Quetzalcoatl, the Alpha being.
The description of the feathered serpent Quetzalcoatl is a confusing one,to begin with it is an easily identifiable unnatural animal, putting feathers on a snake is as practical as making all teapots out of chocolate.
So the question becomes, why do it? Why not use a bird or some sort of lizard with a frilled collar? How is a serpent more appropriate?
My suggestion is this, it is not a snake and those are not feathers, at least that is not where it began, it has since become such but that is due to the mistranslated origins over time.
Ok, even in the earliest found references to Quetzalcoatl, they refer to it as the feathered serpent an almighty being which changes the world of man in dramatic ways, drifting between heaven and earth, I do not argue that, what I will do is try to show the potential origins of this idea.
I'll begin by looking at the feathers on the earliest found images of Quetzalcoatl, if you remove the head of the snake from the image, you are left with a geometric design of the feathers behind, these look wrong, the feathers are backwards if they belonged to a creature and they flair out in an unusual fashion.
So if they are not feathers, what could they be?
The answer is in the geometric structure itself, it is a fractal, constructed from Fibonacci spirals, the spines of the feathers are lines of axis and the body of the feather is a division of the circle, a slice of the pie, a defined portion of the whole, this could be used to describe a section of time in a year, with each feather being a month.
But because it is a fractal pattern, it has multiple functions, so there is not really a single identifiable permanent use for it, the really interesting aspect is where it came from and that is through astronomical astrological observations over centuries, this makes it not a created design but a discovered one, they found it in nature with such frequency that they gave it a deities significance and most importantly they used it to describe nature as a whole, as the birthplace of life and a description of the infinite.
This brings me to the serpent. Life springs forth from the centre of the geometric structure but how should first life be best represented? Again you have to look at the fractal pattern of the feathers, if you follow all of the lines of the feathers in to a central point you end up with a confusion of spirals around it with only the axis lines actually crossing the middle, the resulting spiral form is one that looks like a flower and describes an infinite line which can be followed forever.
This automatically gives us some identifiable traits and criteria.
The image must describe life, so it should be something living. It must be a description of the simplest intelligent animal life so a flower would not do it justice, it must be something which was around before man so as to introduce man to the earth and it's form must represent an infinite line.
When you put all of this together, by the process of elimination the form of a snake starts to fit, it can't have any arms or legs but on the other hand it must show signs of basic intelligence so a worm is too basic and a lizard is too advanced, with too many limbs.
This makes a serpent the perfect animal description for an infinite form and as a common cohabiting species to man it is easy to explain and find an example of 'at home' so to speak, it becomes a relatable object as a pose to a abstract fractal pattern which 'could look like a snake'.
The evidence for this theory is written on the face of the statues in the form of spirals which are used on the face of the serpent and also in constructing and creating it's 3D form, also the eyes are round which indicates it is not a viper, not an instant taker of life but a provider of a possibility of balancing it, as long as it is respected, it is neither good nor evil, it is nature in essence.
This also labels the serpent as an Alpha identity, a beginning, an instigator of change and opportunity. As well as this, there is an opening and a possible need for an Omega identity, the opposite character to a snake, my suggestion for a possible candidate figure is that of a Jaguar, a singular advanced predator who sits at the top of the feeding chain and has even been known to be a man eater.
Thoughts?
The description of the feathered serpent Quetzalcoatl is a confusing one,to begin with it is an easily identifiable unnatural animal, putting feathers on a snake is as practical as making all teapots out of chocolate.
So the question becomes, why do it? Why not use a bird or some sort of lizard with a frilled collar? How is a serpent more appropriate?
My suggestion is this, it is not a snake and those are not feathers, at least that is not where it began, it has since become such but that is due to the mistranslated origins over time.
Ok, even in the earliest found references to Quetzalcoatl, they refer to it as the feathered serpent an almighty being which changes the world of man in dramatic ways, drifting between heaven and earth, I do not argue that, what I will do is try to show the potential origins of this idea.
I'll begin by looking at the feathers on the earliest found images of Quetzalcoatl, if you remove the head of the snake from the image, you are left with a geometric design of the feathers behind, these look wrong, the feathers are backwards if they belonged to a creature and they flair out in an unusual fashion.
So if they are not feathers, what could they be?
The answer is in the geometric structure itself, it is a fractal, constructed from Fibonacci spirals, the spines of the feathers are lines of axis and the body of the feather is a division of the circle, a slice of the pie, a defined portion of the whole, this could be used to describe a section of time in a year, with each feather being a month.
But because it is a fractal pattern, it has multiple functions, so there is not really a single identifiable permanent use for it, the really interesting aspect is where it came from and that is through astronomical astrological observations over centuries, this makes it not a created design but a discovered one, they found it in nature with such frequency that they gave it a deities significance and most importantly they used it to describe nature as a whole, as the birthplace of life and a description of the infinite.
This brings me to the serpent. Life springs forth from the centre of the geometric structure but how should first life be best represented? Again you have to look at the fractal pattern of the feathers, if you follow all of the lines of the feathers in to a central point you end up with a confusion of spirals around it with only the axis lines actually crossing the middle, the resulting spiral form is one that looks like a flower and describes an infinite line which can be followed forever.
This automatically gives us some identifiable traits and criteria.
The image must describe life, so it should be something living. It must be a description of the simplest intelligent animal life so a flower would not do it justice, it must be something which was around before man so as to introduce man to the earth and it's form must represent an infinite line.
When you put all of this together, by the process of elimination the form of a snake starts to fit, it can't have any arms or legs but on the other hand it must show signs of basic intelligence so a worm is too basic and a lizard is too advanced, with too many limbs.
This makes a serpent the perfect animal description for an infinite form and as a common cohabiting species to man it is easy to explain and find an example of 'at home' so to speak, it becomes a relatable object as a pose to a abstract fractal pattern which 'could look like a snake'.
The evidence for this theory is written on the face of the statues in the form of spirals which are used on the face of the serpent and also in constructing and creating it's 3D form, also the eyes are round which indicates it is not a viper, not an instant taker of life but a provider of a possibility of balancing it, as long as it is respected, it is neither good nor evil, it is nature in essence.
This also labels the serpent as an Alpha identity, a beginning, an instigator of change and opportunity. As well as this, there is an opening and a possible need for an Omega identity, the opposite character to a snake, my suggestion for a possible candidate figure is that of a Jaguar, a singular advanced predator who sits at the top of the feeding chain and has even been known to be a man eater.
Thoughts?