Another except from my book on Metaphysics, (I have a working title, however I shall keep that to myself until this book reaches completion). I know I have posted a portion of this piece before on my other blog, Ishaiya Freshly Squeezed, so forgive me if you’ve already read it. However, it now sits in context with the rest of the piece, which adds to the discussion of how we perceive reality. I’m presenting it here in the original format, i.e. dated entries. Often what will happen is that I will re-read the material and add to it as I intuitively see fit. Another demonstration, I think, of how information is often acquired/created in a non-linear fashion, but how it can still have a strong sense of cohesion and relevance, and how it very much mirrors the way in which memories and experiences are formed.

*

Tuesday, 16 August 2016 – 12:10pm

“Distortions can occur. Knowledge at the terrestrial level can appear to be sacred because in and of its content it is seen to be codified, though it expresses little. It represents however, a grander aspect of reality that in its condensed form belies its greater existence. Relics in your historical terms would seem to be keys to deeper knowledge, sacred knowledge as passed down through the ages. Almost as symbols of magical portent that are able to extricate evil and wrong-doing in many instances from the malaise of the human condition. Such magic only exists in fragmented form, and is a distortion of its source realities.
Every object or indeed linear concept is in this way symbolic of its greater reality to which you each have access when the requirement suits you. Life as manifested through the human lens does indeed have much magical portent in your familiar terms, and shown respect will reveal its wonders to you in ways that may indeed be validated through your common means.

A book is a treatise full of hidden messages, most likely beyond the usual awareness of the author. The book itself, and its reading is an experience that will be personally tailored to the individuals who partake of its reality. Each person will read different things into the same book. The only indication that the book is at all the same to each person who experiences it, is in the common agreement amongst those who experience it, that the book is in fact the same. It is a cohesion of events that creates the uniformity of your mass experience, even though no such common reality exists. It is an illusion that in itself is highly valid, in that it brings together fragments of a consciousness that is never separate from all its variant parts. The illusion is that each of you is separate at all. Each book, each object contains secrets and mysteries yet to be revealed and discovered, as the inspiration for each comes from a non linear existence, where all possible realities exist in unison. Your thoughts do not originate outside of you, but are of you and radiate outwardly, if you will, to create the conscious climate that you both see before you and imagine within a more lucid perception.

The way to unlock the secret of a relic, indeed any object, or indeed concept is to simply ask what there is to be known about it. Your consciousness in the form of the imagination as you now recognise it, will respond instantaneously, providing you with possible data as if in answer to your question. The fact that you were able to formulate the question at all is an indication that the probable reality of the data was already in existence. However, because you see fit to constrain your reasoning in terms of linear temporality, you identify your acquired knowledge through the perceptive filter of recognisable categories: past, present, future, fantasy, reality. These terms, though useful to you, only represent your current limitations within the parameters of your thinking, and therefore stifle your ability to exercise your imagination, your consciousness within the fullness of your capabilities.
Your task then, is to recognise the answers that you glean from your questioning with some measure of validity. The more validity you place upon knowledge received, the more able you will be to explore its inherent possibilities. That something is merely probable does not imply that it is of little value. Indeed its value is great because of its adaptive flexibility. It’s ability therefore, to mould itself to your personal experience in the fulfilment of your most valid conscious identity.

Many civilisations have indeed crossed paths with the history of your earthly existence. The crossing of paths is an apt analogy as it expresses the variability and fluidity of the nature of reality and consciousness. To think of a particular civilisation as having existed within a very definite temporal period within your history is to miss the point of this discussion almost entirely. Time and temporal space do not converge in the manner in which you currently believe. Your current mass beliefs are a distortion of most valid conscious knowledge as received, and indeed created through the auspices of your individual and mass imaginations. There is no real distinction between the concepts of receiving knowledge and creating it. Both originate within the same conscious state.”

 

Wednesday, 17 August 2016 – 12:10pm

The notion of hierarchy is a difficult one to escape when it comes to thinking about the nature of reality from a metaphysical standpoint.
Even if say, we change the concept of time divided into its component parts, past, present, and future, and instead assign to these temporal place-holders degrees of perceptive intensity, we would still be saying, that which is ancient is in some respects more important, because it represents a potential foundation for our current civilisation, and so it has more of an emotional resonance perhaps because there is a certain sense of solidity about it, being that it has already happened and is fixed somewhere in the past. Equally that which we may entertain as a distant potential future carries more weight because it is something that we are aspiring towards, it bears the potential of undiscovered potential.
However, I’ve been toying with this notion for some time now, trying to change the nature of my own mental landscape to one less biased by the assumption that time follows a linear progression, to one that encompasses more the kinds of non-linear concepts that I’ve been writing about through these channelling exercises over the years.

