The 5d Notes - More Definitive (2003-2007)

Evolve or die: New eyes, blurred and blinded, misbegotten Time Roads

2011-09-02T02:01:00.000-07:00

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 - Outtakes, Golden Paragraphs, Degrees of Relevance, Each a Marvel> - Until Yesterday: Experience, Existence, Whose Universe, Co-Existence - A different way of seeing: Connected beneath surfaces, the Introduction at the end, short bits - Alternate Timeline(s): Principles, Perspective and Potential, Before Early Notes

Who and what you are evolves over time according to who and what is around you. Going into business vs. teaching, marrying this person instead of that person, you grow into a different person over the course of years according to the choices you have made to what to surround yourself with and who to define yourself by. The median, the center that is always the same, your sense of identity or constant in all of these different (potential) realities or timelines is more of a myth than anything else, unless your definition of it can vary even more than how you vary from other people, for even if all the potential "yous", the you in all of the roads not taken all look like you, other people can have more in common with you now than you with your other "selves" along some of those different paths, and in the end, the relationships between both kinds of others (literally different people or different ways you might have grown differently to have become different person than you did) to yourself is the same.

Now is the only time you as you exist now, will ever really have. Even if you live another 50 or 100 years, who you would become over time to be then, or the many ways you might grow differently to become based on different paths and different choices, only technically have much to do with who you are now and how you see things and life at this point in time. You are changing, evolving, or growing if you are doing life right or (are) noticing it, and what you might become is only a small part of you now, more than or equal to the sense that what you are now will only seem a part of you then in how you once were, might have been, or how you (only) used to see things (at one given point in the past).

Even if one takes that as a given, why bother to try to speed up or enhance people's abilities to perceive and understand (multidimensional) spacial (or multi-spacial, for short) relationships? Every species always has two choices, evolve or die. Unfortunately humanity has done far more courting of the latter than the former, and is or may be on the verge of making a serious commitment. Anything anyone can do to reverse that trend, one must ask oneself, if not now, when?

No species or social structures will or even optimally should last forever, nor worse, act like they will or should. However, rather than to try to keep what ever exists now locked in and continuous from one day or age to the next, the emphasis ought to be on improving its adaptability and its means to evolve (more quickly) into seemingly something else entirely, but only from the perspective of the present. Anything which grows into something else entirely is not only an extension of that originating existence or principle, it is (over the long run) its only means to continue at all. The longer we can keep true to our best aspirations for the future, and actualize them in however best we can adapt them to present circumstances, they are like a bigger signal fire to those in the future to emulate, because of how they exist through adaptations in more than one time or (in) more than one structure, than in any one actualization at only one point in time, however much larger it may be in scope at that time.

Notes 2 - Spring 2004

Rate of evolution- how quickly something grows into something which its previous states, which it is a direct continuation of, seem foreign or far removed. Conceptually, I am evolving far faster now. The quicker you make your furthest reach the new norm and regroup and solidify that (new) position, the more you gain greater abilities to expand into new areas. A conceptual battlefield type of advancement of conquering, not places as in the land example, but of times and others potential realizations of ideas, making theirs your own (before they can ever have the chance to).

The question "what are you" and the answer, "growing", I understand now far more fully than a year ago. "What" needs to be open ended and undefined. "More" is sufficient, and all that can ever be (accurately) anticipated.

Notes 2 -May 26, 2004

Past evolving, moving away from fast, seems like a different person, most people 20 years ago, some fast changing lives, 2 year ago, me faster. Past is but a perspective on the present.

Notes 2 - June 2004

On one hand I can seem wise and mature while on another at the same time simplistic, very immature with an outlook that is constantly new and different, always changing and evolving. Taoists and Buddhists would understand this (seeming contrast in polar notions of maturity) as the same thing and do not see a contradiction in it. Western thinking has no map or guidebook for such notions. Their thinking is more one dimensional, thinking wisdom is found in a line of gaining knowledge and giving up what makes life fun and worth living to gain it, a straightjacket of behaving according to well defined patterns in tandem with others is how to grow up. That is how to grow old, not up. Age is not wisdom. Holding to beliefs of any type is not wisdom. Spinning them always on their head or viewing the world upside down, not because you will see it from a new perspective and thus further your goals and accumulate knowledge, but simply because doing so is more fun, makes life more interesting, unpredictable, and that is where wisdom lives. Those who hold to knowledge gain a ground or a "how to be" and "where" to view life from, but stand too long there and that ground or spot will grab you like vines, turn you into a tree unable or unwilling (same thing) to move from that spot for the rest of what will pass for the remainder of your "life".

Notes 2 - Summer 2004

Just like it would be wrong to think of everyone at the same age or level or point of experience in their lives even if the same age as you, it is also wrong to think of everyone dealing with or understanding life on the same level of reality. Just as their are many possible philosophies, there are many ways and levels of perceiving reality, and most peoples' levels of perception are as mixed and as mixable as philosophical ideas and concepts.

Learning to deal with rapid changes, finding new threads in faster currents in larger rivers.

Notes 2 - November 2004

Created by nature for the purpose of going beyond it. If not constantly increasing the limits of what is possible, surprising and surpassing the rest of the Universe, you are ultimately uninteresting, predictable, and a victim or pawn of those who will take the initiative to do so if you don't first. Anything that is not adapting faster is merely standing still in time like a tennis ball suspended in midair just waiting to be slammed by those whose speed is faster and thoughts are quicker. Senses such as sight and hearing were like new inventions, and nature is not as intent upon controlling and limiting improvements as humanity is. Greed has turned patents and copyrights into an excuse to hold back innovation among poorer people indefinitely because they are lengthened at will whenever profitable to do so, and new laws to control information benefits the richer countries which make the rules the rest must live by, or be starved economically and lose more control over their economy and property because of sanctions or less fair trade deals to sell their goods at world prices. When humanity seeks to control adaptation to benefit one group at the expense of others, it is becoming a retard of nature bound to fall behind a race the entire universe runs everyday. (If a minor researcher in a poor country came up with an almost free energy source which could put all the oil companies out of existence overnight, would he/she be able to market it? Would his creation and rights to it be accepted by richer countries? Could he give it away to benefit all humanity and turn the world economy upside down? If you think it would not be stolen, forced to sell it, or being killed and charged with theft of his own ideas from someone who did not invent it, and have it come under the control of the most powerful groups now to limit it as much as possible and profit from it as much as possible, you have no idea of how the world works today.) Limit the knowledge of others to see and they will simply grow eyes in new ways others will pick up generations later as leftovers like other species picking up new tricks of ways of perceiving ones environment.

Notes Part 3 - June 2005

Sunday August 21st, 2005- Super Bonus Day number 800 counting leap year day. 800 days of living as if possibly no tomorrow, no fear, no planning for a future which may never come, but trying to do the most possible if today is all I get, and enjoy and appreciate it as if it is all I may get. Racked up a string of accomplishments in writing down the ideas, conceived and finished 2D 3D 4D 5D over the 2 years, graduated, tried my best to wake a few people up, though if they are asleep, they probably are happier that way. Reality which few have chosen to face has become grim and only getting darker at the moment until people start paying attention more. Tomorrow I head toward another country, beginning a new chapter on day number 801, still taking it, or trying to take it, one day at a time, taking nothing for granted and having as little expectations as possible to keep from knowing what is there to be seen beyond what I may prefer to see, yet wish to know anyway, and on many levels, need to.

Notes Part 3 - August 21, 2005

The most important thing for you to be today is to be not what you were yesterday. The most important thing for you to do or to realize today is what you could not do or realize yesterday. Remembering here is not there, now is not then, never you are what you were (or remember being), and what you remember can never be again. Going against that, holding the past, that is death. Working with it and using constant change is to live and accept being constantly a new person in a new place in new circumstances.

Notes Part 5 - January 2006

Seeing your own life, all thoughts and experiences, as eternal to yourself, as a component of your environment, triggered by other events within that environment, that whole, is more difficult than seeing everything you interact with within your environment as just another component in your own life. This is the opposite of “that it is easier to see your environment as a reflection or necessary component to enable your physical self. The time definition (first sentence) vs. physical forms, a thing called a “life” vs. a thing called a “body” is probably the most integral (to a better understanding. How the 4 mentioned dual opposite points are reversed as different ones being easier to understand, with life (time) vs. physical reality.) To have a sense of self, you need time to look back on what you experience to remember it and (you) alter the experience by building up a newer revised identity out of what you remember and (by) the new act of remembering (it) (connecting them to new events you did not know at the time you were experiencing them which came later.) Without these new times stringing together multiple times, there can be no “reflective” self to be aware of beyond current perception. In regards to other people in your environment, it is inverted. There is only the current perceptions of them and experiences of them without directly accessing their memories (or their own sense of identity built up through their past memories of events), or sense of self they tell you, or you learn of them to attempt to gain predictability to their future potential events based upon your own remembered experiences of their supposed pasts. Ultimately without gleaming insight into their pasts via your own (building) past memories of them or of other similar people and events to associate them to, others in your environment exist only in the now, in relation to you, as you would exist only in the now if you had no memories of your own. By not having recollection of something’s past states, it becomes more externalized. The more memories and knowledge of the past (of it) shared and in common, the less distinctions between the “otherness” between you and others in your environment, or of the objects and the environment (as a whole) itself.

Notes Part 6 - June 2006

Oh the games people play now
every night and every day now
Never meaning what they say now
never saying what they mean ...

Look around tell me what you see
what's happening to you and me
God grant me the serenity
to remember who I am

Cause you've given up your sanity
for your pride and your vanity
Turns you sad on humanity
and you don't give a da da da da da

excerpt from "The Games People Play" by Joe South

Someone that I once knew
suffered a terrible plight
She was becoming blind
and would soon lose her sight

She wanted so much to see
as many things as she could
for she knew that soon
what she didn't see, she never would

She awoke early every morning
and spent it gazing at the skies
She did not want to miss
the chance to see one more sunrise

She spend all of her days
absorbing whatever was there
All the people and all things,
nothing escaped her stare

Of the beauty and the ugliness,
she searched for all she could find
When at last the darkness came
she did not seem to mind

This I could not understand
and I asked how it could be
She said in those final few days
she saw more than most will ever see

Once Upon an Evening's Dawn

      When I was in my late teens or early twenties, one day had I walked into a van’s bumper. I had borrowed tools at a garage to repair my bicycle and the van was up on the lift, just above my eyesight, but unfortunately not above my forehead. I walked right into it at full speed.

      After sitting for awhile with a fairly pounding new headache, I rode my bike for about two miles and walked into a pharmacy. While looking for something, possibly pain relievers one might think, the lights went out, at least for me. I stood there completely unable to see anything. For several minutes, some of the most disconcerting minutes of my life, I was completely blind.

      At first, I did not even think of panicking, and even if I did, thought what good would it have done? So I decided the best thing to do was to just act normal. There was a shelf in front of me I remembered, so I attempted to continue to act like I was looking across it trying to find something while my mind raced thinking of what my alternatives were. How could I get help if my sight did not come back? Who could I turn to for help, where was the checkout counter, and how could I get to a hospital? And it all seemed so, well embarrassing.

      There was also a heightened level of perceived threat I felt when I thought that others might discover that I could not see. Fortunately neither pick-pockets nor a more overt robbery was likely inside a pharmacy in a good neighborhood, but a dawning realization occurred to me that I all-of-a-sudden would never see it coming. I was more vulnerable and suddenly completely lost, needing strangers help just to find the door or keep me safe.

      Flashing forward to when I got hit by a car on June 1st, 2003, my initial reaction and circumstances were similar. As I later put it, I was suddenly time blind. I had huge gaps in my memories of the recent past. On the other hand, I could remember many things from my earliest childhood, when I was 5 and 6, 10 and 11, etc. as if they had literally just happened yesterday. Given my circumstances, I knew it to be a two-edged sword, but the side to be worried about is the side which can harm you.

      Though like in the pharmacy, I had no immediate threats, but running through the list of potential threats, how can one defend oneself of any accusation if they cannot remember what they did last week, last month, etc. One could be at risk in any number of ways and be completely blindsided by potentially anything which a person without such a memory loss or blindness would never even consider possible or think about. And it carried over into future expectations as well. If one could not remember the recent past, on what could one base ones expectations of what the future might bring?

      The logic of my reaction was the same. Try to continue on as normally as possible and not reveal any potentially catastrophic weakness or blindness and wait for it to go away and normal abilities to come back. With the blindness of the eyes, it was terrifying in a way, but it was relatively easy to keep it together for a few minutes, simply because I was in no danger of having to do anything other than what I was seeming to already be doing.

      With the memory gaps, it is hard to say when it exactly ended or began. Major gaps and holes in remembering came back quickly and at fast rates within a matter of a few weeks. Other things took much longer with 6 months or even a year for many things. It is misleading to say I could completely not remember things because from the start I was functional in most respects, barely. Things were not gone completely but the time it took to remember something simple, something as simple as my middle name, could take a half a minute or more. More than “blinded,” I prefer the term “blurred” as being more appropriate when thinking back on it.

      The things people can remember with no effort, instantaneously, define them in many ways. They do not need to be thought about and such memories, preferences, and personality traits, though each person often chooses to adopt such preferences or ways of thinking at one time or another, they become second nature, a persons core operating system so to speak.

      While it may make good song lines such as “And you’re hangin’ out in the local bar, and you’re wondering, who the hell you are,” (“Keep on Smilin’” by Wet Willie) it is not in any way a good thing in real life. It is one thing to be philosophical about the question, “who am I”, when it does not really affect your literal sense of the core of who you are or what you should be doing, right now.

      Like the bump on the head via the van, the only real option was to simply wait it out, and hope eventually it would all come back to me, which it did. But as I mentioned, that was over a disconcertingly long period of time, so long that I had to get used to the idea that it all, my memories and abilities, might never come back.

      As I mentioned in other writings, for the first two weeks after the accident, I had ups and downs, most of which I do not really remember that much about. Things previous to the accident became clear eventually, and when things started improving, it was a new fresh take on life for me that is hard to describe. But in those first two weeks after the accident, I cannot remember how much I could remember nor not remember at that point. I was dizzy almost constantly so I stayed at home and did not go out, as it was very difficult for me to even walk or drive.

      Two weeks later I had what was incomparably by far the worst day of that time and probably of my life. For that entire day I could not stand up. I could not get to a phone to call for help. Every time I tried to get up, I had to immediately sit down or fell back down on my bed. More than 24 hours of a room constantly spinning around and around and around. It is easy to understand I got used to the idea then that there seriously might not be any more days for me after that.

      The next day was, relative to the previous day, like a fever breaking. Things seemed clearer. Though things did seem to spin off and on for another month or so, and that did not stop completely until I was in Europe in October, I began to be able to assess my current state, remember such assessments, and begin to build up again.

      Though there was much I could not remember at that time, much else could be remembered with much effort and a lot of time. Other things were frustratingly just out of reach, yet seemingly simple. I remember not knowing what I liked of foods. Going to a grocery store, I would look at vegetables, brands of cereal, know their names, know I must have had them before but still have no idea whether I liked them or not. I actually had to look through my cupboard for clues as to what kinds of food I liked.

      The longer one has to deal with that, the more likely one is to move away from such preferences. A person begins to build new preferences since ones memories are always being added to as long as one is awake and aware, and is able to create new memories. Even once getting back such previous opinions, tastes, attitudes, etc. by remembering them, the longer one operates without them, the more it seems like it was not you, but a different person.

      I was lucky that I never completely forgot who I was, never lost all my memories and even at my most problematic period, was mostly functional. I could drive a car, count my change at a store, and so on. Phone numbers, log in passwords, and other things once second nature became a constant and frustrating struggle. And the higher math that my income relied upon, well the term I used, “basket case,” pretty well sums it up. Anyone else would have fired me but since I was self-employed, that was not likely to happen.

      The good thing about writing software for your own company, like any type of royalties is that you are, when you are getting paid, you are getting paid in the present for work you did in the past. It takes awhile, if you are lucky, before not working completely wipes you out financially. That was inevitably coming, but there was little in the state I was in, that I could do about it. I could look at my source code for hours and still have almost no clue about where to start, so much of any one part meant remembering countless other interrelated parts, concepts, and procedures. I could follow a few lines of code at a time, but functions, sub-routines, complex algebra (and programming is mostly algebraic), and then I was like, “um, check please.”

      After a few months I could write simple things again, and after several months I could work somewhat again. But as I have written before, the upside was like getting a clean desk to start over with or on. With a lessened past and less perception of the future, I was living more in the “now” than ever in my life, and more than most get a taste of. My brain was literally having to relearn how to think, how to make new memories, what to categorize as important or worth remembering.

      In the beginning I was simply taking in everything possible with little to no discernment of what was important to remember. Taking in constantly too much superfluous information meant having to come up with new ways of categorizing things to remember them. Everything around me seemed so wondrous and amazing, and for most people it can always be so because you simply “get used” to everything, and I wanted to remember it all, absolutely everything. The early Notes I am coming to soon reflect that enthusiasm and complete and continuous state of constant wonder.

      It is not that I was not open to thinking such things before, and not having contemplated in abstract way such philosophical concepts before. But to have many expectations and perceptions of the future, and memories of the past, subdued for awhile and forced to relearn how to deal with life all over again robbed of many of the so-called “certainties” most people no longer even think about how they came to think that way anymore, having to live again without them and rebuild them anew all over again, it was immersive so to speak. That and actually being able to remember for a short while how I thought and saw things at younger ages with a clarity extremely rare because it was spotty and not the smooth segueing that happens continually as our thinking process change slowly over time with little notice.

      The first day after the continuous spinning stopped I called “Day One.” Later I referred to them as Super Bonus Days. The quote at the top was written on Super Bonus Day 800. “800 days of living as if possibly no tomorrow, no fear, no planning for a future which may never come, but trying to do the most possible if today is all I get, and enjoy and appreciate it as if it is all I may get. … Tomorrow I head toward another country, beginning a new chapter on day number 801, still taking it, or trying to take it, one day at a time, taking nothing for granted and having as little expectations as possible to keep from knowing what is there to be seen beyond what I may prefer to see, yet wish to know anyway, and on many levels, need to.”

      Writing this now, by that measure today would be Super Bonus Day 3000. The first 1000 days though were very much extreme petal-to-the metal adaptation. It was exhausting and probably in the scheme of things, somewhat necessary. Much of the Notes to follow after this post reflect that. That it may not make sense to you, or to me now for some of them, they were written as I mentioned in the start of retrospection, in a type of shorthand simply so that I could remember what I was thinking at those times. Some of that is lost to me now. Other things I remember would take way too long to explain if I even could.

      Where I stand today is lucky that I am able to remember much of that time, before getting locked down again into preset ways of thinking, and more so through these Notes. As I mentioned, the first 1000 days had the most extreme changes in how I thought about things, and I could adapt and change literally how I thought about things and problems with a great deal of flexibility simply because I still had a good mixture of previous knowledge, and understood completely the overarching pressing need to be constantly adapting, and also I had a decent biological underpinning for that to happen.

      Though I have a greater perspective now, and am fortunate that I can somewhat recapture some of those different ways of thinking because of keeping the Notes, (I though far from stupid and by more common measures of intelligence am considered more “typically” intelligent now,) I know the raw firepower I had to bring to bear on things I thought about was far greater back then. As I put it then, I could think faster than at any time since I was 16 or 17 but with greater control and focus. I could “multi-track” my thinking so-to-speak in ways that cannot be described. A weak analogy would be as my memories were returning, seeing something could trigger a cascading set of memories, remembering many interrelated things at once, suddenly and with no control. Remembering many times all overlapping at the same time. When I was 16 or 17 I could think faster than I could keep up trying to verbalize those thoughts and about many different topics at once. But during those days of 2003 to 2005 I had that, plus a greater degree of focus and a “throttle” so to speak to dial it back when necessary.

      Plus, in addition to that, I had a greater remembering of the most recent days, the Super Bonus Days, because I could remember each of them far far clearer than any other times previous to them in my life. Partially because I was trying to remember them so completely and taking in literally everything, or as much as possible of everything. There was no hurdle to get over to remember them for me as there was to remember things previous to that time, and the Notes, all of the Notes, I had pretty much instant access to remembering them the way some people, and me most times, can remember their own middle name. Even though many of the types of thinking in the Notes were completely different, I was constantly mixing and matching them, building upon them in my head, much of that not written down, and constantly coming up with completely new approaches sometimes daily, weekly, and later monthly.

      But in the times closest to the accident, it was literally hard to think, period. It was not until July that I attempted any serious writing and then quickly learned by doing so that I was not up to it. Rather than having something to look back upon to show how I was progressing, it simply showed me how much I had lost. I could still write well but I would get lost in ways I never had to worry about before. I would usually simply think about what I wanted to write about, how I would approach it, and how I would start out, and from there everything previously usually worked itself out.

      With that in mind, I often compare how I wrote before the accident and after the accident and try to see the differences. “Perspective” written about just previously to this post here, I am very proud of, yet it shows the wandering focus somewhat clearly. It came out well, but was unfocused. Yet I still wanted to write, needed to write, and in July found myself a much bigger canvas than the Universe to write about.

      I decided my next project would be about time and called it “Time Roads”. I knew at the time it was a bit too much to write about and I often got lost while writing it. Everything just coming together without me having to do much work gave way to stumbling in the dark, only with a poor word trail to show for it. In my defense, time is a much bigger and broader topic than the physical Universe and even at my best, just a few months previous to that before the accident, I possibly might not had done much better. “Biting off more than I could chew” I later called it.

      But “Time Roads” was in the same vein that the later parts of “Deconstructing the Universe” had been moving in. And if not to attempt something beyond your reach or ability, what better use is having more time really worth? It was the most ambitious potentially achievable or realizable thing my somewhat misfiring brain could think of attempting. That it was pointless or a misguided effort did not occur to me, or mean much, for a few weeks at least.

      After the first few sections, I saw that I really had no idea what I was doing, but they were not completely worthless either. As I see it now, I was not so much as trying to go in the wrong direction, I was just traveling the wrong path to get there. Before the month was out, by accident or by not thinking about it much, I found what I thought was a much better path. Or a least one so long and so complicated that I could not see the end of it clearly, and knew it could be twisted in many different ways and directions and yet still be worth traveling and still be the same path. And it was fiction, so how could I possibly screw it up or get it wrong?

      Like my Notes were in the beginning, written almost unconsciously without really thinking about them in October 2003, the short stories in July 2003 were simply putting math or logic problems into words and forms so I could try to sort them out. Not for others to read or even for myself to read, simply like using scratch paper to work out a problem I was thinking about at the time. I will cover those stories next, but this post is to set up or introduce “Time Roads”.

      With “Time Roads” I tried to simply keep on writing in an essay form similar to how I had been writing before that, to keep doing what I remembered that I had done before and hopefully by doing so, that I could get back to thinking again how I did before, and so on. But the accident left me with a slightly different set of abilities, as well as a hodge podge mixed stew of memories.

      Short things, such as many parts the Notes, could come off extremely well. The fictional form best evidenced in “2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple” and the other shorter “math” based stories that July provided me a different type of structure to work through when I was lacking a proper structure to sort through the ideas that I wanted to write about.

      But before I could get to that stage, I sorted through much of the same territory in a different, and less effective and less coherent way in “Time Roads.” The path may have been wrong, but the direction soon to me led me to Inventor, Creator, Researcher, Assistwo, and not the least of which, the majority of the Notes that all of these introductions are meant to set up and explain. Without the fiction stories, the Notes would not have been, and without “Time Roads” having been written, the stories would not have been thought up.

From early July 2003…

Part One - Time Roads and Existential Roads: An Overview

      Out from a multitude of paths
       it surges forth leaving all else past

       At the end of Rel3- People and Magic, I stipulated that the future exists in shades, that we like to think that the roads we travel continue forward in line from the past through the present and into the future in a continuous contiguous fashion, that the past is in sense a template for order in the future and has some effect on or will leave some imprint upon it, and by believing this, or the belief that one has in this, effects future realities to be in effect continuations of the past. I also said that the opposite is to view the future as completely changeable, completely unfettered by what was true or real in the past. The shades between these two views, that the future is determined or built up as a logical progression from its past, or that the future or the universe is completely open to reinvention or revision and can in a sense turn on a dime so to speak, and that the past is only as much of an influence as it is somehow someway chosen to be or allowed to be, we like to see each argument and view each as valuable, and most choose something somewhere in-between that we are locked into only writing a new minor chapter to a very old and infinitely more volumus greater-than-us story of the universe, between that and having the future completely open and not at all contingent upon what may or may not have existed, or what it itself may or may not have existed as in the past.

       It is wrong to think that anything can happen at any time. We settle the potential experiences to ourselves down to fewer more manageable tracks like roads we can learn to navigate upon. By this limiting of near limitless potential to fewer more well-worn paths frequented more often than others, it is not unlike how a road forms over time. Some ways to go seem more logical than others, some decisions more apparent, and gradually pathways form. The more we tread these pathways, the more imprinted and the more obvious they become as a byway or a way to go, or a way to be. While on these byways, experience becomes predictable like traveling a road you know well. You have expectations of where you will be and what you will experience at times nearer to where you are, and the more frequently traveled the time road, the further you can extend that expectation forward into the future from where you are currently at or what you are currently experiencing.

       We are not locked onto these roads any more than we are locked into any one future. We can exit at any junction or even dare to go off-road so to speak at any moment we wish. To go onto another road is to reenlist into another preset list of expectations of varying degrees of paving, how well they are developed and therefore how known or predictable based upon how often we have traveled them in the past.

