RECEPTACLE

THE PLATONIC PYRAMIDS

“And next we have to determine what are the four most beautiful bodies which are unlike
one another, and of which some are capable of resolution into one another… we shall not be
willing to allow that there are any distinct kinds of visible bodies fairer than these. Wherefore
we must endeavour to construct the four forms of bodies which excel in beauty, and then we
shall be able to say that we have sufficiently apprehended their nature.”
(Plato - Timaeus)1

Plato, in the Timaeus, states unequivocally that the forms that have come to be known as the
Platonic solids are made exclusively from two types of triangles - the isosceles and the half-
equilateral scalene. Because the dodecahedron is not constructed from these triangular
elements it is not mentioned in the text and does not form part of the Platonic solids insofar as
the definitions in the Timaeus are concerned.

For aesthetic reasons Plato constructs the solids from two triangular forms - the half-equilateral scalene
triangle and the isosceles triangle. A scalene triangle is a generic triangle of unequal sides but Plato
defines a specific type of scalene triangle as having an aesthetic form. This specific scalene triangle is
defined as forming half of an equilateral triangle.

The equilateral triangle is formed by placing two of these scalene triangles back to back. Thus this
comprises one triangle that is formed of two component triangles although Plato constructs the
equilateral triangle from six of these scalene triangles.

The other aesthetic triangle is the isosceles triangle which is formed when a square is divided into two
triangles although Plato divides the square into four isosceles triangles.

“In the first place, then, as is evident to all, fire and earth and water and air are bodies. And every sort of
body possesses solidity, and every solid must necessarily be contained in planes; and every plane
rectilinear figure is composed of triangles; and all triangles are originally of two kinds, both of which are
made up of one right and two acute angles; one of them has at either end of the base the half of a
divided right angle, having equal sides, while in the other the right angle is divided into unequal parts,
having unequal sides.”2

There are therefore two triangles that are seen to have the highest aesthetic value: the half-equilateral
scalene triangle and the isosceles triangle. These two right-angled triangles are the clearly defined
building blocks of the aesthetic forms that are termed the Platonic solids.

“Now, the one which we maintain to be the most beautiful of all the many triangles (and we need not
speak of the others) is that of which the double forms a third triangle which is equilateral… Then let us
choose two triangles, out of which fire and the other elements have been constructed, one isosceles, the
other having the square of the longer side equal to three times the square of the lesser side.” 3

Plato describes at length the construction of the first four forms from these two types of triangle. The
tetrahedron, the octahedron and icosahedron are created from the half-equilateral scalene triangles that
form their multiple equilateral triangular surfaces. The other form is constructed of isosceles triangles
that are joined together to form a cube.

“... there are generated from the triangles which we have selected four kinds - three from the one which
has the sides unequal; the fourth alone (the cube) is framed out of the isosceles triangle.” 4

Thus there are four designated aesthetic forms, or Platonic solids. All these are constructed either by
right-angled isosceles or right-angled half-equilateral scalene triangles. Due to the influence of Euclidean
geometric concepts the orthodox interpretation is to superimpose the dodecahedron onto this treatise
in order to create the fifth Platonic solid. This addition is imposed regardless of the actual text of the
Timaeus.

The proposition at the start of the discussion of the five aesthetic forms or Platonic solids is this:
“In the first place, then, as is evident to all, fire and earth and water and air are bodies. And every sort of
body possesses solidity, and every solid must necessarily be contained in planes; and every plane
rectilinear figure is composed of triangles…”5

Nowhere in this opening proposition is there any indication that each of the five forms must have planar
surfaces that are all the same shape and size. Rather the requirement is that they must be pure aesthetic
forms with their planes composed of the specified aesthetic triangles.

It is clear that the Timaeus, especially as it reflects Pythagorean thinking, is a coded treatise on Egyptian
theology. If the actual text of the Timaeus is allowed to determine the interpretation then the fifth solid
is not the dodecahedron but the pentahedron pyramid. The pentahedron is the square pyramid, with
five sides including the base, and is the form of the archetypal Egyptian pyramid.

