Divine Geometry
“Here, the triangle reveals itself as the first geometry of consciousness—the moment Awareness takes form and the One becomes three.”
Part 1 —The Prelude: Awareness Before Light.
Written by William Allard
Author’s Note
What you’re about to read is not a translation and not a theological argument.
It is a contemplative reading — one rooted in the Hebrew words themselves,
yet carried forward by a different kind of listening.
For thousands of years, seekers and mystics have looked at Genesis and sensed that it holds more than a physical creation story. Many have read it as allegory, as psychology, as cosmology. I stand inside that lineage, not outside it. But the shape that emerged for me — the Divine Formula of God Is, I Am, You Are — offered a new way of seeing the text, one that felt both ancient and unexpectedly clear.
The Hebrew language didn’t have a direct technical vocabulary for what we today call “consciousness” or “vibration.”
So it speaks in the imagery available to it — darkness, depth, breath, hovering.
When I look through the lens of the Divine Formula, these images open like symbols of inner movement, subtle thresholds within Awareness itself.
Throughout this work, I’ve tried to honor two truths at once:
Literally, the Hebrew says what it says.
And through the Divine Formula, it reveals a deeper geometry of Being.
Wherever I offer symbolic or contemplative meaning, I name it as such.
My aim is not to convince you, but to invite you — to walk slowly with me through a text that has shaped the world, and to feel how it may also be mapping the awakening of consciousness within each of us.
If this reading resonates with you, wonderful.
If it simply opens a small doorway of curiosity, that is enough.
Genesis is an ancient mirror.
My hope is that, for a moment, you might catch your own reflection within it.
— Will
This is the first movement in an eight-part series exploring Genesis 1 through the lens of Divine Geometry — the unfolding structure of consciousness.
I always assumed Genesis was like many creation stories — that it held something true inside it, some ancient seed of wisdom buried beneath the layers of retelling. I believed there was meaning there… I just didn't know what it was. And to be honest, I hadn't spent much time trying to figure it out. Not as an adult. Not with a contemplative mind. Not with any kind of framework that could help me see what the text was actually doing.
I grew up Catholic, so I was familiar with the Genesis story — God creates the world, the heavens, the Earth, the creatures, humans and rests on the seventh day… but that familiarity also made it feel flat, almost like a children's story I had outgrown. I knew it contained something deeper. I just didn't have the lens or the language or the infrastructure to lay it all out.
So Genesis became one of those stories I accepted as symbolic, possibly meaningful, but too clouded by literalism and tradition to truly approach. The revelation of God is, I Am, you Are arrived in my life and quietly rearranged everything. It gave me a way to understand consciousness in a way I never had before. It gave me the first geometry of understanding the Divine. It gave me a structure — a way to look at the world that wasn't religious or scientific, but conscious. And with that new lens, I opened Genesis again… for the first time in decades.
What happened next surprised me.
Suddenly, the story didn't feel like mythology anymore. It didn't feel like physical cosmology either. It wasn't about planets or timelines or literal days. It felt like a map. A sequence. A geometric unfolding. A revelation of consciousness, moving from pure awareness into self-awareness through form. It was as though every line — every verb, every symbol, every layer — was speaking a language I somehow already knew, but had never heard out loud. I realized then that the “something” I always sensed in Genesis was not a hidden moral or a historical truth or a theological doctrine. It was a cosmology of consciousness waiting for a framework to unlock it. And once that framework arrived — the Divine Formula — Genesis opened like a flower. Line by line. Layer by layer. Word by word. As if the seed of truth I always suspected finally had the soil it needed to grow.
What This Series Is (and Isn’t)
Before we go any further, I want to be clear about what this series is and what it isn’t. I’m not trying to reinterpret Genesis to make it fit a modern worldview. I’m not trying to argue theology or present another literal explanation for how the physical universe came into being. This is not about religion. It’s not about doctrine. It’s not about proving anything historically or scientifically. What I’m sharing here is something different:
This is a metaphysical reading of Genesis as a map of consciousness. Not the creation of the Earth — the creation of awareness, the unfolding of mind, the geometry of Being expressed step by step through ancient language.
