We are living through a crisis of truth.
Not because truth has disappeared. But because we have lost our ability to agree on what it is. Social media algorithms curate our reality into personalised bubbles. AI generates convincing text, images and video that may or may not reflect anything real. Political discourse has fractured into competing narratives where facts are disputed, science is questioned, and even the most basic shared realities are contested. In 2026, the question does truth exist is not an abstract philosophical puzzle. It is an urgent, practical, civilisational question.
And yet it is also the oldest question in the world.
Every great tradition — scientific, philosophical, spiritual — has grappled with it. And what strikes me after more than ten years of researching the nature of reality is that we keep arriving at the same place, again and again, from completely different directions. That place is pattern. That place is geometry.
But I am getting ahead of myself. Let us start at the beginning.
What the Ancient Greeks Understood
The Greeks were obsessed with truth. Not in a vague, poetic way — but as a rigorous intellectual project. They wanted to know: what is real, how do we know it, and can we trust what our senses tell us?
Plato believed that truth exists in a perfect realm of Forms — eternal, unchanging, ideal. What we experience in the physical world are merely imperfect copies, shadows of the real thing. His famous Allegory of the Cave captures this perfectly. Imagine prisoners chained in a cave, facing a wall. Behind them a fire burns, and objects pass between the fire and the prisoners. All they ever see are shadows. They have never seen the actual objects, let alone the light outside. They mistake the shadows for reality — because shadows are all they have ever known.
One prisoner escapes. He stumbles out of the cave into blinding sunlight. Slowly his eyes adjust. He sees trees, rivers, the sky, other people. He realises with a shock that what he took to be reality was just a shadow of something far richer, far more complex, far more beautiful.
This is Plato's model of the philosopher's journey. And I would argue it is also the journey of the sacred geometry student.
Aristotle took a different approach. Truth, he said, is correspondence — a statement is true if it matches reality. Simple, grounded, practical. This became the foundation of scientific thinking. We observe, we test, we verify. If the results are repeatable, we call it true.
Heraclitus said the only truth is change. Panta rhei — everything flows. You cannot step in the same river twice. What we call reality is a continuous, ceaseless process of transformation.
And then Parmenides said exactly the opposite. Only the unchanging is real. Change is illusion. Truth is singular, eternal, motionless.
Two brilliant minds. Completely opposite conclusions. Both compelling. Both, I would argue, partially right.
And then there is Socrates. Who claimed to know nothing at all. Who spent his life asking questions rather than providing answers. Whose method was dialogue — open, honest, uncomfortable conversation in which assumptions are challenged and certainties dissolve. Which is, incidentally, exactly the spirit of the Da Vinci Dialogue.
What the East Understood
The Greeks were not alone in this inquiry. Across the world, simultaneously and independently, other traditions were wrestling with the same questions.
In Buddhism, the concept of Maya — illusion — mirrors Plato's cave almost exactly. What we perceive through our senses is not ultimate reality but a constructed experience, shaped by our conditioning, our desires, our fears. The Buddhist path is precisely the journey of seeing through that construction to something more fundamental underneath.
Taoism speaks of the Tao — the way, the underlying pattern of reality — that cannot be named or defined. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Words, by definition, fall short. The moment you try to capture truth in language, something essential escapes.
The Vedic tradition goes further still. Reality, it says, is consciousness itself — Brahman, the infinite, the one. What we experience as the physical world is Lila, divine play, the infinite taking on finite forms for the joy of experiencing itself. Truth is not something outside us to be found. It is what we are.
What strikes me about all of these traditions is what they agree on. Not the details — the details differ wildly. But the underlying insight. That what we perceive directly is not the whole picture. That there is something deeper, more fundamental, more real underneath the surface of ordinary experience. And that our ordinary tools — our senses, our language, our concepts — are not quite adequate to grasp it.
The Problem With Words
Let me do a small experiment with you.
What does the word love mean to you?
When I asked this question in our first Da Vinci Dialogue, here is what people said: chocolate. Oneness. Sleep. Frequency. Being fully immersed in something beyond the self.
Same word. Completely different meanings. Because a word is not the thing it points to. A word is a symbol, a sound, a mark on paper — and the meaning it carries depends entirely on the person receiving it. On their history, their culture, their nervous system, their current mood.
This is not a flaw in language. Language is extraordinary — the most sophisticated communication system ever developed. But it has a fundamental limitation. It is indirect. It describes. It points. But it is never the thing itself.
