Previous posts (this is meant to be continuous): Rebooting the Notes at the End of the Deconstructed Universe - Breaking Probability Waves - Within the Paradox of Time - Heretic Papers II- Beyond the End of the Universe - Blackouts and Multidimensionalism: Lenses, Interruptions and Shadows - Measure all things together - Spaces in time: Contentedness and Cataclysmic Changes - Rivers of life flowing behind the scenes: Faucets, Eternities, and Probabilities Undefined
Everything you do in life is based on that you know this much but not that much. What you know and when you know it controls what you do, what you want, and what you think you can do or can be done. Always and forever played.
From Notes below and why the long prologue about the order
"Think about it, there must be higher love
Down in the heart or hidden in the stars above
Without it, life is a wasted time
Look inside your heart, I'll look inside mine
Things look so bad everywhere
In this whole world, what is fair?
We walk blind and we try to see
Falling behind in what could be"Excerpt from lyrics of "Higher Love" by Steve Winwood/Will Jennings
This post / section may seem more disjointed than the ones written here previously, more of just bits and pieces of thought than of being a thought-out and planned discourse. But this is more like what ‘THE’ Notes (The 5D Notes, Parts 1 through 6) that this blog or set of writings is meant to frame (whenever I get around to them, seemingly may be years at this rate), which were themselves often just small paragraphs or less written in a recognizable consecutive order from July or October 2003 (depending on from when I am counting) to 2007. The ‘notes’ in this post predate those notes, and the order of them here is not as exact.
What I can be relatively sure of is that, on the whole, these were written between January 2003 and April 2003, with a few written as late as August or September of 2003. The order within each page is more approximate as well. They began with notes written on the inside cover of a notebook and the first page of the same notebook which were randomly covering the earliest part of the year. When those pages began to get full, I wrote the last ones of this compilation on the back cover and last page, which is why those pages are marked as such below, separate from the bulk of the pages in-between which are not numbered or marked. The pages in-between the covers or noted pages below, are roughly in chronological order from January to April. The inside cover and first page contain various notes from the entire 4 months because many short sentences or ideas usually ended up there, if I thought it was a really good idea or was very pleased with it at the time just before I wrote it down. Mostly those 2 pages are displayed here in a top to bottom fashion regardless of when each part was written, with some exceptions being when I could remember which were written before or after others.
Why should the order matter to anyone, or to me to bother to set all of this boring introduction up? Who knows? Since this entire blog / set of writings attempts to put a great deal of writing into a time-line, this post is the hardest to follow that reasoning or purpose. When writing the Notes, Parts 1 through 6, the order was important to me because I could remember most all of what was in them before each new one, and was adding on to them in what seemed like a logical fashion, though admittedly the topics were all over the place. The many “compilation” web pages of the Notes, from the Seabirds and All Good Things, to the ones such as POWER and the Fearlessness pages, are more about a single topic or group of topics and make more sense. But even with those pages, I almost always put the paragraphs into a chronological order as best I could from the first written to the last, rather than in any other order.
Life and most aspects of it are seemingly chronological. Some things came before, and others came later. As these Notes progressed, they eventually became to me a distinct, if evolving, set of writings rather than just seemingly random Notes, and that influenced what I was writing by how I was interpreting it differently over the years. (At first I thought little if at all about writing any of it or any given reason for doing so.) This is why I think, in addition to some ideas becoming better defined and explained over time, it is very important to me, if I should write about these things at all, to try get the order correct as best I can. This post was the hardest to compile because before this and after this one, the chronology is very recognizable to me, and easier to get right.
These notes below, with some exceptions noted (and some exceptions not noted, as mentioned above), were written from the time just before what became the fourth addition to Deconstructing the Universe, Measure All Things Together, in January 2003, to just after the eighth and final addition, To Co-Exist, which was written in April of 2003.
[(Inside cover])
=================
Either the desire to do, be, or create is in you or it isn't
For anything to be one must start with taking away what it is not - the potential for everything is omnipresent and without limits
Every day I am surprised at how much I know, or think that I know, about everything and wonder how I know such things or where such knowledge, mistaken or valid, comes from. That being said, every day I am also continually surprised by how much I don't know and find it hard to understand how I could possibly be ignorant of such things. Therefore at least by this small measure, I am constantly surprised by everything in both its positive and negative aspects, and find each a marvel.
Always headed somewhere without ever actually going anywhere
There are only 2 states of existence in the universe: joy in being and a lacking thereof.
Every new day is a miracle
Biological limitations suck!
