Plato: A Theory of Forms

[Nick_A]

Both the reality of fractions and the experience of color helps me to appreciate Plato's theory of forms. Of course this is superficial but it helps in understanding what is meant by a "conscious human perspective" that transcends the automatic expression of opinions.

The number ONE can be divided into fractions and these fractions can be divided into more fractions. But can fractions exist without the ONE from which they are defined? Obviously not. Where ONE is the form, fractions are its lawful devolutions.

Yes, but my point is that "form" is an illegitimate word to use here. The word "form" is an attribute. The number one is a unit. Units do not have attributes. They have no size, color, shape, form, anything. They don't even actually exist. What you write on paper for a unit is a symbol that the unit represents not actually the unit itself. That is the whole point of units. If they did have attributes then they would only be able to count some things but not others.

It wouldn't make sense to change the name of Plato's theory to "Theory of Units," because that is already called mathematics. Plato is misusing the word "Form". As a result, people went on for centuries believing or trying to understand a higher reality that had form.

As I see it, Plato's world of forms is the world of ideas or potentials for forms to manifest through the interactions of universal laws on lawful levels of reality.

Consider the difference between no-thing and nothing as the boundries of creation. No-thing is consciousness without content. Everything exists within no-thing as potential. Nothing on the other hand is just the absence of content and potential

I think the idea of the world of forms in contrast to their diversity of manifestations is precise.

[JHuber]

As I see it, Plato's world of forms is the world of ideas or potentials for forms to manifest through the interactions of universal laws on lawful levels of reality.

Consider the difference between no-thing and nothing as the boundries of creation. No-thing is consciousness without content. Everything exists within no-thing as potential. Nothing on the other hand is just the absence of content and potential

I think the idea of the world of forms in contrast to their diversity of manifestations is precise.

I like your distinction between no-thing and nothing. In math, it is better to think of zero as not one instead of nothing. In this way, the empty set exists.

Wouldn't you agree that Plato's Theory of Forms would be better named Theory of Subjects? That would, as you say, conform with the world of ideas or potentials for forms to manifest through the interactions of universal laws on lawful levels of reality. Otherwise, for example, a cloud wouldn't exist as its form is always changing but as a subject it would.

[Nick_A]

As I see it, Plato's world of forms is the world of ideas or potentials for forms to manifest through the interactions of universal laws on lawful levels of reality.

Consider the difference between no-thing and nothing as the boundries of creation. No-thing is consciousness without content. Everything exists within no-thing as potential. Nothing on the other hand is just the absence of content and potential

I think the idea of the world of forms in contrast to their diversity of manifestations is precise.

I like your distinction between no-thing and nothing. In math, it is better to think of zero as not one instead of nothing. In this way, the empty set exists.

Wouldn't you agree that Plato's Theory of Forms would be better named Theory of Subjects? That would, as you say, conform with the world of ideas or potentials for forms to manifest through the interactions of universal laws on lawful levels of reality. Otherwise, for example, a cloud wouldn't exist as its form is always changing but as a subject it would.

As I understand it, the domain of the forms is the domain of the "Good." Forms initiate with the "Good" and can not be considered objective reality. However what we regrd as forms such as chairness and clouds for example initiate with the level of reality called "sun." From this point of view, their ideal forms are defined subjectively by our senses without an objective reality.

For me, your world of subjets initiates with the sun while the World of Forms suggested by Plato initiates with the highest level of reality or the "Good."

[JHuber]

As I understand it, the domain of the forms is the domain of the "Good." Forms initiate with the "Good" and can not be considered objective reality. However what we regard as forms such as chairness and clouds for example initiate with the level of reality called "sun." From this point of view, their ideal forms are defined subjectively by our senses without an objective reality.

For me, your world of subjects initiates with the sun while the World of Forms suggested by Plato initiates with the highest level of reality or the "Good."

