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
"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."
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."
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
... 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. ...
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.
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.
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.)
This is the first 'revising addition' to Deconstructing the Universe. I will most likely go through all 8 extra essays first, then post what I called previously 'Before the Pre-notes' and then the 'Pre-notes' before actually getting here to the '5D' notes which is where or when most of the notes I am writing this to refer to or explain about, actually will get started. Those began in October 2003, or the Notes Part 1. This post covers things still in late 2002, possibly December. This was not originally intended to be added to the end of "Deconstructing the Universe". It just was. It could have been the start of something else I might have written. As in the previous post, "Rebooting the Notes at the End of the Deconstructed Universe", it came from rereading "Deconstructing the Universe", after it was done, and new thoughts sprang up about it, or because of rereading it. After the second similar one like it, "Shattering Time", I then figured that they made nice appendages and put them at the end of it, and thus the 'original' version which went out with my programs at the time had 8 sections and two appendages tucked on at the end. This is the first one of those 2 extra parts, and also notes at the end of it which happened soon after or the same day.
Breaking Probability Waves
A pulse of potential
like a voice exclaiming
I am here, I am here, I am here!
spreads out into the infinite void
forever until it reaches some somewhere
to create someone or something which can hear
like a wave seeking a beachhead
to break itself upon
rising up upon itself and spending itself
seeking only to change something
becoming itself only in defining the shore
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. Almost, but definitely as of yet, not quite.
We expend energy at far greater amplitudes than just moving our bodies around, repairing and renewing them, making and remaking thought patterns, or even consecutive thought patterns of occurrences over time and through probabilities. Life expends energy remaking that energy into whatever it chooses, and can exist in a state apart from what we call physical existence, but it would not matter to anyone else.
What we call a world, a universe, a reality, is an overlapping of existences at mutual and cross purposes. It is a medium with which to paint or create. To an artist the painting can be real which he or she has not yet painted. A melody can be thought to exist before it has been realized. A mathematical equation can have existence before the first mind in the Universe formed to formulate it. All that you see, all that you know, all things which have happened to you, all that will, and all that only might, all of this can be said to be in a sense, pre-existent. All of these things, events, experiences, are waiting to happen and have existed in that state since the dawn of time. These events and experiences too are just a medium in which to work with, to build and create a life from life.
A life, a consciousness, a unique energy pattern drawing energy unto itself and expending it from itself can be envisioned as a single star in an empty universe, absorbing whatever it takes to create or sustain itself from wherever that comes from and sending its thoughts, achievements, imaginations, potential, its reformulated energy pattern which it takes in and sends back out in the manner and shape it chooses. But without other things to break those waves of potential emanating outward from itself, as matter can be thought to collapse light waves, that consciousness’s life events, experiences, imaginations, potential, spreads ever and ever outward across an infinite expanse, forever and ever amounting to nothing.
Add a second conceptual life, consciousness, to the equation, also absorbing potential, energy, reformulating it how it chooses, creating with it its own brand of possibilities, its view of experiences, its own particular way of standing apart from all else, and imagine it as a second star sending out its waves of potential through the infinite void. Place it anywhere else in that infinite void and eventually the two ever expanding waves, oscillations, will overlay each other and collapse each other, into photons in the case of light, into experience in the sense of potential. Now in keeping with the star analogy, no matter how far apart they are, each star would be collapsing the light potential, the waves, into photons each making the others light real by giving it something to hit to collapse its waves of potential particles into real photons.
Yet another thing happens by this cross making of making or confirming each other’s actual existence. The waves of potential not collapsed intermingle, resonate together, some places stronger, other places weaker. Where dissonance builds they cancel each other out. Where they double up, new existence, where they cancel each other out, some seeming lacking of something, as if something were now missing. There is much more which can be made out of this duality notion or example, and to many it is quite the thing to contemplate but I must move on.
Add a third conceptual life, consciousness, perspective, to the mix. No longer are each equal. Whether the previous two conceptual stars, points, could be thought to be standing still or endlessly circling each other around a central point at trillions of miles per hour, it would not matter. Being completely motionless or each rotating around a fixed point between them at unimaginable speeds, and every variation between the two extremes, each and all would always apply. The only thing that would define this new existent intermingling of potentials, two consciousnesses points of view, would be the distances relative to each other. Traveling further apart would be meaningless as eventually the light / potential would have to reach the other eventually. Thus traveling towards each other too would be meaningless unless or until they collided and no longer existed as separate. But add a third and another strange state occurs.