Culturally, I think, we have given ourselves permission to believe that which is way out of our reach, like the distant past and distant potential future has some kind of mystical reverence, submitting to the notion that we could not possibly know or understand either reality, because, well, either one is likely to have been, and likely to be so very different from what we recognise as normal in the temporal now. They appear to be grander than our current mundane experience, and therefore of more potential value, because of what they represent in relation to our NOW. Although it’s worth bearing in mind that the temporal now covers the most recent past and the immediate future, which are both perceived to be within the bounds of the familiar and predictable respectively, and that converge to give us a nebulous concept of the present, which of course cannot exist as a temporal state as our temporal experience is in a constant state of becoming.
This sense of hierarchy incidentally, is an indicator of how we evaluate our perceptive experience as a whole, in that we treat our current experience with descriptors like ‘mundane’, ‘ordinary’, making a distinction between reality and fantasy, with the former implying a burden of limitation and responsibility, and a sense of focus that is meant to channel our efforts into the immediately significant. This is an important thing to note in discussions about the function and perception of time, memory and imagination, because it delineates the nature of our often very conscious thought processes, and the narrative beliefs that we impose upon our human experiences through the act of self-governance.

If however, all of these potential realities, past and future exist simultaneously, then surely they would all be of equal value. Or so would say a logically thinking person, such as I am. But my instincts remind me that the way in which we process knowledge at the physically awake human level, insofar as it becomes relevant and important to us as individuals, and en mass is the part we need to pay attention to. Just because something sounds logical, doesn’t mean that it is the only possible theoretical solution, with emphasis on the word ‘theoretical’.
Now, I’m always looking for the fault in my own logic, because guaranteed there is one. I’ve learned over the years that as all knowledge is subject to ellipsis, being that the processing of knowledge is ultimately a subjective one, defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is, then at best it remains hypothetical, and so exceptions to the rule must always be entertained, even if as yet you don’t know what they are. We can accept that the sheer breadth of what is not known far exceeds that which is, simply because the unknown is an immeasurable quantity, therefore limitless in its potential, unlike the known, measurable world which is limited and thus defined by its apparently quantifiable mass. In the acquisition of knowledge we make a very rigid rod for our own backs!

If we begin with the premise that all knowledge and experience is of equal value, and therefore of potentially equal import, then the knowledge and experiences that we have access to and encounter can be said to serve a very specific purpose for us both on the micro and the macro scale. That’s assuming of course that there is indeed a wealth of knowledge and experience that actually exists outside of our current perception, as my and other channelled sources seem to suggest, not to mention that this line of enquiry is indeed the fundament of science and academia as it currently operates. To varying degrees we can attest to that in that we take it for granted for example, that there is a whole world of experience occurring alongside our own that we have little to no awareness of, i.e. we accept that billions of other people are going about their day all over the world as are we individually, and that their experiences are just as valid and current as our own.
This tussle between the ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ can be said to be the defining quality of the human condition as it currently exists. It is fundamental to human life, and our understanding of it. We define ourselves by what we are not. The process of understanding then, is one of elimination and of comparison with our immediate physically sensory, remembered, and imagined experience. Our validation of knowledge is in a constant state of reinforcement, as it is in a constant state of flux. Or so it would seem if we follow the model that time is indeed a linear process.

Human perception, and the evaluation of our experiences can be likened to the words and sentences that string a page, being plucked as we read them from one end to the other, often in a very specific order so that their meaning is able to resonate with us in a coherent, and melodic fashion. A collection of these words can be deemed a body of work that will have a clear beginning, middle and end, and that will often explain a concept or experience in a concise and self-contained fashion. Similarly our recollection of events, or the way in which we analyse information might appear to be linear, and therefore uni-directional, because of the way in which we create and translate meaning. However, when examined more closely we realise that the internal and external narratives that we create are composites of knowledge that we piece together to create a cohesive and coherent whole, just as authors we may construct an essay or write a book. By design therefore, we create meaningful concepts and experiences that are anything but uni-directional, even if their verbal expression creates the illusion of a linear chain of events or processes.

