Anyone who has taken a snapshot and thought the sight was absolutely amazing at the time, probably has said, “The picture does not do it justice” or “you would have to be there to get the full effect.” Showing the image to others, or even looking at it later yourself, it is true, a picture does not produce the same sensations as ‘being there’.
In the above truth is a secret knowledge that, I believe, can change one’s life if recognized. It is hidden in a sense that it only needs realized. Why doesn’t a picture capture and convey all that was being experienced at the moment? Isn’t it the same image? I am only beginning to grasp the answer, but I find it an absolutely intriguing journey.
In the book, Visual Intelligence by Donald Hoffman, he makes a statement which is hard to fully take in right away. Hoffman states, “You construct the depth that you see every time you open your eyes.”
The fact is, an image at the eye is only ever two dimensional; width and height. We create all the depth we see according to instinctive rules within ourselves. This three dimensional construction depends on all which surrounds us at the moment. A snapshot, even a video, cannot hold this endless amount of detail. Since a picture does not pass on the full experience, it cannot give the depth, which was constructed, at the original encounter.
Hoffman goes on to say that an image at the eye of a person (never more than a 2D world) “has countless interpretations in the three dimensions.” It is our visual system which limits the possible depths we create. Since most of our visual systems are the same, we create the same depth as others do on the most basic level. Shown below is an example given in Hoffman’s book which quickly confirms his statement. By following certain innate rules, we see the following shape of the dissected hexagon as flat. Those who have played Trivial Pursuit may see it as one of the empty game pieces.
Depth can be created though, if we override a primary rule involved. We can choose to see the Cube, and therefore prove that we construct the depth. Do you see the Cube now? If you look for it, you will see it.
Much is yet to be discovered about the rules we use to ‘see’. Even in the most simplest forms, like above, all may not be known. With not being able to fully comprehend all the rules involved in the most basic form, one can imagine the difficulty in determining the rules we employ in a plentiful scene. Hoffman states our visual system “far outstrips the most valiant efforts of today’s fastest supercomputers.” It is more complex than anything now known on this earth.
Expand the thoughts to a Spiritual equivalence.
We are encouraged in Ephesians (3:16-19, shown below) to grasp how wide and long and high and deep the love of Christ is. We have just learned, however, the depth in which we visualize is created within ourselves. Does the same hold true for the depth spoken in Ephesians? I am not implying the love is manufactured. It is there. Like in the above image. Amazing how from identical lines, it can either be an image of a hexagon or a cube; totally changed and transformed by what we choose to see.
The depth is always there. It was a choice to ‘see’ it. Sort of like ‘seek and you will find (Matthew 7:7).’
Even consider the following pictures:
The first image is part of the second.
Both are only a tiny fraction of the world. In just one expansion, notice how much more depth is added. As our wisdom and understanding of the world expands, more depth appears. It is always there to be realized. The same could be said of ourselves. The more we learn and grow, the more our perception deepens.
Each time we go deeper, we are also going higher. As above, So below, maybe? If we restricted ourselves to see everything in only 2D, what an uninteresting world it would be. But as we expand our knowledge and open our hearts, the world becomes full of a depth which is limitless.
It has been found our hearing sense depends much on our own creation as well. In Isaiah 6:9 the hearts of the people were hardened by making; ‘their ears dull, and closing their eyes.’ It continues, ‘otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.’
Eyes to see deeper and higher? Ears to hear quieter and quieter? Could that be a goal in life?
To hear silence, to see infinity; is it possible? I don’t know. What do you think? Since researchers have revealed we create more depth in what we see by developing our awareness (hearing is similar), I would like to think it is possible. I think it would be beautiful.
I can’t help but feel the authors of Maranatha, The Ultimate Quest, and Unicornis had realized a Depth, and knew the only way anyone could experience the magic was for the person to discover and see the Depth themselves. Like a picture, seeing it ourselves offers the best and most spectacular understanding. The hidden Depth of the Divine could be much the same. What do you think?
Ephesians 3:16-19; “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being. So that Christ may dwell in your heart through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have the power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ. And to know this love that surpasses knowledge-that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.”
It’s my belief that one day, these Neoplatinistic types of ideas which you mention will represent the basis for some new form of Grand Cinema. There is something that I like to refer to as “The Universal Mind.” We can liken this to a type of Blueprint which represents our own understanding of some “Higher Demension” of Reality which is beyond are Comprehension. Yet, just because we cant comprehend it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.
It is there within our own mind because we are all a part of it. So it is hidden within the Darkness of our own minds, and needs to be brought to light. If a person were to mention the word “Paradise,” that “Universal Mind” which I am referring to will not recognize that word because we have alll of these different notions about what Paradise really is. But there is something about the word ARCADIA that “instinctively” causes the
“Universal Mind” to recognize the fact that is a reference to a “Motion Picture.”
Paramahansa Yogananda said it best: “It (Life) is just a Movie (Motion Picture).” You yourself in attempt to convey the sense of “Depth,” enlarged the Landscape to include a more “All-Encomposing Vision.” Such is the way that Arcadia (Paradise) was meant to be experienced.
Then again, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have some type of direct experience of Arcadia. Rumi often likened such a direct experience to the staring at the Moon through some Open Window. That represents some type of starting point for the understanding of the whole concept.
However, it would be nice to have some type of symbol which displays that sense of Depth and Demension to
The Highest Degree possible within the confines of some Window. And that, my friends represents the Grail Quest.
That simple image of the hexagon that can be seen as a cube actually illustrates one of the fundamental principles of magic. And it’s exactly as described in the article: if you choose to see the depth, you will see it.
This topic touches on a line thinking I have been contemplating for the past few years. What is the probability that the divine creator has been revealing himself to mankind from the beginning? Woven into the religious beliefs of mankind from the beginning there has been a thread of Truth that runs throughout the tapestry. The differences arise from the perceptions of mankind, some beliefs have evolved to be close to the truth that is always there, other beliefs diverge so much they reflect more the ugly side of humanity? Could we be coursing to that day in the evolution of our knowledge we have the full truth, or is that another journey? What happens if we cease to see what we want to see and realize what is in those 200 Billion galaxies among those Trillions of stars?