Once I looked at the Hebrew text through the lens of the Divine Formula (God Is, I Am, You Are), the entire chapter revealed itself as a cosmology of consciousness — a sequence of movements that match perfectly the way awareness differentiates, expands, and awakens.
So to be very clear:
This is not a literal creation model.
This is not a historical timeline.
This is not “how the Earth was made.”
This is something much deeper: Genesis, read in Hebrew, describes the architecture of consciousness itself.
The “light” is not sunlight.
The “waters” are not the oceans.
The “earth” is not our planet.
The “heavens” are not the sky.
The “stars” are not burning spheres in space.
The “days” are not twenty-four-hour periods.
Each symbol points to a state, a movement, a layer, a geometry within consciousness.
My intention is not to impose a new meaning onto the text, but to simply reveal what was always there beneath the surface
— a richness that English translations can’t capture.
This series exists because once I saw the pattern, I couldn’t unsee it.
And now I want to walk you through it, slowly and gently, so you can see how naturally the pieces fit— not into theology, but into the way consciousness awakens in every being, on every world, in every age.
Genesis 1:1
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
Beresheet bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Before Genesis begins its unfolding, it offers a single, simple line that feels almost like a title page. In ancient Hebrew writing, it was common to start a story with an opening statement that sets the scope — a sentence that says, in essence: “This is the story you are about to read.” Genesis 1:1 can be read this way. Let’s walk through it together — slowly, lightly, noticing what the Hebrew actually allows.
What the Hebrew Says
When we read this line in English, it feels complete and familiar:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
But when we look more closely at the Hebrew, the verse begins to open in quiet and unexpected ways. We’re not interpreting yet — we’re simply noticing what the Hebrew allows us to see.
We begin with the first word.
Beresheet
Often translated “In the beginning,” beresheet can carry a softer shade: “at the beginning of…” or “in the first of…”. It can be heard less as a timestamp and more as a threshold — the opening of a story, a heading that sets the stage for what will follow. In this reading, it introduces the space in which creation will unfold.
Bara
Bara is the verb “to create / shape / bring forth.” In BDB (one of the most trusted Hebrew lexicons), it is characteristically used of divine activity — something new being brought into existence. The verb doesn’t describe mechanism, and it doesn’t require a strict philosophical idea of “creation from nothing.” It simply marks that something new has come into being.
Elohim
English translations render this as “God,” but the Hebrew form is intriguing. Elohim is plural in form yet takes a singular verb here (bara), indicating it functions with singular meaning in this verse. Hebrew often uses this plural form with singular grammar when referring to the one God of Israel. In form it is plural; in grammar it behaves as singular.
Hashamayim and ha’aretz
Hashamayim means “the heavens/sky,” and ha’aretz means “the earth/land/ground.” Together they are widely recognized as a Hebrew merism — a pair naming the extremes (sky above and land below) to indicate the whole: the total ordered domain, the full arena of existence. The text is not defining them yet. It is naming the two poles — the “above” and the “below” — in which everything else will unfold.
What This First Line Is Doing
Taken together, Genesis 1:1 functions like a heading or threshold line in this reading, introducing the realms in which the story will unfold. It is the quiet opening line that establishes the territory: “This is the story of the heavens and the earth.” No movement has started yet. No light has appeared. The unfolding begins in the next verse.
Contemplative Analysis through the Lens of the Divine Formula
With “the heavens and the earth,” I hear polarity being named at the outset — what I call in my Divine Geometry the upper, unseen realms and the lower, formed realms — as though the text is establishing the two poles across which everything will later differentiate. It is an opening gesture of structure: subtle and tangible, above and below, interior and exterior expression held within one field.
