But with what reasoning? Symbollically, you could say I am prying to find the golden ratio of your psyche. Currently it is lost on me and it seems highly random. Im just trying to understand here but I fear that unlike the golden ratio, there is no way to rationalize your ideas. :P
If you were to find the golden ratio of my mind, that would certainly be a feat! Or maybe just successful psychological analysis by your way of thinking.
Ok, let's start with the simplest examples. As I explained briefly before, the concept is that the whole is to the larger as the larger is to the smaller. Assuming this is a pattern, I first test it to see what it applies to. I find it applies to a lot of things, and probably not so much to others. Once I see it a lot, I can find it in many different ways.
1) Say a person was looking into a cone, but they didn't know it. All they knew was they saw concentric circles. Knowing the principle, they could deduce that since there was a pattern there, they were probably connected and part of a larger whole. They might be able to figure out that they were looking into a cone shaped object.
1a540068-0197-4cfa-96fe-7f2daf366c5f.jpeg
If you want to take the concept further, you could look at how the human eye works:
programming_computer_vision_eye1.gif
There's a cone shape of light information going into our eye, and a cone of reflection into our brain (from the optic nerve). Knowing that our field of perception is small compared to all that is, we can apply the concept: what we see is a small part of the whole- a representation in microcosm. We are always looking through a cone from 2 directions so to speak.
A principle is a macrocosm (of generality), and anything you apply it to is a microcosm (specificity). Our thought process illustrates the golden ratio.
If you were to find the golden ratio of my mind, that would certainly be a feat! Or maybe just successful psychological analysis by your way of thinking.
Ok, let's start with the simplest examples. As I explained briefly before, the concept is that the whole is to the larger as the larger is to the smaller. Assuming this is a pattern, I first test it to see what it applies to. I find it applies to a lot of things, and probably not so much to others. Once I see it a lot, I can find it in many different ways.
1) Say a person was looking into a cone, but they didn't know it. All they knew was they saw concentric circles. Knowing the principle, they could deduce that since there was a pattern there, they were probably connected and part of a larger whole. They might be able to figure out that they were looking into a cone shaped object.
1a540068-0197-4cfa-96fe-7f2daf366c5f.jpeg
If you want to take the concept further, you could look at how the human eye works:
programming_computer_vision_eye1.gif
There's a cone shape of light information going into our eye, and a cone of reflection into our brain (from the optic nerve). Knowing that our field of perception is small compared to all that is, we can apply the concept: what we see is a small part of the whole- a representation in microcosm. We are always looking through a cone from 2 directions so to speak. Edit: True, it's from the opposite direction, but it still works. I think. I just tried it with a rolled up piece of paper. If not, I'll have to find a different example.
2) A principle is a macrocosm (of generality), and anything you apply it to is a microcosm (specificity). Our thought process illustrates the golden ratio.
I think there is a relationship with what we understand to be beautiful, but it isn't a romantic one. I think we recognise as "beautiful" those things which are in some fundamental way "optimal". This actually takes the subjective "magic" out of beauty.
As an example, it has been postulated that what we call physical beauty in other humans is simply "optimal averageness" or symmetry. And that symmetry is desirable because it is a physical manifestation of health and optimal pre-natal nurture.
Recognising that something is "beautiful" seems to be an aesthetic judgement that we are all capable of making, but only some of us are interested in understanding why, in demystifying the process.
Others are more interested in creating mysticism, superstition, magic out of the ether. Such are the pleasures of the primitive intellect.
It's a similar story with the Mandelbrot set. "Thumbprint of God" is a lovely metaphor. But that's all it is. Some people seize on such things and get carried away - they take metaphor too literally. They think having an enjoyable aesthetic experience is some kind of portal to a spiritual dimension.
There's plenty of crazy out there. Take a look at this fractal wisdom bullshit.
Not to insult NFs, but this is the sort of thing that happens when you have the great power of intuition to make random connections, completely unharnassed from the critical thinking skills to decide which of those connections have merit.
At least you no longer delude yourself that you are rational.
It's a start.
Your fear is not unfounded. Really, this fairy is the most trying creature to try to engage with. I'd abandon the quest if I were you.
It's a little off tangent from the principle of the golden ratio, you are assuming that, because the golden ratio repeats itself and can be found almost everywhere (which is logical), it must be true for everything and not only apply it to reality as we understand it, but also to how you think it to be, in a way that the golden ratio specifically represents creation itself?
I understand where your reasoning is coming from now, but I don't need to know about the golden ratio to know that my perceptive abilities have limitations and that what we see and understand at any one point of time is but a mere fraction of the universe. I also fully expect there could be golden ratio's to be found all over this process if you look hard enough, but this fact in no way justifies that line of reasoning. I fail to see how the golden ratio has in fact any significance in this all, I'll come to my reasoning later.
I think you'd be better off by addressing your thoughts while staying fully submerged in the philosophical and symbolism, than basing it entirely on a scientific fundament. The risk you are taking by using things such as the golden ratio as part of symbolism is that you essentially seem to be wanting to rationalize your own way of thinking by bridging it to science. Whilest in fact your way of thinking does not need to be rationalized at all.
Buddha said it quite eloquently: "In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true."
From a philosophical point of view, you mention the big picture, I can do big picture philosophy so here goes.
Depending on your stance on religion, this could be nature, God's plan, or if you will, the Golden Ratio (or the Golden Ratio as a fundamental part of nature).
But just as the golden ratio is part of the sum of the universe, so is the number 1 to the golden ratio. And the number 1 is just a concept of math us humans have defined. Sure, even that is part of the sum of the universe. But by that reasoning everything is. So what, specifically, is the significance of the Golden Ratio in it all? Only two things could be true. There either is no significance, or its significance is equal to all other things. I'm an optimist so I tend to lean toward the latter (neither could be branded as being wrong and both could be true at the same time.), but it's a mere matter of perspective. But in no way does the golden ratio hold more significance than anything else.
So is this a discussion about the Golden Ratio and it's specific significance, or is it about the sum of the universe or macrocosm as you put it?
I think you say one thing, but mean the latter. You mention the golden ratio and how much you love it, but mean the universe and how much you love that. Am I wrong? I don't think I'm wrong.
Let me see if I understand you correctly: since everything fits into the "big picture" i.e. sum of the universe somehow, either everything is special or nothing is special.
I agree with this. My answer is both. But first I'll draw a distinction: a number and a pattern have different significance because a number is a point and a pattern is a map. Maps are useful in finding more points and answers to questions. You might not see any spiritual significance in any of this, but surely you see truth in mathematics and science, and you enjoy knowing truth. I enjoy knowing truth so much that it feels spiritual. Things whose truth can be known through scientific observation are the yang side of truth, but there is a yin side of truth as well: that which is mysterious and must be known through intuition and interaction. (Se, Ne, +T=yang and Si, Ni + F=yin). I try to know as much of both kinds as I can- and the yin side of truth is what people tend to call spiritual, because it has that subjective quality of being "special." Sure, nothing is special independent of human perception. But attaching value to things enriches the experience of life. I use symbolism partly intellectually, to discover scientific things through examination of patterns, but I also use it to try to arrive at intuitive truth- and I attach value to knowledge of truth. If you don't, that's fine. Truth doesn't change with value association. You might disagree that anything can be known through intuition, and that would be understandable. I simply try to make a case for it.