Key 11 – Space & Time

As already revealed in key 10, the nature of space is conditional to the perceptual possibilities of Numeric Existence.

When Plato categorized Forms, he strongly alluded to the significance of The Form Space, making somewhat of a distinction between it and the rest of the Forms.

Consider The Nature of SPACE:

If Forms like The Form Eternity or Infinity, The Form Existence or Absoluteness, were ever to materialize perceptually, they could only assume the visual attributes of Space (Void).

Could one ever say existence exists somewhere in particular or eternity happens at a given time x or infinity is countable or absoluteness is surmountable?

Similarly, could one ever say Space falls within a given space?

Space is what appears to underlie the particularities of any object in The Physical Realm, yet the question is: could it ever be a particular Object in itself? If space were to be perceived on its own, free from any object within it (even stars), could it ever be conceptualized or visually framed as an Identity in itself? Could it ever be accounted for numerically, knowing that The Numeric Possibility requires Perceptual Dimensions in order to be translated into a knowledgeable form?

We’ve already mentioned in key 12 how Space appears to be visually divided by any given object into two, The Space Within and The Space Without, and we also demonstrated the significance of such division to The Numeric Possibility – the perceptivity of The Numeric One and The Numeric Zero etc. We’ve also revealed how The Numeric Zero materializes perceptually through The Space that surrounds the object.

The question is:

Does the Space that falls within the Occupation of a given object x differs from the Space without (outside object x)? True, The Space Within might appear to be disguised by Object X’s physicality. However, is this ever meant to imply that The Space Within (in itself) acquires a certain physicality (once occupied), and loses this physicality once it is no longer occupied? In other words, would it be sound to consider The Space Within the occupation of Object X as a particular space within The Absolute Space. If yes, then could this purportedly Particular Space

be considered a Particular Emptiness made full by object x or is it a Particular Fullness squeezed empty by object x? On the other hand, could one consider the space immediately surrounding object x as a relative emptiness or an absolute emptiness? Could one consider this space as relatively perceptual, or would it be more accurate to say that such perceptivity is a visual illusion highlighted by the object itself? On the other hand, let’s consider a universe made out of pure space without any object in it. Simply close your eyes you will see exactly what this universe could look like… Could Emptiness (in such a Universe) ever be knowledgeable? Could it ever be visually translated? Would space (in such a case) ever mean what it implies to mean in the presence of object x?

Any answer to these questions would logically lead to the following conclusive remark:

Space itself is most likely neutral towards the Emptiness vs. Fullness polarity that deceptively appears to involve space in its relative mathematics. The notion of space as being this emptiness or zero-ness (this empty container of objects) is only relative to the mode in which the physicality of dimensional objects visually interacts with the physicality of space itself.

So, if you have wondered about what Plato could have meant by The Realm of Eternity or what might The Absoluteness of Existence look like, simply behold the physicality of space. It is a reality that is too obvious to deny. Space is a real-life translation of eternity.

Consider the Nature of TIME:

The Eternal Words of Aristotle (ARIS The Cause) on Time:

“Being neither prior nor posterior means to be in one and the same now, things which happened ten thousand years ago would be simultaneous with what has happened to-day, and nothing would be before and after anything else” Physics217/25

“When the state of our minds does not change at all, or we have not noticed its changing, we do not realize that time has elapsed, any more than those who are fabled to sleep…When they are awakened…they will connect the earlier ‘now’ with the later and make them one, cutting out the interval because of their failure to notice it. If, then, the non-realization of the existence of time happens to us when we do not distinguish any change, but the soul seems to stay in one indivisible state, and when we perceive or distinguish we say time has elapsed…” Physics218/20-30

Time is very similar to space. Both are essentially attributive of Eternity. However, the major difference is that time is less visual than space, and could not materialize perceptually solely through the immediate physicality of objects. Time could only be reflected through a form of change that occurs within the physicality of objects. Change, in turn, cannot possibly become visible without a comparative motion that occurs between at least two objects or states.

We could go on forever defining time and even still, no endeavor as such could ever get even close to the scale at which Timeless Aristotle reflects in his Physics (on time). From here, we shall confine our interest in Time to what would strictly serve Fifth Science.

Just as it is absurd to say that Space could exist in a given space x, similarly, one cannot possible say that Time could happen at a given time x.