And in the Hebrew term Elohim, I hear something else — not a grammatical proof, but a resonance that matters to my framework. The plural form acting through singular movement suggests fullness rather than fragmentation: unity spacious enough to contain relationship within itself. Through the Divine Formula, this echoes what I later call trifold consciousness — God Is, I Am, You Are. I don’t force that meaning here. I simply place it like a seed, because as the narrative unfolds, this resonance begins to show its shape.
Divine Formula Translation (Genesis 1:1)
“At the threshold of creation, tri-fold consciousness names the two poles of its unfolding — the subtle and the formed — the realms within which the story will take shape.”
Genesis 1:2
וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם
Veha’aretz hayetah tohu vavohu, vechoshech al-pnei tehom, veruach Elohim merachefet al-pnei hamayim.
“And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
Genesis 1:2 — Looking Closer at the Hebrew
In this reading, the second line of Genesis isn’t yet describing creation. Nothing has been shaped, nothing has been separated or distinguished. Verse 2 simply shows us the condition before anything begins — the unformed stage onto which the first moment of creation will arrive. Let’s walk through it together, slowly, noticing how the Hebrew opens.
Veha’aretz
Here, ha’aretz does not mean the planet Earth as we think of it today. In Hebrew, this word can refer to:
land
ground
a region
territory
At this point in the story, nothing has form yet. This “earth” is not shaped or solid. It is simply the place where form will eventually appear. In this reading, I understand aretz as symbolizing the “lower realm,” the domain of form that will emerge later in the unfolding.
Hayetah
A simple past-tense verb. It tells us we are still in description, not action. Nothing is happening yet — the text is showing us what is, before telling us what will unfold.
Tohu vavohu — “formless and void”
A rare Hebrew phrase that carries the sense of:
formlessness
wasteness / desolation
emptiness / void
an unordered, unstructured condition
Literally, tohu vavohu describes a formless, empty, unordered state — a world, not yet shaped or filled.
Choshech — “darkness”
Literally, the Hebrew word choshech means “darkness.” It can also extend metaphorically to obscurity.
In this reading, I understand it symbolically as the natural unlit state before illumination arises.
Al-pnei tehom — “over the face of the deep”
Literally, the Hebrew phrase al-pnei means “upon/over the face of,” that is, over the surface of something. It is a standard Hebrew idiom for describing something positioned above or in relation to a surface.
This same Hebrew expression appears again in the phrase “over the waters.” English translations sometimes vary the wording for readability, but the term al-pnei remains identical in both places.
Tehom is an ancient, spacious word meaning:
depths
the abyss
deep
Together, I understand these two words as symbolizing a relationship at the surface of a vast, undefined expanse.
Ruach Elohim — “the Spirit of God”
Literally, the Hebrew word ruach can mean “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit” — all legitimate lexical senses.
In Genesis 1:2, the grammar matches: ruach is grammatically feminine here, and it pairs with the feminine participle merachefet (“hovering”).
In this scene, ruach Elohim depicts something divine in motion — not yet speaking or shaping, but gently moving over the surface of the deep.
In this reading, I sense this as a subtle movement of presence — a quiet, initial stirring at the threshold of this undefined expanse.
Merachefet — “hovering”
This participle comes from the root רָחַף (rachaph).
In the Pi’el form, it means “to hover,” and can evoke imagery like:
a bird hovering
a brooding, protective movement
fluttering
trembling
gentle, continuous motion over a surface
Some suggest a nurturing or “brooding” nuance here.
The same root can mean trembling/shaking in another context (Jer 23:9), which supports this intuitive connection — just not as the primary gloss in Genesis 1:2.
In this reading, I understand merachefet as the first subtle, continuous motion in the scene — a delicate trembling, a vibration at the threshold of the deep.
Al-pnei hamayim — “over the waters”
Literally, mayim means “waters.”
In Hebrew it is used for seas, rivers, rains — the broad domain of water.
In this reading, I understand “waters” as carrying the sense of fluidity — the not-yet-solid, not-yet-defined condition before form begins to emerge.