Everything dies and everything lives forever
To lose oneself in observation or being is to put aside how you would interpret something and drink it in fully. It may be being seen by you but without bringing your personality, outlook, or opinions to the fore, it may as well be happening to (and understood by) anyone anywhere any when. [Deconstructing the Universe, Addendum 7, Whose Universe Is It Anyway?: -Ending paragraph]
The purpose of existence is to fulfill the desire to want. If not what you want, which is preferable, then what all that created you wanted by your existence, what need or desire your existence fills for others plans or wants. Hopefully if not now, sometime your will will seem to prevail.
Transmutable recombinant DNA
If o can hop(e) I can
NOTHING (I or anyone) SHOULD BE DOING
Everything happens eventually
Its like everything my life should be about it isn't
Inside (/) outside me at the same time
Indiv(iduals) need to be true to onesel(ves)
Understand
Know
Experience
Remember
Perspective vs. Soul
Copy vs. Original
The future is like watercolors, what you add bleeds back into what has come before and changes it (the past)
Timecard punched, waiting to be sent home but fine with staying for awhile if helpful.
[(End of Inside cover])
=================
([First page])
=================
"Both things are equally possible"
Degree of existence relative to oneself
Shared perception?
WEX - [Weird EXperience]
WOW - seemingly more attractive to you
seemingly more or clearer potential to you
deeper origins in relevance to you
F/P (CF)- (/UVL) [ - / Protect (Care For)] [arrows from all 4 (W.W.F.I,) point to /UVL, abbreviation for "universal love"]
IDF - [abbreviation for "identify (with)"]
Chocolate and peanut butter
New relationship
[Lines connect one or more of the following]
- Body
- Thoughts
- Feelings
- Experience (memories)
- Potential
- Outlook / insight P.O.V. [abbreviation for Point Of View]
- Aspirations
[Circular chart representing the following...]
Experience >>(going to)>>> Resonating with >>(coming back again) >> Experience
[resonating with means with other things / individuals in environment]
Patterns of behavior
Outlook
Identity
History
No one is ahead of anyone and no one is behind. No one is leading and no one is following. We are all pulling each other along. What's behind, beneath, or coming up supports us. What is ahead, above, or past us is a way to go forward. Beyond those and that around us the Universe may not as well exist (at all). [Deconstructing the Universe, Addendum 4, Measure All Things Together: - Intro]
Together in joy, happy alike
Falling through getting stuff stuck to you
NO MEM NO OH(A)
Standing more (in the) river than (on the) shore [more within rushing potential than actual]
When you do something with the expectation that you must or have need to succeed, you will not enjoy it as much whether you succeed or not, than if you did it simply because you wanted to. Without pressure or any need to succeed, there is only you and what you choose to do, or what you attempt to do anyway. Whether or not you are equal to what you attempt is always fun to find out if failure does not adversely affect you or anyone else, or your pride.
I did not write the book, the book wrote me [I know probably not very original but felt it]
To provide any real or meaningful definition of what it means to be you, you must first, foremost, and always be trying to understand what it means (to be) or (what it) is like to be someone or anyone else.
Life, when take full advantage of, to its greatest potential, is about growing in ways you never thought you would or even could
Something about this reality is different than all previous ones
To share time, to co-exist, to walk the same path for awhile side by side [Deconstructing the Universe, Addendum 8, To Co-Exist: - Intro]
([End of First page])
=================
With a more complete understanding of time it becomes possible to learn from your mistakes, actions, and events before they have actually occurred since the repercussions of any and all future actions and events exist within and cause and sustain the present, as much as any supposed past does. Knowing is of no use if you are determined for whatever reason to do them anyway. This is not destiny for all possibilities about the future exist in the present, not just the select few roads one clings to for security and continuity of expectations. [previously omitted ending part follows here...] Daring to cast them all aside and venture ever deeper into the woods of realities less traveled where everything seems new and untested, unknown, is advisable only in cases where all roads seem pointless or dangerous, i.e., only in cases of extreme need or extreme boredom.
Christianity, the religion I was raised under more than any other, I often like to mock since it is my right as a Christian. It would not be polite (n)or politically correct to mock the religion of others (not Christians) since, not being one of them, not being raised to believe in their faith, one can imagine not having the right to mock them, for one (would) lacks knowledge of their memories, (the) circumstances which formed these memories or beliefs, their full mindset or points of view enough to be unbiasedly critical of them. But (within) ones own faith, one has the right to be so cruelly critical of (it) for if ones (people) within a faith have not the right to judge it or its worth, what then test or criteria for the validity or justice inherent within (it is it) ever to be subjected to? By that measure, even the most abhorrent of religions would never change, grow, or improve. Human sacrifices would not have died out if no one, not even the members of that faith had not the right, the power, and even the duty to step back and question or be critical of such beliefs and/or practices.
