Our Dreams of the Implicate Order

On the walk from my office to the train a week ago last Monday, I reflected on the fact that I had all day been curiously alive to moments from my past. In part this was due to the fact that it was my birthday, and people from every era of my life were reaching out to wish my happiness. But other factors were at work, too. I ran into a blog post that linked to a recording of Allegri’s Miserere Mei – one of the most sublime works ever written – and vividly remembered singing it as a boy, and so enacting Heaven. A story I had told my little granddaughter the day before, about the time when I was only four, and went camping with my Dad, and woke up unable to find my way out of the mummy sleeping bag, so that I tried to stand up and get his help, in the process falling down the steps out of the open forest shelter (and almost into the fire he had started), made me chuckle again. So did the memory of her reaction: “Silly Poppy!” I began to remember lots and lots of things from long and not so long ago – some of them tagged (oops!) for later use in the confessional – and suddenly as I walked the moments all crowded in upon me at once. Not in a chaos or a hurry, but as it were quietly, softly.

It was no stampede. Rather, it was a stately pavane.

Suddenly I staggered, thunderstruck by a completely unexpected notion: what if those moments *really were* immediately present to this one? What if I could feel that moment of suffocated terror in the mummy bag as if it were still happening? Clearly, I could: all that I had to do, in order to make that happen, was simply attend to it carefully enough, and without distraction. It might take a few moments of concentration, but if I wanted to I could, I knew, bring back any moment I wanted with as much clarity and intensity as I wished.

Then – this was the strike of the thunder – I thought: “That’s what dreams are like; and it is the way things really are; for, in Eternity, and to Eternity, everything (whether actual or not) is all at once together.”

I wrote my father about the experience that evening (for he had written me to say that, on my birthday, he too had found his mind crowded with vivid memories of my infancy, childhood, youth, manhood):

I pondered the transition from dreaming to waking, and reflected that in dreaming, all times are somehow present, or perhaps rather are immediately adjacent to the dreaming now, so that from that now one can transit to any other moment whatever without any sense of passage, or therefore of violence to the causal nexus.

It seemed to me suddenly, in something rather like a figure-ground reversal, that the dreaming state was the more real of the two; that dreaming is closer to the perfect simultaneity of Eternity, to the way things most truly are, and that waking up is rather like the Fall into comparative unreality.

I conjecture that this is why we call the dreaming state surreal, rather than subreal.

If dreaming is surreal, what is subreal? Insane hallucinations, I suppose, in which nothing is rightly conjoined, so that every transition from moment to moment is an occasion of radical causal violence and existential terror. Nightmare, in other words.

What follows now is a record of the thoughts that then rushed in upon me, a vast slow wave, as I went down into the earth to catch my train home; and nowise much ordered:

  • The dream world is the Platonic Realm, what Julian Barbour calls Platonia. It is the set of all possible combinations of the various values of the Platonic forms. Each such combination is a node in its net. Some nodes – this moment I am now enacting – are, or become, actual. Most do not. Incoherent combinations, that cannot possibly be found together (e.g., square circle), are not present in Platonia. Incompossibilities are simply impossible. They do not exist in any way at all. When we refer to them, we don’t refer. Of such is the matter of nightmare. It terrifies because it dissolves being.
  • Platonia is the domain of possibilities. Borges called it the Library of the Possible.
  • We think of Platonia as a dimensional volume, a space. But that is due only to the fact that we think from within it, and so see the “distance” between different formal possibilities. This distance is just a measure of the difference between different combinations of the forms. This geometrical perspective is not false, but rather relative. Really in itself Platonia is dimensionless; for, all dimensions are as between Platonian nodes, and there is nothing other than Platonia in respect to which Platonia itself could stand in some sort of relation. There is no environment of Platonia; no space in which it could be said to have a spatial volume. Rather, all dimensions are within it, as between its loci in their relations to each other.
  • Likewise: the whole cosmos is still, always, a dimensionless singularity. Its expanse is all internal.
  • The system of all dimensions is not itself dimensional. So all its points are coterminous; indeed, the whole of Platonia is but one point. E.g.: all the numbers are “in” the point of infinity. And this is why the nodes of Platonia are all accessible to each other, immediately; they all as it were overlap.
  • Put another way, each atom is a system of all things (Whitehead); or, the whole of Platonia is logically implicit in each of its nodes (that I am me is that I am not someone else, so that every other else is implicit in me, as not me; definiteness then is exhaustively comprehensive implicity). Thus all the nodes are contained in each of them; not as located inside each other, but as innermostly present to each other, in and by their very definitions. This, in exactly the way – in the *very same way* – that God is innermostly, immediately present to each thing: not as itself, but as the infinitely Other in virtue of which, and in respect to which, all selves have their particular characters.
  • Platonia is the system of all moments of all worlds, and thus of their histories. It is not then in itself a world. The multiverse, then – which is a region of Platonia – is not itself a world, or a system of worlds.
  • Of worldlines branching off from our own, only our own is actual. The others are, not nonexistent, but rather virtual only (for, were they actual, the quantum collapse simply would not happen, and there would be no such things as actual events of a definite character). As merely virtual, they are inactual; yet nevertheless they have the virtue of influencing actualities. This is what we mean – it is the only thing we can mean – by saying that they have virtual existence.
  • Ideas that are not yet anywhere actual, but that are now becoming actual, or are about to become actual, or that could become actual – such as the idea of my going to bed this evening – nevertheless manage to find ingress into actual worlds, to become actual. This is only to say that they manage to influence what actually happens, even though they are not yet themselves actual. This is what we mean when we say that they influence actual creatures virtually.
  • This is how the multifaried Roland, of whom there are many virtual faeries, most of which are nowhere actualized in any way, can yet influence actualities like me. The real Roland and the Roland of the chanson and the Roland of Orlando Furioso all cooked out of the far more multifaried virtual Roland of Platonia.
  • This is how my guardian angel, whom I have not yet fully actualized (God forgive me) can influence me. But he is of course actual.
  • Demons, likewise.
  • Or likewise any influences of any events – actual or virtual – upon any others. The influence of the actual D-Day on the me of five minutes hence is not yet actual. It is still only virtual.
  • All actual causation then runs through virtuality. Actuality is a subdomain of virtuality.
  • So Gandalf, even if he is nowhere actual, is nonetheless virtually quite influential. He may not be anywhere an actuality, but he is everywhere a virtuality. So then also for Narnia.
  • Has Ogier the Dane lived in my imagination? Has he influenced me? Yes. Insofarforth, then, is he somewise actualized in me.
  • Our taproot in Eden leads down from it to Platonia; Valhalla likewise.
  • That’s the key, then: the distinction between actuality and virtuality. Forms not actualized are yet virtual (they must be virtual first in order to become actual; all forms are virtual; some virtual forms are also actual).
  • The various heavens and hells are actual causal orders that cook out of Platonia. Not that they ever leave it. There is no place outside it. This moment now is in it.
  • It is in this sense that Meinong’s Jungle is a true description of reality; with the actual world a little domesticated clearing therein. All the myths and legends and histories meet up together sonorously and agreeably, without a jot of conflict or confusion (could we but see it, properly) in Platonia, wherein each is recognizably an echo or implication of all the others.
  • Ordinary routine physical transactions, of the sort we call normal, are a restricted sort of synchronicity, and not vice versa. It is synchronicity that is basic. Physical reality cooks out of the synchronous – the synspacious, the synlocous, the synoptic, the Eternal.
  • This is what David Bohm was getting at with his notion of the Implicate Order, from which actual worldly events emerge explicitly only in virtue of their prior virtual implicity in Platonia.
  • Bohm’s error was in looking for his hidden variable in physics. The hidden variable is prephysical; is supraphysical; for it is a character of the logic of Platonia, felt as its virtue, its motive allure. It is just Providence.
  • There can be no physical evidence for or against Providence. That’s why they call it hidden. It is hidden in plain view. For, every actual event whatever is its artifact. No way to control for actuality, after all; all experimental results are going to be actual.
  • Platonia is the End of Time – of all times – not just in Julian Barbour’s sense that the idea of Platonia is the death of thinking that time is fundamental (and certainly *not* in his unwarranted inference that, as supervenient upon Platonia, time is somehow therefore illusory (how, pray tell?)), but that (even *more* fundamentally) it is the source and end of all time, the alpha and omega.
  • So, prayer, spells, incantations, gospels, wishes, curses, imprecations, condemnations: this is how they work.
  • Actual events are prayers somehow answered. So physical transactions are a restricted sort of response to prayers of prior actualities.
  • Wishes do really make it so; it’s just that there are lots of competing wishes, and God’s wishes trump all; so that most of our urgent urges seem to come to little, in the great scheme.
  • But this is only a seeming. For, in Platonia – which is the realm of all things that are possible – nothing is overlooked. No node of Platonia is in no way at all influential in what actually happens. Every prayer is reckoned and somehow answered; every alluring possibility is felt somehow as such.
  • That the answer to a prayer then is “no” does not mean that the prayer is disregarded, or causally mute, or moot. On the contrary. “No” is a recognition of importance.