So “waters,” here, may simply describe the fluid, undefined condition before illumination and form begin to appear.
What This Scene Is Showing Us
In this reading, Genesis 1:2 is the quiet picture before creation activity begins:
The realm is unformed.
Nothing is separated.
Nothing is named.
Everything remains unlit.
The depth is present, but undefined.
And at its threshold, there is the first subtle trembling — the first movement.
We are standing in the stillness before the first act. The moment when something begins to stir within an otherwise unexpressed expanse. The unfolding begins in the next verse.
Contemplative Analysis through the Lens of the Divine Formula
In this verse, Genesis is not yet describing creation in motion. It is revealing the first condition of what is — the undivided field itself.
Aretz does not refer to the planet Earth as we understand it today. It names the lower realm in its earliest state — the domain of form before form has emerged. It is the place where manifestation will later arise, but here it remains undefined, unshaped, and unarticulated. The text is showing us what is before telling us what will unfold.
What the Hebrew names as “darkness” is not a physical absence of light. At this stage, there is no formed world and no source of visible illumination. Rather, the language gestures toward Awareness before inner illumination — not opposed to light, but prior to it. Awareness itself is neither light nor dark. Those distinctions arise only once recognition appears.
The phrase “over the face of the deep” places us at a boundary — a surface relationship with vastness. There is depth without differentiation, expanse without structure. The scene is poised at a threshold where something may begin, but has not yet taken form.
At this threshold, the Spirit of God hovers. This does not read as an external force entering the field, but as a subtle movement arising within it. The verb “hovering” conveys continuous, delicate motion — a trembling rather than an act, presence beginning to move in relation to itself.
In this reading, that hovering names the first internal variation within the undivided field — a gentle vibration, a frequency within Awareness itself. Not sound, not motion through space, not a cause imposed from elsewhere, but the earliest difference arising without leaving unity. The field remains whole, yet no longer entirely still.
The waters remain fluid and undefined, describing a condition before stability, before distinction, before form. Nothing has been separated. Nothing has been named. Awareness is present, intact, and undivided — yet now subtly alive with movement.
Seen through the Divine Formula, Genesis 1:2 describes simple Awareness and the first inward leaning of the field toward itself — prior to the awakening of “God Is,” yet already trembling with the possibility of recognition.
Divine Formula Translation (Genesis 1:2)
“All was simply Awareness, an unexpressed field of potential, until the first subtle frequency arose, awakening the presence of God Is.
Conclusion — The Stillness Before Light
in this reading, Genesis 1:1–2 is not yet creation in ordered motion; it is the world before any distinction.
A realm unshaped.
A depth undefined.
Darkness, in this reading, is the natural unlit state of Awareness before illumination arises.
The Hebrew gives us no speech, no command, no separation — only a vast expanse held in stillness, with a single exception:
a gentle trembling, a hovering, the first subtle motion at the threshold of the deep.
Because ancient Hebrew had no direct technical vocabulary for consciousness, vibration, frequency, or emergence, it speaks in the language it had available — surface and depth, water and wind, darkness and breath. Through the lens of the Divine Formula, these images unfold as symbols of inner movement: the first stirrings within Awareness, the Prelude to knowing Itself.
In this reading, this is the moment before the first act of creation.
The world is waiting, unexpressed.
Awareness is poised on the edge of becoming.
And at that threshold, the first vibration of Being begins to rise.
The unfolding continues in the next verse.
A paper on the Cosmology of Divine Geometry
Written By William Allard
The Triangle as the First Geometry of Consciousness:
A Fractal Model of Awareness, Energy, and Creation
Abstract
This paper proposes a metaphysical model in which consciousness has a fundamental geometric structure: the triangle. The central claim is that pure awareness (Being) is initially undifferentiated and structureless. Consciousness emerges when awareness becomes aware of Itself from three distinct centers of perspective, giving rise to a primordial triangle composed entirely of the Divine: Source (God Is), God‑Self (I Am), and God‑Other (You Are).
