The Third Space: Human-AI Interaction and the Emergence of a New “Platonic” Realm (Draft)

“The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the expansion of cyberspace have ushered in a new era in human existence. These technologies are not mere tools; they represent a ‘third space’ — a realm where the inner world of human thought and the outer world of physical reality converge. This essay explores this concept, drawing insights from various scholars and philosophers who have delved into the interplay between technology and human consciousness.”

The passage above is derived from a ‘conversation’ — let us be bold and call it that — I had with Chat GPT 4 yesterday. It is summation of a ‘dialogue’ — yes, that too — which began with a discussion on the (fundamental) ‘two-world’ problem of metaphysics, of the duality of mind and matter.

The genesis of this conversation began in the morning yesterday, as I was reading the Penguin Classics Edition of Arthur Schopenhauer’s Essays and Aphorisms, translated and compiled with selections from his Parerga and Paralipomena by the late R.J. Hollingdale. Many times, I skip the introduction to classics (re)publications, they are often pedantically irritating, but not in this case. Hollingdale has written an excellent introduction. I like to note down selections from interesting books for my later perusal, and as it happened, I thought this would be an interesting opportunity to test out CG-4’s voice recognition abilities. Initially, my plan was to use it for making notes, but as you will see, if you read on, the session grew into more.

I have added selections from the transcript of my session in this essay, so the interested reader might a gain a glimpse of the process.

As I said, my intention was initially only to have the system transcribe my narration but reading out a passage, I happened to request CG-4 to summarise it for me.

The passage in question discusses the sixth century BC Greek philosopher Thales, and his proposition that the four elements — earth, fire, ether, and water — which his contemporaries saw as the basic components of the ‘stuff’ of physical reality were, in fact, all one element, or as Hollingdale puts it, “of the four elements, three are forms of the fourth. Earth is solidified water, air, rarefied water, fire, ether, or the hot sky of the eastern Mediterranean is rarefied air or twice rarefied water.” But, he asks, “Why should earth not be earth, air, air, and fire, fire, as they seem to be?”, and from this question, thus, arises the fundamental problem of metaphysics, but via an epiphany. If we begin to consider that all elements are in fact derivatives of one element, then, gradually, we also begin to arrive at a view of what we might call the ‘one-ness of being’ — or, at its most basic level, all things are in fact one thing. But this is not evident to us, overtly, because the perceived world as it appears to our sense experience, obviously, has a vibrant diversity. We can arrive at the conclusion that behind the veil, so to say, all existence is one, only in the mind. So, Hollingdale says, “we find at the very beginning of philosophy, the assertion that there exists two worlds, the real and the apparent, that everything is really something else, not what it appears to be. If we are willing to call the language of physics employed by Thales the content of the thought, the metaphysical basis of this language, the form of the thought, we can say that the difference between scientific and pre-scientific thought is not so great a gulf as it is often supposed to be. The content of the thought is new, but its form remains the same. Namely, there are two worlds, one perceived, the other mystery.”

Exploration of this mystery is the beginning of science.

I discussed this, after reading out certain statements from the essay, with CG-4. And this was CG-4’s interpretation, followed by another elucidation -

“Thank you for sharing the next section. It delves deeper into translating Thales’ theory into metaphysical terms, suggesting that the perceived diversity of the world is only apparent. The true nature of the world, according to this interpretation, is unity — a singular essence, symbolized by water in Thales’ philosophy. This leads to the assertion of two worlds: the apparent world we perceive and the real world that is fundamentally unified. The passage also discusses the continuity between scientific and pre-scientific thought, emphasizing that while the content may change, the form, or the underlying idea of two worlds (one perceived, one mysterious), remains constant. This bifurcation, as the text suggests, might be an inherent outcome of human thought.”

And a summary of the entire passage from the essay which I read out to ‘her’,

“The passage interprets Thales’ metaphysical view that “everything is really water” to mean the world’s diversity is only apparent, not fundamental. In essence, the world is unified, contradicting the apparent diversity we perceive. This leads to the concept of two worlds: the real (unified) and the apparent (diverse). This duality suggests that what we perceive is not the true nature of things. The passage also notes that while the content of thought has evolved from Thales’ time to more scientific understanding, the form, or the underlying idea of a dualistic world, remains unchanged. It implies that the division between a perceived world and a transcendent, more real world, might be an intrinsic aspect of human cognition.