With most of Christianity, I can write (it) off as being as invalid and (as) limited as any other. An erroneous creationist myth, rules for behavior forged in a far backward time for and by (people) more barbaric than I would like to see people now behave much less how I would like to see people behave thousands of years from now. The whole Messiah thing, the eternal god like messenger of God's will or revelation of divinity to mere mortal beings. That I can write off as nice fiction along with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so on.
The one thing about Christianity I cannot fault, pick at, tear apart or tear down as misguided, backward, or primitive is what it is supposed to have as its core belief system: the concept of forgiveness. The idea that however much wrong has been done to you by another or another group, (that) you are best to leave any vendettas behind, pick up the pieces of your life and let it go. Though hardly (that this notion is) the exclusive province of Christians, this concept (of forgiveness, turn the other cheek) has dragged humanity up from endless centuries of internal warfare, endless conquests, and never-ending cycles of retribution far more than any other concept, idea, or ideal. To put it front and center of its belief system, though often overlooked and forgotten, gives at least one religion to me at least one redeeming quality worth standing up to the most critical of examinations.
[Beginning part omitted from the addition to Measure all things together....]
Helping other people understand, making their lives a little longer or better, learning everything I can about the Universe before time runs out again, none of these things are as appealing to me as they once were. It all seems so pointless and meaningless. One needs purpose to live so I exist by past defined purposes merely to see it through, but any possible achievements in these veins seems so small, so egotistical and petty.
[End of omitted part]
It is foolish to think that we know significantly more about the world or ourselves at 30 or 60 or 90 than we did at 3 or 6 or 9 for what we are and what it is, is always changed and always new. Socrates claimed wisdom only for the fact that he knew how little he knew. Most of what we learn as we age is far more misconceptions than universal truths.
To think that we are or become more as we age or evolve by having greater influence over or greater power to destroy, break, subjugate, and oppress others, than those who have not nor care not for such "power" shows the limitations of our current cultures' (most all peoples' cultures) "wisdom". To believe you know absolutely nothing for sure, to wonder at the wonder of it all, is to begin to cast the potential for anything, understanding, happiness, contentment, peace, wide open again for the concrete worlds in which we build and concrete mindsets depend upon believing this has already been done to satisfaction and further input or inquiry is neither necessary nor tolerated. It keeps the future pre-determined, as nothing more than a continuation of the past set in stone.
Such questioning may not be necessary for existence but it is necessary to live. Remember in comparison to the age of the rest of the Universe and any potentially older species, everyone you meet is but a babe in the woods, kind and aware of that fact or self-righteous and eager to have everyone else think and do as they say, namely a brat.
Balance may be inherent within all things in nature but in the course of interaction, balance between things over time is impossible. What appears as balance is merely imbalance used to counter imbalance. This may give the illusion of balance and stability but it requires constant work and attention and only appears (as) static and at rest. It must sway back and forth to keep its central point in focus. To stop this completely, to attempt to stand on the razor's edge, would be to topple over.
Every parent should instill in each of their children two things. The desire to be a good person and the desire to learn as much as possible, preferably to attend college which ought to be free and accessible to all. In most societies it is only at the collegiate levels where you are encouraged to explore and redefine what it means to be a good person in your own unique ways and hopefully have that point of view respected by others because of having been educated enough not to have such opinions dismissed out of hand as irrelevant and uninformed.
Principalia of Law
1) No government or religion possesses the right to interfere with an individuals inherent and absolute right to determine and develop his or her own mindset and belief system in the way that he or she chooses. Mental illness and social deviancy when applied to different reasoning processes and possibly valid viewpoints contrary to the norm or the society at large constitutes repression in the most violent and egregious sense of the word. Nothing an individual does, says, or reads in regards to gathering up enough information from as many varied sources as they so choose to make their mindset or point of view as wide and all encompassing as they so choose ought never to be legislated against, forbidden, or considered morally deficient enough to attempt to be prevented unless it will cause the imminent and indisputable harm to another. The attempt to outlaw ideas or the materials which might foster such ideals is a crime against nature, as anyone could claim such a right to restrict such material or any material for anyone else once such a group is allowed to claim for themselves the right to do so for others.
