"Let me paint a picture for you" is often the metaphor for: "Let me explain." As I said earlier, the closest comparison to the discovery of metasphere in historical import is the Renaissance discovery of graphic, or visual, perspective as lines on a picture plane. Reportedly the first to consciously see through to the linear laws behind appearance was the artist: Filipo Brunelleschi (1400).
His famous rendering of the exterior of a small octagonal Florentine chapel not only set in motion more accurate rendering, but also contributed to the revitalization not merely of Western civilization but of world civilization, thus the term: The Renaissance. Thereafter, painting began to show a single unified scene of any number of objects. That unity included the subjective viewer of the picture.
Knowing the secret of how to realistically represent the appearance of objects from the newly informed artist's point of view also becomes for the non-artist observer, an open secret of how we all have been viewing objective reality eons before anyone discovered perspective. I am not only talking about the metaphorical (historical) parallel between visual perspective and metaspherical perspective.
As demonstrated, "visual perspective" even figuratively can help explain metasphere. "Visual perspective" has that direct corollary to "metasphereic perspective" in the ideation of "point of view". And I do not use "point of view" in merely its visual sense. Look at the room you are sitting in, without visual perspective, it would not be recognizable or distinguishable from anything else.
Now close your eyes and observe the consciousness you are sitting in; without metaspherical perspective in play, ideas would not be distinguishable from one another. In reality, visually, mentally, or sensually, one's position in consciousness creates a perspective, a "point or sphere of view." There are vanishing points in consciousness where apparently objects called ideas appear and disappear.
In the midst of my labored research in that library-hermitage, and in other hermitages found prior to finishing the book, I failed to see that a paradigm for at least visual reality had indeed already been discovered in my own sphere of artistic discipline. Recently, I did an online search on the word: "perspective" at wikipedia.org. It gives a history of visual or graphical perspective:
Perspective, from the Latin: perspicere, to see through. Besides its discovery in the 15th century, there seems to have been an earlier breakthrough that predates the Renaissance by 500 years: al-Hazan Ibn al-Haytham or Alhasen's book: Kitab al-manazir (Book of Optics), translated from Arabic, to Latin, to Italian was in circulation in the 15th century as Deli Aspecti. Did Brunelleschi find that book?
When I use the jargon of visual perspective, so familiar to me from my graphics background, I take for granted a paradigm that is relatively new and quite mysterious to most on this planet. Perhaps mysterious is the wrong word, more like unnoticed. Even unnoticed and unused is misleading. The fact is, whether one knows its laws or not, it is the way all but the visually impaired observe objects in space.
I admit that all "use" of perspective is artificial, to express what are either objects there in front of me, or what I wish to express and put in front of you. The artificial or imitation aspect is that we simply capture a moment or snapshot of a world that is constantly flashing past, arising somehow from the surface or horizon of a sphere and vanishing on a horizon relative to the seat of observation.
To again use jargon: a vanishing point on the horizon appears to subsume the whole array of objects as we recede from it. Likewise objects appear to come into existence as we approach a "horizon." Diminution or apparent diminishing of an object, depends on their movement or ours in space. It is not surprising, philosophers and artist alike are fascinated by such hidden obviousness.
Next Appendix (#13)