In key 08 we confirmed the inevitability the innateness of a knowledge of Oneness, without which any given perceiver cannot possibly carry on any perceptual activity of any sort or on any level. We referred to this oneness as The Form One in reference to the Platonic logic underlying this premise (The Innateness of Knowledge). We also demonstrated the instrumental role that this alleged pre-knowledge of The Form One plays in permeating The Perceptual experience of objects and motions in space and time.
However, at this point, it is time to establish a vital distinction between what is platonically meant by The Form One and The Skeletal Numeric Value that is often referred to as The Number One (1). The nature of The Platonic Form of Oneness, as will be gradually revealed, is beyond the nature of number itself and we’ve already shown in key 10 how this Oneness is perceptually disguised on two levels and via two dimensions of knowledgeable existence. Initially, oneness is translated through The Essential Identity of an Object (its conceptual value or what-ness, which simply accounts for its meaningful form, i.e., an apple, a tree, an event etc.). On a Second level, oneness is translated through the object’s statistical particularity in space and time (its numeric accountability with respect to other objects in its surroundings). Those two realms of translation represent The Platonic and The Aristotelian Realms, respectively.
The Pythagorean Realm is The Realm reflective of Absolute Consciousness (The First Gnostic Trinity); the Oneness representative of this Realm is a Form of Oneness best described by Blessed Parmenides of Elea: “One that is absolute, eternal and beyond limitations – the One that has no beginning and no end, that is neither created nor destroyed. ” This Oneness reflects an Indivisible WHOLENESS so transcendent and disguised that it could not possibly be translated conceptually or perceptually. These two dimensions represent the 2nd and 3rd Gnostic Trinities (The Trinity of The Universal Soul (Eve) and The Trinity of The Word (Seth). However, if Eve’s language is supposedly translated perceptually through The Objects’ Conceptual Identity (Its Meaningful Form), and if Seth’s language is translated perceptually through The Objects’ Statistical Identity (Particularity), how would Adam’s language be translated on the Perceptual level? In other words, is there any traceable hint of its nature on the Physical level?
The answer to this question brings us to insurmountable Forms like The Form Light and The Form Space, which Plato distinguished from other Forms.
As already mentioned in Key 08, Forms, like knowledge, are hierarchal in nature; and each Realm of Knowledge not only translates The Realm that precedes it, but also somewhat layers upon and disguises The Relatively Precedent Realm along the Translation process. We already mentioned how The Conceptual Realm (for instance) translates The Realm of Self Consciousness, and how (in turn) The Perceptual Realm translates The Conceptual Realm. We also defined the most ancient and essential nature of Error as being relative to the very nature of Translation itself as it descends from one level to another. In short, the idea is that the more the translation departs away from its core purpose, the more it becomes less faithful to it and the more erroneously deceptive it is on more than one level (i.e., Conceptually and Perceptually deceptive).
When we speak of Platonic Forms, we are basically referring to the Realm of Conception, which essentially serves to translate the Pythagorean Unity of Self Consciousness. The Realm revolves around it exactly as The Moon orbits around The Sun (The Core), translating the sun’s insurmountable unity into the first frame-able form of unity, The Form of The Circle (Formulated by The Moon’s Presence at Night, which is permeated by The Diffused Light of the Sun). Otherwise, The Sun’s unity reflects a form of omnipresence characterized by an overwhelming overflow of light in all directions – an overflow that is practically impossible to frame perceptually. Hence, The Light’s Nature could be considered as most articulate of the nature of the first knowledgeable form of Oneness ever – The Nasouti Image of The Creator (The First Object of Knowledge in The First Gnostic Trinity of Self Consciousness, and The Sun (of course) represents The Universal Mind (The First Knower in the Trinity). In the same way as Light is somehow disguised by the Objects lit into meaningfulness from it (the first of which is The Moon), Self Consciousness is disguised by Conceptual Knowledge (the first of which is Adam’s conceptual image of his own self which initiated the birth of His Soul Eve).
Transporting this theological analogy back to its Metaphysical roots in Plato’s Theory of Forms, it would be safe to assume that Any Platonic Form (like The Form Apple, The Form Tree, The Form Event etc.), in finality, translates The Form One (The Knowledge Possibility) in the same way as the very perceptivity of objects (once lit into visibility) translate the nature of light.
In other words, prior to claiming that a given apple x supposedly reflects oneness through its numeric accountability as 1 object in space and time, the claim should be that its mere knowledge-ability as An Apple (and not a Tree or a River, for instance) is in itself reflective of an ancient form of Oneness, prior to the arousal of any numeric concern.
The numeric concern, as you will discover, does not relate to the apple’s meaning or essential form, it only poses as a statistical tool that accounts for the apple’s spiritless presence as a particular substance – a lifeless object in space and time. In other words, it relates not to The Possibility of Knowing the Apple for what it is; rather, it only relates to The Possibility of accounting for its relative occupational presence as a dead object in space and time. It reduces the apple into a numeric value – a datum. This level of translation reflects the Aristotelian language, and it is not surprising why Aristotle’s language historically inspired the western scientific expedition, for science in its very nature is highly based on The Statistical Possibility…
However, isn’t it simply Absurd to use The Translation in order to deny The Core it was born to translate? Isn’t it foolish to use Aristotle’s “practicality” to deny Plato’s “idealism”, when this very “practicality” was only born to translate that “idealism”?!!!!
Always remember, then, that in the LAW of Gnosis: The Possibility of Knowledge implies The Possibility of Translation. As well, anything that falls under The Possibility of Translation is somehow DISGUISED along the process. After all, isn’t the Sun itself disguised even by its own light? From here, let it be clear to you, then, that any Platonic Form, such as The Form Apple, The Form Tree, The Form Mountain or The Form Beauty etc., in its very knowledge-ability, disguises The Form One.Follow