However, any writer will know that an essay or a book will rarely be written in a linear, start to finish fashion. Such a work will undergo a lot of editing as the whole body of knowledge being presented is fine tuned so that it conveys as precisely as possible the intent of the author. The intent being to create a meaningful experience through a narrative format to which others can relate. How we create and relate knowledge both to ourselves and others follows a similar process, as we weed out the parts that don’t resonate or fit as well as the others within our approved conceptual models. Indeed the same process is involved in the evaluation and dissemination of knowledge as it pertains to personal and mass experiences.

The structure of verbal language plays a very important role in the way that we create and express meaning, and invariably in the way that we understand the world around us. As such our comprehension of the concepts of time, space, and the nature of reality are strongly affected by our need to verbalise our experiences. This brings us to another very significant factor in the creation of understanding, in that it is a collaborative affair which gains its validity from consensus with others having similar experiences. The fallacy however, that I believe we are frequently faced with, that I personally find myself facing, is that this consensus is regarded as the highest form of approval in the validation of knowledge, especially when that consensus is reached among peers of a notable social standing. This is often the point at which knowledge begins to be expounded as a set of absolutes, as facts, and thus as immutable truths. This most dangerous of assumptions dismisses the purpose of knowledge and its shared expression, if you take into consideration that it is fundamentally flawed by its hypothetical and superficially engineered nature.

Our understanding of time is simplistic at best, and predominantly based upon what we have been taught by the learned establishment throughout the course of our lives. As I currently perceive it, many of us have bought into the widely accepted social narrative of what is considered current and acceptable. Furthermore, we have likely also bought into the part of the narrative that tells us that questioning such basic assumptions is not conducive to maintaining strong social relations, because it limits the willingness of others to accept us into their adoptive social circles, and thus truncates our ability to be successful, and to grow and evolve in a healthy manner.

Knowing that, we can perhaps begin to forge new ideas and narratives based on a more transparent understanding of how our current perceptions operate, and discard what we have been taught thus far in favour of a less limiting avenue of inquiry.

If our core understanding of the nature of time, space and reality is solely dependent on maintaining good favour with others, then it would appear, to me at least, that it has little to do with a desire to understand the nature of these concepts at all. In fact it displaces the import and validity of personal, subjective experience in favour of appeasing the elected masses where knowledge is selected in terms of hierarchical importance, according to the accepted rule, and where the validity of personal inquiry is quashed, or considered at the very least to be whimsical and of little importance, or at the other end of the scale, the machinations of an eccentric genius. Through self-governance and limitation we oppress ourselves, and disregard the very nature of our own personal realities and the very valuable wealth of personal knowledge that we have at our disposal. Why? God only knows. Maybe because the fear of rejection is a much more powerful motivational force than we like to believe it is.

The only way to understand the nature of time, space and reality is to begin with understanding what it isn’t, and by eliminating the illusion of what it appears to be in order that we might develop new ways of looking at it.

I’ve been struggling most of the day with this particular article. Unlike my channelled pieces that are coherent by virtue of a lack of conscious effort on my part, trying to rationalise some of these metaphysical concepts through the tight focal lens of a commonly accepted outlook has been like trying to untangle a huge ball of knotted yarn. One has to affix so many caveats to such a treatise in order that it makes any logical sense at all, mostly of course, to me. It’s exhausting. I tell myself that that in itself should be an indicator of the validity of a commonly accepted concept. That if you feel like you have to dig yourself out of a very deep hole in order to create validity, then the hole really wasn’t worth digging at all, and that the concept was likely heavily flawed to begin with.
In short, our understanding of time, space, and the nature of reality as based on the standard social model is bogus.

 

Monday, 22 August 2016 – 9:55am

Our cognitive state is a purely metaphysical one, in that it is notional with no real measurable reality. Does this mean that our perceived experiences are not real, if that which is metaphysical has no basis in reality?

We function within our very physically tangible worlds based on our metaphysical principles, which medical science currently regards as an accidental bi-product of being physical. It’s just rude, and furthermore, highly unlikely.