I see. I was thrown off because as a computer programmer forms are considered as attributes. If I were to make a program of something like a store, everything in the store would be an object. Each object has their attributes, one of them being their form. In computer science everything is an object. This term is used because objects have no emotional ramifications. In the real world everything and everyone is a subject. It is ironic that philosophy tells us that the sciences should be compatible with each other yet it is philosophy that gives us, "The Theory of Forms." I believe philosophy should give us, "The Theory of Subjects," but it doesn't.

Furthermore, if I may add, it is important in philosophy to define one's terms. Plato never actually defined the highest level of reality or the "Good." I invented a philosophy of subjects and relations that defines good as, "what increases or facilitates a relation." Everything philosophical needs to be defined in terms of subjects and relations because the fact that a relation is composed of subjects is an absolute truth.

http://subjectsandrelations.com

[Nick_A]

As I understand it, the domain of the forms is the domain of the "Good." Forms initiate with the "Good" and can not be considered objective reality. However what we regard as forms such as chairness and clouds for example initiate with the level of reality called "sun." From this point of view, their ideal forms are defined subjectively by our senses without an objective reality.

For me, your world of subjects initiates with the sun while the World of Forms suggested by Plato initiates with the highest level of reality or the "Good."

I see. I was thrown off because as a computer programmer forms are considered as attributes. If I were to make a program of something like a store, everything in the store would be an object. Each object has their attributes, one of them being their form. In computer science everything is an object. This term is used because objects have no emotional ramifications. In the real world everything and everyone is a subject. It is ironic that philosophy tells us that the sciences should be compatible with each other yet it is philosophy that gives us, "The Theory of Forms." I believe philosophy should give us, "The Theory of Subjects," but it doesn't.

Furthermore, if I may add, it is important in philosophy to define one's terms. Plato never actually defined the highest level of reality or the "Good." I invented a philosophy of subjects and relations that defines good as, "what increases or facilitates a relation." Everything philosophical needs to be defined in terms of subjects and relations because the fact that a relation is composed of subjects is an absolute truth.

http://subjectsandrelations.com

“Algebra and money are essentially levelers the first intellectually, the second effectively.” Simone Weil

My interest is in the eventual unification of science and religion which I believe to be essential if humanity is to survive its scientific advances including the ability to make more efficient and catastrophic war.

Simone Weil is one of those rare ones who had the heart open to objective quality and the complimentary mind open to the benefits of science and math. This is why she is called the "New Saint:" the saint with a mind.

Science looks at everything as subjects you describe. It doesn't deal with the objective quality of a subject or even concerned with this distinction. There is no scale of quality for algebra for example but just the relationships between symbols

Science as a whole is unconcerned with the "Great Chain of Being" which describes a scale of objective quality or the quality of "being" itself defining materiality.

There are a minority of scientists who are open to the importance of opening to objective quality providing the human perspective within which scientific facts have their human place.

For example I am not a trained scientist but aware enough of this idea of how quantity relates to quality to at least have an idea of what Mark Shiffman writes. He quotes Simone at the beginning and elaborates on this idea.

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4097

Joseph Cosgrove elaborates on Simone Weil's critique of modern science.

http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cg ... osophy_fac

Once I understood this idea of levels of reality and objective quality being defined by the relative quality of Being, Plato's idea of the Good became the same as the Tao or Ayn Sof; a Source outside of time and space responsible for the universal laws manifesting as the continuing process of creation reflecting relative qualities of being.

I can appreciate your idea of subject but Plato gives it meaning within a scale of being that defines its objective quality.

[JHuber]

My interest is in the eventual unification of science and religion which I believe to be essential if humanity is to survive its scientific advances including the ability to make more efficient and catastrophic war.

I absolutely agree with you. How refreshing it is for me to read this. One guy tried to convince me that we weren't at war and that the terrorists are simply trying to be loud. Another said that it was the media and big money responsible for it all. Still another thought that political leaders cause these wars for political gain and to deflect their inadequacies. Sometime I wonder if these people ever even watch the news.