2) No government or society possesses the right to backdate laws making actions which were not illegal when they were done suddenly illegal once a government or society decides to make it so. This absurd set of conditions makes it impossible for an individual to always comply with and obey the law without possession of knowing which of what they are doing now might become illegal in the future. Likewise, all laws regarding penalties, fines, and the degree of severity of enforcement ought to apply only from the given time in the present forward from when such revisions are made, lest they violate the same principles. Without such assurances or guarantees, what could have been minor offenses when committed under one regime could become possible death sentences under others simply because they choose to view it differently. If one supposes future persons and future governments or makeup of governments have the right to change or make new laws, they must do so for actions and persons from that time on only, including how they are enforced and punished retroactive.
3) No government has the right to keep its laws secret, nor allow the same offenses to be considered by one judge or prosecutor as being illegal when one or another would view it oppositely. The laws must be unambiguous. If even those whose sole profession is to uphold the law cannot agree if something is against the law or not, one can hardly hold the average person in a society as criminally negligent for not being sure either. To expect them to always err on the side of caution is to expand the laws contingently upon enforcement into things which are not clearly written down or necessarily thought needed to be. Under that assumption, everything could be potentially illegal unless expressly affirmed to be otherwise.
4) The governments have the sole obligation and duty to make the laws of their regions readily available and easily understandable to those persons within their society who wish to live in accordance with those laws. This is especially important when new actions or states of being are made illegal, for the relevant publics to be duly apprised and be pointed toward some central source containing such notices. This ought not to be left to private sources such as newspapers or television because they have neither universal reach nor would make room for all such notifications. The average citizen must have a place to go locally, and be notified of this central depository of what is currently legal and illegal for ignorance of the law not to be considered not only as an excuse, but as almost an inevitable state of being.
5) Access by any member of the public to information regarding the law and/or punishments regarding transgression of laws for purposes of wishing to keep oneself in compliance and being mindful of the real possible consequences if they transgress, ought never to be monitored nor considered as intent to break the law, nor provide grounds of suspicion for the purpose of surveillance, inquisition, or investigation. Keeping the general public fearful about asking or even knowing what is legal or illegal (or the length or types of punishments of certain laws) is an attempt to broaden laws beyond the scope of being legal or illegal, but sacrosanct and beyond ones right to know without the very right of asking what they are considered to be suspicious. Keeping people in fear or doubt from knowing if they are in full compliance with the law strips them of any desire or rights to act politically or speak out against their governments when they might otherwise wish or be compelled to. It is complete suppression and utter domination.
6) Because the act of creating and enforcing the law creates a clear and definite harm to the individual who will be found to have violated such laws, including but not limited to the loss of life or liberty, the loss of family or job, the loss of ones home or place of residence, no law nor enforcement of the law ought to create more harm than it seeks to rectify by its enforcement in regards to the following. If they can show the person or persons actions caused more direct and indisputable harm to another or to the society at large than the harm they seek to inflict upon that individual, then the law and its enforcement can be considered just and warranted. If the cost to the individual in question grossly outweighs the costs or damages of the offense they have committed, then it is not merely any individual, but the society at large which stands to suffer, for it is oppression by any other name. Wrongs inflicted by societies onto their members are no less wrong, and often more egregious because no one is ever held accountable for the effects of those actions. Any law and any punishment must be in accordance with the amount of harm inflicted by such acts, to the amount of harm they will create by the creation and enforcement of such laws.
7) A persons right to engage in political discussion or express their views on their or others' governments policies or laws ought to be unhindered by the threat of persecution or targeting of investigation merely by having or expressing an opinion or belief contrary to a governments desired opinions or current laws. A person ought to be able to say openly whatever they might otherwise be comfortable saying in complete anonymity. And there must be a means or forum where people can exchange their views on any subject with complete anonymity to be able to develop their opinions through dialog, discussion, and debate. While under the threat of persecution or suspicion by profiling mere by having or expressing opinions exists if done openly, there needs to be a means for people to communicate such views freely, privately under anonymity, and such rights ought to be as sacred as anonymity in the voting process. To say people are entitled by voting to opinions that are private but valid to the general discussion or aim of a society is meaningless unless they are able to ferret out and come to those conclusions by discussion and debate openly and without fear. For every example of someone misusing such anonymity, or claiming a right to be not persecuted for airing such beliefs other than openly under their real names, in public or in private, to abuse such rights for the purpose of spreading hate or promoting destruction, you can stifle millions of others from the ability to disagree with a society on some issues or laws anywhere outside of their own mind, and by controlling the former, you cannot help but show desire to control the latter. By stifling the right to express disagreement or public debate, even opinions the majority might be found to hold, if they were not afraid to air such views for real and valid fears of repercussions, everyone is left thinking only they must hold such beliefs, and they must be wrong. Free, open, and unfettered debate without the threat of persecution in any way is synonymous with and necessary for freedom of thought. Each requires the other.