We tie ourselves in knots with our linguistic definitions. We disempower ourselves, willingly, and devalue our very natures in favour of a brand of reality that is based on limited and highly biased evidence. Evidence, incidentally, that at best is purely theoretical, subject to change, and therefore not inhabiting a constant measurable state. If that which is real can be measured and quantified as an absolute, then none of what we might consider measurable or quantifiable can be considered at all real. In order for something to be considered an absolute fact, it must of its nature be irrefutable and immutable. Nothing on this physical planet is immutable. Furthermore, we can only physically measure the world within the bounds of our current physical technology, as read and evaluated by our very notional, metaphysical perceptions. Either our definition of the word ‘real’ is incorrect, or we willingly exercise narrow-mindedness on a gross social scale, despite knowing how fallacious and flawed our general education really is, and despite the very obvious discrepancies in our highly acclaimed logic.

If the concept of reality is metaphysical in its understanding, in that it is our good selves who give it definition, then it is essentially arbitrary and abstract and can only find reality through consensus, even though that objective consensus is based upon the individual subjective opinions of those involved.
Our concept of reality is flawed, because language is flawed. Language is designed to express concepts through a very limited set of parameters. Parameters I might add that have often been set throughout history by bodies of people who were intent on controlling the nature, the production, and dissemination of knowledge. The use and importance of language has always been and continues to be a form of sociopolitical control, though it is not the only means of communication available to us, it is however considered the most salient in our present culture. That right there should be fair warning to us when considering abstract concepts such as what is, or isn’t real.

12 thoughts on “Civilisation

        1. I was just asking what you meant, that’s all. I wasn’t being controversial. Actually, I did write about this as part of the book, suggesting that language adapts by creating new forms of discourse through either reinventing words or creating new ones in order to accommodate changes in belief. In short, I agree with you, though I think for new forms of discourse to become normalised takes time, and so in that way it is still a limited form of communication.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I know you weren’t biting 🙂 And yep, that’s pretty much the line I was thinking. It’s an enormous subject, but its held that existential death anxiety (fear of dying ignited by the awareness that all natural life must end) actually drove the invention/development of language.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I can see how that might be the case. Language and the ability to think in rational terms I think go hand in hand, both develop simultaneously as the perceptive abilities expand. However, if fear of death is our measure of continued survival, then only through consensus with others can we hope to ensure that survival, and language is a powerful tool, indeed weapon of social control, and of alleviating such fear.
              That being said, language is not limited to human apes. A number of other mammalian species have complex languages. Dolphins for example, are said to have very complex reasoning capabilities, as are other great apes. Many animals communicate through phonic means, but without an ability to translate what is being communicated, our understanding of the scope of cross species communication is going to be fairly limited. If language develops as a result of the fear of death, then what is the deal with other species – do they fear death too?
              It’s an interesting question.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. It is. And I can’t see any reason why they cannot be aware of their own mortality. It’s a neuron game. Turn enough on and you get predictive thought. Get predictive thought and there is one thing out there on the horizon staring abck at you: death.

                Liked by 1 person

                    1. Thanks for the link. Very interesting. As far as I’m concerned, animals display a range of emotion, as I’m sure you can attest to, which indicates to me at least the capacity to reason. If a dog can look and act depressed through neglect and lack of nurture, then can it not be aware of and fear its own death?

                      Liked by 1 person

  1. I’m interested to see how your concept of non-linear time plays out. That is to say, how your description of its true nature is revealed — if, in fact, you’re going to do that. I can buy the concept of space-time non-linearity, just as I bought the duality that dark energy doesn’t exist even though I think the theories that explain its impossibility are equally wrong. However, my “knowbelieving” what isn’t doesn’t help me understand what is. So my little brain struggles with the concept of nonlinearity because time replaying itself seems flawed as does the simultaneous playing of the past and present; yet I can still imagine that perhaps time is personal. If one is wholly unaware of the past, perhaps for that person it hasn’t happened yet.

    These are all possible, and while linear time seems to be as flawed as linear space, I can’t wrap my brain around the 10th dimension wherein it might be clear.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for reading and commenting, honey. I think my next post will help give some kind of an answer to your question. As we discussed, however, the bottom line is there is no way in knowing for sure how anything truly works. We can make big guesses in a general direction, and so long as they are applicable in ‘real world’ terms, then they have a chance of appearing salient, until proven otherwise, that is. But, the beauty of asking such big, almost non-sensical questions and positing equally big and almost non-sensical answers, is that it urges us to be imaginatively creative, and that alone is the only thing that drives change and innovation. Which if valid, means that our purpose in life is to do just that, innovate. To create something from nothing, seemingly, because it’s fun.

      Liked by 1 person

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s