as in, Gad, the phrase "spiritual being understood" appeared as "spiritual Being, understood." In the same manner the capitalization of "Love" changed for the term Gethemane from "; Love meeting no response, but still remaining Love." For the term God, the words "Substance; Intelligence" were capitalized, and so on. Among them, for the term, Veil the words "Temple" and the phrase "Divine Science,--Immortality and Love" we all capitalized. The term "Night" also did not appear at all in 1901.

These are the kind the developments that Howard Meredith has meticulously researched, which bring to light the fact that the total number of definitions have not always been constant, especially with a key element, like "Night" not being there at all in the early editions. Also, in the early editions (including the 214th Edition) many of the dual definitions that are separated into separate sentences today, where kept together as single sentences with the dual aspects separated only by semicolons. In the light of this background I have considered many times to work with the end product of a 146-element structure.

On the other had, equally deep reaching historic developments can be observed that are reflected in the change of the symbolism of the cross and crown seal that took place in the 1901/1902 time frame, which puts ever greater emphasis of the structure of five that numerically corresponds with the five types of dual definitions that do exist in the Glossary. That is therefore what my work has been focusing on. If I were to loose sight of Mary Baker Eddy's presentation of five different types of dual definition, which make their own demands of how their duality is to be recognized and counted, I would loose something that appears to have been highly important to Mary Baker Eddy, which certainly has become important in my life.

It is important for me to contemplate at this point what precisely I would loose if I were to ignore the five types of dual definitions, apart from loosing access to the 144-element Glossary structure. Perhaps the most severe loss would be the loss of the profound unity of the river Euphrates. I would end up with two development streams going into opposite directions, a two-directional river. Instead, I can now see Euphrates as one river that is made up of two tributaries. The Yangtze River in China, for instance, has over 700 tributaries. The river is to a large measure defined by its tributaries. In fact its name changes at its junction with a major tributary. For the first 3,500 kilometers the river is called Jinshajing until it is joined by the Miujiang at Yibin, slightly past its halfway point, where it becomes the Changjiang, the Long River. Still, in spite of these individual elements it remains one river, the Yangtze, for its entire 6,300-kilometer length from the Tanggula Mountain in Tibet to the distant East China Sea.

I must look at the river Euphrates in the same manner, both as a river and as a development metaphor, or a development channel. Mary Baker Eddy describes two aspects for the river. One of these, she describes as "divine Science encompassing the universe and man; the true idea of God; a type of the glory which is to come..." The other aspect of her definition locates the river, defined as the atmosphere of human belief... the only error of which is limitation; finity..." What she is telling me here is that divine Science, like any other science, is till a human element that is hampered by the limits we place on ourselves in the atmosphere of mortal thought. She suggests that as we are approaching the truth through divine Science, as we are in the process of touching the hem of reality, we are still limited by the limits of our imagination; the limits that we place on ourselves and imagine to be real and absolute.

How often do we say to ourselves "this cannot be done?" For almost sixty years humanity has been struggling to rid itself of nuclear weapons, but we keep saying, this cannot be done. So we build more. We say that the principle of universal love (divine Love) is impossible to establish in the social, civil, and the political domain. So, we don't even try. We say to ourselves, who am I to uplift the world, to raise the standard of civilization? I am only one person. I cannot change the world. Thus, the 'movement' of inaction continues. Mary Baker Eddy refutes that, and suggests that we are only limited by our imagination. She once said to her class, "We, to-day, in this class-room, are enough to convert the world if we are of one Mind; for then the whole world will feel the influence of this Mind; as when the earth was without form, and Mind spake and form appeared."*(Misc. 279) She said this to a primary class of 65 students in Feb. 25, 1889. I am certain that these were not idle words. They were spoken by a person who has freed her self in her scientific perception of reality from many universally accepted limits, who would thirteen years later spontaneously heal a woman of partial paralysis with a single look, aflame with divine Love. Was she wrong to say that we can expect to change the whole world once we entangle our scientific sense from the stranglehold of the limits inherent in mortal thought? No, she wasn't. I would even say that the entire forth column as a development channel deals with essentially this single integrated process. Even Christ Jesus struggled with it to the very end in the Garden of Gethemane.

