Saturday, October 29, 2011

Reality's many dichotomies

There are many "fundamental truths" in reality that people believe, but none more so than the dichotomy of all things.  We see it in all of creation, and especially in the abstract.  The concept of dichotomy is the basis for everything, the most obvious being life and death.  All opposing aspects, however, are merely two sides of the same coin.  What we think of as opposites are simply the two ends of a range.  In fact, I believe the genesis of All That Is came from the splitting of one into two or more.

At the beginning of All That Is, you had a single entity, which "slept" ("darkness").  When it awoke, it became two from one ("light, thus light and dark is born").  The moment this occurred, there was a birth of sorts.  The one whole became a mind and heart, thought and emotion.  From these two, comes the birth of everything else that is.  As one, it could not share in its desires because desire could not form without a companion.  Because of this nature, the one had to become two in order for each to compliment the other, thus making a whole.  This is a fundamental dichotomy of God.  God cannot express love without someone or something to express it to.  Therefore, the fundamental dichotomy was that God must become two in order to be One.  When this occurred, the Thought was able to express itself apart from the Emotion.  The emotion, being the submissive to the thought, was the power behind making thought into reality.  These two aspects of consciousness can be represented in many ways.  Man and woman is one way, left and right, light and dark, good and bad, right and wrong, birth and death.  They are all dichotomies because one cannot exist without the other.  We use words such as left and right to express these concepts of opposites, but they do not hold meaning by themselves.  You cannot understand one without the other.  In other words, "right" and "wrong" do not mean what we accept as those meanings.  Rather, "right" simply is the opposite of "wrong".  "Wrong" doesn't mean it's incorrect except by our societal definition of saying something is unacceptable, just as "right" doesn't necessarily mean it is correct unless agreed upon.  It simple is portraying a dichotomy of opposites where "right" is seen as being beneficial and "wrong" as being detrimental. 

Now you may argue that Mind and Heart are not opposites, but then you must define what opposite means.  Black and White are not opposites either.  They are simply colors that we define as opposites.  Right and Wrong are not opposites because one simply is the better choice over the other and it is the individual that decides whether they represent extremes of those possible choices.  So the term "opposite" simply means they act in different capacities or descriptions, and yet are complimentary to the other.  Even the concept of life and death are not opposites since you have to define living and not living.  If living means you are conscious of your existence, then you cannot prove you cease to exist after death since the only proof of your conscious existence after death resides with you.  Therefore, life and death are not absolute opposites.  Rather, they are simply relative opposites based on a 3rd person perspective.

The idea of opposites exists because, as mentioned, you cannot experience one without the other.  To have intellect, but not have any emotion associated with the knowledge means that the knowledge has no meaning.  There is no reason for any intellect without an emotional component.  In the same way, emotion alone is meaningless without having something to be emotional about.  This is why "love" exists.  Love as an emotion is pointless without something to express it to, which is why God used thought to create more entities from itself.  Without more individual entities to share the thoughts and emotions with, God (from its perspective) becomes meaningless.  So God itself became a dichotomy in order to express purpose in existence.

We too are learning through life about dichotomies.  We judge everyday what is best for our lives, we seek purpose for our existence, we seek friendships and love from others.  This is all possible because of the many layers of dichotomies at work.  Our right brain vs. left brain.  Our masculinity vs. femininity.  Our choices in life between this and that.  Dichotomies is what makes life possible by giving us freedom of choice.

Although we tend to see things as one out of two possibilities, that is not the nature of existence.  It may appear to be this way because we choose to focus tightly in to a single set, but once you move your perspective back away from those limiting choices, you begin to see the dichotomy around the dichotomy, giving us more and more choices.  For example, we see our consciousness as mind and heart.  But within the mind and heart, lies the infinite aspects of thought and feeling.  I think and I feel..I feel good or bad...I feel ok or great...I feel wonderfully alive or exuberant!  As you dig deeper and deeper, each side has many more choices.  Once you pull back, you can see the infinite possibilities from just two sides of the coin.  That's because to get from one side to the other is an infinite number of steps in either direction, giving us infinite varieties and choices and experiences.  What you perceive as opposites are actually the representation of the infinite possibilities possessed within a single entity, that is you.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Time and the illusion of Time

Time does not exist.  Time is something we perceive because we do not focus on the moment, but rather we are focused on the progression of moments.  Time does not exist because we are what we are at every moment.  However, we interpret that passing of moments as time.  This is all due to the nature of physical sensory perception.

