This following sample forms part of a chapter in my metaphysics book that discusses the nature of free-will, and precedes the material presented in my post of a few days ago, The Silence of Possibility. It is a lengthy piece, but I’m presenting here in its entirety because I feel that the sense of continuity is important in unravelling this complex topic. The section entitled, Man v. Robot I have posted before on my other blog as a stand alone piece, but here it is presented in context of the discussion at hand. This is still a work in progress, so the material isn’t conclusive, however, I feel it constructs a fairly comprehensive launch-point into what is a very big subject. Some food for thought at least.


Friday, 23 December 2016 – 10:30am

In a reality where there is no right and wrong, as proposed by the non-corporeal entities that comprise my collective consciousness, then it seems to scarcely matter what one believes. If things are destined, to whatever degree that may be, to play out within the comfortable framework of a complete and an infallible integrity, then the outcomes are really quite meaningless no matter what form they take. However, the voices of consciousness that be seem to insist that despite life’s infallible integrity, there is still a certain quality of experience that counts, and is important to try to maintain, not only during corporeal existence, but across the spectrum of conscious reality. That is the recurrent message throughout all of these channelled pieces.

It occurs to me however, that the separate, objectified self is hard pressed to make any sense out of a reality where it feels both significant and insignificant at the same time. It is often seemingly faced with a constant barrage of contradictory evidence that leads it to chase its own imaginary tail. When we talk about faith, and going with the flow we are in fact looking to circumvent the free will that we feel imbued with in allowing another force, another power, almost separate or greater than us to take over the decision making, while still exercising choice and thus free will. But within this greater framework of consciousness, it seems illogical that free will would exist at all. That is clear, at least from the vantage-point that is my corporeal reality and consciousness.
One way that I have tried to understand the dichotomy of free will versus mass consciousness is by imagining that the magnitude of probable realities and possibilities that such a framework would represent is so vast and far beyond our capabilities to perceive it from the limited focal lens of our human experience, that it would indeed appear as though free will were possible in amongst an almost infinite scope of possible events, and probable realities. Both Seth and the Sidiris have often spoken about concurrent realities that are outside of our perceptive capabilities, but that we are nevertheless experiencing through the web of consciousness at some level.
From our obviously limited human vantage point random events would seem possible throughout the course of our lives, but I have to believe from my own experience and my own homegrown disbelief in chance and coincidence, that the choice to ignore the ever present and intricately ordered pattern of events and occurrences on a day to day basis is a choice we are more than within our right to exercise. The power of believing that we have choice and thus free will is an interesting beast indeed.

It would seem that with our individualistic blue-print, we are therefore predisposed to some measure to create a certain reality in any given incarnation. I think we are flummoxed by such concepts as a free-ranging consciousness, because our beliefs are so integral to our physical and psychological structures. We simply cannot think like an insect or a flower, or indeed a non-corporeal entity such as Seth, or the Sidiris, because we have no familiar framework to work with, and through which to perceive such a reality, at the very least not at the waking level of awareness.

Many of the concepts that Seth and the Sidiris Collective talk about are just too big for our tiny little dissociative minds to wrap around, and to comprehend. Though, as they each assure us through their various communications, the bigger picture is always with us, it’s a part of us in a way that we can ignore as much as we want, owing to our sense of individualism created by a notion of free will, but that forms our very cell structures and our ability to think freely in the first place. We cannot remove the star-stuff from our biological make-up, anymore than the universe can separate itself from our beating hearts. Both we and the greater universe are inextricably linked, and that has mind-boggling implications if we indeed allow our minds to wander in that particular direction. It says that everything we don’t yet know about our universe is also happening to us on a microcosmic human level. As one inhales the other exhales, to put it in poetic and dualistic human terms.
I don’t mean to poke fun at the human condition necessarily, but this dance of hypocrisy that we as humans do in order to justify our individualistic existences, is in some respects very satirical. And perhaps that’s the key, in realising that we humans have been imbued with a sense of satire through an exercising of the hypocrisy of free-will, and that we should all see the humour in our thoughts and actions. Not take ourselves so seriously, because what is implied by this apparently omnipresent order of consciousness is that our integrity as conscious beings is forevermore intact, it cannot be tampered with or destroyed. This being the case, there is no reason therefore, to fear the unknown or the unknowable. Faith can only happen in direct contravention of free-will. But as all our beliefs, whether religious or non, are based on expectation, then we are never free from exercising faith, and it becomes obvious that free-will does not exist. It is a convenient concept that has evolved with us throughout our long human history that gives voice to an illusion of freedom from accountability. You cannot be held accountable for something or someone that you are separate and thus independent from. Thinking in individualistic terms allows us to believe that we have the freedom to explore our universe as we see fit, and therefore develop certain abilities, and seemingly advance in certain directions that other creatures are incapable of, as far as we know, even if that sense of individualism is an illusion.