* Unimportant, convoluted, and boring Notes on the use of the word "indulgent" in reference to existing and how it could have been (or now will be) misinterpreted
For those who would never describe their existence as indulgent, on the purely physical plane of existence alone, never mind any other planes of existence our existences could be or are disturbing or affecting**, think how many plants or animals give their lives, (though I am not suggesting it is either voluntary or cruel) to further your own physical existences alone. ** We animals feed off of dormant, not purely dead, proteins. They may not have the capacity to exist in their previous state, i.e. not living, but must be dead or preserved recently enough to still have the potential for life or contributing to life by "rotting" into something else, itself a process of attempting to continue living in another way or form (or to be absorbed into another cellular being.**) That it finds you at that point is mutually beneficial unless of course you instigated that being's or lifeform's demise in order to eat it.
We shrug off the nasty business of needing to feed to exist by saying our existences are God's will, not our own. God made us for a reason and all that we do is in His service or by His will. If you don't want to call it God, (then) substitute science's word for God, Nature. Nature made us and all that we do and are is in accordance with nature's laws. Whether you believe in God or in nature, being sentient at a certain point in time, we become collaborators at the very least in our own existences (if not the actual instigating force). Were it to be offensive to us in any way, most able-bodied people readily possess the means to adjust or hasten the outcome (demise) of such a fragile means of existence.
Our existences become self-indulgent the moment we decide we have more of a right to live than that of what we eat did, or than those who would choose to eat or kill us does, or in some extreme but hardly uncommon cases, than those who would get in the way of what others want do. I am not saying self-indulgence is a bad thing in and of itself, or that existence is necessarily ruled by the harshest, though they can profit the most by it (this aspect of it). I am saying at a certain point, we decide our lives have value and that value is judged against the value of other things in our environments necessary for us to continue to exist, and in that sense living is or becomes self-indulgent. You live because you choose to live.
Your existence becomes important enough for you to weigh it against what you can do, or would be willing to do, to maintain that state. That judgment or limit (on how great a number of things one is willing to do) varies greatly from person to person, but stands somewhere relevant to each’s own life and is in (illegible) self-indulgent.
Ambition Unbound
Life is a game you play by wanting something. Once you want something it becomes a matter of succeeding or of failure to succeed in possessing or achieving the fulfillment of that desire. Your capacities are near infinite, immeasurable, and irrelevant for the Universe's capacities to stall or thwart your possible success is also near infinite and immeasurable. Calling it a stalemate is to not exist. Refusing to want is to not exist. All that leaves you is to play the game. Winning or losing becomes irrelevant when you play it long enough or think you have or tire of it too much. Trying to figure out the real rules not mentioned, how to play the game like none before, find some loophole or some obscure interpretation which will be something different, never tried before, to rise above the game and redefine the game itself to become what no one before imagined it could be or how it could be interpreted and played. Not simply to redefine the limitations or potential of yourself or even your species, but to fundamentally redefine existence itself for any being in any time anywhere in the Universe in what they can be or aspire to become.
Everything in existence in essence, as it relates to you, [<-can't stress that enough because of what follows] is real only in how or what changes it effects or adopts in how you perceive or what (you perceive or what you perceive that you are). How much reality it has independently in relation to how it relates to itself or to others (not known or perceivable by you)[<-no clue why that was necessary but it was that way], is not for you to experience or know for certain until you are it or those others. That view, aspect, or angle of its reality independent of how it relates to you, is not for you to know or see while you are you if, by the definition of what it means to be you, precludes being those others as well.
Everything that exists has the ability to redefine anything else as it relates to itself
When humanity can judge the value of words and ideals independently from who said them, or who was purported to have said them, or said them first, they would stand a chance or best be able to survive. As long as needing a source to judge their worth, they are lost. Ideas values rest not with where they came from or the myths and mythologies created or needed to make people pay attention to them. If people need to be prodded, conned, or sold on the value of truth or what may be truth or good ideas by the presumed personality of who spoke them, they over-estimate the value of given individuals and diminish the value of ideals, forever to degenerate into personality cults.
