|
|
|
|
Rel.
3 - Part 1 --- Physicality
We cannot judge a sport
while we are playing the game
While we are in the picture
we cannot see its frame
All that there is in this world,
all of the pleasure and all the pain,
it seems all too confusing
to be understood by my little brain
Some people seek knowledge,
others seek wealth and fame
Some are wise, some are not
some are strong, some are lame
Those who have little usually lose,
those who have much usually gain
Some are in want of jewels and furs,
others are in need of water and grain
All have different wishes and hopes
yet living is their common aim
Each one fighting against time,
all different yet all the same
|
|
|
|
There are very few things which all can agree upon. Different interpretations
of events and philosophies and the possibly infinite multitudes of variability
in the thought processes of physical beings leaves little chance of universal
agreement upon anything. Despite this, there is a completely universal
concept -- the universe. Beings within it at one time or another
acknowledge their presence within the confines of what we call the physical
universe, that place of blazing fireballs in an ocean of nothingness. |
|
Physical
universe as a universal concept |
|
The degree to which people accept the facts of this experience or their
various interpretations for such phenomena has no significance to the intangibility
of this mode of existence. The parameters are preset and the number
of possible outcomes indelibly fixed. I do not wish one to believe
that one's existence in the physical world to be confining although it
is difficult not to see it so. One body, one lifetime, one chance
to make a dent in a vast stream of existences does seem to be a rather
strict set of rules by which to abide. Of course, few readily accept
such limitations. Many believe in extended existence beyond bodily
termination and any sort of belief in magic, miracles, or mythology is
to entertain the notion that we or other beings can defy the limitations
of our possibly temporal existence and limited capacities. |
|
|
|
It is to the world of our waking, the normal level of awareness selves
which I which to address first and separately from any other less widely
accepted and more abstractly founded notions of life. Since it is
the physical world which provides the inputs for any larger more harmonious
or more just notions of order for living things, the information that this
sole base source provides is fundamental if not intrinsic to understanding
interpretive drives of conceptually based environmental landscapes.
What the physical world is should be considered in conjunction what it
compels those who perceive it to do and the mental framework they construct
as to the various ways of interpreting it. |
|
|
|
Our minds adapt, or more accurately are manufactured to be shaped by our
physical environmental worlds as much as our bodies are. What concepts
we are exposed to and what existences we encounter come to us through our
senses, our links to the physical world. Even our organization for
abstract thoughts can sometimes take the form of physical storage systems.
Those who believe purely in a physical form of existence think that those
similarities of concepts to physical things might stem from the argument
that the physical world creates consciousness. It is through the
interaction of material chemical substances in the physical brains of species
which cause thoughts and consciousness, they would say. That our
minds should so greatly be shaped by a physical existence, and the fact
that we tend to think of ideas as 'things' are just logical deductions
from fact based experience. I do not wish to argue this case as my
preference has been undoubtedly given away and a perceived bias would taint
any attempts at fairness. I will do my best however, to state the
facts which the physical world portends and leave it up to the reader whether
or not to believe or disbelieve them. |
|
Minds
are shaped by environment, some believe created by it as well |
|
Humanity and other species are masses of protoplasm which exist and function
to reproduce themselves. This is a process that can continue over
a time span covering many generations. Certain observations about
the species' environment can be communicated from one generation to another
thereby enabling descendants to avoid hazardous situations and objects.
These species undergo constant subtle mutations while interacting with
their environments that enable them to better conform to a changing world.
These mutations occurring prior to the births of offspring are passed along
to the offspring, and over long periods of time these changes can lead
to the creations of seemingly new species of similar genetically based
forms. Different species vie for dominance over potential rivals
for resources under any given environmental conditions. When a species
overpopulates a region it risks depleting it's food sources and greatly
lessens its chances for survival. When this happens or when a species
perceives no great threat from other species, it can turn upon itself sensing
others of its kind as potential rivals for limited food resources. |
|
Various
known or widely believed aspects of physical existence |
|
Beings within a species go through stages that constitute a series of experiences
that are in sum called a 'life'. These stages are contained within
the concept of aging, and have three distinct phases. The growth
stage goes from conception to a period in time shortly after sexual maturation.
During this time many species' young require the assistance of others within
their particular species to protect them until they are able to withstand
the dangers in their environment on their own. The reproductive phase
is often the longest phase of a physical being's life, providing they are
not killed. Some species have members that are strong enough to live
beyond this into a post-reproductive stage. Shortly after full growth
is achieved, a being's health deteriorates at an incremental rate that
lessens the aged's ability to physically challenge rivals. |
|
|
|
Many species have members distinguishable into groups that we call male
and female. Different physical attributes and different social roles
differentiate the members of sex in a species. In some species one
sex dominates the other either by physical disproportion or by temperament.
By these definitions, male and female, it is the female that bears the
offspring by either laying a fertilized egg or by giving birth to a live
child. For such species to survive, members of both sexes must continue
to survive and remain fertile. Also, conditions must exist for mating to
occur and full gestation in addition to keeping the young healthy while
relatively helpless. These conditions must occur often enough to
provide sufficient numbers of that species to overcome environmental hazards
and premature deaths of species members not able to reach a sufficient
age for reproduction. Large numbers of species members also allow
for a greater number of genetic combinations which increases its ability
to adapt to different environments and survive. |
|
|
|
The larger environments that these complex multi-cellular organisms inhabit
are spheres of a variety of elements created by and orbiting around larger
spheres of hydrogen fusion reactors called stars. The surface of
these stars is a continuous chain reaction of atomic energy that creates
heat and enormous waves of energy/particles called light. These waves
spread out into the relative voids between these stars until they hit something
to become particles called photons. These photons provide nutrients
to photosynthetic organisms (plants) upon the orbiting satellites of these
stars and form the basis of a food chain upon which all other organisms
rely. |
|
More
known or believed aspects of physical existence |
|
Without discussing the enormity of the time scale of the entire universe
which makes even our own planet's age pale by comparison, the sheer vastness
of the age of Earth makes not only the lives of individuals seem insignificant,
it makes the life span of entire species seem insignificant. Upon
these facts and upon the certainty of death, we build some mental structure
to provide us with the courage to forge on and create a life which seems
to us to be far more significant than the evidence of which our senses
and rationality would lead us to believe. Immortality by this viewpoint
is unobtainable but the perpetuation of the species can be viewed as an
attempt at the impossible. If we do indeed view those of our own
species as extensions of ourselves then we are given cause to give ourselves
to something greater and bigger than we are, an immortality of ilk. |
|
|
|
Though this universe may seem overwhelming in its breadth and diversity,
it nonetheless confronts us with its own, and our own, existence.
Those who view these facts of physical existence alone cannot hope to ever
find any meaning other than that which their imagination might see.
As I have said before, meaning is something we create and not something
that lies waiting to be discovered. The fact that the universe exists
pushes us to wonder why it exists. The greater perplexed we become,
the more we wonder why. To come into awareness with no clear memories
and to be confronted with this bizarre monstrosity makes us curious even
if we were not so to begin with. It is this strangeness followed
by more and more understanding which leads us to believe that life is a
means of acquiring knowledge. Those who think in these terms cannot
help but realize the improbability of a total understanding of the universe
in any given lifetime. For those unwilling to dabble in speculations
of eternal or numerous lifetimes, the idea that learning is the aim of
life would be disheartening. |
|
Existence
as an unknown fuels curiousity, learning necessary for continued existence,
becomes a primary goal |
|
It is the inflexibility of the physical world that causes us to cherish
material things. That which can give us material pleasure is readily
comprehensible. That which causes suffrage for some post-life reward
is regarded by many as dubious to say the least. Those who ask us
to give up that which we know for something we cannot ever hope to understand
or experience until a time when we may not be able to understand or experience
anything, they ask a great deal. Yet there is never a shortage of takers
for this seemingly absurd offer. Other than humanity having no rationale
whatsoever, a thought which has crossed my mind from time to time, the
only explanation I can think of is that this awareness of an eternal existence
is not unobtainable while we live. Maybe we have an awareness of
another form of existence which makes such absurd arguments make sense
to us. |
|
|
|
From a purely logical standpoint we should ruthlessly acquire all the resources
we can to better ensure our survival. One could say that in a collective
sense, that is what humanity does. Groups of people, particularly
nations, show savage ferocity and great amorality in securing resources
and improving their chances to survive if not dominate all others.
At the same time, on an individual basis humans seem to acknowledge that
such a crude form of civilization is far from desirable. They are
more than willing to sacrifice immediate selfish gains for the sake of
the group as a whole. Granted that this could be a biological recognition
of the primary motivation as being the perpetuation of the species, but
it is also true that those who subordinate themselves to the group are
often aware that those who lead do not do so for the benefit of humanity
or the group as a whole. Sometimes beings acknowledge that they can
be true to what they believe is right without being in error even if it
contributes to empowering those who are not right. Conflicts undoubtedly
occur for often helping the many means helping the many who are helping
themselves. |
|
Logical
ruthlessness, greed, materialism steming from requirements of physical
existence offset by other drives seemingly unsupported by biological necessity |
|
I believe that people sacrifice their comforts, personal desires, and ambitions
for others because they feel they get something for it in return, something
far more valuable than any amount of wealth can compensate for the lack
of it. This inner drive cannot come from the circumstances or situations
of our lives (other than being taught) for the simple reason that it does
not make any sense. It runs contrary to all that we see and experience
about what the world is really all about. Yet often as soon as someone
communicates this belief in altruism, we embrace it as tightly as we embrace
life itself. There are many cases where our love for principles and
morally based ideas which do not occur as a part of nature, becomes greater
than our love for life itself. Maybe it is because life is harsh
and unfeeling that we dare to think we know how it should be. Maybe
it is because we cannot accept the limitations and the helplessness that
we are confronted with that we inevitably come to wish for more than we
can achieve, some perfect world where we gain peace through ending others'
misery. Or maybe it is because we knew better all along.
|
|
|
|
Rel. 3 - Part 2
--- Eternal Life
Beat fast oh heart of endless motion
that carries us through the shrouded stillness
of the omnipresent cold eternal night
which holds countless souls captive,
entombed within its endless fiefdom
smothered in angst and robbed of sight
Move quickly you who dare to think
that you have any relevance to it all
or it to you or you to what is right
lest you may learn that nothing matters
to life which you may cherish or despise
and to death which merely continues this plight
No future is real and the past slips away,
not wanting to be remembered or relived,
not holding onto you nor letting you hold it
as you are perpetually thrown into nothingness
and then let to grasp at something
yet that something never enables you to quit
Constant scurrying with nowhere to go
is the empty fate which befalls us all
and holds us in the wake of endless questing
after truths that lose their importance
as easily and as often as we lose our lives
without diminishing our spirit's vesting
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the most erroneous lack of judgment in my life is how little I
value material things. To our conscious rational minds, the material
world is everything. If life is to exist, then surviving to achieve
that which will prolong life at the very least can be considered only natural
and sane. Yet I, like so many others, have raised the value of ideals
higher than the value of life itself. This potentially grave error
may or may not be foundationless and its veracity may well hinge on one
of the most intriguing questions that the human mind has ever formulated.
That question is "are we mortal or are we immortal?" |
|
|
|
From the point of view that existence begins and ends in the physical universe,
the mere existence of such a question epitomizes the arrogance of the human
species. Out of fear of death or maybe delusions of grandeur we dare
to think we are above the truths of the physical world and we think we
can continue in existence for indefinite or infinite amount of time.
Such notions would surely seem absurd were it not for the fact that an
overwhelming majority of humans on this planet believe that they possess
an immortal soul and that this intangible indestructible force is their
true selves. Despite what I may think, not many people would contend
that believing this could or would make it so. As most would see
it either they are correct in this assumption or they are mistaken. |
|
Most
believe in some sort of life after death or possessing a soul |
|
I am not one to be overwhelmed and moved by the ingenuity of the human
race. I see a species mired deep in divisive and often destructive
beliefs which at times seem to defy all explanations based on reason.
It is entirely conceivable to me that my beliefs of a relativistic world
and others beliefs in an immortal soul to be completely without a basis
in fact. However, the validity of my, or others beliefs is not to
be the emphasis of this section. I intend to discuss the ways in
which immortality is envisioned and the effects these views have upon peoples'
actions. |
|
|
|
There appears to be two major tenets of belief in an eternal soul.
These are the spiral type multi-life views and the single lifetime judgmental
view. The spiral type I label as such because it maintains that life
is a circle between life and death, and through many lifetimes we move
toward a greater or more complete understanding of the universe.
The single life judgmental view is not completely dissimilar. It
too presumes some pre-existent state as well as an equally outside of time
eventual resting place be it nice or nasty as the case may be. This
view of life contends that this life forms the basis upon which a judgment
shall be rendered as to whether or not a person deserves an eternal purgatory
or an eternal heaven. Another harder to define view is a merger of
these two which I have stated. This other view supposes that though
we are judged according to actions in our lives, a decision as to our final
resting place may take more than one lifetime and that we can be given
second chances to right our previous wrongs. |
|
Two
major types of immortality beliefs: Spiral multiple incarnation view and
single life Judgemental view |
|
Before I get into the specifics of the differences of these sub-divisional
notions of eternal life I would like briefly to mention the common effects
they have upon humanity. Frankly, they have made suffering more tolerable
and perhaps for that reason, more prevalent. Injustices can be accepted
with the belief that they are merely temporary and that in the end all
wrongs will be made right. Sacrifices are to be rewarded and goodness
along with virtue will live forever in the heart of some benevolent god.
These beliefs most importantly say that there is more going on here than
what we can see or know. These concepts give us new ways of seeing
so that what we see is not so much what is there but what we wish to see
there. Few people would die for money and only fools would die for
glory but many would kill and die for ideals and the pain and sting of
death for most is lessened by the idea of an eternal soul. It makes
losing everything for nothing a reasonable choice. |
|
Eternal
life beliefs affect societal views and can have placating negative effects
and slow social progression |
|
It is difficult to say which view, spiral or judgmental, is inherently
more susceptible to having negative repercussions upon societies.
Hinduism and its beliefs are of the spiral type and they seem to have helped
reinforce the caste system of social stratification to such a degree that
it lasted thousands of years. This system included a whole class
of people labeled as untouchables doomed from birth to a sort of social
slavery. The reincarnation theory supported this in that whatever
position they were born into was due to the sort of life they had earned
or deserved from the previous one. Thus anyone born into extreme
wealth earned that wealth and anyone extremely poor had better cast off
any bitterness because they did something wrong to be born into such misery
and unless they accept it they might wind up in a worse situation next
time. |
|
Eternal
life views can be used to support injustice |
|
The judgmental view of other religions has led to many purges of foreign
cultures to 'save' them from ideologies and behavioral patterns thought
to be evil or blasphemous. The rationale was that they were 'cleansing'
the Earth of 'heathens' who were not being murdered but merely being sent
to be judged for their 'primitive savage' beliefs. This view also
has made many quite eager to do any actions that they were told were good
and righteous by those with the proclaimed authority to judge such things.
Killing despite the "Thou shalt not kill" Commandment is an example of
human interpreted exemptions to supposed divine rules. However there
is no evidence that Christians or Moslems were any more vulnerable to persuasion
and manipulation on religious grounds than were those of different religious
backgrounds. Soldiers of all faiths were often reassured of everlasting
glory for their sacrifices and violent deeds, if not everlasting life. |
|
|
|
Both Hinduism and Buddhism can be said possess the spiral type view of
life. It is through a series of lives and life experiences that one
comes to a state of Nirvana or total oneness with all of existence in a
blissful happy state. This view accentuates the value of knowledge,
particularly spiritual knowledge and it speaks of existence in nonphysical
worlds. Though life is a continuous circle between life and death,
neither is thought to be completely unlike the other. It is by trying
to find the underlying force within that one enables oneself to move further
upon his or her journey of self-discovery. |
|
Eastern
religions are Spiral-type views |
|
Christianity and Islam tend to have a judgmental view of external existence.
The carrot and stick approach of heaven and hell tends to herd people to
adhere to strict rules of social behavior. Though the judgment is
supposedly left to God, many zealous preachers and pundits have not been
shy about making their opinions known. Religious instruction is given
to keep followers from straying from the path of righteousness and falling
prey to the manifestations of temptation. Thoughts about eternal
life are generally expressed in human-like terms and heaven is thought
to be a sort of exclusive club where only the truly pious can gain entrance.
I am not claiming that these are the current beliefs of the majorities
of these faiths, only that these are the images upon which current teachings
are founded. |
|
Western
religions are more Judgemental views in nature |
|
How people view eternal life and their own souls varies greatly even within
particular religions. Some people have more abstract notions of formless
consciousness while others tend to think in more visual and concrete terms.
Though these differences can lead to unusual and fascinating variations
among different cultures in how they think of and express ideas of the
eternal existence of their spirits as well, the most important theme is
that they are not their bodies. This precept sets the stage for greater
control over their worlds for they are in fact removing themselves conceptually
from the physical world and partially entering a world of their own conception. |
|
|
|
As long as one views himself or herself as his or his own bodies, or even
as objects within their environments they remain susceptible to and dependent
upon such existence. But when people withdraw further into their
own and group consciousnesses, they stretch the boundaries of what they
perceive they can do and may actually increase what they are able to do.
Believing one is a vaguely defined concept not based on or comparable to
anything in the physical world is a very powerful and potentially dangerous
thing to do. Doing so without a solid belief system can lead one
to be open to any of the opposing forces that a consciousness can manufacture
or contact. In most people there is no danger so long as they accept
to live by the rules of their own existence. It is only when people
seek to control other existence's outside of themselves that they latch
onto loosely defined structures which give them greater apparent control,
only to find later that they themselves were losing control. |
|
Believing
one is not limited to bodily existence can lead to broader looser definitions
for existence |
|
I do not mean to say that any of this is absolutely real. I only
wish to state the risks that can be run when one is unsure of what one
is. I doubt that anyone's belief structure is without weaknesses
and I assume that if anyone was completely without doubt in himself or
herself then that person would either appear as a complete fool or as a
holy godlike person. It is our unsuredness that keeps us searching
to find better explanations and new ways of understanding and interpreting
experiences. How we define ourselves is crucial to what we experience
and our belief in what is possible affects what we experience. We
negate or preclude from experience that which we believe cannot be.
It is for this reason when we open our minds to the infinite by leaving
our total existence, whether in size or time, in doubt we open a perceptual
world as infinite and as expansive as space itself.
|
|
Immortality
beliefs affect how we interpert experience and redefine our notions of
ourselves |
| Rel.
3 - Part 3 --- The Consciousness Specific Perspective
Mine is the sun
and for me it shines
It gives me the food
upon which my soul dines
Mine is the earth,
its oceans and its land
It gives me a place
upon which to stand
Mine is the life
that exists everywhere
It gives me purpose
among the others there
Mine are the stars
and the vastness of space
for they are in me
as I observe their place
|
|
|
|
There is a deeply personal way of interpreting life and its events.
It goes beyond what is, what is physical, and instead concentrates on what
happens. We can think of motion while thinking of objects in motion.
The connection between what is and what happens seems unbreakable yet with
some effort we can think of happenings without thinking of their causes
or originating elements. A far easier task is to think about the
objects alone rather than the changes in the universe alone. When
this approach is carried to how one perceives life it is possible to negate
the importance of all objects and their interactions except for how they
affect you, the living consciousness perceiving them. |
|
|
|
When something happens in the world, perhaps in some far off land you have
never been to, you can stop and ask yourself "How does this affect me?
What steps should I take to change my ideas about the world or about life?
What viewpoints does this challenge me to consider or reconsider?"
How we believe the world functions and our opinions of it are constantly
put to the test every time we interact with the world merely by observing
it. If we settle deeply into this perspective, what is happening
becomes merely an impetus, a push that moves us toward a higher realization
of ourselves. The entire universe becomes nothing but a staged play
for an audience of one, the perceiver consciousness. |
|
Consciousness
Specific Perspective redefines all events and existences as impetuses for
change or growth in self |
|
The perspective rests on at least two suppositions; the existence of a
perceiver and a way or patterned form in which there are more real or higher
realizations which we are being pushed into growing into. That a
perceiver consciousness exists I doubt would be contested for anyone reading
this or for me to be writing this, a limited intelligence or partially
knowledgeable consciousness must exist. My consciousness must be
limited for the purpose of writing this to affect some sort of change which
could probably be done more directly by a completely knowledgeable consciousness
by direct manipulation. If anyone were to be reading this, I would
assume they too had limited knowledge otherwise there would be no point
in reading it as they would already know what it said. |
|
|
|
Given the assumption that at least one perceiving consciousness and possibly
many others exist, the way in which I perceive my own consciousness as
well as others pushes me to conclude that other possibly 'higher' realizations
also exist. The fact that my conscious knowledge is rather limited
and that new knowledge in forms of new experiences does affect changes
in myself at least to the extent of expanding my conscious memory and triggering
choices which I must make in how to deal with these events. All of
this leads me to believe that some ascent into more knowledgeable states
occurs as a necessity of existence. Just what these states are is
up to others to decide. What should be kept in mind though, is that
the accumulation of experience tends to push people toward more flexibility
in how they regard others and life, and that this growth often destroys
value systems that are not adaptable to larger more inclusive organizational
systems. In a phrase, they become more 'open minded'. |
|
Implies
that happenings lead to some sort of growth of understanding |
|
Obviously more openness to viewpoints and broader reaching concepts are
not the only points of 'spiritual' growth. Although greater empathy
and understanding may indeed be prerequisites for such change, they are
not the end of the road. It is the speculation of such universal
notions that shapes, distinguishes, and defines consciousness and I shall
not push my limited views upon others. I instead seek to set
up an organized approach in how we view such notions in a way which provides
for consensus yet does not constrict the creative notions of others who
may ponder such subjects. For this reason, I turn from the 'where'
of growth to the 'how'. |
|
|
|
While still maintaining the consciousness specific perspective, I shall
attempt to expound on how growth occurs. In Relativism 2 I stated
that conceptual growth is bound by the limitations of perception. One can
increase ones own concept of his existence only to the limits of his own
perceptual worlds. Growth can defy the confines of an individual
consciousness by the incorporation of other consciousnesses into a singular
common consciousness. How one views what his or her own existence
is defines how he or she can grow conceptually and still maintain an individual
ego. Yet these sentences do not state the means by which growth occurs. |
|
Growth
limited by perception and notions of self |
|
There are two aspects of spiritual growth which I have yet to address.
These are expansiveness and choice. Although I have stated that growth
can be ascribed to ones concept of oneself becoming more and more inclusive,
I do not wish for this to be confused with expansiveness. As we live,
we continually gain new experiences that our conscious minds can indiscriminately
draw upon. This accumulation of data could be said to expand our
consciousness itself. If we indeed do have an immortal soul which
can go through numerous incarnations then this simple expansion through
the accumulation of knowledge and experience could indeed be most revealing
as to the nature of the universe. This expansion could fuel our growth
by continually forcing us to reassess ourselves in relation to our worlds
and thus one day lead to more inclusive definitions. |
|
Growth
by expansion: more experience broadens base for making generalizations |
|
Choice is a much more complicated subject. If one believes to any
degree in fate, then their belief in choice is commensurably diminished.
I doubt that either belief will fail to gain its share of supporters and
detractors for some time to come. I shall sidestep this debate by
saying that most can conceive of if not accept the statement that we have
a large degree of choice over our actions. Although circumstances
may abruptly be thrust upon us, often we consciously decide upon a course
of action to take. This can be used as another measure of gauging
growth. It could be said that when we choose we stand at a crossroads
with one choice being correct and the others leading us away from growth.
Though different people have different opinions over what is right and
wrong, it is correct to say that our determination of whether or not we
made the best choice is based upon our perceptions of the effects of that
course of action. |
|
Growth
by choice: viewing life as a series of choices, better choosing leads to
or measures maturity |
|
I will concede that some judgments of the appropriateness of certain actions
or inaction's seem to come from an internal judgment making apparatus.
We can be sure that we have made a correct choice or have 'done the right
thing' even though the consequences can prove to cause great suffering
upon ourselves and upon those that we love. When this happens we
sometimes question not only our choices but also our conceptions about
the value of, or justice inherent in, the universe itself. Sometimes
we question our own worth and whether or not we are deserving of good fortune. |
|
|
|
So we can concentrate on the effects we have upon our environment in how
we judge our own worth and we can judge the effects that the environment
has upon us and upon our notions of ourselves. Undoubtedly, we will
continue to appraise ourselves by our successes and failures or by our
attempts to manipulate our environments to achieve results that are beneficial
or pleasing to us. Whether the results of these efforts benefit others
or prove harmful to others will probably eventually affect how we judge
our own values as we inch closer to a greater feeling of affinity with
all else in our environments. Judging the effects the world has upon
us is more difficult because there is no set scale with which to measure.
What we are or may be is constantly changing and what we experience can
affect us in ways which we may not be consciously aware of now but we will
be painfully aware of later. |
|
Effects
of our actions can redefine our notions of ourselves and affect future
actions |
|
The consciousness specific perspective can be very powerful for an individual
to take. The chance of negative use is great for it relinquishes
all importance of anything and anyone in ones environment to subservience
in how they affect the given individual perceiving that viewpoint.
This opens the door for a complete absence of morality which on one hand
expands the options that one might consider, yet on the other opens one
up to do oneself harm by seeming to harm those whom may be there for the
very purpose of teaching empathy. The potential benefits of this
viewpoint go far beyond merely better understanding and controlling ones
environment. It places an individual consciousness squarely in the
middle of all that is happening in the universe and it impels that consciousness
to recognize the significance that those happenings have for itself and
its growth. So often we forget that all which happens to us is indelibly
a part of us and that we are lost when we try to separate ourselves from
it.
|
|
Despite
possible negative effects, this perspective places an individual conciousness
at the center of all happenings and stresses personal growth |
| Rel.
3 - Part 4 --- The Concept of Fate
All that mortal man
may ever hope to achieve
exists upon the whim
of the great god Destiny
A notion of total order
born out of a chaotic world
mesmerizes us still
as its legacy is unfurled
All that is and will be
shall be forever in its debt
and all who bow before it
are released from guilt and regret
Believers benefit little
for freedom pays the cost
to keep the idea alive
even as life itself becomes lost
|
|
|
|
If the concept of eternal life could be said to be a major impetus to drive
beings fearlessly to reckless actions, then the concept of fate could be
said to be the great pacifier. Though the idea of fate or destiny
can move people just as boldly to extreme acts, I believe that overall
it tends to reinforce the status quo. It explains all things merely
by stating that they were meant to be. By whom and for what purpose
is assuredly something not all hold in agreement. Some people also
believe that some things are fated yet other things are not. Whom
one marries and when one dies fall into the category of what some believe
to be fated even if they do not believe that smaller less significant decisions
in their lives are equally predetermined. |
|
Concept
of fate is not absolute, and can have varying effects |
|
I shall begin by immediately attacking what I have just stated. Many
devastating wars were begun because one side thought it was its destiny
to prevail over the other. All great leaders could be said to have
possessed a sense of destiny in how they perceived themselves and this
feeling possibly may have propelled them into doing the things which history
has recorded them for. These examples I would like to distinguish
from a hindsight notion of destiny that historians may perceive when looking
back upon events and deciding that certain events seemed inevitable.
I mean by those examples a precipitous belief that an event or outcome
beyond ones control was inevitable and that the given perception acted
as an impetus to events. |
|
|
|
Given the historical significance that notions of fate and divine will
have played upon the course of human history, one might wonder why I feel
that the notion of fate is an inhibitor agent and not an instigating one.