Our individualistic and free-willed nature makes us arrogant. We place ourselves on a pedestal often without meaning to do so, because we believe that it is our basic human right to exercise our unique voices and to demonstrate our unique abilities despite the many other contravening unique voices that share the world we inhabit.
Some may be offended that I refer to each of us as being fundamentally arrogant, but those same people may also balk at the idea that we are at all connected to one another. Contradictory beliefs in the nature of our personal realities are commonplace, and they shape the kinds of tensions that provide us with the impetus to explore new facets of our conscious existences, and we see that as a good thing. Freedom is often the highest ideal. Freedom of speech, freedom to think as we wish, and freedom to enact our lives in our own unique way is what drives much of our human politics. When our sense of freedom becomes stifled, we seek to break free from the restrictions and create ourselves anew in a more favourable environment. This constant struggle for self-recognition forms the very purpose of human life. That we don’t appreciate that this is the case, is frankly a choice we are able to make.
We can choose to ignore things as we wish. We can choose to believe that we are either valuable, or worthless as we please. The fact that we can, indicates quite how much control we do indeed exercise in the shaping of our personal realities, and therefore the life decisions that we make. If we believe that we have no free-will, that we are destined to perform certain acts dictated and shaped by the greater force of the social dynamic, then we are saying that we do not exercise very much free will at all. But we know that’s not entirely true, because if that were the case, we would not be able to make decisions freely. That we decide to make decisions within sociopolitical frameworks does not actually mean that we are not free to make whatever decisions we wish, it just says that we recognise that there is a certain level of cause and effect at work. That every decision we make has an active consequence, especially if we wish to remain members of the system that we actively and freely choose to be part of. To say that we have no choice, is like saying that we are incapable of choosing or knowing the correct form of action to take in the fulfilment of our own personal human expectations. It would make us something akin to robots, and we are obviously not robots.
We contradict ourselves constantly in order to maintain the vision of reality that we choose to subscribe to. And this is what I mean about the farcical nature of being human. Even when it is clearly obvious that we are contradicting ourselves, we nevertheless continue with the rouse, as do others, because it is an expectation that we have that this is an unspoken rule to a very complex social, and very human game that we all play.

It can easily be surmised then, that much of the confusion and therefore tension that occurs in our lives is to do with the kinds of contradictory beliefs that we put into play. In deciding that we are going to be different from others for example, we put ourselves in direct contravention of anything and anyone that might stand in opposition to our beliefs. We purposefully create tension that will either help give us flight, or damage us. Even if there is some measure of consensus with others that the decisions and actions that we each take is acceptable, there will always be yet others for whom such decisions and actions will be a violation of their core principles and beliefs. Yet more tension is created. This statically charged existence of ours is what makes us human, and thus what makes us so unique from anything else. To a large degree however, it is a fallacy that we choose to perpetuate, because we are connected to one another in very tangible ways, and so the separation we think we experience is a figment of our very active imaginations, though this by no means negates the validity of individual experience. We have just evolved to think differently than the other creatures who inhabit our world.

