The UNUS MUNDUS forum of Psychovision (Remo F. Roth) invites discussion of theoretical and practical issues of a possible union of Carl Jung's depth psychology with quantum physical principles.
(All posts are the property of their respective authors)
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:19 am

 [ 2 posts ] 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic
 A modern interpretation of the Axiom of Maria Prophetissa 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:25 pm
Posts: 2657
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Post A modern interpretation of the Axiom of Maria Prophetissa
I'd like to open here a discussion about the Axiom of Maria Prophetissa, also called the Jewess. Maria lived in the 1st or 3rd century, we do not know exactly when. It is however a matter of fact that she lived at the beginning of the aeon of pisces. Thus her Axiom belongs to the very age-old alchemy.

The complete Axiom of Maria goes as follows:

“One becomes two, two becomes three,
and out of the third comes the One as the fourth.
Like this the two become one.”

I am dealing with the Axiom for more than 30 years now, since it fascinated me from the beginning on. It is, in my interpretation, a preconscious statement out of the collective unconscious [or better: out of the unus mundus] about the energy term. As I explained in another thread, the symbol of energy is #3: The first is for example the above, the second is the below, and the third is the energetic flow between them. Thus the third, which is equivalent to #3, in a qualitative sense means “energy.”

Like this we include the qualitative aspect of the #3. However, we should include the qualitative aspect of all four numbers. Thus #1, qualitatively seen, is the non-recognizable unity (Carl Jung). Quantitatively seen it is of course the quantitative one. Qualitatively (seen as a symbol) the most common unity is the (empty) circle. This is why the circle is the oldest God-image we know. Already in prehistoric times we find it engraved in stones.

In number theory the one is important to explain the series of whole numbers. They tell us that the series of whole numbers developed as follows: There is first the one. Then we add a so-called successor and get the two; we add again and get the three; we add onece again a unity and get number four, etc. This is what the whole mankind believes to be the series of natural numbers.

However, what is not included in this argument is the quality of numbers. One has the quality of the uniqueness. And as I said above, according to Jung, the unity is not recognizable (See his Trinity article). Then comes the two. As everyone sees, its qualitative aspect is the bipolarity, the split. Thus we have god and the devil, in general the opposites. The "Zwei-fel" (the doubt) is born. [We can express this content only in German, since only in it "doubt" has directly to do with "zwei," two.]

Now, 1 and 2 come together to create the 3. The most remarkable attribute of this addition of 1 and 2, the latter being the successor of the former, is the fact that it creates the successor of 2, the 3. This is an absolutely unique attribute (wich means a quality) of the first three whole numbers. Expressed in a negative way: 2+3 is not equal to 4, the successor of 3 (it is 5), 3+4 is not equal to 5, the successor of 4 (it is 7), and so on. Only 1+2=3 possesses the attribute that the two consecutive numbers when added create the successor of the higher number (or the successor of the successor).

Number theory does however not take into consideration this unique qualitative relationship between the first three numbers. Like this it adds 1 + 1 (the original one plus the successor), and gets 2, then 2 + 1, the two plus the successor, and gets 3. And then goes on like this: 3 + 1, three plus successor, and gets 4, 4 + 1, four plus the successor, etc.

This way to create the series of the whole numbers is correct up until the 3. The first corresponds to #1, yes, the second corresponds to #2, and the third corresponds to #3. However, this is only true since the qualitative addition "The first plus the second equals the third" is equivalent to the quantitative addition "1 + 2 = 3." The addition of the qualities corresponds to the addition of the quantities.

Now I include further the aspect of the so-called "unity continuum" of the whole numbers introduced by Marie-Louise von Franz in her book Number and Time. This means that every number must also implicitely contain all the predecessors. Thus, the two must contain the qualitative aspect of the unity, the oneness. This is obvious, since in mythology we find also that the two are secretly one. It is the coniunctio motif: The king and the queen of Hermetic alchemy have sexual intercourse, ie become one, and like this create the third. God and the devil are secretly one, a truth Christianity cannot accept at all. [This is why this crazy and sociopathic Bush is so fascinated by his crusade ... :evil: ]

If we go on like this, we must say that the third must also include the qualities of the first. Thus, the third has also to be a unity. This quality is expressed in the symbol of the Holy Spirit: the equilateral triangle pointed upwards.