       It is hard to get lost, really lost. With so many roads everywhere one can only go so long before there is again an order to things and things again become recognizable and begin to make sense again. One can be distracted and when venturing off onto side roads momentarily lose ones bearing as to where one is, in relation to location as with actual roads, or in relation to future events with time roads so to speak, or expectations for or on that new timeline or new road one has inadvertently or absent-mindedly stumbled upon by not paying much mind to where one was going or by not having a great predication to go in one way over any other. Once diverted on to a somewhat new road or new pathway, it is not long before that too becomes recognizable and eventually predictable as you fall into the flow or pick up the scheme of things of what that road is, or was, as if you have literally traveled them all at least once before and just need some time occasionally to reacquaint yourself with what they actually are, and by doing so, remembering where they lead or which major thoroughfares or junctions they cross up ahead.

       Existence and experience itself follows this example as well as individual existences over varying timelines. One needs not to remember oneself actually having traveled the road in the past but how others stood at the same relative moments in their times. The roads you choose or how you live or choose in different, successive, and ultimately in a sense predictable or memorable versions of your own multiple futures, alternate presents, and alternative pasts, these are the easiest and clearest known paths to you the longer you have been you. Alternatively, the less locked you are into your own definition or idea of your own existence while you are still sorting that out, the less defined the roads are, but roads are still there. The roads the more others took in the past are defined as well, they too exist as temporal templates of what to expect and how to define ways to go.

       In a sense to enter into existence is merely or similar to losing ones bearings on which timeline, or which road, one is currently traveling. The further you travel down upon it, the more recognizable it becomes again, and the more clear the roads, choices, or options for what lies ahead or potentially lies ahead of oneself, the more clear this becomes. One has or will eventually exist as any other existence and traveled any other of their roads as well, if not in the past then in the future, but if the future and the past are merely constructs or different aspects of the same thing indistinguishable from another point of view as being different from each other, all roads are equally our own, and ultimately open to everyone. All roads have a purpose. They prevent people from wandering around aimlessly and provide an expectation or order to experience and give a discernible, recognizable, and re-locatable location in space, in actual physical roads, and in time and experience in more figurative sense of time roads or existential roads. By creating and defining these roads we build up expectations of repeatable experience and give them a “location” so to speak. One again can go off-road to what is lesser defined by lesser numbers of others lesser traveled but one eventually again stumbles across some more well defined road, some more commonly defined “life”, and some degree of civilization, like stumbling across a highway after getting lost in the woods. Eventually walking down that highway, one becomes aware again who one is (defined by that motion down that road), or who or what one thinks one is now, and eventually figures out what that means and where that road leads, what paths or options cross it ahead, and how one can get lost or explore within the context of that existence or upon that system of roads.

       As a road system provides for greater numbers to travel in a more orderly fashion and provides a mappable location in what otherwise would be chaos of a near infinite ways to go (and in the sense of other types of roads mentioned here, a near infinite ways to get lost in when, where, and what to be) it provides endless ways to experience the same things. It is a grid, a framework, but only for and by those who commonly choose to follow it. While you follow it you gain predictability, a what, a when, and a where. Going off-road at any time is like trying to get lost in a land you know very well. Sooner or later you will stumble back upon another road providing another what, when, and where, another set of expectations for where they might lead you and where or what others before who held to one or more of those three tenants of what that means, how they might have interpreted those roads, and where or how they took or shaped them to suit themselves. The paths you or others might have taken only define the roads more clearly. Any path or shortcut anyone might invent or stumble across might one day become a new road should it become taken repeatedly by oneself or others. The roads only exist because they are the ways we would choose to go more often than other ways. Existence, experience, and time are or have roads in ways or things to be in which we would choose to experience more often than others.

       Realities can grow organically like civilizations or cities, small groups, or popular restaurants or clubs. Some people get together and define a way or place to be and the more popular it becomes, the more want to be there and the more likely it is to be imitated by others. Suddenly it reaches a critical mass and it is something everyone just has to try. The more ways to define something, the more perspectives there are upon it, the more real it becomes to more others. Likewise, the more real it becomes to more others, the more perspectives there are upon it, the more defined and rigid it has to become. It no longer is a small thing where anyone can influence it fully. One becomes just a small part of its larger plan, and the larger it becomes, the more each must conform or give up to be part of its whole.

       Yet again it too is just another road, another way to be. More highly defined realities are merely more well traveled roads. Each may seem a destination, yet each is merely another way to go, another how to be. Just as no when is ever absolute from any where, no when or where exists apart from any what. Space is merely a road to provide a “where” defined by those who travel that road more than any other way to define a where. Time is merely a road to provide a way to be “where” more than once. With time, one can have more wheres over time or else one would always be just “here”. Over time one can be sometimes over there, or here, or somewhere else. One is always “here”, but here just seems to change with the added definition of time to have been somewhere other than where one is now. And finally and the hardest to believe, the “what” is merely another road, another way defined to combine or multiply the what. As time can give one multiple wheres, “what” provides multiple ways or things to be at multiple times creating multiple wheres. None of these necessarily is the focal point or predominates over any other. All three define and sustain each other. As here seems to change with the added definition of time giving it a past where here seemed to be somewhere else not here now, what seems to change by viewing it through the perspective of time seeming to have been or to become something other than what it is now. Take away time and the concept of a past but leave a what and a where and there is no “there” for everywhere one has ever gone or could go always was and will be “here”. There would be no “what else” for all that one was physically ever was or could be would be or would become what it “is” as only time separates what it seems to have been from what it is or could be, and it would always be the same thing. Going back far enough in science, religion, or philosophy, that is for most, once all part of the same big “what” at one point.

       Keep the what and time and lose the “where” definition and reality as you know it collapses too. Though the what can change over time, if it is always “here” and never “there”, it is always whole and never separate or anything else. Though one could see it that way, or believe it could see itself as separate even though without possessing another where, it could never actually exist as separate. One could also conceive of the previous example of a what without a where, also far different from how we perceive it now, as one. For all three of these definitions to exist as we perceive them, it requires multiple versions or instances of both others. To be a what you need multiple wheres and multiple whens. Where also requires multiple times, and neither space nor time can exist without something, a what to be acted upon or changed. Each of these definitions are roads we enter upon and ascribe to ourselves to define our existences. None are absolute and each is both relative to and contingent upon each of the others to define its own means of existence. Without each having a what, where, and when to keep them separate, take out any of the three aspects, and everything collapses into everything, everywhere, all the time. Pick any what and it needs a when and where. Pick any where and you need a what and when. They are all aspects of the same thing.

       Since what you are seems less arbitrary and more defined than simply where you are or when you are, one must remember that without a where you are relative to, anything else that is not you, everything and you would simply be here and one thing. Without time, there would never have been any time you were different than what you are nor could you be anything you are not now. Your entire existence (apart from possibly an unchanging soul, though basically unchanging is not relative to the world we experience which is only defined by change) depends upon your when and where and is completely defined by such. Without those being different than anything else you would not exist as anything separate. Your existence is dependent upon a history which created you and a future of possible realities to exist within from this “now” onward (or you would be dead). As much as your existence requires a place in time relative to a not “now”, you need a “you” relative to a “not-you”, and by that a here where you occupy, and a there for everything else. What, when, and where you are are all the same thing, and they are inherently defined by perception or by being currently perceived. They are the road of perception and anticipated experience you are currently traveling. The road you travel provides a channel or stream of predictable perceptions into you, but you control which roads lead to which others, which you feel like changing it to, and when to turn down roads you only seem to never remember traveling before, yet by traveling them, will again become familiar to you or make sense to you again.

       If you can believe that you can be you yet be in another time (yesterday, tomorrow, etc.) or be you yet be in another place (London, Paris, etc.) yet understand the what-when-where are the same thing, then one can begin to see the what is just as changeable. To believe you can be you and be something else as easily as sometime else or somewhere else, though like being somewhere else or sometime else must be worked out within a particular structure, is conceivable with some effort. And as I said before, as roads through space are ways to sort out the wheres, where one can go or be anywhere but generally falls to specifically commonly defined routes, and timelines are roads through experience where multiple time versions of others or oneself tend to pick more predictable routes over others, so too can the “what” of the equation be thought of as roads through organizing what seems to be the source of perceptions into known recognizable routes of ways to be or exist more defined the more they are traveled by more others. They are routes to come in on, travel down for awhile, and leave or turn off where junctions occur ahead. Like known roads or known timelines, the more you travel them, the more sense and the more familiar they become, but you have traveled, will travel, and in some way are traveling all those roads, just as one can more easily conceive of once having been down all roads through a place around oneself at one time or another, or even having been down multiple timelines at one point as well. The more certain roads of existence are traveled, the more others or oneself tend to travel them again, and the more expansions or additions will be added to them.

Part Two - What and What Else: The Same Thing

       What was was to me
       what it was
       because I could be
       what I was but now I see
       what was was
       what was me

       Before getting into details on how a “what” can become something else it is not and still essentially be the same thing, which is far more complicated to common understanding than simply having a “what” go somewhere else or exist in another time, it is first important to understand what a “what” is. Existence as I said previously requires a what, a when, and a where, and removing any one of these aspects and everything else no longer becomes discernible as being separate in any fashion. The reason it is harder to envision changing the “what” is because what the “what” is is much more complicated than the when or the where.

       Though modern theorists routinely regard space and time (the where and when) as a single continuum, though in my opinion missing completely the third leg necessary to make it stand so to speak, because of this lacking of space-time’s inclusion of the what I will continue speaking of space and time for the time being as if they were separate concepts or states. The where of the equation is the simplest to understand. Before you have a handle on what you are, and hopefully most will be mulling that question over in one sense or another for as long as they live, you can grasp the concept of space or place. You are here. Everything and everywhere else is there. Things there can come here, and one day you can go there, or more accurately bring all of there here to you at once by seeming to be going there because your “here”, though always here, is also capable of being there as well. Here becomes something that occupies no set point in space, here becomes relative to wherever you happen to be at any point, and this begins to make sense somehow.

       Time is also something relative to where one is so to speak, always “here” though in time we call it “now”, and though it is always now like wherever we are is always “here”, now can be somewhere else further down the road as well. Because we cannot visualize time like we can space, it takes longer to get a handle on that one, conceptually speaking. We can see there from here. We know there exists there while we exist here. We can in a sense experience here and there simultaneously almost by seeing them concurrently within the same frame, or both at once. Time we do not commonly experience concurrently nor can we see time’s “there”, other times, from time’s “here”, now. Without the aid of representations such as portraits or film, we cannot get time’s here and there together side by side to compare them or experience them simultaneously. Even trying to merge two divergent time streams or two states of the same existence side by side at different points in the time of that existence is difficult and dangerous. Times need to be kept apart, at least for a single object in time. Time’s here and there need to always be kept apart.

       Though we can never actually get time’s version of here and there together for a group photograph or, in the ordinary sense, for simultaneous perception, we do have ways to cheat. As was mentioned previously we can record aspects of another time, object’s where and how they appeared at that time and carry forth that record to another new now. We can also record aspects of that time not visible, such as writing down the temperature at that moment, or the barometric pressure, and compare that with other times or days observations and perceptions. And we possess that less accurate but intrinsic ability of collecting memories which are also needed to recognize such records externally recorded such as portraits or films as being ourselves at other times. Without the ability to remember the moments within our own minds, external records even of our own past becomes just people who looked as we did doing something.

       It is the act of remembering, a wholly new event requiring more time to experience that wholly new event, the moment or moments you are reflecting back on that other time which seems to bring the two different times into the same focus or frame. Carrying a mental representation of then into now, and letting how they both compare or seem to match up create a whole new experience, existing now remembering then. Then instead of carrying just what you are now forward into the future when you look back on that moment of remembrance, you instead are carrying both moments, or a composite layer of both moments into the future. Looking back upon that moment you were looking back to another moment is to bring them together and in a sense experience them together as one. You are in a sense remembering remembering something, and that compounds itself into something new yet is founded or made up of both previous time periods, the time you remembered and the time you were remembering that time.

       It is this constant remembering of remembering that provides us with our sense of where we exist in time, and in that representation of the passage of time most crucial or critical to us at the moment, the concept or context of our own lives. What is today, what was yesterday, what was the day before that. This record is only kept or recorded by compounding remembering remembering. To know what today is requires knowing what yesterday was. If you forget what today is or where you stand at the moment, you tend to turn back a page to yesterday, what was yesterday or what did I do yesterday, to remember. Or if lost in space momentarily, one automatically thinks back to the last point they remembered they knew or remembered where they were at that moment. It is kind of like each moment is a new guest on a talk show where all the previous guests scoot down the couch in the order they appeared. Each one takes its turn being the now, then the just before now, then the just before that, each moving down one seat further down the couch. We see, watch, and record this new order or imaginary comparison with each new moment or memory we add and visualize them side by side against the most recent ones. The mind, consciousness, by the act of creating ever more new memories or new records of each and every new now, is assigning and recognizing this order or organizing factor to each new moment it experiences, pushing the others slightly further down the line in importance. Eventually they all just kind of fade together the further back from the now you go if they were similar, simply because room must always be made to record ever and ever more increasing, and increasingly compounded, new nows often superimposed or coexisting with remembered thens to compare them with. Not just remembering remembering, but remembering remembering remembering, and as long and inclusive as you want to or are capable of making it, or stringing it together.

       Fortunately now we can write things down, if by fortunate one means one actually wants to make greater and greater composites of past events for potentially better understanding and more inclusive and more far reaching comparisons. Sometimes it is just nicer and easier to forget. Unfortunately even writing things down has its limitations as an extension of the process of remembering, and by extension of that the reasoning process, because then one must develop ever greater archiving schemes to remember where one put the information one might need or wish to retrieve later for further comparison.

       Such comparisons of any past events, times, states, existences requires new time, fresh time, to build those new comparisons or new structures of supposed relationships in. Before extensive and fast retrieving of voluminous material on computers, intelligence was related to how much one could squeeze between the ears, or remember at one time. That still is the most important aspect of intelligence, though fading in importance to the processing of such information. The more data is stored in ones own mind at one moment in time, the greater the means and chance one can relate it to other data and form unique contrast and comparisons machines never could because all of the data, all of the memories, ideas, suppositions are in a sense within ones mind all potentially linkable and cross-referencable with any others, occasionally intentionally or unintentionally coming up with unexpected or intended matches or insights.

       The older we get, the more we are required to remember and the more we wish to remember of our ever growing pasts, the more clever we must become in organizing all of this information. The more capable we are of remembering all of our past moments, the more complex comparisons we can make between them. Most moments slip into the fog being considered unmemorable, yet each moment can shed insight into any other. The ability to compare every today with every yesterday is relatively insignificant the greater numbers you can add to that. Imagine being able to remember every day for years as clearly and as completely and as quickly as you remember yesterday. Imagine the greater insights and comparisons you could make you might not notice from one day or week to the next. We do possess the means to compare far away yesterdays with today but they are often faded copies of a copy of a copy, and far more limiting than that, they are selective. Since we cannot looking back years remember every day what we did or were doing, we pick and choose days which stood out from the rest as being different, and single days can be made or used as representational of other similar days and be confused one for the other.

       I am not using this analogy to recommend people merely increasing their memory storage, especially not through bio-implants, but the ability to remember more and more past times, especially within the context of our own lives, relates to our notions of what we perceive to be intelligence, especially when we can make, create, use, or make more uncommon representations of relationships between all those divergent memories. The greater the reservoir of things to compare, the more relationships we will discover or, more accurately, invent. Though this data seems divergent, they all share a common component, time. What the temperature was the day before, what we had for lunch, all of this requires a time component ascribed to it. All the data we record in our minds, books, or computers exists as trying to capture a moment of time. Even ideas, complex abstractions, to be remembered means to remember a time when we were thinking of or about them, and use that as a template to remember it again. Every insignificant piece of data about whatever we remember is to remember time. Memories are putting time side by side against time. The more times we can string together is like seeing further into the distance in the here-versus-there analogy, and the more details we have about each other when is like having a telescope or binoculars to see the details more clearly of each other where.

       There is another limitation to the time definition in that it only seems to provide clear definition or absolute solidity in one direction, looking backwards. With space one can turn 360 degrees and pick any direction to travel. Though one is always here, here can seem to be almost anywhere. Though now is always now, it has to or seeming has to be in a predictable spot a moment from now, two moments from now, as well as a moment ago, two moments ago, etc. Where traveling through space can be likened to driving a recreational vehicle across a flat desert, traveling through time seems more like riding a train at a set speed on a definite track. You have an idea of where it will go and what you will see when it gets there, or at least you think you do. That is where time gets its other footing so to speak. Though all of our perception of time lies in perceiving a past, something which was which is no longer the same now, or where something was relative to where it is now, we extend that perception into expectations of where and how it will be in the future. This is to fill in the blank spaces or draw what we think to be the missing pieces within our minds so that the whole picture will make sense to us. The more we think that we are doing that correctly, the more confident we become. The future no longer becomes scary but controllable, rulable, predictable. The more accurately it matches what we think it will be, this tells us we are reading it right. The more often we are wrong, when it does not match up with our expectations, and we choose not to become delusional or deny what we are experiencing, the more likely we are to revise how we interpret what we think the future events or states of things will be. This knowing one half, the past, or more accurately thinking we know the past because we have some memories or records of it we assume to be more or less accurate, and guessing or speculating about the other half we don’t even have invisible clues (memories) about gives us perspective or added depth to what we are currently experiencing just as another where gives added perspective or location to place our current here within the context of, or how having other beings provides us with definition, comparisons, and contrasts to measure against or define a perspective in relation to them, for knowing what it is or means to be ourselves.

       It seems “where” is fairly easy to grasp as I said before because we literally can see and do place different places side by side concurrently. And it does seem that time is harder to grasp than space or place because it is invisible, cannot put it side by side, can only speculate about its more mysterious and changeable other half (the future), we can only see its effects or the effects it has on the “whats” like one can only see the wind when it is blowing leaves, flags, sand, or other objects. Since time seems fairly difficult to grasp, why then do I state that the “what” of the what, where, and when triad is by far the most difficult of all to understand? The “whats” of existence are literally easy to grasp but like understanding what it means to be oneself, “what” is far more complicated to understand on anything other than the most superficial of levels without looking at it from other angles or perspectives of other existences or other ways to be. “What” seems of paramount importance. It is far easier to understand that neither time nor space could exist without first having a “what” to occupy them, than for time or space to be thought occupy that pivotal lead role. Yet “what” like space relying forever on a “where else” to place its “here” into context, and time always needing two opposing “thens” to bookend its “now”, “what” is nothing without a “what else”.

       One could go the easy route of disputing this, that one can have a “what” without being defined by a “what else”. Surely one might say one could have one thing in the universe and space and time could still exist. So you have one thing in space and nothing else. Without another thing in space, there is no other there. The entire width of the universe would be the width of that one thing. If one were to make the thing hollow to create space within it, one is in a sense dividing it into separate things. If you have some parts of the thing different shapes, you have in a sense different things and not one thing. Though you can still call it one thing, it still can be seen or called a collection of different things since it is not uniform throughout. Now go against that and speculate that it can be a perfect sphere, therefore though the universe would end at its borders, it can create space inside itself by expanding. Though a perfect sphere can seem to be uniform throughout and create a sense of space within itself, it would create two distinct states , perspectives, or aspects of its own existence. It must have an interior edge and an exterior edge, one curving inward and one curving outward, two sides. So a coin can still be a coin though it possesses two sides, one might say. I am not disputing that a coin cannot have two sides, nor a sphere, but that you cannot have a what without creating a what else to define it, or to have space and time. Once you enlarge the sphere to create space, you create two polar opposites, an inside curving inward and an outside curving opposite. Two aspects, two ways to define what exists, two opposite aspects of existence, a what and a what else.

       On the other aspect of the premise that you cannot have a what without a what else to define its existence or it cannot exist in space and in time, that one can still have one thing inseparable in all the universe and still have time for it to exist within, I will now address. If one said you could have one thing and still have time, the moment that one thing becomes something else or changes in any way you still would have a what and a what else, what it was before and what it became after. My original point is that every what requires a what else to define its existence by, and that just as you can have no now without a then, and no here without a there, you can not have a what without a what else to define it by.

       For some, they may not even need convincing. Surely what we are now requires many what elses. We require air to breathe, food to eat, others to reproduce and sustain a population. Surely we require lots and lots of what elses. That no one would dispute, yet our concrete view of the “whats” in our environment can seem to make it seem illogical to think that every single “what” we perceive requires a “what else” or it does not exist, yet that is exactly the case. Every single thing in the universe requires some other thing, or some differing aspect of itself in the case of a hollow uniform sphere, or some post/previous state, something else to give it any existence whatsoever. We can readily understand we need other things or beings to give ourselves relevance, but again I going beyond us and purpose and living things. That is that nothing exists in the universe without a what else, and that what else is at that moment everything else it is not, or appears not to be, or to be different than. The what/what else is as necessary as the here versus there and the now versus then. Each only exists as a contrast to the other. Each requires the existence of the other. The three concepts, what, where, and when, and their six halves, here/there, now/then, what/what else, combined sustain all of existence, or more definitively, the perception of existence.

       So if every single “what” in existence has no existence without some or every other “what else” to not only confirm its existence in the relational sense, but to actually create its physical existence as bound and integral to each others existences as the “now” is to requiring other times to place itself within or between, and “here” is to requiring other “theres” to place itself within, what does this mean to perception or interpretation? It means for those who consider it a truth or an axiom whatever they wish for it to mean. It does mean that in the simplest sense you cannot have one without the other, or that they are each two sides of the same coin, or two inseparable aspects of the same aspect of existence.

       Again I will point out that not many really have cause to to dispute this. As living beings we cannot exist independently of other living and non-living things to help sustain our existences. Why keep stressing the interconnectedness of all things one might think? The reason is because this point is easily lost. I am not talking about all “whats” being related to or in relationship to each other or being dependent upon each other. Each “what” is quite literally defined and created by the “what else”. What is is what it is to you. You are defining it and creating it as much as it is defining and creating itself.

       The best analogy I can think of is a very old one. What anything is is like a spoke in a wagon wheel, or for anyone who never saw a wagon but have seen bicycles, a bicycle wheel. The spoke is what it is, but what that is requires the presence of the other spokes and the wheel in which to turn within. Nothing in the universe is a whole wheel, nor a wagon, nor a bicycle by itself. Everything is a spoke in the same wheel, or each is a spoke in everything else’s wheels depending on how you wish to view it.

       This is why what something is can be viewed as far more complicated than either where it is or when it is. Changing what something is or changing the “what” of something is only possible by really understanding how what something is is defined by everything else. Changing it happens in conjunction or in agreement with everything else that is. These agreements seem to follow rules, preset limitations or methods for things to gradually become something else they are not, or seem not, now. Some would call them Laws of Nature. However like time seeming to stretch predictably in some fashion into the future by the way or direction it seems to be heading from the past to the present, how something becomes something else or what it is not follows expectations in accordance and in line with its presumed past direction and heading, and those seemingly involutable Laws of Nature are similar roads of expectation we impose upon the world or our perceptions of it for it to make sense to us, or at least to make more sense to us, as much as it does or might.

Part Three - Threading Infinity Loops

       Infinity is finite and randomness predictable,
       for just as the mind finds the unknowable irresistible
       we break the facade of the indefinitive world
       merely by using the means of our memories
       to eventually come to see that spacious duplication
       is the key masking the underlying yet undeniable uniformity

       The way to understand how something can be something it is not simultaneously with what it is, or become anything else, it is best explained by understanding infinity loops. Time and space again are easier to explain than objects, or that everything is really a part or subset of every other thing. The previous section did attempt to explain how anything in existence requires something else to create its existence against, literally, not relationally or in purpose, and that for what it is to be different requires changing its existence in conjunction or agreement with that everything else’s agreement or perception of what it is, the potential for its existence within everything else. This is done every moment we perceive as time passing and this mutually defined change determines what each thing is, was, and will or could become. These follow roads of expectations but are not limited to them.

       An infinity loop is a term I apply to anything large enough to cast a shadow back upon itself or become a paradox. The three aspects I hold to require or sustain or describe existence each have their own similar infinity loops matching their descriptions or representations of reality.

       A spacial infinity loop is simply curved space. Imagine sailing west so long that you sail completely around the World and end up right where you started. By believing that three dimensional space can be curved through one or more additional dimensions we cannot visualize or easily comprehend, like the two dimensional ocean plane through a third dimension of height tilting slightly downward until it goes all the way back around itself, by thinking that three dimensional space can be similarly curved back upon itself one can imagine a similar occurrence. That occurrence being that one might be able to head off in a rocket ship in any direction, leave the solar system, the galaxy, and so on always traveling in the same direction and return from the opposite direction to where one began. Since I have not mentioned space/time, this is fairly easy to comprehend. If one imagines one could travel through such a curved spacial infinity loop without taking into account how time would be affected, and if there were time enough lying forward into the future to complete the circuit, one could fairly easily conceive of such a journey.

       The paradox of infinity loops is best understood by the idea of threading them. Since they are at least by my definition also infinite, one cannot actually thread them but the ideas are best understood and explained by the concept. Imagine the old story of leaving a trail of breadcrumbs behind you so you don’t get lost in the woods, or a thread. If one had enough breadcrumbs or a long enough thread, as one completes a trip around the world or through curved space one would eventually not need anymore because one would eventually come back to where one began and the previous breadcrumb trail or thread would still exist and could be tied or joined together. Though a tread could conceivably exist tens of thousands of miles long, long enough to reach around the Earth, no thread could be made to reach through curved space from one end of the Universe reaching back around itself through curved space so as to be able to be tied together, not solely because the thread would have to be astronomically long, but because time would be affected. Curved three dimensional space is not the same as curved two dimensional space where each end of the thread can exist simultaneously in the same time-frame. To travel from one end of the universe back to where one began requires a curve through time as well as any other dimension needed to bridge the gap to complete the circuit and the first end of the string could not exist within the time-frame or reality of the other end as a string around the Earth could.