The pentahedron pyramid is not a regular polyhedron in which all sides have the same face but then the
intent of the Timaeus is to define the most aesthetic forms and their components. The Egyptian pyramid,
at least in its manifestation at Giza, arguably represents the peak of human aesthetic achievement.

Describing the Platonic solids according to the superimposed modern interpretation is not the point of
the discourse in the Timaeus. This is made perfectly clear not only from the specific triangular forms
which do not appear in the dodecahedron but also from Plato’s intent to match the four forms to the
four elements. This in itself renders the so-called the fifth Platonic solid, the dodecahedron, redundant
by having no element with which it can be matched.

The pentahedron pyramid, or Egyptian five-sided pyramid with a square base and four (almost)
equilateral triangular sides, fits into the definition of being composed of the specific triangular elements
defined in the text except that unlike the other four it contains both types of specified triangles. It is
therefore a synthesis of the other four forms (or solids) and contains all the other elements in one
geometric entity.

“And next we have to determine what are the four most beautiful bodies which are unlike one another,
and of which some are capable of resolution into one another; for having discovered thus much, we shall
know the true origin of earth and fire and of the proportionate and intermediate elements.” 6

The theoretical basis of the Egyptian pyramid is therefore explained through the code of the
polyhedrons. The only reference to the fifth solid or form is the apparently cryptic comment that it
represents the delineation of the heavens. “There was yet a fifth combination which God used in the
delineation of the universe.”7

The cryptic nature of this comment only applies to a reading of the text which inserts the dodecahedron
into the Timaeus in order to match the text with the Euclidean theorems. If the fifth solid is understood
to be the five-sided Egyptian pyramid, the pentahedron, then the definition of it as being a delineation of
the heavens makes perfect sense.
The fifth solid in the text of the Timaeus is therefore a synthesis of the other four forms being composed
of all the triangular elements that are seen in the other four. This is also consistent with the matching of
the four elements to the four described solids. The fifth solid or aesthetic form combines all the
elements (air, earth, fire, water) and both specific triangular forms in one perfect aesthetic form.

“He, however, who raises the question whether they are to be truly regarded as one or five, takes up a
more reasonable position. Arguing from probabilities, I am of (the) opinion that they are one…” 8

Under the orthodox interpretation the three elements represented by the half-equilateral scalene
triangle (water, air, fire) can only interact with each other and not with the fourth element (earth)
represented by the isosceles triangle in the cube. This is clearly incompatible with any theory of creation
since the earth by definition must be able to interact with the other elements and especially with water.
Plato states that the elements dissolve or mutate into each other during the creative process.

“In the first place, we see that what we just now called water, by condensation, I suppose, becomes
stone and earth; and this same element, when melted and dispersed, passes into vapour and air. Air,
again, when inflamed, becomes fire; and again fire, when condensed and extinguished, passes once
more into the form of air; and once more, air, when collected and condensed, produces cloud and mist;
and from these, when still more compressed, comes flowing water, and from water comes earth and
stones once more; and thus generation appears to be transmitted from one to the other in a circle.” 9

These creative mutations can only be accommodated within a structure such as the Egyptian pyramid
which is itself composed of both types of triangles that represent the four elements. Thus if the fifth
form is the Egyptian pyramid then this incompatibility between the earth element and the other
elements is resolved. This final and perfect aesthetic form accommodates and contains all the elements
in all their manifestations.

The four primary forms are to be “framed” into a fifth body that combines all their elements. This is not
the dodecahedron since it contains none of the specific triangles that characterize the original four
forms. Only the Egyptian pyramid fulfils this potential of incorporating in one sublimely aesthetic form
both the isosceles and half-equilateral scalene triangles.

“And next we have to determine what are the four most beautiful bodies which are unlike one another,
and of which some are capable of resolution into one another; for having discovered thus much, we shall
know the true origin of earth and fire and of the proportionate and intermediate elements. And then we
shall not be willing to allow that there are any distinct kinds of visible bodies fairer than these.
Wherefore we must endeavour to construct the four forms of bodies which excel in beauty, and then we
shall be able to say that we have sufficiently apprehended their nature.” 10

Because the fifth form or ‘solid’ has invariably been perceived as the dodecahedron it has rendered the
preceding section of the Timaeus which introduces the concept of the “receptacle” as virtually
meaningless. If the fifth form is the Egyptian pyramid, as the text indicates, then the discussion of this
form as a receptacle or container becomes intelligible. The nature of the pyramid as a receptacle or
container illuminates its function and the Timaeus is unique among ancient texts in exposing this
concept.