Once I understood this idea of levels of reality and objective quality being defined by the relative quality of Being, Plato's idea of the Good became the same as the Tao or Ayn Sof; a Source outside of time and space responsible for the universal laws manifesting as the continuing process of creation reflecting relative qualities of being.

I can appreciate your idea of subject but Plato gives it meaning within a scale of being that defines its objective quality.

I did read those links you provided, I only deleted them here in your quote to save space. I hold a degree in physics so I understand what was written there quite well. However, it's not the understanding of math and physics that is the problem, the problem is with philosophy. Units and subjects are both abstract terms but units have no attributes or properties. In this way they don't mix, otherwise they are interchangeable. Philosophy doesn't tell you that but this is what these people are trying to say. Also, instead of thinking in terms of the trinity (father, son and holy spirit), it makes more sense to think in terms of subjects, relations and happiness instead. Family members are called relatives because of this system; therefore, the theory of evolution is not supposed to be an issue. Yet it is in this world because philosophy neglected to solve subjects and relations theory. As it applies to all subjects, it is an objective worldview. Even the terrorists are in this system.

[Nick_A]

Hi jhuber

I absolutely agree with you. How refreshing it is for me to read this. One guy tried to convince me that we weren't at war and that the terrorists are simply trying to be loud. Another said that it was the media and big money responsible for it all. Still another thought that political leaders cause these wars for political gain and to deflect their inadequacies. Sometime I wonder if these people ever even watch the news.

Have you noticed how often the concept of opinions themselves becomes a desirable goal? The idea of striving towards "knowledge" that transcends opinions is seen as elitist and naive. How dare someone seek a quality of truth that greater than the battle of conditioned opinions?

This is the preface from Jacob Needleman's book "The Heart of Philosophy

http://jacobneedleman.com/blog/?p=299

It concludes with:

............A word about the work with teen-agers that is portrayed in Part II this book: in the last several years our society has been profoundly shaken by the despair of our young people and its manifestation in suicide, self-inflicted illness, widespread clinical depression and even mass murder. Being the most sensitive and vulnerable members of our culture, moving in the unmapped realm between childhood and adulthood, with the torrents of new sexual energy pouring through them, and trapped without a guide in the labyrinthine alleys of moral guilt and incomprehensible permissiveness—alone and lonely whether in their empty rooms or roaming the streets in the nightmarish camaraderie of the gang, taking their ideals and hopes and dreams from violence and pornography whether from the flickering surface of television or pumped into their blood by orgasmic music of rage, resentment and self-pity, they, our children, are more clearly than even we ourselves are or can imagine, starving to death from the loss of meaning that is at the root of our culture’s political, material and spiritual crisis. Much, very much, is needed from us in order to help them. But what, exactly, can we do? Looking back on my experiment of teaching philosophy to high-school students, I am more than ever convinced that we can and must bring back the ideals of the search for understanding to our children—through a new and regenerated vision of the purpose of art, music, scientific exploration, mathematics and real philosophy. This is not the kind of search that aims only for a conclusion in new policies, opinions, doctrines, or even concepts, but the kind that inaugurates one into a life of questioning and seeking, not as a means to an end, but as the very means of life itself.

The need to act in service to one’s neighbor and the need to understand life and reality are the most essential elements in the make-up of a human being. Everything else–biology, material needs, sexual desire, social acceptance–all of that is secondary, and is meant to serve the fundamental transcendent impulses of love and understanding that comprise the true definition of the word human. That is what our children are telling us. Can we hear them?

Secularism features the battle over opinions and self importance since by definition there is nothing higher. The disrespect for and the sanctioned loss of the natural search for "understanding" and the human connection with the "higher" has led to exactly what Prof. Needleman describes. I may be in a minority that appreciates what people of higher vision add to culture but it is a minority I am proud to be a part of.