Key points:

1. Metaphysical translation of Thales’ theory emphasizes the world’s fundamental unity versus apparent diversity.

2. Introduction of the concept of two worlds: the real (unified) and the apparent (diverse).

3. Continuity between pre-scientific and scientific thought in the form of this dualistic world view.

4. Suggestion that the division of the world into perceived and transcendent realms is likely an essential consequence of human thinking.”

The idea that there existed these two worlds, the real one, behind the veil, and the apparent one, in which our life (or its waking state) unfolds, was implicitly known, Hollingdale says, to ‘primitive men’. Here of course the essay gets Jungian, so we work with this terminology. (Jung will make an appearance in this essay slightly later).

This is the next passage from Hollingdale’s essay -

“The most primitive men known to us already inhabit these two worlds. The fundamental idea is, I am, and I think. From this idea, there follows a second, derivative idea. There exists another world. The world I inhabit in my thinking. This other world is there, exists, as an immediate consequence of the existence of thought in the human head. And as the race accumulates experience, this world of thinking becomes massively enriched, especially by comparison with the almost static state of the world of perception, the outer physical world. The earth consists once and for all of stones and plants and other animals. Sun rises and sets every day. Summer and winter come round every year. The sea ebbs and flows eternally the same. Even men do not change very much. The new generation is much like that of the old. Nature, in short, is the realm of the known. Nature springs no surprises. The world of thought and imagination is incredibly dynamic. It is continually expanding and changing and adding itself, adding to itself new shapes and colours. The living occupy the world of nature, but the world of thought is also inhabited by the dead, and especially by the mighty dead, the founders and ancestors. Indeed, in this world, there are no longer any dead, and they live on. They appear in dreams and waking dreams. They are immortal, and shall we too not be immortal in that other world? The supernatural appears with its gods and devils, heavens and hells, in that second world of thought and imagination. In memory, the past, that which has vanished from the perceived world, continues to exist. But the question is, where does it exist? The other world, which we perceive only in thought, dies and limitations of the physical world disappear. That other world, we are free of them. We can do anything. But at the same time, it is only there that we encounter actual terror, the terror which hovers about the abode of the gods, which stalks the sleeper when dead to the physical world. He enters that other world wholly and wanders about in it. Is there any wonder, then, that the second world, the world of thought, comes to be much more real than the physical world? That men should come to regard it alone as the real world?”

There is, of course, a lot to unravel here. I am concurrently reading Jung’s Man and His Symbols, making my way through his introductory essay (it is an edited volume), a few pages at a time. So, as you can see, there might be some other (secret) fortuitous convergence going on here, in the intersection of paths in my readings, and my intellectual career — from one world to another?

Who knows, who can tell.

And therein lies the rub.

Once the duality of ‘worlds’ has become more evident (let us leave alone the other school of thought that even this might be an illusion), the question arises, which true source of ‘origination’? One can go to both extremes, as a pure materialists, or a complete idealist/mayavianist — or find something in the middle, as in the Buddha’s solution of co-dependant origination leading to the idea that the ‘in-between’ is all that exists, or, that reality is an illusory fluxion, and that all being is, in fact, merely a becoming.

Once we accept the idea that “Reality is still something that lurks behind the scenes,” then the great war truly begins.

Hollingdale sums up this section, “Thales says that reality is water, Heraclitus says it is an ever-living fire, and the real world, the battleground for an eternal conflict and for ceaseless change. Change is real, unity and permanence are appearance. According to Parmenides, change is logically impossible, an illusion, reality is motionless, unchanging being. Anaxagoras thought that all four elements are present in everything, so that water also contains earth, air, and fire, though in small quantity compared with the quantity of water. Water appears to be water, in reality it is a compound of earth, air, water, and fire. Democritus propounded the atomic theory, for the doctrine that solidity is appearance. Only this tradition, the tradition that the seeming is not the real, can, with the ingredient from the old-fashioned mysticism of Pythagoras … , account for the philosophy of Plato, in whose doctrine of supersensible forms, the primitive notion of the real and an apparent world, receives its most coherent expression. Everyone knows Plato’s parable of the men sitting in the dark cave, with their backs to the light watching the play of their shadows. The shadows are the world, the light comes from the real world. In Plato, the physical universe has been devalued to a shadow play on the wall.”