Where there are three, there is an order. There is something else to be acted upon. Something can be moving toward one and away from the other, or moving toward both, or moving away from both. Or viewing it from purpose, sometimes siding with one against the other, or working in tandem with the others, or working against both, against all else. With two the only definition possible, and not very distinctive at that, was moving closer or further apart. In an infinite expanse, close or far apart have no meanings, there is only collision and unification, and separateness. With three there can be conflict.
The point is that it is the overlapping of potentials coming from and traveling to sources of life, beings, states of existence, consciousness, or what have you. Each by itself is everything, has everything, makes potentially anything, yet to nothing else is it real. Add in something else it is not, anything else, and you have a beginning. Separateness and unity, and not much else. But with three or more though the themes are the same, moving toward or apart, the combinations are multiplied exponentially with each new addition. Toward some, for some, against others. The higher the numbers, the more possible combinations and configurations.
As these cross purposes, perspectives, attitudes, goals, ambitions, meet a reality forms where they overlap. It is a way to sort it all out. Each new perspective both adds to the conflict and adds to its possible resolution. Each is a new way of defining what it is that is defining what is. Each new perspective, each idea, is an outgrowth of the arguments or preconditions which came before, and are only the necessary proofs or suppositions of the foundations for further conclusions yet to be reached. Before seeming to relegate all existences down to numbers in some giant program trying to reach some conclusion or definitive explanation of which binary supposition of which primary consciousness was right or wrong, I will attempt to return to where I began.
Whether we are all part of a probability wave extending out of that first energy pattern, life, drawing energy into itself and emanating its potential, its design, outward into infinity, or were created as new subsequent opinions to help settle an age old disagreement, or are or were once that original consciousness, it matters not. We are the same as that first life, that first presence defining itself as something apart from all else. We draw as much potential into ourselves as we can and let it go in the way and into the experiences we build up into a concept of what we are and what we were. Yet we were not the experiences of memories we link together to form a consciousness, nor are we ourselves only existing apart from all else.
What we are is the same as that first consciousness. All consciousnesses however early or late in the game they might otherwise be thought to come in, are emanating from a single point on an endless plane of existence. Where its potential (waves) crosses another’s, a window is opened, a way out of everything and nothing and into something. We think we can by looking through that window pass through it into a reality but that reality is merely a reflection of what we want to see tempered by what we think others want to see or have be. Yet the perceptions themselves become a reality.
In this reality where reality is spread thin over many countless consciousnesses, it is about affecting the realities of others, that is what we are creating and the only reality we can create. As mentioned before, to build a life out of life. Along the way and toward that end we will get sucked up into age old conflicts and attitudes of divided camps seemingly greater and more powerful than we are, but should that means of definition prove sound, each of us is an additional perspective formed, a unique interpretation, and we contribute nothing to furthering any meaning we have in regards to that interpretation of existence without developing ourselves that new interpretation which may be all that can be accomplished outside of enjoying life, or in helping others.
To define an existence apart from everything else, to expand upon it translating potential into actual experiences, moving the paint from jar to canvas in the design we choose, selecting which pre-existing potential experiences we wish to take down off the shelf and play with. That that purpose or purposeful action will always seem to be placed within a greater context may be inevitable, yet in another sense, it is also to a larger degree completely our own to make or not make what we choose. Our light in the darkness or our bodies absorbing the light, we exist only as a contrast, a means of standing out from all else, a shore seeming to move through time by collapsing waves of potential onto itself and only possessing existence, that means to create that shore, where cross potentials meet to define between themselves together something actual. Standing in the center of a cataclysm of potential coming at us from different directions, and in whatever limited means afforded to us, to choose as one member of an unimaginably large jury, which were or will be real, which ones have value to us, and which do not.
(Note: That is where it ended originally. These next parts were written right after. How soon after, I do not know, but intended comment upon the above text.)
Much of this last part, and to some extent the rest, is allegorical and not meant to be taken as a literal description of fact. It is a good jumping off point for your own ideas and suppositions. But to some, and indeed to many, life itself is sometimes thought to be only allegorical, and not to be taken too literally. Life too can be said to be a good starting off place for forming your own ideas and opinions. Literal explanations are only valid within a rigid, inflexible context. Life is anything but rigid and inflexible. It never is what it was, and never is locked into any one definition of what it can or will become.
(and later on same page, roughly same time...)
Science's god is reality. Philosopher's god is truth. My be-all-end-all is perspective. Reality and truth are well and fine but exist as such only within a given perspective. More and different perspectives added equals different versions of reality and different ideas of truth. Reality and truth may exist to create the means to perspectives but only perspectives can acknowledge such tangent, shapeless indefinabilities into seemingly solid and stable notions of what is real and what is true.
Posts