Time, in its seemingly perpetual nature, resembles Space in its endlessness. However, one could take this analogy one step further and imagine Time to be The Spiritual Space – The Internal Infinity Within the Soul.

Accordingly, consider The Conceptual Forms (The Platonic Forms) as expressive objects that fall within this Spiritual Space reflected into knowledge-ability through The Spiritual Sun of Consciousness (The Universal Mind).

In the same manner as would The Numeric Possibility generate perceptual awareness to a given object’s particularity in space (somehow visually dividing space into two, The Space Within and The Space Without), The Form One (The Unity reflective of the Light of Internal Sun) generates cognitive awareness of a given concept’s particularity in Mind. The Frame of this particularity is referred to as A Given Thought, which is a Cognitive Parallel to The Three-Dimensional Form that is generated by a given object’s particularity in space. Just as a Three-Dimensional Form is perceptually reducible into a numeric value, The Thought is cognitively reducible into such a value as well.

As Timeless Aristotle expressed in his physics, the change that takes place within The Soul (on the level of Thought) expresses one of the first and foremost forms of awareness to motion, which (in turn) is reflective of The Core concept of time. The mathematics of this awareness involve the Reductive Conversion of any given thought into a numeric value which ticks in mind (with each new thought) like the ticking of the arms of a clock.

A given Thought in mind, like the Three-Dimensional Form of a given object in space, has the power to divide the cognitive space referred to as Time into two parts, The Time Within The Thought and The Time Without The Thought. The concept of a Time Without The Thought conceptualizes through a cognitive awareness to a cognitive interval between a given thought and another – a mental emptiness that separates between two given thoughts. This emptiness gives birth to the concept of zero. However, this possibility is absurd, just as is the notion of space being an absolute emptiness, for had space been truly as such, it could not possible embrace any form of physicality within it. It would be more like a vacuum and a vacuum is supposedly opposite to space (a space-less space). Just as there is no such thing as a space-less space, there is no such thing as a Thoughtless Thought.

This premise shall be further elucidated as we reveal more on The Hierarchal Nature of Forms. Then, you will discover that Concepts are only deceptively separated by numeric frames (thoughts). In their Finality, Concepts layer upon each other inseparably, as do Redness and Roundness (for instance) layer upon a given Apple. There is no such thing as a Thought holding as a Numeric Frame (in itself), independently of The Concept within which formulates its extremities, just as it is impossible for a Three-Dimensional Form to hold in space on its own without the meaningful physicality of the object to which this form belongs.

One could perceptually isolate the Redness and Roundness of a given Apple, each within a numeric perceptual instance. However, this would not mean that Those Forms are not integrated within the apple in a mode that transcends such isolation. Similarly, every given Thought in mind is a deceptive numeric frame, which holds a concept within it. This concept x, in the same way as redness, descriptively layers upon a given apple’s morphe, descriptively layering upon a higher concept y, and so on and so forth. In addition, it is absurd to reduce concepts into equal numeric values, for, just as there are no two object in space that could be identical, there are no two thoughts in mind that could ever be identical either.

The only Thought that distractively poses as a mystery to the mind is the Thought of Zero or this Vacuum. From the womb of this thought in particular, The Numeric Possibility originates in the Form of a Thoughtless Thought = Frameless Frame = The Numeric One.

REMEMBER THIS POINT VERY WELL, FOR THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY ZERO BEING THE ORIGIN OF NUMBER. THE ZERO REPRESENTS THE METAPHYSICS OF THE SPIRITUAL OPPONENT (THEOLOGICALLY KNOWN AS THE DEVIL), WHILE THE NUMERIC ONE REFLECTS THE SOUL, WHO, WITHOUT GIVING UP HER NUMERIC IDENTITY AND LOSING HERSELF BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ONENESS OF THE SUN, IS DESTINED TO FIGHT AN ETERNAL LOSING BATTLE WITH THE ZERO. ANYWHERE AND ANY TIME ANYTHING APPEARS WITHIN THE NUMERIC 1 CONTEXT, THIS THING IS DESTINED TO BE NEGATED BY THE ZERO – VACUUMED FROM ITS SIGNIFICANCE – SUCKED OUT FROM ITS SPIRIT = DEATH BECOMES IT.

Leave a Reply