I did read those links you provided, I only deleted them here in your quote to save space. I hold a degree in physics so I understand what was written there quite well. However, it's not the understanding of math and physics that is the problem, the problem is with philosophy. Units and subjects are both abstract terms but units have no attributes or properties. In this way they don't mix, otherwise they are interchangeable. Philosophy doesn't tell you that but this is what these people are trying to say. Also, instead of thinking in terms of the trinity (father, son and holy spirit), it makes more sense to think in terms of subjects, relations and happiness instead. Family members are called relatives because of this system; therefore, the theory of evolution is not supposed to be an issue. Yet it is in this world because philosophy neglected to solve subjects and relations theory. As it applies to all subjects, it is an objective worldview. Even the terrorists are in this system.

I believe your degree in physics will enable you to appreciate Basarab Nicolescu's description of the "Law of the INCLUDED middle" that contrasts the normal Law of the EXCLUDED middle.

The Law of the INCLUDED middle reveals the essence of objective quality. When we only compare on one level of reality then all that is necessary is the EXCLUDED middle and subjects only have subjective value. But beginning to appreciate a form, a middle that reconciles the extremes of heat and cold for example, opens the door to a new form of contemplation: the workings of a trinity. The Law of the INCLUDED middle allows for a realm of knowledge that reconciles opinions. Anyhow, enjoy

http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/c ... /b12c3.htm

[JHuber]

Yes, I did enjoy Basarab Nicolecu's article. It is probably the deepest, most metaphysical piece I've ever read. I sincerely thank you for providing it here. I'll certainly need to give it more thought but, if you are interested, I can attempt a brief metaphysical expose based on subjects and relations here.

What I found particularly interesting was this, "The Gödelian structure of the unity of levels of Reality associated with the logic of the included middle implies that it is impossible to construct a complete theory for describing the passage from one level to the other and, a fortiori, for describing the unity of levels of Reality."

Levels are relations. Relations are composed of subjects. Actually, relations can be composed of objects or subjects but objects have no emotional ramifications. The physical universe, quantum mechanics up to galaxy clusters, are objects. People, animals, and all living things that experience hunger have emotional ramifications and are thus subjects. Intelligence and conversation also have emotional ramifications, they are subjects as well. These subjects are composed of the physical universe, objects, so it makes no sense to think of the universe as object/relation, but of subject/relation.

In its pure, abstract form what is between subject and relation is combination. If subjects combine they form a relation and when relations separate they form subjects. As humans, we know that happiness is the same thing as combination. Birth (combination) is happiness and death (separation) is unhappiness. Of course happiness is actually more complicated than that. There are five types of happiness. Presented already is the first type, primary happiness. Secondary happiness is the growth of an existing relation for example, faster, higher, greater, etc. More and less apply with secondary happiness as do all other relative levels. The third type of happiness is back and forth. Such a dynamic is a higher dimension than the first two. There are also leverage happiness and contentment happiness which are actually special cases of the second type. An example of leverage happiness is Three Stooges humor and an example of contentment happiness is just plain being happy. All the other emotions stems from this.

A subject given to a relation is extrinsic. The subjects in a relation are intrinsic. These are leagues, not levels. It is what we mean by changing the subject as in a conversation. Right is if a subject is within an extrinsic subject, wrong is if is not. Possession is the inverse of right. We have a right to what we possess. All intrinsic subjects are related, also known as relevant.

Intrinsic subjects can not be related to extrinsic subjects. If this were to occur a new extrinsic subject would instantly be created. Also, related subjects can not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects can not separate. These two axioms form the basis for objective morality.

Ok, if you're not laughing too hard by now I'll get into the metaphysics of this. If one understands the physical universe, quantum mechanics and galaxy clusters, it's all the same thing. The protons in the nucleus are in energy levels, the electrons orbiting them are in energy levels, the chemicals caused by their bonding are in energy levels (acidity for example), planets orbit suns and suns orbit black holes, etc. The trick is to relate this to the five types of combination as so:

Primary extrinsic - gravity
Primary intrinsic - charge
Secondary - transmutation (rising/lowering of an energy state)
Leverage - light
Contentment - inertia
Third type (tertiary) - heat (everything vibrates)

In this way, the universe makes sense. Not just the physical universe but the non-physical universe as well. All of what one sees in matter are the electrons and they are held by charge. When they change energy levels they leverage other electrons which is light, what we see. As light has a fixed velocity, everything we see actually was in the past. Charge has to exist as a bipole because it is intrinsic. Intrinsic subjects are related to each other, relevant. Related subjects can not combine (they are already combined) which is why like charges must repel. Otherwise there is no relation to be made. Alternatively, gravity has to exist attracting all mass because it is extrinsic. All the planets and galaxies are held by gravity. Gravity can't be a repulsive force otherwise a different universe (extrinsic subject) would have to exist.