That is the kind of development challenge that the river Euphrates as a single concept represents to me. This is also what the five stars in the crown of the cross and crown symbol represent to me. They represent both a profound historic achievement on Mary Baker Eddy's part in dealing with mortal limits, and a challenge to me to constantly overrule the would-be limits in mortal thought that limit out scientific perception. Speaking for myself, I can only say that would never want to give up this unified concept of Euphrates, by splitting the river Euphrates into two, by which the entire profound concept that it represents to me, becomes lost. I treasure the definition of Euphrates. I treasure it as one of the five unique types of dual definitions that I recognize in the Glossary, which I also recognize to be represented by the five stars in the crown of the symbol that Mary Baker Eddy has placed on all of her books except the Church Manual. I hear her saying to me, through this symbol, pay attention! If you are looking for me, this is where you will find me.

Actually, I cannot stop here. This research for the discovery of universal principles is not a game for personal entertainment. I recognize that the principle of the unity of Euphrates is an essential element of civilization that I cannot reject, even if I wanted to, without rejecting the concept of civilization itself, that the Euphrates-principle has supported and upheld throughout the ages. Therein really lies its proof.

An exploration of its historic significance of the Euphrates-principle takes one all the back to the beginning of the Greek Classical age, to Homer, at app. 800 BC. Greece was gripped in a Dark Age. It was a scattered collection of primitive mountain tribes at war with each other, bound to mythologies, and vulnerable to invasion. Homer built a nation out of that with the development of a high level language which enabled the kind of scientific dialog that allow people to step beyond age-old limits. With that a great Greek Classical culture emerged that is typified by people like Pythagoras and Solon and others. Here, in this profound cultural achievement, we find the first clear application of the Euphrates-principle. What may have seemed impossible, was done. What Homer started did change the world.

It didn't change all of it, of course, but it marked a beginning. It should have prevented the Peloponnesian War that followed, which was a war to expand slavery. Unfortunately, in this society failed itself. The tragic war happened. It destroyed the Greek Classical civilization. That's when Plato and Socrates emerged on the scene and labored to rebuild out of the ashes, what had been lost.

With their effort a whole new scientific age began to unfold. Science soon became explosive. Archimedes is still remembered for his inventions and mathematics from that era. In the same time frame, in Alexandria across the sea, Erastosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth with a remarkable accuracy. That knowledge laid the basis for captain Maui to attempt to circumnavigate the earth. It wasn't Columbus, but Maui, who made the first transoceanic voyage. Maui sailed from Egypt to Peru. All of that happened before 200 BC. Columbus came 1700 years too late for the first transoceanic voyage.

Plato (427-347 BC), it appears, started a scientific revolution that spread far and wide and changed the world, and may still be changing it. The sky was the limit in those times. It appears that all limits were challenged and quite a few broken. In this sense Plato and Socrates put the Euphrates-principle squarely on the map. They also set the scientific stage on which Christ Jesus emerge who drove the limits of mortal thought even further out of sight. One could say that Christ Jesus was the product of the Euphrates-principle unfolding in historic times, which he advanced again in a near explosive fashion.

Aristotle represents the opposite. He represents the smallness in human thinking, the narrow horizon. He resurrected the debased image of man that stood behind the Peloponnesian War and its focus on slavery. Rome became his product as it were. Rome created an image of the human being that is hopelessly limited, that is as helpless as a worm in the sight of power. That ugly smallness in thinking created thirteen centuries of dark ages that were broken only by the power of the Renaissance.