“What nature are we to attribute to this new kind of being? We reply, that it is the receptacle, and in a
manner the nurse, of all generation.”11

The nature of the receptacle must necessarily incorporate all the elements from the previous four forms
or solids but must not be confined by exclusively representing any one of them. In this way all the four
elements can coexist within the receptacle.

“Wherefore, the mother and receptacle of all created and visible and in any way sensible things, is not to
be termed earth, or air, or fire, or water… as far, however, as we can attain to a knowledge of her from
the previous considerations, we may truly say that fire is that part of her nature which from time to time
is inflamed, and water that which is moistened, and that the mother substance becomes earth and air, in
so far as she receives the impressions of them.”12

The contents of the pyramid in its role as the receptacle or container is revealed later in the text. Having
designed the perfectly formed aesthetic receptacle for the as yet unspecified substance the Demiurge
begins the creation of humans.

“The bones and flesh, and other similar parts of us, were made as follows. The first principle of all of
them was the generation of the marrow. For the bonds of life which unite the soul with the body are
made fast there, and they are the root and foundation of the human race. The marrow itself is created
out of other materials: God took such of the primary triangles as were straight and smooth, and were
adapted by their perfection to produce fire and water, and air and earth - these, I say, he separated from
their kinds, and mingling them in due proportions with one another, made the marrow out of them to be
a universal seed of the whole race of mankind; and in this seed he then planted and enclosed the souls,
and in the original distribution gave to the marrow as many and various forms as the different kinds of
souls were hereafter to receive.”13

Therefore the seed of the human or animal is associated with the marrow and is contained and
protected in its receptacle of bone. The structure of the spine is characterized by a procession of
triangular shapes both in the overall shape of the vertebrae and also in the internal spaces and shapes of
the individual bones.

“... and around the marrow of the neck and back he formed vertebrae which he placed under one
another like pivots, beginning at the head and extending through the whole of the trunk. Thus wishing to
preserve the entire seed, he enclosed it in a stone-like casing, inserting joints, and using in the formation
of them the power of the other or diverse as an intermediate nature, that they might have motion and
flexure.”14
The pyramid encased with the original sheath of white stone therefore encapsulates this image of the
human seed encased in a hard container of bone. Each vertebra thus performs the role as the receptacle
of the marrow and seed. Flesh and sinew are wrapped around the bone as a further protection for the
human seed.

“Then again, considering that the bone would be too brittle and inflexible, and when heated and again
cooled would soon mortify and destroy the seed within - having this in view, he contrived the sinews and
the flesh…”15

Therefore the pentahedron pyramid represents the receptacle and container of human seed. This
perfect aesthetic form is based on the primary triangular elements that are not contained in the
dodecahedron. The modern orthodox interpretation which insists on inserting text about the
dodecahedron, which does not exist in the original text, misses the entire point of the creation myth in
the Timaeus.

The pyramid, originally encased in white stone, did not only represent the bone that encased the seed
but the seed itself. The capstone of the pyramids, the pyramidion, is associated with the archaic
mythology of the benben stone. This is believed to have had a phallic significance, a theory that is
supported in the Pyramid Texts.

“To say: O Atum-Khepri, when thou didst mount as a hill,

In the Memphis theology the Egyptian creator deity Atum constructs the constellations using his fingers
to mould them out of his own semen as a sculptor might make forms out of clay. According to the
Shabaka Stone this was the original act of creation. “This Ennead of Atum came into being through his
semen and through his fingers.”17

The rivers of semen that stream from this act of deified autoeroticism define the creation myth of
ancient Egypt. Atum is self-created through this act which gives birth to the sacred primordial mound
that rises out of the undefined waters of the pre-existing state. Thus the rising of the phallus of Atum is
the first act of creation.

