Holographic Platonism

The Metaphysics of Precognition

I stop writing. I’m not certain why I stop, and I give it no thought.

I hold up the silver fountain pen. As I examine it, I give special attention to the name etched on the golden band at the end of the barrel.

DRYDEN.

“Huh,“

I’m not certain why I looked, and I give it no thought. I go back to writing.

Not more than two minutes pass. “Katie,“ my roommate, returns with bags of groceries. I’m sitting at the kitchen table working while she puts them away.

“Rebecca comes back this weekend, so you two can properly meet soon.”

“She’s been gone a while,” I say. “I’ve been here for almost two weeks.”

“She stays a long time when she visits her family. It’s a nineteen hour drive.”

“Nineteen hours?“

Katie nods.

“Where does her family live?”

“Dryden.”

“Huh.”

This happened last August, shortly after I moved into the house I live in today. At that time, I had not yet been told where “Rebecca” was. I was working nightshifts and even busier the rest of the time. Katie was a social butterfly with a nine to five and a normal life. This was only the second or third time we crossed paths.

What transpired here is evidence of conscious contact with what I call a teleological object.

Teleological objects are virtual bodies which mediate the mutual interplay of pasts and futures, whose extradimensional architecture is encoded or holographized upon the “surface” which we call spacetime.

The cosmos is a stratified structure — it is a pyramid of ascending “planes” consisting of coherent “bodies” or “objects” of increasing scale and complexity and decreasing spacetime locality.

Encoded or holographized within each plane is another, which consists of the syntheses of its constituents and defines the relationships thereof. A molecule for instance unifies a constellation of atoms which in turn unify a constellation of protons neutrons and electrons.

All of these are planes below us. But in all probability, there are strata of systematic organization even higher than those perceptible and comprehensible to us.

It is important that such higher planes are not somewhere else. They are here, but they are hidden — encrypted, and inaccessible until one “attains gnosis,” to use the Gnostic formulation, and cracks that encryption.

"Anamorphosis is an optical illusion whereby an image appears to be totally distorted when seen from the usual vantage point, but appears normal when viewed from a specific angle"

On your phone or computer, the lowest stratum of spacetime is the plane of bits, which directly correspond to physical on/off states within your machine. These bits can be synthesized into more sophisticated information made of “bytes” of data, and this data can in turn be synthesized into a coherent and navigable virtual space.

The bits, bytes and operating system all coexist within the physical transistors, occupying precisely the same space without violating any physical or logical law, just as we, likewise, are “encoded” in the play of atoms. No other dimensions required.

Likewise, each successive plane is simply a hierarchically superior interpretation of the same base reality. No simulation required.

An unfortunate incapacity to understand Platonic metaphysics is common among those who object to it, and is the typical source of their objection.

Plato’s “world of forms” is not “this world” but it occupies the same space. The forms are, as it were, “implied” in the same manner that physics implies chemistry and chemistry implies biology.

Our Platonic pyramid can be arbitrarily subdivided into an infinite number of planar gradations all of which are bound by a vertical isomorphism.

Where in your physical brain are these words located?

Within your mind, this screen and these words are being represented and communicated to consciousness. But where is that representation happening?

Here, the image appears in the mind of the observer. Inside is a little observer who observes it. But how does his observation work? Well, you see, inside of his mind is another even littler observer who observes the image he sees, and so on and so forth ad infitum.

This image depicts the “homunculus argument.” A fallacy whereby an effect is explained recursively. This does not explain perception, but it is the picture we unconsciously default to when we model our perception to ourselves:

“My consciousness is sitting in my head watching what my eyes see like a movie.”

Let’s try something a bit more sophisticated.

The concept of the “virtual object” is a good conceptual analogy. A virtual object is an object which seems to exist in the manner perceived even though in the most strict, empirical sense, it does not. Examples of virtual objects include: reflections, rainbows, holograms and this cube:

Where is this cube?

Don’t say it isn’t real. That’s a lazy answer for lazy people.

This clip is just that; a clip. But the original cube in the clip did exist when the clip was rendered. It existed in multiple locations simultaneously. It was not a cube in any of those locations, but it was a cube in all of them.

It existed in my HDD, CPU, GPU, my LCD, my RAM chips, my motherboard and probably some other locations I am forgetting to include.