We haven’t entirely divorced ourselves from our trademark creature-hood, because we still have a sense of instinct to varying degrees. We accept that for the most part the biological organism that is our body seems to run on automatic, without much thought, so long as we maintain basic physical needs, we seem to tick along just fine. We could say then, that our ability to breathe is instinctive. We do it without thinking. Our need to eat and sleep is also instinctive, and these basic needs we accept as a given to our continued survival. Yet oddly, we can choose to hold our breath without much effort, and therefore disrupt the normally instinctive flow of bodily events in a way that very much goes against our instinctive drive to continue breathing. After a few seconds, perhaps minutes we would say that instinct kicks back in and our need to continue breathing normally again becomes overwhelming. Yet we can still choose to contravene that instinct. We are certainly not governed or controlled by instinct alone.
It could be said then, that instinct is a guiding force, that our need to continue breathing in a regular and timely fashion is important in the continuation of our perceived existence. Without our continued ability to breathe, and thus continue with our lives, we could no longer perceive life as we do. In fact, life as we know it would cease to exist. So, paying attention to instinct is both important to our continued survival, and necessary when it comes to making important decisions in exercising our unique brand of free-will. What this also points out is that going against our natural instincts will invariably cause tension, and may not be conducive to promoting good health and well-being.
The above breathing exercise should also demonstrate the way in which our psychological states are very much intertwined with our physical states. Therefore, in order to maintain continued physical health, we need to maintain a healthy state of mind, by eliminating as many possible tensions or contradictions as we are capable of recognising. However, understanding the extent of our capabilities as conscious human beings requires a free-ranging mind, and an imagination that can freely explore all possibilities and outcomes from potential decisions. We regard the rational mind as the pinnacle of intelligence, and as our crowning glory amongst the creatures of this world. It is supposedly what sets us apart, not only from the rest of the animal kingdom, but from one another to varying degrees. It is the cause of many a celebration and argument in equal measure. Yet without it, we would be entirely at the mercy of instinct alone, like most other creatures.
Free-will makes us both intelligent and stupid. Without free-will and the workings of the rational mind, concepts such as intelligence and stupidity would not exist. There would be no need to define reality in such a way. That we do as humans is both our weakness and our strength.

The thing that has often troubled me however, in the melee of metaphysical theory is that we humans only really seem to be happy when we follow our instincts, and when we commit to blind faith for the cause of finding goodness and new possibility. When we throw caution to the wind, and give ourselves permission to follow our instincts, then oddly, we seem to feel the most free. What it tells us is that free-will is not what we think it is, and that being content and fulfilled with and by life is not dependent on our ability to say, “no”. In fact, by embracing our human nature, our instinctive drive to breathe from one second to the next is fundamental to our enjoyment of life, and that giving ourselves permission to enjoy our every breath is more than acceptable and indeed a prerequisite to being fulfilled and happy. If breathing doesn’t give you joy, then you are in much trouble indeed, and perhaps its time to reevaluate your beliefs about life and exactly what it means to you.

Free-will and thus our ability to make open decisions has the odd effect of both expanding our awareness, but also limiting it. It would seem that our freedom to think pulls us in very unilateral directions. In fact both words imply a notional vector leading from one point to another. Our ability to think so freely is often heavily guided by verbal language, with any experience falling outside of a linear explanation failing to be qualified as valid. Yet language does not define the way we think, it merely helps us express the way we think, though it automatically sets up a precedent for the kinds of things that can be expressed. Free thought then, is hampered by our need to describe our experiences through verbal language. Furthermore, the importance we place on verbal language in communicating and sharing our ideas with others automatically limits our perceptions of what is acceptable and valid. You can understand then, that many of us feel that our creative free-expression is curtailed by our inability to communicate with any kind of efficacy the degree of our individuality and uniqueness, through language alone. Verbal communication is an encumbrance, and our reliance upon it causes many unnecessary tensions that do not need much explanation to envisage and understand.