Shortly after this brainstorm first overtook me (on April 24), articles began to appear all over the reactionary web – the web I follow – orbiting the same basic idea. This itself was an instance of synchronicity; of Providence; of Dreamtime. Or, perhaps, articles like that are always there, and I just noticed them for a change.

What is the difference between these two notions that makes a difference? Does the fact that we only rarely notice synchronicity mean that it is rare? Does it not rather indicate that it is common, *so that* we don’t notice it much?

The immediate adjacence of all the nodes of Platonia accommodates all possible coherent explanations of any phenomena whatever; for it subsumes all their factorial relations. It cannot then, logically, be false.

So, Dreamtime is real. It is more real than waking time. Or rather, waking time derives its reality from Dreamtime, of which it is a participation, and a part.

This raises the parlous question, the deeply terrifying question: since we can dream actively – since, i.e., we can act at all, and all our acts are implementations of Dreamtime – what do we do about this? How should we act? How can we avoid nightmare?

Better fall to our knees, pronto, and beg earnestly for mercy, and for guidance, from the All who is the Good.

17 thoughts on “Our Dreams of the Implicate Order

  1. Pingback: Our Dreams of the Implicate Order | Reaction Times

  2. Reality, that is, the outward expression of the Order of Being, is apocalyptic — “24/7,” as they say.

    • Aye. All our consciousness is of the collective unconscious. Collective: “read | spoken | gathered together.”

      *leg-:

      Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to collect, gather,” with derivatives meaning “to speak” on the notion of “to gather words, to pick out words.”

      It forms all or part of: alexia; analects; analogous; analogue; analogy; anthology; apologetic; apologue; apology; catalogue; coil; colleague; collect; college; collegial; Decalogue; delegate; dialect; dialogue; diligence; doxology; dyslexia; eclectic; eclogue; elect; election; epilogue; hapax legomenon; homologous; horology; ideologue; idiolect; intelligence; lectern; lectio difficilior; lection; lector; lecture; leech (n.2) “physician;” legacy; legal; legate; legend; legible; legion; legislator; legitimate; lesson; lexicon; ligneous; ligni-; logarithm; logic; logistic; logo-; logogriph; logopoeia; Logos; -logue; -logy; loyal; monologue; neglect; neologism; philology; privilege; prolegomenon; prologue; relegate; sacrilege; select; syllogism; tautology; trilogy.

      It is the hypothetical source of Greek legein “to say, tell, speak, declare; to count,” originally, in Homer, “to pick out, select, collect, enumerate;” lexis “speech, diction;” logos “word, speech, thought, account;” Latin legere “to gather, choose, pluck; read,” lignum “wood, firewood,” literally “that which is gathered,” legare “to depute, commission, charge,” lex “law” (perhaps “collection of rules”) …

      Actualities gather together what they read off from prior actualities into their own novel unifications, which as completed is what they then forever definitely are; and in so doing they effectually speak | write | engrave their unification of what they have gathered upon the actual world of all subsequent actualities.

      The projection of virtuality into actuality then is two sided: the virtual (including its actual subdomain) projects: the potentially actual (the virtual in the process of becoming actual) reads that projection.

      It is written; it is then read.

      Actual events then are projections of – are projects of – virtuality. The operation of the projection is the procedure of becoming actual. The projection operator is the agent of becoming. As acts, all actualities are such agents of becoming. But some are more actual than others; which is to say only that some are more influential than others; and one of them is the ens realissimum, than whom no greater actuality can be conceived. It is in virtue of his Eternal act that all virtualities have their virtues; which is to say, that the whole of Platonia, both virtual and actual, is a subdomain of the ens realissimum, the act than which no greater can be conceived.

      Sorry to go on at such length. The brainstorm has not really stopped. It gusts now more, now less.