Beyond you, beyond your existence, beyond anything else's existence, beyond consciousness, beyond thoughts, beyond experiences, beyond lessons and morals, beyond interpretations and anything to interpret, there is the impetus behind whatever else. That is the only thing that is real and all that matters. Anything else is both a way to see it and a way not to, or to avoid seeing it. Words, thoughts, ideas, experiences, consciousnesses, or things to experience or be experienced, they are superfluous and without substance. See beyond the what to only see the why. [Probably written much later (between May 2003 to Sept 2003) than most things noted here (which were written between Jan 2003 to late April 2003)]
Have respect for everyone you meet. Each is a part of the reason why you are here, as you are a part of the reason why they are here. Everything in existence arises together out of everything that is not and all which could be, and only have existence by defining each by each other, or by being real in conjunction to anything or everything else, also for the moment to be currently real. [Added to the end of the Introduction to Deconstructing the Universe, its final paragraph. Most likely written in April of 2003.]
I like the idea of blending into the background infinity of anyone else's life and never being more important to them than anyone else they never met or hardly knew well. There are degrees of relevance each person potentially has to each other’s lives. Some of this we can control by seeking to minimize and trivialize ones contacts with others to avoid unintentionally causing them harm or sorrow by having them become too attached to you. Yet at the same time, ideally I would like to make people happier for having known me and to the best degree (that) I can control it, (to) have a positive effect or bring a positive happy aspect to their lives by relation to (having known) my own existence.
The degree of relevance other people have to each other makes them seem to stand out from everyone else in their minds. There is everyone else, and then there is this person or that person. Younger and less wise versions of who I am now wanted nothing more or as much as to stand tall in everyone's eyes as being relevant and important, yet still free at having to (not) commit or be anything for them over time. There is nothing egotistical or wrong about wanting to be respected or loved or held in the highest esteem by many or all others, but one must be willing to pay a price by committing and following through on what that means for accessibility and commitment to that any other, or all other persons you wish such relevance for or to. Such desires are positive and good but they require the following through, for anything short of total commitment often brings only the opposite of intended effects.
Is it possible to be helpful or positive in relation to others without seeming relevant or important to them, to pull the right strings without having ones hands seen? Can the desire to remain unobtrusive free one from the requirement to be willing to make the necessary sacrifices needed to follow through? To live in or through others lives is to have made an impact or (to) have seemed important to them. That, any way you look at it, requires attention and care if you wish to have any one type of desired effect over any possible others. To pull strings unseen, to have a ghostly positive effect on others lives is a nice idea, but in this reality to cause change, good or bad, you must be to be seen and it is by that being to be seen, that committing to being something over something else you only might (otherwise) have been, (that) is the only real tool (to affect change or experiences for others) you have to work with.
What you are, can do, be, and can grow into, and what the rest of the Universe wants to you to be, exist as, and will allow you to be able to do or become, (it) is like signing a new contract to buy a car every second of your life. They are, and must be, in agreement the entire time for you to exist at all. When you realize the Universe wants you to buy it just as much as you want to have it, you can gradually improve the terms of the sale, get the free rust-proofing, waive certain maintenance fees, and so on.
You may never know how far you can renegotiate or how many concessions you can get before the deal is called off, an alternative which never seems appealing, but one must be comfortable with it either way to be happy. If you get such a bad deal you will be miserable the whole time, you must be willing to negotiate harder and accept however bad the alternative may be to not having a deal, if all potential deals suck that badly, no matter what the potential rewards may be, it just isn't worth being that dissatisfied when being is the whole point, and all you will get out of it anyway. But in every moment (that) you continue to exist, remember that at least for that moment just prior, you did have a deal and were in agreement, and use that as a guide of knowing the only concessions you can get must be achieved gradually, if at all.
To eek that definition forward, you must be willing to periodically go beyond the previous definitions of what it means to be you. You don't achieve this by thinking or doing, but by reinterpreting just being.
What one is is shaped, molded, contrived, and created from what those and that in ones environment wish it to be. One is also what one(self) brings to the equation, the unique combination of potential and possibilities, and the many ways of feigning compliance with what one is demanded to be. To see that these seemingly divergent forces, one's environment shaping one to suit its needs, and the aims of the individual to rise above just being a mere product of one's environment, and (to) chart a new and radically different plan for oneself, that these are both the same thing, both different aspects of oneself played out against oneself. This is to see beyond the self to a more dynamic view of existence. [Added to the end of Deconstructing the Universe, Addendum 6, I experience therefore I am, but what?: – last paragraph (probably written before Addendum 6)]
Life - the potential of yourself passing through the perspective or perception of others and returning back into yourself changed. [May 2003]
Event A -------- Zero knowledge of it --------------- (potential can only be
Opposite event B--------Zero Knowledge of it ------- guessed at 50/50)
[The two parts above in () were meant to be read together, the () were not there, nor meant to be, but were added just as illustration for above]
One cannot judge probability before an event without full knowledge of the number of times an event will occur that way. Since knowledge is never complete in this regard, all that seems likely only seems so based on incomplete data. If something could happen one out of ten times (by having 10 different realities of the same event) by knowing this absolutely, still would not make its chance of happening the way it did 100% of how it did in the past as there would be 10 pasts. With only 1 past, everything’s probability would either be 100% or zero percent.