With a free-roaming imagination we are able to compare and contrast ideas, and therefore memory is created. Imagination and memory are one and the same thing. That we believe that they are separate things is just a point of convenience in our evaluation and understanding of our human experiences. We are naturally predisposed to separate and therefore categorise our experiences, in the way that we separate instinct and free-will, or ourselves from others and our environment. Our very dualistic perception of reality is a facet of this predisposition. Free-will is dependent on our fundamental ability to make choices, and to either say “yes” or “no” throughout the course of our lives. It shapes our perception of our human lives in very a definite direction, though this sense of direction is an illusion created by the way we choose to express, communicate, and thus remember our experiences. Time only exists within the framework of a free-ranging imagination, and the way in which we choose to apply that imagination to our physical existences.
We cannot know whether time exists outside of our perception of it, because we only have our own experiences of it to refer to. Our perception of time is as dependent on verbal expression as our need to communicate our individuality is, and as such it suffers from the same constraints. In order to perceive life in a timely fashion, we must negate other perfectly possible realities that cannot be communicated through the linearity of verbal language. We in fact purposely limit our ability to think freely by choosing to be dependent on verbal communication, in our thinking and in our actions.The inevitability of our lives often eludes us because we cannot in fact separate thought from action, or instinct from free-will, while simultaneously telling ourselves the complete opposite is true.
It is inevitable that we will shape our realities and our lives according to our core beliefs. This becomes an inescapable reality once we have created it in our minds. We choose to believe that we are separate from the world around us because we are predisposed to do so. But we are reliant on our physical senses in order to inform us that this is true. What we deem as true is however, dependent on our beliefs about what is true and what is real, according to the wider beliefs often held within our social structures. What we know is that if we stop breathing, life as we know it stops. Does consciousness then cease to exist, along with the physical form?
We have an imagination that is able to explore the possibilities of a consciousness that exists irrespective of physical life. In fact the beauty and excitement of an imagination that is capable of exploring such ideas in almost limitless fashion is our saving grace, and the very thing that gives us the impetus to continue breathing from one moment to the next. It allows us to think ourselves human and to explore all of its potentials in almost limitless fashion.

To talk about consciousness as a thing separate from physical existence is ludicrous. But as we insist on knowing so little about the nature of consciousness through the application of strict controls, such that scientific theory is bound to, then we cannot fully explore its potential as existing beyond the physical vehicle. We are currently detained in the western culture by the premise that if something cannot be measured and thus perceived through the physical senses, from the ‘real’ world that it cannot be proven and therefore has no validity. It is an erroneous premise, because it automatically negates the existence of imagination and consciousness.


Artificial intelligence: Man versus Robot.

