Have any of you actually read Terrence Howard’s book?
https://tcotlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/OTOET_PREVIEW_062_October_03_2021.pdf
https://www.terryslynchpins.com/
I took the time to read it because I was genuinely curious about his claims, and I have to admit, I was pretty blown away.
I’d really love to hear another opinion from someone who also explored his website and took the time to read through his material.
Some of his ideas seem very far-fetched, and I do think parts of his logic are incomplete. But I can feel that he’s speaking from a place of intuition and truth. He simply didn’t have all the tools to articulate or defend his insights properly when he went on Rogan or spoke at Oxford. His personality didn’t help either, but that doesn’t make him wrong.
Here’s my take on it:
He draws his principles from non-duality. When he says 1×1 = 2, he’s not denying the Euclidean system, he’s challenging the foundational assumptions of classical mathematics. He’s saying our math originates from a system that doesn’t reflect the multidimensional nature of the universe. The universe is non-dual and generates the illusion of duality. So in that sense, 1 times 1 equals 2.
Secondly, he points out that one of the foundations of our mathematical system, the square root, is based on an arbitrary approximation, which itself rests on a flawed assumption: the Pythagorean theorem. (c = √(a^2 + b^2))
This theorem works within a 2D plane but doesn’t reflect the reality of our universe. It’s based on Babylonian assumptions: that the universe is built on straight lines, 90-degree angles, and a flat Earth, none of which truly describe the organic, curvilinear nature of reality.
So, much of our current mathematics is built upon an axiom that doesn’t reflect non-dual truth, and that makes it inherently limited.
This doesn’t mean our math “doesn’t work,” only that it works within the constraints of its own assumptions. And those constraints may be limiting us from understanding what we are. And so, our technologies based on classical maths will stay restricted within the confines of Euclidean perception. This is why √2 is not 1 but 1.4142 in our perception... and limits our possibility to become God (so 1) . He's pointing to a metaphysical issue inherent in our human inability to realize what we are. We create our reality. If we create it based on finite tools, we limit ourselves to becoming what we truly are, One.
Lastly, he points out that the universe is entirely interconnected, and that the concept of “void” cannot truly exist. Every wave affects the entire universe, everything is both cause and effect. Therefore, gravity cannot be the ultimate cause. If it were, then God (or the One) wouldn’t be truly One.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I read through this thread before posting and didn’t see anyone mention his book or the theorems of his site.
