The Platonic logic just revealed in key 05 in reference to how perceptual variations among objects that belong to the same species (in space and time) are ultimately accounted for conceptually on the absolute level of forms, casts a different light over the nature of The Platonic Forms and the Conceptual Realm to which they belong.
Forms that are seemingly segregated from each other in The Realm of Eternity (conceptually) (i.e., The Form Apple, The Form Redness, The Form Roundness etc.) appear to integrate together perceptually. They appear to layer upon each other physically in an inseparable mode.
For example, redness and roundness, that supposedly partake from two clearly isolated Forms (two different concepts), The Form Red and The Form Round, which cannot be confused conceptually for one another, amalgamate perceptually together within the physical matrix of a particular apple. They layer upon each other inside a given red apple in such an inseparable manner – in such a way that it is practically impossible to physically isolate each on its own.
It is only obvious that an apple, on the Conceptual level, possesses an identity of its own – an identity that has its own identifiable presence in cognition. Thus, to conceptualize of an apple in mind obviously does not entail conceptualizing of redness or necessitate any cognitive interference of other conceptual images that supposedly involve roundness, freshness, or rottenness.
On the other hand, on the level of immediate perceptual encounter with a particular apple, those forms are somehow involved. They visually appear as parasitic upon the Object-Hood of the Apple and upon each other as well, in such a way whereby the perceiver cannot possibly isolate any physical encounter of the apple separately from theirs (i.e., register sight or touch of this given apple without seeing and touching its redness and its roundness).
Forms, in the mode in which they lose this numeric integrity to each other (on the perceptual level), ultimately resemble a form of unity that is contra-numeric. Come to think of it, the physical Universe altogether, in the manner that its spreads out infinitely and indefinitely, could be considered in this respect as one giant soup of Forms, meshed and integrated together inseparably, to form an insurmountable type of unity. This unity goes beyond the numeric possibility characterized by the deceptive conceptual frame referred to as The Numeric 1.
Blessed Parmenides defined this type of unity and alluded to it as being descriptive of The Creator’s Selfhood (The Oneness associated with the Creator) – the infinite oneness that cannot not possibly be numerically framed, added, or divided.
On another note, it is rather interesting (and somehow even ironic) how The Numeric Possibility operates (on The Conceptual Level) in the service of preserving the Identity of each Form (i.e. preventing The Form Redness from melting inside The Form Apple). Yet, on The Perceptual Level, this same numeric possibility achieves just the opposite effect by dissolving inside a Contra-Numeric Unity, in defiance of the conceptual absoluteness of each form. In other words, The Numeric Possibility is somehow prohibited from happening on The Perceptual Level.
The Theological mathematics of this type of prohibition is intricately revealed throughout The Gnostic Order of Holy Trinities . Specifically, it appears in the part that is relative to The Devil’s Identity and his Symbolic Fall from his Conceptual Mystery, which empowers him with the numeric possibility to play on the concept zero-ness. The demystifying level of The Perceptual Realm denies him such power through repelling The Numeric Possibility altogether, much less the Zero Possibility, which has no perceptual parallel external to cognition.
Ultimately, this Isolation of Forms on the conceptual level, yet Integration of their Particulars on the perceptual level, exposes an essential distinction between The Conceptual Realm and The Perceptual Realm worth noting at this point.
The logical question that poses itself at this point is: how could the mind possibly isolate and frame its distinct awareness to each Form utilizing The Numeric Possibility, when the Numeric Possibility itself could not be possibly known or acquired through any perceptual experience (empirically)? The Numeric Possibility itself is unparalleled by any identifiable presence in the physical realm, be it through a particular object, motion or experience. For instance, it could be said that one could confirm The Apple’s Conceptual Possibility through a direct perceptual encounter with a particular apple x in space and time. However, one cannot possibly confirm The Numeric Possibility through any perceptual encounter with a given object that could be said to be This is A One in the same respect as one would say This is An Apple. In other words, nothing on the physical level resembles this Numeric Possibility. Everything is rather integrated and meshed together in a Logic of Existence that appears to deny this possibility rather than confirm it.
This logically implies that any knowledge of The Numerical Possibility must then be somehow innately encoded in The Mind, prior to any perceptual or empirical exposure on any level.
This conclusive premise comes in perfect harmony with Plato’s Theory of Knowledge, in which Plato defines knowledge as being a recollection of that which is previously and innately encoded within the Soul (in eternity) prior to any spatiotemporal experience.
