This 3-dimensional vortex sculpture (whose design is discussed on our unreleased videotape,

1988) is an example of how not to solve a problem. This spiral vortex looks good, but it is
meaningless. The Golden Mean is an important proportion and that suggested that we should
examine the Golden Mean spiral, which exhibits some properties of the Golden Mean proportion,
as a candidate spiral component for our vortex sculpture. But the Golden Mean spiral (shown
above, upper left) and the Golden Mean pseudo-spiral (which looks almost the same, but is a
geometric approximation
andon
not the
a true
algebraic spiral),
all logarithmic
is self-similar.
Some Notes
Logarithmic
andlikeGolden
Meanspirals,
Spirals
No matter where you examine it, it always
has
the
same
shape
at
any
and
all
orientations.
In 21996 Stan Tenen
dimensions, these spirals self-embed because they are self-similar. (Note: The Golden Mean
spiral, a true logarithmic spiral, is often confused with a Fibonacci spiral by uneducated occultists.
There are, in fact, an infinite number of spirals, based on the Fibonacci numbers, that are NOT
Golden Mean spirals. Most ordinarily constructed Fibonacci spirals are also logarithmic spirals.*)
However, when a logarithmic spiral (such as the Golden Mean spiral) is projected onto a sphere
(not shown) or onto a Dimpled-Sphere (as shown above), it cannot self-embed. This is because
the outer part of the vortex is not and can not be parallel to the inner tip. Thus, if one of these
Dimpled-Sphere vortices were to be embedded in another (at the tip, like a seed-pit in a fruit), it
would not fit. The ends of the vortex-spirals could not line up.

To put one of these vortices inside another would be like forcing a square peg into a round
hole.

Since the sculpture we were seeking to design was intended to model (among other important
Sculpture 1996
S. Tenen &"fruit
J. Fournier
properties) the philosophical recursion of life, generation
after generation,
tree yielding fruit
whose seed is inside itself" (Genesis 1:11), by means of self-embedment, it was necessary for us
This is not the sculpture Meru Foundation has chosen for our FIRST HAND model of a human
to either mechanically modify the logarithmic or Golden Mean spiral, or to replace it with another
hand and to generate certain alphabetic letter forms (in various alphabets) that we call "FLAME
form. As far as the usefulness and esthetics of our sculpture are concerned, it does not matter
LETTERS."
how we accomplish this. Philosophically, it would be pleasing to find a single elegant function (or a
simple assembly of simple functions) that would have the correct shape, but for visual and
esthetic purposes it is just as proper to merely bend the vortex until the outer end is parallel to the
inner tip. Within our ability to see, the "hand-made" vortex adjusted to be esthetically pleasing
would be indistinguishable from the generated form.
We know of three sets of specially arranged algebraic functions and at least one geometric
construction that produces Meru Foundations FIRST HAND "Flame-letter" vortex sculptures. All
of these appear identical and all self-embed because their outer ends and their inner tips are
parallel. Even though these spiral vortices self-embed, they are not self-similar. In fact, if they
were, that would also disqualify them for our purposes.
This is because we are attempting to model the contrast between symmetry and asymmetry, with
symmetry represented by a tetrahedron and asymmetry represented by a spiral vortex. The selfsimiliar logarithmic, Golden Mean, spirals are simply too symmetrical. That is what self-similar
means. The MERU FIRST HAND "Flame Letter" sculpture makes use of the most Asymmetric
spiral (and the spiral vortex that comes from it) so that it will be a proper complement to our choice
of an entirely symmetrical (compact, and elegant) tetrahedron to represent symmetry. (See The
Light in the Meeting Tent in the Archives section on our Internet Website.)
It should be noted that the sample Golden Mean spirals above have been deliberately projected
onto Dimpled-Sphere tori with smaller (and narrower) than optimum holes. There are two reasons
for this: 1. It makes the tip and end angles more distinct and easy to see, and 2. Because the
"dimples" are small and narrow, the Dimpled-Sphere and the vortex on it are identical to an
ordinary sphere for most of the outside of the vortex. This makes it easier to see that the shape
and angles of the vortex on an ordinary sphere would be the same as on our Dimpled-Sphere
without the need for another drawing. When the hole is wider, the spiral twists deeper in it. When
the hole is narrow, as shown, the spiral twist is nearer to the top. Otherwise all logarithmic spirals
take the same form. No matter how we change the shape of the Dimpled-Sphere, the vortex
sculpture never self-embeds. If we stretch the Dimpled-Sphere into a more elongated shape, the
outer end appears to straighten somewhat, but it still can never be parallel to the inner tip and,