I say that fate as a concept is a detractor from the forces of change because
I do not believe that most people really believe that they are destined
for greatness. It also may well be possible that for every one person
who felt destined for greatness and achieved it, hundreds held similar
notions yet failed. (This does not diminish the significance of the role
such feelings had played in their lives.) Nonetheless, the notion
of fate seems to reinforce acceptance of organizational systems of society
by giving them a philosophical justification in addition to their physical
realities of existence. |
|
|
|
More than anything else, the idea behind fate is that we are deprived of
choice. Some things are meant to happen regardless of any actions
we might take against them. What is interesting about the notion
that ones fate can be known ahead of time is that only those predictions
that come true are examples of fate. Those that were erroneous obviously
were not fated to be because they did not happen. Predictions not
dated can remain to be believed indefinitely. Fate is generally not
perceived ahead of time but instead exists more as an after-the-fact explanation
of events. The implicit meaning of fate, whether aimed at the future
or the past, is that events can happen only one way. Our perceived
control or lack of control is affected by any belief in fate. Some
would say we never possessed any real choice while others would contend
that we do or did once have choice but that the tide of events make our
choices inevitable. Some believe that what we are experiencing now
actually happened long ago when we once had a choice but now the story
is set and no adjustments can be made. |
|
Fate
can be said to affect choice, future as solid as past makes its prediction
more conceivable |
|
So what does the notion of fate propel us to do, if anything, or prevent
us from doing. As I have said, the notions of fate seem to affect
the flow of events when those notions are forward in nature. If we believe
something may happen we may act according to that belief or not, but when
we are convinced that something is fated to occur then we may otherwise
be more committed to our planned course of action or be more fatalistic
if we stand opposed. If that conviction was misguided we may need
more time to recover from that setback and reassess our beliefs.
Believing that something currently existing or something yet to be is a
matter of fate can prevent us from deciding to oppose that person, thing,
or idea. We either give up all reason to pursue causes we believe
to be doomed or we participate in them without expectations for any success. |
|
Fate
aimed at present inhibits action but if coupled with prediction, can instigate
future action |
|
Some people use the notion of fate to predict what will occur. If
all things must occur according to some preset order or plan, then it would
stand to reason that these overall trends could become known and an individual
might accurately predict the outcome of events. This goes beyond
merely believing that one can foresee the outcome of events yet to be.
This belief in fate means that one believes that the outcome can only happen
a certain way and that a given result MUST occur. Failures in divination
are perceived as failures of the perception of such occurrences and the
belief in the rigidity of order is maintained. |
|
Fate
key component of prophecy |
|
I do not believe in any prophecies except for self-fulfilling ones.
Thus I believe that when someone is able to predict (at a statistically
meaningful rate) the outcomes of events, they are affecting directly or
indirectly those outcomes or their own life's notoriety. Whether
one believes he or she can tell how events will occur (regardless of their
beliefs of fate) depends on how they regard themselves, whether or not
they deem themselves capable. |
|
|
|
Humanity's belief in fate is long-standing and most likely shall not greatly
change. Since belief in fate needs not to mean that such fated happenings
can or should be known beforehand, it is a tough concept to prove or disprove.
Though I have said that the notion of fate may have a sedative effect upon
the aspirations of humanity, hopes too can be believed as fated to be achieved.
If indeed faith in ones convictions as well as faith in ones chances for
successfully achieving ones dreams determines the likelihood of their outcomes,
then the concept of fate can prove to be an invaluable tool to helping
one achieve the impossible.
|
|
|
| Rel.
3 - Part 5 --- Seeing Beyond Abstractions
Once is me
yet I am
every time
close at hand
Over and under
above is below
neither I am
neither I know
Yet and then
both are now
never was I
only how
Once is me
more is less
falling away
from the crest
|
|
|
|
How to categorize life, the experiences of living, thinking, feeling masses
of stuff such as ourselves, this is no easy task. Explanation after
explanation comes and goes, is believed and then discarded but never is
there any real answer. I have listed thus far a few ways in which
we view life. We can look solely at physical existence and delve
into its hidden past hoping to find further clarification on what exactly
we exist as and how it came to be. If we believe we are spirits temporarily
residing in this world then such truths, if they can be definitively ascertained,
lose meaning to us. I do not presume that there is any one definition
of life that will ever please all nor do I think that I would likely stumble
upon it. I would say this might doom me to fail if life is indeed
a quest for the perfect theory to explain it. |
|
|
|
This explanation which I shall now discuss really isn't one. Whether this
is some sneaky way of evading the limits I set upon myself I do not know.
Regardless, here goes. We can look at the physical world and we can
look at its processes of action and we can look at its effects upon us.
Another way of interpreting things is just to experience it all.
In other words, believing that there is no need to explain what is for
the whole lump sum is constantly explaining itself. Sure this seems
a cop-out but how else can anyone explain it. We can look at the
parts (existence), we can look at the processes (learning, growing, and
actions) or we can see the whole picture without subtitles. |
|
|
|
To see life as a series of events, of moments, connected together for the
sole reason of perception goes beyond any feeble attempts to make sense
of it. I know this sounds stupid and I always have hated it when
someone suggests that the meaning of life lies beyond our capacity to understand
it. Therefore in the interest of keeping my self-respect intact I
hope to clear up this supposed ambiguity. Thought is a way to represent
reality by transforming it into abstractions that we can manipulate.
Existence itself lies beyond our abstractions and does not in an obvious
manner change when we manipulate its abstractions, or symbols of reality.
Words, memories, of objects or events, and concepts of order and natural
laws are all attempts at copying our experiences to be used and organized
by our minds. Yet the copy never compares to the original. |
|
Existence
surmounts abilities to form mental abstractions which are mere flawed copies
of the original masterpeices |
|
So if this is all true, how can we ever hope to find any answers.
If the only way we can judge something is by abstractions about it, how
can we know it. Pure experience can be recalled and relived, although
we know not whether distortions occur in our records of them or in our
abilities to recall them. Yet meaning, that ever elusive all inclusive
anchor we all long for cannot be derived from experience. It must
be invented. Are the alternatives to live closer to the center of
life while depriving ourselves of any organizing factor, and conversely,
to build some conjectural basis to cut ourselves off from what we are truly
experiencing yet experiencing the peace of mind even false understanding
brings? Neither option seems very appealing. |
|
Poles:
Build inherently false or flawed organizing structures or live without
any mental framework at all |
|
Focusing on events alone void of any interpretations does seem desirable
even though a little bit naive. Detachment from ourselves, our hopes,
our dreams, wishes and intents does appear to be hard to achieve.
Many would also doubt whether or not this achievement is desirable.
Here I am not speaking of detachment from oneself such as monks may seek,
but instead a fusion of oneself with the entire picture. Rather than
observing or experiencing events, one becomes a piece in the puzzle of
events that unfold around him or her, a sort of bird's-eye vision of oneself
within the sphere of all existence. Rather than the drop perceiving
the sea, the whole picture is taken in at once, the drop, the sea, and
infinity. |
|
Perciever
and perceptions merged as one, no walls between self and outside world |
|
This approach to viewing life appears to be useless. Without inspiring
meaning, no courses of action could stem from it. Perception itself
is no theory to be proved or disproved, it merely is. However, the
destruction of the walls conceptually between the perceiver and the perceptions
may indeed result in the formation of a new concept. This does not
change the fact that a concept is nonetheless a representation of experience
that can only lead to a dilution of ones ability to perceive. To
a large extent we do each see ourselves in existence in communion with
our world, otherwise we could not function effectively within it.
Saying that this is some kind of revelation would be erroneous. It
is true however, that we do not continuously see ourselves and our world
coexisting in a mutual sharing or blending. |
|
|
|
Maybe the concepts of death and object permanence cut us off from a feeling
of oneness with our environment. We perceive that one day we will
be gone yet our world will still be here, wherever here may be. We
and physical existence are bound to one day part and this may be why we
stop believing that this is us, that we are our surroundings including
ourselves. Yet if the events we experience are us, then events rise
above the din of mere existence. We are happenings and though happenings
occur in time, they are not time. Though they involve objects, they
are not objects. And though they abound with limitations they are
as lucid as a dream and as boundless as the concept of infinity.
|
|
We
are events involving objects inside and outside our control |
| Rel.
3 - Part 6 --- Guiding Spirits
Angel in the darkness,
guardian of my spirit
show me the way out
of my troubles
by lending me your
pristine vision
Lead me to a safe haven
far from this bleak place
which forever taunts and tries
to break me
by stealing all which
I hold dear
Show yourself to me
for even as I am nothing
but an open book to all those
beings such as thee,
I cannot alone uncover
me beneath the dust
|
|
|
|
For much of human history a belief in supernatural entities enthralled
with the mire of human affairs has greatly affected humanity's perception
of its place in the universe. Whether it took the form of the human
appearing overlords such as the Greek gods or vague nonphysical beings
who intervene in the natural courses of our lives, such views have been
common to us all. Polytheistic religions obviously deal with these
notions in more detail, yet even in single god religions ancient polytheistic
traditions have affected the very souls of these religions. Entities
form around functions of practical use to people such as providing for
a good harvest, protection, and the granting of wishes. There are
so many different aspects to our lives that it is hard to personify one
who does everything all the time. Though belief in a grand controller
is predominant in most religions, many religious officials will accommodate
those who may wish to establish ties with other religious icons of their
particular sect which seem more identifiable and more personal. |
|
Belief
in supernatural entites universal in human culture |
|
The specifics of these spirits vary from culture to culture but their functions
do not. Basically their functions are to reward us with things that
please us or at the very least, to keep away that which may cause us harm.
We behave according to our perceptions of what these beings' expectations
for us may be. Helpful spirits we try to please to obtain rewards
and bad spirits we generally try to keep away by either appeasing them
or directly confronting them. This confrontation usually requires
the assistance of another 'friendly' spirit to enable us to triumph over
the negative one. I am only discussing these perceived spiritual
beings in regards to how they affect us, material beings, because that
is how they are generally viewed. We tend to be concerned with ideas
that have practical applications or tangible effects, people for the most
part are just not moved by notions of 'higher' existences that are disinterested
observers. Yet if someone adds the possibility that these beings
can help or hurt us, humanity's attention becomes greatly increased. |
|
Good
spirits vs. bad spirits |
|
Self-perception is a key to how people react to these ideas of controlling
entities. When people generally perceive themselves in a positive
light, something almost completely determined by cultural circumstances,
they try to align themselves with positively influencing spirits.
If however, they fear that the requisites for those spirits aid are too
difficult to realistically believe they can be achieved, then they may
become fearful enough of it (or them) to join opposing forces. The
accessibility to the positive spirit(s) favor also varies from culture
to culture. When those standards are easily met, more people will
choose to align themselves with the positive healthy forces rather than
those that they themselves perceive as destructive or self-centered.
If the culture instead views winning the positive's favor as a privilege
of the few rather than a prospect open to everyone, most would align themselves
either against this entire view or against their perceived elitist enemy
spirits. Those who have negative self-perceptions are given ideas
of higher beings who share their feelings or frustrations and are inadvertently
given ideas of higher beings with which to forge alliances. |
|
When
most people are told they are good, they lean toward good spirits, if told
they are bad, identify more with the negative |
|
To best serve humanity, views which have a large degree of acceptance by
positive spirits towards the bulk of humanity should predominate.
If the average person of society can identify him or herself to a spirit
which cares about life and helping goodness prosper, then that person will
automatically tend to act in similar ways. Yet if those same spirits
are judged harsh and unforgiving upon normal human transgressions, that
culture itself may come to align itself with a perceived negative entity. |
|
Easy
percieved acceptance of good spirits benefical to society |
|
Acceptance by positive spirits can be perceived as easy or difficult and
this can affect whether or not one is willing to court their favor.
If acceptance is easy, direct change in behavior is not greatly affected.
Indirect change is harder to estimate for once one is perceived to be protected
by the good against evil, that person's entire life may be changed.
He or she might aid causes which that person feels are good, or may fearlessly
challenge those that they feel are wrong or negative. On the other
hand if acceptance is perceived as difficult, then direct change can be
extremely noticeable. Indeed, in some cultures winning the favor
of some benevolent spirit may dictate the entire behavioral pattern for
that individual's lifetime. |
|
|
|
It may seem a bit simplistic to categorize perceived guiding spirits as
positive or negative. Sometimes a spirit's specialty cannot be easily
distinguished as being either good or bad. Also, many people frequently
ask positive spirits' aid in pursuing courses of action that may seem to
others as being blatantly selfish or destructive to another person or persons.
Some cultures believe that killing something or someone is a way to please
a positive spirit. Those who believe in an omnipotent benevolent
spirit who loves all beings also believe that it created a world of such
misfortune and degradation that it often surpasses our willingness to recognize
it as such. Despite the incongruities, the general thrust of the
'higher' spirits argument is that there are such beings which do have different,
possibly opposing aims, and that these beings are available to aid lowly
beings such as ourselves as long as we are of a like mind (and compliant).
Good spirits will aid us to do good things and bad spirits will aid us
or cause us to do bad things. |
|
|
|
The power of choice is greatly emphasized in this view of existence.
No factor is as great as the possibility that we are open to choose amongst
the various choices of whom to affiliate ourselves with. This decision
making can be believed to form a judgment upon which we shall one day be
tried. The correct choice depends upon which spirit or spirits are
the stronger and will prevail over the others should a contest occur.
Such notions as supernatural rewards and punishments concepts exclude or
limit the ideas of fate and destiny. Predestined failures cannot
be condemned if their shortcomings were an inevitable result of their conception.
Likewise, all success one achieves would belong to the one responsible
for them and the idea of fate robs one from such responsibility.
The idea of guiding spirits can apply to notions like fate though.
These spirits which we concede, if we believe in them, can affect control
over our lives could quite conceivably rule over our entire lives.
This belief would not justify a parallel notion that we could be held liable
for our mistakes. |
|
Freedom
of whether to ask good spirits or bad for help, absence of fate or destiny
implied |
|
These two divergent views, that of our being mere puppets of 'higher' more
powerful consciousnesses and that we have a clear choice over our lives,
over our beliefs, and over which higher consciousness we may turn to, they
exist in many simultaneously. Just as our own physical world has
its rules, our perceived notions of a higher spiritual reality is thought
to have its own rules. The first is that we cannot be forced into
making mistakes but are free to make our own mistakes. This enables
us to maintain a belief that we have control over our own actions.
The idea that even these powerful guiding spirits have rules they must
obey points to an even greater notion of order in the universe. Mighty
titans like good spirits and bad spirits can battle it out in an infinite
battlefield yet even they must play by certain rules and pay the price
when they break those rules. Again, I am not saying that any of these
speculations are true, only that they are believed by people and I believe
that what others believe affects what this universe is all about.
Imagined friends or foes could prove just as helpful or as deadly as real
ones. |
|
Higher
spirits generally are believed to compete but also thought to have their
own rules to abide by |
|
These 'higher' spirits to me represent ways of bending the rules.
When we form a life or a world of existence in which to enter into, we
do so according to certain preset conditions which regulate what we are
and what we are not, as well as what we can and cannot do. 'Higher'
spirits that we can appeal to are ways to admit a partial defeat without
conceding the game. We admit that we have gotten ourselves into more
trouble than we can deal with, so we look for a way out which can only
be achieved by momentarily stepping outside the bounds of what we believe
to be possible. This enables us to return to our previous circumstances
with only slightly more favorable chances for a desirable outcome.
I am not saying that these 'spirits' are have no purposes or intents of
their own created by material beings' expectations of them. Yet I
do think that the need to create or sustain them at all is for the purpose
of defying the bounds which we ourselves sought to establish. |
|
Higher
spirits as ways to defy physical limitations while keeping self-image intact |
|
There is one point that I have not yet discussed and that is how we preserve
our notions about freewill. Why this is important is obvious to me
because without freewill, the ability to choose among different courses
of action, you have no consciousness and without consciousness, no life.
All of life would become a farce. When we conceive of entities powerful
enough to break the rules for us on occasion we give them their own limitations
as I have previously mentioned. We retain freewill by believing that
in the end we can only be hurt by our decisions, not by the powers that
be. Yet we can and do ask that these spirits remove for us those
rights from others by giving us unfair advantages simply because we, not
they, bothered to ask. Any intervention upon our own behalf involves
removing from someone or from events, the possibility of behaving any other
way than the way we choose. Thus for that one moment in which we
seek any divine intervention we raise the self above its environment and
treat all else as objects to be toyed with. Therefore, the belief
that guiding spirits must obey rules of solicitation applies to the self
only as others are clearly at risk of having their choices robbed from
them if we should (and could) seek such miraculous aid for ourselves.
They are at risk of being puppets of higher consciousnesses while we are
free to control our own lives. We see ourselves and others as equals
until we decide to break the rules of existence. Then and only then,
it is the self that seeks to control and yet perceives itself as remaining
free from control. |
|
|
|
This is a problem that is rarely dealt with. Such controlling spirits
are not thought to be a great influence by most upon daily activity.
Intervention pleas to such perceived beings is for most people infrequent
and the expectations for success do not often run high. Yet when
we do appeal for such assistance we ask for others even indirectly to be
affected by controls which we would wish to assume others could not achieve
over ourselves. To desire such providence is to momentarily destroy
the affinity that we have with our environment and to relegate all of existence
as subservient to our own needs.
|
|
Calls
for divine intervention upsets world view, usually momentarily |
| Rel.
3 - Part 7 --- The Life Story Perspective
Each one of us is a performer,
we are actors comics and such
giving the performance of our lives
to an audience outside our touch
and though safely within our guise,
we have never before risked so much
Each one of us has one part to play
and only one chance to play it well
We will always be linked to this role
when others remember and tell
of whether we reached any of our goals
and of whether we stood tall or fell
Each one of us is truly privileged
to be playing within life's hallowed halls
and those of us who are truly blessed
courageously answer all curtain calls
hoping only to at their best
when at last the curtain falls
|
|
|
|
The realities of physical existence give birth to a certain way of viewing
life. It enables us to single out a single lifetime apart from its
context. It may be said this is no different to how each of us views
our own lives, yet also we learn from other past examples as what to expect
from life in general. We see life as a series of events beginning
at birth and culminating at death. In between these two points exists
what we tend to call ones life story. This may seem to be just adding
a new term to things I have already mentioned but even if this alone were
my purpose, a new treatise would be justified, for this is a very important
term. |
|
|
|
From our earliest childhood we are enthralled by the telling of stories.
These experiences shape what we come to expect from life itself.
Stories have a beginning, a setting of the stage for the drama which is
yet to come. Events build in an interesting and easily identifiable
way which makes us concerned with what is happening. Purposeful action
is what stories are primarily concerned with and recognizably determined
effects are given to satisfy our rising curiosities. Finally and
most importantly there is a conclusion which puts the story in its proper
perspective showing us the event or condition to which all else was a preamble.
The main situation is resolved, its effects revealed, and we are contented
that we have learned something valuable. This may seem a bit over
generalized but these are the basics of what stories are all about. |
|
Stories
key framework for defining how we view all life, form of stories also predictable |
|
How this applies to our lives is quite obvious, to me at least. We
gain from these experiences the notion that in the end everything will
make sense. Once we reach the end of the line and look back upon
our lives, we will finally understand what it was all about. We know
of a beginning, our births, and we sense a building up from the accumulation
of knowledge and memories which pushes us inevitably to new and different
ways of interpreting our relationships with existence. This sense
of climbing combined with our instinctive needs to rationalize or organize
our experiences puts our lives within the context of a story. Each
individual experiencing existence is the protagonist in his or her own
life's story. The story is thought to have an overall purpose of
enlightenment or understanding. |
|
|
|
Knowledge is fundamental to this approach of viewing life. Knowledge
must not only have a degree of permanence and memories an indefinite lifetime,
they must also have meanings of some importance. The reason that
knowledge must have a concreteness is that if our lives are indeed stories
to be told, then as we understand stories, they must have a meaning or
state some kind of truth about something. This insight or piece of
information, it would reasonably follow, would need to be recognized by
someone or something to have any meaning. And why meaning?
Why would anyone tell a story at all if not to teach a lesson, provide
someone with another perspective of what life can be or bring, or even
merely to entertain someone? Since no story would be told for no
reason we would assume our life stories, far more real and personal, would
equally not be without purposes. |
|
Knowledge
key component of story view, stories must have meaning or something to
say |
|
Who then would we be living our lives for? We benefit from the knowledge
embedded within our recorded histories of the human culture. In a
sense, we are part of an immense multi-bodied organism which will absorb
our lifetimes' works and accomplishments into its collective consciousness
in the same way it has imparted others lives into our own. So do
we live solely for the benefit of our progeny or do we ourselves carry
on the lessons learned by a lifetime's worth of troubles and tribulations.
Those who believe in an extended life after death might say that our lives'
lessons are meant to learned by us because no one so far as we know is
experiencing our individual lives so completely or intensely as we ourselves.
But would they deny the influence which we have upon others as being insignificant
or less important consequences of our own inner struggle to achieve a greater
understanding of the universe or ourselves? |
|
Who
is the story told for the sake of? |
|
Conversely, those who believe that existence after death in any form is
some sort of deluded dream by a fated individual unable to accept his or
her own mortality, would they most likely say that the only meaning of
our lives (if there be any at all) lies in how we affect the course of
others existences? If we have no existence other than our own physical
bodies then no meaning can exist for us after those bodies are dead.
The only meaning that can be left would be in the lingering effects we
made upon the chain of events during our lifetimes. |
|
|
|
I do not wish to imply that all people view themselves in relation to this
story type way of organizing our experiences. However, the way life
works, such a pronounced reflection of this outlook is upon how we view
ourselves that I doubt anyone is completely free of its influence.
Most people search for meaning out of their lives. Whether or not
this comes from their experiences of stories and are attempts to relate
this to their own personal experiences is unimportant. When they
search for meaning, what they have to search through is what their memories
of those experiences can provide. Included in these experiences is
all that they have read or been taught because, as I have said before,
that too is an experience. To organize these experiences, some sort
of order would have to be imposed so one could sort through them in accordance
to what one viewed as important enough or extreme enough facts or experiences
to be long remembered. These framework concepts, ones which organize
experience to be understood and remembered, provide some sway over what
is considered important and what is discarded. It is through the
growing body of information we possess and our needs to organize that information,
that we perpetually run into the life story perspective. |
|
Story
form is one basis, a framework concept, on how we organize our experiences
for remembering |
|
To view life as an unfolding story is also to view its events within a
time perspective. Each event occurs within its proper place in the
chain of causes and effects that we experience. In this sense, one
could say that the life story perspective is how we remember the events
of our lives whenever we attempt to recall them in chronological order.
Though this does not overtly require the total structure of the story form,
it can lead one to wonder where all of these events are leading to. |
|
|
|
How this life story perspective affects a person is hard to precisely define.
It pushes us to believe that life is supposed to make sense. This
may lead to the belief that the universe is conceivably within reach of
a being's attempts to make some conceptual model or order out of it.
No doubt some would and some do chase this comprehensive understanding
even though they are unsure or even skeptical of their chances for success.
Other effects of this perspective may be that some are convinced that their
life story is destined for greatness and glory. I doubt that this
is so much an outcome of this perspective as of an inflated opinion of
themselves. |
|
Story
perspectives, and knowledge that we too must end, can make us wonder what
our epilogues will be |
|
It is difficult to ascribe specific courses of action from what I have
come to call the life story perspective because it is so much a basic part
of how we as people view ourselves. We see ourselves as an outgrowth
of our experiences and the grim reminders of death which surround us force
us to eventually frame our experiences within the context of our perceived
prescribed lifetimes. What we expect from our own lives is based
on the lives of those who came before whether we are conscious of it or
not. Though to some extent we say that we are different or special,
in the end we realize we are not.
|
|
|
| Rel.
3 - Part 8 --- The Other Self
I cannot see me
I can stare into a mirror
but only a stranger stares me back
sharing a face like mine
yet isn't me
I cannot hear me
when I speak of what I believe
trying my damnedest to make a sound or stir
to break the grip of fates upon me
or the silence of eternity
I cannot feel me
I cannot even feel what is me
body or spirit, both always elude me
leaving me to wonder why only I
am not even given me
I cannot know me
I cannot know what I am or will be
for what I am will only be shown long hence
the last light these eyes shall see
and I, a mere memory
|
|
|
|
When each of us thinks of ourselves we may think about our bodies, our
experiences, our hopes and dreams, or about our own perspectives and opinions
about our lives, things in life, or of life itself. All of these
are typical concepts by which we define what and who we are. All
of these also are known best by ourselves, those persons directly experiencing
them. Somewhere along the line though we learn of another self, one
that we do not define and therefore have much less direct control over.
Each person eventually learns that others perceptions of him or her do
not always match those which one has of oneself. Out of this concept
of other beings capable of conscious concept formation and manipulation
is born the concept of the other self. |
|
Other
self is others opinions of who we are |
|
We fear the other self. We often feel it is a threat to our own concepts
of ourselves. If it does not match our own concepts of who each of
us may be, we go out of our way to show others that they are mistaken.
If we are quite secure in our concepts of ourselves we may become brazen
to criticism yet NEVER do we go beyond being bothered by those who are
embittered, fearful, resentful, or hurt by the fact of our own individual
existence's. To a very real extent we acknowledge that we are, to
a degree, that which others perceive us to be. |
|
Other
self can be a threat to our own self images |
|
Now I'll admit that there are exceptions to be made. We can dismiss
others opinions of ourselves for any number of reasons. That we do
not value their opinion or consider them as equals worthy of passing judgment
upon ourselves is one that is often used by those who have high opinions
of themselves to defer negative reviews. Another is that people with
extremely negative opinions of us are not well-informed and that if they
only knew us better their opinions would match our own. (I tend to
use collective terms as the continued use of himself/herself is awkward.)
These and other insulating devices can help us deal with the presence and
influence of the other self. |
|
Ways
of deferring, deflecting, or minimizing its importance |
|
We do battle with the other self in a very direct way. We form a
concise model of who we are and attempt to successfully project this image
into the psyche of others. The degree to which we are successful
at this determines greatly how much of a success we are in gaining what
we wish from life because so much of the attainment of goals rests upon
the ability to persuade people to our own viewpoints. I do not necessarily
mean to deceive people or to coerce them into helping us against their
own interests. These are also helpful by some perspectives to our
obtaining the objects of our desires yet for now I am limiting this dissertation
to self-image projection. |
|
|
|
With few exceptions, most of us like to have other's views of us much the
same or better than they view themselves even if we do not feel worthy
of such prestigious consideration. No one likes to be 'looked down
upon' by others and everyone enjoys the benefits of being respected by
others. The absence of persecution is a benefit which is universally
valued and is bestowed by those with authority and influence to others
whom they feel are worthy or whom they consider as equals. To a large
degree we attempt to control the other self out of an instinctual desire
for self-preservation. |
|
We
attempt to control it out of self-preservation |
|
The other self to which I keep referring could be said to be the lump sum
of how we are viewed by others. If many have positive images of us
or have ones that correspond closely with how we view ourselves, we can
easily tolerate a few deviants. When the deviant becomes the rule
then our real self, that which we perceive directly, is imperiled.
Due to the conformatory nature of our societies, we feel pressure to change
our behavior to overcome those deficiencies perceived by others.
Our concepts of ourselves are endangered by our reliance on the feedback
from others which continues to reinforce our beliefs about ourselves.
