As we might expect from the proceeding studies of QOKEEDY, our second paradigm, CHOLDAIIN, is also extracted from what we have characterized as the primitive paradigm.
We won’t go over it again here, but QOKEEDY is extracted from – is a transformation of – an underlying pattern. The reason for the transformation, the purpose of the verbum potentiae, is to facilitate turning the underlying pattern into a running text. In particular, a system of word breaks is installed into the paradigm so that a running text of words can be generated.
This, at least, is the direction this research has taken.
What of CHOLDAIIN, the second of the verbum potentiae?
I have proposed that it stands in a relation of coinciding opposites to QOKEEDY.
More generally – and importing some symbolic associations based on the context – CHOLDAIIN is the terrestrial paradigm, while QOKEEDY is the celestial. (A more medieval terminology might be, CHOLDAIIN is sublunary and QOKEEDY is supernal.)
Regarding CHOLDAIIN I have pointed out that it readily bifurcates into CHOL and DAIIN. The realm of duality.
How is this paradigm extracted from the primitive model?
* * *
The short answer is that it arises when the [o] in the primitive paradigm is bifurcated into the [ee] we find in QOKEEDY.
The CHOLDAIIN paradigm is inherently an expression of, and a result of, bifurcation – the sundering of a unity into a duality.
In the formation of QOKEEDY the central [o] after the gallows is cut in half. It becomes, instead, [ee].
The second paradigm, CHOLDAIIN, is born at the same time. It is born of this sundering, this bifurcation.
Leaving aside [q] and other changes – which we must imagine are simulataneous, not sequential – the state of the primitive sequence after the bifurcation of [o] is:
oteepo
Let us bifurcate it thus:
ot ee po
This is the bifurcation of the primitive paradigm from which CHOLDAIIN has been constructed.
The next step is this. The [ee] in the primitive sequence is now placed at the start and the finish, thus (noting that it is palindromic):
eeot poee
Now, the [ee] at the start becomes the [ch] by way of a joining ligature.
At the same time, the [ee] is placed at the end, which become [ii]:
chot poii
Next, the [t] becomes an [l], or rather [l] with an implied word break [l_], and [p] becomes [d].
The crucial change that has happened is that the backslash glyphs have been introduced. Beyond being halved into [e] the [o] now becomes an [i].
This necessitates the [a] and a device to impose a word break at the end and bring the sequence to a termination, the [n].
The backslash, it appears, is the result of the radical transformation of the gallows glyph in the primitive paradigm.
We have seen in previous studies on these pages that the gallows glyph represents a certain breach. It is what cuts the [o] into an [ee].
Visually, this capacity of the gallows glyphs is suggested by the vertical elevating stroke. If we ignore the other parts of the gallows glyphs, these elevators – stilts – make the primitive paradigm look like:
o|oo|o|oo|
It is these verticals that provide the opportunities to break the cycling sequence up with word breaks – and also soft breaks, points of schism.
The word breaks, like [q] and everything else, are unpacked from the gallows glyphs.
The gallows glyphs are like concentrations of resources. They contain, in one glyph, the [q], an elevated [o] glyph – or two in the case of [p] and [f] – and a vertical stroke that causes word breaks and the furthering sundering of [o] into [i], curves into backslashes.
The primitive text – as explained previously – is, finally, an uninterrupted sequence of [o] glyphs such as we find illustrated in the codex:
This is then decorated with a rhythm of gallows glyphs.
These gallows glyphs contain all the resources necessary to create the two paradigms QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN. The subsequent transformations of the stream of [o] glyphs are inherent in the inner resources of the gallows.
Certainly, we need to examine the system of gallows glyphs much closer, but it is clear that the gallows supply the transformations we witness as the paradigms, the verbum potentiae, emerge out of the primitive model.
In any case, by definition, there are no gallows glyphs in CHOLDAIIN. It is the terrestrial paradigm. It is sublunary, mundane, the lesser paradigm, the vernacular paradigm.
In QOKEEDY the gallows merely provoked the sundering of the [o] into [ee]. Division. But the word remained intact. The division didn’t cut the paradigm in half, only the [o].
In CHOLDAIIN, though, the same dividing process has more dire consequences. It effectively splits the paradigm in two.
The process of divcision in the case of QOKEEDY, we might say, is horizontal. In CHOLDAIIN is it vertical. It is a more severe breach.
In any case, the gallows give rise to the [l] and the [d].
Regarding the flow of the backslash or line-based glyphs, note this:
CHOL provides an example of [i] disruption. The [o] is followed by [l] which is an [i] with a tail. The curve/line system is disrupted.
DAIIN provides an example of [i] continuity. The [a] facilitates a sequence of [i] glyphs and the smooth flow of curves and lines.
In a sense, the CHOLDAIIN paradigm is all about the introduction of the backslash glyphs, converting the basic flow from [ooooooo] into [\\\\\\\].
* * *
As noted previously, the CHOLDAIIN paradigm is slightly more complex than the QOKEEDY paradigm, simply because it embodies duality and multiplicity. It arises out of a process of bifurcation, and embodies it.
This will be the subject of further studies in the future. For now, it is enough to provide a sketch of how the CHOLDAIIN paradigm was formed in contrast to the formation of QOKEEDY.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment