As always we can provide a complementary psychospiritual account of the phenomenal activity (corresponding to what in physical terms lies below the Planck length).
As we have discussed before with increasing contemplative activity, phenomena of form take on a more transparent elusive quality. This ultimately relates to the dynamic manner in which the basic polarities of experience increasingly interact.
So - quite literally - experience becomes of a higher dimensional nature. Ultimately therefore the relationship between polarities becomes so rapid that it is no longer possible - in explicit terms - to follow their movement. So at this stage it is thereby not possible to provide a coherent refined rational interpretation of the subtle inter-relationships implied by these dimensions. In other words as the very attempt to provide such an interpretation would itself interfere with the dynamic level of interaction already attained, one must abandon formal interpretation in any explicit manner.
Put another way as relationships are now of an increasingly (circular) paradoxical nature, any attempt to objectively explain their nature would introduce an undue linear influence that would thereby distort their intrinsic nature.
This corresponds well with the nature of physical relationships below the Planck length where relationships become so circular and paradoxical that they strongly conflict with the standard notions, such as independent existence and unambiguous movement in space and time that so characterise the linear approach.
So whereas present M-Theory is defined for a 11 dimensional framework for physical activity down to the Planck length (setting thereby a limit to explicit physical investigations of matter), we can safely say therefore that the implied physical reality lying below the Planck length would exist with respect to an increasingly large number of dimensions.
Once again interpretation here is shrouded in deep paradox. Ultimately we have maintained that what defines the prime constituents of reality is that each unique "object" is associated likewise with a unique "dimension". However as we approach closer to recognition of the unique dimensional (qualitative) nature of each "object", the inter-relationships with other "objects" becomes so dynamic that we are unable to preserve any independent identity to these objects.
It may be instructive to explain a little more what is meant by multi-dimensional in this context.
As stated before the dimensions relate to directions with respect to the fundamental dimensions polarities of experience (internal/external and whole/part).
With linear interpretation (which is 1-dimensional in this perspective) external is separated from internal and then identified with whole/parts as independently existing objects.
2-dimensional interpretation is more refined where one accepts that a continual interaction as between internal and external polarities takes place leading to a consequent continual transformation in what is observed.
Then with 4-dimensional interpretation increasing interaction as between holistic and analytic notions of whole and part also take place.
Basically with progressively higher dimensions, one obtains an increasing ability to precisely control in experience the degree of emphasis in any context that is given to (internal) psychological interpretation or external physical observance from one perspective and from the other the precise emphasis on analytic (part) or (holistic) whole notions.
Now with higher-dimensional appreciation one realises that in phenomenal terms that we are always relating to mere appearances with respect to reality (which constantly change). Therefore one thereby surrenders any belief in precisely fixing the nature of such appearances. And with this one likewise surrenders the use of any explicit linear aspect with respect to interpretation.
So in similar terms at the higher dimensions below the Planck length (in physical terms) manifestations with respect to phenomena likewise change so quickly that it becomes impossible to preserve any fixed element. So relationships become increasingly paradoxical and circular in nature confounding all accepted scientific notions (with respect to independent existence and conventional notions of space and time).
So independent objective reality as we know it is associated with the need to continually reduce the qualitative nature of objects by likewise reducing the number of dimensions used to interpret reality. Indeed one could argue that the very need to still use four collective dimensions for identifying all macro objects sets a limit on the independent nature of these objects (as they still all require this same collective spacetime background).
In corresponding psychospiritual terms as one grows in awareness of the truly unique nature of objects (in what spiritually is referred to as the immanent aspect), ultimately again such objects become so transparent that they ultimately lose any independent characteristics. And at this stage interpretation of experience becomes so highly multi-dimensional that one can no longer preserve any explicit rational interpretation of such experience.
So properly understood we can never divorce the ultimate nature of physical reality from the corresponding means by which it is psychologically interpreted for both aspects are in truth complementary (and ultimately identical).
There is another fascinating point that can be made in this context.
Just as the original nature of matter is prime (where quantitative objective and dimensional qualitative aspects start from a state of total confusion), ultimate psychospiritual realisation in experience entails the same prime relationship (where however quantitative and qualitative are now maturely integrated).
So - quite literally - the very process of achieving such ultimate psychospiritual realisation requires the rooting out of all unreformed primitive instincts at an unconscious level.
Thus in the truest possible sense the resolution of the mystery of the prime numbers cannot be divorced from the realisation of ultimate spiritual union (where one approximates to removal of any residual conflict as between the quantitative and qualitative aspect of experience).
As we have discussed before with increasing contemplative activity, phenomena of form take on a more transparent elusive quality. This ultimately relates to the dynamic manner in which the basic polarities of experience increasingly interact.
So - quite literally - experience becomes of a higher dimensional nature. Ultimately therefore the relationship between polarities becomes so rapid that it is no longer possible - in explicit terms - to follow their movement. So at this stage it is thereby not possible to provide a coherent refined rational interpretation of the subtle inter-relationships implied by these dimensions. In other words as the very attempt to provide such an interpretation would itself interfere with the dynamic level of interaction already attained, one must abandon formal interpretation in any explicit manner.
Put another way as relationships are now of an increasingly (circular) paradoxical nature, any attempt to objectively explain their nature would introduce an undue linear influence that would thereby distort their intrinsic nature.
This corresponds well with the nature of physical relationships below the Planck length where relationships become so circular and paradoxical that they strongly conflict with the standard notions, such as independent existence and unambiguous movement in space and time that so characterise the linear approach.
So whereas present M-Theory is defined for a 11 dimensional framework for physical activity down to the Planck length (setting thereby a limit to explicit physical investigations of matter), we can safely say therefore that the implied physical reality lying below the Planck length would exist with respect to an increasingly large number of dimensions.
Once again interpretation here is shrouded in deep paradox. Ultimately we have maintained that what defines the prime constituents of reality is that each unique "object" is associated likewise with a unique "dimension". However as we approach closer to recognition of the unique dimensional (qualitative) nature of each "object", the inter-relationships with other "objects" becomes so dynamic that we are unable to preserve any independent identity to these objects.
It may be instructive to explain a little more what is meant by multi-dimensional in this context.
As stated before the dimensions relate to directions with respect to the fundamental dimensions polarities of experience (internal/external and whole/part).
With linear interpretation (which is 1-dimensional in this perspective) external is separated from internal and then identified with whole/parts as independently existing objects.
2-dimensional interpretation is more refined where one accepts that a continual interaction as between internal and external polarities takes place leading to a consequent continual transformation in what is observed.
Then with 4-dimensional interpretation increasing interaction as between holistic and analytic notions of whole and part also take place.
Basically with progressively higher dimensions, one obtains an increasing ability to precisely control in experience the degree of emphasis in any context that is given to (internal) psychological interpretation or external physical observance from one perspective and from the other the precise emphasis on analytic (part) or (holistic) whole notions.
Now with higher-dimensional appreciation one realises that in phenomenal terms that we are always relating to mere appearances with respect to reality (which constantly change). Therefore one thereby surrenders any belief in precisely fixing the nature of such appearances. And with this one likewise surrenders the use of any explicit linear aspect with respect to interpretation.
So in similar terms at the higher dimensions below the Planck length (in physical terms) manifestations with respect to phenomena likewise change so quickly that it becomes impossible to preserve any fixed element. So relationships become increasingly paradoxical and circular in nature confounding all accepted scientific notions (with respect to independent existence and conventional notions of space and time).
So independent objective reality as we know it is associated with the need to continually reduce the qualitative nature of objects by likewise reducing the number of dimensions used to interpret reality. Indeed one could argue that the very need to still use four collective dimensions for identifying all macro objects sets a limit on the independent nature of these objects (as they still all require this same collective spacetime background).
In corresponding psychospiritual terms as one grows in awareness of the truly unique nature of objects (in what spiritually is referred to as the immanent aspect), ultimately again such objects become so transparent that they ultimately lose any independent characteristics. And at this stage interpretation of experience becomes so highly multi-dimensional that one can no longer preserve any explicit rational interpretation of such experience.
So properly understood we can never divorce the ultimate nature of physical reality from the corresponding means by which it is psychologically interpreted for both aspects are in truth complementary (and ultimately identical).
There is another fascinating point that can be made in this context.
Just as the original nature of matter is prime (where quantitative objective and dimensional qualitative aspects start from a state of total confusion), ultimate psychospiritual realisation in experience entails the same prime relationship (where however quantitative and qualitative are now maturely integrated).
So - quite literally - the very process of achieving such ultimate psychospiritual realisation requires the rooting out of all unreformed primitive instincts at an unconscious level.
Thus in the truest possible sense the resolution of the mystery of the prime numbers cannot be divorced from the realisation of ultimate spiritual union (where one approximates to removal of any residual conflict as between the quantitative and qualitative aspect of experience).
Comments
Post a Comment