In this body, what we interpret as time is the passing of actions. We also perceive time as the passage from one point in space to another.  In the mental state, you do not have passing of time because no action is done in sequence, but simultaneously to come to a new state.  It is simply a change of state.  In quantum mechanics, an electron does not exist anywhere and yet can be everywhere.  The reason for that is because we observe the electron in a specific state at specific points of observation (you take notice through the physical senses such as the eye in snapshots, like a very fast video camera.  Your observation, which is simply focusing upon something, causes the electrons to "fix" itself into a specific form and make itself observable).  Those observations are actions which progress sequentially.  That sequence of actions is measured as observed time.  If you could observe change (i.e. all possibilities) simultaneously, then no passage of action has occurred, therefore no time has occurred.  Same goes if you could experience a previous moment again.  You might say "well, I thought and thereafter, I acted, thus there was a passage of time".  But that is only the case in the physical realm where thought is translated by the brain into a physical action.  In the mental realm, thought is not thought at all.  It is action, which is interpreted as thought.  The idea of thought leading to action is because of the reality of the body.  Without a physical form, all actions are thought.

All exists at all times and nothing is static.  All possibility exists at the same time.  There are infinite possibilities of being.  Each possibility is a state of being.  That state of being is what you would consider "who you are" at the personality/psychological level at that moment.  This is defined, in terms of a metaphysical condition, where your energy is of a certain quality or state.  In terms of psychological condition, it is the state of mind and feeling.  In this light, as your state of mind changes or your state of feeling changes, you change, but what you consider time has not lapsed.  That's because no observable change of action occurred.  And unlike in the physical realm, your state can change back to its previous state, thus the notion of going back in time.  You can jump to the future by going to one of the probability states, but as you can see, changing states does not connotate actual time travel.  You can jump to any state, whether its in this life's personality, or another life's personality.  Changing of states is what the purpose of a life experience is all about.  Going from one level of being to another through experience.  You can only change states if you open your belief system to other possible states you can be.  This is why belief creates your reality.  Your state of mind is the only limiting factor to changing states, specifically, going "higher" or "lower" in state or level of being (I used the terms "higher" and "lower" because it represents change, not "better" or "worse".  It could just as well be "left" or "right").  This is possible because once you are out of the physical realm, time does not exist.  There is no space to traverse, no sequential action necessary.  The idea that you think and then act is wrong.  You act because that action was the thought, thus no time is passed.  An act is simply a state of being.  Changing states does not represent a passage of time because you can go back and forth along those state changes.

Consider your dreams.  There *appears* to be no rhyme or reason in it, although there is which you probably don't realize, but that is not the point here.  There are certain aspects that are familiar, but the dream seems to change states as you observe it.  This is the same concept of time.  You are observing something and that act of observing creates time.  Because what you observe is set in space, time exists because you are referencing movement as passage of time through space.  But if you were to step back and notice the viewer itself, you would realize nothing's changed and therefore no time has passed.  If you were in a blackened room and could not see anything or feel anything or sense anything, you would not know what time it is, how much time has passed, etc.  That's because you have nothing to observe as a passage of action.  The sun changing its position is an observed passage of action.  The feel on your skin is the passage of action.  And so on it goes, that our physical senses give us the perception of space and motion and movement and changing within that space.  If the sun did not move and the planets did not rotate, would you feel the passage of time?  If you could instantly teleport to a location rather than moving linearly, would you notice the passage of time?  If your body did not age, and you stayed the same in appearance, would you notice the passage of time?  You might say, well, I believed this then, but now I believe this and therefore time has passed because I used to be that, but now I am this.  But think about it.  If you switched back to your previous belief, at what point in time are you in?  If you keep referring back to a previous state to signify time passing, then at what point would you notice repetition and thus lose track of time?  In other words, if your idea of time passing was through a state progression such as A B C B A B A B, which point are you at?  Or what if you realized that you can be A B C at the same time?  That is another state D.  And if state D is the combination of A B C, at any moment you could be focused on state B.  In other words, because you can switch between the states you are familiar with at will, time is irrelevant.  It doesn't exist because at any moment you focus on a state, you are in that state.  If you think about a previous state, you are that state.  It is always "now" because action occurs when thought occurs, simultaneously.