Alternate Timeline(s): Principles, Perspective and Potential, Before Early Notes

2011-06-19T03:08:00.000-07:00

        One could look at ones life as a whole and single out one moment and think that is the penultimate moment, that is really who they were or what their life was about. Or at least find one that shows them in the best light, to think that is what I wish to be remembered for if or when I should be thought of at all. It is nice when life accommodates this, when one is remembered for some heroic act, some great work, not for how one lost his temper, made some public embarrassment of himself, or for his or her greatest failure instead of their greatest success, but this is often beyond our control.
         But to be remembered for one moment, great or miserable, or for one attribute, or for what one did or how one was at only one age of their lives, it is to know nothing of them, simply a word out of context fallen to the floor, a random word off a random page signifying nothing. An overstatement surely, one might think. There are moments in peoples lives which we can single out and feel comfortable that they sum up someone we knew or some aspect of their character which we think sums them up as a whole. Surely not everyone is so changeable that they continually change their stripes or go from being one kind of person to another. However, such determinations are subjective. What and how I might remember one person for might be different than how another might remember the same person knowing him or her over exactly the same time period. A hero to many might be rightly considered anything but one to another who was mistreated by them or suffered because of something done unto them by that person, intentional or otherwise. One moments negligence behind a wheel of a car can, to one person affected, wipe out a whole lifetimes worth of good intentions. ...
        To the one remembered for losing his life in trying to save others, equally important are the moments in his life which lead him to that time and place to make such a heroic decision or choose such a course of action. Each fault he or she had, each tragedy they overcame becomes that much more ennobling because it lead them to being in what others considered a selfless state of mind when they were tried the most for what they were, for who they were, at that moment which happened to be their last. Had they lived another week they may have died under less noble circumstances, or have been wittingly or unwittingly involved in the cause of someone else’s death in a traffic accident or a fit of rage, and that would seem even more tragic coming after the accolades justly deserved for the actions the week before. ...
        When someone dies, particularly when one is young, we mourn not just for the loss of what they were, but for all that they might have been, for what they might have become. We see the loss of a being, but more importantly, we see a process interrupted. Sure they would have died one day further down the road, but what stands out as much as what they did, is how much was left undone. If they were bright or in a position of leadership, we can readily imagine all the great things they could have done were there more time.
         What each person is at any moment in time is not what is most important. It cannot be easily ascertained if at all. They are forever in the process of becoming, not of being. What they will become, what they can grow into depends on some degree to the paths they choose, but to also the length and flexibility each of those paths provides. Each end is different, but each end has an overshadowing and unrepresentative view only by way of having happened to be the last moments, in the end no greater or more important or more telling, than any in the beginning or middle.
Spanning Time - Towards Tomorrow, 2001

People's lives are attempts to transfer something, their experiences, their potential, into something concrete which will have existence outside of them or beyond them. A book, a painting, a formula or theory, a philosophy, a monument or sculpture, a building or park, their children, an heir philosophical, spiritual, or biological, all of these are attempts to pass on something inside yourself to exist outside of yourself for others, and which may survive beyond yourself. To see it as attempts at immortality is unduly coarse and vulgar. It is not wanting to let something good within you die with you or be forgotten unnecessarily. That is how to view it in its best light, though maybe not realized or always thought of in that context at the time by everyone, but equally how it can be seen by anyone toward anyone else's attempted achievements. The irony is that which is wished to be passed on can never be forgotten or lost anyway, nor is any externalization of that potential any more real than the potential of itself.
Spring 2004 (Notes Part 2)

People should not have an abject view of minds or consciousness. They, others, are not something apart from yourself which you can go into like a house and look around (with) you here and they, there. Consciousness is experience. Life is experience. Only by interacting with it, being affected by it as well as affecting it, can either exist. Separateness is existence. Togetherness is potential. Experience is finding a level between or seeing existence, temporal, and potential, timeless, as separate things. That is and is not the case depending on your perspective and where you think you stand, literally and figuratively.
Early Summer 2004 (Notes Part 2)

Dancing around a wave potential or probability trying to see it from other sides (is) different than around an actuality. Many different ways of being means needing a different way of perceiving it from outside of it, since what is outside of it is indefinite while what it is is indefinite.
July 18, 2004 (Notes Part 2)

People who see death as a chance or opportunity to escape into something else, heaven, hell, another life, another dimension of existence, miss the entire target, not just the mark. You have to realize on a meta-physical level, you are not any one thing at one place at one point in time to be in the first place, never mind how to shift that into being or becoming something else outside yourself yet still retain that essential "you-ness". You are following mentally a perceptual stream interactively, seemingly, yet without absolute (definitive at any one point in time, only perception of different things, even yourself, strung together over time like beads on a string) substance existing at an absolute moment in time. Given that perceptualization may be your only reality, thinking how to become something else when there is little but memories to give you a sense of existence at all, you can resettle into the conclusion that you exist in and are only defined by your circumstances (a web or chain of events or possible events) and what you do, and outside of that not only can you (as you are defined now) have nothing, but for you, outside of that (boundary of potential *EVENTS*) exists nothing. What never was and can never be can never not be as well. Since your existence is experiential (involving others perceptions as well) beyond what is physical, it is (even now) as timeless, eternal, and lucent as a dream, and as subjective as well.
December 3, 2004 (Notes Part 2)

...Just as businesses are groups of people defining themselves as a company, an organization to provide them food or power at future moments of time, people too have their own building blocks (components as people are to companies) of (past) events and (future) possible potential events which come together from different sources to contribute to something called a life or a person which is merely something built out of that coming together to maintain some separate position over time. Without seeing electrons, we experience them. Without seeing the building blocks of time (externally or non-sequentially) of ourselves, we experience them. Events we connect together to remember can define ourselves by those memories and assumed potential events yet to occur (which we think or fear might occur which also defines our notions of ourselves and who each of us may be at any given point), seemingly yet to occur anyway because only by our and some others perspectives around us (at this point in time) have they yet to have occurred.
September 5, 2005, (Notes Part 4)

The powers that be
that force us to live like we do
bring me to my knees
when I see what they've done to you

Excerpt from "Back on the Chain Gang" (Pretenders), Chrissie Hynde

         The notes which I am covering now below were written, I believe, mostly between May and July of 2003. They include many notes which I have already posted here in Outtakes, Golden paragraphs, Degrees of Relevance, Each a Marvel. The reason for including those notes again is that this is the order in which I believed they were written when I first assembled them together in 2004 or 2005. I do not completely agree with the order that they were put in, but since that time was only a year or two after those notes were written, unlike now 8 years later, I cannot say today that this order is incorrect.

         While writing the main Notes, which I had first assembled or named, beginning in October of 2003, I also grouped together notes which ran from the end of July to October 2003, calling them the PreNotes. "The Notes: Part Zero" did not sound as good. After that, a few months later, I assembled these notes below (which I called "Before the PreNotes", or Notes: Part -1, by an even worse numerical counting) which preceded those PreNotes by a few months. Since "Before the PreNotes" was a "catch-all" collection, it may have included some out of order on purpose. I am certain now that the order of at least one or two of them seems way off, so I will call this an alternate timeline, though it is probably a much more correct one.

         A few of these made it into "Deconstructing the Universe" finishing up the Terms section. The word "perspective" shows up quite a bit before I wrote the section which I called "Perspective". The short note which is shown just before it below actually, I believe, frames how I was thinking just before I wrote "Perspective", in a way. That is why I put so much emphasis on the order I wrote these things because it shows to me how one idea lead to the next.

         The "Principles of Law" section was written as a reaction to actual transgressions of accepted legal or common sense principles about law going on at the time. I cannot remember all the cases or instances now, but some were local, state, or national in the US at the time. This was long before it became accepted as it is now, almost without needing to say so, how the US is operating without any pretense of "rule of law" in regards to how it is behaving internationally, but this addresses civil rights principles. Ten or twenty years ago most of these "principles" were so universally accepted, writing them down even would have seemed a joke. Now, unfortunately, an emerging unquestioning police-state mentality in the US can now make them seem extremely libertarian, if not even possibly potentially radical. I see this now as a tragic measure of how far things have moved since how the law was perceived merely a few decades ago, not to mention how much more bi-partisanly worse things have gotten, and even acceleratingly worse under Obama's first 3 years, since the time it was written in the summer of 2003.

         Most of the quotes above this introduction were from the "Potential" collection of my Notes, or a gathering of quotes from the "Notes: Parts 1 - 6", all in regards to the idea of potential. Again, it was simply done by a word search, although some minimal combing through the notes was probably done as well. I have also gone back a bit earlier in the above quotes to the "Spanning Time" section of "Towards Tomorrow" which I wrote in regards to the idea of the sense of loss or waste of potential when someone dies, often young or someone we might think had a lot of potential to lose. These notes I am covering now below were the first time that I tried to look at the idea of potential in a clinical or academic sort of way. Indeed, the "Discussion points" section below was written by trying to imagine how one might structure a college seminar-type discussion about the concept of potential. "Does the concept of Potential require alternate timelines," "does the potential of someone exist within that person or in their relationship to others in their environment," "what are the different kinds of potential," etc. These ideas would be taken in the later Notes much much further, and at least when recognizing it as a recurring theme in them, I decided to group together the ones I thought were related into a separate collection.

         The many concepts which are involved within the idea of potential touch upon many other aspects besides alternate timelines, or what is involved in each persons inherent potential verses how their potential is determined by others in their environment, or in how events may or may not come together. Beauty, leadership qualities, these are things that require reactions in others opinions, events, and behaviors to be or to establish that potential to be realized, or even to be suspected to appear as inherent within those are thought to have such potential. It is really such a complex notion that a mere word-search was really a lazy way to go in my trying to sort out how or what I thought about the idea. But it was quick, easy, and I liked how that "Potential" collection turned out. It is such a common word, it turns up in many different ways in everyday speech. It is a word or concept which we like to think we know what it means, yet when thinking of what it really involves or what it is made up of, it is astonishingly complex, even as, or maybe because, we can apply it in many different ways to many different types things, events, or ideas.

Before the PreNotes:

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.

Living is about not understanding everything.

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 into 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 do not disappear when they leave our sight or our 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 we can directly perceive or experience. The whole road is always there and we are always at each and every point along it simultaneously.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Principles 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 back date 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 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 need 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 region 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 public's 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 costs 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.

I know not whether my mind, consciousness, or soul, if existent, was born in this reality or entered into it. What I do know is that this reality can no longer contain it. It must, can, and will grow beyond it. It is inevitable.

Every day is a joy and every living thing, a marvel.

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.

Discussion Points
==================
Potential - the notion that something can become something else over
time, namely that it can be more than one thing, way or
state (in the future) is possible, cooking (<- no clue about that)
Potential (the notion that something can become something else over
time, namely that it can be more than one thing, way or
state (in the future) is possible) cooking <- no clue about that
Does it exist?
If so, what has it?
Where does it come from?
Is in inherent within something?
Does it exist in relation to things not it (can ones potential be
thought of as being contributed by others)
Does the relationship arise together with it or come later?
What is it?
Is it dependent upon multiple states of reality (timelines)?
Can potential exist without multiple futures?
Can multiple realities exist without the idea of potential?
Types of potential
Variance potential - other? (something else)
Value potential - more?

The best way to think of what life gives you to experience, your own life, your body, others, and so on, is to think of it like taking a book out of a library. You can have use of it for a limited time, but you know it is not yours outside of that time, and it is allotted to you for making the passage of time to enrich you by gaining the experience of having read or experienced it. You can waste the time it is allotted to you just rereading some of the pages over and over again until time runs out, but there is a progression implied. You may not be able to renew it and you definitely at some point will have to return it. We try to hold on to certain times and people and want to experience their company or similar times over and over but the story must change, evolve, or grow or the meaning or purpose, if any, if you choose to ascribe meaning or purpose to it, will be lost completely. Meaning is ascribed or assessed in looking back and summing up the differences and discrepancies over where you came from. Where you may be headed , its meaning if any, has not been decided yet. As long as life continues, everything and their meanings are open to revision and reinterpretation. Characters will come and go, the settings will shift, and even the protagonist will change or be changed. Savor them as much as you wish, the parts you like, but do not deny the rest their due places in-between, and see the progression not as a loss, but as a necessity of the first and the only requirement, change.

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 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.

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.

One needs to know everything about everyone else and everything else to put what they are in context. One can think one is anything but that next new perspective not considered can shift that to anything else. Only by seeing or putting one up against everything else can one say definitively what one is or was.

Chain of suppositions regarding inter-linkage of existences
===========================================================
1) Once born one is accepted universally in ones reality as possessing existence.

2) Each person's consciousness consists of a small part of every other beings' consciousness (that which is able to recognize their existence)

3) Each persons potential is comprised of those parts of others potential in dealing with that individuals existence.

4) Each person's consciousness wishes to control or affect others potential for interaction or interpretation of that individual in a certain way (to cause given effects over possible other effects).

5) Beyond that subset in each of everyone else's potential for experiencing and understanding your own existence, you have no independent actual concrete existence (outside of your own perception of your own existence)(which is neither actual nor concrete).

6) What ones consciousness is is a mirror of the most likely interpretation of what the most others will see one as or how they would experience oneself.

7) One can change the range or the likelihood of how one is perceived by others by changing their consciousness, if they are able, to shift the most likely possible perceptions in all others in effect to cause a change in what they are seeing as they (things) have no actual existence except in each others minds (the sum of all others' minds).

8) Though they cannot necessarily change the actual perceptions, to change the range of likelihood is enough to change oneself since what they are is defined by that range of probability more than any given actuality since most others will never collapse that potential into actual experiences by direct and actual contact with, or experience of, that other.

9) The perception of any other beings or consciousnesses' existence is not limited to those one would likely come into direct contact with physically. Though actual shared events can give one greater ability to shape others opinions of oneself, how one could have been perceived by all others one never met is just as relevant to defining who one is or was.

You - Here - Now
=============
What You are now - what exist now which is not you
Now - pre-existence/post-existence duality (what is not now)
(all points in time not now)(past/future need for present)
Here - all points in space not here

(Note: At this point Perspective was written, and it was added after everything else was done (which is why it shows up here in the in-between notes) to the end of the Terms section of Deconstructing the Universe because I liked it. It really did not fit in there as it was considerably longer than anything else added as Terms, but I had nowhere else to put it, thought it capped it off nicely, and like I said, because I really liked it. It was the last thing added and the only thing added after the Key Ideas section was underway. This is being put in its entirety here instead of just linking to it because it goes on considerably longer than how it was used in Deconstructing the Universe. It also gets a little off the point, thus it was shorted down to where it is noted below, but in this continues on past where it ended in Deconstructing the Universe, getting into quite different territory, and also gets a bit of a different focus in the process which was why it was cut.)

Perspective – Humans are different than most else in their everyday environments by two factors; language and imagination. Imagination is able to keep ones past alive and redefine whatever one is now in relation to what one believes or "remembers" what one was, or how one was, or how one saw things before. We cannot be certain that how we remember the past is exactly how it occurred but we believe mostly that our general sensing of our own pasts to be honest and that what and how we think we were, and most of what we believe we experienced, we actually did experience or did occur. By imagination of a past to define or redefine what one is now with what or how one was or saw things before, whether based on fairly accurate re-creatable or retained records of them we call memories, or less accurate more imaginatively based records of what we believe we were or how things happened, we are able to create two distinct perspectives; the state of how things are now, how they operate, what general rules apply to the order of things, what or how we believe things to be or should be; and how we saw things at a time when we existed as and saw things differently than how we currently perceive such things. Perspective itself exists as a reflection of what it is against what it is not, or against what it believes itself no longer to be. Language provides a tool to communicate perspectives to others, and to ourselves over longer periods of time when our own memories begin to fade or become less accurate.

Our physical existences, our bodies, keep records of their own apart from our memories or ideas of what we were or what we believe occurred. Our bodies reprogram themselves to defend against illnesses, diseases, or germs which we have encountered in the past, and provides us greater resistance to them should we encounter them again. Our skin and bones carry scars or reminders of when they were broken and were not able to heal or reproduce themselves perfectly. Some people intentionally scar themselves with tattoos to better remember persons, places, times, or events in their lives by writing it or marking it upon their bodies. In a sense, time will write its own record upon our physical selves, first by growth then by physical degradation, the lacking of being able to reproduce and heal itself correctly over time leading to what we call advanced aging ending eventually in death, when one is not killed earlier due to a specific accident or illness. Reproduction is a means to cheat death, to repackage and re-bundle what one is in a new form without a physical past, something completely new yet also a continuation of something very old written in a language all its own we are only at the earliest and most primitive stages of beginning to decipher. This form of passing on information and identity to other similar new beings, yet which will become something that is a continuation of the same "life" of a species or type of being on a grander scale, is older than our written and spoken languages and cultures we now also pass on, but is more universal to other species and, barring our future physical interference with its structures, is a more accurate reconstitution or recording of the past repackaged for the future.

Whether biological history, biological based "memories" it uses to reconstruct something altogether new from a previously written template of another or other parents, which will look and function as a continuation of that same species standing apart from all other lifeforms in ones environment even though it is also in a sense something altogether new and different than anything which ever existed before, or whether it is consciousness based memories, memories of events and previous notions of ones own lifeform's physical past, both of these contribute to ones perspective by providing a backdrop or history of existence to measure oneself against as it is evolving into something altogether new, but which also must stand as a continuation of something else, something to use to bring up to enable such intended states of existence or occurrences to become actualized. Biological history or biological memories started that ball rolling and it is still rolling. Along the way we have started other balls rolling as well, cultural identities, political, occupational, experiential, all templates to guide or impose upon each new successive lifeforms a sense of history in where and how to fit in, and where to place themselves in relation to all which has come before. As I have said, perspective must rely on a history, a what-it-was to define itself in relation to what it is, and if possible what it hopes to become. Biological life provides that, and now the life of other institutions and representations of what the past was and can be again, also guide our perspectives on what we think we were, and frame our ambitions on what we think we can become.

To get a handle on how perspective forms, let's go back slightly to an isolated farming community which could exist anywhere a few hundred, a thousand or more years ago, or today. Imagine they have no ability to read or write, know nothing of the outside world, nor of any people beyond those few around them. Lets also imagine or assume humans do not have any other means to sense or know of others without coming into direct contact with them physically. To these isolated people, their perspectives would largely be comprised of their parents (and others nearby) perspectives. They would see the world, know life, and share the beliefs of those few around them they do have direct contact with. Except for each new generation adding slightly new perspectives, a process of change often slowly defined over many generations, their beliefs would be based otherwise wholly on the outlooks of those few others surrounding them and their oral stories of who and what came before. Yet even without a written language or contact with other communities or societies, it is through language that perspective is formed, a history given, and evolution or change given its framework to grow within. Without language, the biological history is still being accumulated and passed on, behavior mimicked and imitated, but the ability to imagine and recreate mentally generations before those few whom one directly experiences is severely limited. The present becomes more real and the past becomes lessened or less significant. Without a language, ones perspective is limited only to what one remembers how one was before. Other generations one never met become irrelevant or non-existent to that consciousness's perspective.

With oral stories via language, perspective is widened beyond the present. A mental history comes alive. A life of a people is told, accumulated, and passed on. Each individual is now placed within that context and measured against the ghosts of all who came before who are remembered. A history real or imagined forms, and usually not solely real or imagined but with some degree of each. One not only has the genetic predispositions to imitate those which have come before, the genetic modifications to better be able to survive physically, they are given exposure to notions of previous others existences in a "before" time, stories about those others, and from those stories, their perspectives. With ones own ability of imagination to recreate and re-experience or remember ones own past, however accurately or inaccurately, stories of others gives one the ability to expand that past. When one is told of a long ago king, one can imagine or deduce what it might have been like to be that king, how others would act around you and how you might treat others.

Thus ones possible perspective no longer becomes limited by what one is or those whom one knows. One is given past identities of others to speculate over, learn from, and adopt as their own. Stories of great deeds done in the past, giants or dragons slain, gods fooled or burglarized, become aspirations of new generations to equal or surpass, and one day have their own great deeds be told alongside those presently told. And often the new generations are not free to adopt these expectations or aspirations, it can be thrust upon them. Being born to a great leader, one can be expected to become a great leader. Being born to a worker or slave, one can be expected only to be a worker or slave. If one bore a great physical similarity to one who lived shortly before, they can be told or convinced they are a recreation of that person, a new incarnation of them, and the stories and perspective of that other person's history can become of greater relevance to them because of that supposed bond. Often just sharing a name with another of a previous time gave one a form of kinship or bond with others also called by that name. Once others of times past became known through their deeds, from those deeds one could speculate on the kind of person they were, how they might view this issue or that moral dilemma, their presumed perspectives could be kept alive and passed on and used to educate others. Without a written language though, that "personality" or perspective was far more fluid and more easily adapted to changing times, changing mores, and more easily completely revised and amended by powerful rulers or chiefs since stories are in essence only what those currently living believe them to be, and communicated perspectives long after those beings ceased to exist have only the limited and changeable natures of folk tales, myths, and fables.

In the isolated farming community where I began, chances are unlikely it would have a powerful enough leader to completely revise oral stories to suit his own wishes or justify his own actions or beliefs. In smaller communities power is more evenly shared, more opinions have equal weight, as each individual is more needed or crucial to the success of the whole. In such societies, oral history is more commonly agreed upon and democratic. Often individuals took on the roles of historians or oral history keepers but often it was due to a level of trust in the integrity of that individual to stay true to the spirit of the past, though it is possible a lot were just those who could tell stories better and more imaginatively than others.

Once we give our isolated farming community the written word, power shifts. The past becomes a physical thing, not just a shared imagination. It can be stored, cherished as an artifact or heirloom, and it can be burned, destroyed, or without proper transfer from one generation to the next, reduced to meaningless graffiti and scribbling. Those who can read the markings to the satisfaction of those who cannot become elevated in stature, position, and wealth. They control the interpretation of the past because now it is something they can point to beside themselves and say "here is the past, this is the truth of what those who came before did, thought, and said about these issues, beliefs, or of their own lives, laws, and customs". Such readers or interpreters of the past now had a power to challenge current leaders interpretations. They became co-leaders, religious leaders, academics, or scholars. Their power came from their ability to interpret the past as being relevant to those living in the present. Keepers of the word, guardians of the faith, those who can bring alive the words of the dead and let them speak and live in the hearts and minds of new generations throughout time, a good but dangerous job if one was confronted with kings or rulers who had their own opinions about what the past should say or wished it to confer credibility upon their current power, ideas, or give them even greater influence over others.

Thus the ability to read, write, and interpret writings spread beyond whoever or whatever groups came up with it. Like language is commonly defined by mutual agreement upon the meanings of words, so writing too became, in those limited circles of those who were literate, commonly defined by those of differing occupations or roles beyond just historians, and less likely it became for one small group or segment of a society to completely reinterpret or "divine" what these mysterious symbols meant to a largely ignorant bulk of the population. The political leaderships or rulers wanted their own "readers" of the words to ensure that they did not mean one thing one day and something else the next. The past had begun to exert a power over them and their desire to have it interpreted as they might wish, but they began to make sure such keepers of the written words or records were not revising and reinterpreting them themselves for their own purposes and powers. Thus the ruling powers and keepers or interpreters of the past, when not one and the same, provided some degree of checks and balances on each others aspirations to redefine the past for their own wishes and aims, and the past became, if not more real, at least kept more honestly.

The more groups or segments of a society learned to read, the less mysterious reading became and became an extension of their spoken language with one exception, it lived outside of a human mind. This made it less likely to change from one telling to the next. It remained static and unchanging from one day to the next. If more people agreed upon and understood a written language within a given society it became more likely to survive from one generation to the next, and though it might evolve slowly as ones spoken language evolved, if it required broader agreement across a society, it became less likely to evolve apart from the most common form or representation of what it meant to most others. Therefore not only did it carry its meaning from one day to the next, but you now had a physical object which could carry thoughts, ideas, and perspectives from one person to another without one of the parties needing to actually be present, or have need to rely on the honestly or accuracy of a messenger. Though often it was and still is misinterpreted (one cannot ask a book or a letter to better explain some aspect you are not clear about), by and large it came to mean the same thing to each person who possessed it, and communication directly with the past, and with those elsewhere in the present, became possible.

Just as verbal language is an integral component of perspective being able to communicate ideas of others existences prior to ones own to use as templates to define what you are or giving it a context of where to place your identity in regards to others based upon how others in the past defined or lived themselves, written language was able to cut out the middleman. Without needing a storyteller or interpreter of the past, people began to "hear" the words of people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago, depending on accurate and faithful transcriptions and sometimes translations, to experience them as if those persons were alive and speaking to them directly. Yet again the past became more alive with more to say about where one is standing in relation to where others stood before.

All these added possible perspectives, all these new voices, now these lives of people no longer living existing on to give one added perspective on what it means to be themselves and still, though what is written here is thought to apply to larger cultures, one needs not to even travel beyond the original small farming community I started with. Though the kings or leaders would have been more human-sized and less dramatic, it is possible for a small group of humans to develop a language and a written language to record their own histories. Even larger groups are still made up of mere, and just as human, individual members. Larger groups are more likely to come up with such ideas because they have a broader base of communication but nothing here mentioned is beyond a given community of humans to achieve on their own.

