Eliciting Comprehension of Subtle Coherence of Strategic Relevance

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 21 Apr 2025

Antony Judge | laetus in praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Exploration of Cognitively Resonant Configurations of Meaning and Order

Table of Contents:

Introduction
Summary by AI of the exchange toward a coherent geometry of understanding
Enduring credibility of religious belief vs strategic and scientific narratives
Psychosocial blind spot in strategic communication
Higher orders of symmetry in enabling comprehension and memorability
From number to form: the overlooked geometry of scripture
Scriptural geometry and the architecture of meaning
AI as a catalyst for revealing hidden structural patterns
Geometries beyond the West: comparative sacred configurations
Mutual misunderstanding: science and spirituality in the face of complexity
Systemic role of unbelief as a catalyst for coherence
Configuration of themes evoked as visualizations in 3D
References

*************************

Introduction

In a period celebrated formally or informally as “holy” or “sacred”, it is extraordinary to witness the pervasive violence between those who each claim allegiance to a spiritual worldview. Equally extraordinary is the widespread indifference to strategic initiatives — purportedly guided by scientific rationality — that aim to mitigate such violence, alongside other dimensions of the unfolding global polycrisis. These crises have been variously foreseen, whether as prophetic warnings or scientifically modelled projections. At the core of this situation lies a growing trust deficit toward all forms of authoritative pronouncement — religious, scientific, or strategic.

In this light, it is timely to explore the forms of order that continue to command credibility, particularly in contrast to those widely regarded as suspect, irrelevant, or meaningless. Most striking is the divide between religious belief and the belief in strategic action justified by science — both of which are promoted as essential to the sustainable future of humanity. Yet each tends to view the other’s agenda with suspicion, if not outright contempt.

Paradoxically, humanity has now engendered a new cognitive instrument: artificial intelligence — capable of unprecedented pattern recognition across vast domains. It too is now viewed with suspicion, albeit for different reasons. Yet if such concerns are momentarily set aside, a question emerges: Might AI offer new insights into the mutual deprecation of science and spirituality, or bridge what has long been described as the divide between the “two cultures”?

The core focus here is to explore whether unrecognized patterns of order exist — patterns that might offer credible appeal across worldviews that otherwise seem irreconcilably opposed, and which currently lack any shared language for meaningful dialogue. From the existential perspective of religion and the psycho social sciences, the central question is: What evokes meaning and coherence — what is experientially and cognitively resonant — such that it becomes fundamental to belief and action? From the perspective of the natural sciences — and of policy grounded in their epistemology — the question becomes: What ordering patterns, grounded in evidence and formal reasoning, command respect and guide effective collective response?

Ironically, a possible bridge between these perspectives may lie in their shared reverence for number and proportion — however differently construed. Mathematics has long served both domains: it underpins scientific method and cosmological models, while also shaping religious ritual, sacred calendars, and symbolic cosmologies. The irony is underscored by the emergence of “mathematical theology” — a scholarly discipline investigating theological implications of mathematical structure. Many icons of mathematics have been profoundly religious, interpreting the elegance of mathematics as revelatory of a divine order. Less frequently noted is whether major religious figures have recognized their mystical or visionary experiences as mathematically informed — even implicitly.

While numerology has long been cultivated in relation to scripture, it is routinely dismissed by science as superstition and pseudoscience — in stark contrast to the high status of number theory in mathematics. Somewhat more acceptable is the domain of sacred geometry, where mathematical proportion is celebrated both for aesthetic and metaphysical insight. But absent from both traditions is sustained attention to a crucial shared concern: How is comprehension and memorability actually engendered and sustained?

This issue — how meaning is made durable and transmissible — is fundamental to religious conviction and community cohesion. Yet it is largely ignored in strategy design, particularly those strategies framed in the language of natural science. This may help to explain the limited credibility and uptake of evidence-based strategies, despite their technical validity and urgency.

The method adopted in what follows is exploratory and cross-disciplinary. It seeks to draw upon the pattern recognition capabilities of AI — eliciting responses that might clarify the geometrical and cognitive challenges implicit in how strategic knowledge is organized and communicated. The aim is to move beyond the limitations of siloed thinking — teasing out structural insights with potential relevance across traditions of science, spirituality, and systemic governance.

TO CONTINUE READING PLEASE GO TO ORIGINAL – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.