Months ago, I was all proud of myself for coining; what I deemed to be a really cool sounding, "heavy" term. Later on, I googled it, and found that somebody had already beaten me to the punch, and previously invented the stinker!
Don't ask me what that actual definition refers to, go google it for yourself. But, you've gotta love the sound, the texture, the sheer "gee-whizmo" factor of "hexa-dimensional hyper-point"... don't ya? Kinda rolls right off the old tongue-eroo, huh? Sounds "dense", maybe even "deep"? In reality, isn't this just yet another bizarre-pants brain episode of mine (you, no doubt wonder), and then we could safely infer; "Get over it, and move on Bub", might best serve here? But no, I just keep massaging the little guy, hoping (perhaps) to breathe new life into my version? Like maybe, we can get two h.d.h.p. models into reality, even though one is real, and one is clearly bogus?
Since I do not "speak math", the actual h.d.h.p. (as a discipline) is a nearly incomprehensible (as, with that hefty moniker; it rightly ought be!) topic. So, "In what way is my h.d.h.p. different from the genuine article?", you might ask? Boy, am I glad you wondered that!
In the first place thus, we proceed to mind-experiments. Think Euclid...on crack! I imagine (and we'd best keep that word here!), a point, then a line proceeding, then a plane processing, and finally a cube developing. Derived; one from each other, we kinda "grow" in dimensionality per se.
A point then, is a stand-alone. Two of the little guys linked, format a line. A "rotation" of same allows for a promulgation of a planar "flat surface". A new "rotation" of same, yields "depth", so to generate a cubic, a "solid". Ya with me here? So far; me and that Euclid cat, are on the same page, kinda-sorta... yet I wonder. Would "Euc" view a point as dimension number one? If that were the case, wouldn't a cube be considered dimension number four? So, maybe the Euc-ster and I are not on the same page after all?
The basis of this geometric system then (mine, at least), is "point". Is this "point" thingie a bit like the number "one"? Without the "one", we get no counting, no arithmetic, no calculus. But with it, all that math-stuff is do-able, and regularly done. The basic rule of: "Every time we add one, we always, always; get 'the next number'". This is an unprovable premise (I think), but remains an awfully darned handy tool to apply! So, with application; we find that the "theory comes alive"!
Application-wise then, we commence to imagine. Take then, the "point" as our irreducible "one". Further, apply the "rotational" aspect of dimensional leaps, and let's fire 'er up, and make that baby go! Try this, describe a circle with your right hand, in a "clockwise" fashion, as viewed from your right side. Stop. Now do one from the left hand, so that circle (number two) rotates also clockwise, as viewed this time, from your left side. Notice anything? One thing I notice is that it's about impossible to simultaneously spin hands contrary to each other directionally. They keep ending up going the same direction. The second feature of our imaginary construct is that they indeed do rotate in opposite directions, okay? Your hands can't go there, but your soul, your mind can. That is the big brainwave over here, okay?
In then the case of a "line", have we forgotten that the line itself, could easily "rotate" upon itself? Mom's rolling-pin does this when she makes tortillas as I recall. So then, a line could rotate in two ways. One, in-and-upon itself, and the other, out-and-away, so to speak. You can either roll-out dough, or swing the roller like a ball-bat! We consider the former. Thus, a rotational line, "begs the question here"...doesn't it just? If we view the end of the line as spinning clockwise, and then scoot around to the other end; so to see that other end also doing likewise, do we thereby yield a surprising, and unguessed Euclidean dimension at some "point" along the "line"?
This is the basic image is in my mind. Or think instead of a baseball, as our "point" (point waxed- large, in that case). So, from a "dual -clockwis-ean" axial spin then, we find one half of the ball, spins opposite to it's other half! And that is about all, I'd suggest here. A "single-dimensional" point, can thus possess two dimensions, due to spin. Who saw that one coming? This image then, propagated across a volumetric "solid", ought logically yield an h.d.h.p.! Don't you agree?
Little girls used to play with "jacks" when I was a kid. Do they still? Beats me. A "jack" is a three dimensional cross. And, if you'd like, you can give the jack a spin, and up-she-stands, twirling away. The center point of same is a "3-D cross", left-right, then up-down; added to a front-back "double-cross", ya dig? So the h.d.h.p. is a "jack", with the alarming feature of each end, (as viewed from that end) being "seen" as spinning. The center point (that one point down in there, where axes intersect); is in some sense "rotating six directions", simultaneously! Ain't it great?