Consciousness is a term we use to explain the nature of imagination and free-will, even though we don’t really know what it means; that spark that brings the very physical to life. Yet what is consciousness, how do we actually recognise it?
What is it that defines consciousness?
How do we make the distinction between man and machine, for example?
When we begin to examine the concept of consciousness, we might identify it as a set actions, impulses, chemical reactions that follow very definite patterns that are recognisable as that which makes something ‘alive’. If then, a machine is programmed to emulate those definitive patterns, would it not be considered as living?
If life depends on mechanical biological action, then what role does a concept of consciousness actually play?
Furthermore, if free-will is based on an illusion of a vast number of permutations and variables available to us through the scope of random cause and effect, then the only thing restricting the machine from exercising its own form of free will is a powerful enough computer, such as is the animalistic brain and neural cortex, that will allow it to perform such decision-making capabilities. If that were possible, would the machine then be deemed as exhibiting a state of consciousness?
A recent study of life after death carried out in 2016 attested to test subjects having an awareness of the room they were in even when their physical organism had stopped working and had therefore been pronounced clinically dead, even if only momentarily before being resuscitated. Whether such a thing is possible, either the study itself or the concept that consciousness can exist irrespective of the physical form is open to debate. However, the kind of consciousness that Seth and the Sidiris have often talked about is exactly the kind that exists beyond the manifestation of the physical organism, and is said to be the so called engine of the physical organism in the first place. One cannot be seen as being separate from the other according to this premise. If physical life is not the be all and end all of conscious existence, then we have a lot to think about and re-evaluate.
Limiting the extent of our belief structures and therefore the nature of our experiences both shapes who we believe ourselves to be, and curtails our potential understanding of what our lives mean to us. Without consciousness there is no imagination. Without imagination there is no meaning, and without meaning life is without purpose. No matter how lacking in spirituality we might believe ourselves to be, or however logical or rational we may see ourselves as being, we cannot deny the importance of applying meaning to our existence. Without meaning or the ability to mentally rationalise, we have no point of reference with which to relay experience in the way that we do, and we become solely dependent on biological instinct in order to ensure our physical survival. We would become biological machines with no real reason to exist other than to follow the forces of a random biological nature. Yet that is clearly not the case. A purely biological machine would have no need of an imagination. We would be no different than a flower for example. Indeed, many would laugh at the concept of a plant as having any imagination whatsoever, yet it lives quite happily without one apparently, that is if you can equate happiness with healthy productivity. Just another biological organism that functions in very complex, definite, but accidental ways.
We claim to understand the concept of being conscious without really understanding consciousness in a way that is observable to us. We might tell ourselves that even though we can imagine something into possibility, that it would not be physically possible given the current parameters of our accepted beliefs, that being the current acceptable laws of physics. It becomes apparent therefore, that the only real delimiter here is our unrelenting insistence on the veracity of the beliefs that we subscribe to, and indeed what we consider truthful and therefore real. Because we believe that such and such is true, then it is until we have an experience that causes us to re-evaluate our particular brand of truths.
The infallibility of the human brand of logic is that it is very fallible indeed. It can only be based on what we allow to manifest within our range of personal experience. An experience of an event within our external environment is still evaluated through the lens of private perception. Events occur and exist because we decide that they do. We assign values and meanings to them that allow them to become memory, and form the ongoing narrative of our lives. We assign personal meanings to these memory events that give substance to our sense of personal and social identity. Physiological responses however, are not dependent on direct collaborative physical experience in order to manifest and to have an effect on the physical organism, or the kinds of choices that the physical organism decides to make in its continued existence. Psychosomatic conditions are a demonstration of that. In fact, memories are a common and frequent demonstration of that, where memories from childhood for example, can be triggered with vivid clarity so that we re-experience them anew in full sensory Technicolor. The expectation of one breath following on from another is another demonstration of a psychosomatic reality as it translates into potential physical action. There is nothing in our observable world that we could pinpoint as giving us a reason to keep inhaling and exhaling and yet we do, quite divorced from the events happening directly before us in the physical environment, or the psychological events occurring in our minds and bodies.
Most of us have been taught to differentiate between experiences as if each nuanced sensory event were indeed suspended in its own little bubble of meaning.
Separate languages, national identities, cultural beliefs arise and are shaped because of this very human quirk. Some may be very quick to interject with a , “yes, but…”, however, analysis is how we make sense of the world we live in and how we understand our positions within it, though it is a product of quite conscious imagination simplified into terms that are mutually intelligible within the human community, and that follow the conventions that we put into place through consensus. That we perceive imagination as being separate from what is physical and therefore what is ‘real’ is a failing of understanding on our part as unique individuals. It isn’t anybody else’s fault that we choose to believe what we do, and to hold in high regard the beliefs that convene best to our own personal self-image, that is something we choose to do quite willingly and independently of the fold.
Given that we seem to have free-will and the ability to say “no”, and choose from a number of possible courses of action, then we only have ourselves to blame when we decide that things don’t fit into our perception of reality. Consensus cannot exist without our concerted participation in wider social events. Where there is disagreement there is a lack of consensus and the very real possibility that what is real, really isn’t. The fear of instability and falsehood then, becomes the thing that is focussed on when making evaluations of personal and mass experience as perceived through the individualistic lens. This fear is often what dictates the beliefs that we hold, and prevents us from exploring the full breadth of our imagination. It doesn’t limit our free-will because we still have a choice to think something different, but it does define the kinds of experiences we allow ourselves to have, in very definite and in very real terms.