Physics tells us how the universe works but it doesn't tell us why. All of it boils down to the basic operations of combination and separation. Combinations of units is math, combinations of objects is engineering, combinations of subjects is (supposed to be) philosophy.

[Nick_A]

Yes, I did enjoy Basarab Nicolecu's article. It is probably the deepest, most metaphysical piece I've ever read. I sincerely thank you for providing it here. I'll certainly need to give it more thought but, if you are interested, I can attempt a brief metaphysical expose based on subjects and relations here.

What I found particularly interesting was this, "The Gödelian structure of the unity of levels of Reality associated with the logic of the included middle implies that it is impossible to construct a complete theory for describing the passage from one level to the other and, a fortiori, for describing the unity of levels of Reality."

Levels are relations. Relations are composed of subjects. Actually, relations can be composed of objects or subjects but objects have no emotional ramifications. The physical universe, quantum mechanics up to galaxy clusters, are objects. People, animals, and all living things that experience hunger have emotional ramifications and are thus subjects. Intelligence and conversation also have emotional ramifications, they are subjects as well. These subjects are composed of the physical universe, objects, so it makes no sense to think of the universe as object/relation, but of subject/relation.

In its pure, abstract form what is between subject and relation is combination. If subjects combine they form a relation and when relations separate they form subjects. As humans, we know that happiness is the same thing as combination. Birth (combination) is happiness and death (separation) is unhappiness. Of course happiness is actually more complicated than that. There are five types of happiness. Presented already is the first type, primary happiness. Secondary happiness is the growth of an existing relation for example, faster, higher, greater, etc. More and less apply with secondary happiness as do all other relative levels. The third type of happiness is back and forth. Such a dynamic is a higher dimension than the first two. There are also leverage happiness and contentment happiness which are actually special cases of the second type. An example of leverage happiness is Three Stooges humor and an example of contentment happiness is just plain being happy. All the other emotions stems from this.

A subject given to a relation is extrinsic. The subjects in a relation are intrinsic. These are leagues, not levels. It is what we mean by changing the subject as in a conversation. Right is if a subject is within an extrinsic subject, wrong is if is not. Possession is the inverse of right. We have a right to what we possess. All intrinsic subjects are related, also known as relevant.

Intrinsic subjects can not be related to extrinsic subjects. If this were to occur a new extrinsic subject would instantly be created. Also, related subjects can not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects can not separate. These two axioms form the basis for objective morality.

Ok, if you're not laughing too hard by now I'll get into the metaphysics of this. If one understands the physical universe, quantum mechanics and galaxy clusters, it's all the same thing. The protons in the nucleus are in energy levels, the electrons orbiting them are in energy levels, the chemicals caused by their bonding are in energy levels (acidity for example), planets orbit suns and suns orbit black holes, etc. The trick is to relate this to the five types of combination as so:

Primary extrinsic - gravity
Primary intrinsic - charge
Secondary - transmutation (rising/lowering of an energy state)
Leverage - light
Contentment - inertia
Third type (tertiary) - heat (everything vibrates)

In this way, the universe makes sense. Not just the physical universe but the non-physical universe as well. All of what one sees in matter are the electrons and they are held by charge. When they change energy levels they leverage other electrons which is light, what we see. As light has a fixed velocity, everything we see actually was in the past. Charge has to exist as a bipole because it is intrinsic. Intrinsic subjects are related to each other, relevant. Related subjects can not combine (they are already combined) which is why like charges must repel. Otherwise there is no relation to be made. Alternatively, gravity has to exist attracting all mass because it is extrinsic. All the planets and galaxies are held by gravity. Gravity can't be a repulsive force otherwise a different universe (extrinsic subject) would have to exist.

