Everything is perfect
There is a definition for the word perfect:
”All-encompassing, lacking no part.”
”All-encompassing,” meaning containing everything. ”Nothing missing,” meaning including even the smallest things, features, and details. Perfection is therefore a whole. A perfect whole, complete, lacking nothing.
If you think about people and what kind of people they are, what could be perfect in terms of people?
A person is human. A person makes mistakes. A person is both good and bad. A person is then whole. A person then acts as a whole, as perfect. So that nothing is missing.
It is misleading to think that one only needs strengths or pleasant things to live. However, superiority and perfection do not only mean understanding and cherishing things that are practical for the individual, as if weaknesses or unpleasant things did not exist. If you think this way, you deny a whole part of yourself and are then indeed far from being perfect and whole. You are then only half a person. The more you try to be only good and strive for superiority, the more you feel bad about denying yourself. It is foolish to think that you cannot be weak, angry, sad, or make mistakes.
How could you even learn if you didn’t make mistakes? How could you know how to be strong if you don’t know what it’s like to be weak? The idea that you ”should” be perfect is insane. Every individual is perfect, and every individual has the things that they need to have at that moment. The moment you are in right now is perfect. Everything around you is exactly as it should be right now. Nothing is missing, so everything is perfect. The only thing that breaks this perfection is your own idea of what it should be.
Maybe there should be more? Maybe you don’t like something about yourself? Would it be good to have more? Could you be better for yourself?
The idea that you need something to become whole is pointless.
Only your own thoughts can create a crack in perfection, but there is always room to improve and develop. Even though everything is perfect, life and its small parts within the whole can still be refined to be even better.
The world has been perfect since its birth. Through billions of years and events, everything is here. Everyone has received a gift called life. Everyone has been given everything they need to live. Humans can breathe, observe, and feel. Humans can love and hate, make mistakes and learn. Humans can develop infinitely. Every human being is part of the same whole and perfection (Miettinen, 2019a).
The foundations of antiquity
In ancient philosophy, reality was seen as layered and hierarchical. Mathematics and geometry were also very strongly involved in defining reality. Even today, our observations and the movements of objects we see in everyday life originate from Euclidean geometry.
In philosophy, since Plato and Aristotle, a distinction has been made between individual beings and their characteristics or attributes. According to Plato, neither of these were fundamentally real: in his view, ideas are essentially real. Eternal and unchanging, ideals, things that exist outside the realm of experience. The everyday things we observe in our world are therefore not as real as ideas. Aristotle rejected this view and argued that individual entities are the basic units of reality, calling them substances. In his view, individuals were fundamental beings. Substances are not dependent on attributes, he thought. For example, the existence of shapes, sizes, and colors depends on the things whose shapes, sizes, and colors they are. (Crane, 2004, p. 11)
Plato
Plato can be considered a central figure in ancient Greek philosophy. His thinking revolves largely around human knowledge. According to Plato, true knowledge is both easy and surprisingly difficult to attain. According to his ideal of perfect and infallible knowledge, it is precisely in mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that it is possible to attain knowledge in accordance with this ideal, emphasizing that most of the world we perceive in our everyday lives simply cannot be the subject of reliable knowledge. The central themes in Plato’s thinking are therefore ideas and the soul’s kinship with them, and the world that we perceive but cannot obtain knowledge about. (Morton, p. 76)
Plato and mathematics
Above Plato’s door, it is said to have read: ”Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here.” This speaks to his passion for mathematical thinking. His metaphysics was based on mathematical objects, which are timeless, intellectual, real, but also behind the objects of our everyday sensory world. Plato defined two worlds: the world of phenomena and the world of ideas. As he thought, only the world of ideas can represent reality and, through it, real knowledge. The world of ideas contains only intellectual and abstract entities and does not include anything perceptible, physical, or material. According to Plato, true knowledge therefore focuses on what is unchanging and always the same. (Plato and mathematics.) As Laurikainen (1980) stated in his book, invariant. Plato has placed mathematical objects in a special position between these two worlds. They are neither perceptible nor physical, but neither are they the highest ideas. Mathematical objects are unchanging, timeless, and universal, and they are dealt with using figures and symbols. They act as a bridge between the visible world and the perfect world of ideas. For Plato, mathematics also serves as an essential tool for guiding the soul toward truth. According to him, practicing mathematics detaches the mind from the changing objects of the sensory world and directs it toward structure and order, which are immutable. Geometry, among other things, is strongly associated with this. In this way, mathematics serves as an ontological and epistemological model of reality. This highlights the central role of mathematics and geometry in Plato’s theory of ideas. They are not merely technical or practical disciplines, but factors that express the structure of reality and guide the thinker towards a metaphysical understanding. The order of the visible world also reflects mathematical order. The sensory world is changeable and imperfect, but the world behind it is mathematical and rational (Aydin, 2025).