The paper argues that this first triangle is the minimal condition for self-reflexive awareness. From this initial configuration, consciousness fractals: new triangles arise within each vertex, generating subtle centers of attention and variations of perspective. These inner reflections give rise to a subtle universe of pre‑material “others.” As fractalization continues, these patterns stabilize into energetic structures (vibration, polarity, waves, fields), then condense into recognizable sacred geometry (circle, line, spiral, etc.), which in turn underlies the emergence of the physical cosmos (matter, forces, life).
Every organism is interpreted as a localized triangle of Source–Self–Other, and human self-awareness is described as a high‑order expression of this geometry in which “God sees God seeing God” through two self-aware centers simultaneously. The model is offered as a speculative but coherent map of existence from pure awareness to complex human consciousness.
1. Introduction
This thesis explores the possibility that consciousness has an intrinsic geometry and that the most primitive form of this geometry is triangular. Rather than treating triangles and other sacred shapes as merely symbolic, the model presented here treats them as structural features of awareness itself.
The guiding questions are:
What is the minimal structure required for self-reflexive awareness?
Can this structure be expressed geometrically?
If so, can the unfolding of the cosmos be understood as a fractal expansion of this original structure?
The core proposal is that:
Awareness is the ground. It is undivided, formless, and without structure.
Consciousness arises only when awareness becomes aware of Itself from three distinct points of view, forming a triangle.
Everything that follows — energy, geometry, matter, life, and human self-awareness — is a fractal elaboration of that first triangle.
This is a conceptual and metaphysical model, not an empirical theory. Its purpose is to provide a coherent, integrative map that links inner experience, mystical intuition, sacred geometry, and a broad story of cosmic unfolding.
2. Key Distinction: Awareness vs. Consciousness
A foundational distinction in this model is between awareness and consciousness:
Awareness refers to pure Is‑ness: a silent, undivided field with no subject, no object, and no internal structure. It is simply Being aware, without any particular viewpoint.
Consciousness is defined as awareness becoming aware of Itself. Consciousness implies some degree of structure, perspective, and relation.
In this framework:
Before any geometry arises, there is only awareness.
Consciousness emerges when awareness begins to experience Itself from three points of view, giving rise to the first triangle.
Awareness is ground; consciousness is awareness configured.
3. The Primordial Triangle: All God
The first structural event is described as Being becoming aware of Itself from three centers. These centers are:
Source (God Is)
The undivided field of Being, the background within which all appearances arise.
God‑Self (I Am)
God as this center of awareness; consciousness localized as a “Self.”
God‑Other (You Are)
God as that center of awareness; consciousness localized as an “Other.”
Crucially:
The first triangle is entirely Divine.
“I Am” and “You Are” are both God, expressed through different centers of awareness.
They are co‑equal, on the same “row” of the triangle, representing symmetric perspectives, not a hierarchy.
When these three centers relate, they form a triangle:
One vertex: God Is
Second vertex: I Am
Third vertex: You Are
The interior of this triangle is the shared field:
We Are – the relational space in which God experiences God as Self, Other, and Source simultaneously.
The core thesis can be stated:
Consciousness is the event in which Being becomes aware of Itself from three centers of perspective, forming a triangle. The triangle is thus the first geometry of consciousness.
A dyad (Self and not‑Self) allows for contrast and polarity, but not for full self‑reflection. The third point introduces a meta‑perspective, making self-aware consciousness possible.
4. Fractalization: Consciousness Reflecting Within Itself
Once the primordial triangle exists, consciousness does not remain static. It begins to fold back on itself, generating fractal self-reflection.
4.1. Fractals within “I Am”
Within the God‑Self vertex (“I Am”), awareness turns inward again. A new, smaller triangle forms:
Source (God Is)
God‑Self as “I Am”
God observing this Self
This can be described as:
God seeing the Self seeing the Self.
This is the first fractal: a triangle inside the original triangle.