So with the widened possible perspectives of generations' views and opinions of long ago multiplying so long as they have room to store all of these added perspectives of those no longer living, the possible perspective of any individual coming later grows and grows. Granted using one small farming community compared to what most humans know of the world today, that perspective would still seem limited in comparison to our own, but it is there for a contrast. Even within what would be for most today a severely limited and insular culture, one remote farming community cut off from the rest of the world, having no experience or knowledge of other cultures, their possible perspective on how to view and interpret their lives and existences would grow exponentially just with the mere addition of written language (there are limits to what even a great oral record keeper could remember) and a large enough library to record the lives, beliefs, opinions, and points of view of all those who came before, the addition of that to the natural abilities of imagination and identification and juxtaposition of seeing oneself in similarity or in contrast to another who came before. Though within that narrow definition of the experiences or potential history and perspectives on what it means to be a member of that small farming community, if records of their lives and experiences were kept for hundreds of generations, the potential growth of individuals minds and perspectives even within what we would consider a narrow range of possible experiences, that potential for growth and perspective would be vast indeed.

But our world and our perspectives are based on a much larger scale. Our histories are not just of one village or area or community of people in isolation from all others. Even in some of the most remote areas of the world people have heard of, and have notions or misconceptions about what it is like or would be like to live in some of the larger cities of our world. We know of kings and dictators of long ago who ruled empires many or all of our ancestors never lived under. We know of cultures beyond our own, and the supposed or imagined perspectives of individuals within those cultures in how they might perceive their lives or our lives. We know of various stages of history different groups of humans went through in different parts of the world going back thousands of years. We have ideas on how these civilizations might have been structured and what life might have been like for different classes, groups, or occupations of its members. All of these imagined or deduced perspectives on what it means to be human or how to view our own lives in accordance, in relevance, or in contrast to how these countless others also living around our world now, or around our world in days gone by, how they saw themselves, what they believed they were, how they believe they or the Universe came to be or the purpose why either was created or what purpose it currently serves or currently exists as, all of these perspectives written down somewhere nearby to read and to know or imagine, and to add to or use to define our own ideas about what we are, why we are, where we came from, or what we might choose to do with our own lives. By knowing or thinking we know about who they are or were and what they might have done gives us some perspective or greater perspective upon what it means to be ourselves.

And this has only mentioned written and oral history thus far. Though many laud the written words ability to spark ones imagination, we have recently begun recording history through other (until very recently) less subjective forms of archiving with possibly just as profound and far reaching implications as to what the written word has added to our development of possible perspectives. Photographs, films, and other means are now as important as writings for our archiving and remembering what it means to be ourselves, and though these can be manipulated for having peoples memories of their past or their culture's past skewed or misinterpreted, when kept complete and unedited by not dropping what may be considered irrelevant, provide a much greater insight or glimpse into our species' past than words on paper or computer screens ever could. We need not look at an artists representation of great leaders, we can stare them in the face ourselves. Though our information about others lives will always be skewed by what they or the governments or the media wish us to know or believe about them, we can nonetheless get greater glimpses into the lives of others we never met, never will meet, and may not even exist anymore, and see, imagine or know, or have some idea of what it might have been like to be or have been them. And every one of these perspectives of existence is a possible source of better understanding our own, or what it means or what it is like to be ourselves, and how that is similar or different than what it means or is like to be anyone else or any particular other person.

Even this speculation leaves off at the present and most accepted notions of how we record history, how we communicate ideas to others, and how we define or redefine what it means to be ourselves in reference or relevance to those others we are given to perceive or know of as well. In the future one might be able to make and play three-dimensional records of events, pause them, and view them from any angle. To view a speech by a great future world leader before the United Nations might enable you literally to stand beside him or her as they gave that speech, to see the room exactly as they saw it as it was happening. People may one day become telepathic and pass on ideas or notions, or even their entire perspectives directly to others without need for words or electronics. And even the wall of time might one day fall. We may be able to know what others knew or thought as they did those events which shaped our world's pasts. Which leaders were lying to their peoples, and which were even lying to themselves. Without computers, to be in that room when that world leader gave that speech and not just to see it or hear it, but to experience what it felt like to be that person giving the speech at that moment and/or how it might have felt to have been anyone in the audience. How then would this ability to see, know, and experience others perspectives augment or enhance their own ideas of what it means to be themselves or for them to better understand their own potentials? If they were not human or descended from what we call humanity it might seem just another perspective on what it means to exist. But if they came from us, from out of our own timeline, our present would give them added perspective on their own just as others' pasts in our timeline define and shape our own and our expectations and dreams for what our futures might hold.

Our lives our not just our own. Our present to those futures, if any, are not just our own. Our perspectives, how we view ourselves, our lives, others lives, how we view ourselves in relation to all else in our perceptual worlds, they are not just our own, nor can we keep them only to ourselves for eternity. They are a record, whether mapped by words, by DNA, by consciousness engrams, by videotape, or by holographic recordings. By being and having been experienced, they have a concrete reality just as tangible as the first words written on paper or carved in stone. They form the possible perspectives of all who have yet to be, who might use them to define and know, or think about, sort out and discover, who they are by giving them a past to seem to have grown out of, a history even if not actually their own, for they will always be new and the time will never in actuality be any other moment than now.

Rest deals with time, not perspective. Drop it! (ended there, but not here ;-)

It will always be now to them as they will seem only to have been only themselves. That is what it means to be. Even were they to be able to experience even our entire perspectives at any given point in our lives, not just our ideas, as long as it is a part of their past, it is not exactly what we ourselves experience. To be each individual in essence is to experience multiple possible futures, or to have existence within multiple possible futures and to not know things as much as it means to know or believe any given number of things. Even those, could any species evolve enough to re-experience anyone or anything from their past in what is the present to them from any given timelines point of view, they cannot fully experience what it is like to really be that individual because that individual has existence across multiple timelines which are not part of their past. Also to possess more than the knowledge of a given individual, to know them but also still have their own experiences, would be to have a skewed interpretation. Though perspective is communicable and past events can be brought alive again, to exist is to have multiple possible pasts and multiple possible futures. It is like a ride which is different every time. When you are part of what creates a future's past, their backdrop or back story, that ride could only have happened one way. When you are part of another's distant future, you have no existence or assurance you will exist at all. But while you are you, you are creating a solid past which really could have and does occur in any number of ways, and seeming to set a real, a definite future, which will in effect actually occur for a limited number of potential future persons in a limited number of future realities which will only occur from this one given playing out of one possible past. (In other words each present is parent of many possible futures, each of which can and does occur, so any one looking into its past, that is only one branch of that past's future which is not the only one, and cannot see or know the others futures it co-exists with the way the one in the past sense them all equally).

What actually happened, what could have happened, and (what) only might depends on where you are standing and who you are at any given point. To those yet to be you are completely predictable, and every action you might take, preordained. Yet to you or from your point of view, none of their worlds actually exist or even necessarily will. One version or set must (seem to) but which will over any other has yet to be determined. The same is true for any persons before you were born. Their actions and lives seem to only have occurred one way, (but) in actuality you only exist in a fraction of their possible futures, and not necessarily (and sometimes not) will come to be.

Perspective is to understand one history or timeline as definite. To exist in time as we understand it, you need a definite past. Which past is the real past is determined by who you are now and what you need it to be. If every successive block in the future requires every other one from and there is a definite design or intended shape of the wall, everyone is part of only one timelines definite past, and all events are already the past for some from that one definite (and only) timeline, and therefore could only occur one way. Yet if everyone is also the architect, being any brink in any possible building's past, we decide which past to jump in on anywhere or to which future design we wish to contribute our continuation, or further the shape of which future wall.

Your existence solidifies to you the past that you need to have exist for you to have been. That future state for others of what (in what) is to you the past, does not always and will not always happen that way, at least not for any still or concurrently existing within that past. To them your existence is only a possibility and nothing more. Now shoot the air out of the concept of time in that multiple versions of the future must occur, the futures that (to others in your past) require your existence and the ones where you did not exist, both mutually exclusive sets of future realities needing to occur equally. Every new existence in effect creates its own definite past to give it perspective upon its existence. To us in the now, we see ourselves creating the future path and determining which realities will be real to which future potential others. Yet if all of those future potential others are real at some point, though our lives can and do happen any number of ways from (the point of view) of each "only potential" person in the future, the ones that spring out of our timelines, each possesses a different, something completely different, yet completely preordained predictable past version of ourselves. Which you or which them is determined by which past, always solid, always seemingly preordained, yet never actually occurring more than not occurring (like possible futures), provisional. (Everything in existence is creating or defining its own past by nature of its existence. The past happened neither one way nor any other, but to be is to require it to have form and shape.)

Inverse Probability Wave
====================
-Regular probability waves we are collapsing
- Other types we are riding or carrying forward
-2 different states of defining existence (by) simultaneously occurring

(There are pictures connected to the above which are difficult to explain. One is a ring shaped double circle with an inner edge and outer edge and time denoted in the center as moving in all directions outward. An arrow is pointing to the space in-between the two rings states, "All other actual potential existences at one point in time at any given point of particlization" (meaning the life span of a given particle or existence presumably) Beyond that another arrow points somewhere near outside the circle stating (I don't have a clue about this one that follows) "From any given point of particlization (any particle can be collapsed at any point of distance from center (at potentially any other time)"
A subsection of the ring expanded with arrows. One to smaller inner edge of subsection stating "Starting point potential of any given particle you", another and opposite larger outer section stating, "End point of any given particle you", and an arrow to middle area (of ring blown up) stating "Maximum time range of any given potential actual existence or experience of you".
Another subsection shows two of the previous subsection mentioned overlaying each other. One is the same as the paragraph above, the other starting in the middle and going beyond it past where it overlaps. One arrow points to center where second section begins as "Particles collide creating new particles", and another pointing to second larger sections area as "New particles maximum range" (along the circular subsection denotes possible movements in space, away from center of circle possible length of maximum time).

(Note: I think I can infer from the use of the term "particles" as well as life, that it is intending to suggest not only can lifeforms combine to create new ones that times will overlap and extend in a second frame of reference, but that physical reality is constantly being churned out by combination of potential particles colliding and creating "actual" particles in an indefinite expansion outward from the center of the circle which of course would double back like a donut and keep expanding and creating new particles forever, each of which would have its own separate beginning and ending points of reference indistinguishable as being any more or different than any others. At least that is what it seems to me as being now as saying, more than a year removed from writing it.)

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 are 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.

A different way of seeing: Connected beneath surfaces, the Introduction at the end, short bits

2011-06-05T23:52:00.000-07:00

Knowing something's existence [potential] without actualizing it is to potentially see it from many angles at once and let it grow outward into a shape no single reality can contain or hold. It becomes too big or complex to be defined by or limited to any single version of possible events, single Universe, or single timeline. It grows outside of time and across dimensions and can only exist partially in them at once. "Seeing" the potential of anything this way is to "see" the potential of anything and everything else as well. The pattern of things that could be beyond how they only can, will, do, or seem to exist only at once, or in one Universe's history of time.

August 2003

Everything that exists is a figurehead, a beach head of much or everything else and nothing more. It is merely a part which for the moment and by one perspective has broken above something else's surface. Beneath they are always connected. All roots of anything and everything are intermingled, and reconnect ahead again. Only from angles within it do things seem separated, or as separate things.

Spring 2004 (Notes Part 2)

It is not what people are which captures my interests and imagination or attention, it is what they have the potential to become. What they are is just a moment in time which anyone can see in any number of ways. Trying to straighten that 360 degree present into a path of or for the future over many times, that is what we try to see when we come across others who we think we can envision that future by or with them. It is to stand in or run concurrent with their stream over many times, and see more of them than anyone could by just seeing or knowing them at one time or (for) a shorter time. What people are is constantly changing and always is in flux. To see the degrees of variation and what they orbit around [a common ground or sense of identity which is mostly or more unchanging] is to find out who they are, but that can take many times or a lifetime depending on how much they can vary from what they see as themselves, how long it takes to complete a single orbit or revolution.

June 26, 2004 (Notes Part 2)

People think you can understand the Universe and explain everything via one timeline and one definite reality. This is perceptual. It is a lake, but calling the surface of the lake you see in front of you, and think that surface is the whole lake. If that plane is the lake, then imagine many lakes beneath it stacked. The real lake would be all of those "surface" lakes crisscrossing in ways you cannot imagine seeing it only as a 2D sheets. The same with a 3D plus time universe, you must see that as only as the surface of the lake crisscrossing in ways you cannot imagine viewing only one timeline as real. Since I try to know the whole lake at once, all possible timelines, I still pay attention to the surface, but know that surface is not what I seek to understand and instead focus on how to think in terms of the whole lake I can still even yet only see parts of it at once, though gradually finding new organizations or ways to understand or relate to "depth" dimensional ideas as well, which I am beginning to comprehend.

Early 2005 (Notes Part 3)

Holding back time like a beaver with a dam
I gather up the past hoping that what I am
will stay in place

Nothing escapes me yet nothing do I hold
except the present you for memories of old
die upon our lips as they are told

Let our lips be still once they've done their jobs
by letting us express the feelings in our breasts
and letting us taste each other's best

Together or apart whether at the end
or at the start
we are we and will always be opposites united
together in the heart

Excerpt from "Together in the heart"

        Continuing on now with writing about April 2003, the way that I know I am doing that now is because after writing the section below this, I dated it: April 2003 at the end of it. Sometimes when I was quite satisfied or pleased with something I wrote, I would add the date at the bottom when I wrote it. This was not usually done or at least done effectively. In going over the larger sections of the Notes (Parts 1-6) which this is meant to frame, and which the excerpts above were pulled from, I sometimes put down the time but not the date. Or even more frustrating to me now, I put down the date of the week and nothing else so say what week or even month that day of the week was in. That would be helpful if any other dates were put anywhere near to that one, but instead it might often go months without any dates added, yet here and there, something like Thursday- 2:45 pm.

        However anal it may seem for me to keep going on and on about what the dates were, or about trying to get the order right, it is something I have tried hard to do as best I could, and since I am now coming up to the time in 2003 when the dates, however sporadic, were added, and when my notes became as what was to me a distinct set of writings, thankfully now getting the order right gets much easier. After finishing up "Deconstructing the Universe" with what was to be the final section, "To Co-exist", already covered here in the last section, I shortly thereafter (within few days) wrote something about that work which I would later put as the "Introduction". But it did not end. Like with the notes which I ended up calling "The Heretic Papers" written immediately after writing "Toward Tomorrow", my mind again was still racing, thinking up good short bits of things yet not wanting to develop them fully, and yet still wanting to add them to "Deconstructing the Universe", so I later tucked them onto the end as "Terms".

        These terms or short bits were to evolve over the summer and fall of 2003 into what would later become the Notes (or 5D Notes), as I now referred to them, once there were many more of them done later (2003/2004). This fairly long, 10 plus posts/sections, leading up to the Notes is now almost complete and I can more or less just cut and paste the bulk of subsequent posts/sections from the previous Notes pages at Polsci.com. However, it will not be totally that easy as simply just cutting and pasting text, as I will also be including here other things written at those times which relate to them. This will be more work, but, for me writing it anyway, will make it more fun to begin to tie the strands of the whole thing together.

        What follows below is a slightly longer version of that mentioned Introduction and some of the Terms section, in mostly chronological order as written, probably around May/June 2003.

Introduction

        If I had read Einstein and Buddha, The Parallel Sayings (Edited by Thomas J. McFarlane, 2002 Ulysses Press [Publishers Group West]) before having written "Deconstructing the Universe" I most likely would not have bothered to write it. That so much of what is said here has been said not only before, but so often by so many others was surprising to me. Not that I am surprised by some of the sources of similar ideas to what is written here such as Chuang Tsu or the Buddha.

         Indeed I well consider myself and my outlook a mixture of Buddhism, Christianity, and Taoism: a) Buddhist in that to understand the Universe or God you must first begin by understanding yourself or that part of God which is inherent within you. If you understood everything else in the Universe but not yourself, you would know literally nothing, but if you understand yourself you have the magic decoder ring or Rosetta Stone for understanding anything else. b) Christian in that the highest ideal or achievement one can attain or aspire to is forgiveness. To know when cruelty or harshness is “justified” that it is still more right whenever possible and far beyond just whenever prudent, to let go of such right or supposed right to vindication or retribution and let it be to start the healing process or at least let it even have the slightest chance to begin. Even if it is not seized upon by others, that is not the point. c) And Taoist in that the Universe is not a thing or a collection of things but an experience best understood when, by, and how it is experienced, and beyond that it has no definitive shape or means of definition as “actuality”.

        What I originally thought was fairly interesting in this work was how the notions of potential versus actual took shape, and how one person or mind only seems to stand apart from all others or all else. The notions of pre-existence and viewing the Universe as a standing wave of probability I thought were fairly new, but I guess my notions of newness are outdated, not that I necessarily believe that time is linear, so in that case maybe they can be new.

        In the aforementioned book, Einstein and Buddha, there is a good quote (I will not repeat it verbatim here) where Einstein puts forth that he believes the past, present, and future are merely illusions. Obviously if anyone has even the slightest familiarity with Eastern philosophical or religious thought, they would know such beliefs have been around for thousands of years, yet it still was surprising to see it as a literary quote from Einstein. One has to suppose it might have been something his reasoning, suppositions, or theories gave him reason to believe that such might actually be the case.

        In the appendages to this work I muse over time being repetitive and cyclical, and therefore ultimately paradoxical. What I thought to be a new twist on the “Flatland” (Edwin Abbott) Physics example of how more dimensions than we can perceive may be limited or filtered down to this reality using the ocean to represent potentiality and the surface or air to represent non-existence, space, or the absence of potential, and what we perceive as reality as the thin plane between the two, also I found has been around somewhat in various forms for a long time. Though I have found no parallels yet, I will probably find the lens, obstruction, and shadows descriptive use to better understand or explain notions of multi-dimensionalism probably relates well to something some scientist or sage said long before no doubt.

        That this work is not so far from what others more renowned have said and thought is more pleasurable than displeasurable to me. And that more and more are seeing and writing about the parallels between New Physics and old religions is refreshing. That genre which began with 1975’s The Tao of Physics (Fritjof Capra, last updated in 1999, Shambhala Press [Random House]) has continued to evolve both through new works and recompilations of old works to possibly take up a whole shelf of the Physics section of bookstores or libraries one day. I hope that this new 1.8 version will stand as the definitive one. All other ideas I hope will find their own homes rather than be continually tacked on to this work.

        My initial complaint with the Einstein and Buddha book was its use of many different physicists and Eastern thinkers. To call quotes from people born after Einstein's theories like the Dalai Lama as examples of old or ancient thoughts which preceded modern physics are similar to modern thoughts is stupid, especially as they have modern physics (concepts) as a part of their experiences and educations, as well as how the scientists (of today) knew of ancient philosophies in theirs (educations). To point out similarities of thought between Einstein and the Buddha as the title suggests is intriguing. Far less surprising is how Western and Eastern thinkers of the Twentieth Century sometimes agree with each other. That complaint is further born out that by widening the net (of examples) to include any modern physicist and any famous Eastern religious writers of the past or present, (then) you would undoubtedly find similar quotes (which basically would be influenced by knowledge of the ones they are similar to.)

        That being said, and I believe (this to be) just (meaning valid) criticism of an otherwise good book, were it not for such inclusions (, then) I would not have discovered a host of other such interesting writers and thinkers of the Twentieth Century, such as Sir Arthur Eddington or bother to read or listen to the Feynman Lectures, which I fully intend, or at least hope to find time to do now.

        As far as time not being linear, my perception of time hinges upon understanding two different states existing as one, just before and every time after. Whenever you can unite these two times or states of being within your mind, you begin to see the world differently.

        There are songs I like very much (Hawaiian music, IZ, [Israel "IZ" Kamakawiwoʻole] John Cruz, etc.) and have listened to often, hundreds of times probably, yet which I discovered recently enough that I can remember quite clearly hearing each for the first time saying “Wow, who is that, that is really good, I have to find out who does that and get a CD of it.” Those moments still exist for me every time I listen to them, yet that moment led to many more similar moments which I value also, listening to each, finding joy in hearing them at many times and points in my life since over months and years. When you can have the history but find means or ways to preserve the moments when it was new or just beginning you are richer in ways.

        That moment you just discover the potential for or in something and every moment thereafter (, they) are linked in ways too deep to fully understand or describe. They are one.

        Many think that you must trade one for the other, that you must give up the freshness for the history but that is a misconception. By many measures the past does not exist and everything in existence must continually be creating itself anew, especially living things. We get jaded to the wonder inherent in things and begin to take them for granted, merely because we forget when we first discovered them and they were new. Even life itself can for some begin to seem tiresome since they can no longer look at it from the other side of discovery. The moments which come after or spring out of something can be wonderful and you might not wish to trade them for anything in the world but they are inherent within that first moment of discovery, and do not come after as time portrays it. They happen simultaneously or not at all.

        Though it is difficult to envision this given our current perception of time, think of every possible event we can do today as a seed and within that seed is every possible effect which can come from it from now until the end of time existing now but in a different state than we can perceive now, but by limiting our view to one point in time we can save for discovery in the future, panning our view across a larger frame existing now in every way except in our minds. The seeds and everything that can come from them are inseparably one, for an acorn is not an acorn unless it has the potential to become a tree as surely as a tree is not a tree unless it was once an acorn. What something is now, and all the potential it can be thought to have, and all that it can become, ([added later but not included:] and all that can or only might come from by, out of, or developing in relation to it,) are one in the same thing. It is only our deficiencies in perception and our misconceptions which see them as separate.

        When our perceptions expand, our misconceptions about this fade. 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.

        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.

Jared DuBois
April 2003

Multi-dimensionalism – Multi-dimensionalism simply defined is that things or energy can exist in multiple dimensions at the same time. This is not a new idea. The pen I am writing with exists in at least three physical dimensions plus time, so everyone can conceive of the same object existing concurrently in more than one dimension. But this seems like cheating. We readily understand these four dimensions and commonly use the term dimensions in the science-fiction sense of alternate realities, or in the same realities or dimensions we perceive plus some we cannot yet understand. Indeed science has reduced mathematically and conjecturally the four dimensions we perceive to a single dimension, space-time. So rather than expanding on the dimensions we can perceive or conceive of, we are in a period of compacting what we know in terms of how the dimensions we perceive relate to each other, yet also speculate about other dimensions we can as yet only deal with hypothetically or hint at vaguely.

        As used here, multidimensionalism represents the notion that one can conceive of more than three or four dimensions using ideas of how they may overlap or line up to the dimensions we can perceive. The three-dimensional shadow description is one idea of how to conceive of such a complex idea. We know how three-dimensional forms create two-dimensional shadows, so using similar concepts can force ones mind to think what could cause a three-dimensional shadow. Also how things seem to line up in more than one dimension yet appear different from another can push one to think in terms of seeing separate things as united from a different angle or dimension we cannot perceive. From a different dimension or perspective we cannot imagine, perhaps multiple states of an object in different possible timelines seem the same or seem to line up, or that all life actually comes from the same source. That there may be dimensions of existence which, as adding depth or width to something which seemed something else from only one or two dimensions changes the fundamental interpretation of its existence, is something we ought to consider as a possibility if we are ever to recognize them using logical, geometric, or mathematical models as a way to grasp or explain them. With imagination, we need nothing to start, merely the willingness to begin again in wonder.

Fuzzy Time – If all points in your life are simultaneously occurring at once, it should be possible to blur your focus on the present and, not remembering nor anticipating, but simultaneously exist in more than one time frame at once and experience a combined state of consciousness with multiple time versions of oneself.

Fuzzy Consciousness – similar to Fuzzy Time but with another or other consciousnesses other than oneself. Since all experiences ultimately are indiscriminate as to what happened to whom, one is not necessarily limited to ones own experiences or self in dealing with fuzzy time and can move beyond it to mix in or with other points of view or perspectives beyond ones own timeline, and beyond oneself. Beyond you and your current timeline, other persons can be more similar to you than alternate versions of yourself, both potentially equal in distance and proximity. Both are the you which is currently the not you, both slightly further off the mark of direct experience as the now and currently you.

Reformation – Single-celled organisms can combine to form a new kind of life. It may be very rare but they can become stuck in each other or together like conjoined twins, share nutrients, and share existence. This new type of life is stronger and better able to survive. If this bonding is not fatal and happens early enough before reproduction, the offspring can possess a tendency or ability to make such a connection with another single-celled organism or even divide into a two-celled organism itself.

        This mutation or different kinds of life separate combining to form new kinds of life is an undercurrent or driving force behind all biological life, and on a different level, consciousness works the same way. Everything living is mutating into something else and those mutations or changes constantly get updated and repackaged into its offspring.

        When the new and larger multi-cellular organisms get large enough, they can do something just as amazing as the first conjoining to create a new type of life. The combined multi-cellular lifeform becomes able to replace or reproduce individual cells and remain intact and alive. This too extends the time or the lifespan of the entity. The longer it lives, the more mutations and growth or changes can be imparted or impressed upon each successive generation. Once the more complex multi-cellular organisms are able to timely replace their individual single-celled members into another generation within the same lifetime of the organism, they can become able to reproduce damaged ones ahead of schedule or at will when some become damaged or lost due to an accident.

        Like all of these organized cells working for a common purpose of continuing the life of a multi-generational larger organism, consciousness is a combination of individual sources or building blocks working for a common purpose or life. It can be thought to arise from or with these combined in purpose multi-cellular living machines, or it can be thought of as a new lifeform in and of itself, growing out of its combination or growth just as the first two single-celled counterparts produced a new type of life when they first combined into one.

