Relativism Books III, I, and II





       Relativism 3 -    People and Magic 

       Relativism-   Some Ancient and Modern Thoughts

       Relativism 2-    Other Possibilities
 
 




   About these, the odd order, and me




 

Relativism 3 -    People and Magic
   1  Physicality    2  Eternal Life
   3  The Consciousness Specific Perspective
   4  The Concept of Fate     5  Seeing Beyond 
        Abstractions     6  Guiding Spirits
   7  The Life Story Perspective     8  The Other Self
   9  Magic     10  Persuasion     11  The Variance 
      Factor    12  The Ultimate Frontier     Postscript
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
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



 Part One -  Evolution of Intellect

 
 
 

 

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