That Great Book Written in Symbols

Mar 18, 2015
1 min read

“Philosophy [nature] is written in that great book which ever is before our eyes – I mean the universe – but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. The book is written in mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.” – Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

If you cannot understand nature and the universe without understanding the language of symbols, how can you hope to understand something much simpler like temples, scripture, or gospel teachings? How many feel like they wander in vain through a dark labyrinth?

The study of symbols is unfortunately ignored by many; consequently much thought and meditation, much observation and appreciation, and much enlightenment never happens. Symbols echo the underlying structure of matter and reality. I believe that the foundational principles of all existence, and how the whole functions can be explained in the numbers 1 through 9. I know that may sound like a bold statement but it is actually pretty simple to explain. I’ll have to write about that sometime.

My own personal understanding has been immensely impacted by devoting time to the study of symbols and archetypes. I see everything through a new lens, a lens where everything is important and has meaning and purpose. This in and of itself doesn’t change you, knowledge is essential, but putting it into practical use beyond self-serving intellectual stimulation is the challenge of life.

Here are a few of my favorite resources for those interested in learning more:

ldsSymbols.com

A Beginner’s Guide to Constructing the Universe by Michael S. Schneider

The Day Star: Reading Sacred Architecture by Val Brinkerhoff

Subscribe to ALL comments
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard J. Nobbe III
Richard J. Nobbe III
5 years ago

What about the number “0” ?

Richard J. Nobbe III
Richard J. Nobbe III
5 years ago
Reply to  oneclimbs

Hmm, what about negative numbers? How about irrational numbers? How about numbers like i4, which are not considered to be “real.” Seriously just curious, I’m not asking this in a condescending way. I thought if anyone knew the answer it would be you or Schneider! I’m just trying to account for all known mathematics. Also, have you ever tried thinking about numbers that aren’t in the “base 10?” format. I’m sure you know that different cultures and civilizations have countless ways of counting, and expressing value. What think ye?

Richard J. Nobbe III
Richard J. Nobbe III
5 years ago
Reply to  oneclimbs

What came first? Intelligence or law? I know the answer is that they both are from everlasting to everlasting, and I know the scriptures say that intelligence can’t be created, but we have hardly received the final word on intelligence. Is it possible that intelligence can be broken down into further particles? For example, we used to think the atom was the smallest particle, and therefore could not be divided. Then we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then we discovered quarks. Now we are discovering even more. Are there physical properties of light and truth that can be divided? And… Read more »

Richard J. Nobbe III
Richard J. Nobbe III
5 years ago
Reply to  oneclimbs

Yeah, that must have frustrated Joseph Smith beyond measure. I think all prophets throughout history have had this frustration. Think of Adam with Cain, or Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai, or the Savior trying to teach his own people in his own land. Makes me think of a quote from Seinfeld, “People are the Worst!” Of course Heavenly Father doesn’t think so and neither should we. It all is a matter of spiritual preparation. I know many of the questions I asked do not have answers that we are likely to understand or have place for now. I love… Read more »

8
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x