The theology of the Shabaka Stone is supported by the Pyramid Texts of Sakkara which confirm this
theory of creation. The Pyramid Texts document the original Egyptian creation myth and are in
themselves among the most ancient evidence of recorded human thought.

“To say: Atum created by his masturbation in Heliopolis.

Thus the single entity (the autoerotic mind of Atum) gives birth to two entities (Shu and Tefnut) without
recourse to conventional procreative intercourse. The single original act of creation leads to the
continuous cycle of creation as exemplified by the birth of Shu and Tefnut.

This act of primordial creation is explicitly linked to the autoerotic act of Atum. The visual evidence of
this is seen in the shining celestial trails of star clusters in the night sky. The foaming celestial star
clusters, formed from the primordial semen, were envisaged as the ejaculatory splatter of the deity in
the night sky.

Therefore the concept is contained in both the Pyramid Texts and the Timaeus that the pyramids
represent the receptacles or containers of semen and symbolize the semen in their aesthetic form.

“... the body of the marrow, which passes from the head along the neck and through the back (along the
spine), and which in the preceding discourse we have named the seed. And the seed having life, and
becoming endowed with respiration, produces in that part in which it respires a lively desire of emission,
and thus creates in us the love of procreation. Wherefore also in men the organ of generation becoming
rebellious and masterful, like an animal disobedient to reason, and maddened with the sting of lust,
seeks to gain absolute sway…”19

“What nature are we to attribute to this new kind of being? We reply, that it is the receptacle, and in a
manner the nurse, of all generation.”20

“... for there are generated from the triangles which we have selected four kinds - three from the one
which has the sides unequal; the fourth alone is framed out of the isosceles triangle. Hence they cannot
all be resolved into one another, a great number of small bodies being combined into a few large ones,
or the converse. But three of them can be thus resolved and compounded, for they all spring from one,
and when the greater bodies are broken up, many small bodies will spring up out of them and take their
own proper figures; or, again, when small bodies are dissolved into their triangles, if they become one,
they will form one large mass of another kind.”21

There is an imperative described here to resolve and compound the four aesthetic forms or bodies into
one all-encompassing form. This “large mass of another kind” has to adhere to the principles that Plato
has defined as the criteria for the forms or solids. These are defined thus:
“And every sort of body possesses solidity, and every solid must necessarily be contained in planes; and
every plane rectilinear figure is composed of triangles; and all triangles are originally of two kinds, both
of which are made up of one right and two acute angles; one of them has at either end of the base the
half of a divided right angle, having equal sides, while in the other the right angle is divided into unequal
parts, having unequal sides.”22

This definition that emphasizes the right-angled nature of the triangles rules out the isosceles triangles
contained in the pentagon shaped planar surfaces of the dodecahedron.

“Now, the one which we maintain to be the most beautiful of all the many triangles (and we need not
speak of the others) is that of which the double forms a third triangle which is equilateral…” 23

This definition rules out the scalene triangles in the pentagon surfaces of the dodecahedron as they do
not form equilateral triangles when combined.

Therefore, by the definitions that are contained in the Timaeus, the fifth Platonic solid cannot be a
dodecahedron.

The fifth perfect aesthetic form is the archetypal Egyptian pyramid, the pentahedron, formed (including
the base) of five planar surfaces and including both types of specified triangles.

1. Plato - Timaeus - The Dialogues of Plato - Benjamin Jowett - 1892 - Public Domain
2. Ibid. 53
3. Ibid. 54
4. Ibid. 54
5. Ibid. 53
6. Ibid. 53
7. Ibid. 55
8. Ibid. 55
9. Ibid. 49
10. Ibid. 53
11. Ibid. 49
12. Ibid. 51
13. Ibid. 73
14. Ibid. 74
15. Ibid. 74
16. Pyramid Text - Utterance 600
17. Shabaka Stone
18. Pyramid Text - Utterance 527
19. Plato - Timaeus 91
20. Ibid. 49
21. Ibid. 54
22. Ibid. 53
23. Ibid. 54