Plato and the Calculus of a Dimension Shift

Printer-friendly versionSend by email

I don't know about you, but when I read Plato in High School and then again in College/s, I had to wonder a little about what they were pumping into the campus water that made this guy so friggen important. Particularly the Platonic forms. I just didn't get it. Who gives a fuck about 'Chairness'?

Dude going on and on, boring his own damn self. Please.

Pan out like, I don't know, say 20-30 years later, and I'm having a bit of an 'Aha' moment out of the blue but surprisingly coming from what we earthlings would typically classify (in all of our silliness) as an 'Eastern' frame of reference.

The trick is that all his shit (IE. Plato's writing) is cloaked in this ridiculous white-haired white guys, sometimes with wigs, reductionist 'this-is-the-foundation-of-Western-civilization' and here we are today splitting atoms and not seeing anyone talking 'chairness' except to further the reductionist perspective that was so excruciatingly boring and that, honestly, missed the point.

And the point, according to my 'Aha', is to illustrate the calculus of a Dimensional Shift.

“Huh?”, you say? (Which would prove my point that potentially none of us really 'got it'.)

Allow me to explain.

the Calculus

From the perspective in which we live, it is easy to find reference points for dimensional shifts that descend from the dimension in which we are steeped. As creatures of the 3d, we can imagine and represent in diagrams a 2d world. We lean using the analogy of a plane. We don't understand what it would be to live in the 2d or experience a 2d world because we are conscious in the 3d and have assimilated it. Same goes for the 1d. I imagine there is a lot more than meets the eye here, but you get the picture.

4d is a little harder to imagine, never mind the dimensions above that. We have mathematical models that describe them, but we wait till folks get a little older before we start getting into it because no one really understands it and some of the theories seem complicated and require mathematical calisthenics that we have to learn first.

But do we experience them, or is there proof of them?

Enter the Platonic Forms.

Let's for a moment drop the idea of 'Chairness' and instead focus on something a little more real to the experience of human consciousness. Let's talk about Love.

Love

In many ways, Love is this sort of impossible academic problem. People have come at it from a variety of angles including my favorites being A General Theory of Love and Brain Sex. My point is that we know what love feels like, and it is a universal experience. When we scan our bodies for heat and energy, Love takes on a very specific and universal biological signature. We cannot tactilly feel it, we can't see it or sense it with any of our 'five senses' but it exists and it's various effects are scientifically, reductionistically measurable.

Yogis and the 'Eastern' wisdom and mystical traditions have always asserted that these emotions exist in their own right, and that we can, in some senses, be said to be used by them. For example, many people have experienced great loss, and afterwards maybe a prolonged grieving period. First love is a good example. Divorce. Death.

At some point, it becomes time to move on, and sometimes we must go through a period of training ourselves to drop the thoughts about our grief, and eventually these thoughts come less and less often. Those of us who have had difficultly letting go of these thoughts know that they are entities in their own rights: forms. Those of us who have arrived at the other side of these mountainous habitual thoughts of grief look back and can understand what it means when people say that it almost feels like these thoughts are using us.

We think that's ridiculous because we think that 'thoughts' are not alive.

But what if there are ways of being 'alive' and 'conscious' that, in our haste to define what life means for this 3d experience, we have excluded from the official 'definition of life' that we might find in a dictionary, or a philosophy course. What if the emotion of 'Love' is a sort of life-form that exists in a dimension ascending from ours: like maybe the 5th dimension, say. If 'Love' was a conscious life form, it would want to be tasted, and experienced. It would want to infect us with it's sweetest pleasures.

If the emotion 'Fear' were also alive (which it must be if Love is alive) then it might want the same things.

And maybe within this 'Dimensional Shift' into the world where emotions 'live', other living emotions would know one another, and some would be friends and others might not interact as much, and still others might not even be aware of the other.

Their interactions form the basis of our daily moods. Their relationships with the Large Heavenly Bodies are the living basis of ancient arts like Astrology. Instead of being plagued and uplifted by emotions (as we in 3d are), the emotions themselves might be, in the same way, plagued and uplifted by certain frequencies or sounds.

Other examples might be the dimensional worlds of 'Sound' and 'Light', or maybe of 'Large Heavenly Bodies' that we experience as existing but not as alive. Maybe in their respective dimensions, they experience their own brand of consciousness within their own special frameworks or 'Forms' as Plato might say.

Conclusion

Woah...

And so the work of Nassim Harramein and Michael Talbott and others who are pioneers and revolutionaries in their fields also talks about the dimensional worlds where things like 'Geometry” are alive and penetrate our existence in a fundamental way. Information is alive in one of those dimensions.

And Plato? Well, Plato gets resurrected in my own mind with a great apology for not being able or willing to look beyond what state his work was in when it arrived in my world.

Powered by drupal and hosted by mayfirst / people link.