Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Porous Nature of Consciousness

Frank DeMarco's book "The Cosmic Internet" describes how our consciousness is not just one single point nor is our idea about our identity a single quality.  The description of the composition of our individual identity is more like a set of qualities from multiple identities.  This combination of characteristics create our physical identity as a person, but even the person itself is not really an individual as we think of ourselves.  The analogy that came to my mind was that of an orchestra.

Consider that an orchestra is composed of musicians and a conductor.  Each musician is itself individual in terms of the type of instrument they play.  The instrument represents a quality or characteristic such as left handed, or blond, etc.  Just as there are groups of a single instrument, there are also groups of characteristics that are related.  From this pool of characteristics, we form a band.  The sound that the band makes differs with the different composition of instruments.  More bass has a heavier tone, more flute and you get a lighter quality of sound.  This is the same as each human incarnation being composed of different characteristics, some more dominant, while others quietly playing in the background.  Each musician is the consciousness for each instrument, and they know how to play their instrument because they defined the instrument.  In the same way, the characteristics are defined by the consciousness because it is the product of another human life.  I won't go into detail about this point, but when a human incarnation dies, that quality or characteristic is defined by the life that was lived and it carried on in the non-physical as the personality traits.  This is the characteristic quality that remains as "you" in the overall pool of souls.

From this pool, we create new incarnations.  The incarnation is a new identity, but what we think of as an individual must be seen as really a unit.  In fact, if we redefine the word "individual" to mean "unit", that is more accurate of a description of "personality".  The unit is composed of multiple characteristics: musicians.  Each instrument that exists plays their notes at different times, and at different rates, and even at different amplitudes.  A single instrument alone is too simple to define a unit's personality.  But add hundreds or thousands, and you get a complex symphony!

If only musicians existed, then who would control what song was played?  And who could control the quality of music being developed?  That is where the conductor comes in.  The conductor is like the identity of a person.  It is the overriding consciousness, or the will, of a person unit.  In fact, this conductor is both a conductor and composer because this conductor is also composing the song as it is played!  The conductor does not simply stand in one place looking over the musicians.  Instead, the conductor focuses on different musician to "activate" that instrument, to direct its emphasis during a composition, which makes that musician stand out or fade into the background.  This is the same thing that we as humans do.  We focus on certain aspects of ourselves at different points in time.  The athletic quality may surface in our youth, but then fall away as we focus on our intellectual pursuits.  We may feel more strongly about certain issues at some point in time, but then ignore that completely later in life.  These are the instruments or characteristics that ebb and flow in our life as we choose to focus or not focus on them with our conductor consciousness.  When we do focus on these characteristics, they themselves come to the forefront and present themselves because they are also consciousness.  This is what it means to have a porous nature, where your idea of consciousness is not a single point of reference, but is instead a pool of consciousnesses and which point you focus on changes.

With this analogy, there is one more aspect that must be included in the porous nature of consciousness: the audience.  An orchestra would have no purpose without an audience.  The songs they play would be meaningless without someone to appreciate them.  That is why we as individuals are not simple the orchestra or conductor.  That is merely the unit that represents an incarnation as human.  It is a unit because they play together as one to create music.  But if you include the audience, then that is the totality of the unit.  The audience and the orchestras is your "whole self" or the oversoul or the non-physical entity that you are.  This analogy of a concert hall filled with audience members, the orchestra, and the conductor represents that unity of the physical and non-physical nature of "you".  The split between physical and non-physical is only an imagined thin veil or partition.  There is no real barrier between the two.  If there was, no participation could occur between the two.  The music played would not be heard by the audience and the audience could not clap and be heard by the orchestra in appreciation.

This open communication occurs at all times, whether you know it or not.  Just as the audience remains aware and appreciative of the performance, they do not interfere.  They may provide feedback, such as if they do not like the song, they may shout in disapproval, or if they enjoy the performance, they may cheer in joy.  This is the open communication between the two, but that doesn't mean the conductor is paying attention.  The conductor might be so engrossed in the performance that the shouts or cheers of the audience is ignored.  This is what it is like for most people.  They do not hear the shouts and cheers because they are so focused on their performance.  The conductor might be annoyed at some musician because they are not playing their part properly, or the conductor might be too focused on one piece of the song and is focused too tightly on that.  They know there is audience participation going on, but it is just background noise to the conductor.  But others listen well and change course as the audience signals their approval or disapproval.  In fact, some conductors look towards the audience for guidance on what songs to play, and how to play it.  This leads to songs that is more to the audience's liking, but all songs are appreciated.