      • This might seem a bit oblique to your commentary, Kristor, but I have come to understand that the large majority of students in my literature courses cannot come to grips with reading and meaning, and yet I believe that reading in search of meaning is the most constructive thing that they can do, intellectually speaking. I now give the regular advice to students at the beginning of the semester that this will not be a course in which they read books; it will be a course in which they let books read them because that is the only way to learn to read books! Understanding is paradoxical, as everyone necessarily begins in ignorance and ignorance has no idea what to do with itself. The process is also a spiraling one. Forty years ago, by letting books read me, I learned how to read books; but now, again, at a higher level, I am letting books read me, including books that I have read many times.

      • That doesn’t seem the least bit oblique. To read is first to let the author write upon us; it is to allow his projection of his work to operate in us.

        And one of the paramount pleasures of reading good writing is the recognition such writing reliably engenders, that one has been given privileged access to a profoundly intimate acquaintance with the sapient mind of another, and in so doing to make our own the insights he has himself been given.

        Novelists often report that at some point in writing, characters begin to act of their own accord, and the author’s role becomes rather that of a transcriptor than a creator. He becomes an honest historian. We may refer this phenomenon to the author’s willingness to read the virtual faeries of his characters – to let them write upon him.

        Artists of all sorts work also with their audience in mind. The singer rehearses alone for a virtual audience. The painter tries to see his work with a virgin eye. The writer struggles to notice in his words what his readers will. Athletes do the same thing.

        Who is to say that such rehearsals are “merely imaginary”? What makes us think that Homer and Bach had as they worked no access to our then as yet only virtual minds? What makes us think that creative genius cannot read us, and form its works accordingly?

  3. Do you have links to some of the writings you mentioned that appeared so serendipitously at the same time as your brain storm?

    Also, the implications in this article are both thrilling and horrifying!

      • Here are a few of the paragraphs that struck me in the days that followed my brainstorm.

        Bruce Charlton and I seem to be attuned to each other. Not surprising, since we read each other. But perhaps we are attuned to each other via Platonia. If nominalism is false, then how not, indeed?

        I had not posted anything public about my shocking, disconcerting and yet oddly reassuring insight into Platonia versus waking life that occurred on April 24 when, on May 4, at his Notion Club Papers, he posted an item about the interest of the Inklings in the Universal Dream World:

        Sleep experience, especially dreaming, lies near the heart of The Notion Club Papers (NCPs). One aspect of this is that there are multiple references to the idea that the dream world is a realm of experience which is universal – in other words, dreaming is a single, vast domain – with distinctive qualities, different from the waking state – that is potentially accessible by all people.
        For example, through the course of the NCPs, club members begin to dream of the same Numenorean material; and eventually Lowdham and Jeremy come to meet each other in dreams, and share a dream of a sea voyage in Anglo Saxon times.

        Prior to this, Lowdham has learned of two languages in dreams, while Jeremy has had visions. Frankley receives in a dream the long poem about St. Brendan (Imram) which also refers to Numenor.

        The NCPs open with a description of how Ramer, by a course of practice and training – and with the assistance of Dolbear – becomes able to travel both in time and space in his dreams; visiting other planets, and seeing a from-above vision of the sped-up history of Oxford across many centuries.

        In the discussions, club members refer to actual and possible encounters with hostile spirits during dreams – making the NCP dream world reminiscent of the Ancient Egyptian ‘underworld’ Duat/ Dwat where resided the gods, including malign ‘demons’ such as Set.

        The ‘plot’ of the (incomplete) NCPs could, indeed, be said to be about how the club learns the shamanic practice of ‘lucid dreaming’ – that is, conscious and purposive dreaming – as a way of contacting and learning from a ‘spirit world’ which includes not just objectively accurate historical data.

        Such ideas are quite general in ancient and esoteric cultures; but are specifically similar to the ‘Akashic Records’ mentioned by various mystics, including Anthroposophy founder Rudolf Steiner. The Inkling Owen Barfield (Jack Lewis’s best friend from Oxford days) was perhaps the leading Anthroposophist writer in England, and several other Lewis’s close friends were also Anthroposophists: e.g., Cecil Harwood (who became Lewis’s literary executor) and Walter O Field (who was a companion on walking holidays).

        The idea of a universal dream realm is also quite a common feature in fantasy fiction; I am currently reading Robert Jordan’s vast The Wheel of Time epic (regarded by some as the greatest world-building fantasy since Tolkien) where the dream world of Tel’aran’rhiod has a vital and frequent role in the plot.