        Consciousness to a single biological lifeform can guide it and keep it alive through helping it adapt to changes in its environment and find new food sources or new ways to remain alive and intact as the combined mutating group entity which comprises a multi-cellular individual lifeform. And consciousness can begin to form its own goals beyond just the individual lifeforms they inhabit or form around. They can have aspirations for other lifeforms beyond their own, goals or intentions for them they wish to impose upon them. These goals or intended states can spread to other individual lifeforms aspirations and be thought to be a new form of life or consciousness which can survive the deaths of individual members as a multi-cellular being can survive the loss of individual cells.

        These higher forms of consciousness depend upon individual lifeforms as multi-cellular lifeforms depend upon individual cells, yet they can and do advance themselves by reproducing their aims and intents in others or seek to eliminate others which do not ascribe to or accept them. It may seem strange to speak of goals, aspirations, or intended states of being as living things or consciousnesses but they fulfill the same requirements; they are a combination of individual biological entities or components and seek the advancement of a continuation of a particular design or life of something, in this case an idea or state of being for a group rather than for an individual existence.

        Everything in existence, on an individual level, a group level, or a conceptual level, must build itself up from components of its environment. It must take the energy or potential it finds from what is around it and reformulate it into something in its design or intended state. Whether consciousness arises out of cells living for a common aim of perpetuating itself, or of a group or species perpetuating its existence, beliefs and culture, each requires something else to take it to make or remake itself into its design or build itself out of.

        The life of anything individual or conceptual must draw life or potential to itself to further its design, intended state, or further its own existence. That potential comes from a variety of sources of all which came before freed up when it is no longer used recycling itself again and again in perpetuity. To see it clearly one must go beyond time, that there never was a before state when it was what it is not now, nor an after state when it will be more than it is now. It is like a circle of potential in a donut shape with everything moving out of and away from itself, and back into itself in the center, or the act of kneeding (as in bread) something into something else out of a variety of different sources into something new. It is not the ingredients or the product which is important or real, but the act of transference or transformation from one state to the other which is in essence the only reality and the (after) bread and the (before) ingredients are only for the process of something to be acted upon or made into something else.

Evolution and Mutation – What is funny about science-fiction movies about the future is the idea of mutants. Everything about life, you, your species, is constantly mutating into something else. In the long run we call this growth or evolution, but it is mutation. Travel back a few hundred years for some or a few thousand for others and see yourself for the mutant that you are. Others can gawk at your bizarre height or enlarged head size, and traveling further back, your lack of body hair or fur in certain places. Everything alive is a work in progress.

         Some tend to see humanity as the end product of our evolution. In many ways they are right. Any species always so close to annihilating itself is also just as close to being the most definitive and advanced end model of all it could have been.

        Go back several million years and what would eventually become humans you might see as something more like chimpanzees or other large monkeys. Go back a hundred million more and they might seem nothing more than rats or chipmunks. If the dinosaurs did not die off they might never have gotten much further beyond that, were they even to progress that far.

        In those realities, if any, where humanity does not oft itself, a few million years from now (right, a hundred would be too much to expect now, and every decade requires ever more luck to make it through) were humanity to survive that much longer, what would have become of humans would appreciate being compared to us no more than we would appreciate being likened to monkeys or rats. But we don't have to worry about that because; one, we would long be dead anyway, and two, we would most of the time or most likely never advance significantly beyond where we are at now without destroying ourselves completely long before we could ever look that bad comparatively speaking.

         Whether humanity or another species evolves far enough for what we are now to look like mere rats or monkeys in comparison to what they can see, know, or become is unimportant. That there is time enough and life enough left for a species to get to that point is what is important. What every species is now is merely a single point on the road, and not any place in particular. Should we go the way of the dinosaurs, depending on how we do it, not far down the line there will be new intelligent species somewhere, possibly right here on Earth, that will put us to shame in how far they will make it beyond where we quit or petered out. Today's hamsters could evolve into explorers of the galaxy millions of years from now, the future is that wide open and changeable. If that sounds bizarre to you, find what would become humanity, 10, 20, or 30 million years ago and see if you would ever have thought it would invent air conditioning or go to the moon.

        The only end result of evolution is an evolutionary dead end. Anything that is living is on its way to becoming something else, individuals included. If you only are what you were yesterday you are either trapped in time or dead. People in comas can come close but even they too are changing, though probably not for the better. And neither necessarily are we. No one says the road to the future runs only to shinier and brighter versions of what we are now. People can on the aggregate become less intelligent, more arrogant, hostile, close-minded, and bigoted or xenophobic or nationalistic than a generation or two before. If you don't believe me just turn on the television and watch everything that is on.

        If those individuals and species that see their ability to mutate into something else in a positive light, as an opportunity to become more intelligent, compassionate, evolved, they can while time allows get pretty far. The future is full of possibilities and potential which can be tapped into by anyone who dares to try. Growth and change is inevitable. Nothing is what it was even a moment ago. People have the ability to direct that change to where they want it to go. As I said before, anyone who does not know they are more or different than what they were yesterday is not accepting or realizing time for what it is. They are holding on to something which no longer exists. The harder you try to cling to a past notion of what you were, the more you cease to live and you slide faster to death because then, like it or not, you will be changed. To try to keep yourself unchanged from now until then is simply to make all the points in-between irrelevant. You may as well just grease the tracks.

         Living is changing, you and your world both interacting and redefining. Death is just wiping the chalkboard clean and starting again. The potential is still there, if not used by you, then by something or someone else. What won't be done by you perhaps will get done by someone else. Something not discovered or invented by humanity, well there's always the potential space hamsters of 50 million years from now. But if the potential is not you, you might say, why should I care? If more potential is created for someone or something else yet to be when you die, why should you care if it is not you? You don't have to. If you are so wrapped up in your own ego thinking what you are now should continue the same unchanging until the end of time, that is really your own problem.

        And it is to fundamentally misunderstand time, to cling to thinking you are only what you were before. You are not the same as what you were yesterday, and time is not repeating itself exactly over and over again. It is different, you are different, whether or not you wish to recognize it as such. Some people think that everyday they are one step further towards death. If you understand that everyday you are one step further, death is really meaningless. Everyday, every moment you are changed. Everyday and every moment you exist you are reborn and every day or moment after you die. The big final death is not who you are now, who you are now is dying now. Who or what you will be when what may be the final you dies, is for you now only what you can hope and dream might come from or spring out of who you "were" now. And what you are now is dying every moment to create that which you will become five minutes, five hours, or five years from now, but that "you" will also be living and dying every moment to every moment. You cannot pick any one of those moments and say that is you because each will be different in many ways. It is just like you cannot say humanity is what it is now in other times. Millions of years apart what we call humanity resembled bacteria or amoebas, fish, amphibians, rodents, monkeys, what we call humanity today, and whatever stages it might appear as could it continue to exist millions of years from now.

        Which of these was really humanity? As much as scientists think they can draw lines in the sand and come up with new names and dates for this sapien and that era, they are all the same line of the same species, just different points on the same road. You can see each seemingly different stage as something new but it is also really more a continuation of the same direct lineage or line. Yet as much as they are on the same line from the past into the future, everyone can also see each point is unique along the way. So too is each and every moment's version of yourself completely new and completely different along the same line of a slower, yet faster for you, evolutionary journey of your own. What you are is always evolving or changing into something new whether or not you choose to recognize it as such. When you do recognize it, it gives you the chance to take hold over it and direct it as you will. None of those new and improved versions of yourself will be you either, but you can experience the sliding to or through them, the transition or leaping from one version to the next. That is experience, that is you. It is not reality, it lies in-between different or successive realities, but it is what you choose to make successive realities seem to become, so it is you, somewhere between one moment and the next.

The Uncarved Block – The Uncarved Block is an idea in the oldest Taoist literature, the Tao Te Ching. To be like the Uncarved Block, in its simplest meaning is to shift ones attention or focus to a potential state rather than the actual. What you want to be becomes a process of removing that which you wish not to be from yourself, or the filtering down. It really can be thought to be far more reaching than that. For anything to be, you, your world or anything which also exists which is not you, for it to be thought to exist at all, one must start with taking away from it conceptually what they think it is not. The potential for anything in existence, for everything in what it exists as now if at all it can be thought of as separate from anything else, to be or be interpreted as anything else, the literal potential for everything, is omnipresent and without limits. Everything's existence begins with removing from it what you think it is not. Without that, it could be or be interpreted as anything else one currently thinks it is not.

Until Yesterday: Experience, Existence, Whose Universe, Co-Existence

2011-04-20T23:26:00.000-07:00

"This time to the sky I'll sing if clouds don't hear me
To the sun I'll cry and even if I'm blinded
I'll try moon gazer, because with you I'm stronger"

Excerpt from Arc of a Diver (Steve Winwood, Vivian Stanshall

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.

Jared DuBois
April 2003
(End of the original introduction to “Deconstructing the Universe”)

I am very proud of things I wrote 4 years ago this month (in April of 2007) at TruthRevival.org and related things at Polsci.com (also written that April), two web sites of things that I write. But some of the things which I am most proud of having written were written 8 years ago this month (in April of 2003). The former was written some miles up the coast from here in Lahaina, the latter written some miles down the coast from here in Wailea. The thing about having more time, if you understand time or think you do in the way I like to, if you are lucky, you do not see yourself at the end of the line, the present “capping” the past, but always, always, in the middle or center. As I said in RCP2, after the bicycle accident in June 2003, after a somewhat serious head injury with that, it was like time seemed circular, like all my memories were an equal distant away, equally fresh. Writing now about 8 years and 4 years ago and having those locations where I wrote those things in the past being in completely opposite directions, not in a straight line, seems appropriate somehow.

Many of the things I have written were done because I thought time was running out. It was motivational in the sense of feeling if I don’t do this now, write this now, I may never again get the chance to. The very first thing I wrote which I still keep around on my web site was originally called “The Tao and Me” but later called “Relativism: Some Ancient and Modern Truths”. As I said in that, and about why I wrote it,

At one point during that stage bad health brought on by a bad diet, lack of proper exercise, and general neglect convinced me was dying, and indeed most likely would have been the case had not many immediate changes been made then. I decided to put everything I believed about reality into a single dissertation which would encapsulate my views which I believed to be the most useful. I was profoundly influenced in my life by the writings of Lao Tsu, the originator of the philosophy of Taoism (pronounced Dowism). This is a great, profound, and thought provoking set of ideas millennia old which have impressed many who have been exposed to them recently and throughout history. Though not originally a religion in a formal sense, it did form the basis for a religion, but those who study it outside of China now see it more as a set of philosophical musings or ideas than a religion. The notion that he put everything he knew or believed about the universe into a brief summary shaped the form I wrote.

Similar motivations were behind the last thing I wrote in a similar vein, which I called “Deconstructing the Universe.” Both were written at different “ends” of my life, which turned out, from this point of view or place in time, not to be the end at all. Two months after writing “Relativism”, I started studying politics, (a new direction for me after studying psychology for years,) at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. Six months after finishing “Deconstructing the Universe” I started again studying politics, this time at the University of Tartu in Estonia, and those class credits were transferred back to UMASS-Boston which I eventually graduated from. At the first “end which was not an end” I was much younger and still had a lot left which I wanted to do. At the second, I was pretty well satisfied. Not that I had achieved what some might consider a lot of accomplishments, but I was happy in what I did with my life, at least writing-wise. There was not a lot of need left to fill to do anything in particular, and I had made peace with the idea of dying. And then things changed around a bit (quite a bit) again.

As I put in the previous post here, "Outtakes, Golden Paragraphs, Degrees of Relevance, Each a Marvel", also covering things written by me in early 2003, my attitude at that time was pretty much summed up by the line, “Timecard punched, waiting to be sent home but fine with staying for awhile if helpful.” The meaning of that, being “I have done, for me, enough, yet I am still here. What now?” As I put it when writing the first PolSci.com index page (and it is still on every one of its index pages since then) in Spring 2004...

Besides, Pentacle took almost a decade between to get back to and finally wrap up once I was no longer self-conscious about writing it. One day after 8 years, I just wrote Too Long Gone. My mind was in a dark place, but the poem, completely contrary to its words, was saying the fire and light were still in there somewhere trying to get out, not just lamenting their loss. To admit you miss something is to admit that it is still a part of you, even if you don't or can't see it that way yet. Its ending point was at Going Home, about both dying and about moving to Hawaii, which to me were both the same thing. I was to live there for the rest of my life. (From RCP2: "When I moved to Hawaii I vowed to stay there until humanity destroyed itself, while I did nothing, and maybe got drunk afterwards. I thought if I cared about nothing, I had nothing to worry about. That makes me sound like a bad person, though I was not and was an agreeable sort who got along with everyone. Like so many others, I just gave up on the rest of the world outside my own little paradise and life." Turned out I wasn't so lucky.)
The only future I saw was nothingness, all black. Though I was rich and had much to look forward to, I sensed no future for me whatsoever, only doom. I was shocked when the plane landed that I had made it there, so strong was the feeling I could not possibly, and was in awe every day that I was there. It was like existing outside of time. Ironically, leaving Hawaii 3 years later, extremely poor, completely screwed beyond all hope, I saw the future as being completely white, limitless in potential where anything is possible. It is literally a whole new ballgame, a complete rebirth, like going through a black hole into a whole new universe, or a whole new life. A corner definitely has been turned somehow and every step is into new and uncharted territory.

And as I put it in January 2005...

I am here. I am now. I deal with that. Do I like or enjoy its pluses and minuses? Do I like what happened to make it possible? Do I accept it or fight against it? To all of the above, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Notes, Part III

And finally, how I put it in March of 2007...

Maui to me is also a reset point for that reason mentioned above on how when I was when here previously, I was at a pinnacle of sorts. No doubt my reasoning ability has far surpassed how I thought here when I drew those arbitrary lines in the sand of thus far and no further, yet there was an innocent wide-eyed wonder to that time which being here puts me back in touch with, riding the same roads, sitting in the same spots, reconnecting.
Anyone who goes through a lot of changes in their lives very quickly can instinctually want to go back to a place where they are familiar with, home to them, to try to process there all the changes, to sort it out in terms of how it should mesh with their sense of identity, how they should "feel" about it all, and what it should drive them to do or what perspective how they thought in the past can contribute to what happened later. I call them reset points.

Hawaii, my Natural Environment, the Perfect Environment, and Reset Points

        The reason for the paragraph quotes above is because my “rebirth” of sorts, the pinnacle to which I was referring, I more or less leave off at or center around April of 2003, and that "pinnacle" was referring specifically to the three addendums below which follow this introduction, which were written at that time.

        Up until that time and shortly after I was doing what most people do, maybe too often. I was in the present looking backwards. As I have also previously written about these things and about “Deconstructing the Universe,” if not being perfect, it was perfectly inspired. I really did not care about anything motivation-wise which most people think of or about while writing it. I was content, perfectly fine with whatever happened, and was pretty much in the “summation” portion of what I thought to be my life. Its not that I was removed from worrying about any effects, not exactly anyway, and as mentioned in that work, I was trying to put a good “spin” on whatever might come from this brief life I have lived. But I did not need or desire that or any outcome particularly.

        In a very obvious way, that time comes to my mind as being the "pinnacle" because it was just before the accident, and that altered somewhat how I perceived things. It was not that I could not remember how I saw things before, which was new enough, though some things were lost for awhile. But I really began again looking at time, like I said in the notes for which these posts are meant to frame, like looking at space, from the “inside out.” By April of 2003, I did not feel so much anymore at the end of my life or time but in the middle, and not just because of looking forward again more than looking back. And it was a strange future I was looking forward to, much of which pretty much came along the lines I expected, though the accident did throw things up for a loop in how they would turn out.

        The reason for feeling I was at the end of my time in early 2003 was again due to bad health, such that even now eight years later, is not pleasant to remember or think about. My body was shutting down. It was extremely painful for many months. I could not digest food for many weeks, stopped eating altogether and switched to a liquid juice diet (did research on how to do that). But then, things turned around and I began getting healthier at an increasing rate through the remainder of 2003, far healthier than I would have expected or considered even conceivable, not that I was particularly unhealthy, but went through some very close calls. By April, I had realized things were changing, I was changing, though I did not know to where exactly it all was heading. My favorite quote at that time, in regards to my health came from a clip from a “Star Trek” marathon commercial shown repeatedly then. It was of Captain Kirk saying roughly “Well, you may as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.” Other than the pain, considerable pain, it indeed turned out to be a wild and enjoyable ride.

        The sixth addition to “Deconstucting the Universe,” which this post is meant to cover, “I experience therefore I am, but what?” was the first addition to ”Deconstructing the Universe,” which was actually written specifically for it, meant to be included with it. In looking back in April of 2003, I decided since my health had stabilized or was in the process of becoming predictable, I would write a few more things for that work. It turned out to be three more things, written mostly back to back (the other two were "Whose Universe is it anyway?" and "To Co-exist") so that is how I will put them here below, back to back. Though probably they were not written all the same day, there was not much time between each of them. I think at the very longest, they were written about one a day for three days, if not on the same day or days.

        The first five additions to "Deconstucting the Universe", already covered here previously in other posts, were written just for the heck of it. But beginning with the writing of the sixth, I had it in my head to put them in it behind the other five at the end of it. The new things I wanted to add would be written to serve three main purposes, as I saw it before writing them: 1) to sum up the changes and integrate the additions, 2) to cover things I still wanted to write about which I had not yet written about, and 3) bring it to some new and hopefully final sort of conclusion. ”Deconstructing the Universe,” really outgrew what I had intended to write about, but I wanted to integrate the new with the old somehow alongside each other, together and still separate.

        That pretty much was how I approached it. I had not specifically thought to write about this or that. I just would simply start over, begin again afresh with these new parts, and just write how I wanted to about whatever came into my head, guided by the motivations mentioned in the last paragraph in what I hoped would come out of that effort. (I am purposely resisting the idea of bringing this introduction to some conclusion (I really like writing conclusion parts :-), because this is meant to be a setup, simply to introduce what I still like to think to be my best conclusions of all.)

Addendum 6: 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?

        A person can redefine their notions of themselves in any number of ways in relation to, as, or in conjunction with anything in which they can conceive of existing anywhere at any time in the Universe, be it an idea, concept, intended state of being or other entity, be it individual or group. Now, in physical existence that definition should include, no matter the degree of importance stressed, ones own actual physical identity, form, and body. Diminish it how much or however you may, it needs to be included somehow as an integral part at the very least, of what you are.

        To view it in its absolute basest terms, that would be a domesticated ape-like creature grown under the auspices of a group or society to further the aims, goals, or existence of that group or society in which it was raised. Whether you view the group ethnically, politically, philosophically, or religiously, the intent is getting back one which will adhere to a given point of view and further the propagation of the group in general. One could argue that because no one is commanded yet to reproduce such actions are voluntary and societies or groups merely aid as best they can this after-the-fact development through aid and the provision of help. Yet almost every society and group will dispense such aid and allow such offspring to be raised only to and by those who adopt its main cultural and behavioral precepts. Should any individual or couple disregard in any major way any of its culture's or society's rules for correct behavior or correct thinking, they are subject to losing influence or contact with their children directly to the society at large which can institute through hired workers or others a higher degree of control over such instruction and influence.

        When permitted or encouraged by law, individuals can perceive themselves as members of groups with existences, aims, and goals beyond that of the primary focus group around which a society is ruled. These secondary identifications and affiliations allow one to pursue interests not always solely for the purpose of furthering the main group's interests, provided they are not in conflict or may even become in conflict with it. Such differing notions of identity and purpose and interest are considered healthy if they do not detract from or run in opposition to the primary group in charge of a particular group or society to which they belong.

        Yet all of these secondary group identities and non-primary means of identification of oneself beyond the most ideal or extreme measures preferred by ones society always carries with it the risk or potential to upsurp the primary means of identification and control of the primary controlling group of an individual, be it ones society at large or a sub-culture of that society. To begin to see oneself as a part of another group or in a new way beyond just the ideal distinction those around oneself might prefer, is to become an individual. Though groups and societies claim to encourage this, it is a process they seek forever to control, what kind of an individual one can become, and by trying to forever limit and control individualism to only that which they currently allow or would tolerate, such a process is neither encouraged or welcomed but instead suppressed as much as possible given the circumstances of that group or society.

        Religious identification can go beyond the mere present groups and constitute a different kind of threat to the primary group, if the primary group itself is not religious in nature. Religious identification can define one in terms of existing with groups across time or other non-physical dimensions. They may work to progress goals or achieve states of being incrementally which have time-frames which are far larger than their own individual lives and give them a seemingly expanded purpose or reach by committing to something larger than that which they could do on their own.

        Such larger more long term redefinitions of identity and purpose beyond ones own reality and time need not be religious in nature, but do require taking a lot on faith. They assume others will come along to further those aims or goals after one is gone to possibly one day come to fruition. Without such confidence or faith that factors which one cannot control but can only hope for will one day give their works meaning in a larger context, such longer term planning would rarely be attempted as most would concentrate on efforts closer to realization within or nearer to their own times. Similar to religious groups, non-religious group identities can go back hundreds of years and work for goals far from achievable within a given individual member's lifetime.

        Beyond the ability to form identifications with this officially sanctioned group or that officially sanctioned group, or even those non-officially sanctioned groups a society would discourage or imprison one for belonging to, what other means exist for a given person to become an individual of their own construction? Religions, though possessing some of the most rigorous rules for behavior and demanding some of the highest degrees of conformation, often do give individuals the notion of possessing a soul, unrulable and uncontrollable beyond ones own willingness to decide for oneself how to align itself, and its choice ultimately constitutes the last word on what it should do. Such belief systems would threaten the current political systems to such a degree that they would be prohibited but for the fact that such notions predate within their borders most current political machines. There is at least a modest acknowledgement of the rights of individuals to work towards their own definitions, achievements, and goals not specifically defined by or required by their given primary group or society (primary group or society used repeatedly here can mean either the ruling government or a smaller group within a society which has the greater influence or control over the thoughts and actions of a given individual) providing they do not oppose them, at least for those groups or societies which accept that individuals can have such rights inherently which cannot be taken away other than unjustly. Such is a religious and philosophical view not all groups or cultures share in theory, and certainly not respect equally in practice.

        Another limiting factor beyond just ones environment seeking to limit ones development of what it means to be an individual to a narrow prescribed range acceptable to ones present culture, group, or society, is the fact that most thoughts and instruction one receives is geared toward nothing else but to make one the labeled, canned, and processed product of the civilization, group, culture, or sub-culture in which one was raised. To ever think beyond this to how others not you would view the world or how you would view the world if raised by others or in another culture, civilization, or time, this is to go beyond the perspective allotted to you. It is to attempt to become a more full person by being able to see and know the world from points of view not just your own, and to learn from them. It breaks the monopoly or stranglehold each culture, sub-culture, or society seeks to limit its members toward only those areas, facts, or opinions which show the present states of order in a favorable light. And because such wider perspectives tend to produce unwanted calls for reform or change, dominant groups within a given society, group, culture, or sub-culture to which one belongs attempt to control or repackage everything in accordance with how they wish it to be seen, rewriting history by omission, and so forth, so that everything cannot help but be seen and interpreted by how they wish it to be seen and interpreted.

        And it is not just ones society and culture which is limiting. By existing in an actual state there are prescribed limitations to what you can do or be, and by which thoughts you are capable of realizing and understanding, limits to what you desire to be or grow into. To exist as something definite you are limited for the most part by and to that definition, and are not free to be anything else provided you accept that definition. To what degree you can modify and amend that definition of what you exist as depends on ones degree of creativity and individual circumstance.

        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 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 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.

Addendum 7: Whose Universe Is It Anyway?

Each thing in the Universe is what it wants to be
What you want it to be is relevant only to you
and whether you succeed in changing it
is irrelevant for it will have succeeded
by its existence and your desire
to have changed you.

        Of all of the contradictions about existence, none is more fundamental than that of having as you exist within the Universe, the Universe exists within you. We think by means of our intellect and experience that something must be contained by, or larger or smaller than something else. If one thing is a part of a subset of another, the larger set must be just that, larger and more inclusive. To see each enfolding and enveloping the other each moment to create or sustain existence or experience is not something we have been trained to comprehend nor is it something readily visible from outward experience, yet it is the means by which experience itself is formed. Each is at various points absorbed by and absorbing the other.

        The way to imagine this inner to outer dimension as I call it would be to imagine something outside of the Universe. Imagine the Universe as we experience it as a black hole, self-contained and impenetrable by the infinite time of an event horizon. Now imagine anything else forming or existing outside of what we call the Universe seeking to enter it. This example is limited to and by the physical dimensions we perceive, so it is only meant to be a sketchy illustration, not an actual description, explanation, or model, merely a way to get a hint of the idea through concepts we can understand.

        Imagine the Universe as a ball-shaped black hole and the outside point seeking to penetrate into its dimensions of existence. Since nothing can pass through its infinite time event horizon, as it nears it imagine the ball itself changing its shape warping around the point seeking to enter into it. Without penetrating the outer rim, existence itself contorts so that what was once outside the ball is now within it. Inside the ball is infinite space as well. From inside the ball there is seemingly no outer edge for within it space seems to stretch to infinity. What was outside becomes inside and the Universe becomes inside out.

        This is hardly descriptive, merely an illustration of how to begin to understand how something can both be contained by something and contain it as well, or be both outside of something and within it at the same time.