Too much derision cannot help but raise doubts about whether or not we
are mistaken about our own concepts of ourselves. And lastly, our
status becomes endangered due to the retaliation that the bulk of society
directs toward deviation from the norms, whether by direct action or by
the failure to provide assistance in times of need. |
|
Opinions
of most people, if greatly tilted positive or negative, has the greatest
effects |
|
Though perception of the other self (by other definitions perhaps) is normal
and our desires to control it as best we can is rational from a self-protectionist
point of view, is there another mystical reason why we fear it or seek
to dominate it? Is it possible that our existence's can be shaped
or affected by others opinions of it? I can say that we are responsive
to at least our own perceptions on how others perceive us. How we
feel about how others feel about us shapes the nature of our interactions
with them. Many believe that our actions do constitute a basis for
others and for our own perceptions of ourselves. If these actions
are shaped by others attitudes or our expectations of others attitudes
then this does indeed change the basis upon which we build our images of
ourselves through our actions. |
|
Are
we who we think we are or who others think we are? |
|
As we continue to reassure ourselves that we are what we think we are and
it is our own perspective which counts the most, the ever vigilant and
indifferently cold toll of time makes its impression upon us. Soon
we realize we shall be no more and all that shall remain are the impressions
and possible misconceptions which we left upon those who shall briefly
remain. Others opinions of us do have their significance and sadly,
that significance is in no way proportional to the accuracy of those opinions.
These different versions of ourselves play many different roles in each
of the sagas of each person whom we may meet. Despite our best attempts
to control the outcome of our interactions with others, in the end how
we are perceived shall be up to them as long as we believe that they are
as we, independent. |
|
|
|
The real fear of the other self comes from the fact that it is the inverse
of something which we feel gives us so much power; the ability to conceptualize
things. We take abstract dynamic events and reduce them to recognizable
and predictable patterns of experience. The perceptual expectations
give us a sense of power or control over them. Once we can conceptualize
something or understand it we can soon manipulate it either conceptually
or directly. Reducing chaos into order and randomness into predictability
is the power of consciousness. It is the fear that we too are but
helpless objects to be identified, classified, and thus have its importance
nullified by being so predictable as to have its very existence become
unimportant, even redundant. The other self represents our place
in someone else's schema of what life is and what is to be expected.
We either fulfill their expectations or deny to live up to them, both helpless
and unaware of what those expectations might be. |
|
Objectifaction
by others shows our limitations of control |
|
At the same time, we incorporate others into ourselves. Gaining what
we perceive are the points of view or ways of looking at things that other
people may possess, we enlarge our own consciousness. To do so we
must believe that they are predictable, otherwise we could not use them
to speculate upon how those persons might react to a hypothetical problem.
After a while these person's perspectives may meld into our own and we
may consult them without realizing we are doing so. Though this multi-perspective
consciousness building may be considered somewhat of a compliment, when
it is our own perspectives which are taken, the fact that our whole outlooks
can be thought to be reducible to a few predicative formulas can be disheartening.
When these formulas are erroneous, we can feel we are being cheated by
being praised or cursed for insights which we did not possess. |
|
Others
views, outlooks, ways of looking at things become simplfied, quantified,
and then added to our own |
|
It is not a pleasant thought that we use others minds as much or more than
we use their bodies or their time to service our needs. Each of us
likes to think we have sole control over our destiny and that no chart,
data, or formula can determine what we can or will say or do in any given
circumstance. We feel quite comfortable with the fact that we attempt
to absorb all that we find yet we can still be bothered when we realize
we too are becoming pigeonholed and simplified by those around us.
The other self lives and it is we who give it life. It is we who
believe that we exist and by believing that we exist, believe that others
exist, and by believing that others exist, believe that other versions
of ourselves exist. We say and do the things which determine the
shape that the other self will take though we cannot guess at its environment
or the influence that environment will wreak upon it. How we perceive
how others perceive us greatly enhances our capacities to refine our interactions
with others and helps us create the inner-self we believe we are or may
become. So though we fight it, attempt to control it, and rebel against
it, we begrudgingly accept that it too is us.
|
|
|
| Rel.
3 - Part 9 --- Magic
To give up on life
is the most tragic thing to do
and you could not if you knew
there is magic inside of you
Whatever you want can be yours,
all that it takes is you to make it so
What you want to learn you will know,
wherever you want to be you can go
The key to it all is confidence,
if you think failure then it will be
and you may keep failing until you see
that your belief can set you free
So do not give up on life
and in time your dreams will come true
if instead of feeling sad or blue
you remember there is magic in you
|
|
|
|
Probably for as long as humanity has sought to reason it has had a category
of events which it calls magic. Though we reason, some occurrences
fall beyond the limits of logical rationality's ability to explain them
adequately so often we do not even attempt to do so. We may proclaim
that they are manifestations of divine will or providence. Whatever
our opinions may be of such seemingly unexplainable phenomena or whether
or not we believe in such things, all of us are somewhat familiar with
a concept which we call magic. Though there are thought to be many
different categories of magic, including such moral terms as good and bad
(black and white magic), I shall limit my remarks to what I call purposeful
action magic. |
|
Magic
as a universal concept |
|
Magic as I shall define it is simply wanting something to happen and making
certain events, rituals, gestures, or other types of action which are meant
to make that intended occurrence or state of things a reality. Note
that I did not specify that such things must occur in some sort of way
that goes beyond everyday experience, as is the accepted definition of
magic. If wanted a drink of water and I walked over to a river and
got myself a drink, no one would consider that magical or abnormal.
Yet if I got a drink from a dried up river or suddenly made a glass of
water appear without using sleight of hand, few would doubt that that could
be called magic. |
|
|
|
My definition of magic does not distinguish between the natural events
that lead to the satisfaction or fulfillment of desire and the so-called
supernatural means by which others are achieved. The term magic is
meant to apply to supernatural or beyond the realm of normally explainable
happenings. Yet when someone wishes something to take place or desires
that a certain state of order be made to occur, and that wish does come
to pass, the same prescriptions for that wishes fulfillment match those
of a magical happening. A person conceives of what he or she wishes
will result and by doing something causes that end state of existence to
come to pass, this is also what I call magic even though no mysterious
or unusual event occurred. Simply stated, magic is causing ones wishes
or goals to come true no matter how spectacularly or mundanely they are
accomplished. |
|
Magic
redefined as wish fulfillment be it natural or supernatural in nature,
all of life is magic |
|
There are certain similarities involved in all sorts of magical action
both natural and supernatural. The first is that the end result is
conceived and clearly defined. Another is that certain steps will
be formulated which one believes if followed will result in the achievement
of that aim or goal. This is where the similarity ends. These
steps are always normally performable actions yet how they are thought
to achieve their ends may be very different. If my goal were to become
a doctor, some sort of schooling or study would probably be one of the
steps I would take to achieve that goal. If my goal was to turn myself
into a bird and fly away, I would probably also do some normal action that
I thought would help create that wish's fulfillment, such as casting a
spell or doing a dance. (Might I add, I neither ridicule nor give
credence to such notions.) In both cases the actions themselves are
ordinary yet how they are thought to contribute to the achievement of their
separate goals varies greatly. |
|
Natural
versus supernatural means of magic |
|
Some steps are thought to make their goals occur naturally. If
one went to medical school, studied hard and became a doctor, it may be
difficult and commendable but not inconceivable. However the second
example requires belief in something else beyond the scope of our normal
experiences for it to happen, if it could happen at all. Though the
actions may be understandable and easily defined, the way in which they
come to cause such a condition may not be. If one believed in a deity
or a supernatural being then one could turn to them to and ask them to
do the impossible or improbable. Since these beings are decidedly
superior we cannot hold them responsible if such occurrences do not occur,
lest we dare think we control them. For any supernatural happening
of a willful sort to occur there would have to be a belief system which
could prescribe the actions by which the ends can be met and a rough idea
of how such a manipulation could or would occur. |
|
|
|
Often the means by which supernatural events can be achieved is by the
intervention of some perceived being who is thought to be capable of accomplishing
this feat. The actions that would precipitate this occurrence would
likely consist of asking, telling, or begging that spiritual being for
assistance. This may include some ritual intended to please that
being or to bribe it into assisting. Often such things are done within
the bounds of religions that officially distance themselves from these
ancient patterns of behavior. Prayer alone can be a plea for help
from another 'higher' being and good behavior and self-sacrifice' are often
thought of as helpful to aiding one to having their prayers answered. |
|
Third-party
magic |
|
Most often what I call magic involves manipulations of concepts which are
thought to have an effect upon those existence's which those concepts represent.
There are many concepts that can be said to represent an object or person.
A visual image is a powerful concept that can apply to anything which can
be seen. Another powerful representation of reality is words, or
more precisely, names. Naming something is to give it a sound pattern
that is thought to suggest and signify something which exists. One
could go as far as to associate object replicas of other objects or people
and believe that these visual images, words, or objects give them real
control over the real objects or persons which they signify. |
|
Magic
through concept manipulation, visualization and naming |
|
It is through these representations of reality that magic is performed.
Visualization is a term that applies to forming a visual concept of what
you wish to aid yourself or to push yourself into achieving it. This
is not normally perceived as abnormal or supernatural. Native Americans
were fearful of photographs because they thought this captured their souls
and gave others power over them. Words are probably the most common
representations we have of realities. Much ceremony goes into naming
things and people, and we realize that what something is called can affect
how people will perceive it. Our ideas of magic are greatly shaped
by words and what we call spells. Words and names have long been
thought to have power over people. In some cultures people kept secret
names for themselves to keep others from being able to manipulate them
by using their names. Even the name of God was once kept secret as
it was considered the most powerful and magical. Object representations
of people, things, and events are also common. Idolatry is common
in religions, even those that proclaim to disdain it. All religions
have religious symbols that are thought to possess some magical power.
Those who practice voodoo believe that they can affect the fate of others
by making representations of them and manipulating those objects. |
|
Word
magic and secret names |
Whether anyone believes in such things or not, magic is around us everywhere.
Writing our hopes down (Joe + Sally), fearing to speak of bad fates, and
visualizing our goals, these are just a few examples of how we practice
the fundamentals of symbolic manipulation without realizing we are doing
so. We use visualization and conceptualization every time we plan
to do or say anything. We think of it, then we make it so.
Our images are no longer confined to whom we may meet either. Thousands,
millions, even billions of people may conceptualize who we are and what
we are and that image may indeed become far more important than whatever
the truth may be. Names also continue to be synonymous with who a
person is and they continue to be considered important. When a person
first thinks of himself or herself, often the result is "I am..." followed
by their individual name or other label.
Perhaps no symbols we manipulate more than words as we constantly rearrange
them and use them to create our own conceptual worlds that we inhabit more
directly than we inhabit the so-called natural world. How we arrange
and what we think about our symbolic representations of reality affects
what we believe we can do and achieve as greatly as our concepts of ourselves
does. And it is they that control us even as we attempt to use them
to control our worlds.
|
|
|
| Rel.
3 - Part 10 --- Persuasion
Two opposing ideas meet
on an empty desolate plane
and only one shall survive
for this dimension cannot contain
to differing definitions
of where its purpose lies
With the weight of precedent
to be used to gather up force
they charge toward one another
eager to finally decide who rules
by virtue of surviving
the inevitable confrontation
Out of the shattered debris
a victor emerges to gain claim
to this forgotten spectre of the universe
defined by the parameters of an argument
but it is to be forever vulnerable
as it must meet all challengers
|
|
|
|
By no example is magic so clearly illustrated than by that wondrous meeting
of the minds called persuasion. Two or more people meet sharing multiple
or disparate attitudes or beliefs and they come away sharing a common belief.
Something has occurred to take disparate or opposing ideas and make them
one. Sometimes it is found as a so-called common ground or mutual
concession by both parties but more often than not one person's beliefs
triumph over another's and the vanquished party concedes the error of his
ways. |
|
|
|
In my saying that this is a good example of magic I do not mean that this
event is brought about by symbolic manipulation which results in something
happening in the physical world. It may not involve the definition
in that sense but it does clearly illustrate magic because it is completely
in the abstract. Nothing is changed but ideas. The whole event
of persuasion involves invented mental constructs which have no basis in
reality whatsoever except by virtue of being believed by a person or persons.
One manipulates symbols (words) for the sole purpose of convincing another
that his or her position is the correct one. If he or she is successful
all that is changed is an attitude in another, a formless concept having
no bearing on anything other than what it might encourage that someone
who has now acquired it to do. |
|
Persuasion
as concept manipulation in others, a type of magic |
|
There are many reasons why persuasion may work in any given circumstance.
One of the reasons is persuasion by means of an eloquent argument.
No argument, I believe, ever accounts for all variables nor is it clear
what its meaning may be in all circumstances. We narrow the focus
of our arguments to those facts which tend to support our positions and
try to shift others attention to those areas upon which to form a judgment.
We appeal to the reasoning process stating that upon a close study of the
facts any reasonable person would concur with our conclusions. All
that is required for this tactic to work is that our facts be verifiable
or not easily disprovable and that our conclusions be commonly deducible
from the facts which we present. That there might not be a great
deal of evidence to the contrary is always helpful. |
|
Persuasion
by eloquent arguments |
|
What is important here is narrowing the scope of inquisition to that which
we consider to be relevant. If there is contrary evidence we can
always find some way to disqualify it from consideration. Challenging
alternative viewpoints and then dissecting them to find the flaws within
any given perspective is often helpful in enabling one to cause another
to doubt their beliefs. In any belief on anything there is bound
to be suppositions about something and a good debater will stress these
unprovable weak links and appear to destroy the validity of the entire
argument. To be able to do this effectively while preventing another
from being able to do the same to your argument is a way to achieve victory.
I realize that I have not yet mentioned that fundamental concept called
truth. Whether or not truth is fundamental, an independently verifiable
reality, does NOT give it any relevance to persuasion. A preponderance
of evidence of what we call a true viewpoint in any given argument does
affect the ability of one to persuade another, but whether the argument
itself is true or not is insignificant. Lies are just as easy to
believe as the truth, if not easier. |
|
Truth
irrelevant to persuasion, lies are just as easy to believe |
|
Another reason why persuasion works is what I call persuasion by means
of a forceful argument. If one is convinced of the veracity of his
or her beliefs, this conviction may overpower and inundate another.
In this sense an exchange of viewpoints is like a game of chicken.
It all becomes a matter of who quits first. I am not saying whoever
is the first to break off the exchange is conceding defeat. What
I am saying is that each person senses another's commitments to their courses
of action and beliefs, and that when one encounters a person passionately
committed to viewpoints alternative to those which he or she has only a
mild allegiance to, they tend to concur with the other because they acknowledge
that the other has probably more thoroughly thought the matter out.
Part of the effectiveness of this depends on the amount of faith one has
in the others judgment. This is a factor that can dominate any fair
appraisal of the speakers, have little or no effect, or doom even the most
eloquent and reasonable argument from even being considered. |
|
Persuasion
by a forceful arguement |
|
This means of judging what is being said by who is saying it is what I
call persuasion by virtue of respect. What we think about someone
who is trying to persuade us to believe something is almost as important
as the arguments he or she uses and the degree of conviction he or she
shows in these beliefs. We can ignore a person right off if we do
not respect that person. If we have no respect for them, we are not
likely to consider anything that they say or believe as being worthy of
our considerations. On the opposite end of that spectrum, we are
not likely to question the words or wisdom of those whom we believe can
do no wrong (such as martyrs, saviors, and saints). In between we
may be persuaded to certain views if we believe that another is more astute,
better informed, or otherwise possessing such abilities, talents, or knowledge
which we do not. Psychologists call this "appeal to authority" but
I feel that the respect comes not from the position of authority but from
the superior abilities and capacities to make such judgments that those
in authority are assumed to have. |
|
Persuasion
by virtue of respect |
|
So why do we feel that others probably often know better than we?
It is conceivable to everyone that there are others with more information
than themselves on every possible subject with the possible exception of
their own lives. Doubt certainly plays a part in why we so often
and so easily are made to believe ideas which others profess. Visible
or clearly understandable applications of other ideas about something are
very persuasive evidence to show us not only that others can and do have
better or more knowledge than we, but also that we are at a disadvantage
by not sharing these ideas. It is this supposed helplessness we have
before those who have such 'superior' knowledge which aids in our imprisonment
by them. By thinking that our own viewpoints and opinions are insignificant,
we condemn ourselves to thinking and being that which others provide for
us. |
|
Knowing
ones own knowledge is limited makes one open to persuasion, though required
for learning |
|
Persuasion is a way of persecution. We may not be able to persuade
most people that our individual lives and contributions to society are
important but we can convince a few. Persuasion in modern society
is mainly a one-way street with the majority of information and cultural
norms being fed into peoples minds with little or no feedback coming out
being considered as important. Despite this we are each well-versed
in the art of persuasion. We practice it daily when we converse on
most any subject. We state a fact or opinion, wait for another person
to agree or disagree, and then conclude in agreement or continue the exchange
of opinions. To attempt to persuade people of anything is not necessarily
to say that we are important, but it is an attempt to prove to ourselves
that our opinions are important and that they too are worthy of debate
and consideration. And once we persuade someone that we are right,
we are vindicated. We can at last say that what we think and say
matters because it mattered to someone else as well. We made a difference. |
|
Despite
most modern persuasion being a media driven one-way street, we practice
persuasion daily |
|
All of persuasion is conjectural. When we persuade people to believe
something we often do it by words. We select those words which we
feel will have the most pronounced effectiveness. When we succeed
in persuading someone else to change their views about something, we have
changed an idea into something else. If people's minds can be said
to be objects, you have removed something and replaced it with something
else. In this sense, we constantly go about attempting to perform
magic. We take an unsuspecting person and attempt to inflict our
opinions upon him or her. If we do so, our own importance is augmented.
That belief which was once a part of us is now shared by more and more
people, a concept growing only conceptually. |
|
Persuasion
is conjectural |
|
When persuasion works best it is not done out of selfish reasons to push
our ideas onto others. The most advantageous belief to have when
attempting to persuade another is that they really want to believe what
you have to say. That they are imprisoned living in ignorance which
can be averted once you give them the chance to let it go, this is how
many see attempting to persuade others. They do it for their own
good. They see a person who thinks differently as someone in need
of help, or that they will not be truly happy unless they change their
views and repent. I do not speak here of just religions, but all
levels, aspects, and functions of society. That one is just in forcing
their views on others for those peoples' benefits is a common and erroneous
outgrowth of the belief that others, particularly the group as a whole,
always know best. |
|
Persuasion
done ostensibly for others benefit most effective |
|
To think that you know the truth and you are merely attempting to enlighten
another is another similar method of interpreting your discourse's value.
When one believes in things that are not true, once told of this in a way
that he or she could understand, then that person would completely agree
that such attention was beneficial and was absolutely the right thing to
do. These models not only prescribe how one should react once he
or she is persuaded of the error of his or her ideas or ideals, they also
reinforce their own validity by stressing their own values. Each
model goes beyond merely attempting to get others to conform to their own
beliefs, they judge all and categorize all by what they believe on that
issue. |
|
Belief
your arguments are self-evident helps |
|
These categorizations and this tendency to view others in accordance to
ones own terms has real repercussions on how one can perceive oneself.
The persuasion by an individual attempting to make his mark upon the group
can be considered healthy, whereas the attempt by the group (society as
a whole) to try to persuade all individuals to conform threatens the very
concept of individuality. It is the categorization of how people
perceive the nature of their relationships with others combined with how
they understand themselves which enables them to act upon those courses
of action which appear to reduce both the significance and the validity
of contrary viewpoints. When this is done by an individual to an
individual, it is a fair fight. But like most fights humanity has
fought, this is one group versus another which grows until all people are
eventually forced to submit to the dominant groups influence as opposing
viewpoints become ever more scarce.
|
|
Individual
viewpoints lost in most persuasion, evolves or devolves into camps, with
one camp eventually dominating others |
| Rel.
3 - Part 11 --- The Variance Factor
This is for no one
who never was nor will ever be
Robbed of any future,
it could have been us oh so easily
He will never hope or dream,
he will never laugh or cry
Never to live, never to die
and never to understand why
He will never know of love
or what it means to be happy
He will never know of kindness
or the true value of sincerity
Fated to be what is not
above and beyond eternity
always and never absent
from what we call reality
Millions of new opportunities
come and go within our days,
few realized, most fade away
but within the realm of possibility
far greater than what can be
exists all past potentialities
which we never have nor ever will see
Maybe it is there that he exists
as an idea long since forgotten
living a life that never was,
giving what will never be gotten
by us in our separate world
of limited possibilities,
side by side yet forever apart
locked in separate realities
|
|
|
|
If I feel that the greatest mistake humanity ever makes is to consider
themselves their bodies, then I must consider our beliefs that our consciousnesses
exist in a definitive shape molded by our experiences to run a close second.
Yes, I do feel that our memories make us what we are yet we are what creates
the circumstances which will come to pass as those things which we remember.
This need which exists for a multi-junctured reality defined or created
by personal choice makes a universe far more complicated than most minds
have as yet fathomed. This limited reality, what has occurred as
differentiated from what has not, is but a minuscule slice of the dynamic
whole. |
|
Event-spacial
reality |
|
When we make a choice of action we take ourselves and our whole physical
plane from one logical end to another. The means for regulating this
transformation of direction (energy) are our consciousnesses. Think
of it as a train racing along a track. Each decision creates a junction
of tracks and the choice represents the new destination. The sum
of all these trains, the pattern of their movements, and the design it
creates is our physical universe. Each decision we make affects the
whole of the universe by changing a portion of the overall pattern.
Patterns are created by movements of near trains moving in conjunction
or opposition to one another. When one train changes direction one
sub-pattern is changed and another is formed. This all allegorical
so please try not to take this too literally. Another way to think
of it is to picture four objects hanging in empty space. If one object
moves away from the others it could also be said that the others are moving
away from it. The direction of one object affects the perspective
by which all others around it are judged. |
|
Patterns
of many are redefined by actions of each single part |
|
Our consciousnesses are connected to all other consciousnesses in a sense,
but in a much greater sense our consciousnesses are connected to ourselves.
When each junction is met by the train, divergence's occur. The train
neither takes one track or the other but instead takes both. In the
sense that the train is our conscious selves, we are riding both routes
at once. Obviously this branching out of our consciousnesses cannot
diminish us for if it did we would by now have been acutely dissipated
as we have faced millions of junctures within our lives. When we
choose anything we are merely choosing what memories we will record or
what avenue of events will be played out. Thus within the framework
of our own consciousnesses, there are what would seem to us to be an almost
infinite number of diverse 'lives'. Unfortunately or fortunately
not every choice we make sets our lives and the universe on separate tracks
or creates meaningful junctures. Whether we have a sandwich or soup for
lunch is a choice which causes an almost insignificant ripple in the scheme
of things. |
|
Our
minds exist in every possible reality open to us |
|
Being locked into our own consciousnesses gives us an enormous amount of
room to explore our universe. It is possible to break down the barriers
between different event-dimensional worlds and fuse with our own minds
in different parallel worlds. Thus to our memory-based minds, we
can ride both trains or communicate between trains. It is in this
fashion that a consciousness can seem to be in two different physical places
at the same time. One reality can communicate memories or experiences
to another. |
|
|
|
Since I have stated that all consciousnesses are separated versions of
the same consciousness, it is possible to fuse with any other consciousness
at any point in time in any possible reality. This however lies far
beyond the much more simple ability to reconcile with different event-spatial
versions of oneself. Being the same consciousness, this is more easily
attained. The ability to reconcile with these juxtaposed memory tracks
depends on the likeness of those realities. Where major events and
main memories are identical, cross-communication can be obtained with relatively
little effort. This is not enhancing or enlarging a consciousness
by any definition for if it is not subtracted from by crossroads, it cannot
be said to be added to by cross-communication. All that can be said
to be achieved is an exchange of information. |
|
|
|
It is not advantageous nor particularly pleasant to over exploit this capacity
as the ability to separate what has happened in our particular realities
from what might have happened in others constitutes a major basis of the
reasoning process. This present single history memory is our present
means of understanding everything. The thought that this single history
basis of understanding might become lost by evolution has occurred to me. |
|
|
|
Other than the likeness of similar happenings, information can often be
obtained at grand junctions. If we think of every major decision
we make as leading us in different directions, there are occasional events
in our lives that occur beyond our conscious control and therefore cut
across many different realities. Events such as funerals or other
major happenings force us to be at a certain place and time no matter what
courses our 'lives' have otherwise taken. It is at these times when
a single event presently occurring is being entered into a number of disparate
possible same consciousness lives at a common reference point and time
that an instinctive joining takes place. I do not mean to confuse
what I am saying with redefining life in the face of death. The funeral
example could have been any event that cuts across many possible realities
and draws many of oneselves together for a common purpose or to inhabit
a similar place and time under similar circumstances. |
|
Where
certain events cut across many possible realities requiring one always
being in the same place at the same time a convergence can occur |
|
This is commonly achieved quasi-consciously and draws together what would
otherwise be highly incomprehensible numbers of possible realities to become
grouped into sort of metaphorical highways of personal events. Different
selves come and go off at different points but there are points where they
converge thus lessening potentially infinite numbers to lower yet still
just as astonishingly high numbers. |
|
|
|
The variance factor is how much each of these realities varies from the
others. Where the variance is high, individuals can seem lost jumping
from one track to another without feeling any common bonding with disparate
versions of themselves. Others who live lives with little room for
perceived personal preferences tend to stay on major tracks most of their
lives. This common sharing of the same life-tracks by extreme numbers
of oneselves may lead to a greater feeling of security that they know that
they are living their lives the 'correct' way. These lifetimes of
little variance may also lead to a heightened degree of forbearance. |
|
Variance
is in how different each reality is to all others and can affect feelings
of security, well-being, and predictability, especially ones sense of things
being as they should be |
|
If nothing else, this should give people a thing or two to think about.
We take for granted that a single history description applies to our physical
universe even though we have barely begun to explore it. Explorations
in ways science cannot readily confirm await those adventurous enough to
tear apart their assumptions about what is and what is meant to be, to
look anew at what we think we understand. The clue to the direction
humanity shall take if it proceeds at all may be found in how very small
children are able to think and understand with a much greater fluidity
than adults. Perhaps what we should not teach them, that we ourselves
do not understand that much about the world, is as important as what we
should.
|
|
|
| Rel.
3 - Part 12 --- The Ultimate Frontier
The boundaries between life and dreams
have long fallen before humanity's eyes
and their world has grown far beyond
anything which we can conceptualize
Limitless variations of time and space
are all within reach of our posterity's minds
and our entire history up to this date
is but a tiny segment of what they can find
Their consciousnesses are free to roam
among that realm which we call eternity
growing immeasurably with each breath
their almost insignificant bodies breathe
Countless planets and civilizations
have lives and views their minds have sought
yet there is no need for recording them
for they are there with merely a thought
They can comprehend all the universe
yet they realize the limits of their view
because as wide as their horizons may seem
their experience is only what they choose to do
|
|
|
|
The final point in the evolution of a consciousness is reached when that
consciousness is able to cross at will any conceptual barrier between itself
and any or all other consciousnesses. Many believe that this is the
result of dying, that the spirit joins with all else and a total realization
of itself and the universe occurs. Of this I am skeptical yet I do
not wish my skepticism from keeping myself or anyone else from accepting
this 'easy' way out of existence. The reason behind my skepticism
is single consciousness to consciousness exchanges after death commonly
referred to as reincarnation. If a total understanding were achieved
with all equally, such happenings would not occur. |
|
End
of evolution defined as removing the last conceptual barrier between self
and all else |
|
All consciousnesses are equal. All arise out of potentiality without
physical pasts or continuations into indefinite physical futures.