The Zen tradition captures this perfectly: the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. If I point at the moon and you stare at my finger, you will never see what I am pointing at. Words are fingers. They gesture towards truth. But they are not truth.
The ancient world understood this distinction with remarkable clarity. They divided all of human knowledge into two great streams.
The first was the Trivium — grammar, logic, rhetoric. The world of words and argument. How we communicate, how we reason, how we persuade. Extraordinarily powerful. But inherently subjective. Language shifts across cultures and centuries. The same word means different things to different people. Meanings drift, dissolve, transform.
The second was the Quadrivium — arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy. The world of number and pattern. Measurable, repeatable, universally consistent. Not dependent on culture or language or interpretation.
The great insight of the ancient world — Greek, Egyptian, Vedic, Chinese — was that if you want to get closer to truth, you need to move from the first column to the second. From words to number. From description to pattern.
Why Geometry Is Different
Now think of a circle.
Not the word circle. Not the German Kreis or the Italian cerchio or the Japanese 円. The thing itself. That perfect, continuous, closed curve — equidistant at every point from its centre.
Does a circle mean something different in Japan than in Brazil? In ancient Egypt than in modern London? In 500 BC than in 2026?
No. It does not. A circle is a circle. Everywhere. Always. It represents itself. It needs no translation, no interpretation, no cultural context. You can draw it in the sand on a beach in Bali and a mathematician in Beijing and a child in São Paulo and a monk in Tibet will all recognise immediately what it is.
This is what makes geometry extraordinary. It is the one language that is not a finger pointing at the moon. It is closer to being the moon itself.
This is not a new idea. Pythagoras understood it. He taught that number and geometric form are the ultimate reality — that the physical world is an expression of mathematical relationships. The builders of the pyramids understood it. The architects of the great cathedrals understood it. Every ancient civilisation that left geometric patterns behind — and they all did, independently, without contact — was encoding the same insight: that underneath the flux of experience, underneath the diversity of cultures and languages and beliefs, there is a pattern. A structure. A blueprint.
Sacred geometry is the study of that blueprint.
It is not a belief system. It does not ask you to adopt a particular philosophy or join a particular tradition. It simply invites you to look at the patterns that appear everywhere — from the structure of atoms to the spirals of galaxies, from the proportions of the human body to the branching of trees — and ask: what does this tell us about how reality actually works?
And when you start to look, really look, the answer is astonishing.
Where Our First Dialogue Landed
In our first Da Vinci Dialogue, fourteen people joined from Turkey, London, Bali, Beijing, Switzerland, Lithuania, Dominica, the United States and England. We spent an hour exploring what truth means — and we arrived, organically, without planning it, at exactly this place.
We began with many different definitions of truth. We ended with a circle.
Not because I steered us there. But because that is where honest inquiry leads.
What does truth mean to you?
Voices from our first Da Vinci Dialogue
“Truth is the fulfillment of consciousness experiencing itself.”
— Guan, Turkey
“Pure signal is truth. If the vessel perceiving it is not clear, it distorts the field.”
— James, London
“Truth feels like resonance.”
— Krish, Bali
“Truth is authenticity — alignment with yourself.”
— Arlene, Koppingen
“The process of trying to find truth defines who I am.”
— Bonnie, Beijing
“Truth is the frequency of consciousness aligned with the unique imprint of the soul.”
— Roman, Bali
“I do not engage my mind in defining truth. I am consciousness.”
— Sanat, Bali
“Everyone has their own truth — but perhaps in the universal prism there is another level.”
— Avi, Lithuania
“There is a truth, and everybody's truth is their own truth — and everybody's truth is true.”
— Goldie, England
“Perhaps when we come together in a network, we find the common truth.”
— Kurt, Switzerland
“I can experience only a very small fraction of reality at any given moment — and that humility might be the beginning of wisdom.”
— Guan, Turkey
“Nothing is as it appears. And yet it appears. That's the magic.”
— Avi, Lithuania
“Geometry embodies truths we cannot touch with our ordinary faculties.”
— Sanat, Bali
“What I take away is the commitment to live in truth — not just define it, but embody it.”
— Bonnie, Beijing
Da Vinci Dialogue is a free live discussion series hosted by Dr. Be — exploring the big questions at the intersection of science, philosophy, and sacred geometry. All perspectives welcome.
Join the next session →
See the Da Vinci Dialogue series →
Come curious. Come as you are. All perspectives welcome.