I experience therefore I am, but what?
If one is a part of everyone and everything else, and everyone and everything else is a part of oneself, and if every possible timeline or possibility is somewhere realized, what am I or more precisely what is it that thinks it is me? Even as far as all the potential of every which way my life went or could have gone, I am not the sum of them, merely a branch, one history, one interpretation of what it means to be me. If perception leads to being instead of vice versa, am I because I perceive myself to be or because the rest of the Universe perceives me to be? Am I more bound by what I believe I am, my concept of myself, or by others opinions of what I must be? Are the limitations of what I am and the limits of reality imposed on me because of what I think I am or what God or the rest of the Universe thinks I am, or is my existence limited to only those areas where both are in agreement? [Deconstructing the Universe, Addendum 6, (I experience therefore I am, but what?) - Intro part]
There is no question which cannot be answered by phrasing it in the most exact clearest means possible as if you were asking a vengeful genie or a lawyer who would destroy you for the most minor mistake in the asking or phrasing of it. When you have a clear notion of what you want to know, and all the angles and aspects of the question or problem, the answer becomes obvious. It is not the answers we lack, but the means to be sure what it is we really are asking of the Universe to show or teach us. Once sure of what it is we are really asking and what the questions really mean or entail of reality, we find the answers to be self-evident.
There is a quantum leap between knowing something in your head and in your heart, or from thinking and believing it, to feeling it and knowing it. To say such is so meaningless, it is words, concepts, it is illusion. You cannot know anything true in that sense. I have written 2 contradictory premises which I believe fully. First, that even if you knew and understood everything in the Universe other than yourself you would know and understand nothing because what is to you, is defined in no small part by what you are and what you are bringing to it and that it does not exist independently of you, for as much as you are in it, it is in you.
The second premise which contradicts this is that any change in either, all else in the Universe and you, is immediately reflected in the other. Each in a sense is defining the other. This works both ways. By changing yourself, you change the rest of the Universe, but also any changes in the Universe change what you are. If the Universe would hold still for a period of time, you could know both it and yourself, but because what you are changes as the Universe changes, you cannot understand what you are, except to know that what you are changes, never is the same, and never will be the same. If both of these precepts are true, then you can never understand yourself, and by that extension, never grasp a full understanding or true (complete) understanding of anything else, because you can never hold onto any concept of yourself that is not changing and inter-changeable.
To know truth in your heart, to feel it, you simply need to be.
I have had more days in a row (roughly) in the last few years of not having to do anything I didn't want to (do) than at any time since I was 5. This breeds a way of seeing the world that is both very old and always new. It is both wise and it is pure. It is knowing how things should be when others will let them be. [Every time I remembered this paragraph, I remembered a last line which was not actually written down. Whether I thought of it at that time and did not write it, or misremembered it later does not matter. I will end it here how I always thought it did end: And riding my bike was really REALLY fun.]
Sanity is everyone else thinking and acting like they think everyone else thinks and acts. It is not only getting one's bearing(s), and checks and balances from others in ones environment, it is to create a personality or mindset manufactured to exist within that environment made to the specifications of what is perceived to be normal. To attempt to always go beyond what is known, perceived, or believed by most people is to constantly brush up against the definition of insanity whenever it cannot empirically be explained and (such insights or notions be) used to convince others. With only a relative definition of sanity, to attempt to change or expand human consciousness or morality means forever being vulnerable to the worst Man wishes upon others. Being thought right later is of little consequence or matters to the fact (that), for better or worse, by not always conforming, you never will truly belong. But principles exist within us, and we must live by them.