        The act of perception is to cause a feedback loop. What is perceiving something must go to that which it perceives somehow, must expand itself through some hazy sort of redefinition by experience to include the perception and the reality of that which it is not, or exists outside of oneself. This act of perception or experience becomes a part of oneself and changes itself by the redefinition in relation to the existence of that other which it experiences. Consciousness must reach out to the rest of the Universe, take a snapshot of it and digest that back into itself to build up its concept of itself. What it is experiencing outside of itself is in turn created or being additionally defined by the act of being perceived. It is as though each is being continually absorbed and digested by the other, each defining what the other is or exists as.

        Yet there is a hindrance or guidance of this mutual redefinition of existence. There is interpretation. However it is formed, we have notions of what we want to experience, what we want to have be. We bring this interpretation to bear on what we experience making it conform in a way to what we wish to have be. This changes the mix and changes the feedback we get from the all or whatever else we wish to experience. It either conforms to this added expectation or requirement of it, or it does not. If one had no expectations, whatever feedback one gets from experience would be pleasurable for one is getting feedback, and that means one does have existence. The more we require of the feedback we receive back from what we project that we require of the Universe to conform to our wills of what should be, the more disappointed we are apt to become with it or with ourselves by our lack of being able to control it.

        Yet to exist for many is not merely wanting to take in whatever the Universe has to offer us. We want to shape it to our experiences in a way that is constructive and pleasurable. We need to be doing, not just content with just being. Doing does have its place. Yet when what one wishes to do overlaps what others wish to do or be, conflict inevitably occurs. I do not wish to imply that conflict is not or ever is inevitable, but that to do anything one will affect others whether they like it or not. Those that do not like it would wish for their own wills and desires for what they wish to have be prevail. States of being you wish to have be which require or is contingent upon the behavior of others inevitably or indubitably becomes a request upon others to conform with your expectations of what should be.

        For much in our existence, we know this is too much to ask. One cannot tell a mountain to not be a mountain because we don't like to see it, or tell the moon to go away because we wish to see the stars clearer. One can get frustrated for a dog or a bear to be acting like a dog or a bear yet we accept that it is a failure in our expectations for wanting them to be or behave like they are something they are not.

        It is other people we have the most expectations for, yet ironically many believe it is they who also ought to have the most rights to their own wills and expectations. If one blasts a hole through a mountain, no one is going to ask or apologize to the mountain for doing or having done so. To many, most of what exists in our environment is simply there to be used and understood by us. We may not be able to expect it to be what it is not, nor should we need to ask or apologize to such things for our wish to make them into something else should we find a means to recreate them into something more useful to ourselves, such as creating a tunnel through a mountain or turning a tree into a chair.

        Yet as I said before, most of our expectations involve the behaviors of others. These interactions between beings in our environments far more complex, unpredictable, changing, and changeable give us both the highest degrees of pleasure and satisfaction, and well as frustration and sorrow, than any interactions with any less animate parts of our Universe. Though philosophically we may believe we have not the rights to wish others to always conform to our expectations, that is exactly what we do, whether we enforce it or not is beside the point. When I meet another person, I wish them not to harm me, nor say or do anything which would make me feel badly. To the best I am able to control this by not doing anything threatening or intimidating towards them, I do either consciously or unconsciously because I wish the interaction to be uneventful in the degree that it not be marred by unpleasantness. To a further degree one might not wish to be in a place where one might need to confront or be confronted by disagreeable people. To desire this, and hopefully most do, is to wish to severely limit the possible responses and actions of others. When this is done via mutual agreement out of mutual aims or goals it is less invasive or oppressive than simply intimidating, overpowering, beating, or killing anyone I meet before they have the chance to do anything to me I might find displeasurable or disagreeable.

        The point is though we have the greatest degree of expectations for other people's behavior, to varying degrees each of us acknowledges they should occupy a greater degree of respect for, and relevance to their opinions than other things in our environment are due. To the extent we try to control them or mold them or have them always conform only to what our ideas of what or how they should be, we know it is a lacking or negative aspect of ourselves which should be addressed or looked at as well.

        It is easy to dominate others if one has enough power. Strip them of their aspirations for themselves, limit their definitions of freedom, mold their entire consciousnesses to only think and believe what one wishes them to think and believe. Because it is easy and tempting if you wish to have complete predictability that others will always react to or treat you as you wish, it will always be sought after by those who miss the whole point of existence, to see what there is to be seen instead of what you only wish to see or have be. To dominate others is as foolish as wishing dominate the Universe and only have or let exist what one wishes to have or let exist. They are different manifestations of the same aspiration, to control all else and to remove control from all else.

        I cannot even say such aspirations are wrong if that is what one believes one really needs to want to try to do or how to be. I can say it is to retreat fully into ones own ego to the extent of making the world a reflection of oneself such that one cannot help but see the flaws and folly of oneself to the degree that no one, no matter how self-absorbed, will like or enjoy what they see or create, and will likely in the end be repulsed by it and by themselves.

        It is a fine line to walk between having desires for what you want to have be, even if you view it as good and positive and in the best interest of everyone, and having this become destructive to yourself and everyone else by wishing to implement or effect this intended state if it affects others against their wishes. To the point of trying to get everyone to agree and reach consensus, such desires can be positive. To try to make others agree by trickery of arguments, coercion, or force of will, the end is lost by the means.

        Our perspectives, or egos of what we believe others should be, how they should behave, what they should believe, are not always entirely our own. Our beliefs have been shaped to fit our environments and cultures, and are as much a product of them as of ourselves. But by being we have a responsibility to make our views wholly our own for in the end, nothing and no one else in the Universe deserves any responsibility for our own actions or inactions but ourselves. Everything you see, hear, or experience, is to guide you to your own interpretation of what you are, what life is, and what you should do with them. To buy into any one notion wholly and without reservation is to lose to it your soul, if you can be thought to have one.

        To see from the widest perspective possible, leave everything, even what comprises your very existence in doubt. Until if ever you can know the source and purpose of all you experience, and know it completely without doubt, know that whatever you find to latch onto that says what you are is merely a reflection of what you find around you, like the cork drifting on the ocean. What you or it may be, or where they are drifting to, should forever be left open-ended conceptually.

        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 or experienced by you but without bringing your personality, outlook or opinions always to the fore, it may as well be happening to (and understood by) anyone equally anywhere any when.

Addendum 8: To Co-Exist

To share time, to co-exist
to walk the same path
for awhile side by side

        Without wanting to control the world, to make it give you the experiences and objects of your desire, what is there to do? Is not wanting control a good thing or a bad thing? Too little of our lives are under our control as is, with the room for maneuvering to achieve the things you want limited to a few hours a day for those lucky enough to have claim over even those few hours to do or attempt to achieve what they wish in even that limited allotment of time to themselves to break out or up from the lives they have been prescribed by fate, economics, and circumstance, to seemingly be destined to lead, regardless of choice.

        People have the right to want all the things they do not have. No one can take that right away from them but they themselves. Wanting is not a bad thing. Wanting what you will never have nor ever could is not even a bad thing, though it can be painful. Wanting is simply a part of being and leads to the desire to do something with or in the course of your life. But one can let go of one's wants from time to time to see how one might stand without them. Are all wants and desires equal or necessary for us to be happy or fulfilled, or do they drive us places where we otherwise would not want to go? There is a difference between being aimless with ones life and content with whatever good comes ones way, between that and to simply let go of the steering momentarily and rethink, is this really where I want to go, is this really where I should go or am I fighting the wind, the tide, and myself and everything else just to get there? Is the cost of what you want in life really what you are willing for you and perhaps others to have to pay?

        It is said the ways of the world are mysterious but they are so just because we prefer to see things the ways in which we wish to see them. Nature is not mysterious. What exists in this world has an order to it regardless of our expectations for or about it. It is there whenever we wish to look at it with eyes wide open, and put aside momentarily what we wish for it to be. What we wish the world and the Universe to be has its value in terms of aspirations and goals, wants and desires, but it is fiction, just fiction compared to what the world really is and the way things really are. Without fully understanding the way things are and the value within them, one ought to be hesitant toward changing things. The exception being of course, when what is is clearly not working toward the benefit of most or all others.

        For oneself one has the right to wish for that which makes one happy or content, providing it is not making others unhappy in the process of achieving it. For others, one has no right to wish for anything except that they might get what they wish for themselves, with the same limitations that it not adversely affect others, and possibly that they ought not to be suffering (in their own eyes). One cannot wish others to achieve what they might not wish for themselves, or to be or become something they have no wish or desire to be or become. Nor can one think that giving others greater means of help to achieve their own goals for themselves to always be a good thing when such help may not be needed, wanted, or be keeping them from succeeding or failing on their own merits or terms.

        Interfering with others lives is an inevitable aspect of living. There are no rules one must adhere to. One can exploit others circumstances and weaknesses to ones own benefit all that one wishes in accordance with what is legal and socially acceptable to ones group or peers. These rules of how one might wish to check oneself for affecting others in ways others might not wish, or be disadvantageous to their own aspirations and goals, when they come from an internal belief and not an external custom or law, are entirely ones own choosing and up to each individual to decide the merits of them. And it is how one exercises this choice which defines the character of who one is. Each and every group is always compromising their beliefs in regards to some others they value less or desire to control more than others. Sometimes it is done because we want to help some more than others, and often it is done because we want to help ourselves more than others.

        This singling out certain persons or groups you know whom you might care more to succeed than others, is another fact of life. Some people through shared histories with them, or shared outlooks or goals will count more than others in their hearts. This is a fact of living, but it is far from ideal. Our sons and daughters may mean more to us as individuals than some one else's sons and daughters but at some point we must rationalize each person has equal rights to live, to grow strong, and work for their own goals. The advantages we seek to bestow on some over others, though honest and typical, in the end are selfish and not selfless when they divide up all others into the favored and the forgotten. This fact of human nature will not change soon but recognize it for what it is, valuing some lives more than others, cherishing some people's goals and aspirations for themselves more than others', and the willingness to act out of such mixed values.

        Few people can venture into another civilization, culture, or sub-culture and not bring their own culture's point of view to bear on it. Since we have begun to diminish the rights of different nations to have different values and beliefs contrary to the norms of our own individual nations, imagine going to another planet. Few among us, only the most self-righteous, would dare say in advance that our laws, customs, norms, governments, and societal structures were to be superior and another planet's if different were to be or could be immoral, backward, corrupt, or any of the numerous other value systems we place on things. Even after such exposure to another outside civilization's norms and customs, and understanding them we would inevitably make such comparisons and come to such conclusions, that those ways in which they differ from our own values would be inherently wrong.

        Philosophically people may have a vague belief that what is right or works for some is not necessarily right for others but that is never the belief which gets acted upon, perhaps because that belief requires no action. The belief that does get acted upon is the belief that our (whomever the "we" might be, be it individuals or groups) ways of living and values are right and others must adhere to them or their people are unduly suffering and we are morally justified, if not obligated, to make them behave in accordance with our own beliefs, customs, or laws. To let any other beliefs stand long as an alternative is to undermine the unquestionable rightness of one's own model, and dare invite others to make negative comparisons by one's own views, in regards to that others. One way of looking at things must dominate, or continually have to justify why it is better than another's. It is far easier to simply eradicate all others conceptually or physically than to always triumph simply on terms of merit. Without allowing, or moreover inviting, such possible alternatives or possible changes or revisions, one is forced into ridiculing or attempting to eliminate any or all other opposing ideas or beliefs.

        To openly try to change another's views, viewpoints, customs, systems, and so on, is honest. When it is done openly, however good or bad you may value such changes to be, however much you believe in one side's rightness or moral superiority over the other's, it is far more justifiable than when it is done secretly behind closed doors with the submissive side never realizing or understanding such control or self-determination was lost.

        The need to agree on many things is the requisite for peaceful co-existence. How such agreements will be, can be, if even if ever they could be realized is anyone's guess. If force is used what may be considered the most right and true, should humans ever be able to agree upon such things, becomes largely irrelevant. Debate and force are at opposite ends of the spectrum of persuasion. Debate is the search for truth. Force makes its own truths, not necessarily deep philosophically but while enforced, somewhat on a surface level, indisputable. And the desired depth is the key. Simply getting a person or people to ape the behavior and pay lip service to the beliefs one expects can be done by force from only one side. To have further deeper roots of conviction, one must be willing to put ones own beliefs on the line and be open to change and revision as well, through compromise and debate. Without provable give and take, the other quickly learns he is being spoken at and neither conversed with nor listened to.

        To seek real mutual co-existence means putting aside as many expectations for others beliefs and behavior as conceivably possible. Not to judge or bring ones own standards to bear on another. As far as one cannot conceive or admit such relaxing of expectations or judgments is possible, continued conflict is inevitable with some or with many others. To the extent that they think they are right and just, and can afford to live in or with such continual conflict, or if they know of no other way to live, that is fine for them, their choice, and will remain their choice for as long as these factors do not change.

        For those who have not the power or the will to control others, the choices are easier. One can be forever upset with others behavior or nature they cannot change, or they can accept it for what it is. One path leads through only sorrow, the other eventually to peace. If you cannot have expectations for others, nor always be able to help them save for when they request such help, how can you be of any use to any others if that is what you desire to do with your wants and wishes on how to make use of your own time? You can be there. You can be an example of what you believe is best to be. You can be willing to share your time and walk part of your separate paths together. That is all you have to give and all that can ever truly be given to another. Even hope cannot be given, merely communicated, and must be grown from within.

April 2003

Outtakes, Golden Paragraphs, Degrees of Relevance, Each a Marvel

2010-04-11T23:17:00.000-07:00

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

Rivers of life flowing behind the scenes: Faucets, Eternities, and Probabilities Undefined

2009-08-19T00:20:00.000-07:00

"Take these roses off of me
Let me live, let me be
for a little while
Let my eyes
see everything and nothing in their time
I do not mind"

Excerpt from lyrics of "Forever" by Vertical Horizon

         So it would be from such a tilted perspective looking at what would have to be 4D objects differently than we see them, our seeing only the 3D aspects of them, but not in any sense would it be 'seeing through' matter. It was all so simple at that moment and the 'paradox' just vanished. This does not get into all of the details, though that chapter you can see by clicking here. But it occurred to me then thinking over the problem again and again while sitting at my “thinking spot,” on Maui that I suddenly realized this, or sort of, without exactly thinking of it in these terms yet.

My New Dodeca-Toy and How It Potentially Aligns My Futures and Pasts
April 16th, 2007, JaredDubois.com

         Here I sit writing this in a spot of great meaning for me, my favorite beach, where I watched the beach-plant in Deconstructing the Universe form, struggle to survive, and then perish, where I first came to understand the misinterpretations of 4D sight (3D plus away) of being able to "see through" 3-D objects, and where I could close my eyes as the sun went down and see clearly cities I had never been to before, yet did go to later. I know of this spot's significance to me in things that did not actually happen. It was here in this spot I would have written RCP3 if things had gone differently in the external environment.

Hawaii, my Natural Environment, the Perfect Environment and Reset Points
March 18, 2007, JaredDubois.com

         Recently on the beach I noticed a tiny beach plant growing far from any others. It was this standing out from its surroundings which made it noticeable. Were it to have been among others like itself, it would have been indistinguishable and barely seen, yet because it stood so far apart from where one might have expected it to be, it suddenly appeared or registered as interesting. That it had the misfortune to be on a frequented path made its existence even more unlikely. For awhile it withstood these great odds but then suddenly but predictably was simply gone. Given the number of things that are required for life, existence at all is far more unlikely than even the most isolated or unlikely individual lifeform. For any species to continue living over time, it is beating the odds and one day will vanish without a trace, just like that tiny beach plant in the sand. It is this seeming ability to be beating the odds or overcoming obstacles which makes living interesting. ...
          Life is like water through indoor plumbing. It flows through something unseen and into something which appears as useful to us. The tap may be turned on and off but that is just one instance. It is not any more there than it is potentially anywhere else the pipes run. Turn off one and it just increases the potential for coming out somewhere else. No matter how you judge it, if you can conceive of the length of time or of eternity, you know that the faucet will not be open for long for anyone or any one species. Yet how far one makes it relative to how many or how great the odds appear against it is all that make its existence the least bit interesting over any others which only might have been. ...

Deconstructing the Universe: Addendum 5:
Probability Undefined

          So in this sense, the "lens" I was trying to define or imagine was the source of life or consciousness, and trying to play around with that concept more than just the "shadows", and trying to understand life "flowing into" each person from a higher dimensional viewpoint, or outside of the 3 dimensions we perceive point of view. ...

Blackouts and Multidimensionalism:
Lenses, Interruptions and Shadows

          As I have written before about things like this, I can see how the same concepts and ideas have crossed my mind and criss-crossed my experiences at different times in my life, and this idea of curved space has come up at various times and various ways in drawings and other things. I did not see it clearly at the time, but they connect together, different aspects of the same elephant so to speak. Eventually forced to deal with or meet these concepts head on, I have a bigger experience pallet to see how they fit together over time and the perspectives I was being moved towards, sometimes quite unwelcome, but in a logical progression. ...
         You can't run away from something that is a part of you. Wherever you go, there it is. It is in a sense inside of you, and integral part of what you are. Everything that you have experienced, could have experienced, what you are experiencing now or might have been experiencing now, and all that you will experience or could possibly, all of this is a part of you. You can focus on some parts and forget others. Indeed, you cannot see all points from any one point anyway, but all and everything else you can and sometimes do affect by your existence, all this or these "other" things in your realities are all a part of you. Moreover, without them, you are not or nothing. How they all must fit together, the organizational structure you define them by, and they you by, is what connects which points to any others, or which "theres" you can get to or see, from which "heres".

Still here; Charles Williams novels; Not going Galt (or Gault) anytime soon anymore
April 5, 2009, JaredDubois.com

          I did not go back to adding onto Deconstructing the Universe for a few months, probably the longest gap, after the high water point of "Measure all things together." Seeing everything I was thinking suddenly clearer or from a different perspective, having all the pieces seemingly magically falling into place in front of me, gave way to a very difficult period.

          February and March of 2003 were very, very difficult, and hard on me. Doubt, fear, anger, sorrow, many things all at once. A very dark cloud over the future seemed assured. The War in Iraq and all the horrors it would unleash were becoming inevitable, and with it, seemingly any good future was unlikely. Many things were grinding my hope for the future down, harder and lower than almost ever before.

          My "thinking spot" beach as I would later refer to it was my oasis. My routine became to ride by bike along the beaches, sit in a spot leaning back on the concrete slabs and watch the sun go down over the water in front of me every day. When no one was around, just me and the sun and the sea, I could pour out all my hopes, doubts, fears, joys and sorrows before me. No impending war, no fall out or blowbacks to come, no past or future history at all, just me and a big yellow ball going down over the water. I could smile or cry or both at the same time, and just for awhile enjoy a private slice of timelessness outside of what was before or what was to come.

          There with my quiet contemplations, any number of things seemed simple. Nothing seemed too complex that a little thought and effort could not make clear. All futures I had hoped for were wiped out, yet I still was. The future was becoming increasingly improbable, yet the world still was. It was a long time, it seemed, before I would again acknowledge hope, however seemingly misplaced or unlikely.

          This daily ritual which was not all bad, suddenly became more interesting. Most of the time I would sit there, throw pebbles at the sand dune in front of me, trying to hit the same spot twice, and search for some way forward, through what might be coming down the pike. The beach plant I just noticed one day looking down right in front of where I was sitting in the sand.

          As I said in writing about it, it was the probability of its existence that made an impression upon me. There was nothing growing around it, just feet of barren sand, and that it was where people walked made it interesting. It was certainly doomed where it was, yet that is why I began to focus on it, looking forward to seeing it each day to see if it survived. Some days I would have to dig around to find it, prop it up a little bit after it had been stepped on, but began to not be detached from it. It was hopelessly screwed, yet it was still there, day after day.

          I was so focused on what was being lost of the future, the narrowing of choices, of ways forward, I was confronted, even surprised by, new life, improbable, unlikely, yet though fragile in each instance, indomitable on the whole. It was something not to be denied.

          That tiny plant became a focus of hope for me, like someone in a prison cell would make a pet out of a cockroach. In addition to making me think about probability and how life pushes through into wherever it can find a way to, it gave me hope again for other things. If that small speck of life could defy the odds each day, was the future more unlikely than the present? Do any methods of probability really have actuality if we cannot see the frame around which the universe exists within? The lengths of time or the number of possible universes?

          The entire life of that plant probably did not last more than a few weeks. Yet it was. And though there were no other ones like it nearby, even if no other ones came there again, by existing it redefined what was possible. Before that and for a few more months, my health was all over the place. My situation would become just as unstable and erratic and even improbable, yet watching and rooting for a tiny sliver of life on a barren beach made me focus again on the fact that new life was forever appearing around me which I was choosing not to see, new avenues were opening up I hoped would not be chosen or if so, long followed, and that new life was within me as well. The improbable would have its day, and I would accept that it would be beyond estimation on what was probable or improbable without knowing the frames. But regardless, my focus now was not on life, but fully on what makes life, that unknowable (seemingly) frame that makes life undeniable and unstoppable, and therefore rejoins even the unlikeliest circumstances to pop up and jolt us from our "odds" and expectations about or for it.

Probability Undefined

What is can only be seen, known, and
understood in relation to how much
and how often it is not.

          There are two ways to believe that probability is irrelevant or does not exist. One way is to believe only one future can or will exist as real, and all others will not. Though as I said before, some do not believe that this necessarily invalidates the notion of probability; that just because something will happen only one way, the way that it does or will, it still might have occurred some other way though that can never be proven because by that viewpoint, no alternate endings or versions exist anywhere else in the Universe to prove that they might have occurred any other way. Such an outlook, though not requiring it, that only one definite future will be real, compliments the idea of predeterminism. If only one future will be real, if there is in the future only one way things will go, then one only needs enough info on the variables to determine how it would go. Probability depends only on having inadequate information for accurate prediction, for with enough information, though some would still cling to the fact it could happen some other way, if those who believe in one single future universal reality were correct, if enough information existed about that future reality by knowledge of all potential variables, it is conceivable it could be deduced.

          Many leaders of nations as well as individuals use the idea that the future is preordained to justify doing something in the present they know otherwise they ought not to be doing, that such a future state of being is inevitable and they are merely doing what they must to make that state occur. Believing that only one outcome will occur makes every decision become that much more critical as if the world will exist or not exist, become a utopia or a hellish slave state, depending on the outcome of every action those in a position to make or prevent such states of being occur by how they act or fail to act when it becomes required of them. Even if multiple realities exist, it does not necessarily diminish the responsibility to get it right this time, for in a sense this time may be all we see or get, by our own individual points of view existing in or shaped by this somewhat unique run through or common reality. But those who dare entertain the notion that only one reality or version exists in the future can think themselves to be guided by a state of being or planned existence no more real or definite than any other, and the sacrifices for that one future, not being the only possible future, might outweigh those required by an alternate alternative future they would never consider as possible.

          This limiting to thinking some versions of the future or future events to be inevitable or more probable limits one in acting other than in accordance to the realities built from and required within those very expectations. The more one believes one knows or understands the future, the more one limits oneself to acting within a way that would make or create such an intended state. When this is done consciously, it is called planning and acting in accordance with such plans. When it is done subconsciously or in accordance with religious or paranormal beliefs that one future or possible state is inevitable, it is to become a pawn or slave to those ideas. For thinking one can know or experience the one, and the only one, future is to absolve one from fearing the consequences of what they must do in order to make that one future, and indeed any one future over any other, to have to occur for they think it can happen no other way. Nothing is written in stone if there is more than one way the future can go, not even the present or the past.

          The other of the two ways for thinking probability is irrelevant or non-existent is to go completely in the other direction and say that if any possible future event or reality or outcome can occur because it does occur in some or any possible realities, it must have always either a probability of one (or 100%) in those realities in which it did actually occur and a zero percent chance in those realities in which it did not occur. Because it both does and does not occur, its probability exists in an indeterminate state because it itself is in an indeterminate or multiple states. This can be adjusted by saying that because it can or would happen more in one way than others, or in some realities more than others, probability can be preserved by saying in one in six possible realities after a roll of the dice, only one reality exists for each possible outcome, and if one intended or required a particular number, in five of those realities one would be disappointed and in only one would one be satisfied. Yet if there are six realities in which you made that one choice at that one moment, there would be countless others where you never were in the position to roll that dice at that one moment. Any different decision anywhere along the line would have opened up a whole new reality where you were anywhere else doing anything else than making that one choice at that one time.

          If there is no limit to how many times a given reality could occur, how could one ascribe probability to any one event? Existence or non-existence from the individual's point of view either occurred or did not occur. If it does occur in any reality there would then be countless subsequent realities where one lives and no longer lives, where one took one path and another version of oneself took another path, and if the present run through is not the only one, potentially many infinitely more probable realities which did not or will not even lead to ones existence at all. In the face of such innumerable alternate realities, the chance of anything happening in any way at any one time becomes impossible to measure without knowing how often such a set of circumstances can or will occur which would make such subsequent chances even possible. If one were to repeat something of random chance an infinite number of times, it would happen an infinite number of ways. If the odds of a dice coming up a certain number are always one in six, there is nothing to say that after a billion rolls, there might not be periods where it came up the same number or never came up one number after thousands of tries. The larger the number of potential run throughs, the more skewed any observable results can be, even over thousands of observations when the number of attempts is without limit or uncountable, no odds are provable or concrete.