If we (all conscious beings) are all equal consciousnesses no bigger, larger,
or more powerful than any others and we are all parts of the same consciousness,
one consciousness at different times and spaces believing it is different
beings, then we are not reincarnations of any other being but instead everyone
else in every other time is a different incarnation of ourselves.
However, just as there is a need in people to join in common consciousnesses
with others in their own time, there is also a need for some to join in
common consciousnesses with others across time. A common consciousness
in its most extreme form was defined in Relativism 2 as existing when two
or more separate entities believe that they are in fact splits of the same
consciousness thus redefining their notions of themselves. |
|
All
consciousnesses are equal |
|
Reincarnation as we call it comes to us as a result of trying to add a
time definition to ourselves. From the present looking past point
of view, one searches for a frame of reference to give one definition which
one is lacking in its present form. From the present looking forward
point of view, it is the chance to taste immortality, to give one another
life in which to realize its goals. Notions of reincarnation both
enhance and diminish (conceptually speaking of course) a consciousness.
Knowledge is increased and a greater affinity with another conscious being
occurs yet there can be a lessening of the present self's chances for attaining
its own goals as time and opportunities are finite in the course of a single
lifetime. Likeness of intent and purpose may indeed be a prerequisite
for any common consciousness to occur yet individual goals always exist
and can be threatened by such bonding. |
|
Possible
benefits and drawbacks of reincarnation beliefs |
|
There is the crux of the matter. How much should a consciousness
keep itself distant from other consciousnesses? If the end which
we are all striving for is a union with other consciousnesses, is not any
enlargement of our own consciousness with others a good thing? Even
if it were a given that we are all striving for the total realization of
the self (all else), just because an enlargement of the self occurs does
not necessarily mean it is the most progressive step we may take towards
this end. That which we use to define ourselves, the notion of the
'self', is by its definition mutually exclusive. By viewing ourselves
as finite tangible beings different than all else by our reference points
in time and space and our differing notions of purpose, we are excluding
ourselves from all else to distinguish what we are. To expand this
to one or two past consciousnesses reinforces the walls between the present
self and all others of that specific past time in which the other partner
dwells. Still, one could reasonably argue that a clear connection
to a specific consciousness is better than a hazy connection to a multitude
of consciousnesses. Yet the clarity of that single connection is
dependent upon and proportional to the severing of other connections. |
|
How
much should a consciousness keep itself distant from other consciousnesses? |
|
Reincarnation as we view it is from the context of someone in the present
joining with the past, or from someone from the present joining with the
future. The present to the past is the major thrust of reincarnation
philosophy and it is the most easily understood. Present to future
is confusing because our own self is changing up until our deaths and we
exist in no single reality but a multiple of realities. Likewise,
we can 'throw' ourselves into no definite reality but instead into the
lump sum of all possible realities. Present to the past is clearer
because the definition of the present precludes a definitive past.
Though all possible pasts may be technically possible to achieve conjunctions
with, that time line which created ourselves is already very much a part
of our present beings. Thus, looking into that definitive past which
culminated in the creation of ourselves, the haziness of potentiality is
narrowed to a definite number of possible former selves living out what
is from our point of view totally deterministic lives. |
|
|
|
Therein lies the answer to how our lives can be deterministic or not depending
upon how we view ourselves. If we concentrate on our perception on
the present leaving the future undefined, we exist in a multitude of possible
realities. If we instead transfer our perception to a single possible
reality then the events between the present and that possible reality become
predetermined. This is an integral part of how we function as any
goals we may hope to achieve exist to us as possible realities. We
strive to build bridges between those possible realities in which we have
achieved our goals and those ones that we presently inhabit where they
exist only as possible potential goals. So if we define existence
as having goals as I have, pre-determinism is inevitable though the rate
at which it is enforced is fluid. All of ones life can be put into
a deterministic outlook by contacting a possible future self through a
type of common consciousness bonding. All events in ones life that
went into creating that world in which the other self dwells would be predetermined.
Indeed, half of the new self created would see the other half's events
as solid, not open to change. Therefore attempting to prefix upon
a certain reality in the future can rob one of determining the course of
the present. |
|
Life
can be deterministic or not depending upon how we view ourselves. We strive
to build bridges between possible realities where we have achieved our
goals and now where they exist only as possible potential goals. Attempting
to prefix upon a certain reality in the future can rob one of determining
the course of the present. |
|
The key to understanding all of this is that the present exists as a concept.
You either believe it exists or you don't. If you believe in it you
stand with a definite past and no definitive future, literally anything
is possible. We, humanity, believe in it in shades. We believe
that the past runs in contiguous lines into the future, that the roads
we travel behind us continue ahead in some logical fashion reaching some
logical end, and by this belief we create it or add some pre-determinism
to it. Existing in the present gives one power over the future.
Just as we latch onto possible selves in possible realities and thus see
and know events before they happen because we preclude them to be, we can
choose which possible reality to make real. This often is not done
consciously yet always it is done. We search through possible realities
until we find the one which we feel is the best, for ourselves if we are
selfish or for all others if we are not, and we begin to believe that it
has already occurred thus predetermining the events which will lead to
that reality.
|
|
The
present exists a concept. If you believe in it you stand with a definite
past and no definitive future with literally anything being possible. We
believe in it an shades, that the road of the past leads in a rational
way toward some logical end, yet still open to some change. |
| Rel.
3 - Postscript
Pushing ever towards the end
we reach out for the newest and latest
and we receive them yet again
never doubting
the relevancy or immediacy
of evolution
Seeing ourselves decay
and knowing our governments and systems,
our attempts to keep change at bay,
condemn us
to see that our lives and ritual actions
are institutions
Doomed to eventual obscurity
we struggle to achieve eternal importance
lest we become forgotten history
always believing
that to be remembered is to live,
an absolution
Pegged into the fold,
locked into a slice of eternal time
chained to life fading and old
ever acknowledging
neither acceptance nor denial
is resolution
|
|
Annotation
inappropriate for remaining content |
|
Acceptance and denial. We hear about these most often as they pertain
to death but perhaps their most definitive and telling reference lies in
how they describe our attitudes about life itself. Do we accept our
worlds, ourselves, and the inherent justice or injustice of nature or God
itself? Is life the striving to accept the absurdities inherent within
or is life instead the denial of death. These are the questions from
which we shall either command from our chosen points of view, ponder over
endlessly, or lie forever ignorant of ourselves for lack of their consideration. |
|
|
|
Religions hit us on both fronts. Accept God's will yet at the same
time rebel against our real nature. We can talk about a higher nature
endlessly but the subjective biological facts of nature (violent, tragic
deaths of species, peoples, civilizations, etc.) surpass the brutality
of Man at its utmost degree. Kill or be killed, consume life or die
as well, against this backdrop we struggle to create and justify morality
perhaps not so much as though it must exist but because we could not tolerate
life without it. |
|
|
|
The most important fact in dealing with our world with or without morality
is to believe in it and therefore accept tentatively its existence.
Yet life is to me and seemingly should be more than merely existing in
and dealing with reality, it must strive to alter reality, to make it different
than it was before, different than it would have been had not whomever's
individual life had come to be. This is living and if we do not believe
that we possess this power to alter reality then we do not believe that
we are truly alive. |
|
|
|
All religions as well as all philosophies necessarily praise the value
of accepting oneself and ones circumstances as a prerequisite step towards
accommodating change. Yet religions deny life as well. This
is not the true world, the best world, we are not our true, higher, enlightened
selves all of which waits forever around the next corner in some timeless
eternal we can fantasize about far more readily than we can conceive. |
|
|
|
The notion that our common future is bound to be good has its bad points
as well. Overlooking momentarily its overwhelmingly generous dispensation
of hope to enable everyone or even a single person to gain strength enough
to survive or excel, it suggests pre-determinism in that no matter what
or how much can go wrong the universe, humanity, God or country, all will
survive or mature in the end. Yet perhaps the greatest challenge
we face during life comes not from any imperceptibly difficult or seemingly
insurmountable task or troubles, nor from a lack of faith in the value
of values. The hardest obstacle to overcome is the idea that no matter
what we do, right or wrong, nothing will change and all will go on almost
as if we had never existed at all. |
|
|
|
From almost any grandiose point of view this is correct. Everything
is born, lives, and dies. The best we can hope for is to make the
living less painful, nobler and more fulfilling perhaps, and the death
as prudently postponed as possible. What is old age for a civilization?
How long is too long for a single species to dominate or by its continued
existence, to prevent new ones from arising? Imagine if everyone
lived on Earth forever, no births, no deaths, no life as we know it to
be. And if it seems likely that death is inevitable and even necessary,
does this make life cheaper or more valuable? The more there is of
something, even people, seemingly the less it is valued. Though we
all, nearly all, will rise fiercely to defend the sanctity of life, killing
goes on continually, methodically, and senselessly generally without more
opposition than general misgivings. |
|
|
|
If we could stop senseless killing, if we could end starvation, famine,
disease; what then would we have done? Make it possible for more
people to suffer other more painful inflictions we heap upon each other
without any relationship to the necessity for resources. If making
life longer for people cannot be judged by itself an indisputable achievement,
how is it possible anyone might ever agree on what might constitute making
life better: the removal of obstacles to overcome, the promise of potential
for anyone to succeed? Once success is assured it is no longer valued
and without wrongs to be righted, could simply maintaining the status quo
ever be considered an achievement? This is all basic and most admit
there are no easy answers but what we all fear is that there are no answers
at all. |
|
|
|
So we put aside our feelings of ineffectualness and pick something to attempt
to achieve convincing ourselves of its (and our own) importance.
To do any less would be to deny life, which we can do and still live yet
it would seem to severely diminish its desirability. We live because...
and we must provide for ourselves the answer. |
|
|
Humanity will die as we all must die. Death is not necessarily a
bad thing yet while we live we are responsible for continuing and nurturing
life. Prolonging and improving the quality of others lives as well
as our own is all anyone can ever reasonably hope to achieve. That
goal can be met. If its effects are not long lasting, no matter.
If we can keep pain or death at bay for anyone even for a moment that moment,
if nothing else in this universe, that moment belongs to us.
End of First Section
- Click to go back to top
|
|
|
| Relativism
- Some Ancient and Modern Thoughts
Preface
1 Introduction 2
Actual Vs. Potential 3
Actual Vs. Conceptual
4
Thinking and Consciousness 5
Concepts of Consciousness
6
Space/Time as a Concept 7
Conceptual Worlds
8
Super-Concepts
9 Conclusion
Rel.
- Preface
About the title...
Relativism is a name which I use to refer to the set of ideas in this work.
Its core concept is the idea that religious, psychological, and even physical
truths are relative to one's views and viewpoints. The main body
of ideas here is a hybrid of the Taoist and Buddhist religions combined
with certain theories of sociology and physics. None of these elements
may be recognizable and may be so distorted from their meanings that it
may be unfair to relate this work to them. Nevertheless, those ideas
were crucial in forming these opinions.
About the rest...
If you should decide to read this, you will probably find that it
lacks any real attempts to substantiate or prove any of its propositions.
This is not accidental. I did not want to list any reasons why someone
should think that these ideas are right or correct because that goes against
everything I am saying. In a nutshell, that is that everyone is correct
in believing whatever they might believe. Everything is equally true
(or untrue) relative to one's viewpoint and how he or she perceives things.
The ideas written here are merely my own viewpoints and really have no
validity outside my own inner world, unless of course, someone else might
believe one or two of these ideas as well. Then those ideas would
be relative to him or her too. As the last lines of Seasons Ending
(not
included here) goes...
The myth stays alive
as long as those who believe
Even the lies are true
and truth itself deceives
Truth is profound writing
that is written in the sand
After the wind has blown
a new writer is in command
|
|
|
|
At times what I am saying is not quite clear or concise. This is
most probably a negative but it also can be seen as a positive. A
little ambiguity can cause one to think about what is being said and hopefully,
what other possible meanings it may have. A book which conveys its
meaning clearly and easily may be easy to read but the writer usually does
all the thinking for you. I hope that this is not something that
someone can sleep their way through. Instead, I hope that others
might have to work a little to get some meaning out of it.
|
|
|
| Rel.
- Part 1 --- Introduction
Sometimes I wonder
how much thinking we should do
if truth is related
to our own points of view
Time and space are relative,
what's good and bad is in dispute
More and more it seems to me
that the truth is never absolute
With God others will blind us
and try to bind us with fright
They try to keep us from knowing
that we decide what it right
First we believe something to be,
then we prove why it must be so
That the circle begins with us
is that which we did not know
Forever chasing shadows
conceived and made by the mind
Until we learn to quiet it
real truth we will not find
Reality is not out there,
it is what we believe it to be
and we will make it better
when we realize we have the key
|
|
|
|
Now this poem is definitely Taoist oriented or influenced. The first,
fourth, and fifth stanzas reflect the belief that to better know 'reality'
or a higher reality, we must forget that which we know. In other
words, to understand the true nature of things you must clear your mind
of all that you know. One of my favorite Taoist sayings is "Those
who know are not learned, those who are learned do not know." |
|
To
learn at a different level one must begin by forgetting everything learned
on previous ones |
|
What those who study anything always seem to forget is how their answers
are created by their questions. I do not mean this in any meta-physical
way but rather in a logical sequence. The best example I can think
of is mathematics, a highly structured and well defined language used by
most educated people. In mathematics, the answer to any problem is
completely determined by the choice of the principles and the rules for
determining the procedure for finding the solution. Even our own
languages have this predetermining aspect common to them. Our thinking
processes are limited to a small number of concepts which are inherent
to our own particular language. Now I grant that we can go beyond
our languages and think up ideas which there are not words to adequately
express, and that those who know many languages can tend to think in concepts
rather that words, but I believe that most of us are pretty much limited
by language. |
|
Words
inadequate to express abstract reality experienced everyday, one must re-learn
to think without using words |
|
It is due to this limiting aspect of our languages that it is beneficial
to clear one's mind of these concepts and deal in pure thought or pure
existence. Just as in mathematics, how the answer is determined by
the question, one could reasonably argue that all the thoughts we think
are logically deduced from our experiences, both internal (feelings, moods)
and external, and are defined by the rules of language. If we, however,
clear our minds of both our experiences and our language we may be able
to 'see' from a point of view which would be forever unobtainable as long
as we are limited by language and experience. |
|
|
|
As I have stated in the foreword and in the poem, I believe that truth
is relative to each person and his or her own experiences. It is
in this sense that I believe that everyone is right to believe what they
believe. Each person's beliefs are logical conclusions (by THEIR
own logic) to the questions they have been made aware of by their experiences
and teachings. |
|
Each
person's beliefs are logical conclusions by their own logic to the questions
they have been made aware of by their experiences and teachings |
|
This is far from a new concept I admit, though it may seem new and extremely
radical to many people. In the 'west', meaning the Americas, Europe,
and much else in the world, we have been taught to believe in an abject
reality, a tangible solid reality separate from us and our opinions of
it. It is my belief that it is to our rigidity in this belief which
we owe much of the rigidity of the laws of nature (to us). Since
the late nineteenth century science has made such an impact upon our ways
of thinking that it has fostered a certainty of belief which has rivaled
even religion. Now many people would scoff at such suppositions and
for the reasons previously stated, I would agree with them as well.
Scientists could point to the fact that this planet has been here millions
of years before we evolved past the amoeba stage and thus 'prove' that
we do not create reality and that there is a definite tangible reality
separate from ourselves. |
|
|
|
Though it is entirely possible our consciousnesses could have existed prior
to such events in some form, I shall direct my attention elsewhere.
Against the pure science argument, I have two points to make. The
first is somewhat abstract and the second is more direct. The abstract
point deals with a hypothetical conversation between a 'primitive' person
and a 'knowledgeable' doctor. In this primitive society they believe
that everything has a purpose and a reason. For example, if it does
not rain enough then someone has been bad, or that there is always some
meaning behind their situations. Now a member of this tribe asked
the doctor if he knew why so-and-so died yesterday. The doctor confidently
answers that he died of food poisoning which caused a fatal fever.
To this the native replied, "You have told me how he died but you have
not told me why." |
|
|
|
The second point as promised is more direct. Even though scientists
can claim to see back to the beginning of time, how can they be sure that
these things are not being made for them to see and that all they know
about the nature of space and time was not made available for us to get
us to believe in a universe in which we are but unimportant insignificant
specks doomed to live out our lives in wonder and amazement never accomplishing
a complete understanding. In other words, how do they know that all
that is around us and all that we know has not been made for us to see
and know for reasons which we are not yet aware. |
|
|
|
Regardless, getting back to belief affecting reality, it is my opinion
that this has been true for some time now. From the days of animal
sacrifices to demonology and exorcisms, it is possible that people create
their own little realities of what can and cannot be. Back in the
days of magicians and sorcerers with hundreds of ignorant masses believing
totally in them, who is to say that the psychic energy from their shared
belief could not enable those whom they held in such high esteem to do
things otherwise not possible. And if this is true, what better than
to have everyone's belief focused on an all-seeing all-knowing benevolent
paternal-like god. That is what humanity needed and unfortunately,
what we still need today. |
|
We
may be part of defining what is and is not possible |
|
As stanza four of "Relativity" says, once we believe something to be we
can find many reasons to prove why what we believe is really true.
I will try not to play that game in writing this and will attempt to let
each idea stand or fall on its own without searching for reasons why anyone
should believe in it. People who believe in the most radical of beliefs
always seem, if asked, to have many reasons for believing in them. |
|
|
|
What the point of the poem is, and some may say the point of meditation
is, is to remove the filter concepts through which we view the world and
look at it as it is. This would include forgetting oneself and the
physical universe as a whole as well as all concepts and convictions which
could give a reference point in space and time. Though this may not
result in any mystical experience, it can give a new perspective upon one's
life and place in the universe. |
|
Meditation
is to remove the filter concepts through which we view the world and try
to look at it as it is |
|
As far as the last stanza of the poem is concerned, it implies that reality
can be changed by changing our perceptions of it. I believe this
is true both for humanity as a whole as well as for each individual.
For example, if a great majority of humanity believed that a great catastrophe
is not a possibility then I believe it would be extremely difficult for
one to happen. Or if most people believed that people could defy
gravity and fly through the air, then I believe that would become possible.
On an individual basis, in theory, I believe that it is possible to break
the laws of nature through conviction of belief. If a person believed
that he or she could walk through walls or walk on water, I believe that
it would then become a possibility although I admit I know not how it could
become possible. I do believe strongly however, that we are limited
only by what we believe to be possible.
|
|
|
| Rel.
- Part 2 --- Actual Vs. Potential
Can nothing be something?
It possesses a name
and is a concept just the same,
how can it be nothing?
It is needed for space
between the here and there
and it is everywhere
in everything in every place
It is older than the universe
and it in all was born
yet nothing we do not adorn
but instead think it a curse
Nothingness is necessary
for all things yet to be
Maybe someday we will see
that all the world it does carry
|
|
|
|
What is the value of nothing? Some would say it has no value because
it is nothing but that is not true. Nothing is something and it is
potentially everything. In humans the more you are of something,
the less is your potential for being something else. Also, the more
successful you are at something (financially or otherwise), the greater
is the chance you will devote more time to it leaving the potential for
doing other things diminished. Our lives are finite so we do not
have enough time to do all of the things which we might wish to do.
The more we do of this, the less time there is to do that, period.
Unless we can prolong our lives, we can enlarge our potential for doing
something only by cutting down on something else for the purpose of creating
free time or time which can be spent doing any number of things. |
|
Nothingness
is tangible, it is the space needing to be filled, the time yet to be spent,
the potential out of which all else grows. The more you are of something,
the less is your potential for being something else, nothingness is the
beginning point of the something else |
|
We trade off the potential for the actual. It happens every second
of our lives. We go from an extremely large number of possible realities
to less, to a few, and then to only one. The potential has become
the actual. Much of our lives is predetermined by forces exterior
(at least in appearance) to us, such as what conditions we were born into,
social status, environmental stability or instability, type of upbringing
and education, etc.. We still though, seem to have control over our
free time as well as (in many cases) the general direction of our lives,
and therein lies our potential. |
|
We
trade off the potential for the actual every second of our lives going
from an extremely large number of possible realities to less, to a few,
and then to only one. The potential has become the actual. |
|
Again though, our potential is limited by our actual. Who we think
we are, what we stand for or against, what we believe in, what our goals
are, almost eliminates our potential for being that which we think we are
not already capable of. Who we think we are and our concept of our
place in this world completely regulates how we view and treat others,
and it determines what we will evolve into. Also, what we stand for
or against are more or less reasons justifying how we view or treat others.
What we believe in limits our thinking by not always considering opposing
viewpoints and it also affects or predetermines how we react to other concepts. |
|
Who
we think we are, what we stand for or against, reduces or elimates being
that which we think we are not, determining how we treat others, how we
react to other concepts, and what we will evolve into |
|
What limits or directly precipitates the general direction of our lives
is our goals. Each has a direct influence on our lives. If
we have few or modest goals, we might not feel pressed for time and be
confident for success in reaching those goals. Those with many goals
may have to arrange them into a hierarchy complicated by the fact that
some goals, if pursued or achieved, can cancel out or lessen the
chances of achieving certain others. These people can feel quite
pressed for time and feel confused or guilty that they are not doing more.
Those with no goals have no actual goals but instead have potential goals.
They are, pardon the expression, accidents waiting to happen. By
having no plans they possess a greater range of possible realities.
It is for them a buyer's market in possibilities. A person who does
nothing is like a vacuum in nature, an error needing correction.
Even though the options available to such persons are enormous, they are
not limitless. The only concept which is limitless is nothing.
Even the concept of everything is finite. |
|
Our
goals precipitate our lives directions, and the number and type of goals
affect our potential |
|
Now getting back to nothing. I said that within nothing there is
the potential for everything. It is generally perceived that the
opposite of something contains information on it. For instance, if
we can define good we know what bad or evil is. If we know what forward
or toward something is, we can understand backward or away from something.
It is generally known that known that opposites are in fact different poles
of the same concept. Hot and cold measuring temperature relative
to body temperature, light and dark measuring brightness relative to backgrounds
and the eye's capabilities of perception; these are examples of what
I mean. Now the concept of nothing is a pole in the most grand all
inclusive concept imaginable to us, the concept of existence or being vs.
non-being, nothing vs. everything. I am not just talking about a
person per say, but of all that is, has been, and will be. |
|
It
is generally perceived that the opposite of something contains information
on it. The concept of nothing is a pole in the broadest concept imaginable
to us, the concept of existence or being vs. non-being, nothing vs. everything. |
|
The opposite of blue is not orange but black. The opposite of yellow
is not purple but is black. The opposite of any color is the absence
of color. The opposite of the existence of anything is the non-existence
of that thing. Now here is the tricky part. What is the opposite
of nothing? There are two possible and equally applicable answers;
anything and everything. It is in the concept of nothing which the
microcosm and macrocosm meet. Both, and indeed anything which exists
has its opposite in non-existence. Nothingness is also the key to
understanding all that there is, has been, and can be. It is of course
impossible to know this in the traditional sense but by understanding its
opposite, one is capable of knowing it in another sense. This is
an area where certain religions excel. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism,
and transcendental meditation and indeed any type of meditation where one
simply clears ones mind of all things, they all are forms of getting to
know or concentrating on nothing. It is possible to know and understand
nothing because we are its opposite, we are something, actual. Nothingness
is not nothing but is the flip side of the actual, potential. |
|
What
is the opposite of nothing? There are two possible and equally applicable
answers; anything and everything. It is in the concept of nothing
which the microcosm and macrocosm meet. |
|
As I have said already, we are involved in a cycle where we go from potential
to actual, from nothing into something. Each has its own advantages
and disadvantages and neither is, in my opinion, any better or worse than
the other. It is inherent within our natures to want to possess things
because that is how we came into being in the first place. We are
concepts of existence (potential for existence) which have struck out on
our own. We have firmly established, at least on a surface level,
our independence from all else. Yet even on this material basis for
reality, we cannot escape the fact that our existences are inter-connected
and dependent upon other concepts of existence (food, air, water) outside
of ourselves. Thus the more we go forward, the further we travel
backward. By achieving spiritual independence we gain material dependence.
By gaining independence from the material existence, our concepts of what
we are and what we are not blurs and we eventually lose ourselves completely.
This is what is meant (in my opinion) by the Taoist saying, "Being and
non-being complement each other, to have and have not arise together."
Though we lose we gain and though we gain we lose. |
|
We
are involved in a cycle where we go from potential to actual, from nothing
into something. We have firmly established, at least on a surface level,
our independence from all else, but by achieving spiritual independence
we gain material dependence. By gaining independence from the material
existence, our concepts of what we are and what we are not can blur and
we can eventually lose ourselves completely. |
|
Again I repeat, neither is any better or worse and each has its own advantages
and disadvantages. The best example I can find of this circle is
the planet itself. On this planet, wherever you are standing is the
top of the world. And thus wherever you are in life (or death) is
the best place for you to be. Taoism is very strong in this field.
It has the simple yet seldom believed concept that where and what you are
is where and what you should be. The peace and productivity which
can stem from this belief is understandably enormous. |
|
Neither
is any better or worse each with their own advantages, wherever you are
in life (or death) is the best place for you to be |
|
So it is, in this respect, that we and the universe have much in common.
We are not the children of the physical universe, we are its brothers and
sisters. We share a common origin, nothing or potentially everything,
but nothing still. Both we and the physical universe went from the
comfort of all potentialities through this process or concept of the 'present'
into something tangible, solid, actual, real. Like light, potentiality
goes unseen until it hits 'something' and becomes visible and thus what
contains all colors shows only one. In this way each of us and the
universe itself are involved in a process of trading off limitless possibilities
for limited, sometimes bad, sometimes good, but always to us real, actualities.
It is not always an appreciated trade on either side for as much as nothing
can be called our parent it will forever be, as long as we live or exist
as an independent entity, our opposite.
|
|
We
are not the children of the physical universe, we are its brothers and
sisters. We share a common origin, nothing or potentially everything,
but nothing still. Each of us and the universe itself are involved in a
process of trading off limitless possibilities for limited, sometimes bad,
sometimes good, but always to us real, actualities |
| Rel.
- Part 3 --- Actual Vs. Conceptual
As all thing age
they continue to grow
With each turning page
the more we will know
All that we see
returns again to thought
By this it is we
that knowledge has sought
Before anything could be
it was first a state of mind
and it cannot be free
while its ties to matter bind
We are the harvesters and the crop,
in us thought and matter blend
It is a process which does not stop
when our lives reach their end
As life begins to fade
and consciousness to ebb,
new revelations are made
when freed from matter's web
|
|
|
|
Part 2 is good at explaining some ideas about the physical world but as
most of us are aware enough to realize, there is a lot more going on here
than just physical processes. The mind is difficult to explain and
I am not yet going to try. Meanwhile I shall mention some other observations
and opinions I have had. |
|
|
|
The "The Process" is about the process through which matter becomes energy
through consciousness. It is really about much more than that though,
but that is where I will begin. As third stanza begins, "Before anything
could be, it was first a state of mind." What this is alluding to
is a concept which I call the conceptual basis of reality. What I
believe this to mean is that before anything could exist, it must first
have been an idea, a concept of existence. |
|
The
conceptual basis of reality, meaning before anything could exist, it must
first have been an idea, a concept of existence |
|
This brings up what is a thought (idea) but I am not exactly sure of what
a thought is. I will however, attempt to define it though.