A short technical note:

My original copyright vortex sculptures are not, and cannot be, golden spirals, and neither are the
illicit copies of my vortex sculptures published by the person referred to in the "Plagiarism Notice" at
the top of this website.
1. The golden spiral is anachronistic. It was not known in the ancient world, and was only
algebraically defined by Descartes in modern times. Any scholar attempting to reconstruct
what was known thousands of years ago would be taken to be a fool for imposing the golden
spiral on work of that period. This imposition has hurt Meru Foundation's credibility, because
of the plagiarist's false claims.
.
2. The golden spiral is a 2-dimensional form that like all log spirals always increases, and has
an infinite number of turns. My original copyright sculpture is a limited, 1-1/2 turn, 3dimensional form, with the outer turns bent back. As any sane person knows, a circle is not a
circle if you cut off part of the arc, or bend it over the edge of a table. The plagiarist could
have started with any spiral, even the golden spiral, but once he cut it short and bent it (as
he did to match my sculpture), it is no longer the spiral it started as. It's not the same
mathematical object -- in fact, it's not even a mathematical object at all.
.
3. The plagiarist's nomination of the golden spiral is utterly inconsistent with the other work he
took from me. There is no previous example of the symmetry/asymmetry model that I laid out
in my paper, The Light in the Meeting Tent, found elsewhere on our website. There is no
previous example of any "flame letter" that takes the form of the sculpture I designed. The
plagiarist's claims regarding the tetrahedron-and-vortex as models of symmetry and
asymmetry are copies of my claims -- and they are entirely inconsistent with his claim that
the golden spiral represents the asymmetrical part of the symmetry/asymmetry pair. This is
because, as the plagiarist correctly states, the golden spiral is always and entirely selfsimilar. Although the plagiarist may not wish to know it, self-similarity is the definition of
symmetry. That's what the word symmetry means. Thus, on his own (stolen) terms, the
plagiarist's claim is mathematically incompetent. The actual spiral vortex that the plagiarist
shows, which he copied from me, is the antithesis (opposite) of the golden spiral. It is, in fact,
the most symmetrical spiral, not the most asymmetrical spiral.
These false technical claims may sell to the plagiarist's mathematically untrained audiences,
but at the same time, they are a technical defamation of my work, which makes it a laughing
stock among persons who know the geometry and mathematics.
1. The golden spiral, being self-similar, always circles itself and mirrors itself, in its own image.
If you check your classics, you will find that this matches the description of Narcissus.
Narcissus worships himself in his reflection (self-similarity), in his own image. It is ironic
indeed that the plagiarist should be so attracted to the symbol of self-love, the golden spiral.
(I am not referring to the golden proportion, which is of enormous and proper significance. I
am only referring to the golden spiral.)

Further, the Western, Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- are based on the
idea of a One God, and on the utter refutation of idolatry. It is absurd for the plagiarist to
propose that the ancient western sacred alphabets are based on a golden spiral, because
that, in fact, would make them the most horrendous of idols to the persons who used these
alphabets. Again, his incompetence makes my work look foolish among experts who know.
The golden spiral is not only technically unsound, is not only anachronistic, but it is also
directly philosophically opposed to the beliefs of the persons whom the plagiarist claims
made use of it. It is, in fact, the archetype of narcissism and idolatry. I can provide numerous
academic and mathematical references that discuss the foolishness of the persistence of
cult-like belief in the resurrective powers of the golden spiral. The plagiarist's linkage of the
golden spiral with immortality is also, like the rest of what he presents, taken from others,
and represented as his own. The history of the use of the golden spiral to seduce persons
into believing that they can be immortal is well-documented.