A New Hope was born in the shadow of the great financial and economic collapse that occurred in 1345 and two years later set the stage for the Black Death Plaque to sweep across Europe. In these years of great tragedy some dusty old manuscripts were discovered that brought Plato back to life and his scientific method of challenging limits. Out of this background of scientific revival the Renaissance was born. Once again the sky was the limit and the world became transformed in countless ways, through beauty in art, literature, architecture, music, even scientific and technological achievements. Altogether they raised the standard of the human being beyond anything ever achieved before.

The Renaissance was clearly a historic manifestation of the Euphrates-principle. One can say this, because the Renaissance was defeated by defeating this principle.

The Renaissance had been profound. It had uplifted society. Moved by this progress the Renaissance powers launched an attempt to defeat the evil Venetian Empire, the slave trader of that world. They forged a military alliance, the League of Cambray (1510), to rid the world of Venice. They would have succeeded in their quest had the pope not intervened in the last moment. By this intervention Venice survived and remained an empire, but it fought back to destroy the Renaissance.

By all accounts, the Venetian oligarchy understood the Euphrates-principle extremely well. It destroyed the Renaissance with small-minded thinking. It wiped it out. It drove the image of the human being so deeply into the mud that it would have made Aristotle smile. This deep reaching destruction of the Renaissance was accomplished by a new breed of philosophers, typified by people like Thomas Hobbes or Hugo Grotius. They created the notion that the human being is intrinsically evil, worse than an animal, which therefore, in order to survive requires society to give up its sovereignty to an all-powerful Sovereign, whom it must obey without question, for its own protection. The very notion of love was considered treason in this context, for which people could be executed, and probably were. The end result, as may have been intended, became an eighty years long string of wars.

The wars were brought to an end in 1648 after half of Europe had died. The end was achieved by a return to the Euphrates-principle. The 1648 peace treaty, the Treaty of Westphalia, was clearly built on the principle of universal love. Under this treaty all hostilities were stopped, all atrocities forgiven, all monetary debts canceled, and all nations were considered equal and sovereign, small or tall, mighty or weak. Huge limits were blown away to achieve that, and this peace lasted for fifty years.

What was achieved in 1648 is considered totally impossible in today's world. Still, it was done and it changed the world. This treaty became the foundation for civilization form this time forward.

By all accounts it took decades to develop the principle for the Peace of Westphalia, the principle of universal love, with several people playing a key role. Even the painter Rembrandt played a role in this, with his painting of Susanna in the Garden, from Daniel 13 (now in the Apogrypha). In the story of Susanna, Daniel rescued her from a death sentence based on lies by two elders (leaders) of the community. Apparently the story of this rescue helped to tears down the degrading lies of the war-philosophers. It helped open the stage for new horizons.

The famous German scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz grew up in the light of the profound achievement centered on the Treaty of Westphalia, the light of the Euphrates-principle that changed the world. After he came of age he became instrumental in changing the world once more, by the same principle. This new world-shaping event became the American Declaration of Independence. What must have seemed utterly impossible to most people, to defy the greatest empire in the world, was done.

We have seen the Euphrates-principle applied several times in American history, when iron-cast limits were thrown to the wind by the higher vision of the dignity of the human being that shatters many such limits. Lincoln's Civil War victory against the imperial South should not have been possible as seen from the outset, but it was achieved and slavery was abolished in the process. Likewise, Mary Baker Eddy's instantaneous healing from her spinal injury in 1866 should not have been possible. However, during many years before, countless limits in consciousness had been taken down. She wrote later that God has graciously preparing her for the reception of the final revelation of the absolute Principle of scientific mental healing.

Mary Baker Eddy gave the Euphrates-principle the tallest manifestation the world has seen since the days of Christ Jesus. It would have been surprising if this principle had not been given its rightful place in her pedagogical structure as a development channel to infinity, which takes us within the sphere of mortal thought to footsteps beyond the boundaries of its supposed limits. All sorts of physical limits have fallen by the wayside in this process of metaphysical healing.