However, the third must also contain the qualitative aspect of the second. The third must contain an ambivalence, a bipolarity, a split. This split is not at all visible. And this is the big problem we suffer from. In science as well as in Carl Jung's depth psychology the energy term is unipolar, but implicitly it is split into two. Up until today this fact is completely unconscious to the collective consciousness of mankind.

The qualitative aspect of the second included in the third is thus the fact that the latter must be ambivalent or bipolar. It is the (unconscious) fact that also the third, the three and thus the energy term must be defined ambivalent, quantitatively as well as qualitatively. This is however not at all the case with physical energy as well as with Carl Jung's objective psychic energy. Since mathematics entered natural philosophy in the 17th century (Galilei, Kepler, Newton), they consider only the quantitative aspect of the third, measurable physical energy. Carl Jung on the other hand considers only the qualitative aspect of the third, of the energy term, the objective psychic energy. Though he tried to develop a quantitative energetic, he did not really succeed.

The implication of the quality of the first (unity), of the second (bipolarity) in the third is the content of the first part of the Axiom:

“One becomes two, two becomes three"

[Since the first is equivalent to the one, the second to the two and the third to the three, we can also write: "The first becomes the second, the second becomes the third." ) This is however not true anymore for the fourth; see below)]

With the term "become" the Axiom emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the unity continuum as well as the one of the (quantitative) successor idea of number theory.

But now something different happens:

"And out of the third comes the One as the fourth."

The Axiom does not state that out of the three comes the four! It goes on in a qualitative way and talks about the development of the third to the fourth, and not of the three to the four, as before with the first three numbers [“One becomes two, two becomes three"]. Also the fourth should now include the aspect of oneness, “the One of the fourth”. According to the above hypothesis of Marie-Louise von Franz it must however also contain the qualitative aspect of the 2 and of the 3. The qualitative aspect of the 2 is the bipolarity (or split). And what is the qualitative aspect of the 3? Here the energetic view, which is a qualitative view, comes in: The third = the three must be looked at as the energy term.

Thus the conclusion: The fourth must be a unity, a bipolarity and be expressed energetically. The only symbol which contains these qualitative attributes is the

Seal of Solomon


The Seal of Solomon is a unity (also expressed as the circle which can be divided in an archetypal, natural way into the six-fold hexagon. [Try to realize this with the help of the compasses: Draw a circle and with exactly the lengh of its radius you can construct the hexagon.] This is an absolutely unique attribute. Only the hexagon can be constructed like this. This is not possible for any other regular polygon. Thus, qualitatively seen, the hexagon and the circle are one. The fourth contains the unity.

But the fourth must also be a bipolarity. This is expressed in the fact that we can construct the Seal of Solomon out of the hexagon in a very simple way. Like this we get the two intersected equilateral triangles of the Seal. One of them is pointed upwards and symbolizes the masculine energy term (the Holy Spirit), the other one, however, is pointed downwards and symbolizes the feminine energy term. This is even stressed by the fact that since infinite time this representation of the triangle is a symbol of the female pelvis.


[Every woman who has given birth knows that the doctors measure this triangle to verify if the pelvis is big enough to give birth to the child without a Cesarean section.]

Thus, if we include the qualitative aspects of the first three numbers we get the Seal of Solomon as the fourth. Like this the Seal represents also the last sentence of the Axiom:

Like this the two become one.

Which means that the implicite (unconscious) split of the third, of the energy term is annulled in the fourth, in the Seal of Solomon.

As we remember, Carl Jung stated that the unity is non-recognizable. He further states that everything must be developed to the three to become recognizable. Thus, it is true that the second or the two (which are equivalent) is already the bipolarity, but it is not yet recognizable. We first must include the third, which means an energetic view. Only then the God-image becomes recognizable. The Seal of Solomon is therefore the recognizable, the observable God-image respectively allows the observation of the energetic processes happening in it.

The God-image respectively its energetic processes [only energetic processes are observable] become recognizable (observable) in what Gerardus Dorneus called the unio corporalis, and what in a modern neutral language I call the singular acausal quantum leap, the spontaneous acausal event observable on the one hand in one’s own inside, on the other as UFOs/”ETs” and abduction phenomena (and as crop circles) in the outside.

