Again, “GAIMEN (the Outside=visible) of human being”, and “NAIMEN (the Inside=invisible) of human being”,

 Now, to make it easier to understand the spatial concept in Noosology,

“NAIMEN (the Inside=invisible) of human being” and “GAIMEN (the Outside=visible) of human being”, let’s pull in the diagram shown in 2013: The Day God Sees God, Advanced Edition. Figure 1 below shows it.

  Figure1 The Outside and Inside of human beings

　　　　＊外面（見える）　the Outside  (visible)

　　　　＊内面（見えない）　the Inside (invisible)

 In the book, I introduced “the Outside of human beings” as visible space and “the Inside of human beings” as invisible space. Now retake a look at this diagram. As I mentioned before, when we look at an object/matter in space, there is the surface side of the object/matter as the “figure” and the background space side of the object/matter as the “ground.” In Figure1, you can see that they are both named “the Outside” and drawn with a solid blue line. However, if you look closely at the curvature of the two surfaces, you will see that the surface of the object/matter is convex, and the background space is concave. The book’s contents argue that, based on this inverted relationship of concavity and convexity, they should not be considered the same three-dimensional space but as mutually inverted spaces.

Our general understanding of space (Human Gestalt) does not capture objects/matters and their background space through these inverted concepts. What I mean by this is that, as I mentioned in the previous article, we have a habit of giving a scale to the space outside of objects/matters and grasping space through the concept of “size” that is sensed as the inner nature of objects/matters. Thus, we falsely believe that the spatial area behind the object/matter is also the same as the space inside the object/matter, simply enlarged. Suppose the background space of an object/matter is grasped in this way. In that case, you will find that the surface that you see as the background surface of the object/matter is conceptually regarded as an extension of the same surface that constitutes the inner wall of the object/matter (the backside of the surface of the object/matter).

 Although I’ve talked about the fatal error of our spatial cognition so far, many of you may still be wondering what’s wrong with it. Please think about it carefully. I insist, “carefully.” Because, in Noosology’s terms, this is the first juncture of the

transformer’s consciousness (the consciousness that causes manifestation/actualization) and the human consciousness (the consciousness that remains latent). If what OCOT says is true, the same thing that happened about 13,000 years ago as the split between the Mu and Atlantis dimensions is about to happen again. Wow-what a mess!! (laughs).

  Is the background surface of an object/matter really the surface of the inner wall of the object/matter as it is enlarged?  You can find the answer by considering the space we see as a two-dimensional projective space.

　  Let’s take a look at Figure 1 above again. In this figure, the relationships between object/matter, observer, and the space in which they are placed are shown from the side-view to evoke a spatial image in the reader. However, suppose you stand in the observer’s position and look at the object/matter and the background space from there. In that case, you will see only the surface of the object/matter (figure) and the background space (ground), as shown in Figure 2 below.

“the Outside (visible)” of human beings actually seen

Here, we can see that the space in the depth direction woven by the object/matter and its background space has been squashed into a flattened shape, and geometrically it appears as a flat surface. In other words, everything in the depth direction that acts as a line of gaze is seen as a single point; thus, the sight becomes a two-dimensional surface space.

  However, even if we say two-dimensional, it has completely different characteristics from the ordinary two-dimensional Euclidean space. Geometrically, such a space is called a two-dimensional projective space. In simple terms, it is a space where shadows are created. A three-dimensional object becomes flat when reflected in a shadow, right? In the same way, the visual images projected in the visual-field space are the same as shadows. In other words, the visual-field space as a perceptual front is not three-dimensional but rather a two-dimensional projective space.

  The mathematical definition of two-dimensional projective space is given in the book’s footnotes; thus, I won’t go into it here. I need to emphasize that both a point on the surface of the object/matter perceived by the eye and another point in the background space imagined behind it are considered the same. In other words, as shown in the first figure, point A and point B are seen as identical. To understand what this means in 3D space, we can rotate our gaze around the object/matter. In other words, while looking at an object/matter, go around it and try to revolve your gaze around it.

  In this way, we can see that each point on the surface of the object/matter captured in the line of gaze with the rotation has a one-to-one correspondence with each point on the background surface of the object/matter. This means that the spherical surface (convex side), which constitutes the surface of the object traced by the rotation of the gaze, and the spherical surface (concave side), which is outlined as the background surface of the object/matter, are mutually inverted at their optical center (the center point of the object/matter being recognized). In other words, there is a hidden relationship of joint inversion between the three-dimensionality of the inside of the sphere recognized as the object/matter and the three-dimensionality of the outside recognized as the background. Based on this recognition, Noosology considers that the background surface of the object/matter perceived by the perceptual front is the surface of the inverted surface of the object/matter, not the enlarged inner wall of the object.So, where is the actual surface of the simply enlarged inner wall of the object/matter sensed? — that’s easy: not on the front side of perception, but the backside of perception. If you create an image of the object/matter in front of you that keeps expanding, at some point, the image of the object/matter will switch to an image that encloses the observer himself. At this time, you will sense the inner wall of the object/matter toward your back, i.e., the backward direction. As I have mentioned, the space behind you is a mirror image space where the image of yourself in front of the object/matter and your face is born. In other words, when the image of the expansion of the object/matter in front of you enveloping your body emerges, your consciousness becomes flipped from the outside to the inside of you. The space captured in such an image is not the “visible space” — To be continued.