The model I keyframed in Davinci Resolve was a geometric map of a system of mechanical instructions that interpenetrated my machine.

This configuration of signals and mechanical states, though not a physical cube itself, was in some manner isomorphic to one. It must at least have been isomorphic from the computer’s perspective, or else a coherent cube would not and could not have been rendered.

This is a fact of cosmic significance, because the difference between a cube and information “structured like a cube” is rather superficial.

The cube was a “Platonic form” in the digital aether which was casting its “shadow” on the mundane world where the transistors lived.

Likewise, you and your experience hover “above” your neurons, holographized in that storm of neurochemistry. You permeate the whole system, orchestrating it from on high. You are every single neuron perceiving every other simultaneously.

One of the questions I couldn’t answer for a time was why I persistently chose to represent teleological objects as octahedra. For some reason, the shape just felt right.

This is my sketch of something I witnessed while investigating the structure of the “world above the world.” Here, the TO (referred to as a “messenger”) appeared as a metallic autonomous vehicle of some kind which slowly hovered into position over a stone pillar (dubbed a “watchtower”). Once aligned and stationary, a small red hot object — an animal totem — was “beamed down” from its lowest vertex onto a waiting pedestal. When it cooled, I took it. The same animal then began appearing around me over the following days and weeks.

That animal was a rabbit. Only after that did I discover that the constellation of Lepus stands directly below the feet of Orion on the bank of the river Eridanus, said to be chased forever by the great hunter’s dogs.

In my first visit to the world above the world, the “messengers” appeared not as octahedra, but as black cubes hovering between monoliths in a desert.

This duality was interesting to me because cubes have eight vertices and six faces. Octahedra have six vertices and eight faces.

These “messengers” are related to teleological objects. They preserve and maintain the isomorphism between planes. These seeds of causation are “programmed” to sprout into trees whose branches are their possible effect lineages, opening up some doors and sealing off others. They “land” at kairotic loci, and where they land, they project images of the transtemporal superstructure onto spacetime which you can manage to spot if you’re lucky or just paying attention.

These images or shadows can be “constellated” into a symbolic gestalt from which foreknowledge of the future may be ascertained.

The watchtower — the “interface” between a higher plane and a lower one — was a much more difficult image to unpack, but I had some nagging intuition that the watchtowers were related in some way to the points in the trinity constellations formed by Pascal Hexagrams and therefore, to synchronicity.

Then it clicked.

The unicursal hexagram has six vertices, and the lines which connect them divide the shape into eight sections. An octahedron has six vertices, and the lines which connect them divide the shape into eight sections.

This resonance runs deeper, though. The unicursal hexagram is not just superficially similar to an octahedron. It is in fact an accurate two-dimensional projection of one.

If you simply take two of my Z/N glyphs as featured in The Logos and Theophany 2022 and rotate one of them by 90 degrees so the horizontals intersect orthogonally, it creates an octahedron. Rotate that shape and you get the hexagram.

When I discussed this shape in the Free Will Paradox, I showed how it illustrates the way that fate and free will are reconciled.

The fate of a Pascal hexagram is to produce three points on a straight line at the intersections where its opposite sides meet. The person who draws one can do so however they like. But the shape they create will serve that telos no matter how they do it. This is exactly what a teleological object does. It mediates the relationship between causation which is arbitrary and teleology which is fixed.

It also illustrates the nature of the holography we’re talking about. Encrypted in the two-dimensional hexagram is the three-dimensional octahedron, but only if you have the correct perspective.

This may be why the structures are “watchtowers.” Symbolically illustrating that the points where these transtemporal images are inserted into space and time are in essence; higher vantage points, from which the topography of the world is readily visible.

There will never be a precise “geometry of meaning” which could be intellectually and explicitly apprehended by a human being. This for the same reason that no neuron all by itself could grasp the science of neurology. But symbols, like numbers, are Platonic forms. Just as geometry is implied by mathematics, so too must something like it be implied by symbolism.

Even if we are woefully ill-equipped to comprehend it scientifically, we can reasonably infer the existence of this “symbolic geometry,” and gain some insight from that inference.

If the universe has any coherence at all, and we know it does, then these things must be floating around out there somewhere.