Still, we face greater challenges than just those. We face a need for the healing of humanity in countless different spheres where small-minded thinking presently rules and limits appear that seem impossible to overcome, such as poverty, war, violence, hatred, indifference, and so on. We have seen some great achievements already in this some of these areas. We have stood on the moon, we are exploring Mars, and in terms of war, we have seen an entire world mobilized to crush the fist of fascism. And we may have to do it all over again unless we manage to learn in the mean time to dissolves the limits that we erect against universal love.

Yes, we face huge problems in the world that are still unresolved, such as nuclear war, an ice age, hunger, crime, terror, greed, theft, violence, poverty, hate, etc.. But what about them? Does the severity of the still unresolved problems change the Euphrates-principle that is involved in solving them? No, they don't. Under the Euphrates-principle the human problems, whatever they may be, are but limits imagined in mortal thought and believed to be paramount.

In time we will deal with those imagined limits as we uplift the science that defines our reality. Then the metaphysics of our achievements will change the world once more.

The way I see it, the five types of dual definitions that I recognize to exist in the Glossary represent altogether a profound challenge. The challenge is to overcome limits, and to open up new frontiers in thinking and in reasoning. As such they are rightfully represented by five stars in the Crown of Rejoicing. And that symbol is what Mary Baker Eddy associates her identity with.  That is how I see it.

I am not saying that anyone should agree with this assessment, and with the discoveries that stand behind it. I am merely saying, this is what I have found, and I am glad for it, and I gladly share it in the hope that others may be enriched by it if they find something of value in this work. They may also want to take it further still, or discover new principles that have not yet come to light. While I cannot follow the path of exploration that Howard Meredith has chosen to pursue, I can gratefully acknowledge the countless contributions he has made to the advancement of the exploration of the work before me.

It appears to me also that scientific development is not necessarily bound to the limits of a singular path. Once case in point always comes to mind in this regard, which is the scientific proof of the Pythagorean theorem that in a right triangle the sum of the squares over the smaller sides is equal in area to that of the square over the larger side. I recently came upon a collection of 43 different ways to geometrically prove this theorem.

Here I must ask, does this comprehensive list of possibilities present a limit? Is there a point somewhere beyond which one cannot go? Apparently there isn't, because the official collection didn't include the one method that I had developed a year earlier for myself, based on Plato's Meno dialog, so that the number of proofs is now increased to 44.

By all accounts, there exit no inherent limits to scientific and spiritual development. Maybe that too, is what Mary Baker Eddy's five star crown is meant to represent. Maybe they are intended to represent infinity. The Glossary certainly comes to light in this dimension, and not just in size, but also in detail.

The discovery that there exists an interrelationship at all, between the Glossary and the foursquare matrix, was made by Howard Meredith in the late 70s and early 80s on the basis of meticulous attention to the minutest details. It took humanity a hundred years of gradual scientific development in society for this breakthrough discovery to have come about. Howard Meredith's deep involvement as an educator, having 'grown up' with some of the leading educators of his time, enabled him to discover what no one had seen for a century, even though the entire structure existed right in the open for everyone to see.

The scientific demands that came out of the discovery, made it impossible however for Howard Meredith to remain in education, since the education system was too rigid to yield to the demands of truth and integrity. Even the church was too rigid to allow room for his scientific discoveries to be expressed with the integrity that truth demands. He was consequently excommunicated. A huge price has been paid by Howard Meredith, both in his career and in his community, for his stand for the truth with absolute scientific integrity. Still, as far as I know, he values the gem of his discovery as something far greater than the price he had to pay for it in personal sacrifices.

This is the price we are all required to pay when we touch the hem of infinity by which old and long treasured axioms become invalidated. One example is the principle of universal love, reflecting divine Love. Who is willing to allow this principle to stand today in marriage, in business, in politics, in finance, and in religion and ideology? Anyone please? Humanity has destroyed itself consistently throughout history for its rigid refusal to yield to the demands of this universal principle that is rooted in the heart and Soul of our being? We don't need to pay this price any longer. The door to universal love is always open.

Rolf Witzsche