However, for now, it is important to highlight another fact: The Perceptual Possibility, however anti-numerically integrated and meshed are forms within it, seems to not be possible without the numeric context, despite the fact that The Numeric Possibility itself is perceptually prohibited. In other words, without the numeric context, which the mind somehow superimposes upon the perceptual experience, the perceiver would not be able to isolate any knowledge of any specific object, motion, event, or experience in space and time. The Physical Possibility would simply appear as one unidentifiable mesh or blot of stuff. Imagining a world such as this is like imagining the world from the eyes of an ant. It is impossible to even imagine.
However, the Cognitive power to numerically isolate empirical knowledge of perceptual objects, events, or experiences emanates from The Mind Outwards towards The Physical Realm and not from the other way around. Seemingly instigating this soup-like substance that constitutes physicality to echo this numeric possibility, it reflects it through a perceptual realm that appears rich in shapes, forms, objects and motions – resonating with this numeric possibility.
To make things yet more understandable, anything perceivable, according to this premise, primarily translates The Mind Power prior to translating anything else in particular. This power could be defined as The Knowledge Possibility, which the mind emanates like Sunlight outwards and the engine of which is The Numeric Possibility that is (in turn) a translation of this power (the Mathematics of The Knowledge Possibility).
The question, however, becomes: if this mysterious Numeric Possibility is a relative to an innate Metaphysical Power of some sort that activates the Mind’s Ability to identify forms both conceptually and perceptually, then mustn’t the source of this power then be beyond the Numeric Nature Forms? Otherwise, the numeric possibility itself would have to be accounted for numerically in order for The Mind to register any conceptual knowledge of it, as would the mind register knowledge of The Form Apple or The Form Justice for instance. If The Platonic Forms supposedly account for everything identifiable (knowledgeable), both on the conceptual and the perceptual level, then there must be some logical connection between The Numeric Possibility and the nature of Forms – some kind of a knowledgeable link that logically accounts for the relativity of this Possibility to Plato’s Forms.
What could the nature of this link be?
To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the mode in which The Numerical Possibility exhibits itself on The Conceptual Level of Forms. In other words, how would any Conceptual Form in mind like The Form Apple relate to the numeric possibility?
The answer to this question seems like a Forbidden Simplicity, for it seems only obvious that without The Numeric Possibility the mind would not be cognitively capable of framing any awareness to The Apple’s Identity. However, could this frame (on the other hand) exist in itself, independently of the Conceptual or Meaningful value within it (the Apple’s Image in Mind)?!!! On the other hand, wouldn’t this mental frame be a natural part of the Apple’s Conceptual Presence? Could it possibly exist on its own, like a frameless frame, for instance, or a frame of the frame itself? These questions (in themselves) seem to question the conceptual integrity of The Numeric Possibility, for to claim that a numeric possibility could exist independently of the Meaningful Form is like saying that there is a Formless Form or a Frameless Frame or a Conceptually empty Concept.
Comprehending the metaphysical implications of this negative possibility (which is a derivative of The Numeric Possibility) is key to fathoming the Primeval Metaphysical nature of Evil, which inspires its lower manifestations. This negative possibility instigates the birth of The Zero Possibility, which is the Metaphysical Identity of The Spiritual Opponent (The Devil). The cognitive implications of this possibility on The Form (i.e., the superiority of the Frame over the Meaning Within the Frame), once it finds cognitive shelter and sustenance through Thought, extends outwards to influence the Perceptual Experience, which is very well translated through the Theological Notions of Evil and its relativity to The Physical Realm.
This foreign possibility that clings upon the Form under the numeric excuse manifests conceptually through The Thought of a Thought (An Artificial awareness to the cognitive presence of a Mental Numeric Unit of value referred to as a Thought). This exhibits the most initial cognitive tendency to confine the insurmountable unity of existence (The Spirit of Adam) inside a confined unity (The Soul of Eve). We’ve already mentioned how the EVE in Arabic is referred to as Hawaa (which is a term derived from Ihtawa meaning To Contain)
Could The Thought of a Thoughtless Thought ever hold conceptually? If so, what could possibly frame a thoughtless thought and yet not be a thought in itself?
All these questions and more require a deeper look unto the nature of Plato’s Forms. As well, it also calls for introducing Plato’s notion of intermediary forms – Forms that Plato associated with numbers and geometrical shapes and that supposedly somehow conjoin the conceptual realm with the perceptual.