I was just reading this morning about Plato’s postulate of three orders of being, which states: Three types of beings are, that which moves unmoved, that which is self-moved, and that which is moved.

I have never heard of this postulate before, even though I took some courses in philosophy, back in 2012. I have heard and read about Plato’s theory of forms, and I can explain what he meant by forms and universals in his work “The Republic,” but I did not know about this postulate, the existence of three forms of beings. I found  out about this while reading “The Secret Teachings for all Ages” by Manley Palmer Hall. This book was recommended to me since I am curious in learning more about mythology as well as esoteric teachings, not that I support everything that I read, but because I am curious of what people think or thought about different types of theories and secret teachings. But this morning, as I was reading Hall’s book, I was smiling to myself. I am still smiling because, if this is indeed true, then I know exactly what Plato meant by the three types of beings and why and how they move or can be moved, and unmoved. It is not such a mystery after all.

Let’s start by mentioning the fact that in all his work, Plato postulated God’s existence. What is a postulate? Postulate is a statement, it is the very first claim from which all other claims derive. So, what is Plato’s postulate? Is Plato’s postulate about God’s existence or is it about the three forms of being that can later lead to prove God’s existence?

Why does this matter? It matters because if Plato’s postulate is that God exists, then since this is a postulate, it does not need any proof. God exists, but we cannot prove it.

But if Plato’s postulate is that three forms of being exist, then he can indeed prove with this postulate the existence of God.

So let’s assume that this postulate that I read this morning is Plato’s first postulate. Let’s see now how we can prove the existence of God, by starting our reasoning from this postulate. Now, before I do this, I would have to explain to the reader of this post the concept of antimatter. I cover antimatter’s matter (LOL) in my books, in my theory of antimatter and in my previous posts. However, for those readers who haven’t had a chance to check my previous work, here is briefly what antimatter is all about:

Antimatter is an existence on its own. This existence/entity is the opposite of matter, just as its name suggests. It is the opposite to the matter not because it eliminates matter upon the contact with it, like some believe due to ideas promoted by the Big Bang Theory. But, antimatter is the opposite of matter because is nothing like the matter; it is not made of particles, like the matter is. However, antimatter is the carrier of a special type of magnetic energy which in science it is called monopole magnetic field (one sphere with one pole in the center). As why I concluded this, I have already explained it my books (see the note below). Another thing that you need to know about antimatter’s nature is that once matter and antimatter mingle together, none of those forms is the same afterwards, matter is no longer matter and antimatter is no longer antimatter. And this is the third being that Plato’s postulate talks about. For some people it may be easier to imagine antimatter as the equivalent concept of ether. However, at the time I wrote my book The Truth I had no information about old teachings of ether, so I decided to call it antimatter since it is nothing like the matter, and once in contact with matter, then matter is no longer matter (yet it does not mean that matter or antimatter is eliminated upon contact; they’re still there but in a different mix/form).

Further, the reader may also need to be informed about the nature of antimatter: I explain in my theory of antimatter that, matter is made of particles and has no mind on its own, cannot reason on its own, but antimatter is a thought form/entity that has its own mind and it can reason on its own. However, for antimatter to manifest its ideas antimatter needs matter as its background.

Like an artist that has the idea of a painting in his mind, he would need to paint this idea on a piece of canvas by using paints and brushes, in order to express this idea of his, and make it noticeable for all of us. In the same way, antimatter needs matter to manifest its own ideas.

In these grounds, we can now understand Plato’s postulate of three forms of being: 1) The being which moves the unmoved is the antimatter which moves matter. 2) The being that is moved, that cannot move on its own, is the matter, and 3) the beings that self-move are those that have portions of both matter and antimatter in them.

A perfect example of beings that self-move is us, the humans. We have both, matter and antimatter in us (more explained in my books). As for animals, whatever little thinking animals are capable of, this indicates that antimatter is present in animals too, but not in the same amount as in humans. Proof? Animals can move around, so animals self-move because they have some antimatter. The amount of antimatter in animals, however, must be less than the amount of antimatter in humans, but more than the amount of antimatter in plants. Plants too self-move, but not as freely as an animal self-moves. Therefore, a plant has more antimatter than a rock which is mostly made of matter and cannot move itself, rather it is moved by something else.

Following this pattern we can raise the question: Could there some higher beings than humans exist? Beings that have more antimatter in them than humans have? The answer, as a logical conclusion using inductions, is Yes! And who said that we can stop at some point imagining even more higher beings than those higher than humans…..As we follow this logic, we can now argue that there will always be other beings, higher than the previous group, which will carry more antimatter than the previous group. We can indeed continue this pattern and theoretically argue that we can finally reach one form of being that is just pure antimatter. And, since antimatter is mind−a pure form of thought−we can now conclude that this being made of pure antimatter (knowledge, thoughts) is God, who carries all the previous thoughts and ideas and which were manifested in all other things that started to exist, based on God’s thought. Hence, Plato could prove the existence of God if indeed this was his first postulate.

Note for more twisted minds:

So, if indeed this postulate was Plato’s first postulate, which will create the foundation for the rest of his philosophical work, then Plato was right about the existence of an intelligent or super intelligent designer, which in fact Plato called it Zeus, not God. But, how can we make sure that Zeus is God? What other traits, other than supper intelligence God must have? On the other hand, if Plato considered the existence of God as his first postulate, then he could not prove God’s existence, because the first postulate is an assumption, from which the rest derives. So which one comes first: Three forms that lead to logical conclusion that God exists, or God exists, which leads to the logical conclusion of the existence of three forms? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I will cover more about this twist on my next post… Stay tuned 🙂 …

Note:

In January 2010 I started writing about antimatter and the 12 laws of antimatter.  At this point in my life, I am not very excited on sharing with others of what I think that I know about antimatter. Antimatter is indeed a very abstract concept for some people, and it is also, too long to explain. However, when I started writing about antimatter and its 12 laws, I felt very excited and enthusiastic about this discovery and willing to share this knowledge  with everyone around me. That was a mistake, which I recognized later. Sometimes it is not worth sharing all that you know with people who do not understand, either because they are incapable of, or that do not want to understand. It is even less beneficial trying to convince others about your point of view. Anyhow, I learned my lesson, but what I want to share here is that while writing about theory antimatter in my book The Truth, I tried very hard to not impose my lack of knowledge (we all lack knowledge at various degrees) or force my understandings and my beliefs about reality. Instead I used critical thinking, step by step, deduction, induction, proof by contradiction and also evidence from real life. I published my book The Truth on Amazon, in 2012, but later, I stopped its publishing, because I realized that some of these ideas, that I share in this book, could be misinterpreted, if I do not offer further explanations. This is why you may see “out of print” if you try to purchase this book The Truth, on Amazon. But, I promise that I will republish it soon, again in the future, when I’ll find some time to work on this book.

Leave a Reply

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