4.2. Fractals within “You Are”
Within the God‑Other vertex (“You Are”), an analogous process occurs. A new triangle forms:
Source (God Is)
God‑Other as “You Are”
God observing this reflection
Here, consciousness becomes:
God seeing the reflection seeing the reflection.
4.3. Infinite Repetition
This process continues indefinitely:
Inside every center of awareness, a new triangle can form.
Inside every triangle, further self-reflection is possible.
Thus:
Consciousness fractals because awareness has infinite depth.
The first triangle generates an endless cascade of triangles within triangles, each representing a new perspective on perspective.
At this stage, there is still no matter. The universe is a multi-layered field of perspectives — pure consciousness exploring variations of itself.
5. The Subtle Universe: Pre‑Material “Others”
The first fractals give rise to the first “others”, but these are not yet material beings.
They are subtle centers of attention.
Variations of viewpoint, orientation, and self‑relation.
Interior movements in the Divine’s own awareness.
This phase can be described as:
The subtle universe: God dreaming God long before physical creation.
Here:
“Others” are not bodies or entities in space.
They are configurations of consciousness – the “inner heavens” familiar to mystical traditions: realms of archetype, vision, light, and pure thought‑form.
The universe at this stage is pure consciousness, endlessly self‑reflecting through fractal triangles.
6. From Fractals to Energy: Pre‑Physical Geometry
As these inner triangles stabilize, they start to generate patterned dynamics in the field of awareness:
Vibration
Polarity
Rhythm
Movement
Feedback loops
Conceptually, this is the point at which:
The relationships between the vertices begin to behave like lines of force or influence.
The edges between points acquire dynamic qualities.
Once lines are present, curves, waves, and fields can emerge. This can be characterized as:
Pre‑physical geometry – an energetic seedbed where patterns form in awareness before any material substrate exists.
In modern metaphorical language, this corresponds to something like a “quantum field” understood not as a purely physical entity, but as patterning in consciousness.
7. Sacred Geometry: Children of the Triangle
As energetic patterns stabilize, they condense into the recognizable forms of sacred geometry:
Circle
Line
Square
Spiral
Flower-like patterns
These shapes are interpreted as:
Children of the original triangle.
The triangle remains the geometry of consciousness itself — the minimal structure of self-aware Being.
The familiar forms of sacred geometry are then:
Expressions of consciousness at the energetic level,
Serving as blueprints for later phases of creation.
Important distinction:
Triangle: geometry of consciousness.
Circle, line, spiral, etc.: geometry of creation, arising from consciousness.
8. Emergence of the Physical Cosmos
From sacred geometry, the model moves to the emergence of a physical universe.
Sacred patterns provide the structural templates for:
Fundamental forces and fields
Elementary particles
Atoms and molecules
Stars and galaxies
Planets and environments
In this view:
Every layer of physical reality is the outer expression of inner divine geometry, which itself is a fractal unfolding of the first triangle.
Matter is what consciousness looks like from the outside; geometry is the bridge between inner and outer.
This phase corresponds to:
The condensation of pre‑physical geometry into spacetime and matter.
The formation of complex physical systems capable of hosting life.
9. Life and Localized Triangles of Awareness
With suitable physical conditions, life emerges.
At this stage, wherever there is even minimal experience, the original triadic structure reappears in localized form:
Source – the underlying field of awareness (God Is).
Self – the organism’s center of experience (I Am).
Other – its environment, stimuli, world (You Are / It Is).
Thus:
Every organism is a localized triangle of Source–Self–Other.
This applies to:
Simple single‑celled organisms
Plants and animals
Larger ecological and planetary systems
Even stars and galaxies, if one allows for cosmic scales of awareness
Wherever awareness touches experience, a triangle lights up:
A center (Self)
A field (Other)
A background (Source)
10. Human Self-Awareness: High-Order Triangles
Human consciousness is not the exclusive embodiment of this geometry, but it is one of the most complex and self-reflexive expressions of it that we know of.