          In this reality what draws our attention is what stands out from or apart from anything else. We seem to be different or apart from our environments, with some autonomy in our movements and in our choices. Our planet seems to stand out from or apart from the empty space surrounding it. We define things in opposition to or apart from that which we think they are not. Once in existence we have no relation to that time or state of existence in which we are not. (Once past occurring it must seemingly always occur that way or it becomes what is not, a dead branch with no life which is ultimately unreal. Once admitting any other possible alternate reality or outcome diminishes the realness of the currently experienced one). Without knowing how many times or ways we can occur, we cannot affix any probability to it. We simply and suddenly are. It seems given the age of the Universe, and the countless ways we or Humanity or Earth might happened differently, any one of us most likely as an individual might never had existed. Your parents or theirs might never have met, and so on. You can think this reality you are living in was meant to be and predetermined because it is the only one you know and in no small measure, the only one YOU as you exist now, could ever know, or you can see it as an infinitely small branch of a branch of a branch of trillions time trillions nearing infinity of other ways the Universe not only could have gone but does go in the overwhelming majority of other instances where you never exist within it, ever.

          Yet it is this very improbability, or if you prefer, fragility of existence which makes it seem to us in the way that it does. Countless mistakes we might make today could lead to our ruin tomorrow. We run the gauntlet of chance just by existing and if you believe that multiple versions of reality exist, we are far from always successful or even always still alive at this point in time. Yet the more predictable our lives become, whether through sensing of other more common potential futures over others from endless run throughs of similar realities or by our choices and methods of choosing becoming more narrow and predefined, we often instead of following those same known paths endlessly through infinite time, we seek out the new and completely unknown ones, if at all possible that any can stay unknown indefinitely since time itself can almost be infinitely occurring in any of an almost infinite number of ways, even if its birth date and end date were to be predetermined or prescribed.

          Recently on the beach I noticed a tiny beach plant growing far from any others. It was this standing out from its surroundings which made it noticeable. Were it to have been among others like itself, it would have been indistinguishable and barely seen, yet because it stood so far apart from where one might have expected it to be, it suddenly appeared or registered as interesting. That it had the misfortune to be on a frequented path made its existence even more unlikely. For awhile it withstood these great odds but then suddenly but predictably was simply gone. Given the number of things that are required for life, existence at all is far more unlikely than even the most isolated or unlikely individual lifeform. For any species to continue living over time, it is beating the odds and one day will vanish without a trace, just like that tiny beach plant in the sand. It is this seeming ability to be beating the odds or overcoming obstacles which makes living interesting. Were every potential run through equally real and experienced at whim, there would be no death, no failure not desired, and no odds to be beaten. We cannot get that feeling of triumph without having those all too frequent failures or the entire experience of living becomes a farce. Without the real possibility of failure or death, success becomes reduced to merely the continuation of monotonous existence.

          Life is like water through indoor plumbing. It flows through something unseen and into something which appears as useful to us. The tap may be turned on and off but that is just one instance. It is not any more there than it is potentially anywhere else the pipes run. Turn off one and it just increases the potential for coming out somewhere else. No matter how you judge it, if you can conceive of the length of time or of eternity, you know that the faucet will not be open for long for anyone or any one species. Yet how far one makes it relative to how many or how great the odds appear against it is all that make its existence the least bit interesting over any others which only might have been. Take away improbability and impermanence, and you lose the most important defining aspects of what it means to exist. One simply cannot always win or one tires of the need and the desire to play the game. We ask the Universe two things by existing, to always surprise us and to never let our existence or success be assured. If we think we have the need or potential to do, be, have, or create something which its existence or state of being is far from assured, we can experience that movement, dance, or flow we call living.

Spaces in time: Contentedness and Cataclysmic Changes

2009-08-04T23:21:00.000-07:00

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

I should have known
at your age, in a string of days the year is gone
but in that space of time it takes so long
because we can't make up
for the time that we've lost
I must let those memories provide
no little girl can stop her world to wait for me
every time we say goodbye
you're frozen in my mind
as the child that you never will be
you never will be again

Excerpt from How You've Grown,
lyrics by Natalie Merchant (10000 Maniacs)

Coming to terms with your life and your inevitable demise is widely considered healthy and wise. There is still much to be said for going out as one came in, kicking and screaming having to be dragged out. Contentedness and acceptance lead to feeling that things are as they must be, and that things should be (as they are). Life is the shaping, the building, (and) death is letting things be. Contentedness says this was so good, it is ok if this is the last thing I do, make, say, etc. I can live with that (no pun intended)[<- was there]. Such auto-eulogizing or self containment perspectivizing comes along with those whose circumstances and/or predilections and personality gives one reason and time enough to contemplate that end not so far forthcoming. It gets to the point, if one is accepting of it enough, where one is more comfortable in planning for death than they are in planning for what remains of their lives. So many think that because death is certain, one ought to at least try to see it coming and not to be caught unawares, but in searching or straining to be ready for whenever that time comes upon oneself, one can lose a little from every moment between now and then. I am not warning against fear of death, dread, or depression. Many enough will speak to and know enough about that. I am counseling against contentment, acceptance, and peace. They are all well and fine in moderate doses, but being too much at peace is to be dead while one lives. Hold fast to the yearning, the restlessness, the drives that drove you to be here. They cannot take you beyond the end of the road, but each moment you cling to them just a little bit harder they give you back that need to be, that state of perpetual wanting, hunger, and needing of what it means to truly live. Know contentment, treasure it, but keep it in a box for when you need it most, and dive headfirst into the cataclysm of unmet needs and almost unending problems requiring attention and help. That is the stuff life is made of.

(Note: Time is approximate to the chronology of the order of these posts. Estimated to have been written in / around February of 2003.)

Measure All Things Together

2009-07-04T02:55:00.000-07:00

"My life really began again at the time of "Measure All Things Together" and it is to that chapter 2 years back now I look to compass where I have come from and how I got here. Though my memories run back much further and around many corners, as I said at the end of the notes, "2 years in the twilight zone," in a sense I see myself in how I am now as 2 years old, and rapidly growing. I hate the term born again, but much of the lyrics of "Rocky Mountain High" by John Denver I can relate to, as well as near death experiences. I don't see that time, 2 years ago, as any more crucial than any other, and don't believe in making any breaks with the past, but my perceptions and identity continue to evolve, and some points seem to have lead to newer tracks or jumps of greater distance more than others.   
Why add on now to this? I found a note made in the margins of "Measure All Things Together" I thought was worth adding, since like I said, everything all goes back to that point in time to me somehow anyway, and the Notes Part II also ended with a reference to that chapter. The note was made on 4/24/04 at the end of the paragraph which ended with "No definitive line of sight or organizational factor is any more true or definite than any other."

NOTE 3 It added, "Every cork ALWAYS at some surface from some point of view. Spinning frame of reference around."

January 2005 Note added to Deconstructing the Universe

Measure All Things Together

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 might not as well exist at all.

         I have written on this before but still find need to further clarify the concept. Our capacity to exist or to have existed always exists even if we do not, nor never have, nor necessarily in any one given timeline, ever will. The potential for ones existence or creation must be present in every single moment prior to ones actual existence for it to occur. In that sense, all that has yet to be has a reality or state I refer to as pre-existent. Likewise any given reality beyond and during your actual existence must include your having existed if they spring from or run concurrent with that given timeline or reality in which you did occur or exist within.

        What is actually occurring at any given time in any given reality is but a small plane of existence. To attempt to further define this plane I will liken it to corks floating on the ocean. The ocean, so large in relation to a small cork, though finite in size appears to reach infinity to our little cork both in breath and in depth.

        Out of this ocean of potentiality our corks form and attempt to rise to the surface. (multiple surfaces?). (This is limited in seemingly stating that corks know or care about what we believe to be THE surface.) Most corks never do. Some get nearer to the surface than others and sink back down. Compared to the surfaces order, beneath the surface there are corks everywhere with the added dimension of depth, at least, in this case, one dimension more than appears on the surface where our given corks of actuality at any one moment in time float. Beneath the surface there are corks everywhere. Pick any line of sight, 360 degrees times 360 degrees and any one cork is just one in a possible chain with others beneath it and above it in no particular order. Beside it from one view might be another that won't reach the surface for millions of years, or had millions of years ago, or never will. No one definitive line of sight or organizational factor is more true or definite than any other.

        At the surface it is quite a different story. Less dimensions, not more. At least with one less dimension, the surface shows an order, a reality. With the added dimension of depth, compared to the surface, corks can occupy the same space, one directly below or above each other in relation to the surface plane. This added depth is unfamiliar to the surface plane. With the addition of the surface plane and that empty space above it, so necessary for defining that plane of existence, the empty space, one cork floating cannot share its place with another. The act of floating on the surface means that point in space and time is occupied by that one cork. It now has actual existence which precludes other existences in that spot, at least at that given time while it is floating on the surface.

        Across the surface there are now many patterns to be found. This new dimension, actually as I said, a lacking of dimension, breeds a new way of seeing the ocean across one common plane between the sea and the sky, between seemingly infinite potential of existence and between non-existence of potential, that thin line or crust or crest between the two where the water touches the air. For the corks floating on the surface, this limited lack of dimension creates a new reality, or a new way of seeing things. Other corks exist around you floating too. They define with you this new plane or way of seeing things with you concurrently. Some around you will sink back down. Others will pop up around you, coming and going from the surface, from what the surface defines as actuality. I don't mean by this analogy to imply that the cork is still the same beneath the surface as above, only that it has the same capacity or potential when it is in actual existence, as it had before or can be thought to have had after it sinks below again. The surface corks as I said because of the more limited dimensions of the surface, have a dimension of actuality, taking up that one given space at that surface at a time elbowing out itself a place at the table so to speak which other corks for the moments of its existence cannot share without pushing it aside, save for existing beside it.

        Though all the corks currently bobbing along the surface of the ocean exist in a sense side by side, each defining and confirming its little place upon its surface, they share a common top down perspective, if you will. Though their actual vision is limited to the other corks and miscellaneous floating debris around them, they are capable of imagining a common top down perspective (from within or from the point of view or perspective of the potential of non-existence), how silly or beautiful they must all look floating beside each other on the ocean where seemingly infinite potential (the water) meets seemingly infinite non-existence (the air). Along with this imagined or deduced perspective they watch the patterns where these two meet, of corks and other things reaching the surface, touching the definition plane where existence or potential brushes against non- existence or a severe limiting of potential down to narrower surface actualities. (You need that negative space perspective of what is not anything or cannot happen, or what is not happening to define something to be actual or actually happening.) The non-existence plane where no corks can go nonetheless makes the corks, in this case, be corks. It provides a definition standing out beside or in relation to non-existence, or between infinite potential and total non-existence, and each cork occupies for its time on the surface, at least at one point, the defining line between the two. Without that added definition or lack of dimension we call non-existence, or all that is not, you cannot envision that view or plane so dear to us surface corks, that of where the two meet, infinite existence and infinite non-existence into that view or experience we call limited existence.

        All of the corks which happen to be floating together at any one given moment in time share a limited reality in a very intimate way. They are what is that reality at that given point in time, defining and sustaining it together as one. They are also sharing in its history, both the past and the future. They have one common history or timeline of the entire Universe up to that point which they share between them all, such a small room of a seemingly infinite sized mansion of what could be or could have been to co-exist within. They also have the ability to interact with each other with a level of reality more real, in a sense, than any other within that reality and at that point in time, at least to them at that time. What they choose to do with that potential to make these interactions, these shared experiences, to become more real than any others that might have been at that time, that is the question each must and will decide for themselves.

        When you know and understand it, you can't help but want these experiences to be positive, pleasurable, and fun. If not for others, the highest ideal or goal, then at least for yourself. When you can achieve both, any other reality you might envision, call it Heaven, Nirvana, or whatever, cannot compare as being better than this unless there too you are making the experiences, the lives, the realities, better for others as well as for yourself. That is the power we have in this reality, to shape it not only for ourselves but for others however we choose, to cause them pleasure or give them joy, or to cause pain, to experience these for ourselves too, and to decide which should be inflicted and which withheld, savage justice or higher compassion, and which makes the most sense for whom and to which others.

(It originally ended there. Shortly after combined with this written at same time on, seemingly at first, sort of a different train of thought.)

        But the worst possible timelines potential by any given individual's point of view occurs I believe as often as the best regardless of what occurs in any given timeline. You can't change or eliminate one over the other and neither becomes more real simply because it was experienced again, or if possible, more often. Indeed the worst possible outcomes need to be and will be experienced, and everything else in-between, equally necessary to have been lived through. As pointless indulgences go, existence is merely the most elaborate, not the most true. Truth is best read between the lines, or in existence's case, between the timelines, not your own, everyone's.

        The patterns between them endlessly repeat but even they are not truth, just more and more convoluted interpretations hidden to be found by beings with every more complex and complicated intelligences capable of seeing what isn't necessarily there and creating ever more complex situations and problems to solve. The desire to be lurks behind every turn, in every shadow. To be what, to be when, to be how, that is all.

        To understand it is to add yet another layer away from knowing it. To experience it fully is to know it and know it for the only truth it possesses, the experience or effect of the desire to be in yet another of endless variations it will manifest itself as, and yet another of endless ways to superimpose that upon whatever else, in any and all manners and contexts, through any and all possible circumstances and realities. One is always equally the master of this circus of frivolity and the slave of its never-ending wish to set everything in motion to see how they collide.

        Get a view of it all from every possible angle, every possible perspective, and still you are left with nothing. Be what you have to be as often as you have to be it and take from it as much joy as you can while you can. It may be pointless, never-ending, and never any more real at any one time or life or way more than any other, but it need not be dull, for that if anything, is pretty much the driving point above all else.

        Grab the moment, any moment, and hold onto it forever and you will see in that moment is every other and everyone. Pick the best circumstances that will make you the most happy or contented or at peace the most times if you can but know that you will only know them as such for and by the sense of having experienced and known the worst. Everything cannot help but be judged by and in relation to everything else. Everything else is the only true measure of what it means to be anything. Without either there is no set scale to measure anything by, never mind a true one. What everything else is though, is as indefinite and as changeable as what you are, and any change in one is reflected instantaneously in the other.  

        Also I thought I would add something which I think is nearly as good as the Introduction in defining how the 1.8 (In Wonder) version began to grow alongside the original, and what sets it apart. The following was written immediately after "Measure All Things Together", and that Introduction and is about maintaining that same sense of wonder.

        "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, subjegate, 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 (brat means a spoiled, mean, or obstinate child)."

        That about winds up this retro. Back in 2005 now, things seem pretty undefined and pretty bleak when looking at them only from the present. Yet hope springs eternal and travels out from behind and beyond whatever you can see or know. I think I said it best in the notes after the Introduction, the last time I ended it, so I will repeat that here.

        "To see simultaneously and equally both with and without expectations at once is the only way to experience the Universe beyond your expectations or limits of just being yourself, or outside that bubble of reality you create around yourself to move into and inhabit. More simply put, never give up the wonder for what you will soon enough find you only thought you knew or understood. It is never a wise trade."

January 2005 Note (again) added to Deconstructing the Universe

Blackouts and Multidimensionalism: Lenses, Interruptions and Shadows

2009-07-04T00:34:00.000-07:00

        ... GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.
        If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."
        The idea that we live in a hologram probably sounds absurd, but it is a natural extension of our best understanding of black holes, and something with a pretty firm theoretical footing. It has also been surprisingly helpful for physicists wrestling with theories of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.
        The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. ...

Our world may be a giant hologram, by Marcus Chown
January 15, 2009, Newscientist.com

        This next post starts off covering the year 2003 and was written in the first week of January. It was thought of due to a power outage in my neighborhood which happened in the evening and left me in the dark for a few hours. After using my laptop for light for awhile, I decided to switch to traditional candles.

        Then I did what many have done since time immemorial. I put my hand in front of the candle and observed a shadow of it on the wall. I had been thinking about the concept of multiple levels of dimensions but perceiving only 3 and the candle got me thinking about 3 dimensional "shadows" of higher realities, or our perceptions being only that of a more dimensional Universe "flatted down" to a few which we could understand. After observing, thinking, pondering, and playing around with shadow puppets for awhile, the lights came back on.

        The candle however was still lit, and therefore the shadows I was or had been making were still just as potentially there. It was just with the added brighter lights, there was no way to make out a shadow from a single light source as weak as a candle anymore. Yet it was still there, however faint. I moved my hand in front of the still burning candle a few times to make the point to myself, yes, the shadow must still be there, only I can't make it out anymore.

        The 'single star' analogy which I used for the essay/example "Breaking Probability Waves" several days earlier (which I would use again in the Yashoe/Yashomee story) to 'filter down' an explanation of existence to the most minimal levels, one existence vs. all else, I thought of now again in terms of the candle and the lights, suddenly on again. Thinking in terms of lots of people being separate lives, separate lights, was complex, but thinking that there might be a single source of life, or single beam which makes matter or life exist, like a single candle, then there could be a metaphorical lens or prism which would break that single light into different colors, different existences, different "shadows" of existence, of which we were one of, dancing around on a 3 dimensional Universe equivalent of my 2 dimensional wall I had been making shadow puppets on.

        This was not the first time I used that example (in what I was about to write at that point) of a "prism" creating "a multitude of individualizations." The poem "Prismic" from my collection, Quadranine from 1989 (20 years ago around now) made similar observations / suppositions. I am putting it here below as an example or reference.

An indomitable ray of hope and fulfillment
passes through the prism of time
spreading wide a multitude of individualizations
painting the mural of life in its prime

Colors which are pleasing to the heart
stand contrasting and complementing those that unnerve
for each part's beauty never seeks to overpower
the incomprehensibly vast mosaic they serve

Images of all that we know of or dream
float fancifully reflected in a panorama of space
playing nightly to a captive audience unseen
trying their best to savor a feast they cannot taste

The brilliance of the light cannot be known
as it far surpasses that which can be seen
and the mysterious refractor defies definitions,
not to diminish the wondrous pictures that gleam

While there are many similarities to that poem, with what I was thinking about then when the lights came back on, it was more like the thought of life itself as a beam animating and creating not only matter but each person's life as well. Again, also referencing the recently written essay at that time, "Breaking Probability Waves", in the sense of how it began, in that first few sentences...

"...Life consumes and expends energy. We, living beings, consume far more energy than can be quantified than merely from the foods we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. Life draws energy to itself. It draws upon it and builds itself up from it. Food, matter, they are required only as a catalyst. Once the process is begun it is almost self-perpetuating.

So in this sense, the "lens" I was trying to define or imagine was the source of life or consciousness, and trying to play around with that concept more than just the "shadows", and trying to understand life "flowing into" each person from a higher dimensional viewpoint, or outside of the 3 dimensions we perceive point of view. Probably before the rest, then I wrote the poem's lines that summed it up at what ended up at the beginning, then most likely began the rest. I may have written it the other way around, but its not really that important which came first.

Multidimensionalism: Lenses, Interruptions and Shadows

One light can cast a single shadow on the wall  
with many lights one hardly sees any shadow at all  
but ever more lights breed ever more shadows to see  
more shapes, more perspectives fleshing out what can be

        Using the star analogy to potential, one can perceive of existence as taking place on another level. As the star spreads its light ever outwards into space until it hits something which absorbs that light into itself, it also creates an absence of that light in the direction beyond itself, a shadow. If one substitutes light for potential, or energy, or life spreading out into the Universe in all directions beyond three dimensions and time, but like light creating breaks or stoppages as it hits “things” which catch some of that potential or energy into itself causing interruptions in the design or pattern which would otherwise occur, a shadow of events in time. One could speculate such a disruption’s effect could be envisioned as a world, a universe, or an entity. For this example I will choose a particular entity or single being.

        If one follows the analogy of life emanating from a single source such as energy or light emanates from a star, and that life or potential of events can take a myriad of forms, just being potential, none more definite or definitive than any other, such as light containing all colors. When we think of this world as being where life hits something or is actualized from potential into existence, striking some “thing” to break down the multiple potential colored “light” or energy into individual existences, one is looking at the effects and not necessarily the cause. If you in turn step beyond that to conceptualize that just as life flows into us and our Universe from an indistinguishable unchartable point from our current existence's points of view, the actual diffusing of potential into actual, from all that can be into what is, is taking place between us, our world, and the light / life source, whatever it is that creates or sustains what it is that we are and use to build up some concepts of ourselves. Imagine your body or your world as a three-dimensional shadow created by the interruption of infinite time and infinite space emanating outwards from some central point. Though that point would not be in actuality, from our points of view, in any one place and time, using a star as an analogy one can conceive of it as such.

        So using that limited analogy of life or potential coming from a definitive pin-pointable place in space and time such as a star, though this whole analogy is not accurate limiting it in space and time, imagine you or consciousness as something in-between the source of existence and the physical Universe able to absorb some of that essence of potential into itself, causing a disruption, a shadow of what could occur, and from that shadow creates what will occur, at least from that line of sight (timeline) between the source, and the effect, existence. Moving your hand in front of a light, if there is another source for the light to hit beyond your hand, and the light source sufficiently bright or all other sources of light are sufficiently dim, you will see a shadow of your hand upon another surface. You can see how the rest of the light would hit and the disruption you can move or control, and how this reacts with that area. If life emanates into ourselves from an outside source and we are capable of capturing or transmuting that energy, life, or potential into ourselves creating effects or events across time which we choose, it is possible to imagine that we stand in-between the source of this potential, and the effects which play out upon the background, in our case not a two-dimensional wall, merely a three-dimensional universe plus time.

        Since I have stressed this analogy is flawed, to imagine the source of all life or potential as existing in one single point of space and time, I will try to expand upon it a little. Even if one does believe in one god as the source of all life, it is still quite a stretch to envision it as existing in a single point in space and time. This is just an analogy to illustrate a point, a lens, an obstruction in potential and time, and the effects that would appear across a static world, a shadow of events with that potential, from a single viewpoint or line of sight.

        As difficult as this can be to imagine, I will now make it even more so. Imagine not a single source of life or potential emanating from a single direction but instead a multitude of different lights or potential sources around the inside of a giant ball and the obstruction or refractor absorbing that energy into itself casting many shadows simultaneously upon many surfaces at the same time. It shows one shape on one surface, a different one upon another surface from a different angle. Likewise any movement or intended effects upon one surface shows as different, backward, or opposite on another surface. This example is at the heart of understanding both multidimensionalism and different realities of time. For time, imagine all the lights around the inside of the ball firing in a particular order, one at a time. What creates the shadow or effect would control to some degree its shape or movements but so too would the differing lights firing create a movement to and across differing backgrounds opposite that source.

        To imagine multidimensionalism, imagine all the lights on at once, all shadows would always be present all at the same time, though not visible since each would be obscuring its visibility coming from so many different light sources, but each shadow would still be there. Each movement, each action taking place against one background is simultaneously taking place, having a seemingly different effect as it is being seen from a different angle or plane upon all other lines of sight. Use the ball to represent time and imagine one light seemingly stronger at one point in time, at each moment in time. Though there would be visual or conceptual movement through time, a shadow appearing to be moving across different frames, yet at that same moment differing versions of other shadows not as bright would be telling different perspectives upon other lines of sight. And since as I said for this example, each line of sight represents a different time, not a different dimension per se, each event or moment happening at any time would also be casting a different shadow back upon itself at every other time.

        Now change the inside of the ball casting shadows of potential, not to represent time, but instead three-dimensional space. Each breakage or disruption within the potential can be occurring or disrupting multiple points in space at the same time, appearing as one form from one perspective, having one type of intended effect upon one reality, and having a quite different impression by that motion or disruptive patterns simultaneously occurring in other points in space at the same time.

        Now imagine the inside of the ball to represent consciousness. Each idea, each thought, each notion would be occurring in a different way, affecting multiple shadow consciousnesses simultaneously. The intended effect upon one thinking that one at that moment is the current or real one, as if one moment was more real in the time analogy because one light seemed brighter or the others appeared dimmer, that same idea, notion, or abstraction can appear quite differently to another consciousness simultaneously as a direct consequence of that intended action upon another line of sight, with each thought being seen by all shadow consciousnesses differently all at once all the time.

        Now imagine the inside of the ball to represent all of these, time, consciousness, and three-dimensional space, all lights on all the time, every action or intention affecting every other event, time, and place, in every consciousness' potential perception in every possible dimension and timeline. Everything done at every time by anyone ever anywhere any when casting a faint shadow upon everything else also always occurring. The key to understanding it may not be in the source from where or how existence originates but in-between that primal primordial cause and every possible effect, every shadow, every stoppage of all possibilities into single occurrences of single realities. Most think time is this fulcrum, that something in time, in each moments present, regulates each occurrence from what did not occur but time is not thought to be a consciousness, merely a regulator of what appears as actuality to one given perspective, one line of sight, one given timeline. And if from a different perspective time itself can be thought to be multiply occurring in different ways at once, what may exist in the center appearing simultaneously yet differently across every moment in time to every possible consciousness in every possible reality may be even more elusive to understanding time or life itself.  

Heretic Papers II- Beyond the End of the Universe

2009-06-28T19:51:00.000-07:00

Before getting to the third 'revising addition' to Deconstructing the Universe, and believing I had finally finished it, the previous two posts here, "Breaking Probability Waves" and "Shattering Time" were added at the end of it. Looking back on it, and mentioning more fully why I call them revising additions, was because after I wrote each one and then reread the previous 8, each time the previous ones seemed to be about something different. I was seeing what I had written before in a new light or from a new perspective, so to speak. That reverb was to compound itself exponentially and is mentioned, parts of it anyway, many times in the full 5D notes, parts 1 through 6, and even in things between this written below here, Christmas 2002, and the full notes which began in October of 2003. This is an excerpt from the full text which will follow it, but as in the first post here, it also explains a bit how writing it was changing me as a person. As I put in the final introduction to Deconstructing the Universe, "The future is uncertain, but isn't it always? That should never surprise us, but it always does. You may not learn anything from reading it, or you might, but I could more than fill all of the books in all of the libraries in the world if I tried to explain how much and in how many ways I have grown as a person in getting to its end."

