Key 08 – The Form ONE & Perception

In Key 07 we introduced The Platonic Intermediary Forms – Forms that do not possess any tangible presence, yet still are perceptually verifiable. These Forms, as already revealed, are Mathematical in nature, like The Form Circle and The Form One.
Certain examples have already been presented on the mode through which these metaphysical forms emerge into visibility. We also mentioned how their perceptual attributes inspire the possibility of other metaphysical Forms materializing, forms like The Form Happiness and The Form Beauty, despite the high level of subjectivity involved with these Forms and their untraceable incidence on the immediate physical encounter.

The Form One and The Perception of Objects:

If there is a single form among The Intermediary Forms that is worth an in-depth exploration, it must indeed be The Form One, assuming that there is a Form as such.

Unlike The Form Circle, to which particular objects in nature might echo resemblance (like the Sunflower’s core for instance), The Form One is not visually reflected via any possible object on the immediate perceptual level. There is simply nothing in the physical realm (as known to be) that one could possibly lay his eyes or hands upon and say: I am seeing or having a grip over The Particular Object One.

However, doubting the Absolute Existence of such a Form is like doubting the perceptual possibility in itself. Without what appears to be The Mind’s innate knowledge (or previous exposure) to The Form One, no empirical or conceptual experience of any sort could ever possibly materialize.

For example, consider the basic perceptual logic underlying the simple possibility of perceiving a particular apple x resting on a plate x alongside another two similar apples y and z. In order to register any perceptual experience of the apple x, The Perceiver would have to somehow view this apple within the context of oneness, somehow visually detaching it from its three-dimensional surroundings. This is not solely imperative for numerically accounting for the apple’s particularity, but also for identifying its what-ness to begin with (its meaningful identity). Otherwise, there is no reason not to consider the possibility of The Perceiver seeing apple x and the plate x1 as a whole new different object altogether; even still, in this case, oneness would still enter the picture. In other words, what The Perceiver seems to be doing immediately prior to identifying or registering the image of apple x, is somehow cognitively attributing oneness to the Object at Hand, primarily to isolate and verify its essential identity (What-ness) and secondarily in order to recognize its statistical particularity (i.e. its spatiotemporal relativity to other objects around it, that in any case like the case of apple x, could be exactly similar to it).

In other words, the hypothetical role that a Form like The Form One supposedly plays is not merely the role of a tool of numeric accounting, but also as a Frame-of-Meaning, without which no identity could ever emerge or withhold for what it means in the first place, prior to even emerging as a countable statistical object.

Thus, anytime A Given Perceiver registers any perceptual encounter with any particular object in space and time, the perceiver is essentially registering an image of oneness disguised underneath two layers of translation. The first layer is represented by The Object’s Essential Identity (Its What-ness), and the second is represented by The Object’s Statistical Particularity (Its Numeric Value).

This renders a form like The Form One , whichever logic characterizes its existence, the most ancient and superior form to all forms, because any and all objects in space and time must translate it through their very perceptivity (knowledge-ability) on any level of their existence. All objects, whether conceptual or perceptual, seem to follow it descriptively, and no other form can ever emerge in any level of knowledgeable existence without it. To comprehend this point better, simply compare the relativity of The Form One to knowledge to the relativity of Sunlight to Vision.

However mysterious the nature of this Form might sound or the kind of power it supposedly possesses over knowledgeable existence on any level (be it conceptual or perceptual), we know for sure that, like sunlight, visually framing it is virtually impossible. Even more, it is beyond the nature of light itself in respect to its forbidden dimensional presence. Hence, one could safely assume that any empirical knowledge of such a Form is unattainable. This logically implies that this Form (in its undeniable presence) could only be emanated from The Perceiver Outwards and, like sunlight, once it is cast upon The Exterior Substance that constitutes physicality, it somehow causes this substance to resonate with The Knowledge Possibility. Yet, somewhat like light, it never seems to appear as a knowledgeable object in itself. It only highlights the appearance of Forms, both as identifiable cognitive concepts and as three-dimensional objects in space and time.

So, wait a moment!!! Let’s go back and retrieve what we have so far:

In order to perceive any object in space and time, the perceiver would need to first cognitively register the presence of a Form, which the Mind seems to innately validate as existent and yet, which vision cannot possible encounter or verify through a direct perceptual experience!!! Isn’t this like admitting that Forms could be Absolute beyond empirical verification and that knowledge of Forms could be, after all, innate (beyond empirical experience) as Plato claims in his Theory of Knowledge?!! This admission is conclusive on many levels and it carries highly positive implications over the validity of the Absolute Existence of purely metaphysical Forms, like Beauty, Justice, and Goodness, etc. These forms, if they were to exist, would not be any more metaphysical in nature than the alleged Form One, the existence of which seems to shine overwhelmingly, like the sun.

Conclusively, without The Soul’s pre-exposure to Oneness (prior to any spatiotemporal experience), knowledge (on any level) could not possibly materialize, least of all on The Perceptual Level. The ground-breaking logic that constitutes this conclusive premise is beyond average philosophy; it somehow borders on the mathematical. However, what is staggering is the miraculous degree to which it coheres with the Logic of The Gnostic Ontology and Theology of Creation presented in The Gnostic Cause of Creation and The Gnostic Orders of The Holy Trinities.

The Form One and Perception of Motion:

Not only perceiving objects, but also perceiving motion of any kind presumably would also require pre-knowledge of this Form.

Consider the basic motion of a given apple x falling from a given tree x onto a given ground x:

… “If a motion-picture camera supposedly tapes a second’s worth of this motion, this taping would translate into a film footage made up of sequential orders of frames per second, numerically separable from the other, that once played on a relative visual device, would perceptually project a real-life simulation of this motion. This perceptivity of a motion that is supposedly constituted from numeric frames is very telling about The Perceptual Possibility of any particular motion that occurs in real life. Both the motion perceived on screen and that in real life are essentially the same motion of a real apple x falling from a real tree x to a real ground x. Even more, the perceptivity of both motions supposedly rely on the same perceptual faculty, the perceiver’s vision…”

To assume that this faculty is capable of registering the mechanism of a screen-motion as identical to its real-life counterpart is another way of saying that, in real life, this faculty would somehow divide any motion numerically in order to register its identifiable presence perceptually.

After all, registering a screen segment of this motion perceptually is an experience that could not possibly be all that different from the real life experience, since both the perceiver and the motion are essentially the same in either case. In other words, the perceiver in a real-life experience of this motion is basically using the exact faculty of sight to see the same exact motion.
From here, it could be safely assumed that: Innate knowledge of Oneness is prerequisite to the Perceptual Possibility of any motion in space and time. The perceiver’s potentiality to perceive any particular motion within any logical frame of meaning (such as the meaningful image of The Apple Falling from a Tree unto the ground), is wholly dependent upon his pre-knowledge of this agency referred to as oneness. This Oneness not only frames the motion within an identifiable meaningful context, but also highlights its particularity-of-presence from other events and motions instantaneously occurring around it.

Leave a Reply