While no one can contend that (suppression of dissent in the United States) can compare to (suppression of dissent in the Soviet Union) in its heyday, (in the sense of trying to control people and the debate or evolution of government or economic systems via the stifling of MEANINGFUL dissent, being as bad as the USSR in any way whatsoever, YET…) one must upon impartial viewing of all evidence, conclude unequivocally that they are moving in opposite directions. [Bear in mind, this was written in 2003, given the Patriot Acts and the countless transgressions of the Constitution and folding of the media’s “watchdog role” since 2001 having been so recent, (and even decades before an erosion,) but also was written before Putin’s stifling of the media and dissent became as prevalent or as obvious as it became or seemed to become after early 2003. At that time, it was not a reach to say Russia was moving away from a Stalinist-like police state given the movement previous to that time (2003) since the early 1990’s. It is much harder to make the case today (2010) that Russia and many of the former Soviet states are moving away from becoming like police states as it seemed before, just 7 years ago. They are not as controlling as they were under Communism by far, but the direction in which some are or may be heading is not as clear today.]
** Even more unimportant, convoluted, and boring Notes on the Notes to the use of the word "indulgent" in reference to the word "existence"
When a body is growing, energy both animate and inanimate are drawn to it and contribute to its existence. When a body dies, that which comprised it breaks down and goes their separate ways. Each of the cells know they are doomed as a unit and begin to restructure themselves to exist on their own much as laid off workers might attempt to start their own companies. In this process, both simpler animate forms are created from the physical components, and the more complex forms of energy seek out newer more complex potential forms and patterns to latch on to and contribute to.
Living is about not understanding everything
A mind is only as complex as the world it perceives. The more complex the perceptions, the more expansive the mind must become to try to explain, understand, or make sense of those perceptions. More impetus for growth is always there whenever one chooses not to close ones eyes to what is difficult to comprehend, accept, or explain. [Added toward the end of the Introduction to Deconstructing the Universe, 2nd to last paragraph. Most likely written in April of 2003.]
People can perceive of time as points on a road they are traveling. But with a real road, all points exist at once, whereas with time, there is just where you are, and all the other points seem to come in to and go out of existence. This is as limited and as childish as believing a road you are traveling has no existence anywhere where you are not upon it, or won't be real until you come to it. Early on, we learn of object permanence, or that objects don't disappear when they leave our sight or direct perception. It takes longer to understand temporal permanence, or that events, that Time itself does not only exist in our current moment on the road just because that is all (that) we can directly perceive or experience. The whole road is always there and we are always at each and every point along it simultaneously.
It is a rookie mistake to want power if you were forbidden from using it to help anyone, or to want knowledge you could not share with those who could be most helped by it.
I learn by breaking every rule of thought or being known to Man or Nature. It is only by daring to tread where no consciousness or existence has gone before that you bring anything new to the concept or perspective of what it means to be. To only see, know, or experience (similar things to) what anyone else, or everyone else, saw, knew, or experienced (however you might be fooling yourself into thinking it is different because it is happening to you) to me is neither appealing, nor by my definition, living.
Humanity will not arrive at a more fair and just world by wanting it or even being willing on occasion to make sacrifices for it. It can only be had by demanding nothing less. Because humanity will always be willing to settle for despotism and tyranny, despotism and tyranny will always be all they will have, regardless of their willingness to recognize it as such. The delusions of freedom are never a hard sell for the reality is often too hard to bear, and their minds are only all too willing to be forced to look away.
[(Inside back cover)]
==================
Ideas of what to believe are like statues chiseled out of marble. To see what they really mean you must envision the whole block, and try to understand everything, then what was chiseled away and why. If you understand all else that could be or could also have been said or thought but was not or left out, you get a fuller understanding of why what was said or believed was, and what purpose it was designed to serve. That is what makes something of more interest, not just what it is, but what it is in relation to what it is not, or could have been, and what it omits.
A way to go forward will always appear as opening before you. You cannot go back until all the ways forward have been traveled, tried, and exhausted, and even then what seems behind you exists only ahead and can only be reached by going forward.
Everything you do in life is based on that you know this much but not that much. What you know and when you know it controls what you do, what you want, and what you think you can do or can be done. Always and forever played.
[(Outside back cover)]
====================
Trinomial- Space-Time-Existence
Nations gangs, turf, people, survival
Remembering remembering
Anyone who spends much of their time trying to figure something (philosophically) out is inevitably wasting their time. To know when one is done, one must have had some sort of inclination, expectation, or template to measure against to know when the truth is reached or found. Without such (a) compass, the end would never be reached, or any point along the way would be as much an end as any other. You don't deduce the answers, you either have them or you don't. Deduction is always fraught with error, and without having a pre-existing list of answers to compare your results to, any answer will do just the same.
No reality is absolutely real, not the one where you are awake, not the ones when you are asleep, not whatever you may see or experience after you die. Everything is real tentatively to what you are experiencing. Beyond that it is as unreal as someone else's dream or delusion.
Sunset always there
5 billion more perspectives wide
Posts