Or consider likewise, a sphere (like the Earth), spinning. Does that same Euclidean line, which forms the actual axis, does that line itself spin-with Earth as she goes, or does it "stand-still", while all-else rotationally swings about it? In my model, I am asserting a spinning axis, but moreso, it's converse is true, simultaneously co-existent along the same line. This proposes a "point" spinning two directions simultaneously. This oddity being propagated across three intersecting axes "the jack", ought yield a point at the center; "rotating" in six directions. Are you still with me?
So, what in the world might the application be for such an imaginary construct? What do we do with such a proposed h.d.h.p. in any case? Uh, well; not to weird you out too badly here, but...swallow it! Put the hyper-point in you! That's my take on it.
Take a peek at You Tube. How many vids are there out in cyber-land featuring "body-energy", or the Chinese discipline of Chi gung? Only about a jillion or so? Last year, when I crashed my shoulder, and turned her into a smoking junkyard, I became interested in the ideas of "intentional healing", and of "chi". To what degree are we "passive", and to what degree "active" in the healing process? The extremely brief version here is that the h.d.h.p. "fell out" of my speculations. Take the disastered shoulder, and "spin-up" the hyper-point (just imagine!). Breathe, use your fingers to "direct energy", and as you exhale; "place it, (the h.d.h.p.) in" the injury area. Incidentally, I began also (last year) to "see" light.
I mean by this, not to alter our imaginary construct much, but to add this. Go outside for a minute, and glance at the sun. We "remember light", in "the back of our mind", and can so "place it, (also) in" the hyper-point. Visualization, breath work, and persistence. The result? Doctor Romanelli, said: "I wish all my patients were like you. I don't know how you did it, but your recovery is amazing." The Doc also told me, that at one point (early on), he was considering a whole shoulder replacement, instead of attempting to repair the trash-heap which was mine. Try doing that spin-up with the h.d.h.p.. Place it in your sore place; and then tell me how it goes for you!
Story two; I have been taking over the counter anti-histamine junk for allergies, every single spring-time since 1981...except for this year! I "spun-up" a pair of hyper-points, and "placed them" in my sinuses. Make the sign of the "jack", light 'er up, and with that little rascal all lit-up and bright and spinning...result? Zero allergy pills taken. The miserable symptoms "threatened" but just never arose to the point of my demanding pill-relief this spring. Energy instead of pills? Who knew? Is that even legal?
Question; to what degree are such things "psychological" (along the placebo-effect, line of reason), and to what degree is the phenomenon a "real" or physiological change? Are we talking "attitude" or more-so, "aptitude"? And I think the answer here is; "Yes". We are ourselves a "hopeless entanglement" of psyche with soma. We are spiritual animals, souls with hair.
We, in the West, generally (and deeply!) distrust "soul-power". In our book, we would be a good deal more comfy if "soulish" things just went away. It all smacks of the "New-Agey", it's those Californian flakes, or worse, the occult traitors. But, for my two-bits, I'd affirm a "new-thing" in Earth...(that would be "Mr. New-Thing" in Earth, to you Bub).
That King, Mister New-Thing speaks of an "abundant life", and of a pressing down and of a running over, a "lively-living", if you will. And if you are like me, this sort of talk makes us un-comfortable. I do not mean to attempt to "comfort" you in your discomfort. Why bother? Hey, be uncomfortable. Life is scary! Risk is real!
But tell me "the alternative"? Life is dangerous, because He is! The ideas of "fitness", or of "endurance", and how to build them. What can it all mean? He is the One whom we ultimately "endure". He is the "dreadful presence", which once "in it" we realize, "Ah, this (right here!), is "why" we were being taught, back on "old Earth"; to endure!". Even the holy-fierce angels must shield their eyes, and cry out "Holy!" in that One's presence. Strength was never intended for any other end, than to be able, in "that day", to tolerate (and then, to flourish-in) that darned-scary Presence!
Spin 'er up! You will need to be strengthened before-hand! Might as well get started then...