The Matrix is not something we have just discovered.

Aka there's nothing new (neo) under the sun...

People were aware of consciousness

a) Each person can become aware of being per (by) sonos (sound)...while a plural (people) confines singular (person) into a lack of self awareness.

b) Con (together) scio (to perceive)...the former implies a synthesis; the latter analysis. Few suggest a collective consciousness aka gestalt intelligence aka hive mind aka consensus to tempt many into ignoring that each ones perception can only work within singularity (all perceivable).

The separation of all (perceivable) into each one (perception) implies an analytical process allowing each one to become aware of all...or be deceived by one another, depending on each ones free will of choice.

infinite dimensional

Di (to divide) mens (mind) ion (action) al (all) aka all action dividing into each ones reacting mind aka infinite (perceivable) dividing into finite (perception).

As you can see at one level

Any added level buries ones sight deeper into ignorance. Level implies balance; being implies choice in-between balance, while any added level imbalances choice. Setting levels on top of a central position implies an inverted pyramid, which buries the all seeing eye.

another level

If level implies balance, then how could there be another balance for ones choice? Balance implies before choice, while another implies after one...

you're connected to another

Which power came first...that which sets one apart from one another or ones choice to connect together with another?

a capacity to connect with the entire universe.

What if entire (motion) generates capacity (momentum) for each partial (matter)? What if another partial suggests a connection to shortcut ones capacity?

articulate this truth

What if artifice can only be shaped within nature? What if suggested words represent the articulation of perceivable sound within nature?

What if both truth and lie represent artificial, while only change implies natural? What's true about change, and what's a lie about change?

Different philosophers

Philo (to love) sophy (knowledge). If one chooses love (philo), then one shapes a conflict against hate (miso)...a conflict within which different sides are equalizing each other.

What if few suggest philo (love) and miso (hate) to distract one from being at the edge (choice) of known (balance)? What if choosing a side imbalances choice?

Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Aerosmith-livin-on-the-edge-lyrics

secret to humanity

Secret/seco - "to divide" + hu/hue - "color" aka light generating spectrum to divide each ray from one another. That's how the hue of man comes into being, while being forwarded within the division of light into a visible spectrum.

understand who we are

To understand implies "standing-under" aka student under teacher; many under few; followers under leader; voters under representative; commonwealth under sovereign; slaves under master aka ones choice within a consensus under a chosen ones suggestion.

Few suggest WE to tempt many together... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

where we came from, and where we're going

Came from motion into matter; going from matter into motion...the entire process implies transformation aka a transfer of form (life) within action (inception towards death).