Overall I think I like where you’re going here in the OP, but honestly I’m not sure what to make of the first sentence. Sure, we often use technology to construct various distractions and temporary escapes from reality, its many pains, threats of loneliness, boredom, and so forth—computers, iPads, video games, television, for example, provide such escapes and distractions—but I’m not sure what you mean by suggesting it intends to mirror/copy the ‘internal being’ of man.
Perhaps you mean to suggest that technologies mirror/copy the ‘internal being of man’ by virtue of the fact of being created by man, and will therefore reflect something about the creator? If so, I can accept that - but you seem to be saying more here, no? What other kinds of subtle means? The ‘internal being’ of man seems to me to encompass a whole lot—instinctual, psychological, spiritual, etc.—much of which is (and shall remain) a mystery.
I’m definitely on board here. We begin with the great Socratic maxim of knowing that one ultimately knows nothing. Indeed, in the final analysis, we are and shall remain a mystery to ourselves, a riddle unto death, no matter how intimately familiar with, or profoundly aware of ourselves we may become—this, it seems to me, is perennially true. Even those among us who may be said to have knowledge of their own divine ground, who possess an internal awareness of Self, or Atman, or God— call it what you will—the essence of that ground shall ultimately remain a beautified mystery.
Depth, which is also at the same time height, no? It seems to me there’s a sense in which height and depth must go hand in hand, and are ultimately one. To transcend is to be able to see through, between, and beyond the fleeting content of one’s experience. But it’s also at the same time to perceive the dynamic, manifold relationships, patterns, connections in one’s experience, both within oneself and without, as well as between the world within and the world without (the subject is essentially related to the world). I agree about being able to experience many levels or layers of truth; but for such a comprehensive perspective to be possible, it seems a certain kind of elevation of spirit/psyche is necessary, for we cannot be aware of that which is ‘over our head’, so to speak, for such things would overcome us. To be above one’s thoughts and one’s feelings - only there does one see what one is clearly.
I don’t quite follow you on the construction of a hierarchy though, particularly if what we’re ultimately aiming at is to see things as they are, in which case we ought to construct as little as possible, no? We ought ideally to simply perceive with clarity what’s already there—hence, “Life is a process of discovering through experience (observation) whatever already is.”
But if we’re constructing something, then we’re not seeing what’s there, but rather our construction of what’s there, no? Or do we mean to say that our constructions can be more or less true to what’s actually there; that our perceptions essentially are constructs, which can be more or less true to observation and experience.
As for the utilization of truth, I think this process relates to what you said about being what we already are. What are we? I don’t know - perhaps there exists a God who knows? In any case, truth, or ‘what is’ and what we are, is clearly something dynamic, in constant flux, changing ceaselessly with the passage of time. Therefore truth, whatever it is, must be perceived as it is in the present moment. Life must be understood backward, lived forward, but experienced in the present. The peak of human consciousness exists at the height of the present moment - this seems to be a universal conclusion reached by the great masters and mystics of the world.
Integration, sublimation, wholeness, lightness, completion; a total lack of internal resistance, anxiety, division, weight, and conflict; a state in which one is at one with oneself through and through (which is to be at one with what one is in the present)—something like this, it seems, would be the elevated state of grace, the experience of a subject inhabiting the summit of the present moment. Here the thinker and the thought, feeler and feeling become one. But this state seems to demand something extraordinary from the experiencing subject. It’s unfathomably subtle and elusive, this present moment—present experience always seems to find us absent, somewhere in memory or anticipation—which is why so few attain it for any duration.
What is this something that the state of grace demands of the self, before the self will be granted access (be given the Key) to this sacred space in the heights? That’s a great question.