A thought is a timeless ageless energy pattern which can be used or duplicated
by beings capable of such cognition or recognition. The use of the
term recognition means that if the said beings do not create such thoughts
or thought patterns, that they are capable of possessing them or using
them as one might borrow books from a library. Whether humans create
thoughts or merely utilize them I believe is still a subject of debate. |
|
Defining
thought as a timeless ageless energy pattern which can be used or
duplicated by beings capable of such cognition or recognition |
|
Now as far as matter becoming energy (thoughts, concepts) through consciousness
goes, I have three different theories to explain it. They will be
marked by the letters A, B, and C. These are as follows: A
conscious being sees or more accurate experiences an object of matter and
that object of matter is; (A) converted into its original state
of existence (an idea) ; (B) is copied in such a manner by
the said being; or (C) is made apparent to said being in its
original conceptual form. I will attempt to address the confusion
which the previous sentence lends itself to. The (A) possibility
stating that the object is converted to its original state seems unlikely
for if I experience a tree, it is still a tree. The intent though,
is that by my experience of it, it is confirmed of having existence in
my 'world' and becomes real through my conceptualization of it. So
on the thought side of reality, the tree prior to my experiencing it existed
only as the potential for experience. And if we suppose that the
only reality is experience, the tree did not exist until it was experienced
and was only potentially real. On this flip-side to the physical
world objects would become non-existent when in the solid state alone and
real when in the conceptual state. So although after looking, the
tree is still a tree but to the one who perceives it, it is a concept (an
experience) as well. |
|
Matter
becoming energy (thought) by experience is either : (A) converted
into its original state of existence (an idea) ; (B) is copied
in such a manner by the said being; or (C) is made apparent
to said being in its original conceptual form
Explanation
of (A) |
|
The (B) possibility is that the object is copied conceptually by the being
which experiences it. Under this theory each being would be creating
entire worlds composed of thought replicas of his or her experiences in
the physical or actual world. To experience the stars by sight would
be to create through consciousness a conceptual representation of that
part of the universe which is visible. The (C) possibility that the
object is made apparent to the being in its original conceptual form is
the easiest to explain. This means that the object has no existence
other than the conceptual and the being is experiencing directly the conceptual
nature of that objects existence. |
|
Expanation
of (B) and (C) |
|
It seems unlikely that the question of whether the world has any existence
apart from ones experiences of it is apt to be answered definitively soon.
While the (C) explanation denies such physical existence, the first two
do not. The second (B) explanation puts forward that there is an
actual existence but also that each being is copying those parts of it
which it directly experiences and is building its own conceptual worlds
from it. It was the first explanation (A) which I had in mind when
I wrote the second and third stanzas of the poem. This explanation
assumes a parallel conceptual world where objects are real when concepts
of existences (or experiences) but are unreal or cut off when actualized
only. It is through the 'hero' of consciousness which comes along
to return these 'frogs' to their royal existences as concepts of existence.
At least this was the point of view from which those lines were written. |
|
|
|
Now that I have explained the complicated part, the rest should be easy.
The fourth stanzas line, "we are the harvesters and the crop, in us thought
and matter blend," points to the fact that we are both physical beings
and conceptual in that we have concepts of ourselves as well as other objects,
and that we can produce or use concepts. Also because we are matter
too, whatever processes those other consciousnesses around us are involved
in, we are a part of as well. If the (B) explanation were true, then
caricatures of ourselves would appear in as many different worlds as the
number of people we meet. The (C) explanation does not apply because
it denies that we have a physical existence at all. And if the (A)
explanation were true then we would have everyone (and ourselves) to thank
for helping to make us what we are, a reality. |
|
|
|
The poem generally talks about gathering knowledge and implies some sort
of an afterlife or other lifetimes. Belief in some sort of afterlife
and/or reincarnation are concepts which many people and most religions
hold at least one or the other to be true. If such beliefs are founded
in reality, I feel that it is our unfulfilled wants or desires which keep
us pressing onward after our lives end, and that if these wishes or needs
did not exist, then we might become at rest and blend back into the fabric
of the universe. |
|
Unfulfilled
wants or desires may keep us pressing onward after our lives end, and that
if these wishes or needs did not exist, then we might become at rest and
blend back into the fabric of the universe |
|
I will again state that I believe truth to be a relative concept and what
people believe to be waiting for them when they die may indeed be what
they create for themselves. So if you must look that far ahead, by
all means, imagine it to be positive or good.
|
|
|
| Rel.
- Part 4 --- Thinking and Consciousness
We live in a world
where nothing is real
Nothing you see or hear,
only that which you feel
The hatred and the love,
the pleasure and the pain,
these alone are real
and will always remain
Our lives and our world
are merely illusions
used to control us
with our own confusion
Feel joy, not sorrow
Feel love, not hate
That which you feel
is that which you create
|
|
|
|
This poem is basically Hinduistic in stating that this world and our lives
are merely illusions. In philosophy also there is quite a case that
is made that since we are not capable of knowing anything except by experience,
there is no reality but experience. This seems to apply to the previous
section's suggestion that there is no basis of reality other than its conceptual
nature. However conceptual the nature of reality is does not limit
the scope of the reality of our own experiences. Somewhere somehow
there has to be some forms or forces seemingly outside ourselves with which
to interact. |
|
|
|
For the remainder of this part I will go on the assumption that objects
in our environments possess a basis of reality separate of our opinions
of them. The question here is, what makes them so? The previous
section's notions of 'matter to energy through consciousness' could
lend itself to a reversal, energy to matter through consciousness.
This is not a innovative belief. In fact it is the widest held religious
view, that the God consciousness created everything. How God is defined
differs, being to various degrees considered a superior (supreme) consciousness,
a collective consciousness, or a formerly unified consciousness now divided
into billions of billions of smaller consciousnesses. |
|
God
is defined by different people differently, being to varying degrees considered
a superior (supreme) consciousness, a collective consciousness, or a formerly
unified consciousness now divided into billions times billions of smaller
consciousnesses |
|
I will not dwell on what God is or whether God is but it does appear likely
that if there is a degree of reality beyond which we create and believe
in, what creates and defines that other reality is indeed some form of
consciousness. It does seem pertinent to add that this consciousness
could indeed be a part of our own. It is possible that we form a
conceptual world in which to enter and remain in it until we wish to end
it to create another set of experiences in which to enter. This is
similar to the (B) explanation of the previous section, only it is instead
reversed. Instead of creating a new thought/experience reality during
life, this is that reality which we created before we entered into it.
This is the basis of what Buddhism and other eastern religions say in that
each of us is "God" and that we each created our own particular circumstances
of our lives. |
|
Without
dwelling on what God is or whether God is, it does appear likely that if
there is a degree of reality beyond which we ourselves create and believe
in, what creates and defines that other reality is indeed some form of
consciousness |
|
What has been left undefined in the statement 'energy to matter through
consciousness' is the word energy. I have already defined a thought
as a timeless ageless energy pattern yet I never did define what I meant
by energy. Energy is commonly defined as the capacity to do work,
to affect matter by changing its velocity, direction, or form of existence.
In other words, a way to create change. |
|
If
thoughts are defined as energy and energy is defined as a way to create
change, on some level thought and potential are related |
|
Each of us converts energy constantly. Our fuel for energy is of
course matter or as it is more commonly called, food and water. If
matter is a form of energy, as I will expand upon shortly, then we are
merely changing its form or utilizing it for our own purposes. In
any event, each of us uses energy constantly. Movement, speech, listening,
thinking, and indeed all human actions and interactions involve energy.
Each one of our bodies is an extremely sophisticated machine for changing
physical matter into a variety of forms of energy. Primary among
those types of energy is thinking and movement. |
|
|
|
Thinking involves the making or utilizing of thoughts. Thoughts I
defined as being particular patterns (patterns not in a physical sense
but meaning that each has its own distinctive properties) of energy and
energy as being the capacity or potential to affect matter. All that
is not defined in this chain is consciousness. Consciousness is the
unit which can organize and choose from a number of different plans of
action. People possess consciousness and are matter as well.
It is through thinking and sorting through our potentials for action and
our choosing amongst these potentials for action, which gives us control
over our lives and the direction of our lives. The direction of our
lives is what goals we may wish to accomplish. |
|
Consciousness
is the unit which can organize and choose from a number of different plans
of action (essentially thoughts). If thought is indeed as precurser to
change it may be intertwined with potential |
|
I have defined energy as changing the velocity, direction, or form of existences
of matter and I have described thoughts as being a type of energy.
This definition of energy comes very close to the definition for potential.
And as I have said before, just as the potentially real becomes the actually
real, so too does the conceptually real. Where all this is leading
to is the conceptual basis of reality may equal the potential for reality.
In other words, what is conceptually possible is actually possible.
The limitations on what is conceivable cannot ever exceed that which is
possible. All that is conceivable is possible. |
|
The
conceptual nature of reality if true could equal the potential for reality,
what is conceptually possible may be actually possible. The limitations
on what is conceivable could never exceed that which is possible, i.e.
all that is conceivable is possible. |
|
It does seem possible to me that consciousness bridges the gap between
the two states of existence, the conceptual/potential and the actual.
We are actual yet we deal constantly with the conceptual. Our minds
themselves are conceptual as is consciousness itself. Though we are
in a physical form of existence, we still retain a consciousness capable
of realizing the concepts of potential future circumstances and manipulating
them as well those of potential versions of ourselves. |
|
It
may be that consciousness bridges the gap between the two states of existence,
the conceptual/potential and the actual. We are actual yet we deal
constantly with the conceptual. |
|
Therein lies the key to our power of control over the future. By
realizing that our thoughts are in fact artistic representations of possible
future realities, we can direct our thoughts at ourselves and imagine future
versions of ourselves. We all do this to some extent by our varying
expectations for ourselves. In other words, we can control what we
are to become. Being physical, it is possible to precisely conceive
of what we are now and project how we would have that change in the future. |
|
Germ
of ideas later mentioned at the end of Relativism 3 |
|
Our concepts of ourselves are shaped by what we believe we are, and our
notions of what our futures may be affect and shape us as well. We
have possibly the unique power of creating ourselves, not in the physical
sense while we are alive but in the conceptual sense. We define who
we are, what that means, what we hope to achieve, and those resultant attempts
and actions following from them in turn redefine who we are again affecting
or producing further expectations and aims. Our concepts of ourselves
shape ourselves by our attempts to realize (actualize) those opinions.
Except for possibly our physical natures and capacities at this time, our
consciousnesses have complete control over what we are and possibly all
that we can believe ourselves to be. Just as we pick and choose over
our thoughts by which to believe in, we can change what we will become
by choosing among what possibilities which we believe are open to us.
And we can conjure up new possibilities for ourselves and our lives which
we might never have thought ourselves capable of becoming if we realize
that our capabilities always far surpass our own expectations for ourselves. |
|
Our
concepts of ourselves shape ourselves by our attempts to realize (actualize)
those opinions, and we can conjure up new possibilities for ourselves we
might never have thought ourselves capable of when realizing our capabilities
always far surpass our own expectations |
|
We believe that we have imaginations which are capable of creating new
thoughts which have yet to exist and it may be that our capacities for
doing so relate to our assuredness in this belief. If we do have
an ability to create new thoughts not yet imagined, we should exercise
caution and responsibility over what we choose to contemplate. Just
as we ourselves, concepts of consciousness, are hard to erase once created
so too are the thoughts we create if we are capable. Thoughts exist
as long as they are believed and they never lose their potential for existence.
|
|
|
| Rel.
- Part 5 --- Concepts of Consciousness
I am here, you are there
Each one has a when and where
but could it be
that we will see
that both of these we share
I am me and you are you,
Surely we must number two
yet as I write
within your sight
the thoughts know not who is who
I'm what I am and not what I'm not
but I am not sure of all I've got
It is my mind
which is hard to define
using infinite ageless thought
My mind can escape my place,
my points in time and space
but cannot know itself
though deep it delves
because its own thoughts it can't trace
So no matter what you do,
don't be sure you are just you
It is your mind
which defies space and time
and is part of everyone else too
|
|
|
|
At last I am getting to the good stuff: What is consciousness?
In the previous part I said roughly that consciousness is an organizing
unit which can organize and choose from a variety of thoughts and plans
of action. Later there I said that consciousness bridges the gap
between the actual and the conceptual and is somehow capable of recognizing
itself. I also said that the mind (consciousness) is capable of setting
limits on what it is and is not. |
|
Key
aspects of conciousness |
|
Also as I said in the previous part, though the body is actual, the mind
is conceptual. To us our minds are where our bodies are, or at least
that has been generally assumed. The body possesses the major channels
of information which feed our minds. All sensory information which
our minds receive (seeing, hearing, etc.) comes to us through our bodies
so it is easy to see why we generally perceive that that is where our minds
are located. Also it is primarily through our bodies that our wills
(wishes) are carried out. It is something which we have direct control
over.> |
|
|
|
However, a concept, and consciousness is more conceptual than actual, has
no location in time or space. Also, in the conceptual world, all
is as it seems to be. The concept is the reality. From the
time we are born we are fed information steering us toward the conclusion
that our minds exist inside of our bodies and are limited by and to them
as far as what we are, what we are to become, and what we are capable of
accomplishing. This all sounds perfectly normal but we would be astounded
to find that this is true only because we believe it to be so. |
|
If
consciousness is more conceptual than actual, it would have no location
in time or space |
|
Again I must repeat myself. A mind, consciousness, or entity is a
concept which believes it has an existence AND believes that it is capable
of affecting change AND believes it has control over its power to affect
such change. When these conditions are met, what there is can be
called and entity or consciousness. We have all three but all, or
at least the first two conditions, seem dependent upon our bodies.
Also because all conscious change we inflict upon other concepts of existence
is done through our bodies, we pretty much believe we are limited to them
in our abilities to cause change. Fortunately (for us) there is something
deep inside us which rebels against the fact that we seem limited to a
physical existence. "Surely," it says, "we are immortal, surely we
must live forever." It is due to this innate non-acceptance of our
present condition, I believe, to which we owe our continued existence after
death. |
|
A
mind, consciousness, or entity is a concept which believes it has an existence
and
believes that it is capable of affecting change and believes it has control
over its power to affect such change. We have all three but all, or at
least the first two conditions, seem dependent upon our bodies. |
|
This may not be a predetermined higher reality as generally perceived but
may be due to human arrogance of illusions of grandeur or the fear or non-acceptance
of the inevitable death. No matter what the reason, we all find comfort
in the thought we will continue on and on until we get tired of existing
and interacting or meddling with the affairs of the universe. Again
it is we who control our existences, existing as long as we wish to act
or do something. |
|
|
|
So it is in this sense that a consciousness is really itself a set of goals
or wishes to be fulfilled or a least the wish to do something, anything
possibly just so long as it can continue. And it is out of these
wishes or goals to affect change that a consciousness is formed.
It is to carry out these changes that a medium through which the consciousness
can work is formed, with the consciousness included. Now it is quite
obvious that not all consciousnesses seem to be working for changes and
that many seem to be existing merely for the sake of existing. Existence
itself can be a goal or a wish to be fulfilled and everyone in existence
has things, however seemingly insignificant, which they would like to accomplish
and when conditions are favorable, exact some satisfaction out of just
being alive. When people have had their fill of all this world has
to offer in enjoyment or pleasure or the attainment of goals, they might
move on to create new worlds in which to interact with. |
|
In
this sense a consciousness is really itself a set of goals or wishes to
be fulfilled or a least the wish to do something |
|
Now our consciousnesses, though they may create our physical existences
and possibly our entire worlds for the implementations of our desires,
they are by no means limited to them. Being concepts of consciousness,
our minds are that which they choose to be and so far as we know, we are
satisfied in being us. For some though, this is not enough.
They want to be all, control all, rule all, etc.. Unfortunately for
the rest of us they are often a success in causing misery for all.
But the mind is a very indefinite thing. It is that which it chooses
to be. Being a concept or an idea, it is not only in one place but
instead it is everywhere at every time. |
|
|
|
If the mind creates the physical body (and possibly the physical world)
in which to carry out its aims or goals and itself is in an indefinite
state not definable by space and time, the question is : What is
space and time? They are not natural or pre-existent states.
Indeed if our minds exist outside of space and time, then the whole span
of the physical universe from the Big Bang until the end of time would
seem merely a temporary or transient state, or better yet, one concept.
If our minds are not defined by space and time, they are literally everywhere
at every time and space and time would have no meaning. It is for
this reason that they (minds, concepts of consciousness) are as big or
as little, as strong or as meek, as isolated or united, and as minute or
all encompassing as they imagine themselves to be because they are in fact
only ideas to begin with. |
|
If
our minds exist or ever existed outside of space and time, as thought or
energy then the whole span of the physical universe from the Big Bang until
the end of time be merely a temporary state, or better yet, one concept.
If our minds as energy are not defined by space and time, they are literally
everywhere at every time and space and time would have no meaning, i.e.
if ever outside of time, always outside of time |
|
So what are space and time? Merely more concepts, illusions, but
of a different nature than others. They are framework concepts, the
boundaries within which the portrait of the universe is painted.
They are what tell us that this happened and that did not. That we
are here and not over there. That we are.
|
|
|
| Rel.
- Part 6 --- Space/Time as a Concept
There is a moment in time
which contains all presents and pasts
It passes in an instant
but through eternity it lasts
It seems part of a chain
yet it is also every link
If we did not use this
we would not be able to think
It is miracles and mystery
yet by itself it is nothing
It provides all the music
to which the world does sing
It is the black in the background
yet it is always to the fore
In it lies all possibilities
and everything plus much more
It is always here and happening
although I know not how
You know it as all have known it
because it always is the now
|
|
|
|
The above poem is about the concept of the eternal now. In other
words, then is now, the only difference lies in our minds. It is
always the same time. Conceptually speaking time does not change.
The manifest change of the relative effects due to distance covered (speed)
does change and this is what we know as time but this has little bearing
on that harder to define concept of the present which is eternal.
For some elsewhere in the universe time moves faster, for others it moves
slower, and it is never constant for all. So scientists have learned
that time and space (through which movement enables 'time') are different
aspects of the same concept. And it is this one concept which defines
the physical world as we know it. |
|
Time
does not change, the manifest change of the relative effects due to distance
covered (speed) does change and this is what we know as time but this has
little bearing on that harder to define concept of the present which is
eternal |
|
I have mentioned the physical world but also there may be a previously
described conceptual world also. Beings born into the physical may
still go on and create their own individual little 'worlds' and begin to
dwell in these conceptual models far more than they do in its original
basis (if there can be said to be an objective basis at all). They
might even eventually kid themselves that these are 'higher' realities.
I give note to the word 'higher' because I believe that truth is relative.
It may not be relative to the physical world in the way that it is relative
to the conceptual consciousness however, because consciousness makes the
truth the same way it may have created the physical world, made to order.
So to the mind truth is whatever the mind wishes it to be. To the
physical, truth is those concepts which created consciousness and from
which the physical was created. Truth is the physical world's god,
whatever aspects define it, and the physical itself. |
|
To
the mind truth is whatever the mind wishes it to be. To the physical,
truth is those concepts which created consciousness and from which the
physical was created, as well as the laws which govern it. Truth
is the physical world's god, whatever aspects define it, and the physical
itself. |
|
But alas, it is not only the physical which has 'god' but the conceptual
as well. As I was beginning at the end of the last section, even
the conceptual owes a debt to the concept of space/time. Potential
is only potential if it has the potential to become actual. Conceptuality
as we know it can only exist as long as long it is capable of be thought
by someone or something. For these things to take place they are
dependent upon the concept of space/time and the present for their 'reality'.
But then on the other hand, you cannot define the concept of space/time
without the potential/conceptual reality to fill it. Space and time
cannot exist without things to act upon. The present however, being
unchanging itself, is not dependent upon such changes. |
|
Potential
is only potential if it has the potential to become actual. Conceptuality
as we know it can only exist as long as long it is capable of being thought
by someone or something. For these things to take place they too
are dependent upon the concept of space/time and the present for their
'reality' even though they are in nature outside the province or scope
of this reality |
|
Even entities require the concept of time. By entity I mean a concept
of existence without a physical body, that which perceives its own existence
and has aims or goals. To achieve anything requires a time in which
it has not achieved that goal and presumably a later time in which it has.
Also to exist as a separate individual or thing, an entity must have an
idea of what it is and is not even though it may be timeless and not defined
in space. That definition might include our types of attitudes of
what it is for or against, and from that what its existence might hope
to accomplish. If it does not wish to achieve anything or does not
define itself in any way then it does not possess what I define as a consciousness
and therefore is not a conscious entity. |
|
|
|
As the previous poem illustrates, "if we did not use this, we would not
be able to think." This is meant to show how our minds, timeless,
ageless, infinite (so long as we possess no concept of what we are not)
are still bound by the concept of time. To think we must make a concept
known to us at a certain moment in time. And it is how, or more precisely
when, these ideas are revealed to us which forms the basis of what our
lives will be. The phrase, "if I had only known sooner" has
to be a staple of every language which possesses a notion of time.
But we did not know sooner and we do not know now what the future will
bring. Why? Because if we knew what the future holds, unless
that future includes the fact that we knew it, that future can not be.
Indeed, it is not only what we know but when we know it which determines
what will be.
|
|
To
think, we must make or have a concept made known to us at a certain moment
in time and it is how, or more precisely when, these ideas are revealed
to us which forms the basis of what our lives will be |
| Rel.
- Part 7 --- Conceptual Worlds
There is more to this world
than that which we can perceive
Even as our senses inform us,
they can just as easily deceive
When given contradictory ideas
we must choose which to believe
and this affects how we interpret
what information we will receive
Try to pigeonhole all that you've learned
and all which you think that you know
Try to think of it all as interesting
but that it is not all necessarily so
We can only watch the scenery
while through our lives we go
It is just like watching a movie,
we see only what the camera will show
Out of all that we can be or do
at one time we can only have one
In realizing the few we lose the many,
to have them all would be to have none
Think of life as a prerequisite course
for greater learning yet to come
So learn all you can but remember,
you'll still have but a fraction of the sum
|
|
|
|
Basically what the above poem is about is the same as the poem "Relativity"
(Part 1) only it is said differently. In Part 1 I talked about the
value of forgetting and how all that we think is 'universal' truth appears
only as such by our own limited experience. As the above reads, "it
is just like watching a movie, we only see what the camera will show."
This pertains to the fact that as far as our conscious minds are concerned,
we do not control the variables outside of ourselves and duly cannot control
just what our lives may be because we are incapable of knowing in advance
what future revelations we might have or achieve. Knowing such realizations
in advance defeats the purpose of it being made known to or by us at a
specific time and place thus contributing and defining the sequence of
events occurring afterwards. I phrased the above as being 'as far
as our conscious minds are concerned' because as I said earlier and maintain,
there is more to our minds than we are conscious of. |
|
|
|
The purpose of including this poem at this point is not to rehash what
I have already stated but to address the question of other or 'higher'
realities. In Part 6 I stated that entities or concepts of existence
can establish themselves in an existence outside of what is to us a physical
existence. They can get rather proud of themselves for this accomplishment
and might consider themselves superior to those in a crude physical form
of existence. The number of such possible 'levels' of reality is
infinite, so they could conceivably journey for eons jumping into still
yet 'higher' realities and still not achieve realizations made apparent
to us 'down' here. It is for this reason that if such realities exist,
I cannot consider them or their worlds as being superior to our own
realities right here. A world is a world and a concept of existence
is a concept of existence. One reason one might maintain their existences
to be a superior ones could be due a presumed ability to control or influence
other realities. Yet for any conscious entity to exist it must be
separated from all else to function independently and therefore must be
ignorant of part of its nature. It is due the fact that all conscious
beings (save a supreme God) are limited in what they realize which leaves
all equally subject to such manipulations. |
|
It
may be that entities or concepts of existence can establish themselves
in an existence outside of what is to us a physical existence, however
a world is a world and a concept of existence is a concept of existence,
and for any conscious entity to exist it must be separated from all else
to some extent to function independently and therefore must be ignorant
of part of its nature |
|
By being itself a concept, consciousness is able to define itself what
it is and what it is not. And when placing itself into its own conceptual
world, a consciousness basically can do whatever it thinks it can do.
consciousnesses can create their own worlds apart from the concept of time/space
and by doing so have no what we call 'actual' basis of reality. So
in their worlds they can have limitless control over things because there
are no things, nothing independent of that reality. |
|
|
|
So from our point of view they exist in worlds of illusion, creating figments
of their
imaginations which to call their 'realities'. From their
point of view, it is our world which is an illusion and theirs which possesses
a stronger foundation of reality. Without our beliefs in the objective
or abject concept of space/time our world would seem as foundationless
as theirs due to that fact that all else we view stems from this event
spatial reality. |
|
From
our present point of view, if consciousnesses exist in non-physical worlds,
such worlds would not really be real given that space-time is a seemingly
objective foundation |
|
In effect our world is as foundationless as theirs. The focalizing
concept of our world, space/time, is just one possible organizing concept
in which to place our faith. It is real to us because it is the one
we are in at the moment. Its substance, as we may soon find out,
is thought itself. We are concepts seeking a reality but the only
realities available to us are conceptual realities. Lacking any real
existence, we latch onto concepts which we believe we are, and for the
same reason, worlds which we believe we are not in which to function.
This is the game of life, without it what is there? Nothing. |
|
In
effect our world is as foundationless as theirs, we are concepts seeking
a reality but the only realities available to us are conceptual realities,
we latch onto concepts which we believe we are, and worlds which
we believe we are not in which to function |
|
We are all parts of the same mind and in that sense there is only one mind.
It continues to playing the game of imagining it is here and not there.
Imagining that we are ourselves only and not everyone else. Being
everything, it constantly runs through an infinite number of plans of what
it could do if it were not everything, just one thing in a sea of other
things. Everyone in every possible world is in fact the same being
possessing a mind essentially indistinguishable from any other but for
what it knows, perceives, and believes. What we call loneliness could
be a means of understanding why this becomes so if this is indeed so.
One mind, one consciousness in an endless ocean of nothing throughout eternity
is more loneliness than is comprehensible. For this reason love and
companionship is its highest goal, its most precious dream.
|
|
Everyone
in every possible world is in fact the same being possessing a mind essentially
indistinguishable from any other but for what it knows, perceives, and
believes |
| Rel.
- Part 8 --- Super-Concepts
Once upon a time
long before yours and mine,
there lived a wise man
who was part of a large clan
They lived upon the crust
of a planet made of stardust
which circled a ball of light
in a great void they called night
Little they did know
but they wanted and needed to grow
and often they did kill
though it was not always their will
In this world of turmoil
to himself the wise man stayed loyal
and looked inward to see
how he and his world ought to be
He learned that humility
is far more valuable than nobility
and that having wealth and power
is a shroud in which the weak cower
He knew that only love
could enable them to rise above
the shame which they knew
for being better than they could do
He was one with the infinite,
each thing was in he and he in it
and yet he chose to return
in the hope that they too could learn
His message was misunderstood
but they still learned all that they could
and their world reflected the disparity
between total ignorance and total clarity
|
|
|
|
This treatise is about how people use a particular consciousness as a focal
point or organizing basis for their understandings of the universe.