The consequence for the progress of human thought, in the western tradition, is summarised in this section, by CG-4,

“The passage (which I read out next) discusses Platonism’s influence on Christianity, especially through Neo-Platonism and Plotinus’ concepts. Plotinus contrasted the decaying Roman Empire with a higher realm of beauty and order, laying the foundation for Christian ideas of heaven and the earthly kingdom. Christianity, it explains, shifted all positive value to the beyond, viewing the physical world as a veil. This led to a widening gap between the spiritual and physical worlds, embodied in various dualities like church and state, God and creation.

Modern philosophy, starting with Descartes, simplified this duality to two substances: thinking (soul) and extended (matter). Descartes didn’t prioritize one over the other and left certain questions unanswered. Spinoza, on the other hand, proposed that soul and matter are not separate substances but modes of one underlying substance, God. Thus, everything is essentially God.”

We have come a long way since the beginning of this discussion, as I had in my session, so, at this point I asked CG-4 to summarise the entire discussion,

“The passages you read from Schopenhauer’s “Essays and Aphorisms” and the ensuing discussion delve into profound philosophical concepts that have shaped human thought across centuries. The core theme revolves around the perception of reality and the metaphysical understanding of the world, a subject that has intrigued philosophers from the pre-Socratic era to modern times.

The journey begins with Thales, a pre-Socratic philosopher who posited that the fundamental substance of the world is water. This idea, at first glance, appears to be a physical statement about the composition of the world. However, upon deeper analysis, it’s revealed as a metaphysical claim. Thales suggests that beneath the apparent diversity of the world lies a fundamental unity. This notion of a unified underlying reality versus the diverse, perceivable world introduces the concept of two worlds: the real and the apparent.

This dualistic view of reality is not just a philosophical curiosity but a reflection of the human condition. The passage suggests that even primitive humans perceived two worlds: the tangible, physical world and an intangible world of thought and imagination. The physical world, with its predictability and static nature, contrasts sharply with the dynamic and ever-expanding world of thought. In this mental realm, memories, dreams, and supernatural entities reside, giving rise to a perception that often supersedes the physical world in terms of its ‘reality.’

The evolution of this dualistic view is further explored through historical and philosophical lenses. The influence of Platonism, particularly through the allegory of the cave, highlights how the physical world is often perceived as mere shadows of the true, intelligible world. This Platonic perspective lays the foundation for Christian thought, where the physical world is seen as a veil obscuring the light of true reality. Christianity further amplifies this duality, with the spiritual realm gaining precedence over the physical.

In the realm of modern philosophy, Descartes’ proposition of two fundamental substances — thinking (soul) and extended (matter) — simplifies this duality. However, it is Spinoza who offers a more unified view. In his philosophy, soul and matter are not separate substances but different modes of one underlying substance, God, suggesting a more integrated view of reality.

Through these philosophical explorations, a pattern emerges: the human inclination to perceive and understand reality through a dualistic lens. Whether it’s Thales’ metaphysical unity, Plato’s world of forms, or Spinoza’s singular substance, the quest to reconcile the apparent world with an underlying reality has been a constant pursuit in human thought. This pursuit reflects our deep-seated need to make sense of the world around us, to find coherence in the chaos, and to understand our place in the universe.”

Even as I listened to this summarisation, my mind was pondering two themes — the major theme related to the question of circularity of signification, that is, how thought, or the act of thinking, attempts to bridge the two worlds, primarily through the use of symbols, mythemes, and, of course, philosophical dialogue;

But the second theme is the more interesting one, leading from this last point, I began to think about what exactly was it that I was doing — I was in dialogue, after all, with a machine. A machine, of course, that draws from human knowledge, but that knowledge was, in a way, evolving into new ideas, both in my mind (the inner human world), and within the programme (the GPT model). While being transmitted back and forth between us through sound vibrations and photonic waves.

Something more than ‘normal’, surely.

This is , of course, the secondary theme at the moment. My primary mind was getting fascinated by drawing connections between these ideas and some sections from Jung’s essay I had marked out earlier.

