TRY THIS THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Let's think of metaspheres as snapshots of a fleeting or constantly changing relationship of the ideas of what is relative to the observation of what is. The metaspherian needs to be adept at getting that Kodak moment. To establish the laws of metaspheric perspective is the first task at hand. Einstein popularized a method of establishing and proving paradigms using "thought experiments."
Think of an intrepid photographer who wants to get a close-up shot of the horizon. After driving a great distance, he or she finally realizes it's not possible to observe (what is) the horizon directly." Instead, "what is" is indirectly observed as objects arising along a path of observation. Now, imagine you are driving your car on a roadway where telephone poles are evenly spaced along the shoulder.
You observe the poles apparently emerge from the horizon ahead. In the rear view mirror you can see that string of poles apparently vanishing into the rear horizon. Stop the car; notice you happened to be right along side one of the poles and that you can observe two poles through the forward windshield and two poles in the mirror. Although you cannot see them, you can surmise a third pole must be on or just over each horizon.
We happen to count 7 poles at any one time in our experiment, more importantly we can formulate a law in metaspheric perspective. Not simply counting the poles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, rather observing the symmetry along the field of view: a triad (the 3 poles) seen ahead and a triad (the 3 poles) observed reflexively or in this case reflectively. That septenary: 3-1-3 is the first law of metaspheric perspective.
Even in this visual analog to metaspheric perspective, we will eventually want to replace the idea of observing poles with observing ideas or concentric spheres that have word labels for those ideas. You can make that switch at any time within the experiment or wait till afterward. To start, let's keep it a simple exercise in visual perspective, simply picturing the septenary altogether.
Obviously, I have setup the experiment with a pre-arranged landscape having a total of only those seven placeholders (poles) in view at any one time. The rear view mirror allows you to see a virtual image of the 3 poles behind you that otherwise you would have to turn your head around to see through the rear windshield. Now try to imagine a reflexive image rather than reflected image.
Imagine the mirror transformed into a digital camera screen revealing signage or labels on the poles ahead that identify them as #1, #2, #3, regardless of the car moving ahead. In other words, this feature can only label (number the sequence) on the screen when the car is motionless or stopped. So, in stop-action, we capture a sequence (a snapshot) of 3 named or labeled poles at a time.
In our analogy, that corresponds to the forward triad of a septenary metasphere. What about the rear triad? Well, that's all in your head, so to speak. The fact that you even know what numbering is, is what you do in your head, or at least in the mind's "eye" or with an "I" for distinctions. Adding the number of actual poles to the number of labels and that accounts for the two triads in the experiment.
Hopefully you're asking about the guy driving the car? Well of course you've been there in the drivers seat; well aware of what we're talking about and have figured out that pole #4 (where you are) is the seat of observation. Now imagine you're Dorothy, and not in Kansas anymore, and someone tells you all this has something to do with natural law or more specifically with a septenary structure to, in, or of consciousness.
On top of that, they say the number seven has significance more than any other number. What are you to say to such nonsense? Without an extensive body of examples existent and available to look at, one might naturally demand a "reality check" about what this "septenary" business is all about. In the Foreword to the artifact (the book), I reference several source examples.
What Is is all about seven-ness
The most direct reference comes out of looking at: Arthur M. Young's two books: The Reflexive Universe, © 1972, and The Geometry of Meaning, © 1976. Also: G. Spenser-Brown's: The Laws Of Form, © 1972 and John Venn's diagrammatic. You may find it helpful to follow up their independent support of the septenary and certainly in more depth and space than I give them in my book.
If you read Arthur M. Young's: The Reflexive Universe, you would have come across this confession: "Seven-ness ... The intelligent reader is likely to regard with suspicion a theory that bases itself on the number seven... Legend, myth, fairy tales and superstitions... have given it a bad reputation... my first contact with the occurrence of this number in ancient cosmologies affected me similarly.
"However, when I realized that topology, a science that deals with even more profound implications than does geometry, could supply formal reasons for a sevenfold ordering, I was prodded into a rethinking of the concepts embedded in relativity whose theories of curved spacetime had provided the foundations for modern [quantum] speculation on the nature of the universe."
He continues: "... the evidence for seven stages to process found reinforcement from my study of nature; in the case of atoms, the periodic table showing seven rows; in the case of molecules, seven orders of combinations, and so on... Imagine my excitement to discover that... for projective geometry seven postulates were required." (Arthur Young is the inventor of the Bell Helicopter.)
And finally: "We have thus confirmed, from considerations of the most abstract sort, the uniqueness of seven." It could be said that Young comes to this discovery through the eyes and understanding of a scientist and engineer, with a touch of the arts thrown in. Mine is through the eyes and understanding of the artist with a touch of the sciences thrown in. I would certainly call Young a "metaspherian."
What others and even Young may have missed, or were not fully aware of, is "why" a septenary is key to any natural construct. It's not the mere enumeration (1, 2, 3, - turn - 5, 6, 7,) along his "arc of process" or in my "metaspheric perspective" that make seven unique. Rather, it is the integer's innate symmetry (3-1-3) that provides that middle reflexive place (1) and not the reflex that provides the integer.
Other symmetries, i.e. 2-1-2, 4-1-4, 5-1-5, etc are simply not applicable because they do not hold the triad, (3) which is the first integer to turn on itself (1-1-1) and thus self-contained with a stability equal to the septenary. We do not have to be mathematicians to intuit that axiom. Number must also be considered an expression of Consciousness equal to word, if only to show us nothing or zero.