As easily as one can use a particular concept or set of concepts for interpreting
events and experiences, a person, being conceptual in nature, is capable
of being used as a conduit for a specific type or special perspective as
is any set of beliefs. |
|
Using
a person or personality as a means of interperting experience |
|
As I have said in the introduction, science and logic are fast becoming
the main focal points though which we interpret what we experience in the
physical world. Though it (the physical world) has always been a
part of humanity's reasoning processes and beliefs, it has not always occupied
center stage. Many times in the past and in many instances in the
present, people have and have had 'faith' in concepts and even other concepts
of consciousness' more so than they have faith in the physical world and
its laws. Those concepts of consciousnesses become more than gods,
they become conduits through which people come to a unified understanding
which they otherwise would not have achieved. Though this can deny
humanity the diversity of philosophical explanations, it provides for super-concepts,
or single views made more powerful by being repeated in millions at once
or over a period of time which serves to unite (and constrain) human thought. |
|
Super-concepts
such as religion and now science create world views which unite, and constrain,
human thought |
|
Before I get too involved in explaining the idea of super-concepts I wish
to discuss very briefly the history of how such notions came into being
in the first place. In my opinion the first deity had to be the sun.
When the sun is shining one tends to feel comforted (if not too hot).
When it does not one tends to feel cold. In the daytime one can see
clearly whereas at night it is darker and far more dangerous. So
it seems logical that to early humanity the sun would appear to be the
life-giver which it truly is. Even though food and water were necessities,
these concepts were graspable whereas the sun would have remained literally
and conceptually out of reach. |
|
Origins
of unifing world views |
|
No matter what humanity's first god was, once they had it they would probably
seek to understand it. They might try to find out what they could
do to make it be nice to them. And once they had a god to believe
in, to them it would become the cause of their good tidings somewhat as
well as conceivably the cause of their misfortunes. After a while
many things would be ascribed to it and it would begin to take on a personality,
at least to them. Sometimes it would be happy, sometimes angry. |
|
Once
humanity had deities events good and bad were ascribed to making them happy
or unhappy |
|
This personification of humanity's first god gradually continued until
in evolved into people gods. The god of the Greeks and Romans are
the best examples. These were gods which looked like people, walked
and talked like people, and had many of the natural bodily functions like
people. They appeared as people yet they had special powers and abilities
which made them decidedly superior. Also notable was their categories
of specialization (love, war, etc.). Though they were gods and superior
to mere mortals, almost all of their energies were spent on human-like
situations. |
|
With
many diverse events being ascribed to supernatural sources, good and bad
gods emerge, and further specializations, harvest, fertility, etc. |
|
What is most interesting to me is their de-godifacation. Eventually
and gradually they were reduced from superior entities (if only imaginary,
but even an image has substance) capable of ruling the destinies of all
mortal men and women, to that of mere stories or fables. For the
record, I do not believe that those concepts ever controlled all mortals
yet those who lived their lives around what they believed what the gods
wished of them were controlled by something, if only their own ideas.
Believing that other forces control your destiny such as astrology, voodooism,
physic energies, or whatever, gives such people (or whatever) who say they
possess, know or have access to such knowledge or control, a power over
your life which is quite real. In other words, these powers stem
from one's own beliefs. |
|
Previous
beliefs which have lost believers, degenerate into fables, lose power to
influence events and inspire fear. Power of believed entities is real to
those who believe them, affect their behavior just as a real persion might |
|
The four religions which I will now address are still very much alive today
and they are so because people still believe in them. Those religions
were initiated by four men whom I have considerable respect for so I shall
strive not to say anything which might anger very much those who follow
their examples today or in the future. This is not an easy task though
because deeply religious people can be at times, to say the least, enthusiastically
single-minded. |
|
|
|
I do not intend to summarize, compare, or even if I can avoid it, talk
about what those religions are about. There are plenty of books on
each of these religions in almost every library. It is my interest
to concentrate on the success or failure of their founders to have been
kept from becoming deified or turned into gods. Two have more or
less succeeded while the other two by my estimation have not. The
two religions which I believe have not turned their founders into gods
are Buddhism and Islam, and I shall address these first. The other
two are Christianity and Taoism. |
|
Some
religions end up with originators as gods at center of them, others evolve
differently |
|
Buddhism and the religion of Islam both achieved not having their originators
turned into gods, but for different reasons. The Buddha, when upon
reaching his awe-inspiring state of awareness was asked if he was a god,
he replied that he was simply now awake whereas before he was asleep, thus
the name 'Buddha' which means "awakened one" or "enlightened one".
Islam's originator, Mohammed, avoided this by deferring his success to
the one and only God. He was also in a different category than the
others because he ran a country, fought in wars, and did other earthly
things the others seemed to avoid. He claimed to be a mere mortal
and his life (and death) were testaments to his beliefs. |
|
|
|
Now one of the people Mohammed is said to have admired cannot be included
in this category. "What a shame it is, " he is purported to
have said, "that they have turned him (Jesus) into a god." Whether
or not this was his opinion obviously cannot be determined but given the
era he lived in, he was most probably familiar with that story. As
anyone reading this probably already knows, Jesus of Nazareth's supposed
relation to goddom was by relation. He was the "Son of God" and God
was his "father". However, many took that to mean he was an only
child and that made him a god too. |
|
|
|
One of the most important aspects of a religion is whether or not its originator
was turned into a god because it affects directly whether or not people
within that religion are encouraged to try to achieve that state of knowledge
or enlightenment which its originator would have possessed. In Christianity
though one can and should try to be like Jesus, one is never expected to
completely succeed because that would be a sacrilegious expectation.
If Jesus was not by birth a god as many presume, the fault that others
are not encouraged to try to emulate too closely his example is due to
those 'people' who chose to put him on so high a pedestal. |
|
Whether
a person/god is at the center of a religion affects what level its believers
can aspire to |
|
Lao Tzu (which means old one or old boy) ended up being turned into a god
because he never tried not to be. If the fable is true, he wrote
one book then hopped on a water-buffalo and headed for Tibet never to be
heard from again. One book with no one to explain it leaves itself
wide open for different interpretations. Though this story may be
completely untrue or riddled with inaccuracies, after two and a half millennium
it is doubtful anyone is going to find out the truth. The strangest
thing about Taoism (Lao Tzu's religion) is the way that people being turned
into gods is built right into the religion. This deals with popular
Taoism which has little to do with philosophical Taoism with which I am
most familiar. |
|
|
|
Like I said before, this is not meant to be a comparison of these religions
or explanations of them. This a mere stating of how these religions
have or have not turned their founders into gods. How we view the
lives and existences of these people affects the cultures and expectations
of those who follow them as much as those person's philosophies, which
indeed were the catalysts of their rises to prominence far more than
whether or not their were holy by birth (of which all four were supposed)
or were gods by nature. |
|
|
|
Religions are examples of super-concepts. They are not bigger or
better or more true than any other concepts. What makes them super-concepts?
They are believed, sometimes at the exclusion of all else, by many or most
people in a particular area and time. In a universe where truth is
relative, what most people believe makes a difference. It is what
the many believe which defines the prevailing reality in any given era. |
|
If
the world is in any way affected by how we percieve it then super-concepts
determine the prevailing reality in a particular time and place |
|
Super-concepts are concepts which eat up other concepts. Instead
of many coming from one, they take the many and make them one. It
is not as though it is not by choice either. As in the example of
religion, a religion is a certain type of set beliefs shared by people
not only in one time but spread out across a period of time. Many
of these religions came or caught on during times of great confusion when
many people wanted or needed some uniformity of belief. Without any
agreement there is absolute chaos with everyone thinking that they should
be the one in charge, everyone thinking that they have all the answers.
After a time they see that this is getting them no where and they become
willing to listen and seek out someone most would believe really knows.
Who and what they find depends on the particular time and place.
But they usually find someone or something to believe in to get them through
their crisis into another time when they can go off in different directions
again. This is not always done consciously but often is instinctive. |
|
Beliefs
are unified during times of great hardships or turmoil to ensure the survival
of society, disagreement discouraged, dissent strongly punished but beliefs
can get institutionized in society and get undone only by the diversity
which springs from prolonged (multi-generational) prosperity |
|
Just as I used religion as an example I could just as easily have used
laws, morality, or government (all of which are included in religion) as
an example. Equally applicable is anything which people must agree
upon as being more important than they are and by doing so relinquish their
opposition to it for the purpose of working together to establish a basis
by which their goals may be reached. But what is most important here
is that their goals can be reached. It all comes down to the balancing
the needs of the many with the needs of individuals. Each has their
import but each is reliant upon the other. The only just society
is one that truly responds to each individual's needs. Likewise,
the only just individual is one who is willing to subjugate himself or
herself to those causes which he or she feels are just and not at the expense
of the people as a whole. |
|
What
justifies relinqishing the right to oppose structures of a society is when
society delivers on providing a framework which enables the individuals
who give up those rights to reach their goals |
|
Life is a battleground of ideals and of goals. Eventually ways are
found in which all or most can be accommodated. It is not an easy
process to arrive at that point, but usually is reached after bloodshed,
anguish, and pain convince all that each person too is in need of and deserves
the same chances and opportunities as they themselves. Sympathy and
identification of oneself in relation to others is an inevitable part of
individual and collective growth.
|
|
Inner
turmoil within societies is eased when it is an accepted goal of instituions
that all deserve the same chances and opportunity to succeed as others |
| Rel.
- Part 9 --- Conclusion
Oh what will the world be
when people realize they are free
to do the greatest good
or to be the baddest bad,
to be infinitely happy
or to be infinitely sad
Oh what will the people do
when they find that they create the true
Will they help the needy
or just their own lives
Will they seek comfort
or will they seek to become wise
When they know the world is theirs
will they put aside their individual cares
to help the confused
and lead them from despair
or will they seek to control them
by trying to keep them there
Will they realize the greatest dream
of only good people and things being to be seen
or will they make for others
a world that is a living nightmare
Only they can say for sure
and only they can make themselves care
|
|
|
|
As I have put forward in the introduction and have tried to maintain throughout
this work, I believe truth to be relative. Truth is not relative
to the physical but to consciousnesses and more accurately 'the' consciousness
which creates truth. Truth is what you believe it to be. As
far as physical world goes, truth is what it was believed to be prior to
our existences in it. The problem with relativistic worlds is that
when people do, and inevitably they will, learn that they are free to do
as they please, they usually choose to do things which are beneficial to
either themselves or a small group but rarely all people as a whole.
When people learn that they can be as moral or as immoral as they wish,
they all too often choose the latter as it seems to give them more choice. |
|
|
|
Choice is what it all is about for without it we and our consciousnesses
are mere illusions of existence. We do have choice and we can use
it to rebel against what we think we should be and do, but when we do so
we are working against our own purposes, our true goals. When we
do what we think we ought not (I don't mean taught not) to do, what we
are really saying is that we are not capable of knowing what we should
be doing. Above all else we must believe in ourselves and that we
know what we should and should not do, and do our very bests to accomplish
our goals. |
|
We
do have choice and we can use it to rebel against what we think we should
be and do, but when we do so we are working against our own purposes, our
true goals. |
|
So if you must have something to believe in above and beyond all else,
let it be as it should be, a belief in yourself and in your own existence.
Also believe that you are capable of deciding and knowing best what you
should want and what you should do when you are completely honest with
yourself. We all have things we would like to accomplish and it is
only by believing that we are capable are we able to achieve them. |
|
|
|
There are some beliefs which severely limit what we are able to accomplish
such as the concept of space/time. But even with the limitations
of such seemingly preset conditions we make more limitations by what we
believe is impossible. There are some concepts which are limitless,
such as our minds themselves, which are capable of such a wide range of
possibilities and possible realities that we inevitably end up finding
comfort in things which are true outside of them, an outer reality we help
to create. Too much freedom, too much potentiality appears to us
as chaos, like our dreams for instance. Like religion, the concept
of space/time is a way out of the chaos and confusion. It is like
a government we form to regulate and organize what we are and are not.
By trading off a certain amount of independence in what we can be and do,
we are given a place within its framework to work from. We conform
to its laws and by doing so receive a basis of reality which we find so
necessary at this point. |
|
Too
much freedom, too much potentiality appears to us as chaos, like our dreams
for instance. Like religion, the concept of space/time is a way out
of the chaos and confusion. It is like a government we form to regulate
and organize what we are and are not. |
|
Our minds and our dreams are lingering remnants of what we were and what
we will be again. Vague concepts of existence that are what they
choose to think they are. We too are what we have chosen to think
we are. So though we exist in the physical we find it necessary to
maintain our link with the conceptual. |
|
|
We decide though, what is too much potential and what is not too much.
As we grow more confident in our abilities of maintaining a separate existence,
we slip into worlds where we are capable of more and more because our own
concept of what we are becomes more and more inclusive. As I said
in Part 7, these realities are no more real than this one of time and space,
it is just that as our confidence grows so does our pre-eminence in these
worlds grow. It is not simply a matter of ascension or becoming more
and more. Some tire of greater control and seek more surprise, more
unexpectedness. We seek what level we are comfortable with and for
now we are comfortable with this one. When we tire of this one we
can seek more or less control depending on what we wish. It is not
a matter of good or bad either. Good and bad, creation and destruction
are required at every level. So not only can you be as much as you
wish but you can also be what you wish as well. It truly is a universe
of choice.
End of Second Section
-
Click to go back to top
|
|
It
is not simply a matter of ascension or becoming more and more. Some
tire of greater control and seek more surprise, more unexpectedness.
We seek what level we are comfortable with and for now we are comfortable
with this one. |
| Relativism
2- Other Possibilities
Preface
1 Pain 2
Growth of Consciousness 3
Aspects of Intelligence
4
Emotive Base States 5
Feeling Based Reality
6
Common Consciousness
7 Self-Perception
8
Branching Out 9 Summation
Rel.
2 - Preface
If I were to explain the most basic idea of Relativism- Some Ancient and
Modern Thoughts, I would say that it is a concept that there is not any
one viewpoint or way of interpreting life that is correct. Likewise,
it would follow that there cannot be any viewpoint which can be wrong.
If I use right and wrong as moral terms, some would undoubtedly disagree.
If use the same as truth terms with right meaning more true or more correct,
others would also disagree. Morality is something which those with
deep personal and religious convictions believe is a part of the 'out there'
reality not influenced by our separate opinions of it. Even among
those who believe that morality is subjective and not objective, there
are those who would disagree that the truths of events and material laws
are also subjective. |
|
|
|
The previous
Relativism suggests that all truths may be subjective in essence.
All of us decide what is true based upon our own experiences combined with
that which we do not directly experience but are taught (itself an experience).
If this does not match our own experience we either reject it outright
or seek to find something which we know and understand which to relate
it to and thereby make sense of it, or we may accept it on 'faith'.
Since what we know and what we believe are based upon our experiences they
cannot help but be subjective. Science now does not believe it is
possible for an object to travel faster than light or occupy two different
physical places at the same time but if we lived in world where such events
are commonplace we would think such ideas to be ridiculous. In this
way it is our experiences which often define our concepts of physical truth. |
|
Notions
of truth must withstand the test of experience |
|
In my speculations I go as far as to suggest that even our experiences
are void of absolute truth. Since we are incapable of surmounting
experience all that we can ever know will always be based upon the limited
means of our senses and our intellects. Should such devices prove
so limited as to give us a view of the universe not representative of the
bulk of reality, we would forever be ignorant of our ignorance for our
minds have not the means to overcome this. If our experiences themselves
were to be untrue we could not know for it is those standards which define
for us what is real and what is not. If truth then is what one's
experiences leads one to believe, who are we to question that another's
truths are not valid. Surely we can realize not all of our outlooks
are applicable to someone who has lead a vastly different life or had far
different fortune. |
|
Different
experiences leads others to believe different things to be true |
|
Relativism's notion that truth is relative to a person's experiences and
situations might be disheartening if one were to believe it to be so.
Indeed, if that were true then it would only be true for those who thought
it so. All of us search for truth, to find ways to better understand
ourselves and our worlds. In doing so we by necessity believe that
truth lies hidden out there waiting to be discovered. However by
this definition we are searching for something which cannot be. Truth
cannot exist regardless anyone's opinions because to know truth is to form
an opinion of it. In such a universe as ours, object's existences
are inseparably intertwined with consciousness' capacity to perceive them.
Truth basically is what is. If no one existed to know what is, who
is to say that anything is? If only one could perceive what is, would
not that perception be the indisputable truth? |
|
Truth
cannot exist regardless anyone's opinions because to know truth is to form
an opinion of it |
|
We form opinions about what is true and we endlessly compare our observations
and thoughts with others and in participation with others we as a society
define what is true. Regardless of what may be absolutely true, we
treat our assumptions as defacto truths. Whether or not they are
true or not, they are assumptions which guide our relationships to others
and other ideas. Eventually our notions about truth change but though
we on one hand understand that past ways of understanding truth no longer
apply, we stick to our new present mode of understanding quickly and as
rigidly as if it never will be obsolete. Today's truths are always
the best ones. |
|
Through
pooling our notions of truth (ideally anyway when that is how it is done),
our societies determine what are the accepted truths regardless of whether
there is or is not any absolute truth |
|
Deeply religious people are secure that they have the real truths and they
do not have to look ahead to find them. If anything, truth is what
was true before and if we are lost now it is because we lost sight of truth
along the way. They do not have to worry about what today's societies
ever changing truths are, only how to keep their truths from changing.
It is a comforting notion, the world changes but truth does not.
Yet if truth is what is, it is never what was. But it is beyond time,
this eternal truth. It is everything that ever was and all that will
ever be, all except what people today or tomorrow believe it is if it does
not match what people used to think it was. Obviously even this outlook
must somehow take people's perception of truth into account. |
|
To
be religious is to believe in unchanging truths independant of prevailing
opinions |
|
Our notions of truth change. Our notions of life change. Our
morals are constantly in flux. But does truth change? Without
that divine answer, our constantly changing attitudes are all that we have
to judge things by. I believe that truth is what you believe today,
or if you prefer what all people believe today, or even still, maybe what
God believes it is- today. Truth is whatever someone thinks
it is, generally whoever possesses the most clout. Eventually each
individual must answer that question himself, or herself as the case may
be, what truth is- today. The one logical pillar in my belief
is that existence alone is truth and all else is an interpretation of what
that means. |
|
Truth
is what you believe today, or if you prefer what all people believe today,
or even still, maybe what God believes it is- today. The one logical
pillar in my belief is that existence alone is truth and all else is an
interpretation of what that means |
|
This outlook, or lack of one if you prefer means that anything is possible.
Rather than the universe being limited to one solid accurate outlook, it
instead is dynamic with truths being relative to the situations and always
capable of changing. It means that the universe defies all logic
and any attempts at limiting it by definition. Though we may constantly
travel in a cycle of reaching a better definition for it, inevitably those
very same concepts which made it seem true will invalidate it. It
is beyond simple comprehension and in the end the only definition which
can fit is that it is magical. |
|
The
universe defies all logic and any attempts at limiting it by definition,
though we may constantly travel in a cycle of reaching a better definition
for it, inevitably those very same concepts which made it seem true will
invalidate it |
|
Like I have said however, such beliefs are as limited as any others might
be. Though simple logic and our limited reasoning processes may be
flawed, they are far more comfortable than a chaotic lack of reality.
Our quests for rational explanations consistently come unraveled by new
revelations but we shrug our failures off and again set out to build the
perfect theorem. There is no harm in believing in suppositions because
as many of us know, without suppositions we would have little if anything
to think about at all. |
|
|
|
That is where this second work comes in. If there can be no one explanation
for explaining everything, and if even conflicting and opposing explanations
can both be true, then what is the harm in letting one's mind run free
over the problems and endless possibilities which begin upon the contemplation
that all is, in the end, only that which it presents itself to be.
|
|
|
| Rel.
2 - Part 1 --- Pain
Why is the world so cruel
to crush us with its stupid rules
Why does it cause us such pain
we overcome only to be broken again
Is this really how it must be-
from heartache will we ever be free
Must we always suffer so-
is there nowhere else we can go
What sense was there in creating
a world that is so degrading
Where is there any worth
in lives spent suffering since their births
These are questions all have asked
but their answers never did last
No argument ever justifies
the horrors that here are realized
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the greatest challenge which confronts anyone who attempts to reason
is to understand and thereby make sense of the seemingly endless senselessness
of life and its many events. For our own lives, each of us usually
has some working explanation to make sense out of our daily existence but
in those day to day experiences we find that there are many things which
do not make sense to us. Events such as the tragic death of a young
child or learning that someone guilty of hideous crimes was never punished
while another innocent one was wrongly persecuted for crimes he or she
did not commit. |
|
|
|
It is the senseless things in life which shake us up and disturb our perceptions
of life. Everything which our own outlooks cannot explain confronts
us with our lack of understanding and usually this bothers us enough to
force us to search for another outlook which can explain to us this troublesome
problem. Religion does make its mark upon the potpourri of propositions
to explain the seemingly endless lack of sense to life on Earth.
The western religions address unequal and blatantly unfair circumstances
among different people with a belief in post-death retribution. Those
who were good will finally be rewarded while those who were bad will finally
be made to regret the errors of their ways. Those religions which
believe in reincarnation, such as Hinduism, teach that if one is born into
a horrible life then it may be due their errors in a previous life for
which they now must pay the price. |
|
Western
religions address injust senselessness with a belief in post-death retribution,
other religions see a bad life as the punishment of wrongs done in a previous
one |
|
These explanations may seem a bit thin when one is confronted with the
hard realities of this world and the possible weaknesses of these explanations
have sometimes been addressed as well. In the western tradition,
when a clergyman sees too much or too intense suffering he (or she) can
be prone to doubt whether God is just or even whether or not God exists.
This is explained to him or her by the fact that God is testing him.
That this still does not explain the necessity of others' suffering does
not matter for an explanation, however slight, is there. |
|
|
|
In self-centered religions the problem is equally prevalent and it is equally
if not more difficult to explain. If indeed we create ourselves and
our worlds, why on earth would we make it as painful and sadistic as this
one can often be. The most common explanation of this problem in
these types of outlooks is that our own suffering as well as the sufferings
of others has the function of making us grow and become more sensitive
to the needs of others. Though this may or may not sound applicable,
it suffers the same problem as the 'God is testing you' explanation.
If the soul purpose is to teach, surely one can become enlightened by more
humane means than by having billions malnourished and impoverished. |
|
|
|
The are many types of suffering and there are many types of senselessness
on this planet (such as injustices, inequalities, etc.) but what I am intent
upon discussing is pain. The most apparent form of pain and often
the least severe form is physical pain. I belittle physical pain
because for most it is not constant or so extreme as to drive one to prefer
death or even something worse than death rather than wishing for the pain
to continue. Note though, that I say for most people because I think
that if someone were being tortured for days or was in constant excruciating
pain, the desirability of death would most assuredly increase. |
|
The
most apparent form of pain and often the least severe form is physical
pain |
|
Emotional pain is much more severe and is generally more devastating than
physical pain. It can occur as the loss of a loved one, friend or
relation, or it can come as guilt. Guilt is a much more personal
form of pain because it arises directly from ones actions (or lack of action)
whereas the loss of a loved one not combined with guilt, though no less
painful, does not carry with it the burden of responsibility. |
|
Emotional
pain is more severe than physical pain and is generally more devastating |
|
Guilt is possibly the most extreme form of pain because often many people
will choose anything, including even torture and death, rather than face
the guilt of certain acts (a loss of 'honor'). Murder is one
of the most guilt inspiring acts by the fact that it most certainly can
never be undone or made up for later on. It is completely irreversible. |
|
Guilt
is a form of emotional pain |
|
Though guilt is present in conceivably everyone, the degree to which it
manifests itself varies considerably. Some people are quite capable
of committing the most outrageous of crimes and show no visible signs of
remorse. This is of course exceptional but in less extreme cases
the same point can be made. Some can do things which they believe
to be wrong and quite easily avoid feeling bad about it or greatly minimize
any regrets. Others are greatly affected by any transgression of
their particular morals and would immediately seek redemption. |
|
People
experience guilt to varying degrees |
|
I will not go into the subject of the nature or causes of guilt but it
will be sufficient for me to say that guilt is a factor in peoples' actions
and is an even greater inhibitor of actions as well. I shall describe
guilt as people inflicting (emotional) pain upon themselves to prevent
or limit themselves from experiencing happiness for a particular reason.
That reason would of course be what he or she feels guilty about.
Often one does this without even knowing why it is he or she cannot seem
to enjoy life. |
|
Guilt
is the infliction of pain upon oneself |
|
Though there are other types of emotional pain, guilt is interesting in
that it is a pain which we wish upon ourselves. Unlike other pains,
it is not one which we wish to be rid of either. We may wish for
the cause of the guilt to go away and thereby remove the guilt as well,
but we do not want the pain merely to go away. If we did, then it
would. We feel that we deserve to be in pain and we continue the
self-purgation until we feel that we have been punished enough. |
|
|
|
In the self-centered religions and points of view, the pain involved with
our lives might be explained as having grown out of guilt. As to
what the guilt might be for if we suffer yet perceive no guilt, one can
only speculate. Similar speculation led others to believe that a
previous life was to blame for unpleasant present circumstances.
Also, the concept of original sin comes from similar reasonings.
Though the guilt example, a clear example of how we do consciously (or
unconsciously) choose to feel emotional pain, might apply to each person's
own life's unpleasantness at times, it does little to address the fact
of other's sufferings. Of course, one could easily generalize this
and say that those who are also suffering are those who at the onset of
their lives also felt some inner need to punish themselves. Though
this is consistent with that view, its basis of construction does appear
to be a weak argument. One additional note that seems perplexing
is that if one were to confront the sources of their innate guilt (deep,
part of the original psyche) from before or at birth and by doing so remove
all pain from his or her life, since empathy towards others' pain is desirable
in all models of spiritual development, would this not inhibit our own
growth by removing our capacities to share in others pain if we were to
be immune from pain ourselves?
|
|
In
some religions like Hinduism, inexplicable pain involved with our lives
might be explained as having grown out of guilt felt from previous ones.
Also, the Catholic concept of original sin comes from similar reasonings. |
| Rel.
2 - Part 2 --- Growth of Consciousness
With the pull of the entire earth against it,
a sapling still reaches for the sky
drawing the force most powerful,
life,
from the soil surrounding it
it forges an alliance with nature
to deny the stone heart of the earth
victory.
|
|
|
|
When we are presented with some evidence which conflicts with our present
understandings of what the world is about or how it operates we can do
one of two things. One is to change our minds about this problem
and alter our working assumptions about this subject to accommodate the
new evidence. The other thing we can do is to deny the new information's
accuracy or truthfulness and thus preserve our present mindsets. |
|
When
new experience runs contrary to beliefs one either ammends beliefs or denies
the new events |
|
The first reaction given is the one commonly associated with learning or
what I shall refer to as growth. It goes beyond merely memorizing
new ideas in that it involves changing ones way of perceiving things.
It tells us our present way of thinking is wrong and should be changed.
This
can merely add a new piece of information but often it involves changing
the rules of how we think. For example, a child sees that birds and
planes can fly because they have wings. This may cause the child
to believe that wings are a requirement for flight. Then child sees
that helicopters can fly and that they do not have wings. Though
this involves learning a simple fact, it also involves changing ones way
of defining things. Now things do not need wings to fly. This
type of learning is different than being told something which you might
not have any preconceived notion about. |
|
Real
intellectual growth involves changing ones way of perceiving things |
|
For the sake of this treatise I shall define the growth of a consciousness
as the process of and result of a person's changing his or her concepts
which define how things are or how they function. In other words,
the gaining of a new way or level of perceiving things. Since I have
gone at length to propound the concept of relative truth, I feel it necessary
to add at this point that I do not believe such changes to be any more
true than the previous faulted understandings which they replace.