According to Plato, it is possible to learn the truths of the world of ideas through reason. According to his conception of the soul, all knowledge of the world of ideas already exists in the human soul, because the soul is eternal and immortal. There is nothing that the soul does not already know, but upon entering the body, this knowledge is simply forgotten. Therefore, nothing is new; rather, the soul recalls or ”learns” again the things it already knows. (University of Helsinki, n.d.)
Aristotle
According to Aristotle, real entities were properties. This view means that we do not examine beings thoroughly enough if we only see individual objects, such as trees, houses, or people. These beings also contain properties that should be brought out. In other words, things do not have properties because we classify these properties, but we classify these properties because these things have these properties. For example, a property such as weight is called universal because it is a common or universal feature (again, an idea; an invariant). Universals, on the other hand, are the opposites of individual people or objects, particulars. In philosophy, the word substance was used in different contexts, but Aristotle was the first to use it to describe individual beings, such as human beings, in this sense. According to Aristotle, an individual substance is a combination of formless matter and the form that organizes it. Thus, Aristotle’s view of beings differed significantly from Plato’s way of thinking. Aristotle believed that the form of a substance is what makes the substance itself. Thus, form becomes the essence of substance. (Crane, T., 2004, pp. 13, 14)
Soul
According to Aristotle, it is the soul that gives form to the body. Although he believed that all living beings have a soul, they are not all the same. The characteristics of the nutritive soul include growth and reproduction, the sensations and perceptions of the sensitive soul, and the rational soul is responsible for reasoning and thinking. Thus, plants have only a nutritive soul, while animals have both a nutritive and a sensitive soul. Humans also have a rational soul. These three can therefore be considered forms or guiding principles for the characteristic actions of living beings. Aristotle thus explained the functioning of the body on the basis of the soul. Aristotle’s view also included a clear hierarchy. Each higher faculty includes the lower ones. (Crane, T. 2004, p.14)
These two thinkers have had a very strong influence on Western philosophy as a whole. Hypercubism consciously builds on the foundations of their thinking.
Hypercubism as a continuum
As we can see, the philosophy of hypercubism has many similarities with both Plato’s views and Aristotle’s ways of thinking.
Hypercubism’s geometric representation of dimensions and their interaction is directly in line with Plato’s geometric ideals. Plato’s idea of the soul also has many similarities with the 5D consciousness thinking of hypercubism. The most important thing in hypercubism is to find the ”truth of structures,” which resonates completely with the idea of the world of ideas. Hypercubism sees that in order to find the structural truths behind visible reality, one must deconstruct perception through self-examination ( ) and reconstruct it truthfully according to the rules and frameworks of reality. Hypercubism also understands that the world visible to the eye is not real reality, but that the truth of reality lies in structures and the regularity of the third dimension. Plato’s idea of the soul also resonates strongly with the idea that the soul is part of a person from birth to death, as if learning anew. If we were to think that the soul, which in hypercubism we see as 5D consciousness, remembers nothing when it enters or leaves the 3D world, this would explain the connection between memories and bodily and nervous mechanisms. In this case, consciousness could indeed be considered a pure form of being.
On the other hand, Aristotle’s view of the hierarchy of souls also resonates very strongly with the 3D-4D-5D thinking of Hypercubism. We could compare them as follows:
Nutritive soul = The physical manifestation of an individual in the third dimension
Sensitive soul = An individual’s mind and thoughts in the fourth dimension
Rational soul = An individual’s consciousness in the fifth dimension
Furthermore, Aristotle’s hierarchy of souls, which states that a higher soul always contains the previous one, is exactly the same idea as the hierarchy of dimensions in Hypercubism.
In addition, while Plato’s real ideas exist in a perfect world of ideas, which Hypercubism also believes in, Hypercubism also sees Aristotle’s concept of attributes. When studying reality, it is also necessary to distinguish and take into account the different properties of things and factors in order to obtain as comprehensive a picture as possible of the things being studied.
One could therefore think of Plato’s ideas and Aristotle’s views as forming a kind of synthesis in Hypercubism. Hypercubism does not exclude either view or consider either to be in any way inferior; rather, both ancient Greek thinkers were highly competent in their own perspectives.