Is knowledge real or just an exchange of perspective in an already existing collective of consciousness?
Ahhh. This is the great non-debate.
Socrates wants you to believe all things are relative.
Those who came before Socrates, and whose perspectives are preserved best by Plato, rightfully contend and go on to demonstrate that a few things are NOT debatable.
These things are quite easy to derive and define, by even the most basic of intellects.
1. Circle. Draw using a string or piece of sinew along with 2 sticks, one as the center.
2. Hexagon. Use the same materials to draw additional Circles with perimeters on the original. Use the intersection of 2 edges to place the next center.
You have now derived what the Hebrews refer to as the “flower of life”
Google that to observe the pattern more fully expanded.
Use your materials to draw straight edges connecting peripheral center.
3. Triangle. Connect the opposing edges to derive 6 equilateral Triangles.
What you have been made to observe here, with numbers 1 and 2, is actually quite profound if you consider the notion of “defining the limitations of space” as the starting point of any real intellectual inquiry. Plato recommends this, as a sort of “Geometer’s Prayer”.
Notes on the relationship between the Circle and the Hexagon:
Edge-to-edge or center-to-edge, Circles will ALWAYS trace Hexagons.
Hexagons self-replicate—they form larger, proportional Hexagons; Circles don’t
A unit Hexagon has an area of 3.0; a unit Circle has area of 3.14~~ (PI)
Notes on the hexagon itself:
With edges connected, the mind perceives a complex of 3D Cubes
6 Hexagons unite to form a 7th larger Hexagon, with a new 8th in the center
Here, the mind can now be made to observes 7 complex Cubes in a cross-shaped pattern, situated within a larger Cube—i.e., the so-called “Tesseract”.
Still with me? Good.
Our final step is to assemble 3D constructs using the basic geometry we just derived, attempting to identify those the demonstrate the same principles observed above.
We can thus derive the:
Tetrahedron, which is a 4-sided “pyramid” made up of equalateral Triangles
Icosahedron, which is an 8-sided “diamond” made up of the same
And 4 Tetrahedrons combine to form a larger, proportional one. And this 2nd-order Tetrahedron forms within its center an Icosahedron. Noting that 6 Icosahedrons form form a larger, 2nd-order Icosahedron, we continue building—first a 3rd-order Tetrahedron, composed of 10 1st-order ones. Nothing new or interesting can be noted here; however, at the next level, something remarkable emerges at the center.
This geometry, which I will leave unnamed, is actually quite remarkable. Composed of 3 juxtaposed Hexagons, its first appearance is decidedly underwhelming. However, on closer examination, we find that it too self-replicates: 13 combine to form a larger. And within the larger construct, we can observe both the Tetrahedron and Icosahedron.
Referring back to our original experiment, we can note that this very same structure defines the limits of 3D spheres when stacked together. Use magnetic balls to observe, also noting that within the reflection of those balls, the Hexagonal pattern emerges…
In any case, this is just the basics that anyone—even cave-dwelling forefathers—could have derived with even the most limited of technological or intellectual means.
Much of what we now refer to as religion today contains coded references to the above: Plato’s “Soul of the Universe” that
a) comprehends all things AND
b) is comprehended by all things; Ezekiel’s “Wheel within a wheel” by which all things are made animate; the “Logos” of John, which is both God and his instrument of creation (Jesus); and the Way described by Lao-Tzu. These all refer to the exact same thing.
I could go on, but to paraphrase the Old Master (Lao Tzu): some will get it in its entirety and immediately be set on a more “righteous” path; others will understand some through diligent work and reflection, but they will still be unable to observe and make use of the complexity; and the rest will learn of it and become frustrated and attempt to confound and mislead those of better, more noble natures or aspirations.
This, of course, is not the entirety of that which one can logically derive to irrefutable standards. It is, however, the easiest and most profound. The rest is more “plastic”.