Indeed, it appears that Your bewilderment is justified! So lets suppose, that Your comment on other dimensions IS absolutely certain. If so, then , the relevant point must be in line with the idea, that such separate realities have some connection,and /or reflection of, and with, each other, even from the point of basic , primary logic.
You may, or might, question this corollary, but the phrase, as from above does that below, come to mind. This is more toward the reflective part , rather then the connective part that the argument adheres to.
As such, ’ the hierarchy of angels make more sense , in an afterlife. If our ‘souls’ survive, then at the most naive level of logic, Levii Strauss’ notion of a magical bonding makes sense. Not that it doesn’t make complete sense from the point of view of anthropology, but if the reflective sense with which the concept of soul is introduced, as another reality, using his method can only be understood as a conjuctive.
Wendy, I am digressing , but for a reason. That is, that even the idea of the argument for and against duality fits some parallel, between the naive totality which permeates the mind of elementary thought and post modern ventures into thought as : It’s Self.
If that opinion is held, then parallels would not fit the description, because by definition parallel lines never meet.
Therefore analogy would be as improper as well.
If the connection is a self prescribed tautology, then the connection is only based on a faux argument, and there really is no prior separation. It is an Absolute, because it requires an illumination, of reflective origins, and we, as individual souls are part of it.
By that I mean we are separate, while being part of it at the same time.
If one believes this form of argument, then we are both separate from God, and part of ‘IT’. And since I do not believe in transcendent beings, the conclusion ought to be obvious.
Then the primal connective at some point have a goal: an evolutionary goal: that of unifying with a reflective field to form a unity: as a proximate focus. This focus is the objective realization of the very basis of perception.
I touched on some things which may be tangential, but such bears on the pre-emphasis of perception on the realization of the (our) soul.
Then, we really can’t separate what is mortal from what is immortal.
A postscribed sense , as it were possible, could not have realized it, but then they held little store back then, in imminence and contemporality.