        The importance of the dream realm is that it is also the mythic realm – and this links it (in broad terms) with Jung’s Collective Unconscious. The NCPs assume that dream experiences are potentially real experiences – with waking-life consequences – as when the storm from The West which destroys Numenor breaks through to wreak havoc on the modern day British Isles.

        The idea is that knowledge may be obtained and communications may happen in dreams that are otherwise inaccessible to the waking state. The challenge for the Notion Club is to become conscious in dreams, to gain some control over the dreams while they are happening, especially so as to direct them – and also to remember and recount to the other club members what has happened.

        I strongly doubt whether there was any direct influence of Anthroposophy on Tolkien (despite that one listed member of the Notion Club was the parodically named Ranulf Stainer!) – but there is an unwitting convergence between the aims of the Notion Club members, and aims of Rudolf Steiner’s spiritual exercises; which are supposed to have the side effect of inducing ‘lucid dreaming,’ with awareness of the dream state, increased recall and some degree of control of dreams.

        At any rate – the broad idea of a universal dream world seems to have been one which at least fascinated Tolkien – but most likely was also an idea that he personally believed in and had personally experienced.

        Then there was Christian esoteric mystic Gornahoor:

        Neo-Vedanta, Evil Spirits, and Don Quixote

        … The past no longer is, the future is not yet, the now disappears. Although such assertions are common in certain circles, does such a pseudo-spirituality make sense? If Gnosis is remembering, then what exactly are we remembering?

        Hermetic teaching refers to vertical and horizontal memory, as described by Valentin Tomberg. Vertical memory brings what is above into present consciousness. This is more Platonic, since vertical memory is knowledge of the forms or prototypes. Horizontal memory, on the other hand, makes the past present.

        If the past is “not real,” then how can it be made present? If I think of a unicorn, I am visualizing something unreal. But when Achilles has a vision of his dead mother, is that at all analogous? Achilles is making the past present, whereas my vision is totally illusory.

        Other Minds

        New atheists scoff at the idea of the world being populated by spirits. A spirit is an I, with conscious experience, a rational nature, and some level of moral agency. Hence, there are presumably several billion spirits inhabiting the earth. These human spirits are tied to bodies, and their everyday commonness shrouds a real mystery.

        That is because science has no way to prove the existence of spirits. The only plausible answer [of the naturalist hypothesis] is that consciousness is an illusion, an epiphenomenon of biochemical processes in the brain. Alan Turing proposed a test to distinguish a computer simulation of a person from a real person. If his test works, that just demonstrates that science cannot distinguish between a machine and a human being.

        Evil Spirits

        I won’t repeat the arguments that the human spirit can exist apart from the physical body, but simply stipulate it as a fact. If so, then there is no reason to doubt the possibility of the existence of other disembodied spirits. That is the logical argument, but there is also the empirical experience of [the] entire history of the human race that testifies to their existence.

        Those who have undergone Hermetic training, which involves careful observation and cataloging of the inner states of consciousness, eventually come to the realization that their thoughts are not necessarily their own. They begin to realize that it is as though another being is thinking those thoughts for them. Passive ideas have no power. Giovanni Gentile emphasizes this:

        The primary causal agent is always an idea become person, with a will that pursues determinate ends – a cognizant will that has a program to realize, a concrete thought, effective in history.

        If that is true about human persons, it is a fortiori true about extra-human agents. The ideas that rattle around in our heads always have a person pushing it for “determinate ends.” This may sound odd to modern men, but that is simply because they never bother to consider the actual sources of their thoughts.

        Sergei Bulgakov claims that one’s guardian angel is a prototype for the human. This is consistent with Rene Guénon’s claim that the angels are higher states of the being. So we can become aware of angelic intelligences by reaching these higher states. Opposed to them are, let’s call them “devils.” There is actually a certain comfort in them, since devils believe in God and seem to have a compact with God limiting their effects. Furthermore, they are at least interested in us. …

        Brett Stevens at his site Amerika had a direct response to Bruce:

        What [Charlton] describes as a “universal dream world” is something like material reality, or more specifically, space. It is a space of ideas, which he shorthands as dream, because it is not linear, but based on similarity of the shape of ideas such as is expressed in metaphor, simile, art and dream.

        His thinking runs parallel to that of both transcendentalists and those who explore German idealism, a system of thought that states that reality, while empirical or “objective” in the parlance of the internet, is comprised of something like thought at a level lower than, or producing of, materiality. Heady stuff but it expands on the misunderstood Plato, who expressed something like the Hindu idea that the pattern of an action matters more than the material in which it is rendered. …

        The point Kant made that is vital to our understanding is that the human mind filters reality for what it can understand, and rationalizes this into a representation of reality. This correlates to the Platonic understanding of reality as a shadow on a cave wall, projected as the silhouette of an object from behind the eyes of the viewer. We see only what we can cognitively grasp.