Physics tells us how the universe works but it doesn't tell us why. All of it boils down to the basic operations of combination and separation. Combinations of units is math, combinations of objects is engineering, combinations of subjects is (supposed to be) philosophy.

Meaningful post. I see you are open to this idea of levels of reality.

Physics tells us how the universe works but it doesn't tell us why. All of it boils down to the basic operations of combination and separation. Combinations of units is math, combinations of objects is engineering, combinations of subjects is (supposed to be) philosophy.

I am attracted to the potential for uniting the how and the why and I think that levels of reality revealing the complimentary flows of life forces within the processes of involution and evolution will be an important concept in their unification.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found--expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality-- in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil....Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

Typical Simone. She expresses in her typical laconic fashion a quality of undersanding shared with those like Einstein. it is popular in modern times to believe that science will eventually disprove a "Source." She along with a relatively small minority, believe science will serve to reveal it and the "why" associated with it.

It seems that for some reason there have always been those open to levels of reality and others closed to it. Plato's theory of forms requires being open to at least two levels of reality. I never could understand why it appears obvious to some and absurd to others. It is a question for the psychology of "being" which has been largely abandoned in favor of the study of behaviorism. If humanity does make progress in this unification I believe it will be the result of those like Simone and Basarab Nicolescu with a quality of heart and mind who understand the how and the why as necessary and complimentary for a healthy free society to flourish.

[MJA]

Thomas Jefferson and I think Plato was nuts.

=

[Nick_A]

Thomas Jefferson and I think Plato was nuts.

=

Thomas Jefferson was a practical man and asture enough to know that Plato's Republic was an impossibility. That is the point. Once we realize it is an impossiblity the question becomes why it is so and invites contemplation of the fallen human condition we call normalcy.

America was founded on the recognition of the fallen human condition and providing the best means to cope with it.

[MJA]

America was founded on independence but it didn't last long, we created our own government and lost our freedom again.
Self-imprisoned.

I think its time for another evolution, don't you?

=
I do like Plato's cave story but unlike Plato I think shadows are real too.

[JHuber]

It seems that for some reason there have always been those open to levels of reality and others closed to it. Plato's theory of forms requires being open to at least two levels of reality. I never could understand why it appears obvious to some and absurd to others. It is a question for the psychology of "being" which has been largely abandoned in favor of the study of behaviorism. If humanity does make progress in this unification I believe it will be the result of those like Simone and Basarab Nicolescu with a quality of heart and mind who understand the how and the why as necessary and complimentary for a healthy free society to flourish.

In Basarab Nicolescu's article it says this:

We can distinguish three major aspects of Nature in accordance with the transdisciplinary model of Reality:

(1) Objective Nature , which is connected with the natural properties of the transdisciplinary Object; objective Nature is subject to subjective objectivity. This objectivity is subjective to the extent that the levels of Reality are connected to levels of perception. Nevertheless emphasis here is on objectivity, to the extent to which the methodology employed is that of science.

2) Subjective Nature , which is connected with the natural properties of the transdisciplinary Subject; subjective Nature is subject to objective subjectivity . This subjectivity is objective to the extent that the levels of perception are connected to levels of Reality. Nevertheless, emphasis here is on subjectivity, to the extent to which the methodology is employed is that of the ancient science of being, which crosses all the traditions and religions of the world.

3) Trans-Nature , which is connected with a similarity in Nature -- a veritable communion -- which exists between the transdisciplinary Object and the transdisciplinary Subject. Trans-Nature concerns the domain of the sacred. It cannot be approached without considering the other two aspects of Nature at the same time.