They do however, function more effectively to explain the problem at hand
and they do conform more to the given evidence. I do not wish to
imply that this is true in all cases for it is certain that not each and
every new theory is accurate and even when it is, it can create more questions
than answers. Likewise, though it can be said that such modified
viewpoints are generally more inclusive, this is not always the case.
By the use of the term inclusive, I mean that the new theory still explains
what the previous one did in addition to the new evidence as well. |
|
Growth
of consciousness: process of and result of a person's changing his or her
concepts which define how things are or how they function, generally more
inclusive, meaning that the new theory still explains what the previous
one did in addition to the new evidence as well |
|
By this definition growth is not an easy task. Many times we may
find things which our present ideas cannot explain yet there is no alternative
explanation available. Logic, which is the tool of the rational mind,
has very strict rules and often a solution to paradoxes and discrepancies
cannot be easily found. When we do go outside of logic to religious
notions or to personal convictions we can confuse the issue even more.
When we chalk it up to God and say that something is fate, what we often
mean is that we are admitting that the understanding is beyond our reach.
And though this cop-out, if you will, can apply to anything which we do
not understand, it does nothing to resolve the dilemmas posed to our logically
functioning minds. |
|
|
|
Other problems occur when we do find alternative explanations to our present
understandings. The new belief must be integrated into all else we
know and understand. Sometimes one simple experience can contradict
everything which we believe to be possible. Even when the situation
is not so absolute, the idea which has been found to be faulted can be
so comforting for us that we are not apt of give it up even when insurmountable
evidence shows it to be wrong. Such people who are truly unable to
adapt to new evidence and situations sometimes inspire fear in others because
the capacity for logical thought and the ability to express logical arguments
is a measurement of sanity in our society. |
|
Sometimes
one simple experience can contradict everything which we believe to be
possible |
|
When growth does occur, as I have said, one of its attributes is that it
generally is more inclusive. The new outlook is able to explain more
things than its predecessor. These things which it could explain
would of course be related to experiences in the physical world as well
as the objects or processes which are found there. Thus the diversity
among the possibilities for experience represent the capacity for growth
of the consciousness. Again, I must point out that I am not discussing
the learning of facts or even the categorization of facts. I am addressing
the rules by which we interpret those facts as well as how we interpret
all facts and all experiences as a whole. |
|
The
diversity among the possibilities for experience represent the capacity
for growth of the consciousness |
|
Growth of consciousness continues until it has a means by which it can
account for the possibility of all occurrences which it does or can possibly
experience. God is a concept which one can use to explain why one
cannot explain something. This concept entails an organization in
which we are a part with a limited understanding and it also assumes that
there are things which we are not meant to know. Our 'place' is to
be what we are and do what we think God would want us to do. The
concept of God in many religions necessitates the view that we are not
meant to know everything. By the very fact that they claim that we
were made by God, it follows that we know only that which God has made
it possible for us to know. Regardless of this fact, those of these
faiths do not sit around and wait for God to reveal things to them.
They, like everyone else, go around trying to find better explanations
for life and its problems, and if that is also what they think God wants
them to do, so be it. |
|
Were
it not for the limits of time and willingness, growth of a conciousness
would continue until it has a means by which it can account for the possibility
of all occurrences which it does or can possibly experience |
|
I am hesitantly adding my own concept of relativism here because it too
attempts to explain everything which can possibly be experienced by means
of a single viewpoint. Unlike the previous paragraph's contention
of 'God's will', relativism refers to the idea that all of our experiences
result from our own will. It contends that belief creates reality
and that experiences are possible beliefs which happen to be presently
believed. |
|
|
|
This view is very illogical and not as comforting as some others.
One, it confers upon us responsibility for both present circumstances and
for creating any improvements. Secondly, it negates all truth and
therefore its own truth if it has any by its position that truth is only
what is believed (i.e. experienced). Thirdly, unlike the rational
idea of some higher consciousness guiding the destiny of all things, it
instead has everything constantly in a state of flux with the only meaning
behind anything being for the sake of experience alone. This is not
seemingly rational but with all modestly I must admit, somewhere in this
concept of a churning cataclysm of foundationless concepts a ring of truth
does seem to exist even though the concept itself precludes it.
|
|
|
| Rel.
2 - Part 3 --- Aspects of Intelligence
A connection here makes a confection there
of succulent sweet understanding
A grand new scheme or a fool's dream
breathes new life from old ideas banding
From integration comes inspiration
as the whole surmounts its parts
A magical song known all along
sings the completion of a thousand false starts
Pieces of genius teaches us leanness
as we strive to keep the feeling's child pure
Yet innovation is age's creation
reflecting prisms of hopes which never were
A completion begets only a depletion
of the striving forces we unchain
Each new design of our states of mind
is tentative and cannot remain
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the most prevalent feature of intelligence is its ability to unite
seemingly different concepts by forming a concept of a relationship between
them. Whether this relation is physical (between different sections
of the brain) or entirely conceptual is not relevant to the fact that it
is this ability to make such connections which enables us to reason and
to learn. Those who are able to see or make such connections which
the majority cannot can be considered exceptionally bright, artistically
intuitive, or mentally deficient depending on the nature of the innovative
concepts and the social circumstances and culture. |
|
A
prevalent feature of intelligence is its ability to unite seemingly different
concepts by forming a concept of a relationship between them |
|
However, what is of crucial importance in determining the value of hierarchical
reasoning is whether or not the assumptions upon which new and super-inclusive
concepts are based are indeed actually correct. This evaluation unfortunately
is limited by our present means and methods of determining truth and if
those channels for making such decisions are themselves in error then the
chances for reaching a more accurate understanding are lessened.
Also, if that were the case and our means of determining truth were in
error then we could indefinitely continue to build ever more inclusive
and towering hierarchical theories and models never realizing that they
are not accurate representations of the relationships which they claim
to show. |
|
|
|
So to sum it up in a single sentence, the validity of any concept stating
a relationship is entirely dependent upon the validity of the assumptions
about its member concepts and the methods by which we determine whether
or not such preliminary assumptions are valid. If either of these
is imperfect or flawed, then there is a risk that the resultant reasoning
is also flawed as well. |
|
The
validity of any concept stating a relationship is entirely dependent upon
truth of the assumptions about its parts and the methods by which we determine
whether or not such assumptions are valid |
|
We decide whether an assumption is true by measuring it against our experiences.
If someone says something cannot happen and we have seen it happen, we
are not likely to be convinced by their arguments. Even the most
complicated scientific experiments involving the most expensive and sophisticated
machinery all rely on the experiences of those observing the results to
determine whether or not this happened and that did not. All tools
can only enhance our abilities to see, hear, smell, or otherwise detect
and determine the existence and composition of objects and phenomena in
our environments. In the end it is the judgment of people based on
their direct experiences and interpretations of relevant data which determines
whether or not a certain idea will be considered true, untrue, or indeterminable. |
|
|
|
It is not inconceivable that even the most basic tenets of human thought
or scientific theories will one day be supplanted and rendered obsolete.
Even within only a few generations of history, countless numbers of sophisticated
meticulously detailed theories have been laid to waste by single mere indisputable
facts. Modern theorists who have been brave enough to entertain the
thought admit that all of their precious speculations of the nature of
things lay at the mercy of new and better ways to study and evaluate the
objects or events of their particular field which have yet to be discovered
or invented. |
|
|
|
It is obvious that not every assumption is endangered by the passage of
time and more intensive study. Many simple cause and effect relationships
seem indisputable. Any ideas based upon repeated and predictable
direct experience have levels of credibility not easily shaken. Even
when such experiences may be found to be limited and not proportional to
what else may be, such reasonings may continue to be considered valid in
their own limited contexts. |
|
|
|
This is the way I prefer to view all assumptions of life and the universe
which we humans entertain. Whether a concept is a vague notion of
belief or an integral part of the reasoning process, I elect to put it
in a category which may or may not be considered valid in its own limited
context. What does that mean? It means that since all of our
methods for determining the truth of any particular fact or occurrence
hinges upon our experiences and evaluations of those experiences, ALL our
knowledge is based solely on our limited senses for gathering and incorporating
information. |
|
All
our knowledge is based solely on our limited senses which provides the
means for gathering and incorporating the information we interpert, and
on tools which enhance those ablilites beyond there natural limitations |
|
To some the idea that our senses are limited ways of determining truth
may seem to be a foreign idea. Some others may prefer to believe
that it is reasoning which tells us what is true or not while not pondering
the fact that all we have to reason with is that which we perceive.
Yet there are those who understand the limitations of our sensory apparatuses
and understand that there may be true, real, and valid occurrences and
possibilities which to us would seem fantastic and extraordinary yet are
commonplace and even typical in the universe. Such phenomena could
be happening all around us throughout all space and time organized in an
infinite number of possible configurations yet we either lack the ability
to perceive them or have not as yet developed the innate capacities we
possess to experience them. |
|
Those
who understand the limitations of our senses know there may be valid occurrences
and possibilities which to us would seem fantastic yet are commonplace
happening all around us yet we either lack the ability to perceive them
or have not as yet developed the innate capacities we possess to experience
them. |
|
There is however an exception to which accepted truths I would cling to
tentatively. A concept of ones own existence apart from all else
yet interrelated and interdependent, this I find as a natural and necessary
function of existence. This concept should be solid and uncompromising,
and therefore well thought-out and well understood. In addition to
this conceptual foundation, I find that there is a type of feeling one
gets when confronted with an idea, a person, a thing, a process, or an
experience which can shake a person to the very core and force out a feeling
of irrefutable truth. This does not mean that such feelings are necessarily
true but in my opinion it is far beyond the power of mere logical experience
to challenge the validity of such an experience. |
|
A
concept of ones own existence apart from all else yet interrelated and
interdependent, is a necessary function of existence and should be solid
and uncompromising, and therefore well thought-out and well understood |
|
There are other less dramatic and impressive feelings which I feel go beyond
the level of direct sensory experience yet also are not very dissimilar
from it. Such feelings are common to life and often run contrary
to experience and reasoning but they still have come to be accepted as
parts of the human consciousness. Indeed, these feelings lie closest
to the very core of our experiences.
|
|
|
| Rel.
2 - Part 4 --- Emotive Base States
There comes a time in everyone's lives
when we cease to press on forward
and then pause to take our bearings
on where we are and where we are going
The motions of the universe appear to halt
and our very existences seem to hang in limbo
while our minds take stock of our intentions
and compare them to our lives thus far
Out of the world and deep within ourselves
we weigh the benefits and risks of returning
yet we gain precious momentum by confronting
the true desires we have for our lives
As soon as it stopped, life starts again
and the wheels of the world again turn
pushing us on toward our destinations
somewhat wiser and more self aware
|
|
|
|
Now that I have spent so much time and effort discussing growth and consciousness
putting forth seemingly halfway plausible if somewhat underdeveloped theories
and explanations, I will hereby destroy any possible remnants of believability
any reader might have left for this. I do not believe that conscious
thoughts are in any way relevant or representative to the real aims or
goals which we have for our lives and that they are almost totally insignificant
and irrelevant. I was right, wasn't I? |
|
Conscious
thoughts may not be relevant or representative to the real aims or goals
which we have for our lives and almost totally insignificant |
|
But before you totally write this notion off as nonsense, let me try to
explain. Thinking about things does not necessarily lead us to a
particular action, and when it does that action is often no different from
what we might have done without thinking (a gut-level reaction).
We do what we do and often what we think consciously has little impact
upon our actions. |
|
|
|
Obviously there is much left to be explained here. First and foremost
is how our thoughts have little impact on our actions. Secondly,
there is that nagging word 'consciously' which seems to foreshadow a cop-out.
To address both at once, there are other factors in our consciousnesses
which have a far greater degree of influence over our actions than that
incessant chatterbox which we respectfully call the conscious mind. |
|
There
are other factors in our consciousnesses which have a far greater degree
of influence over our actions than that incessant chatterbox which we respectfully
call the conscious mind |
|
My carry-over definition of consciousness as being an entity which believes
it has an individual existence, has aims, goals, or desires (existence
itself can also be a desire), and believes it is somehow capable of interacting
with other existences to achieve its goals, was previously stated in Relativism.
I have also stated in Relativism that in humans most if not all of these
conditions seem contingent upon our bodies. The mind itself seems
to have a lock on the first two conditions. It is through conscious
thought that we are able to conceptualize existence. Likewise, it
is the mind which believes it has sole control over what the body will
do and is given no obvious reason to assume that this is not the case.
However, by playing with the rules for a minute, I will show that it is
not the conscious grammatical sentence forming machinery which decides
actions. |
|
|
|
Desires, wants, and needs come to us without explanations. Suddenly
they are there whereas before they were not. Our logically reasoning
minds may rush to the scene to serve up some rationalization for this sudden
new goal or change in its planned itinerary but basically this process
lies outside the mind's control. Notice here how I avoid getting
into the Freudian ego theories. They may seem to be explanations
but, like mine, are merely descriptions of observable phenomena. |
|
Desires,
wants, and needs come to us without explanations and our logically reasoning
minds may rush to the scene to serve up some rationalization for this sudden
new goal |
|
This finally brings me around to the point of this chapter. That
is that feelings, both those which you would normally associate with the
word and some which you might not, are actually a greater part of our complete
minds than are our rational minds. This is not to say that the conscious
mind is not conscious of our feelings. It seems almost impossible
for even the most rational contemplative person not to be aware that he
or she has feelings. What I am saying is that those few seemingly
irrational or obtrusive feelings which we commonly call feelings are but
a small part of a much larger part of our consciousnesses. |
|
Feelings,
both those which you would normally associate with the word and some which
you might not, are actually a greater part of our complete minds than are
our rational minds |
|
Beyond what I call the surface feelings of anger, joy, sorrow, and such
there exist what I like to call emotive base states. If one were
to close ones eyes for a minute or two to experience how he or she really
felt at that moment, they might stumble upon one. Slight agitation
and a feeling of immediacy is common to those who are performing at a demanding
job. Indeed, for many jobs if that is all a person is feeling then
he or she might be extremely relaxed. Other feelings of this sort
might be irritation, reflectiveness, tranquil restfulness, and perturbedness.
Often we are not more than vaguely aware of these states and sometimes
our reactions surprise us when we do not fully understand how we are presently
feeling. |
|
Beyond
surface feelings of anger, joy, sorrow, and such there exist emotive base
states. One type is near the surface of which we are vaguely aware such
as agitation, reflectiveness, restfulness or restlessness |
|
If you are annoyed by this continual reference to 'levels' then there is
not much to look forward to as I find it a necessary descriptive tool for
this topic and I shall turn to it in other sections as well. Again,
I find that these emotive base states clearly resemble what I labeled as
surface states (joy, sorrow, etc.) and though they may go far deeper and
their changes take place on a much longer cycle, they are still quite near
the surface of our conscious minds. |
|
|
|
A good litmus test is how much work your conscious mind must go through
to probe these states of experience. The previous paragraph states
what I shall call the first level emotive base states, meaning that they
lie just below the conscious mind's perception. Below that it would
follow would be the second level emotive base states. This refers
to how we may feel about the general directions or present states of our
lives. Are we satisfied with the life we are living and do we have
reasonable grounds to believe that our expectations and vital desires might
one day be fulfilled. |
|
Second
level emotive base states refers to how we may feel about the general directions
or present states of our lives |
|
This emotive base state, like the one previously mentioned, contributes
greatly to our decision making about the choices which our conscious minds
consider. Yet it is impossible to determine the extent to which they
control that process because when we make a decision contrary to what we
might rationally assume we would decide (given the fact that we could realize
how we 'ought' to think in a given situation) we see it as impulsive and
the source of the choice can remain unclear. Such an example might
be suddenly doing something wild and crazy as a result of a deep feeling
that one's life has become too structured or predictable. There is
nothing rational about such a decision and certainly deciding to do something
spontaneous would not do as an explanation. I admit that if someone
valued spontaneity, a structured life would seem unappealing and they could
conceivably rationally decide to be irrational but this decision is commonly
understood to be made at an emotional level. |
|
|
|
It is impossible not to trace some decision to a basis in how we feel about
our lives in general or how we feel in general about life. From these
third level emotive base states all of our other actions and decisions
spring forth. To go back to what I said about playing with the rules,
what I have done at least at this point is to have changed defining how
we come to a determination about our lives from being an intellectual decision
to an emotional feeling. Certainly there is a case to be made for
both points of view though I prefer my own. Though we may intellectually
compare our successes in life with our criteria for happiness, in the end
the decision on whether or not to be happy or satisfied is an emotional
one not contingent upon success in meetings the goals we set for ourselves. |
|
Third
level emotive base states can be said to be how we feel about our lives
in general or how we feel in general about life |
|
I have already gone further than that. What might have easily slipped
by you in the last paragraph was the third emotive base state being defined
loosely as how we feel about life in general. Granted this may seem
like taking the intellect's theory of the meaning of life and suddenly
declaring it an emotional theory. Certainly one could argue that
religions provide such explanations and peoples beliefs in them would certainly
be described in this day and age as an emotional attraction and not an
intellectually reasoned conclusion based upon a fair and impartial hearing
of all available and pertinent information. |
|
|
|
Since morality is seemingly unquestionably emotive decision making, then
it would follow that all outlooks of life and on life which include some
basic moral tenets would also be considered emotive in nature. I
feel that it is the consciousness' feelings toward life which create morality.
It is from these feelings that the consciousness is created though, not
vice-versa. The feeling of compassion for ones own species, as well
as a slew of other established biological predispositions which are known
today, are in my view conceptual as well as physical. This is based
upon my view that the physical world is the child of consciousness as opposed
to science's view that it was the physical world which gave birth to consciousness.
Though I do not dispute that feelings, thoughts, and a host of conceptual
activities are intertwined with physical processes, I take exception when
one claims that feelings are mere chemical imbalances in the brain. |
|
Since
morality is seemingly unquestionably emotive decision making, then it would
follow that all outlooks of life and on life which include some basic moral
tenets would also be considered emotive in nature |
|
Feelings run deeper than science's ability to detect save one instance.
Each scientist is a person and if one is to understand feelings, it is
best done by experiencing them. I have said before that I believe
we exist in a state of mind, a temporal mindset. If that is the case
then it can be no greater characterized than by calling it a feeling, a
sensation of existence. And it is only by truly giving-in to this
feeling and relishing it can we even begin to approach understanding it.
To do this we need no more sophisticated instruments than our own consciousnesses
and bodies. We do not need theories to represent realities for we
are the realities and even the most complex representations cannot tell
us more than we are capable of telling ourselves. |
|
|
|
It has been said that to think is to confirm existence. If that is
the case then to feel is to create existence. The conscious mind
can run for days, years, or even for eternity and never produce one thought
as profound as a feeling from what we call the soul. And though some
like to think that the soul is an aberration of the mind, optimists like
me prefer to think that the mind merely gave it a name.
|
|
If
to think is to confirm existence, then to feel is to create existence |
| Rel.
2 - Part 5 --- Feeling Based Reality
Sometimes I wonder
what lies beyond our thoughts,
what can be but not be conceived
never to be known or taught
It seems to be pointless
seeking after what can never be had
To try to see what cannot be seen
surely must seem to be mad
Though they seem to be infinite,
what can be or be thought must have an end
Once the limit has been reached
things probably start over again
It is the combinations
which make it all seem so great
but even they too must be finite
in what they can create
That we can think
about what is which can not be thought
shows that our minds can jump the bounds
of what is and can be sought
|
|
|
|
What this chapter is about is using a loose concept of feeling as a basis
for understanding what may be the basis for existence. Clearly, if
we regard all the information picked up from our senses including the means
by which we perceive our own thoughts (and any other means which we may
have of perceiving ourselves), and deal with these sensations as feelings
then we would have a perspective by which to view the universe differently
than how we perceive it today. We might interpret the world not as
things but as potential for perception and the objective importance would
be, at the most, equal to our subjective interpretations of events. |
|
|
|
It is probably easier to understand and relate sensations of the senses
to feelings so that is where I shall begin. Everything which we experience
has some counterpart within ourselves and those experiences contribute
to making us what we are. Whether you call it memory or merely thoughts,
there is some record of what we have experienced which forms a basis for
ourselves. In Relativism I explained this as being, creating, or
copying a conceptual side of reality. I also attempted to tie together
concepts of conceptuality and potential. Now I have not abandoned
all of these previous ideas simply because I am now emphasizing the importance
of feelings which I did not do in the first one. |
|
|
|
All that I am doing now is changing one word for another to describe something
which is experienced. Instead of calling it a thought or a concept,
I am here using the word feeling because I feel that it better explains
the nature of the experience. This may cause some confusion to arise
and I will try to prevent that from occurring. All that we sense
comes to us conceptually or by the new definition of feelings. We
do not experience objects directly but instead as a series of electrical
impulses or similar means which tell us that something is or is not happening.
Thus our eyes alone cannot see, our ears alone cannot hear, and our skin
alone cannot feel. For such experiences to occur they must be registered
with some consciousness to perceive them and thereby be affected by the
perception. |
|
Instead
of calling it a thought or a concept, I am here using the word feeling
because I feel that it better explains the nature of the experience |
|
What might be a little more difficult to understand is that thoughts themselves
can be considered feelings. The ties between sensations and feelings
are more prevalent. However, if you consider the following examples
it may become more comprehensible. I believe that feelings come before
thoughts and that all thoughts are attempts to put the formless into form.
A person can feel what he or she wants to do before he or she thinks about
it. Indeed, often it is used in context with normal thought.
Thoughts are merely words of the particular language one has been brought
up in. When someone decides to go down and relax, the decision or
desire is instantaneous. After the fact the thought process comes
in and puts that notion into word form. If one is unsure whether
to stop and rest or not, one weighs the desire against prevailing circumstances
deciding which feeling, rest or social considerations, is stronger.
Now some may use this or other biological functions (such as being tired,
hungry, etc.) to say that one part of the brain can be aware of the
sensation before the word chain is formed once some threshold has been
reached. Since many sensations are thought of as feelings anyway,
others may say that this example isn't an example at all. |
|
I
believe that feelings come before thoughts and that all thoughts are attempts
to put the formless into form |
|
It is not just in biological functioning which we give predominance to
feeling. We may stop or suspend our thinking processes to decide
what to do on a particular day. This is led up to in a very rational
way by our asking ourselves what do we feel like doing that today.
At such time a number of concepts or possible events might flash through
our minds without so much as a single word being formed. This I consider
to be the pure form of thoughts uninhibited by language or experience.
This is how we get the ideas we are unable to express in word form.
When we get tired we can be consciously aware of our thoughts without words
because our thinking processes slow to the point in which they are no longer
seemingly simultaneous with feelings and we must make an effort a second
or two after the experience to register the thoughts or put our ideas into
words. |
|
|
|
People who are multi-lingual can also appreciate this for when a person
is fluent in two or more languages, rather than having to translate everything
back into their own native language they can reach the point where they
can consciously think in concepts rather than words. Thus they can
interpret and reply much faster than if they constantly had to be translating
back to one particular base language. The same can be said of people
who are not multi-lingual. If enough effort is put into developing
the ability to think in concepts (feelings) rather than words, we gain
greater speed and range of things to think about than if we started from
such a limited basis as a language which may be at best only minimally
functional. |
|
|
|
Such benefits are not without drawbacks though. Thinking in pure
thoughts, what I call feelings, makes it easy to think beyond your ability
to put such thoughts into language form before they are forgotten.
Also, it can be frustrating to run into concepts which cannot be adequately
expressed in words. The benefits of these drawbacks is that even
though we may not be able to retain all the pure thoughts (feelings) which
our minds can go through in a matter of seconds, this does give us the
ability to enhance the number of choices we have to select from.
In other words, we can scan categories or other groups to find what we
are looking for without the need to conceptualize individually or verbally
each one. Also there is no need to assume that just because the thoughts
are not each separately conceptualized, they are not being considered.
Such thinking for extended periods may lead to a negation of the need to
put things into speech-form thoughts save for communication. It may
one day even be possible to communicate by sending people directly thought/feelings
and receiving the same, that is if it is not already possible. |
|
|
|
Other benefits include being able to enhance ones own language by intensely
dealing with concepts which there are no words to express. Such concepts
are routinely discovered, or created depending on your viewpoint, and are
added to a person's particular culture. This has often been a gradual
process though there have been people and cultures which have had disproportionate
shares due to their particular institutions or predilections for philosophical
or scientific disciplines. |
|
|
|
It is also possible to go beyond feeling and view the world as the potential
for feelings. By this I mean that it is possible to understand the
world not by how it appears but by the way in which it affects you.
This is what I alluded to in the first paragraph by suggesting that the
subjective interpretations of events are at least as important as their
objective appearances. Subjective interpretations means how things
make you feel. Instead of people, places, and things being potential
for experiences, they can also be construed as the potential for feelings.
Again, this may be seem to be a mere substitution of words but the word
'experience' still carries with it a notion of fact based reality whereas
most can understand the pure personalness of 'feeling'. |
|
|
|
Therefore those that you love are those that you love yet they also represent
the potential for bringing out in you the experience (feeling) of love.
Those whom you may dislike can be viewed as potential for bringing out
negative feelings within yourself. The same can be said of mild feelings
as well as apathy itself. All experiences can be understood as thoughts
but if one understands them as feelings, one is better able to understand
the range of consciousness far beyond its capacity for 'normal' thought
in addition to reconciling the seemingly opposing forces of rationalism
and emotional reactionism. |
|
|
|
So what all of this is leading to is, as I have already said, a feeling
based view of reality. This means that all we experience affects
us in some way by changing how or what we feel, and it is how and what
these effects are which shape us and our opinions. We can spend all
of our time looking at the experiences' causes or we can instead give due
importance to the effects which these experiences have upon our consciousnesses.
Since by this point it is clear that I have less regard for the validity
of the physical world and its experiences over consciousness' abilities
to perceive them, it is futile to stress more the importance of looking
at the effects of perception rather than at the causes. If you think
like I do, you know that the cause and effect relationships are inseparable
and mutually dependent.
|
|
|
| Rel.
2 - Part 6 --- Common consciousnesses
Sooner or later
each being comes to see
that other's fates
rule his destiny
That this very self
is a part of a larger plan
soon follows from this
and leads one to understand
that the very truth of being
lies in a conjunction of all hands
|
|
|
|
We tend to think of consciousness as being totally independent things.
At the very least we see our bodies as being independent things.
Companionship may be required for reproduction and, to a large degree,
for peace of mind but we pretty much accept that our own heath is unaffected
by the health of others, grief and stress at others circumstances not withstanding.
We tend to think of ourselves, each of us in the human race, in singular
terms and take it for granted that we function autonomously. |
|
|
|
Thus when we think of our consciousnesses, for those who contemplate such
abstract existences, it is natural to think of them as being separate individual
'things' as well. But again, for the purpose of arriving at a common
understanding, it is necessary to pinpoint what a consciousness is from
which to work with. In Relativism I defined a consciousness or conscious
entity as being aware of its own existence, having goals or intents upon
certain courses of action, and its possessing the belief that it has some
choice and power of action to accomplish these goals. I also shall
repeat that these concepts are tied to our physical existences in that
these form the basis through which we come to understand our existences
and by which we hope to accomplish our goals. |
|
|
|
But of course, it gets much more complicated than that. Our consciousnesses
by the above definition, our perceptions of what we are, are not limited
to our bodies but instead are also based upon our relations with others.
