The Square Root

What one word describes all others?

This is an important question to me. If there is a monotheistic God out there, his face is totality. She would need to be the ultimate omni-being: all present, all powerful, all knowing. It is one thing to be considered the architect of a creation, but another to be a part of that creation itself. If God were a simple architect, The Universe would be a self-sustaining entity no longer reliant on the presence of it's creator (Like Reltash is), but if not, we are offered something completely different.

For a creation to be dependent, it has to be an actual part of its creator, like a thought or a feotus (is there a difference between the two?).Thus an Omni-God is not so much a creator of something physical as a being who sustains a reality within her own mind, because as I am sure all artists know once it has left the mind to be transcribed into something physical the artist loses control over it. Of course, one of the important attributes of God is that he is 'unknowable' and capable of modes of thought we ourselves are not. I've always struggled with this idea. I can imagine her being very smart, imaginative and aware (heightening human attributes) but no further than that. I suppose imagining something unimaginable is something God can do but everyone else can't.

Anyway. Let's move on. Words. What exactly are words? Semantics dictates that words are symbolic compounds that describe other concepts or physical matter. Most important to the human experience is that words are not only physically transcribed for understanding (written characters) but also spoken compounds (sonic frequencies), which suggests that they can in fact be applied to any of the senses with a little work and a dictionary.
That leaves us with the task of understanding symbols, and though I'm no semioticist I'm pretty sure that symbols are representative examples of concepts. Whether or not 'representative' implies that something cannot be a symbol of itself is another matter which I will skirt over completely because loads of people choose to self-represent themselves in court and they don't pop out of existence when they do. Either way, almost everything is a symbol anyway, because we mostly just look at something and assume that it holds other characteristics without needing to lick and smell them to qualify our assumptions.

So yeah. Entities can be self-representative symbols, ergo symbols equate those entities themselves, ergo words equate to the entities they describe. Most people know this without having to read my blog, but they also know that everyone else needs a colon to survive even though they don't know why. That's very silly, because their colon may very well be planning to strangle them while they are sleeping.

When I ask "What one word describes all others?" I am not asking about the little electronic twigs you are staring at right now, I'm asking about entities. What one entity describes all others? If there is a single symbol that holds the whole multiverse within it, what is that symbol, and what does it represent?

This question is difficult to answer because we are limited by physical perceptions, even though we are quite competent in mental ones. I'd like you to join me in a simple mental exercise to find the answer we're looking for.
Look ahead of you. All of that and everything behind that has a word to describe it (or 'is a word'). All of it is also made of smaller words, or fragments of words, or longer words with smaller substances. Now that you are holding all that in your mind remember that reality has at least four dimensions. Incorporate everything behind you; trucks, trees, supernovas, photons. Now everything on each side of you (walls, emotions, gravity,  sounds). Above you (weather patterns, stars, temperatures, light). Below you (Caverns, pressure, shoes, odours).
Now recognise that everything you can name and cannot name is moving through time too, forwards and backwards, one substance giving into another in cycles of entropy and dynamic consistency. Ignore the barrier between concepts and physicalities; all things are recognised equally as words. Lastly, accept possibility. Understand that though you have perceptions, those perceptions can be wrong. Any one word may mean something else completely - as a good friend once pointed out to me, how can you be certain that your 'blue' is not another person's 'purple'? The symbol stays the same, but the entity shifts beneath it.

Swimming in this ocean of havoc and unity we are left with the task of naming two things: the reality, and the symbols (a duality which, once again, equates). There are many words we use to describe things we have never known; 'Absolution', 'Totality', and my favourite, 'Eternity'. If you consider the name for a group of complimentary words the best answer is 'Language'. This too is the crux.

Eternity and language. The one has the intention of shaping the other. One negates substance to something neutral and complete, while the other separates and labels. I am in love with both. Eternity is the word I chose to describe the sum of every other word, and I gave it this symbol
as a foundation for every other that would follow.

Six and twelve, folks.

Hexaemeric Law is what I named my 'Language of Eternity'. Writing is the substance of Reltash in more ways than one.