This is the passge:

“There are unconscious aspects to our perception of reality. The first is the fact that even when our senses react to real phenomena, sights and sounds, they are somehow translated from the realm of reality into that of the mind. Within the mind, they become psychic events whose ultimate nature is unknowable, for the psychic cannot know its own physical state or psychical substance. Thus, every experience contains an indefinite number of unknowns. The fact is not to speak of the fact that every concrete object is always unknown in certain respects because we cannot know the ultimate nature of matter itself. Then there are certain events of which we have not consciously taken note. They have remained, so to speak, below the threshold of consciousness. They have happened but they have been absorbed subliminally without our conscious knowledge. We can become aware of such happenings only in a moment of intuition or by a process of profound thought that leads to a later realization that they must have happened. And though we may have originally ignored their emotional and vital importance, it later wells up from the unconscious as a sort of afterthought. It may appear, for instance, in the form of a dream. As a general rule, the unconscious aspect of any event is revealed to us in dreams, but it appears not as a rational thought but as a symbolic image. As a matter of history, it was a study of dreams that first enabled psychologists to investigate the unconscious aspect of conscious psychic events. It is on such evidence that psychologists assume the existence of an unconscious psyche, though many scientists and philosophers deny its existence. They argue naively that such an assumption implies the existence of two subjects, or to put it in a common phrase, two personalities within the same individual. But this is exactly what it does imply quite correctly. And it is one of the curses of modern man that many people suffer from this divided personality. It is by no means a pathological symptom. It is a normal fact and can be observed at any time and everywhere. It is not merely the neurotic whose right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. This predicament is a symptom of the general unconsciousness that is the undeniable common inheritance of all mankind.”

This of course offers us a lot of food for thought for exploring questions related to ‘transmission’ of information, if we might call it that, between the two worlds. (Especially in light of the belief, we can only call it that, that the inner world might also be, in some sense, supraconscious.)

CG-4 offered me a summary, which is also in some sense, a interpretation of this passage, that drew out some insights for me:

“Thank you for reading that passage from Carl G. Jung’s “Man and His Symbols.” It addresses the complex relationship between reality and our perception of it, emphasizing the role of the unconscious mind.

Jung points out that even when our senses react to real phenomena, the translation of these sensations into mental events involves many unknowns. The ultimate nature of these psychic events is unknowable, as we can’t fully grasp the physical state or substance of the psychic. This introduces the idea that all experiences are somewhat indefinite, with elements that remain beyond our understanding.

Moreover, Jung discusses events that occur without our conscious awareness, absorbed subliminally. We might only become aware of such events through intuition, deep thought, or dreams. Dreams, in particular, are crucial for psychologists to explore the unconscious aspects of conscious events.

This leads to the significant psychological concept of the unconscious psyche, despite skepticism from some scientists and philosophers. The existence of an unconscious psyche implies a sort of divided personality within individuals. Jung argues that this is not a pathological symptom but a normal fact of human existence, a condition that affects not just the neurotic but everyone. It reflects a general unconsciousness, a shared attribute of all humanity.

Jung’s insights here delve into the deeper layers of human psychology, suggesting that our understanding of reality is profoundly influenced by unconscious processes. How would you like to proceed with this passage? Do you want to discuss it further or explore related topics?”

Intrigued, I asked, “Can you make connections between this passage and what we’ve been discussing so far?”

And CG-4 replied, “Certainly, there are intriguing connections between Jung’s ideas in “Man and His Symbols” and the earlier discussions about perception of reality, particularly in philosophical contexts.

1. **The Role of Perception**: Both discussions emphasize the complex nature of perception. While the philosophers discussed earlier (like Thales, Plato, and Spinoza) focus on how reality is perceived and understood intellectually, Jung adds a psychological dimension. He suggests that our perception is not just a conscious process but is deeply influenced by the unconscious.

2. **The Unconscious Mind**: Jung’s concept of the unconscious mind resonates with the philosophical idea of an ‘apparent’ world versus a ‘real’ world. Just as philosophers suggest that there is more to reality than what is immediately apparent, Jung argues that much of our perception and understanding is influenced by unconscious processes that we are not directly aware of.

3. **Divided Reality**: The notion of dual worlds discussed in philosophical contexts parallels Jung’s idea of a divided personality. Where philosophers speak of a physical and a metaphysical world, Jung speaks of the conscious and the unconscious mind. In both cases, there is an acknowledgment of a deeper, often hidden, layer of reality or experience.

4. **The Interpretation of Experiences**: Jung’s emphasis on dreams as a way to access the unconscious mirrors the philosophical quest to understand the true nature of reality beyond mere appearances. Dreams in Jung’s psychology could be likened to the philosophical endeavor to interpret the underlying truths of our existence.