Our perceptions of ourselves as a son, daughter, father, mother, friend,
lover, or enemy of another directly shapes our perceptions of ourselves
and greatly influences our goals or aims in life. Thus who and what
we are is shaped by our interplay with our environments. These associations
reach far beyond our small circles of family and friends as well.
We may see ourselves as citizens of a particular society, members of a
genetic subdivision of our race, ancestors of a select ancient culture,
part of a chain of believers in certain ideals, or as members of universal
orders, and all of these perceived associations both affect our concepts
of ourselves and influence our desires or aims in life. |
|
|
|
That our consciousnesses can be so greatly shaped by forces outside of
ourselves and therefore beyond our control would seem to indicate that
we are indeed only our bodies and our consciousnesses are mere reflections
of our environments. However, I feel that there is another force
acting upon the situation here and that force is change. Societies
change, cultures change, and people themselves change. Bit by bit
there are deviations from patterns of social orders and over time there
is evidence that all stratifications of societies are in a state of constant
change. If there were no impetuses or goals and aims outside of environmental
cues then societies would not change so drastically or so often.
Somewhere along the line our concepts of ourselves being to some degree
independent from the social organizations to which we belong, enable us
to reach outside these systems to find new goals by which to further define
ourselves and more importantly, to differentiate ourselves from others.
So all attempts at individualization by defining our likes and dislikes,
tastes and styles, are attempts at creating a truly unique mindset in light
of the overwhelming dominance of social cues and pressures to conform.
Thus, whatever the given culture or society, the drive for individualization
or the need for each individual to distinguish him or herself from all
the others will inevitably transform that society over time. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that we are not just our physical bodies because we invent
goals that are not pre-existent within our environments? Certainly
not. One could reasonably argue that it is from the genetic diversity
that is produced by the endless recombinations of the overwhelmingly large
number of possible configurations that the human DNA is capable of achieving
which drives one to express such individuality. This argument that
individualism has its basis in physical reality in my view is like the
question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Is individuality
the outcome of genetic diversity or are we creations of consciousnesses
capable of achieving as diverse a range of possibilities as consciousness
itself? |
|
|
|
Back to consciousnesses as being that which they perceive themselves to
be, having goals or aims, and their having the means by which to achieve
those goals or aims. Groups of people can be said to share a common
consciousness. When one person perceives his or her existence in
relationship with others and that group has concrete definitive goals in
common then a common consciousness can be said to be formed. Indeed,
that consciousness can grow and even outlive and out perform all of its
originating members. Thus all organizations which identify themselves
in ways that differentiate themselves from others who are not members,
and have some specific goals or aims in mind, are indeed living entities
with their existences and their powers to affect change based upon their
individual memberships. |
|
|
|
There is one difference though, between a common consciousness entity and
an individual consciousness. An individual consciousness has the
power to change its goals or its meaning, if you will. Most common
consciousnesses exist for a stated purpose and its individual members come
and go and are united (whether formally and ceremoniously, or at the other
extreme, totally disparate only holding vague beliefs in common) by the
fact that they believe in that purpose. This difference is not applicable
to those formally structured organizations which have hierarchical 'bodies'
by which to implement new goals, redefine old ones, and adjust to new circumstances.
These organizations include governments, organized religions, schools,
and corporate 'entities'. |
|
|
|
There are so call 'universal' common consciousnesses that we humans are
part of. Our species can be called one, though it is most certainly
cannot be called universal. We see ourselves in direct relation to
those others of our species and tend to generalize what is good or bad
as how it pertains to the 'life' of our species as a whole. We see
ourselves in other's places and often feel as strongly for others of our
race as we do for ourselves. Also, many or most hopefully would give
their own lives to save many others whom they do not even know, and in
some extreme cases even despise. |
|
|
|
Another so-called 'universal' common consciousness to which humanity may
be said to belong to is one called the Ghana, or planet consciousness.
Though this is not nearly as strong for us because the identification is
not nearly as great, we humans too see ourselves in relation to those other
species who presently share our biosphere. This consciousness could
be said to be the Earth god of many cultures and, like all consciousnesses,
exists long as people identify their existence in relation to its own and
share a common goal, in this instance survival. |
|
|
|
The one truly universal common consciousness to which Man is only beginning
to take seriously is that common bond which exists between all intelligent
beings in the universe. This I do not say lightly for Man continues
to feast upon, do inhumane research upon, and for economic reasons ignore
the plights of those species which we know to be intelligent. And
this awareness and belated compassion sadly comes out of fear, for as humanity
gazes at the stars anew with recently gained knowledge and contemplates
contact with other intelligent species which may thrive elsewhere, we dare
ask for compassion for no other reason save for a common bond of intellect.
|
|
|
| Rel.
2 - Part 7 --- Self- Perception
Head over heels
then heels over head
we tumble through
life's open places
with jumbled eyes
and jumbled minds
What's hither to
and what's yonder fro
mixes into a blur,
a montage of happenstance
that only we can sort out
or care enough to shout about
This plus that
then those minus we
leaves nothing but faith
in circumstance or chance
but neither matters not
for once both are spent
all that was has went
|
|
|
|
There appears to be a certain degree of hopelessness in the idea of self-conceptualization.
I mean that a being cannot succeed in realizing the full extent of its
existence. Now I accept the fact that all of what we like to call
intelligent beings such as ourselves are so described because they can
and do succeed in having some image of themselves. They realize that
they exist and can think about what that means if it could be said to have
any meaning at all other than being a matter of fact. |
|
A
being cannot succeed in realizing the full extent of its existence |
|
However, the degree of success that any being can achieve is limited by
a rather indifferent fact of the physical universe as we know it, time.
To know anything, to think about anything, or to experience anything requires
the passage of time. Therefore all that we experience and that which
we know and think, all must exist in the past tense before we can recognize
their passings to begin to further contemplate them. Our entire lives
are and must be spent living in the past tense. |
|
All
that we experience and that which we know and think, all must exist in
the past tense before we can recognize their passings to begin to further
contemplate them |
|
Now many would undoubtedly say that this is much ado about nothing.
Though it is accepted that there is a delay in processing information received
by our sensory organs of maybe a few tenths of a second, this certainly
does not mean that we are removed from the immediacy of events and actually
dwell in some distant future. I do not wish to say this fact of cognitive
delay is of undo importance. I only wish to state that it is most
probably a fact of existence and as such is worthy of consideration when
we think about such topics as time. Whether the delay be a few seconds
or a few nanoseconds, it is not as important as realizing that a delay
is present. |
|
|
|
So what? So there is a slight, almost unnoticeable time distortion
between what we perceive is happening and what is actually going on.
What relevance can this have to anything in our lives? Well, none
so far as I can tell, but in regards to self-perception it has some bearing.
If you look into a mirror, you are looking at the past. You see yourself
as you were a fraction of a second ago. This may not be as intriguing
as looking back a million or a billion years ago as you do when you look
at the stars at night, but in many ways it is even more intriguing.
You are not perceiving some thermonuclear chain reaction of afar, you are
perceiving yourself insofar as you can be said to be your body. |
|
|
|
But self-perception goes far deeper than merely looking at a mirror.
It is contemplating those dynamic ever-changing forces which are yourself
or will come to be called your life. Your goals, your values, your
hopes and desires, all of these are open to view whenever you so choose
to view them and are changed by your perception of them. And meaning,
that ever elusive all inclusive qualifier which only you can ascribe to
yourself and your life, that too is always up for redefinition or adjustment.
These are the blocks to be rearranged by the act of that which we call
self-perception or self-cognition. |
|
Self-perception
is contemplating those dynamic ever-changing forces which are yourself
or will come to be called your life, your goals, your values, your hopes
and desires, all of these are open to view whenever you so choose to view
them and are changed by your perception of them |
|
These aspects of ourselves are always available for reconsideration whether
we are willing to reconsider them or not. We often call a person
stubborn, willful, or ignorant if he or she is often unable or unwilling
to reconsider the value or necessity of some action or quality which causes
others uneasiness or pain. To perceive oneself is by definition to
acknowledge all that one can be said to be and to evaluate the lump sum
of those qualities and quantities of our nature. It is due to this
sweeping aspect of self-perception that it is not often done so in an honest
fashion. We tend to overrate our good qualities and minimize our
bad qualities whenever forced to re-evaluate ourselves and the value of
those goals to which we aspire. |
|
|
|
Whether we are honest with ourselves or not does not change the fact that
we alter what we are merely by the process of thinking about it.
Each and every time we are given reason to re-evaluate our worth, we receive
an opportunity to change direction and to face life anew on terms of our
own dictation. Likewise, every time we reaffirm our beliefs in what
we are and what we believe in, we are strengthening our commitments to
those courses of action or identities which we have previously pledged
ourselves. Either way we create a crossroad for ourselves and then
boldly or reluctantly traverse the path of our choosing. |
|
We
alter what we are merely by the process of thinking about it |
|
Somewhere between our stopping to look at ourselves and our finding something
to identify ourselves by, lies the truth of what we are. It is yet
another of life's contiguous circles. We stop to ask ourselves what
we are and it is what we find which provides the only indication as to
what it was that originally did the asking. Self-cognition is like
putting a mirror up against a mirror. The only thing that it has
by which to define itself is that which it finds outside itself.
A mind, when only having itself by which to measure, finds it has nothing
by which it can measure and nothing to measure. |
|
We
ask ourselves what we are and it is what we find which provides the only
indication as to what originally did the asking. Self-cognition is like
putting a mirror up against a mirror. A mind, when only having itself by
which to measure, finds it has nothing by which it can measure and nothing
to measure |
|
Those who possess elegance of words say things like 'it is by the searching
that you are found' or something like that. I do not wish to put
artistic turns of phrase down for I spend so much time attempting to achieve
them. I just wish to say more than that now. I long to provide
some clue how we can view ourselves in a way that is free of distortion.
I yearn to say why we are figuratively forever playing catch up with a
world (and ourselves) which forever stays one step ahead. As to the
former, I can only say that to view oneself from the widest range of possible
viewpoints available to oneself, whether by direct or indirect knowledge,
is the surest way to get a balanced view and a more relevant perspective.
As for the latter, I cannot with any degree of conviction say. If
there is no abject reality, perhaps it is not we that are behind but that
the rest of reality lies ahead thus ensuring that there shall be a world
waiting there for us. Then again, if that is so then there is no
future or past or a now which forever eludes us, instead only the now that
is us.
|
|
We
are figuratively forever playing catch up with a world (and ourselves)
which forever stays one step ahead |
| Rel.
2 - Part 8 --- Branching Out
I see myself in the center
of a ball that is spinning around,
never colliding with another
and never striking any ground
The rotation continuously gains speed
until the mass of myself becomes lost
as my identity fuses with the incessant motion
and my trepidations lose hold and get tossed
I see the universe not as a thing
but as a set of intercontingent motions
which sense each other through vibrations
felt though empty space's living ocean
An order arises around my spinning
as I fulfill that pattern surrounding me
completing the formation of a new ball
with each part intrinsic to its destiny
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a fundamental need in people to become a part of something
which is bigger than they are. Whether or not that something is a
collective consciousness as I have ascribed it as being is not essential.
What is of critical importance is to understand that there is a longing
in people to join together in a common bond of mutual understanding.
I use the common consciousness example of the last chapter to create some
sort of organizer by which to attempt to define and manipulate this potentially
ambiguous concept. |
|
A
need in people to become a part of something which is bigger than they
are |
|
The common consciousness concept goes beyond the notion that this mutual
understanding is simply that. It instead implies that this common
understanding or shared perspective is purposeful and that it forms the
basis of a living entity. A crude example of this could be said to
be our own bodies. Each cell is a living thing yet is also a part
of a much larger and more complex system which is what we call a human
being. |
|
Common
consciousness concept implies that this common understanding or shared
perspective is purposeful and that it may form the basis of a larger living
entity |
|
Yet this example is not analogous to what I am comparing it to for a number
of reasons. First, each cell cannot survive completely on its own
whereas each individual, to a degree, can be said to be an autonomous being.
Secondly, though I know of no studies one way or the other, I doubt if
any seriously disciplined theorists would contend that a cell of a living
organism does possess a consciousness although many might not completely
dismiss the possibility. Also, it seems that we are conceivably capable
of belonging to more than one common consciousness at once whereas we can
be relatively assured that our bodily cells belong to no other consciousness
other than our own (or their own). |
|
|
|
I am not saying that I believe that each and every role which a person
sees himself as performing is necessarily a basis for a common consciousness.
Though I find this an intriguing notion I shall, for want of brevity, not
dwell on this particular sub-theory. However, I most certainly believe
that some aspects of self-definition in reference to roles do create common
collective conscious entities. |
|
|
|
The simplest
common consciousness to understand is that which occurs between
a man and a woman during an intense relationship. Shared interests,
shared goals, and so on can lead either or both to believe that they exist
as one, that they are two halves which together make one complete being.
The fact that this is most assuredly a manifestation of the dual nature
of the species is not lost on me. This does not change the fact that
a change in such instances occurs at the very core of the perception of
what in fact constitutes those beings' selves. No longer do they
see themselves as a whole consciousness but instead as parts of a larger
consciousness. |
|
A
man and a woman in an intense relationship can begin to see themselves
as two halves which together make one complete being and redefine the very
core of the perception of what in fact constitutes themselves |
|
Clan and race distinctions can also be said to be of this type of bonding.
Though rarely is the mutual melding of consciousnesses as pronounced as
in the previous example, familial relations do tend to instill the sense
of a common unity based on genetic likeness and common perspectives.
In clan oriented societies members can often see members of their kin as
extensions of themselves. When carried one step further, similar
characteristics ill described as 'race' qualifications also can carry ascribed
aspects of clan bonds but often only in extenuating circumstances.
Usually those include the persecution of like others based upon those distinctions
of that faction by others of apparent dissimilarity. Likewise, if
humanity were to be preyed upon by a different species, the bonds between
the individuals and the whole race would strengthen accordingly. |
|
|
|
Another relationship which can so completely dominate ones perspective
as to have that person totally redefine his or her own existence to conform
with an outside entity is religion. Be it God or gods, the individual's
claim to a separate existence based upon seemingly overwhelming evidence
of singularity gets stripped away before the notion of being a part of
a larger omnipotent entity. Whether one believes in the validity
of this belief or not does not change the fact that this belief changes
the way, and indeed everything else, about how one views the facts of his
or her own existences. |
|
Religion
too can stir the notion of being a part of a larger entity. |
|
So my question is why. Why do humans so desperately wish to enlarge
the confines of their consciousnesses beyond the level of the seemingly
apparent limitations of their fragile individual bodies. Is it that
we are fragments, halves or less, which rightfully seek to cement ourselves
back together to make up some larger consciousness? Or is it that
we awaken to the fact that we shall grow no more and seek to persuade ourselves
that we can keep on growing using other's existences as a means to enlarge
the scope of what we are? Are all religions just feeble attempts
to escape the inevitability of death? |
|
Are
our conciousnesses fragments seeking to cement ourselves back together
to make up some larger consciousness or is it because we are aware that
we will one day die that we persuade ourselves that we can keep on growing
using other's existences as a means to enlarge the scope of what we are. |
|
There are certainties to be found. Humanity certainly asks a lot
of questions. Questions are statements of conditions or parameters
which allude to some possible resolution of its original precepts.
Questions lead to other questions and often they cease to be formulated
a few steps beyond which answers can be achieved. Another fact is
that we exist or at least I who am writing (or you who are reading) exist.
I exist as a part of a larger existence called my environment. |
|
|
|
The only important definition in the above set of facts it what I am (or
you if who you are reading this also exist). If I am my body then
I am indeed a part of a larger whole, my environment. This may be
a situation (a question) in need of resolution insofar as defining or determining
my relationship to it. Maybe my error is to see myself as a mere
part of my environment and not see it and myself as one, to join with God
as it were. But there are stages in between by which I can define
myself as well. I can be this plus this but not that. I can
see myself in conjunction with another human being, all human beings, or
all beings. It is this apparent fluidity of even the most basic concepts
of existence which have caused me to shrug off all labels except to think
of myself as a concept. A concept is that which it is believed to
be. |
|
If
I am my body then I am indeed a part of a larger whole, my environment.
I could also conceptually see it and myself as one existance, to
join with God as it were. But there are stages in between by which
I can define myself as well. I can be this plus this but not that.
I can see myself in conjunction with another human being, all human beings,
or all beings. |
|
If I am at all then I must be in some way that which I believe I am, if
not now then at some point in time if time has any meaning for concepts.
If I am not what I believe I am then there must be something which believes
I am not that which I believe myself to be. Earlier in this work,
Relativism
2, I said that the diversity among the possibilities for experience represent
the capacity for growth of the consciousness. It would seem pertinent
to add that the limitations of ones perceived environment are the limitations
for the concept of the self. God can be all that one is capable of
perceiving and no more, not to that being. Also, a being's concept
of itself can include all it is capable of perceiving and no more.
I do not presume to mean they are one in the same but both are, at least
in some sense, concepts limited to what is comprehensible. They can
grow only to the limits of that being's ability to conceive them.
To believe they are more than that is to believe in (without clearly conceptualizing)
a reality beyond conception. |
|
If
I am not what I believe I am then for me to be wrong there must be something
which believes I am not that which I believe myself to be. Also, a being's
concept of itself can include all it is capable of perceiving but no more.
Even concepts of existences are limited to what is comprehensible. |
|
If I were to believe that I am all which I perceive then I would be correct.
I am the sum of my perceptions. They are me and I am nothing without
them. If I were capable of perceiving another's perceptions I would
be them. I would not need to share their goals or desires, their
bodies or their worlds, for all of these fall short of being them.
To the extent that a person's aims or goals are them, these I could share
and still exist as me. But if I were to confuse perceptions, to see,
hear, taste, smell, and feel, and in every other way perceive myself as
another person (including memories) then I would be that person and no
longer me. This too however is limited. This is to presume
that these sights, sounds, noises and so on are not affected by some individual
impetus, some inner drives, desires, or presumptions. If it is these
inner drives, some purpose to life which makes a person who they are, then
I could share their perceptions and still exist as me. |
|
|
|
So to some extent, how a consciousness can grow and still exist as a separate
entity depends on how you define what is a consciousness. In my opinion,
if one believes one is all that one can perceive then he or she is correct.
If one is capable of perceiving all perceptions then one would be all of
those who perceived them. And if one were also the sum of all impetuses
to exist, then one would be all of existence.
|
|
To
some extent, how a consciousness can grow and still exist as a separate
entity depends on how you define what is a consciousness. |
| Rel.
2 - Part 9 --- Summation
Fragile is the branch
upon which our worlds lie,
forever swaying in the wind
of unimaginable storms,
storms that would show our helplessness
if only we knew they are there
Tender are the moments
upon which we build our lives,
uncertain yet always aspiring
to reach the highest of heights,
heights which we cannot know of
yet we believe in our hearts must be
Strong is the precarious bond
which binds us to ourselves,
pulling us toward the center
from which the rest has grown,
grown out and up above and beyond
whatever it alone could dream
|
|
|
|
It is difficult to try to sum up so may seemingly disparate ideas in this
treatise, dubbed
Relativism 2, in a few short pages. I admit that
what I am trying to say is not always apparent upon first reading and this
often seems annoying. Yet I do feel that there is worthwhile ideas
contained in these two so-called 'relativism' works and I do not believe
I have outright contradicted myself. Those areas where contradictions
may be thought to exist I shall now attempt to clear up in this summary. |
|
|
|
In Relativism I talked much about the notion of truth being relative to
one's views and viewpoints. I stressed however, that these views
to which I was referring were to those of some beyond thought realization
of some inner truth of existence. This led later to a discussion
of a dual type of consciousness with one part being ignorant and the other
supply the truth of which the other was ignorant of. This was soon
explained as the 'God' consciousness which is the only consciousness and
the conscious minds of individuals were said to be instruments through
which an illusion of a limited existence could be attained. This
so-called self-delusion of a limited finite existence was said to be for
our remembering of some forgotten origin and to create some obscure sort
of mental journey to regain an all encompassing viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Why this may be true if it is true was and still is beyond me to say other
than existence and action, however meaningless, is something. Another
perspective was that we may be part of a mental run through of all possible
variations of existence (all that could be), only also being capable of
perceiving our own existences. This an integral part of both Relativism
and this work, Relativism 2, on how we are more concepts of existence rather
than actual existences. |
|
|
|
This work tends to work from the consciousness' perspective outward attempting
to define why we yearn to become parts of larger consciousnesses.
This attempt also reaches an end when trying to confront why we struggle
to attain an all encompassing level of understanding which we have intentionally
forgotten. Also, if one creates the experiences which constitute
all that one has to work from to build upon, then the outcome of existence
seems very much predetermined. If this is true then any form of a
limited existence, if at all possible, would be nothing but a farce. |
|
|
|
To reduce the predetermining aspect of this another element is added, one
of a desire to attain a particular outcomes. Through interaction
of this impetus to create change with a multitude of possible experiences
being narrowed to single ones by the process which we call time, a more
realistic form of existence takes shape. Yet here, another flaw is
to be found. Any impetus to obtain certain outcomes inevitably comes
from the direct control of what is created. Any desire to affect
change must be based upon what exists to be changed. Here only a
consciousness divided approach can bridge any hole in any formal theory.
One must assume that a single consciousness cannot form any impartiality
when partiality is required for action. |
|
|
|
From this need to separate actions impetus' into factions comes all of
the dualities known to us. The concepts of good and evil, right and
wrong, the Ying and Yang, all of which form a basis through which some
independence might be formed. The final piece to the puzzle is that
the final outcome need not be static but open to erratic shifts as one
force dominates yet never completely eradicates the other. Though
this outcome too can and must be fixed it is impossible for the conscious
mind submerged in the artificial world to know with certainty which force
will prevail in any particular set of circumstances. |
|
|
Yet again I have attempted to take the may possible viewpoints and make
them one. But I readily acknowledge that this is only one possible
perspective among many, none of which could ever hold claim to be the sole
truth. There are many valid ways of viewing humanity and life, and
there is none that does not have its own purpose. Whether it is to
inspire some course of action or to set the stage for yet another tower
of conjecture to rise and be swept away by the tides of change, neither
will mean anything other than the effects it has on those who dare to say
they exist.
End of Third Section -
Click to go back to top
|
|
|
| About
these, the odd order, and me
I grew up in a time of great social change and questioning of accepted
norms. This greatly influenced who I am as much as what I do. When this
time gave way to another less tolerant time when tradition and unquestioning
devotion again were stressed as the highest aspirations of government,
religion, individuals, and society, I moved from wanting to work in government,
previously one of the major focuses of social change, and decided to instead
become a writer. These swings in recent times of social attitudes about
change, once embraced then shunned, do not now seem as wide, far reaching,
or extreme as they seemed at the time, and though this perception may bely
the actuality, in retrospect such sentiment swings always seem cyclicly
predictable and part of a slower overall social growth. Only historians
and people of many years see readily this long term approach as we the
young, the principle actors in history, tend to see everything from our
own limited experiences as either getting better or worse according to
our own viewpoints of how we think things should be. |
|
|
|
Though I will always feel government has the best ability to improve or
degrade the quality of life for its people, it is after all everyone's
master capable of controling our lives in the most intrusive of ways or
having us seem the more free the less times or ways it does so, writers
by contrast aim above the now, knowing what we say and do now must reach
some level of truth or universality independant of the age we live in to
exist in the future, the only true measure of its worth. At the very least
government needs only to make what minimal changes in the present it must,
and not self-destruct due to internal squabbling nor by blowing up the
world, to survive into the future. Governments seem for the moment to be
somewhat succeeding at putting off aspiring to reach greater perfection
or more ideal forms for the work of future generations. Yet people nowadays
can exert control over their goverments to improve itself in those rare
times they both realize fully they have such power, and also are willing
to follow through and excercise it despite what dangers doing so may pose,
from the minimal at having to go out into the cold to vote, to the other
extreme of having to literally risk the lives of themselves and their families
to secure that privilege for their children to one day embrace or ignore
as we do. And writers can speak to the hearts and minds of people through
any number of mediums, from the soul piercing fiction of Tolstoy to the
stirring exhaultations of and warnings of the dangers to democracy in the
non-fiction work On Liberty, writers can shape the aspirations of what
people can and should expect from society. |
|
|
|
By no means have I done anything in this vein. I am only stating what motiviations
culminated in this work. My desires to both plumb the depths of the soul
in search of some higher insights or truths, and to reach some social relevance
that would teach people in the here and now all they are capable of,
these lead me first to poetry. Poetry is a great tool for guiding thought.
It says that language and ideas themselves can be art. It is both contemplation
and searching the soul for the most divine of inspirations. It is a great
way of surprising oneself by finding within oneself undercurrents of feeling
and thought seemingly eternal or timeless. My attempts at poetry began
with introspective uneloquent simple mind excercises at putting my thoughts
of the basis of reality and existence into poems. This was much a discovery
of pin-pointing what my feelings were of such things as well as attempts
convey them. Though years later my poetry went through other stages, more
abstract and playful, then more political, but the first stage is what
lead me to the works here. |
|
|
|
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 infuenced 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 millenia
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. |
|
|
|
The original title of the first attempt was called 'The Tao and Me', and
was my attempt at describing my thoughts in selected poems and how they
relate to Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity which to me sort of blend
as one. It used certain poems of mine as sounding boards to force me to
realize what it was I was saying in them, though I was roughly aware of
the intended meanings of them, most were too short to adaquately convey
fully what each was saying, even to me. By trying to explain something
to others we can gain a better understanding of it ourselves, and I found
that to be true here. By trying to explain my beliefs I gained greater
understandings of what those beliefs were. After it was finished I felt
that it was not about Taoism exactly and embraced a more abstract notion
of relativism so I renamed it Relativism- Some Ancient and Modern Thoughts. |
|
|
|
About a year or so later after taking notes of things I wished I had mentioned
in it, or ideas not fully explained I wrote a similar dissertation called
Relativism
2- Other Possibilies, which simply goes further into radical abstract notions
which were unrelated though similar to the first as philosophical conjecture
roughly centered around the notion of relatavism. In my opinion, it was
not as good as the first (though I think the Preface
was well worded), nor was it meant to be, it was meant to address some
things I thought should have been added after rereading the first one much
later. The form somewhat changed with the second, it was not meant to explain
poems as the first was, but instead used them to setup or convey the general
sense of the paragraphs which followed. But the second did convice me by
the experience of wanting to write it that there was something I wanted
to say which was not addressed properly before. |
|
|
|
This lead me to writing the one I am most proud of which I have called
Relativism
3- People and Magic. I put that one first here because it really has nothing
to do with the first two, and can stand alone as a separate work. The intent
behind it was to set out to explain some of the ways which we view life
and how our opinions of it shape our notions of who we are. It complies
with the notion of relativism only in that by the time of its writing within
my own mind at that point I was convinced that the answers for all are
not the same to the most basic questions of what life is or is about and
thus requires exploring the fundamental frameworks that we interpert existence
by to understand how each comes to their own conclusions. It strays from
this and delves into conjectures about other things but essentially seeks
to work from within that framework begun with the other two works. |
|
|
That is, saying in effect, these notions may or may not be true, and reality
may or may not be different depending on how different people see it, but
if it is changable here are different ways that people define it, here
are my ideas about it, whether you agree with them or not, they are here
to define your opinions by drawing out your own opinions about them, knowing
that in your life you are constantly forming your own views, that this
is a good thing, and that you can learn as much from disagreeing as from
agreeing with something. Indeed you can learn more from disagreeing because
that suggests that if this is not the way it is, what then is? That is
the point where the real journey begins.
Click
to go back to top |
|