Now imagine the members of the audience as being other musicians playing an infinite number of different types of instruments.  In fact, the orchestra is the result of choosing audience members to form a particular orchestra.  And then imagine multiple orchestras being formed at the same time, each playing their own different songs.  The life of the orchestra is to learn to play the song together properly from beginning to the end.  The conductor leads and organizes them, and how well that is done determines the quality of sound produced by the orchestra.  At the end of the performance, the conductor and orchestra take their bow and the musicians return to the audience to listen to the other performances.  The conductors also returns to the audience, but becomes themselves musicians.  The conductor is the product of creating the orchestra.  There was no conductor to begin with for that particular orchestra, but it came into existence because every orchestra needs a conductor.  The conductor can be though of as the formation of bits of every musician in the orchestra.

This analogy forms the idea that each human being is not a single identity or individual as we view ourselves, but is instead the collection of multiple qualities that come from other incarnations of your whole self.  The birth, life, and death of a person is the learning to play the song of life before returning to the whole self with the finished song as a gift.  The song is whatever we choose to create through the choices in our life; the experiences, the actions, the thoughts and feelings.  Whether the song is long or short, it doesn't matter because it is our unique song.  The song creates a new instrument for the whole self to play and that adds to the quality of another incarnation.  This view of reincarnation isn't about an identity being reborn over and over again.  Instead, it is the quality or characteristic that an identity forms in a lifetime that flavors a new incarnation, but the new incarnation is itself a new identity.  The identity that is finished playing their song does not go into form again.

You as a person IS the song!  What you become and "is" is the song that you create, and it is what is heard and played by the audience.  And when you leave the body, you as the song return to the audience as a new instrument to add to the whole so that newer songs can be created.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

The question of "why am I me"

I've written before about time being an illusion, but it's always difficult to describe why it is.  But understanding what time is and why time does not exist is important in describing what you are and where you will "go" after death.  I started out asking myself "Why am I conscious in this particular body at this particular time in history".  It is in reference to why my physical identity is who it is, not about the philosophical question of "why am I here", which has its own simple answer.  I didn't have a very good answer before, but I think I do now.  A lot of my confusion stemmed from having various different ideas about physical reality, afterlife, etc.  Now I want to write down an explanation of how I see reality now.

Growing up Christian, I was always taught about what to expect after death.  We were never taught anything about before birth because Christianity is based on the idea that we are created at birth.  What I mean by that is that our SOUL is born at physical birth.  That is why it always talk about the resurrection, but do not believe in reincarnation (even though it is mentioned in the bible, but people only relate to it to Jesus).  Because so many people accept this belief, it's easier to believe in time, and thus everything has to be reconciled by the time aspect.  If one was in existence BEFORE physical birth and you believe in time, then you have to ask yourself "When did I come into existence as a soul?"  This again is a question framed in terms of a timeline.  But I've said that time is an illusion because of how we experience physical reality.  It is also why the common interpretation of reincarnation (the linear progression of multiple lives) does not work, which I'll explain later.

The physical universe is made up of what we perceive to be "matter".  "Matter" is just a word that was made up to describe something that we can perceive through things we call senses.  Because we experience our senses, and they are associated with a matter object (our bodies), we call them physical senses.  We take for granted that we can sense things at all and attribute this ability to our physical body's brain.  There is no doubt that the sensory organs and receptacles are connected to the brain, but the question is how does the brain recognize "things"?  A "thing" is a non-physical concept.  "Sense" is also a non-physical concept.  There is no such thing as "touch".  There is an act or feeling of "touch", but you cannot hold "touch".  The same is true for any of the other senses.    You can hold the things that create or enable a sense, but you cannot physically hold or point to a sense.  You only experience them.

Having said this then, matter only exists because we sense it.  And we can sense it because somehow, that input becomes a "known".  This "known" exists in "space", which again is a function of our senses.  We perceive matter in a limited way using sight, sound, and touch.  Space is perceived as a 3 "dimensional" projection.  But ask yourself this: "What is a dimension?"  "What is projecting this space?"  Again, we take for granted that these things are occurring; that space is being "projected" and that there are dimensions to be experienced.  Whatever your ideas of the cause for this, this space is the source of the concept of time.  When I say "projected", some of you will say "nothing is projected, it just exists as physical matter in space".  But if you take into consideration what I explained about our senses creating the perception of the physical universe, then it is a projection INTO our senses.  Light cannot be perceived if it does not get projected into our eyes.  Sound cannot be perceived until it is projected into our ears.  You cannot feel anything unless something is projected onto your skin.  Therefore, physical reality is a projection into our senses.  The assumption that space exists with or without our own existence is a mental belief and we project our beliefs outward (we share our beliefs, we teach them, etc.).