After Deconstructing the Universe was completed, three separate times counting the postscripts (this I can tell would have been written in just after or on Christmas 2002, right after "Shattering Time". As a sequel, I would like to write, "How to glue time back together again". That would not be as easy ), again I am left with hanging thoughts of a mind that fails to recognize an off switch. At least two (paragraphs) of which will be placed at the beginning of Deconstructing the Universe, something which is best reread after each end, for both postscripts redefine all which came before them. (Eventually there were 8 postscript sections added. At the time, each of the first two postscripts added seemed to cast the previous sections in a different light. I am far beyond that now. I can say that the 1.8 version and the original, though still there, seem different in purpose. I was different too.) In a way each life is a redefinition of all which came before them. Upon each revision, or each redefinition, there are those which are not contradicted and new ideas hinted at which begin to emerge when trying to synthesize them into a coherent whole.
Life is equally complex and real truths are best written between the lines, either that or we just see and apply new meaning to what is not really there which we wish was, some deeper meaning or purpose or logic (which we did not see the first time around) which we wish to impose upon it. That life itself exists as interactions between individuals lives, that time lies in-between individual moments, and that truth lies between (different) individuals' conception of it, is hinted at upon the rereads (to me anyway, at that time, and is said ad nausea since then in the Notes) after the postscripts of Deconstructing the Universe, but to say that openly, plainly, without having to work at it to understand it in your own way or coming to realize it all on your own, it is just words, smug words, portending to some higher realization in the end just another construct no more real than any other, some more over simplified nonsense in a world as infinitely complex as you wish to make it (by imagining it to be).

(Note: Before putting the full text, when I put it on the web previously, I wrote this as an Introduction page to it in 2005.)

I found some older stuff recently and decided to put them here. The first one was written just after Deconstructing the Universe was finished for the first time before the current 1.8 version. It talks about why I wrote it. I learned something from reading it and was kind of curious why I wrote it. It seems I might have had a reason after all. It does a good job at explaining how the 3 books (Deconstructing the Universe, Towards Tomorrow, and Morality: Individual and Social) were connected, at least how I thought they were at the time. For me that was all long ago and far away, so I will have to take my own word for it that they are connected at all. At least once I know now that I thought so. The other I was typing up recently at the same time and it may have been written around the same time (I can place the first one below around Christmas 2002 or on Christmas day). ...

Heretic Papers II- Beyond the End of the Universe (retitled Tying the Books Together in 2005)

           After finishing "Morality: Individual and Social," the idea got stuck in my head at its end that what people will think in the future is not beyond us now, it is just the things we are not ready to accept. None of the things we call improvements to our societies socially now were unheard of 50 or 100 years ago, they were just unsettling the majority of people then. The aim of "Towards Tomorrow" was to move beyond the present and kick over a few sacred stones of beliefs to see what might lurk beneath them, or see if their foundations were really that sound. It was meant to be disruptive, controversial, but in the end lost its edge, shifted into a different mode, and became something else; understanding how we can define time and where we are possibly heading, and what we might be able to do about that, about the future and the time definition of ourselves.

           After Towards Tomorrow was done, many different ideas kept popping into my head, paragraphs self-contained about various things Towards Tomorrow did not address, and where it failed in its original intent to think outside the box of what is acceptable in this time, to go beyond the current mindsets of this time and society more completely in search of truth regardless of what is conventional, accepted, or safe. Something which I call gloves-off or bare-knuckled philosophy, not being held back by anything, afraid of offending no one, letting only the abstract notion of truth matter.

           This is impossible to do on so many levels, to be able to truly think beyond the bounds, conventions, and biases of ones own time, people, and civilizations. We can gleam a few perspectives from the past, (what we are allowed to know or think about it by current governments), postulate about how other more advanced species might perceive things, or extrapolate on how those in the future might see things as humanity matures, and more of its denizens have greater and unrestricted access to its histories, all of them, not just which versions their present societies wish to stress for their own political purposes which are nothing more than caricatures of the past constructed to validate or support the current beliefs into "instant traditions" more often than not at odds with the past they claim to be upholding.

           The results of those paragraphs were assembled into a slightly more coherent collection by placing them together and giving it a title called "The Heretic Papers", taken after its best paragraph which fully realized the intent of wanting to go beyond what people now think, hold sacred, unquestioning, and treads on it mercilessly yet reverently, not out of spite nor animosity, but in the simple and pure pursuit of truth. Of that one small paragraph, the pious of many faiths would find both much that is provoking, (heretical), yet also something which is true and beautiful. That such truth and beauty are seemingly at the expense of cherished beliefs, many would undoubtedly see as disturbing and unnecessarily harsh, distorting, and that is for those who could see past that at all.

           Of The Heretic Papers, or those few dozen paragraphs I refer to as The Heretic Papers, they really do go beyond what some devoutly religious people might want to withstand or be exposed to. Generally I am respectful to all persons' beliefs, their various levels of tolerance and intolerance, and therefore decided they are not really for general consumption, though writing them was a bit of a catharsis. Yet as Morality: Individual and Social led directly to Towards Tomorrow, chasing those truths or insights we are really not ready for quite yet, but we are capable of perceiving and how that was not really addressed (enough) by Towards Tomorrow, the collection of ideas in those original Heretic Papers, born out of the same original motivation for (writing) Towards Tomorrow, were assembled in a more coherent, more structured, less controversial form into Deconstructing the Universe.

           Many varied factors contributed to Deconstructing the Universe. What I termed bare-knuckled philosophy, truly trying to think outside the bounds of ones own time, conventions, and social beliefs, and the results of that were a key part. My father's illness was another key factor. The Heretic Papers was probably the last thing I ever wrote which he would have been able to comprehend. He always talked of writing a book that would reveal more to humanity than they were ready for or expecting. Whether he could have done that, it is impossible to say, for now it is not likely he even will have such a chance.

           That I am not capable doing such, now any number of people are now qualified to say, for I have attempted just that, to go beyond what people now are capable of understanding which may make sense or more sense to people a dozen or a hundred years from now, to do it for him to show him that even the things we are not able to do that we wished to do, that somehow everything gets done eventually, however indirectly. I doubt anyone can know (with certainty) what people will find relevant a hundred years from now, but to set our sights that high; to attempt to look beyond our world today, our present beliefs of our own time or place in history to see beyond our own horizons to what is or may be true beyond them, such attempts are good and valuable even if the results of which are worthless in and of themselves.

           Philosophy when it works best is done in layers. Take what has come before and add to it, build upon it. What people believe now, that which has worth and will withstand the test of time if it is left unsheltered enough to meet all challenges, will at best provide ONLY a foundation for new outlooks we might only catch glimpses of today. The past and previous outlooks need to be incorporated into future ones, and not dominate them, nor restrain them, nor seek to prevent them from arising. Religions are great bearers of the past to the future, and many ideas and ideals would not have survived without being encapsulated into them, yet it is a sad thing when many great ideas of different faiths are not taught or stressed in others because they are perceived as being foreign, outside of ones own religion, and to even think of such thing would be to be unfaithful to ones own religion or people. Religions have kept many great ideas and viewpoints intact for thousands of years, but it is that very rigidity of walls between faiths which keeps good ideas and outlooks from being shared by all.

           If someone were to take a notion like honesty and build a religion around it which became dominant, that notion would get entangled with that religion, and to people of other religions, honesty would have connotations to a particular (foreign) religion. I am not saying other religions necessarily would become less honest, just that it should not deserve by being stressed so highly by one group, as to become identified with one group over the other. But that would probably happen. Thus if someone seems overtly honest, you could call that person disparagingly as the term for that group, one of those honesty nuts from that other religion.

           Many good notions have been incorporated and identifiable as being stressed by some religions yet it is those very religious connotations which helped them survive which may keep them from spreading, as if by buying into one notion or belief you must ascribe to an entire belief system, or that you are unfaithful to your own faith by considering views which are parts of religions outside of your own faith. The pursuit of truth ought not to be hindered by who had which beliefs first or which group stresses which values more. The free flow of ideas ought to include all views, not just economic, governmental, and scientific. Those systems are evolving by and large by what works best regardless of how or where it originated, yet with some philosophical and religious ideas, changes seem destined only to create new fractures and vying versions and sects because there are few ways or means to incorporate outside ideas into them to grow or evolve.

           I do not necessarily believe what we believe philosophically or religiously will or ought to be believed ten thousand years from now just as no religions from ten thousand years ago are dominant today. Whatever new belief systems emerge will have a part of our beliefs in them or will in some way have grown out of them (and away from them), just as they who will hold and believe them will have grown out of us and our lives. I do not claim to know what those beliefs systems will be like, nor would I necessarily hold them to be more true, but I hope they are tried and true battle tested through rigorous comparisons against contentious contenders without appearing to corner the market or have a trademark on any particular value or belief over any others, and that they will be what we all are, stronger for coming from many different sources into one being.

           After Deconstructing the Universe was completed, three separate times counting the postscripts, again I am left with hanging thoughts of a mind that fails to recognize an off switch. At least two (paragraphs) of which will be placed at the beginning of Deconstructing the Universe, something which is best reread after each end, for both postscripts redefine all which came before them. In a way each life is a redefinition of all which came before them. Upon each revision, or each redefinition, there are those which are not contradicted and new ideas hinted at which begin to emerge when trying to synthesize them into a coherent whole.

           Life is equally complex and real truths are best written between the lines, either that or we just see and apply new meaning to what is not really there which we wish was, some deeper meaning or purpose or logic (which we did not see the first time around) which we wish to impose upon it. That life itself exists as interactions between individual's lives, that time lies in-between individual moments, and that truth lies between (different) individuals' conception of it, is hinted at upon the rereads after the postscripts of Deconstructing the Universe, but to say that openly, plainly, without having to work at it to understand it in your own way or coming to realize it all on your own, it is just words, smug words, portending to some higher realization in the end just another construct no more real than any other, some more over simplified nonsense in a world as infinitely complex as you wish to make it (by imagining it to be).

           Again I have decided to group together these self-contained hanging paragraphs and try to sort out some order of them. From the first Heretic Papers, Deconstructing the Universe emerged, and again these paragraphs, written without regard to present sensibilities are probably best kept under wraps but they seem less likely to be misunderstood, and hopefully this has attested to why one ought to step outside what one ought to think once in awhile, challenge everything that is known or believed on occasion, to attempt to glimpse the Universe beyond our own minds, beliefs, and mindsets. It is ALWAYS heretical, and depending on your society, sometimes (such questioning is) illegal, but always can lead to something more, something valuable, something which now only exists as potential, good or bad, which like us will be judged for its value only once it has been attained, realized, and known. And in the end, not realizing it, not conceiving of it as an option, letting some truths go unknown until the end of time, it is not even a possible viable option. Truth will seek us out to become known, even and most often when, we spurn it.

(Note: Not much to add here because there were no notes at the end of it like with the previous other two. But I did use a quote from the above paragraph to kick off my first full new (at least the intended one) post on TruthRevival.org in over a year. The much alluded to 'Higher ground' one. It was finalized as "Newer more uncertain ground and a wider variety of pasts" which was posted April 15th, 2009. The following essay below really is not connected to the notes at all but was written the same day or within a day or two of the above, so I figured since there was nothing to add, why not put that here too.)

Man vs. Animals: Trading Freedom for Cooperation

           Choice is one of the most important aspects of intellectual life, and control must be included as a consequence or contributor to choice. Without possessing choice, freewill or some degree of control over our own lives, we may live, but intellectually we are dead. This may seem strange to some, separating intellectual life from biological life. After all, in this world we each have only one life, or at least only one at a one time for those who wish to think they will or have had more than one. I do not by making this distinguishment between intellectual life and biological life mean to imply there are two lives, nor two different aims or goals; one for the body and one for the mind. Certainly such distinctions are there to be made, though not relevant I think to the simple assertion that life as we define it, that which we possess some degree of responsibility for because we are conscious of ourselves and our lives, and to some degree our potentials and the consequences for what we do or fail to do, depends upon possessing both the choice among different courses of action, and the control, power, or freedom to pursue those differing avenues of events and possibilities.

           Such differing notions of life and responsibility for ones actions is best typified by how we view the distinction between human actions and those species we identify as animals. Animals are not burdened by us to be thought of generally as good or evil, as they behave as they do primarily on instinct rather than what we call learned behavior. They react as they do in situations as their genetics up until their existence best prepared them to behave, so goes the belief anyway. What animals do is supposedly what is in their nature to do, and is generally not viewed in moral terms. Because we possess seemingly more awareness of our actions, their contexts and consequences for others, we are viewed quite differently as a species of individuals very much in moral terms. We are not free to behave as animals would nor would most wish to live in a society where others behaved as such toward ourselves. We put up walls of what is acceptable behavior, those who always keep their actions within the strictest of these confines we term to be moral people and with moral terms; good, decent, righteous. Those whose actions stray from those confines we term either the individuals or the actions in moral terms as well, bad, evil, or unholy.

           The degree of freedom of an animal and the degree of freedom of a man or woman too, are not on the same playing field. Animals excepting those who live in herds or groups generally have unlimited freedom of action depending only on their perceived choices and their natural abilities. But beyond their own abilities, their survival is limited only to what they themselves can do to keep themselves alive. I exclude those who live in herds and groups from this analogy because they too may have special rules to adhere to, can be shunned from the aid of the group, and can benefit from others aid should they be hurt, hungry, or otherwise in need.

           The freedom of Man in comparison to that of an animal is on the surface far lessened. The bounds of behavior are as complex and as confining as ones intelligence can imagine or allow, and the bounds of behavior allowed or condoned fluctuates literally on a daily basis with too many rules for one to be able to name. Between every law and every custom and every tradition, much of our consciousnesses are very much preoccupied with making sure we are doing whatever we are doing correctly and within the confines of acceptable behavior for remaining within our given or perceived group. The trade-off for this, as in all species which live in groups, is that we never so to speak, walk alone.

           Should an animal or outsider attack us, another of our species or group will come to our aid. Should we grow sick, another would care for us and bring us food until we are well. This is of course relative, and varies with different groups. Most often threats to ourselves come not from other species, but other members of our own species, and depending upon whom, or to what group they belong, others coming to our aid if attacked is far from assured. Other factors enter into it as well. Maybe that person deserved to be beaten or killed. Maybe he or she was a bad person who did bad things. Maybe, some speculate due to such reasonings, maybe the good person is the aggressor protecting us from the other person who would do bad things otherwise. Without such knowledge (or explanations which may or may not be valid) or context to place events within conceptually, all policemen would be just people who chase, beat up, and shoot others, and all executions would just be more murders. Not always knowing the context of something prevents us from knowing within our own minds and desires to stay within the bounds of acceptable behavior can keep us from helping another. Maybe he is bad and did something to deserve it, or maybe the attackers are part of a group or gang one dares not provoke or anger.

           Variable too are the chances for aid one would receive were one to become ill or weak and unable to work, the modern equivalent of finding food in the animal analogy, which would of course be stealing if one were to do simply that, finding food. If one becomes too weak to do something which ones society finds worthy of giving one food for, or is unable to find something to do which would result in having food, how much help one would receive would depend upon ones culture, government, and circumstances. Primarily family groups used to care for members sick or infirm until they were well and could acquire food or the means to obtain food themselves. Now in many societies, social changes have led to the local or national governments taking over a supporting role in caring for the weak, sick, and those unable to work, and this has allowed family members to recede from this role. Governments, national and local, around the world vary greatly in how much help and for how long, and who qualifies for such help.

           Because it is often not clear who ultimately who in a government or society is responsible for such people, many societies have the majority of people willing to simply bypass or overlook these people as if they do not exist until they simply die of malnutrition or starvation. If large pockets of people dying of starvation elsewhere exists, governments will sometimes send food to those regions for awhile, but generally societies slowly will weed out the people they do no wish to have simply by overlooking them until they die in a gutter somewhere if they cannot find someone to give them food, if they cannot find a way to obtain it for themselves. They do not have to even prohibit people from aiding them anymore. Most have been conditioned not to think or care about it much, and are more than willing to look away.

Within the Paradox of Time

2009-06-28T19:10:00.000-07:00

Shattering Time (originally called as above)

Earth travels through bent
space in a straight line
always moving in the same
direction yet seeming to
repeatedly be coming back
to the same point in space

The Universe travels through bent
time in a straight line
always moving in the same
direction yet seeming to
repeatedly be coming back
to the same point in time

           If the Universe repeats itself for whatever reason coming back to the same point in time whether it repeats once or countless times it would always happen the same way but for one factor, one wildcard, consciousness. A type of consciousness, if it arises, lies outside of the physical Universe. It becomes capable of stepping outside of the current timeline to remember other run-throughs, other variations of its theme. If it were not able to do so all decisions, all actions, would happen exactly as they did before since nothing had changed. All the same factors, motives, thoughts, feelings, and opinions would doom all to repeat the same events in perpetuity. Only one timeline would ever be real. The Universe from beginning to end would be like breaking the balls at pool (billiards), always hit at the same angle and speed with always the same outcome. Even conscious beings could be and would be exactly the same as the balls, their motions completely unchangeable since they will always confront the same issues in the same ways, having freewill but forever lacking the imagination or the ability to ever approach anything differently if all their thoughts and all that caused them have no reason to behave any differently.

           Yet as I said before, people are capable of imagining a disconnect from their present timelines. We can think or believe that different outcomes will arise from different actions we have control over. If I decide to go out and get drunk and drive very fast, one set of possible outcomes, many of which being potentially very unpleasant, might arise. If I decide to stay home and read a book, none of these other potentialities will occur, a different set then becomes possible, then probable, then real, actual. This attempting or sensing which timelines we are in is done with imagination, speculation based upon our knowledge and experiences, attitudes about which we prefer or might wish to see happen, our fears about what might or could happen, and so on. But what if it went beyond that?

           Were all of our decisions to be based solely on what had happened to us before, as what happened to those others who affect our lives happened exactly as before, our attitudes would most likely evolve as they had in the past and we would approach every identical situation in the same way. But what if over time endlessly repeating the same situations, we become more than just cogs in the wheel? We begin to sense more of the order behind what may or is about to happen. That awareness makes more and more variations possible. If we begin to think or become aware that once or many times before when confronted with a situation we know never actually happened before but sense it as though it had, we can wait and watch it with some degree of foresight and pat ourselves on the back that at that instant we knew exactly what was going to happen before and exactly as it did. But such an awareness, if at all possible, allows for a new option not existent without that indefinable awareness: the chance to change it. Knowing that in an instant someone walking into a room is about to trip, one is now in the position if given sufficient time, to prevent it from occurring. Such knowledge might seem paradoxical. Were someone to know with certainty and accuracy of something about to happen, though this would enable them to act differently, to alter the flow of would be events, would not this prevent them from having such information about the soon to be occurrence if one prevents it from occurring?

           Were this to be repeated over and over and over again the paradox would resolve itself. Since it happens both ways in the past, one way without intervention based upon prior inexplicable foreknowledge or remembrance, and the new way based upon that new factor becoming a real variation on the theme, both eventually are part of the past, and one senses not the absolute necessity of something happening, though it may if it continues to be a ripple in the timeline still appear as a certainty about to happen, it becomes over time merely a predilection or tendency to happen a certain way. Sometimes you might act on that information of déjà vu and attempt to alter it, sometimes you might decide to sit it out. Sometimes someone else might intervene before you got the chance because they too recognized something was about to happen and were in a position to alter it.

           No matter how vast the variability this sort of new consciousness enters into the mix, eventually the number of possible variations must have or reach some kind of end. Eventually all roads would become known, and ultimately boring and tedious. Eventually more and more of the paradox would become clear and more and more predictability would enter into the mix. All that we might think might be, we make real simply by remembering how it happened before, and simply do it that way again. If the past is the future and the future is the past, and we are existent in all, we may eventually be able to conceptually break down those walls to remember the future, and by doing so alter the course of present, it’s past. We begin to create little paradoxes within the big paradox, create bridges in time mentally between the present and the future or the present and the past, like conceptual wormholes, and by doing so create events which can only exist as reality while contained within that paradox or reality loop because of such realizations.

           Can consciousness break out of our own paradoxes we may create as a side effect of our existences, creating not only ripples of change into the future but into the past as well, by mere repetition as I mentioned might both smooth out timelines and create alternate timelines? Regardless of anything which we may do or create based upon fore/past knowledge which itself creates the paradox, it must be stated that in such an environment existence itself, regardless of anything which we may say or do, becomes a paradox. It is safe to say for most that we exist in the present because we exist in or were created in the past, a minute ago, an hour, a year, etc. But to go beyond that to say that we exist in the past as we do or did because of something yet to occur in the future, which will create and shape the past is itself the heart of the bigger problem. The future is creating the past as much as the past can be said to create the future, and once inserted anywhere in between, it is to be forever required or existent in both. By becoming more conscious of the paradox through retention of more and more of its variabilities we ourselves create, have created, and are creating in both the past and the future, hopefully we can in a sense move beyond it, but because it is a paradox we will also always have been and always will be within it.

Note: an end was here as the color of ink changes. This was added later.

           We may never retain a full realization of previous run-throughs while within it. Momentary glimpses may break through now and then into our consciousnesses but retaining more than a general sense of things is hard. The details get in the way. The details get changed around, lost, found, forgotten and remembered, altered. We may not even always retain much of the current run through. The past is always in a way just as unreal and as changeable as the future. It never lasts more than a moment and does not moving forward back into it always happen the same.

Note: another end was here as the color of ink changes again. These may have been written the same day or at a later date.

           All mathematical attempts at understanding the Universe will ultimately fail without taking into account the perceiver by interaction within the paradox is changing not only the future but also the past. You must account for the accounting for. Without doing that you are persisting in the assumption that reality is forever out there, as if you or consciousness were a ghost not a part of it or what creates or sustains it. Notions of mass in quantum mechanics have gotten far smaller than even atoms yet we still believe that somewhere mass must exist, that something must be a “thing” and not just an energy pattern. The Universe, atoms, life, responds to our perceptions of it, it is a living, changing thing which is not a thing which includes ourselves as a part of itself and itself as a part of ourselves. Which defines which, which sustains which is not important. Each conforms in a way to the expectations of the other affecting not only its future but its past, as in the end, both are really the same.

(Note: This was the second 'revising addition' to Deconstructing the Universe and finished off the way it originally appeared in my programs. The first was the previously posted, "Breaking Probability Waves." Both of the additional parts were written, as were the other parts of it, in 2002. Next to come is what became later called 'Tying the books together' written on Christmas day 2002. That will be the next post. And the third appendage, the one where things first started to get really weird, "Multidimensionalism: Lenses, Interruptions and Shadows", which came about a dozen days after that one in January of 2003. The following paragraphs below it here were tacked on to the end of Shattering Time, and at least one of these foreshadows the "Multidimensionalism" essay. These additional paragraphs were not as good as the above parts but were not intended to be part of it. That ended, and was meant to end, where it ends above. These were just extra ideas and notes tacked on related to ideas about it or from it. They may not be as good as above, and not as fully formed, but is part of the attempt at always trying to go a little further, often into things I had little experience with or other things to refer it to, on shakier ground if you will.)

The Universe is a paradox and existence itself creates the paradox. By existing both in the future and past and conscious of both, consciousness creates an untenable situation of arising in and of itself, out of events of time, and living itself or perceiving itself as a ripple of events of time. This ripple consciousness grows out of ordinary consciousness when ordinary consciousness becomes conscious of itself and of the ripples (in time) it can create.

Dimension wrapping perspective, inside the super-monkey ball. Inside and outside at the same time.

In the story, Vestabur is always moving toward something, some realization (which) in the end he is hesitant about reaching. He is also attempting to move away from something. In the end he finds that both are in the end the same thing and by realizing this paradox (he) unmakes the Universe, at least his universe. This one still appears to be here. Maybe there are enough universes to go round for everyone.

(Note: the end of the Vestabur poem actually started off the Deconstructing the Universe project or collection of essays. Unlike other poem quotes which were written or added later, the first part, "Man Becoming Death, Destroyer of Worlds", was intended before written to have had the line below at the top of the page to start it out...)

Then it happened as the Universe ended
without Vestabur or the snowy mountaintop
because it all had come to an end long, long ago
before the beginning with no story now to stop

(Note: which was the second to last stanza of the poem. It concluded with...)

Wanting for everyone to live in joy,
knowing what it truly is like to live free
was to him then and is to us in our time now
forever to be more of a dream than reality
as it can never be that for any who are free
not to be able and therefore not to do, us misery

The thing about futures is that everyday there are fewer and fewer of them. More chances, more roads reach their ends, you, your life, your species, your world. Whatever by definition can die, is mortal, in some way at some time has died and is dying each moment to make real that possibility. Fewer and fewer roads leading into the future, and eventually there will be none. The further you make it seeing the same life, holding fast to the most or longest lasting memories, the luckier you are though it may not always seem so. Each day always one step further than another version of yourself not so lucky. A chance to glimpse or achieve a little more perspective from the rarer further reaches of that landscape of your life or your potential lives spread over time. The rarer they become, the greater value they have. Though they may be fewer and harder to reach and often harder to bear, they possess more of what all hope or aspire towards, one step closer to being able to pull the rest into perspective. They may be fewer but they are the less which is truly, and every moment, more.

(Note: The above paragraph I liked so much that I put it before everything else in Deconstructing the Universe, at least in the revised final version.)