With the above I tried to explain in a more ore less consistent way what haunts me now for 33+ years.


'Here stands the mean uncomely stone,
Tis very cheap in price!
The more it is despised by fools,
The more loved by the wise.'
(C.G. Jung, MDR, p. 253)
WebSite: http://www.paulijungunusmundus.eu

Last edited by Remo Roth on Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:09 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:03 am
Posts: 27
Location: cornwall, england
Post The Axiom
I was 17, living in St. Prex in Vaud, Switzerland (for a year 1970) when I first started enjoying Geometry as a hobby.

My interest stemmed from the fact that, unlike words, you couldn't really made shapes do what you wanted. I knew nothing of projection or archetypes but knew that what I drew could be shown to anyone, anywhere in the world and it would transcend language.

So, my story of the Axiom starts without any conceptual references to previous work, simply as observations and meditations. As I am not a word-smith so there will probably be no great revelations with this post, only questions.

We start with The Point, 1.
The point has no area, only position.
This makes it totally un-drawable, we can only signify it (with a sharp pencil), the nearer we get to it conceptually, the nearer we get to Infinity.
It is pure concept.
A point and it's periphery are intimately related, the one is the Potential of the other.
As "The two are secretly one" (Remo) so the One is secretly two.

That wholeness is signified by the 1, that Oneness is the same as One did not and still does not ring true.

Later, when I read the words " Tao gave birth to One", (at about the same time that I read that Jung said that Consciousness is born of Unconsciousness,) it reconfirmed the feeling that I had that zero had more in common with wholeness than 1 and that a quantum leap was needed for 1 to arise from zero, or for consciousness to arise from unconsciousness.
One implies Not-One, as point implies periphery.
One has an inner tendency to split.

One becomes two because it is already in its nature.

Two is the Line
Two is Time and causality
and the "start of all delusion" according to an eastern philosopher.

The problem with Opposites is that they don't exist. They are conceptual extremes which have more in common with each other than they do with anything else. They are mutually dependent. They have a tendency to delete each other, leaving only the Third, the between, the process.

So Two becomes Three because the two would extinguish each other ( or; don't 'exist').

The Third is the first manifestly 2-D shape. The recognizable. As process, as Mercury it carries the opposites, the two snakes. It keeps them apart.

I can offer the following visual aid regarding The Three and the Four, (for me the jury is still out on whether the Fourth comes out of the Three or the Third. We can talk of this later).


This is an interesting optical illusion, the mind/eye tends to turn the three into four


Is this the three becoming four or the third becoming four?

Well, I haven't quite finished with my story;

In three dimensions the triangle becomes a 4-sided figure
3 (third or triad) becomes 4
In three dimensions the square becomes a 6-sided figure
4 becomes 6

Geometrically 3 has a latency of 4
4 is a latent 6

An interesting aspect of the four, the cross, is often accentuated with the circle


This brings us back to the point, 1, another definition of which is where two or more lines cross.

The Tao Teh Ching says (verse 42):
"Tao gave birth to One
One gave birth to Two
Two gave birth to Three
Three gave birth to all the myriad things (in some translations "10,000 things")
All the myriad things carry yin on their backs
and hold yang in there embrace"

Thus the fourth = 10,000 things

and the two become one

While this obviously indicates a return to unity
it is possible that this read at one time
"thus four becomes three
three becomes two
and two becomes one"
reinforcing the rotational nature of this process. This is pure speculation on my part.

So ,the axiom,
[/quote] It is, in my interpretation, a preconscious statement out of the collective unconscious [or better: out of the unus mundus] about the energy term.[quote]

Similarly for me the axiom is a preconscious statement out of the collective unconscious about the nature of matter.
These are obviously not mutually exclusive as Einstein has shown
but the difference is fascinating

What is the difference between energy and matter?

As 1, 2, and 3 have a tendency to split ( salt, mercury and sulphur have dual natures), why does only the third split rather than the triad splitting simultaneously?

How does it split?

Answers on a postcard........ (joke)

By the time I post this it will be my birthday (54) and it has been a wonderful present for me to find anyone who is even vaguely interested in these things.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:07 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.