As an aside, those things you can sense physically does not mean there aren't other things that cannot be sensed physically.  It just means you cannot use physical senses to detect those non-physical "things".  But even our physical senses are really non-physical senses, simply attuned to detect a limited range of experience.  For example, we can only "see" visible light, we can only "hear" audible sounds within a limited frequency range, we can only "touch" in very specific ways (physical contact).  But those things you cannot detect does not mean they are not there.  You cannot physically sense the air you breath, but you know it exists (the feeling of the air on your skin is the sense of pressure waves due to the molecular compression of air molecules, but without that compression, you cannot feel the air itself).  In the same way as the "air" around us is not devoid of things, the "vacuum of space" isn't a void of "emptiness" either, but is instead filled with other concepts we cannot perceive using physical senses or instrumentation.

We experience time in the same way as we experience space: through our senses.  We perceive events in a sequence, and we call that sequence time.  Because we are so used to physical activities being sequences, we project that concept to the mental projections as well.  In other words, we think in linear terms; do this first, then that next, etc.  But in the non-physical (mental), there is no need to be linear in our actions.  It is only because we are so used to physically acting in linear terms that we do so with our thoughts.  This is the same reason why we interpret things we do not recognize in terms of things that we do.  Our entire language is created on this premise of using something we can describe or understand to explain something new or something we cannot describe using common understanding.  The feeling of time is just that, a feeling.  But it is as real as the perception of time passing.  In fact, the perception of time is automatically translated as a feeling, some more strongly than others.  It is the associative glue for our memories, allowing us to retain certain memories and not others.  This is why people who remember major events well can remember what it felt like at that time as well.  But those mundane events we do not remember, we have very limited feelings about.  That is how we are able to perceive time: our memory of the experiences associated with feelings.  So time can be thought of as a sense: feeling.  In a timeless environment, you will not be experiencing "time", but the feeling of experience which is change.  Again, these are concepts, and we only know concepts since physical reality is simply a perception of concepts.

I've said in another post that time is relative.  Another way to look at this relativity is in relation to which "you" in time you are referring to.  In our bodies, we always think of time in terms relative to our current "now".  So we say the "past" because it is relative to our current "now".  But if you put your focus in a past "now", then it is not the "past" anymore.  It is simply "now".  So depending on where your focus is along the timeline, it is "now".  That is what it means to say "all is now", because you can shift your frame of reference rather than looking back or forward from a specific point in the time reference.  By shifting your frame of reference, you recreate the "now", which is how you would have what's considered "time travel".

Before I continue, I need to clarify what I mean by "time does not exist" or "time is an illusion" a bit more.  The term "time" represents the concept of linear, constant, forward "events".  "Events" are what we perceive at any given "moment in time".  Outside of time/space, you have clarity of your thoughts and feelings.  The feeling of change is the distinction between one state and another.  Outside of physicality, this feeling of change exists as well, so the feeling of "time" exists, but "time" as I defined it (linear passage in one direction) does not.  While all things occur simultaneously, and one could go to any "event" at any "time", it is also true that you can sense the difference between your state of being before and after a change both of "yourself" and around "you".  This would be the equivalent of "time" without the physical body.  "Time" is perceived differently, just as everything else is differentiated between the physical and non-physical by the type of perceptions.  In a way, it can be said that what is experienced in the physical is also experienced in the non-physical, but with the main difference being how they are perceived and interpreted.  When you experience things in terms of "time", you catch glimpses or snapshots of the "now" moment, and each individual's ability to remember the "past" to put the "now" experience into context, determines the overall interpretation of the experience.  Outside of the sequential nature of "time", you now have the benefit of experiencing the whole as it is, without the sequential nature of "time", and thus your interpretation differs.  This is because what you think of moments that come and go are really one possibility chosen out of all existing possibilities.  If you consider that a choice can only be made because other choices exist, then it is the lack of experience of those not-chosen possibilities that it seems like time moves in a linear fashion.  But outside of this linear time behavior, you can experience all of those possibilities, and thus the sense of time isn't about linearity, but about experience and how it affects you.

