Adam Blatner
Words and Images from the Mind of Adam Blatner
Explaining “Dimensionality”
Originally posted on September 10, 2017
I call my theory of reality, my metaphysics, “dimensionality.” The word suggests that some things are better understood as operating at different dimensions. Thus, some truths are best understood as applying to certain dimensions, and there is “more-yet” that is so at a higher dimension.
For example, consider solid geometry. In dealing with a sphere, there’s a point when going “up” (north) can become going “down” (south). This makes no sense in flat geometry. But in truth, all real geometry is solid, and more: things change over time, grow, diminish, transform, die. And none of this is precisely calculable because if time is a 4th dimension (as Einstein suggested) then mind is a fifth dimension, where it leaves mindless physics and begins to take on will and desire.
But if you can get this, it’s true that what can be stated about rational logic is transcended by systems that, well, transcend logic. I fear my own ignorance of other views in philosophy shows here, but I am clear that in many situations, ordinary logic is transcended.
There’s thinking about thinking, and there’s realizing that some of that is illusory, or fantasies, nonsense-but-funny, and other sub-types. I don’t know that these can be described in any graphic form. Being aware that there are dimensions or viewpoints that may be floppy rather than rigid, permeable rather than impermeable, and in other ways irregular—this goes against that illusion of humans that reality at bottom is strictly regular. Perhaps we would like it to be, but that is just desire. Mind laughs, gets silly, finds aesthetic satisfaction in paradox! What’s that about? This is thinking-intuiting about thinking about thinking. It’s aware of rules and that there’s a certain type of thinking that breaks rules. Wow!
So, there’s bare awareness: At level 5 mind, a person—or animal!—says: There’s an antelope over there. I’m hungry. I want to eat it. If it goes that way, maybe I can cut it off. I suspect many carnivores are able to think this way nonverbally.
There’s then thinking about thinking: Level 6: Whoa, it changed course. I have to re-calculate. Maybe some animals. But not too complicated. At this next higher level, level 6, humans both think and also at least in an elementary way, think about thinking.
Some educated humans at the 7th level think about these things, think about thinking about thinking. Cultural historians, some psychiatrists and psychologists, hypnotists, cultural critics, anthropologists, etc.—all realize that there are many cultures, many temperaments, and people think differently. Of course there are hold-outs who want to focus on the ways humans think alike, but this is a fluctu-ating borderline area. Sure, in some ways, pretty much; in other ways, rather different.
Mystics are at the 8th level, and they and other higher level thinkers such as Ken Wilber may think about human thinking, advanced thinking, intuition, inspiration, insight. It isn’t all linear or logical. I can’t explain it any better so far. But that frontier is being pushed. So that’s a beginning essay on dimensionality.
Hi Adam,
Thanks for posting, I like the thread of this post. It links to the work I have been doing around InFusion Space, a multi-dimensional Meso-level space, that is physically navigated by participants in the 1st person.
The contentions / provocations I would provide to you post are:
– Spiritual planes can be above, but also below. (below is just evoked less in the western culture)
– Rather than just mathematical, or cognitive Dimensionality, I prefer to think of physically and spatially Coupled Dimensionality. This is where place and embodied mental awareness are dynamically associated to each other in ways that are spatially coherent to: the landscape of awareness, orientation of intention, and physical environment.
These two provocations, are central to why I think Ken Wilber’s AQAL breaks down when used in messy contexts. AQAL is not contextually coupled – it is abstracted, and actually prides itself on combining abstractions from those on higher planes of consciousness. Yes, AQAL is useful for when working with Personal meditative states (decoupled from context) or collective dialogue focussing on developing universal thinking (content decoupled from context). However, more local work with communities need other approaches.
Would really like to chat to you about these ideas some time…. cheers… Stephen
I can appreciate the challenge in articulating such a vast concept as dimensionality. I too feel limited in deeper and broader knowledge of various disciplines that can improve clarity and communication of dimensionality. Labels and categories can be helpful and/or cumbersome. I am inclined to think that the levels of mind and thinking you are describing are simplistic, but brings structure to concept being discussed. As I take in the thoughts you are trying to convey, I can see the many cultures, temperaments, education levels, disciplines, experiences, backgrounds, etc. that are involved in the diversity of thinking differently, as well as thinking similarly. I am not sure that I am correctly getting the meaning regarding progression from lower levels to higher levels of thinking – as a linear positive movement toward higher forms, broader systems of inclusivity in dimensions?
When I think about thinking, and insert all the aspects of what it means to be me in that process, I wonder about the level, progression, and hierarchy of understanding dimensionality when it comes to the autistic vs what is considered normal human. Do those with autism progress linearly in their understanding of dimensionality? How does a 9 year old seem to experience higher levels of dimensional living without going through developmental levels of skill/knowledge building? The Sri Yantra you speak of as a representation of multidimensionality is a good one. That image alone can be experienced differently, understood differently, interpreted differently by a 9 year old autistic child, and normally developed 15 yr old to infinity of conscious minds.
If humans (homo-sapiens) are different than lower forms of life (mammals/animals) in that much of life-skills and natural understanding in not in the DNA of “man” to be pasted down generationally. Each human must learn fire is hot one person, group, and generation at a time. Primitive, land and water based creatures are born with a genetic understanding of living, procreation and survival book in the DNA (salmon instinct to swim upstream). The human mind, body, and spirit becomes a very precious and very vulnerable. Aspects we seem to treat with very little regard and seem to think these aspect easily discarded, replaced, and harvested. As a social worker it brings a deeper awareness of our education system, legal system, economic systems, health systems, ecological systems, and political systems. If each life has to learn without the DNA/genetic passing on benefit of lower life forms, why do we not protect each other, the water, environment etc. better? Current First World culture, economics, politics are elitist in nature, with a history of devaluation, exclusionary, discriminatory and restrictive social practices and ways of being (wasteful, shameful, mediocracy in action). I don’t want to say only first world culture can show, be, and experience mediocracy, it can be said all humanity demonstrate this. It is worst, harder, sadder etc. when the higher we think we are in development and dimension doesn’t demonstrate the value of the individual potential (that infinity of geometry, directionalism, trianglism, transcendental etc. you mentioned). And more over mediocre is seen and identified as the new exceptional. Yes the frontier is out there waiting to be discovered, experiences and included in what it means to live. We just need to get out of the Jurassic park way of thinking. Get out of our cretaceous panties. Move away for mass extinction thinkin. 🙂