The 5d Notes - More Definitive (2003-2007): Rebooting the Notes at the End of the Deconstructed Universe

Until Yesterday: Experience, Existence, Whose Universe, Co-Existence 10 April 20, 2011 "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 instinctively 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 “Deconstructing 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 "Deconstructing 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. Contents page

April 20, 2011

"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 instinctively 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 “Deconstructing 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 "Deconstructing 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.

                                           Contents page

Until Yesterday: Experience, Existence, Whose Universe, Co-Existence 10