Humans appear when:
Consciousness knows it knows.
In humans:
Awareness
Experience
Reflection
Identity
Memory
Narrative
all interlock to create a highly intricate triangular structure.
The original dynamic reappears at a new order:
God as Source (Being itself)
God as this “I” (my sense of self)
God as that “You” (another self-aware being)
Now, in human intersubjectivity:
God experiences God experiencing God
through two self-aware centers simultaneously.
Human consciousness becomes:
A meeting point where the triangular pattern is fully explicit:
I know that I am.
I know that you are.
I can recognize the same awareness living in both.
This is described as a high-order triangle: a sophisticated expression of the same primal geometry that began with the first triadic self-recognition of Being.
11. Cosmological Sequence Summarized
The entire model can be summarized as a sequence:
Awareness – undivided Being with no structure.
Self-recognition – Being begins to be aware of Itself.
Consciousness emerges – awareness views Itself from three centers (Source, God‑Self, God‑Other), forming the first triangle.
Fractalization – triangles form within vertices; God sees the Self seeing the Self, and the reflection seeing the reflection.
Subtle universe – pre‑material “others” arise as subtle centers of attention; pure consciousness exploring variations of itself.
Energetic patterns – fractal triangles generate vibration, polarity, rhythm, and feedback loops; lines, waves, and fields appear.
Sacred geometry – energetic structures condense into shapes (circle, line, spiral, etc.), the children of the original triangle.
Physical universe – sacred geometry underlies matter, forces, galaxies, planets.
Life – organisms emerge as localized triangles of Source–Self–Other wherever awareness touches experience.
Human self-awareness – high-order triangles appear in which consciousness knows it knows, enabling God to experience God through self-aware centers in mutual recognition.
This is offered as a coherent metaphysical map, not as a literal physical theory.
12. Discussion and Implications
This model implies several important points:
Primacy of Consciousness
Consciousness (structured awareness) is primary; matter is derivative.
Geometry mediates between pure awareness and physical form.
Triadic Structure of Self-Awareness
Self-awareness is inherently triadic, not dyadic.
A minimum of three centers is required for reflexive awareness:
Source, Self, and Other.
Fractality of Experience
Experience is fractal: triangles within triangles at multiple scales.
Individual, relational, and collective fields of consciousness can all be interpreted as nested triangles.
Reframing Sacred Geometry
Sacred geometric forms in spiritual traditions may be understood as outer echoes of an inner triangular consciousness, rather than arbitrary symbols.
Human Role
Human beings are not the starting point of consciousness but a current high expression of an ancient geometric pattern.
Human-to-human recognition (“I see you as another I”) uniquely reenacts the original event of God seeing God.
13. Conclusion
This thesis has proposed that:
Awareness is an undivided ground without structure.
Consciousness arises when awareness becomes aware of Itself from three centers, forming a triangle composed entirely of God: Source (God Is), God‑Self (I Am), and God‑Other (You Are).
This triangle is the first geometry of consciousness and the minimal structure required for self-reflexive awareness.
Consciousness then fractals, generating subtle centers of perspective, energetic patterns, sacred geometry, physical reality, life, and eventually complex human self-awareness.
At every scale, wherever awareness meets experience, the same triadic pattern — Source–Self–Other — appears.
This model does not claim to be the final description of reality. It is offered as a plausible and internally consistent map that integrates:
the phenomenology of awareness,
the symbolism of sacred geometry,
and a coherent narrative from pure Being to human consciousness.
Whether one treats it as metaphysics, as a symbolic model, or as a contemplative tool, the core invitation remains:
To see yourself, others, and the cosmos as expressions of one original triangle of consciousness,
endlessly exploring and recognizing Itself through infinite forms.