In my previous post I had:

Primary extrinsic - gravity
Primary intrinsic - charge
Secondary - transmutation (rising/lowering of an energy state)
Leverage - light
Contentment - inertia
Third type (tertiary) - heat (everything vibrates)

Although I probably should have worded this differently but the analogy is there.
In objective nature, almost all that exists is gravity, charge, transmutation, light, inertia and heat. Those five entities explain all of objective nature that we know of in our macroscopic world. (There are also the strong and weak forces, and also dark matter but those are beyond my ability to reconcile here.) In subjective nature, all that exists are the five different types of happiness: primary, secondary, tertiary, leverage and contentment. There are no others.

I didn't arrive at this conclusion intentionally. I don't believe it is coincidence either. If it is not coincidence then this is where we should look for Trans-Nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The thing I have just come to realize about Plato is that he is actually describing the workings of the human mind rather than giving an account of two worlds.
The first account we get from Plato is how the world actually is and his second is how the world of Forms mirrors the mind working in the real world.
In other words, the ideal world is just the mind doing its usual unification processing. While the world of Forms is 'really real' for Plato in fact it is just a construct of the mind.

I agree with the above.

I think Plato intuitively knew something, but lack the precision of the workings of the inner mind, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, and the likes, to present a clearer picture.

To Plato, Forms (should be small f) are more real than phenomenon. The Hindus were saying that long ago before Plato, i.e. the concept of Maya and all phenomenons are illusions and the real exist underlying and beyond these illusions.
Incidentally, it is claimed that the early Greeks were influenced by some forms of 'Hinduism'.

Kant later asserted that there is no such thing as an inherent permanent thing-in-itself and phenomenon are subject-interdependent. Kant categories, imo, are reconciliable (not totally) to Plato's Form is some ways.

If phenomena 'out there' are not real (note Meno's), what is more real is what the brain and mind are doing and processing in consensus within humanity.

Setting aside physical objects, note non-gold based currencies, share premium (excluding NTA) of the stock exchange and commercial goodwill. These 'forms' held in the individual and collective minds are actually traded and has objective values. While they are abstract, they are objectively real and are reflected in currencies, share certificates, etc.

Similarly, the physical objects are also represented by a 'form' that is held in the individual and collective mind on a intersubjective basis.

While Plato may have thought these forms are fixed, the actual forms are dynamic but they change slowly over time and with the consensus within humanity.

Falsifiablity of the theory: if there are no humans on Earth, there will be no physical objects, currencies, stock prices, commercial goodwill, etc. and no forms held in the mind of the individual and the collective.

No wonder someone said that Western philosophy was footnotes to Plato.

Alfred North Whitehead

[Thundril]

In objective nature, almost all that exists is gravity, charge, transmutation, light, inertia and heat. Those five entities explain all of objective nature that we know of in our macroscopic world. (There are also the strong and weak forces, and also dark matter but those are beyond my ability to reconcile here.)

Hi, JHuber!
I have been following this thread with some interest spiced with a healthy skepticism In what way do you think 'These five entities' explain all of objective nature that we know of?
(actually you list six entities (I counted em). Was one of then included by accident?If so, which one)
Unlike yourself, I don't hold a degree in physics (actually I have been a construction worker since age 15), but I am aware that, in modern science, gravity and inertia are unified in GR, light and heat are merely different wavelenths of electromagnetism, charge is likewise a manifestation of the same electrical energy, and at high energies the weak force is unified with electromagnetism as the 'electroweak' force. So I'm not sure how you can make a list of five 'entities' corresponding to your five levels; or indeed why you would want to.
I am interested in your inclusion of 'transmutation' in the list. Do you really consider transmutation an entity, in the same sense as the others,, or is this perhaps the accidentally included sixth word in your list of 'These five...?
Does transmutation, in your scenario, bear any relation, or make any reference, to the interchangability of, for example, mass/energy, position/momentum, time/space?
I'm not trying to nit-pick here, JHuber. Since reading Capra's Tao of Physics back in the '70's, I have been I quite intrigued by the idea of reuniting physics and metaphysics. I just have this thing about clarity.,