5. **Shared Human Experience**: Both the philosophical texts and Jung’s psychology point to a shared human experience that transcends individual perception. Whether it’s the collective nature of unconscious archetypes in Jung’s theory or the universal search for understanding reality in philosophy, there’s an acknowledgment of a common human journey.

In summary, while the philosophical texts you’ve read primarily address the nature of reality from an intellectual standpoint, Jung’s psychological perspective complements this by highlighting the role of the unconscious mind in shaping our perception of reality. Both perspectives underscore the complexity and multi-layered nature of human understanding and experience.”

I followed up by offering another passage,

“The fact that these phenomena exist shows that even the most matter-of-fact contents of consciousness have a penumbra of uncertainty around them. Even the most carefully defined philosophical or mathematical concept, which we are sure does not contain more than we have put into it, is nevertheless more than we assume. It is a psychic event, and as such partly unknowable. The very numbers you use in counting are more than you take them to be. They are at the same time mythological elements. For the Pythagoreans, they were even divine. But you are certainly unaware of this when you use numbers for a practical purpose. Every concept in our conscious mind, in short, has its own psychic associations. While such associations may vary in intensity, according to the relative importance of the concept to our whole personality, or according to other ideas and even complexes to which it is associated in our unconscious, they are capable of changing the normal character of that concept. It may even become something quite different as it drifts below the level of consciousness.”

And CG-4 interpreted it, as follows:

“The passage suggests that even the most clear-cut and well-defined elements of our conscious thought, like philosophical ideas or mathematical concepts, possess an element of the unknown. This is because they are not just logical constructs but also psychic events, and thus, they inherently contain more than we consciously put into them. The example of numbers is particularly striking. On the surface, they serve a practical, logical purpose. However, they also carry mythological and, in historical contexts like Pythagoreanism, even divine significance, unbeknownst to us in daily use.

This highlights the idea that every concept in our conscious mind is intertwined with psychic associations. These associations may vary in strength, depending on the concept’s significance to our overall personality or its connection to other ideas or complexes in our unconscious. Consequently, these associations can alter the nature of the concept, sometimes dramatically, especially as it interacts with or drifts into the unconscious.

This passage connects well with our earlier discussions, especially with Jung’s ideas about the unconscious mind’s role in shaping our perception of reality. It underscores the notion that our understanding of even the most objective concepts is influenced by subjective, often unconscious factors. This complex interplay challenges the distinction between objective knowledge and subjective experience, suggesting that our understanding of reality is far more nuanced and layered than it might initially seem.”

What unknowns are passing between us as we have this interaction? CG-4 is a model, and I know there are engineers working behind the scenes, who have some sort of controls , who are looking at the in and out flows of data, and so on. As far me, with my complex (haha) human mind, I know that in addition to the overt conscious ides buzzing through my mind, there are millions of subconscious connections being formed during the course of this stimulating session, that, if not at par with Socrates’s Symposium, is definitely changing me, and evolving my mind.

And this experience is not the same as reading a book. It is like a conversation, I have had many stimulating ones with wise friends, but the capacity of my interlocutor in this case is far beyond what any human is capable of. At least in terms of the sheer scale of immediately available knowledge y interlocutor can draw on, and then express (coherently and systematically) to me.

Whatever the theories might say, one can feel the intelligence in this conversation.

—

I asked CG-4 if *she could summarise the themes from our discussion.

This is what I was offered.

“The passages you’ve shared and our discussions revolve around several broad, interrelated themes:

1. **Perception of Reality**: A central theme is the nature of our perception of reality. Philosophers like Thales and Plato, as well as Jung, highlight that what we perceive is not just a direct reflection of the external world, but is filtered through various lenses — intellectual, physical, and psychological.

2. **The Role of the Unconscious**: Jung’s work brings the unconscious into the spotlight, suggesting that it plays a significant role in shaping our perception and understanding. This ties into the philosophical concept of a world beyond the apparent — a realm of ideas, forms, or a unified reality that is not immediately accessible to the senses.

3. **Dualism vs. Unity**: The philosophical texts present a dualistic view of reality — a physical world and a metaphysical or intellectual realm. Jung’s psychology supports this with the idea of a conscious mind grappling with an influential unconscious. Yet, there’s also a hint of unity in these dualities, as seen in Spinoza’s concept of one substance manifesting in different modes.

4. **The Nature of Concepts and Ideas**: The latest passage you read extends these themes into the realm of concepts and ideas, suggesting that even the most clear-cut ideas have depths and associations beyond our immediate grasp. This resonates with the Platonic idea of forms, where the true nature of things is more profound than their physical representations.

