It is time to finally return to honoring the key terms of my lifelong experience, namely “Interspirituality” and “Multidimensionality,” which also implicitly contain the actual meaning of another term that I decided long ago to stop using because of the controversies and misunderstandings it tends to provoke. I believe it is legitimate (and perhaps even paradoxically coherent) to speak openly again about multidimensionality and interspirituality, and to do so precisely after a long period of intentional “monodimensionality” and “monospirituality.” This was neither an error nor a deviation, much less a form of censorship imposed from outside.
From our perspective, multidimensional and interspiritual research sometimes requires entering deeply into a single dimension, language, or perspective, even temporarily separating oneself from the others. This too fully belongs to the multidimensional experience. What matters is doing so as consciously as possible, without falling into total denial or amnesia.
By the term multidimensionality we do not necessarily mean science-fiction theories, esoteric cosmologies, or beliefs in parallel worlds. The term is used here primarily to describe the possibility that human experience may not be reducible to a single level of reality, perception, or consciousness. In the past, I defined multidimensionality as the simultaneous presence of different aspects or dimensions of existence, intimately interconnected even when they appear separate.
Translated into simpler and more concrete terms, this means recognizing that human beings do not live solely through ordinary rational logic and immediate material perception. There are moments in which dreams, intuitions, symbols, meaningful coincidences, inner perceptions, contemplative states, artistic, spiritual, or relational experiences seem to open different levels of experience and meaning, sometimes impossible to explain in a linear way.
For some people, all this may have a psychological explanation; for others symbolic, spiritual, archetypal, mystical, or even neurological. Certain contemporary scientific and physical theories have even hypothesized the simultaneous existence of multiple universes, parallel dimensions, or levels of reality not immediately perceptible through the ordinary senses. It is not necessary to adhere literally to such theories in order to recognize that they reflect, at least symbolically, a question increasingly present in contemporary culture: is reality really as simple, linear, and univocal as it appears?
At the same time, one must acknowledge a very simple fact: just as there are people whose experience of existence appears entirely linear, unified, and rooted exclusively in ordinary material reality, there are also people who, throughout history and still today, report very different experiences, such as the sensation of simultaneously existing on multiple levels of reality, perceiving connections between apparently unrelated events, or passing through states of consciousness that seem to exceed ordinary perception.
Some consider such experiences a richness; others experience them as problematic, destabilizing, or even pathological. Many choose not to speak about them at all for fear of being judged, medicalized, ridiculed, or considered “crazy.” And indeed, the boundary between inner experience, symbolic sensitivity, intuition, imagination, psychological crisis, and possible perceptual openness is not always easy to distinguish.
For this reason, multidimensionality as understood here always requires caution, discernment, grounding, and critical awareness. The point is not to glorify extraordinary experiences or automatically transform them into absolute truths, but neither is it to deny or demonize the fact that such experiences concretely exist in the lives of many people.
In this perspective, a “dimension” should not necessarily be understood as a separate place or a parallel universe in the cinematic sense of the term, but rather as a particular mode of experience, perception, consciousness, or relationship with reality. Even very different inner states (lucidity, dreams, contemplation, crisis, creativity, intuition, symbolic presence, or intense connection with someone or something, etc.) may be understood as different configurations of human experience.
Multidimensionality does not coincide with a confused dispersion of ideas, the indiscriminate accumulation of spiritual traditions, or the rejection of defined forms. It is not an ideology, a religion, or a position “against” something. Rather, it is an actual lived experience, something that does not necessarily require adherence to a faith or belief system. It also includes the opposite experience: rigor, exclusivity, total concentration upon a single path, a single faith, or a precise perceptual or symbolic structure.
At certain moments consciousness seems to open simultaneously to multiple levels, languages, and perspectives; at others it concentrates entirely in one direction, almost forgetting everything else. Both movements belong to the same process and do not necessarily contradict one another.
Likewise, interspirituality, in the sense in which I understand it, does not consist of an indistinct mixture of religious traditions, syncretism, or vague spirituality. Rather, it implies the capacity to move across different languages without denying their integrity.
Sometimes this involves integration and dialogue; at other times complete immersion in a single form. For this reason, within the multidimensional path, even monodimensional experience deserves respect. If a person lives exclusively within a particular religious, philosophical, or symbolic vision, there is no reason to consider them unconscious or “less evolved.” It is possible that such a form may simply be the most authentic and necessary expression of their experience at a given moment, or perhaps even for an entire lifetime.
Moreover, what outwardly appears to be a rigidly monodimensional position may sometimes have a strategic, relational, or contextual function far more complex than it seems. A person may choose to express themselves publicly through a single language, a single faith, or symbolic structure, while inwardly living experiences that are far more articulated, contradictory, or multidimensional.
The opposite may also happen: people who constantly speak about multidimensionality, pluralism, or inner openness may in reality be extremely rigid and entirely trapped within a single mental structure.
We do not truly know what happens within the inner world of others. The very person who appears dogmatic, devout, or perfectly identified with a single vision may privately live completely different experiences, or may deliberately choose not to speak about them out of coherence, prudence, fear, inner discipline, or simple discretion.
For this reason, multidimensional discernment also implies the capacity not to judge too quickly the outward forms of human experience. Being multidimensional does not necessarily mean openly manifesting all one’s dimensions in every context. Sometimes it means precisely the opposite: using different languages, behaviors, and modes according to the situations, relational levels, or dimensions of experience within which one is operating.
Likewise, those who experience perceptions or states that seem to exceed a linear view of reality should not automatically transform them into ideology, spiritual superiority, or an absolute system.
We do not truly know the ultimate nature of what we perceive. Multidimensional perception may represent a real opening, a symbolic function, a particular psychological structure, an archetypal sensitivity, or something else entirely. And the apparently monodimensional vision may in turn be a limit, a protection, a necessity, a balance, or simply another authentic way of inhabiting existence. But the exact opposite could also be true, or something completely different altogether.
In this sense, what matters is not establishing a definitive doctrine, but developing a more attentive, lucid, and sincere form of listening to experience.
In my personal case, multidimensionality has never been a theory constructed intellectually. It is a perceptual mode that has accompanied my experience practically since childhood. Throughout my life I have repeatedly tried to deny it, reduce it, archive it, reinterpret it, consider it suggestion, fantasy, psychological compensation, or symbolic excess. I still continue to maintain caution and critical awareness regarding all this.
And yet there is one fact I cannot ignore: this experience continues to re-emerge spontaneously in everyday life, independently of the interpretations I give it. This does not mean that I automatically consider it “true” in any absolute sense; it simply means that, after almost seven decades, I can no longer honestly deny the fact that it exists within my experience.
It is from here that this space wishes to begin again: from a more sober, direct, and less ideological exploration of what emerges at the boundaries between experience, symbol, consciousness, contemplation, and everyday life. The work continues in a different form, probably simpler and more essential, with less need to define, convince, or defend something at all costs.
PS: Those who have already shared parts of this journey with me in the past and feel that something has remained open, suspended, or simply waiting for the right moment, as well as anyone who feels an affinity with this kind of research, may contact me privately.