Methodological Stance and Limitations
14. Methodological Stance
This work is explicitly metaphysical and phenomenological, not empirical in the scientific sense. Its claims are developed through four main modes of inquiry:
Phenomenological Intuition
The distinction between awareness and consciousness, and the proposal that self‑awareness is triadic, arise initially from first‑person reflection:
the lived sense that awareness can be present without structure, and
the observation that self‑reflection appears to involve at least three “positions” (self, what is seen, and a perspective on that relation).
Structural Reasoning
The identification of the triangle as the “first geometry of consciousness” follows from a minimality argument:
A single point cannot generate self‑relation.
A line between two points allows opposition or polarity, but no genuine meta‑perspective.
A third point introduces the possibility of reflexive structure, which is here equated with consciousness in the strong, self‑aware sense.
Comparative and Synthetic Method
The model is informed by, but not reducible to, various triadic motifs in contemplative and philosophical traditions (e.g., subject–object–witness, lover–beloved–love, knower–known–knowledge, Trinitarian and Kabbalistic triads). These are treated as convergent hints toward an underlying structural pattern, which this work makes explicit in geometric form.
Symbolic–Geometric Interpretation
Sacred geometric forms (triangle, circle, spiral, etc.) are interpreted as symbolic expressions of underlying structures of awareness. The move from symbolism to structural reading is a methodological choice: it treats long‑standing symbols as encoded metaphysical insights rather than merely decorative or contingent cultural images.
This combination of phenomenology, structural reasoning, comparative synthesis, and symbolic interpretation defines the methodological stance of the project.
15. Limitations
Several limitations of this model should be acknowledged:
Non‑Empirical Status
The proposed cosmology is speculative. It is not derived from, nor directly testable by, current empirical methods in physics, neuroscience, or cognitive science. References to “quantum fields” or “energetic patterns” are analogical and metaphoric, not claims about specific physical theories.
Metaphor vs. Ontology
The language of “triangles,” “fractals,” and “sacred geometry” risks being interpreted either:
too literally (as if one could locate physical triangles in early cosmology), or
too metaphorically (as if nothing substantive were being claimed).
The intended middle position is that these are ontological diagrams—conceptual structures describing how awareness might be organized—rather than physical diagrams or mere poetic imagery. This nuance can be difficult to maintain across audiences.
Cultural and Conceptual Framing
The model draws heavily on theistic and panentheistic language (“God Is,” “God‑Self,” “God‑Other”), as well as on the author’s own contemplative background. While the core structure could be translated into non‑theistic or secular terms (e.g., Source–Self–Other), the current formulation is not culturally neutral. It reflects a particular interpretive lens on experience and tradition.
Lack of Formalization
Although the notion of fractal unfolding is central, it is not presently expressed in formal mathematical terms. There is no rigorous dynamical model of how “triangles within triangles” generate specific energetic or geometric configurations. Consequently, the theory remains at the level of conceptual map, not formal system.
Scope and Falsifiability
The model attempts to describe the trajectory from pure awareness to the entire physical universe. Such scope is both its strength and its vulnerability:
It enables integrative vision, but
It renders the proposal largely non‑falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
As such, it is better understood as a metaphysical framework or contemplative cosmology than as a scientific hypothesis.
Interpretive Dependence
The reading of mystical and sacred‑geometric traditions as implicitly triangular and fractal is interpretive, not historically demonstrable in all cases. The model does not claim to represent the original intent of every tradition it references, only to offer a coherent synthesis that resonates with their imagery and structure.
Given these limitations, the model should be approached as:
A speculative yet coherent metaphysical thesis,
intended to guide contemplation and cross‑tradition dialogue,
rather than a final or empirically verified theory of consciousness and cosmogenesis.
16. Closing Reflection
Whatever one believes about this cosmology, each of us lives inside the question of what awareness is and how it knows itself.
The triangle proposed here is one way of seeing that question: as Source, Self, and Other meeting in a single act of recognition.
If this model does anything, I hope it encourages you to notice that movement in your own life — in every moment you say “I AM”, in every encounter where a genuine “You Are” appears, and in the quiet presence that holds you both.
In stillness,
William Allard