IS (Y)OUR 'I' VIEW, GOD'S "EYE" VIEW?
Now take a giant step back, (or up) realize each septenary is a snapshot actually taken from a transcendent view, outside, above, below, or otherwise beyond the paradigm itself. So, the question is: How is that transcendent view achieved? The answer: It is not achieved; it simply is there from the beginning, so obvious, once we are made aware of it. That obviousness is the "meta" in the word metasphere .
Question: In your envisioning of the "pole experiment," from where did you envision the experiment? Was it from a crow's eye view above the landscape of poles, car, and driver? If so, then you indeed realized the transcendent view, the beyond view, perhaps previously "unconscious" view in consciousness. Now take a mental snapshot of that (transcendent) view and call the snapshot a metagraph .
It could also be considered a map of the way and orientation in which we move through and observe the territory called reality. That includes all objects, even the objects we call ideas in consciousness. Glance through all of the metaspheres in the book and realize that you are simply looking at maps. Then realize that you can only view a map, a metagraph, from (above) a transcendent perspective.
Like any collection of maps they can only represent the territory; they are not the territory itself. That distinction is not as easy a realization as we might think. Whether it is the metaspheric perspective that is ordinarily unconscious or the transcendent perspective that is conscious, or vise versa, each is a perspective on what is. The ability to hold both the transcendent view and the immanent view is important.
From the transcendent view we are able to picture a territory that otherwise we could not traverse. Look at the "One metasphere" in Chapter Three (pages 51-57). That one map takes into account both the territory and the map of the territory: "One / metaone / center / metacenter / sphere / metasphere / one" is not an entry-level metasphere, but it is the more illuminating, so stay with me here.
Within metaspheric perspective (metasphere), the convention is that when a word is given the prefix "meta," that extends the sphere of meaning of the preceding word into an interim or temporary state of potential, the meaning of which has not yet been defined by the forthcoming word (idea) having a more permanent or stable state. We can now give the poles in the experiment, names not mere numbers.
The prefix: "meta" starts the engine that moves the process along in the paradigm. Thus, all divisible stages in an otherwise stageless progression get accounted for. Something similar to the accounting we ascribed to the indivisible dimensions of 3-dimensional space. Although, spacetime is not necessarily what the "One metasphere" is about, consider the following train of realization:
Realize the "first one" in the "One" metasphere synonymous with "point" (bindu in Skt.), having no dimension or locality. Also observe from your transcendent position that beyond one ("metaone") what is simply center and beyond center ("metacenter") what is simply sphere and ("metasphere") what is simply one again; no longer the singularity, rather the unity that we commonly think one to be.
We are the "who" observing this metasphere or map of the territory from our transcendent perspective, but there is no "who" necessarily participating in this "One" particular snapshot or map of the territory. What is happening in metaspheric reality is that: One is observing One; Self is observing Self; and Reality is observing Reality. Thus, One is at the same time, at both ends (center and periphery) of the metasphere.
The bridging between the incomprehensible singularity of the one at the center of the metasphere and the unity of the more comprehensible one at the periphery of the metasphere is a demonstration of the sacred geometry often depicted in ancient schools of philosophy including the mystery schools of the Kabbaliahic: Monad, the Vedantaic: Bindu or the simplest progression of spatial geometry.
The Big Bang? No, I don't think so. But if one allows this "altered state of word" to arise in consciousness (somehow), one does arrive at a time before observation takes place and that should revolutionize (y)our awareness in ways that make it obvious that here is "why" observation itself is One's apparent movement out of nonduality into the illusory state of duality (from center to periphery).
The oneness at the periphery of the metasphere, which could be called the unity of multiplicity, bridging center with sphere, is not the sphere or domain of "nonduality." That sphere, by definitions given here and collected in the wisdom traditions, remains that intuition of an incomprehensible, unobservable domain of not-two, not moving, not conditional, not this not that.
With such first principles or metaphysics at stake, it should be said, and I quote: "We cannot fully understand the beginning of anything until we see the end." - Laws of Form, 1972 by G. Spenser-Brown. It is that subtle yet profound statement that metaspheric perspective turns round to also say: We cannot fully understand the end [even the middle] of anything until we observe the beginning.
With metasphere, both beginning and ending are equally observable. On the face of it, the nature of mind requires spheres or limits, all the while awareness or consciousness itself inheres beyond limits, certainly beyond any consensual map of reality. Once reified, a map leaves little to invention or even innovation. One either affirms or doubts the map's accuracy and usefulness.
Given these maps, what will you do with them? Use them to help guide you to a destination? Extrapolate from one map into adjacent territories, as yet unmapped? Or, use them as examples for outlining, abridging, categorizing, and correcting work from the arts and sciences? Obviously, I have used them as windows on reality that otherwise were undiscovered, unclear, or unavailable.
The unobserveability of "what is" at my "I" level of consciousness remains true' not because "what is" is too small or too fleeting or unsubstantial, rather because "what is" is on a horizon of "events" which make "what is" only observable "after" its arising and "before" its disappearing. This gives the term "meta," added significance in the paradigm. Although "what is" is singular, it is always "seen" in its triadic form.
Next Appendix (#4)