As stated before the precise interpretation of linear understanding entails that phenomenal development takes place in the context of one-dimensional time. In other words the arrow of time is assumed to have a merely positive direction so that all events move forward.

Now time here is being viewed primarily as a qualitative dimension in which quantitative measurements with respect to the three space dimensions takes place.

Indeed though we take it for granted our fundamental understanding of space and time is crucially flawed (even in analytic terms).

Both space and time have qualitative and quantitative aspects. Though in dynamic terms these interact, in analytic understanding they are necessarily collapsed with respect to each other.

So we have two possibilities. We can collapse time so that it becomes the passive (one-dimensional) qualitative background in which (three-dimensional) quantitative spatial observations take place.

However we can equally collapse space so that it now becomes the passive (one-dimensional) qualitative background in which (three-dimensional) quantitative temporal observations take place.

For example a car journey can be measured in either spatial or temporal terms. So I could (quantitatively) refer to a spatial journey of 100 miles equally as 2 hours in temporal terms (assuming an average speed of 50 mph). (All three dimensions of space can be converted to time in this manner).

Of particular interest is the speed of light, which gives an absolute measurement for both space and time. So we have the choice of measuring all distances either in spatial or equally in temporal terms (as the time interval required for light to travel the required distance).

However though space and time are interchangeable in this manner, we conventionally stick with the asymmetric version of reality having 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.

Now this is based on the fact that actual observations (seemingly independent of us) appear as 3-dimensional in spatial terms.

However we conveniently forget that these observations are strictly speaking meaningless without the interaction of our mental constructs.

Thus if we take the exterior events as belonging to a world of 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, in terms of mental constructs the position is reversed and relate - relatively - to a world of 3 dimensions of time and 1 dimension of space.

In integral terms, space and time are fully complementary with each other and dynamically symmetric. However once again to move to appreciation of this symmetric experience we need to first bring crucial balance to our asymmetric interpretations. Then through continual dynamic interaction of opposite asymmetric interpretations (which - when separated - necessarily lead to a degree of pheneomenal rigidity) a more accurate integral appreciation emerges that is bi-directional (i.e. two-dimensional) with respect to both space and time.

Therefore in asymmetric terms, we have from one perspective, 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time and from another equally valid perspective, 3 dimensions of time and 1 of space.

Also, these dimensions can be defined in both (exterior) physical and - relatively - (interior) psychological terms. So if we define all the dimensions as positive from an exterior, then they must be defined as negative from a corresponding interior perspective. Likewise if they are defined as positive with respect to the interior then they are - relatively - negative with respect to the corresponding exterior perspective.

Then from an integral perspective, dimensions become symmetric in relation to direction with respect to space and time. So if in psychological terms we have two space and two time dimensions (with one positive and one negative) from an exterior, equally we have two space and two time (with one negative and one positive) from an interior perspective. So what is positive from an exterior is negative from an interior perspective and vice versa.

In conclusion, I wish to draw attention once again to the truly remarkable feature of these dimensions from an integral perspective.

Quite literally they correspond directly with the mathematical notion of dimensions (given a dynamic holistic interpretation)