The theory of relativity, I interpret, as being the observation of relative differences between states or moments in time.  It is not just about one observer relative to another.  But rather fundamentally, the observation of a change of state that is the relativity.  This observation of change in state is considered time.  In other words, what if instead, if time between two points in space isn't about distance, but of perception?  The warping of space is postulated that wormholes bridge two distant points through an observed space warp, but it could be argued that if you can warp your perception such that the perceived relative time is either slowed down or sped up, you would have the same effect.  We ascribe a fixed value to a time unit.  But that is simply a mechanical way of measuring a number of changes within a set interval.  If no change occurs within an observation, you could not determine any change in time as there would be no cues to give the mind an impression of time elapsing except through reasoning (mentally "observing" a period of time elapsing).  It is because there are external cues that provide change of state that we inherently feel the impressions of time.  Our bodies, the change in daylight, the invisible movements of the molecules even.  But if you take away all those physical observables, you would not sense any change in time.  Your inner consciousness does not think in linear fashion, though what we consider our consciousness (the outer ego) must see things in linear progression (time) because of the nature of action to reaction (a sensory input going to the brain and being interpreted into thought requires a linear set of actions because of the way the physical body works).

If there were no space, there would be no time.  If there was no time, there would be no space.  They are bound together and create our physical reality.

Traditional Christian belief

I spent most of my college years in an evangelical-like Christian church.  They taught a form of Christianity that said there is only one church, one truth, and they were that truth.  For a while, I believed it based on their knowledge of the bible, but eventually, I realized something was not right with those beliefs.  If they were the only truth holder, then we were the minority and every other "false-Christian" was the majority.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but for one Christian group to claim they hold the real truth really made me question what "truth" means.  So I left that group to figure it out.  It's very interesting what you will experience in life.

The thing I want to write about today is the basis for Christian belief, the foundation for today's interpretation of the bible.  The argument the church I went to uses for believing in Jesus and the traditional interpretation of Christianity is as follows: Jesus is believable because Jesus' words are true and reasonable.  Either Jesus was a master liar, a psychopath, or the Son of God.  So let's take this argument and see if it is reasonable.

First of all, this is not an exercise in denying Jesus' existence.  This is only an exercise in determining if the "true and reasonable" argument works.

"So, if Jesus was a master liar, then the story cannot be true."  One problem with this argument is that there have been many liars in our history that men have followed.  The church's argument is that people wouldn't die for it.  Well, there's been many cases of people dying for their beliefs.  Jonestown, Waco, Heaven's Gate, etc.  They all died believing in what they believed and what their leader taught.  Some may argue the people in Waco did not die for their leader, but that is not the point.  They put their life on the line for their belief.  So the argument that Jesus couldn't be a liar for a reason to believe is not a good one.

"Jesus was not a psychopath, so we can believe in him."  The problem with this argument is that their basis for this conclusion is purely based on anecdote.  They use the gospels in the bible to determine this.  But before you can accept the gospel, you have to accept the bible as the truth.  I'll talk about this later.  The premise that Jesus was not a psychopath is also an assumption without complete knowledge or details.  I'm not suggesting Jesus was a liar or psychopath.  Just that the arguments being made is not a reasonable argument.  He could have been a psycho, but did not portray himself as such because of his psychosis.  You see many people kill themselves for lesser causes, why not for a greater cause?  Psychological problems is not easily seen, nor is it expressed by the individual, so there's no basis of fact for denying this possibility.

