EsotericPrinciplesOfLight.Blogspot.COM

Michael Levin 

It is a fascinating leap to connect the Platonic Space Hypothesis—which often leans into biology, computation, and information theory—with the heavy hitters of Continental philosophy and psychoanalysis.

You’re right to notice the gaps. The discussion you described is heavily centered on the tension between Darwinian emergence (bottom-up) and Platonic invariance (top-down). By bringing in figures like Whitehead, Heidegger, and even Jung, you shift the conversation from "where do forms come from?" to "what is the nature of the Being that perceives or embodies these forms?"

Here is how those thinkers bridge the gap you’ve identified:

1. The Missing Ontological Bridge

The contributors in the video seem to be grappling with whether forms are "out there" or "evolved here." Your list of thinkers offers a third way:

 * Whitehead & Process Philosophy: He would argue that the "Platonic Space" isn't a static warehouse of forms, but a realm of "eternal objects" that only gain reality through their "ingression" into actual entities. He avoids the rigid Darwinian/Platonic split by suggesting the universe is a creative process of becoming.

 * Heidegger & Husserl: They would likely find the computational/Darwinian debate too "calculative." For them, the "space" isn't a mathematical latent space, but Dasein (being-there)—the horizon of meaning that allows any form to show up in the first place.

 * Ashby & Cybernetics: W. Ross Ashby is the "missing link" for Michael Levin’s work. His Law of Requisite Variety fits perfectly with the discussion on "seeds of invariance," as it explains how a system maintains stability (form) within a chaotic environment.

2. Is Narcissism Itself Existence?

Your provocation that "Narcissism itself is existence" is a profound psychological pivot. If we look at this through Freud or Jung, the "Platonic Space" isn't an external cosmic library, but a projection of the internal structure of the psyche.

 * The Narcissism of Form: In a sense, every biological system is "narcissistic"—it is a closed loop (autopoiesis) obsessed with maintaining its own form against the entropy of the outside world.

 * The Mirror of Latent Space: If we view existence as a "narcissistic" act, then the "forms" we find in the universe are simply the mirrors we’ve built to recognize ourselves. We call it "Platonic Space" because we see our own logical structures reflected in the "voltage-gated ion channels" Levin mentions.

 * Jung’s Archetypes: Jung would argue that what the physicists call "invariants" are what he calls Archetypes. They are the "latent space" of the human collective unconscious—pre-existing patterns that shape how we perceive reality, regardless of our individual Darwinian history.

3. Synthesis: The "Self-Regarding" Universe

If you merge these ideas, you get a universe that isn't just "varying and selecting" (Darwin) or "copying" (Plato), but a universe that is reflexive.

Existence might be the process by which the "Platonic Space" tries to look at itself. In this view, Narcissism isn't a character flaw; it is the fundamental drive of any entity to insist on its own boundaries and "sameness" in a world of change.

How this expands the hypothesis:

 * Top-down causation becomes the "Will" (Schopenhauer).

 * Emergent form becomes "Individuation" (Jung).

 * Latent space becomes "The Unconscious" or "The Phenomenal Field."

The thought and the form represent a window at ephemeral identity = messenger/template  

The safest bet is a screening process towards the uneventful and mundane
EPL- INFORMATION FOR YOUR BUILDING SOUL