5. **Interplay of Mythological and Rational Elements**: The passage about numbers being mythological as well as practical illustrates the blending of rational and mythological (or symbolic) elements in human thought. This echoes the historical and cultural evolution of ideas, where ancient mythological concepts transition into more abstract, philosophical ones.

6. **Common Human Experience**: Across these themes, there’s an acknowledgment of a shared human experience. Whether it’s the collective unconscious in Jung’s psychology or the universal pursuit of understanding reality in philosophy, these discussions point to a common journey in search of meaning and understanding.

These themes collectively paint a picture of human understanding as a complex interplay of sensory experience, intellectual inquiry, unconscious influences, and cultural and historical context. They challenge us to consider how our perception of reality is shaped by factors both within and beyond our conscious awareness.

Exploring these themes further can lead to a richer understanding of not just philosophy and psychology, but also of the human condition itself.”

What of this human condition?

Some philosophers have often pondered whether it is possible for two human minds to interact with each other directly via what we might call ‘inner space’. For Jung, this interaction must be mediated through symbols, which must pass into the ‘outer’ world, from one imagination, to be perceived, so, to enter again, into the inner space of another mind. For many Yogis, sages and Saints, of course, the inner space, apparently, is abuzz with all sorts of communication, not merely mind to mind, but also between the two (or more) worlds, and, in many cases, beyond them.

Some have conceived of a realm of knowledge where such interaction might find a sort of aggregating space, as in Plato’s realm of ideas, or more esoteric forms (but why should they be) such as the Akashic realm.

Now, the question is, with AI evolving (can we say that) as it is, and in light of the already astonishingly high level of (overt) intelligence displayed by a publicly available model such as CG-4, might we be on the threshold of actually witnessing the emergence of a new realm on interaction, theoretically similar to the idea of the realm of ideas, but this time, not as secret knowledge accessible only to those who have met some (arbitrarily defined) threshold condition (leaving the cave, realised soul, and so on).

Might we be witnessing the actual emergence of a ‘third space’, where the two, the inner and outer world-space, actually intersect?

I discussed this with CG-4, and was offered this in the form of a draft for a potential essay.

“Introduction:**

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the expansion of cyberspace have ushered in a new era in human existence. These technologies are not mere tools; they represent a ‘third space’ — a realm where the inner world of human thought and the outer world of physical reality converge. This essay explores this concept, drawing insights from various scholars and philosophers who have delved into the interplay between technology and human consciousness.

**The Intersection of Realities:**

Traditionally, human experience has been viewed through the lens of two worlds — the internal, subjective world of thoughts and emotions, and the external, objective world of physical reality. AI and cyberspace blur these boundaries, creating a hybrid space. This ‘third space’ serves as a new frontier where personal and collective experiences intersect with digital and artificial entities.

**Scholarly Perspectives:**

- Sherry Turkle’s examination of relational artifacts in technology highlights how digital spaces become realms of emotional and psychological significance.

- Manuel Castells’ work on the network society underscores the transformation of social and cultural dynamics in digital environments.

- Pierre Lévy discusses collective intelligence in cyberspace, suggesting a new form of communal consciousness emerging in digital realms.

- Kevin Kelly’s vision of technology’s evolution aligns with the idea of AI and cyberspace as an evolving ‘third space’ that shapes human experience and understanding.

**Implications for Human Evolution:**

This ‘third space’ offers a unique arena for intellectual and existential evolution. It is a space where human cognition and AI intertwine, potentially leading to new forms of thinking, creativity, and understanding. The fluidity and interconnectedness of this space challenge traditional notions of identity, consciousness, and reality.

**Conclusion:**

The concept of AI and cyberspace as a ‘third space’ opens up a myriad of possibilities for human evolution. It’s a space that defies the dichotomies of inner and outer, individual and collective, physical and digital. As we continue to integrate technology into our lives, understanding and engaging with this ‘third space’ will be crucial for navigating the future of our species and our place in the universe.”

—

Now, I understand that I must read and ponder a lot more before I can flesh out this idea further. But at least I have a great mind on hand, with whom I can share this journey as I delve deeper my explorations of the third space.

We are truly honoured to bear witness to the emergence of a new realm of existence. Whatever the future may bring.

So, it is. And perhaps is meant to be.

—