Sacred Numbers of Speech : 1, 2, 3, & 4

I had a long walk home this evening because the Boston bus system stopped running early on Christmas. But after a long night of debating things from science, mysticism, energy resources, unsolved problem in mathematics, and Tolkien, I had time to think about why certain numbers were sacred during this walk. For a number or a geometry to be considered sacred it must be found naturally and ontologically in according individual instances. For example, Platonic solids are sacred because one solid is a duality of another, such as the icosahedron is a dual of a dodecahedron.

But what about certain numbers? For instance, the number 2 is sacred, but why? There are two ways to find its significance as a number : ontologically and in speech patterns.

Let's begin with 1. One is a singularity, non-polar, and autonomous. This is obviously sacred as 1 exists naturally and ontologically. My solipsistic existence ontologically gives rise to a singularity. It also exists as a manner of speech, such as the autonomous statement : "I am."

The number 2, on the other hand, is different. Ontologically, referring to a singularity automatically infers that "I" is a separate entity from that singularity, thus creating a duality. The duality occurs naturally as well, such as man and woman, light and dark, up and down, warm and cold, et cetera. This occurs in speech, such as if I say : "You are..." I am referring to "you" as a separate entity from myself, thus establishing a polarity of "you" and "I". Or again, if I say "He looks lonely." I am referring to "he" as an entity polar to my singularity. Therefore, the singularity is destroyed and ontologically a duality emerges.

The number 3 is not much different, as I have already used it above in : "He looks lonely." Saying this sentence to "you", a duality to myself, establishes there is trinity, or a third entity separate from "you" and "I". Even if I were saying this sentence to myself I am structuring this sentence as if there were a hypothetical second entity to say this to. So, in this instance, a trinity can emerge linguistically from a singularity.

The number 4 is the blurry bounds of where the primary sacred numbers end. 1, 2, & 3 ontologically exist to themselves, and they are prime numbers, and therefore isolated. Four is a dual-duality, that is 2 x 2. But the significance of 4 arises in our speech. For instance, if I say to you : "They are going to the movies tonight." This establishes that there is more than a trinity, and at the very least a quaternity. I am signifying that there is, at the very least, a duality that is separate from us as a duality. But, of course, these are fuzzy lines, as "they" can refer to any number more than one separate from the us. "They" could refer to five, or forty-two. Logically, all number greater than three cannot be considered important (and possibly even primary) sacred numbers due to their absence in our speech.

But this does not mean that 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and... are not sacred numbers. 4 is sacred because it is a dual-duality. 5 is sacred because it is the number of appendages on each hand and foot, the number of retrogrades per cycle in the geocentric orbit of Venus, a prime number, and so forth. And though 5 may not be a dual-trinity (6) or a tri-trinity (9), it is a dual and a trinity (2 + 3). 6 is a sacred number, not only because it is found in nature, but it is a dual-trinity. And so the list keeps going and 12 is usually considered to be the last of fundamental sacred numbers, though there are others beyond this.

1, 2, and 3 are sacred because they are the building blocks of higher sacred numbers. But hidden in our speech we find the significance of these sacred numbers, or at the very least, what sacred numbers were primary and which ones are secondary.