Going back to the subject of reincarnation, if you believe that a person's whole existence, whether as a physical being or a spiritual being, began at physical birth, then you may have a hard time accepting the concept of reincarnation.  But I think this is due to the common explanation for reincarnation, not just because you believe in a physical birth-origin.  The common explanation says that a person being born is the result of a past person's life and that there is some kind of "karmic debt" that must be re-payed by the new life, hence their birth.  If that debt is not paid or a new debt is incurred, another incarnation must "atone" for that debt.  In all of these lives, it is supposedly the same overall person.  You can see now why people who believe in a creation-at-birth belief cannot believe in this idea of reincarnation, because it says that a person existed before birth.  But even if you believed in pre-birth existence, this explanation for reincarnation does not satisfy me because it implies a type of hell, where a soul is forced to relive physical existence over and over again.  A true "groundhog day" situation for those who believe in karmic debt.  My belief is that reincarnation does not infer linear existences of a soul.  Again, the idea for anything being linear is tied to the belief in the concept of time.  In this case, you believe that historical time exists, that a past exists, and a future that has not happened yet, will exist.  But this will create a problem for those who believe in a pre-birth soul.  It implies that time exists beyond the physical reality.  If time exists in the non-physical, then it creates the paradox of "when did the initial soul or God come into existence and how?"  I am not saying that historical time does not exist as actual moments.  I'm saying that the linearity of historical time is an illusion.  If you were outside the bounds of physical time, then you can observe any point in historical time.  The feeling of physical time is the non-stop forward motion through a linear path, dictated by our choices.  But without our physical bodies, we could stop that feeling of motion, change directions, jump to another point, etc.

I believe that reincarnation is simply the idea that a single soul has multiple life experiences.  It does not have anything to do with linear progression, nor does it have anything to do with "karmic debt".  The idea of "karmic debt" is misunderstood as a type of punishment, but in my belief, all incarnations are about experiences, and circumstantial repetition by multiple lives is simply a choice to fully experience that circumstance.  But this will bring up the issue of "free will" for some, as it implies that our lives are predestined.  While the circumstances of each life experience is set before birth, they are not predestined in the sense that you are not an unwitting participant, nor does life planning imply no choice since you are participating in the planning as well as the execution of that plan.  You as the soul defined the life parameters that you as the soul incarnate will experience.  Therefore, it does not exclude free-will.  And it is not predestined in the sense that the life experience is not planned moment to moment.  The incarnation living in the experience makes choices and determines the ending, even if the settings and situation is planned (again by you as the soul).  Planning simply means the probable conditions are more likely to be actualized.  All of the possible lives are lived simultaneously, in a timeless reality.  The individual lives are a new identity of the soul.  Some people use the term Oversoul to describe the whole self, while each individual life is called a soul.  In either case, the idea is that you as an identity living in physical life is an aspect of your whole self, living your life simultaneously with other lives of your whole self.  These other lives are lived in various times, places, races, situations, etc.

Now to answer my question about why I'm here at this time in this body, the above explanations are the key.  Without time outside of physical reality, there is no linearity of events.  So a part of me living in the 1500's exists in its own "now", while I live in my "now".  There may even be another me living in the same time period as I do now, but as a completely different person.  Some people will meet themselves like this and have the strange feeling like they are siblings.  You may see past relatives who look or behave in a similar manner as you and not realize why.

With this in mind, I believe that I am a unique portion of my soul, and that when I die, the present physical "I" do not reincarnate as another being.  It's the whole "I" that "reincarnates", or better stated, experiences multiple lives.  Parts of my personality will exist in the other lives, just as parts of them live in me today because we are all part of the same single entity.  This is where the confusion lies, because when people talk about reincarnation, they use the pronoun "you", but "you" can be in reference to your current incarnation self or your overall soul, since there really is no separation between the two.  I myself as an individual portion of the whole will continue "being" in the non-physical reality.  This has to do with what I said about perception being a mental act.  Our thoughts are projected outward and we perceive this outcome.  In non-physical reality, we still do this act, but not always as physical matter, but simply as energy.

Each corresponding life adds to the whole through its own experiences and perspectives.  The physical reality life lesson provides a means for learning through a cooperative "play", where you along with the agreement of other participants, create situations for each to learn from.  This is different than self-learning, where you create the situations and act through them alone.  What you don't know, you will not know that you do not know, and therefore, you may not experience such situations.  But others may know, and them being in the same "play" gives you an opportunity to experience such things.  That is why we incarnate together with multitude of other soul incarnates in this "play" called physical reality

While most of us upon "death" will not, as the same personality that just "died", re-enter into another Earth-life, this doesn't mean that they could not or would not.  This can happen for one reason or another (mostly dealing with an obsession or accidental death), but most of us who are not preoccupied with Earth-life will continue to exist in the non-physical rather than "reincarnate".  The way this happens isn't the way most people think because our ideas about identity is wrong.  A life is only an individual in terms of identity while in a physical body.  But when someone dies and returns to their whole self, they return to being whole, a conglomeration of experienced personalities, each representing a perspective and quality.  It is this pool of quality and personalities that all incarnations are created from.  This new creation from a mix of aspects of the whole self is a new identity.  And this identity, if it takes on a new physical life, can have portions of many past lives.  Just because a new identity is created does not mean it is separate or disconnected from the whole.  It is this misconception that creates confusion about what happens to us upon death.  We in a body were never separated from the whole self.  We are only blinded to the connection and wholeness while in the body due to the limitations of the physical senses.