I believe what Young calls "process" is what I have been calling "consciousness." If you make that substitution cross-platform, both his work and my work are more easily comprehended. What he calls the "turn," we both call "the reflex," at least I am guessing that is the case, for surprisingly he uses the word "reflexive" only twice in his book: The Reflexive Universe, in that title and in a chapter subtitle.
I use the word reflex to describe the "turning" as a response rather than a reflection in consciousness (process), where observation "turns" inward or backward in response to an outward or forward field of view. Again, compare cross-platform to his "right-hand" and "left-hand" side of the "V" or "arc of process". I prefer my reader to visualize concentric spheres along a linear axis "I" rather than a "V" shape arc.
Another subtlety that Young pulls off quite well, almost tacitly, is to mention "Consciousness" only a few times and most powerfully in his book title's subtitle: "Evolution of Consciousness." Perhaps I should have taken that tack, for in my using "consciousness" so often, the word may lose importance and meaning as the background or underground of reality that I mean to express.
What Is is consciousness.
There is also a more fundamental difference in my use of the word Consciousness, which does not accommodate the modifier: "evolution of." I would not want my reader to think that I believe Consciousness to have evolved, rather that the Expression of Consciousness is what has evolved, specifically the expression we call language or what I call the evolution of word in metagraphy."
The phrase "metaspheric perspective" does not appear in my original book. I coined that phrase later in added commentary to use where the word "metasphere" begins to lose meaning as a construct in Consciousness. Metaspheric perspective is the process, by which metasphere is constructed. In turn, metasphere deconstructed, as this work attempts to show, is also the expression of consciousness.
Metasphere deconstructed should tacitly express how metasphere (duality) is the illusion of a multiplicity that sits inside the singularity of nonduality. A skeptic might call the work of authors like myself, nonsense. If it were not for the fact that I found support across a variety of sources, I myself might have let the whole notion of metasphere fade as after-images eventually do after a traumatic experience.
In any event, let's get back to "the turn," or in my expression, the "seat of observation" around which the "action" of turning takes place. I too mistakenly misread my own perspective, where in the book, I referred to that "4th position" in the septenary, as the "observer." To be accurate, it is the "place of observation," like the telemetry on a Mars-rover is accurately called the place of observation, not the observer.
Goodness knows, I have stressed to my reader the importance to define that "observation" as an action not necessarily having to do with the "eye." Visualization, yes, imagination, yes, but those methods are not the purview of only the sighted. I have also stressed something about that other spelling of "I" as action, not an entity. I must confess that lesson is ongoing and not as yet fully actualized in my case.
What Is the event horizon for a non-event
As far as definitions go, it's probably necessary to repeat why I say: "what is" cannot be observed directly. By directly, I mean without something always between "what is" and the observation of "what is." The poles experiment attempts to show that what is the horizon can never be observed directly; only the poles thrice removed can be sensibly labeled as ideas concentric with "what is" the horizon.
Let's think back to the poles along the roadway. You're in the driver's seat looking straight ahead and you cannot actually see that 1st pole on the forward horizon. We have labeled that pole "what is" not observable directly except if we drive forward to along side the next pole. Now "what is" has seemingly moved off the horizon, taking a "place" in our schema as the 2nd pole out from the horizon.
Driving up to along side the next pole, the scenario repeats with "what is" now observed as the "3rd pole" out from the forward horizon. Ignore for the moment those other couple of poles that moved off the forward horizon and the ones that vanished into that rear horizon during our example. Consider those happenings part of a separate paradigm-set or metasphere; to be captured later, if we wish.
Metaspheric perspective only captures and makes sense of one paradigm-set at a time, in the fleeting continuum or spheres of ideas (poles). In other words: that set, like an ordinary "sentence," is a freeze-frame or snapshot out of a longer moving train of awareness. Even if we had the capability (like a movie camera) to capture the longer train of poles, it would be comprehensible only in septenary framesets.
Now, transform (y)our thought experiment from a visual landscape to a mindscape. (Yes, the experiment has taken place in the mind all along but, work with me here!) Think of the camera screen (reflexive device) mentioned earlier. That is where the forward triad of phenomenon takes a "responsive" turn that I call: the triad of "noumenon;" a word Kant and Ouspensky use in reflexive relation to phenomenon.
Another summary axiom can now be formulated out of (y)our experiment: "What is" cannot be observed directly because it is always removed from the seat of observation by a factor of three [spheres or poles]. Instead, "what is" can indeed be observed as the "phenomenon" labeled "the 2nd and "3rd poles" from the horizon of "what is" or 1st pole. Now, put the car in (P)ark and keep looking forward.
Without turning around, now realize (y)our backward action of observation; reflexive of the forward triad of phenomenon (poles). Call it the reactive triad of "noumenon" and number it 5th, "6th, and 7th; if the enumeration is from the forward horizon of "What is." The 7th is reflexive of the 1st, the 6th is reflexive of the 2nd, and 5th is reflexive of the 3rd; the 4th stands alone.
No one noticed What Is
The fact that both directions (phenomenon - 4 - noumenon) of observation are simultaneous observations might explain why heretofore no one noticed. Remove the car and driver from our mindscape experiment and leave the 4th pole (sphere) as the placeholder for the seat of observation. If helpful, imagine the reflex occurring even at the gross level of the brain or at the subtle level of the mind's "I".
This perspective is more immanent than the thought experiment with poles may suggest. In every-day-consciousness, we carry around an observation-mechanism quite similar to that string of septenary poles. To make the same point in the book, I provided the reader with imaginary "headgear" (pg 31) which confines the observer to a forward cone of observation as appearance is parsed into all 7 possible distinctions.
Next Appendix (#3)