"Jesus is the Son of God.  Because Jesus couldn't possibly be a liar or a psychopath, therefore he must be the Son of God."  Is that a reasonable conclusion?  Most definitely not.  Jesus could just be a messenger.  Jesus could be a normal man.  Jesus could be the main character in a philosophical narrative.  Jesus could be anything.  But to jump to the conclusion based on what the gospels say makes little sense because you must first accept the claims to accept this conclusion.  Therefore, it isn't the claims that must be true and reasonable, but the source of the claim, the bible (as we do not have Jesus here to determine his authority).

As I mentioned, the belief in Jesus is really not the basis of belief, but the bible itself.  Is the bible true and reasonable?  It's interesting that the majority of Christians do not challenge the bible's authority.  The logic for acceptance without question is that the Bible is infallible because it is the "Word of God" (they interpret the term "Word" to mean the bible or Jesus, as the living bible) just as it claims it is, and therefore, God would not allow His words to be distorted.  How they came to this conclusion is mind boggling.  Most, if not all Christians (and other religions that rely on a text source) accept the bible's authority simply because the bible claims a specific authority within the writings (anything can claim authority, whether true or not)!  We know the bible has been touched by men's hands.  It has been in controversy many times, but people choose to believe it has not been distorted.  They believe that one or two meaningless words changed does not change the message.  But that is exactly why the content has to be suspect.  If you can change one or two words here or there, how many other times has just one or two words been changed over the centuries?  To ignore the power that the church had over men is to ignore men's ambitions.  How were men controlled?  By indoctrinating them with the idea that the church leaders are God's representatives and that the leaders can only be the keepers and interpreters of God's words.  It wasn't until the printing press came about that men had the chance to study the bible for themselves.  But if you look at the history of today's bible composition, you will see how easily it can be distorted and manipulated.  The only basis for fact is the believer's faith.  But that is not a basis of fact at all.

The conclusion is if the bible is not verifiable, then how can you accept its words directly as the true message of God?  Again, I'm not claiming the bible is false or that it does not contain truths.  Rather, I'm saying you cannot blindly accept what someone tells you, just because they use the bible.  The interpretation cannot be verified because not only are the events written long past (the time of these events are unknown), but the original message may not be intact, so it cannot be used as a source of absolute truth.  However, there is and always will be other sources of truth.  The bible does contain truths, but it is hidden and not seen on the surface.  No manipulation of words by men, no translation by language, will distort or hide the hidden message that is in the bible.  That's because the bible does contain God's word in a form that Jesus called parables.  But not just the parables, but even the old testament has the hidden message as well.

I believe the old testament is a large collection of parables written in story form.  It is the message that man is composed of body and spirit.  That the spirit has lost its way and forgotten who it is and where it came from.  A veil of ignorance has come down upon it and has become "trapped" as flesh (belief that he is only human).  The old testament is filled with stories of Israel's captivity and bondage.  The true Israelite, as Paul wrote, is what is "inside" of all humans, not just the Jews.  He was referring to each person's spirit.  The true Israelite is the metaphor for our spirit.  The spirit or soul, having identified itself as being flesh and not spirit, has become ignorant of itself.  Therefore, it has become captive in a barren land of death and destruction.  The body is the barren land and it dies.  But God sent help when the people cry out.  Moses, Jonah, Joseph, Joshua, David, etc.  All led their people out of bondage.  This is also the message of Jesus: salvation of the soul from "death", which is the body.  It is the leading of our soul from the body's captivity that is the true message of the bible.  And this message is consistent throughout the bible.  If you read the bible with this context, it'll make some of the confusing things written make sense.  There are too many examples to write down here, but it explains what "Satan" means (Satan is the flesh, the great deceiver being this physical body, that you are a physical creature), it explains what Job's temptation and Jesus' similar temptation means (deny the spirit, live by the flesh), it explains why salvation is for all, not only the Jews because it is the salvation of our souls from ignorance of itself, not from the sins of the flesh (which is misinterpreted as well.  Sins of the flesh means you identify yourself with the flesh and its animalistic instincts).

So what is true and reasonable?  It is not whether Jesus is the Son of God or not.  It is whether the bible as interpreted by traditional Christianity is true and reasonable.  From this, all other beliefs from the bible stems.  Figure out what the bible's message really is, then you'll know if your beliefs in Jesus and ultimately the message is true and reasonable.