Why create multiple incarnations?  Because each incarnation is an individual and a new being.  The whole self learns through the incarnations, but having new incarnations for each experience gives it a "freshness" so to speak of going in without any previous knowledge or understanding.  Thus giving the new incarnation a chance to learn something new.  This is the process of being born without any knowledge.  So even though the new incarnation is really a portion of the whole self, meaning it is an old soul, the new personality is fresh and without any past information.  This does not mean that some incarnations do not have past information from the whole.  Even that is a part of the planning, and in some cases, it is an accident.  The whole soul itself is a learning entity, making mistakes and learning from them.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

World must change

It's so disheartening to see so many people act out from a lack of understanding about what they think they believe.  They hold on to words like "Racism", "Inequality", "Conservative", "Socialist", "Capitalist", "Communist", etc. thinking they know what they're fighting for.

In truth, people are acting on their own desires, regardless of terminology.  Those who claim to be "Democrat" are really only "Democrat" on certain points, and only because those who claim to define the term "Democrat" says they believe in the same point.  But it only takes time to see that no one really exemplifies what they claim.  Even those who claim themselves as "Republican" have shown they are neither "conservative" nor "capitalist".  Most have shown themselves as self-aggrandizing through the use of terminology and beliefs.  Case in point: because someone desires to have an abortion, they fight against anti-abortionists who make judgments against those who desire it.  On the flip side, someone may have religious beliefs that abortion is a sin.  So they fight against those who desire abortions.  This has nothing to do with politics, and yet, politics take sides on such personal moral beliefs in order to pull supporters to their party.  In truth, this has nothing to do with ideology, but with needing to feel supported/accepted.

Those who choose to follow a particular party or ideology do so because they also want support.  They feel comfortable being surrounded by others who are like-minded.  This is natural in this world as it creates confidence and approval of their choices/beliefs in life.  Once enough support exists, some are courageous enough to act upon their choice/belief.  In a way, this is not a bad thing, since it makes people do rather than say.  But in the long run, the real issue is that people need others to accept them, rather than they accepting themselves for who they are, regardless of what others think.  This creates a need to force others to accept their point of view.  That is the tragedy of self-debasement - not believing in yourself and your beliefs regardless of others.  Those who believe themselves to be "Conservative" may believe these words exemplify "Liberalism", but then you missed the point: there is no such thing as a "Conservative" or "Liberal", just different personal beliefs.  There is nothing wrong with disagreement, until someone tries to change other's point of view, not by reason, but by force which occurs because they do not feel supported (how else would you describe someone who is made to feel wrong or stupid or incorrect).

Until people learn how to accept themselves, regardless of others point of view, they will feel the need to change others.  This includes those who think others are doing "wrong" or "evil", which ironically occurs on both sides of the same coin.  They are another example of those who do not feel secure in themselves and instead, try to force others to accept their point of view, and this happens on all "sides" of any topic.  Hatred of something, even hate itself, only creates more hatred.

There are only two ways in this world: assimilate everyone to the same point of view or accept everyone as being unique individuals with their own point of view.  To assimilate is what we're experiencing now: everyone with a different point of view trying to force others to their point of view.  The only outcome to this path is self-destruction because individuality dictates that they cannot assimilate everyone to the same point of view.

Those who do not understand this will assume one thing or another, whether it's applied to racial issues such as nationalism, or sexual preference, or monetary imbalances.  But until people start seeing the bigger picture, they will be lost in the forest of subjective ideology.

My personal opinion on how to solve the world's problems is that each individual must realize that they are capable of making their own choices, accepting their own situations, and learning to live as truly free individuals which includes allowing others their freedom of choice without fear.  It is the fear of something, whether it's death, or theft, or whatever else today that we call "bad", that creates authoritarianism - the need to force others to be like-minded.  Until people learn not to be afraid, and this will not happen until people learn who they really are and are able to control their own thoughts and emotions, they will feel the need to resign their freedom to others, to make the "best decisions for all", which gives way to leaders such as dictators, monarchies, and governments because the people let them be led with such promises as protections, offers, and cooperation, blindly disregarding the leader's personal interests.  And once authority is given away, there can never be satisfaction for all because each is an individual with their own points of view, and no one can force everyone to accept the same beliefs.