        From this run two parallel observations: first, that there is more to the world than meets the eye; and second, as Plato also noted, that causality arises not from objects in motion, but from objects in the right pattern, similar to chemical reactions and the arrangement of atoms, electricity and the placement of electrons, and even music, where the right vibrations in the correct sequence produce a sound regardless of what instrument it is played upon. The idea is greater than the form in which it presents itself to us. …

        And so, we have found a probable candidate for the “universal dream world,” one that is more pagan than modern, but can be accessed through the teachings of most faiths. In the pagan concept, the world included places which could not be visited by physical travel alone, such as lands of the dead or places where the gods resided. In their minds, the material space we know as physical reality was the smallest part of reality, dwarfed by spaces resembling ideas where metaphysical activity occurred.

        Taking the view that our world is the result of these other spaces, and that these spaces are comprised of something thought-like and being part of this world, respond to our actions as transmitted through re-arrangement of pattern, including that of thought itself, we see a reason for the accessibility of this dream world: we are connected to it through a certain type of thought that actually alters patterns in our brains to be more like the root archetypes of objects, and thus creates an affinity to them because in an informational space, those things of similar shape or idea cluster together, being built from the same archetype.

        With this, we unlock the secret of prayer. Those who discipline their thoughts to be closest to the objects they reference can then address the patterning of reality that will be expressed by those thought-objects, and through a creative process like mythic imagination, can exert influence on that space which then translates into this space. Meditation and prayer focus on the raw archetypes of objects through our intuition and in doing so, can have influence in the physical world. …

        How would one go looking for a realistic metaphysics? The first step is monism, or realizing that the rules of this world apply, and nothing that is or seems arbitrary will work. The second step is to take Plato seriously, and recognize argument that the physical world is the effect of some informational or thought-like larger portion of the world. Finally, we reach the stage where Charlton is, where we are staring into an infinite space made of ideas, and learning how to program it with our minds.

        In the light of my brainstorm of 4.24.17, I took seriously an item I noticed at New World Order University Forum, dated 4.21.17, with a link to a post at New.Euro-Med.DK dated 11.24.15, featuring a YouTube video about schizophrenia as spirit possession. The text that leapt out at me:

        This miracle [of consciousness] cannot be produced by the individual brain, because all the brains, both of humans and of animals, are “affected” by simultaneously observing an object. This phenomenon forces the assumption of the existence of a higher order, which ensures that the perception of each of us is quite individual and personal, and that all perceptions describe a common space, which is not physically possible. This higher order can only embody a spiritual law which represents the unity of consciousness. If our individual perception were to arise separately in isolated brains and build up completely separate from the others, no objective, common reality would arise.

        A word about this: that schizophrenia is materially manifest in the internal economy of the psyche as configurations of neurons and their physical constituents does not at all indicate that it is not demonic in origin. Our apprehension of the blackberry we now eat is likewise materially manifested in the configuration of our neurons and their physical constituents. Is there then no blackberry, at all? A silly notion.

        Finally, I was struck by a comment of PBW here at the Orthosphere:

        A consequence of the receiver model of the nervous system is communication with spiritual persons; at the very least, our spiritual selves. So I have no problem with spiritual communication, per se. The most notable documented example I know of is Socrates’ communication with his “daemon;” or to be more precise, the daemon’s communication with Socrates. Xenophon is an excellent source for this, and he gives no impression of having an axe to grind, so he takes Socrates at his word.

      • The idea of dreaming being closer to ultimate reality scares me a little.

        “My dreams have been dark of late”.

  4. To this:

    Actuality is a subdomain of virtuality.— Kristor

    I think…

    ACTUAL Perfection –> All Possibilities –> Virtuality –> (a)ctuality.

    • Exactly. Beautifully, succinctly put. Bravo. Or, to flesh it out a bit:

      Suprapersonal Godhead → Logos → Platonia → Virtuality → Actuality → Defection

      This is what Plotinus – and, to be fair, the ancient Gnostics – were getting at with the notion of emanation. It would with equal accuracy be called imanation, I suppose.

  5. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/05/14) - Social Matter

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s