If you decide not to leave the comfortable boundaries of your home, then you will not discover the potentials that the outside world has to offer you. The nature of your experiences will be very different to those of someone who is hardly ever home and exploring the outside world. One isn’t necessarily better than the other, but in believing that the world has nothing to offer you outside of your four walls, then you reinforce that belief and limit the range of your experiences accordingly. Similarly, if you are unwilling to step outside of the safe parameters of your conscious mind and your accepted belief structures, then you will limit the kinds of thoughts that you may have by dismissing all of those ideas that don’t conform to your current beliefs. If psychological beliefs are a prerequisite to subsequent physical experience, then it would be very difficult to separate the two as we often do in our evaluations. Indeed, it would become obvious that one is highly dependent on the other in order to function as it does. It would also become obvious that it would be ludicrous to evaluate them differently, as we often do in the West, treating the psychological as being less than the physical in terms of validity, or reality. We have become so accustomed to our verbal definitions of what is valid and real and what is not, that we have created big white elephants that occupy our mental space, and that impede our evolution in so many important ways, for no other reason than because we are afraid and stubborn, and too enamoured with our uniqueness to see beyond the mental and indeed physical barriers that we create for ourselves. However, as long as we can logically accept that this might be the case, then we have a chance of attaining the state of private happiness and fulfilment that we all seem to crave, because once we recognise the problem, then we can change it. For as long as we accept something as a given, then we allow ourselves to be subject to its whims and restrictions, and we define ourselves accordingly.
At no point is the integrity of our own private beliefs ever at question. It must be clear upon closer examination that no matter what happens, no matter what is said or what rules and strictures are seemingly imposed upon us, that we nevertheless maintain the right to think and believe what we wish, even if we never give voice to it. To a very large extent this affords us protection from potentially damaging influences. In keeping our cards close to our chests, and therefore keeping certain private beliefs secret, we are able to more deftly manipulate events so that our continued survival and happiness is left intact. What this implies however, is that at no point are we not in control of what we choose to experience and the way that we choose remember it, and that denial of such is a blatant manipulation of the truth. Nobody tells you to breathe, you just do it. Similarly, nobody tells you how to think, you just do it. That others try to tell you what to think is about them trying to control you, but it is still up to you, up to us, and our personal sense of fear and stubbornness that allows them to do so to whatever degree, or so it would appear to our very individualistic, and highly moralised senses.

Seth and the Sidiris have often addressed the concept of mass and collective consciousness, suggesting that patterns of consciousness exist ‘outside’ of the unique vision of the individual human entity, but that it’s also very much a part of the fabric of individual human consciousness. The suggestion is that thoughts, ideas, potential events do not originate within the human form alone, but pulse across the field of consciousness in a very collaborative and mutually fulfilling way. The concept of human individuality and uniqueness loses its infallible gusto in such a model, so that it then becomes a symbiotic relationship between man and his wider environment, both psychologically and physically. The nature of beliefs and thus reality take on a very different cast, and the implications for the nature of our existence begin to extend beyond the mere trappings of the mortal flesh and into the realm of the unfathomable, yet possible. In this model the imagination is given the freedom to roam where it wishes and to see the very real results of its explorations.
We cannot know the extent to which even our most infallible of beliefs restrict us unless we allow ourselves to think beyond them and to experience their ensuing realities. Our beliefs often form convincingly real barriers within our experience and definitions of reality, yet in order to appreciate the breadth of our imagination and the possibilities for our physical and psychological evolution, as both a species of kind and a species of consciousness, we have to be willing to entertain new possibilities, and more importantly to entertain the possibility that the reality we seem to so readily take for granted is not what we think it is. The solid wall that separates us from the outside world may just be an illusion created by the physical senses, and if that’s the case, then what other illusions are we maintaining in order to substantiate our current models of truth? It becomes evident that what is psychological cannot be governed by the same laws we accept of the physical world, yet the two are facets of the same living and breathing consciousness, whatever that is.


Monday, 26 December 2016 – 9:55am

Often as I sit at my desk looking out of the window to the street below, I find myself scanning the trees as if they have some mysterious knowledge to offer me. From the warm, dry confines of my blind I will often take pictures of the life ensuing, usually on the opposite side of the street. For some reason the spot exactly opposite my window across the street seems to attract a hive of activity that I have catalogued visually since I set up office in this room a year ago.

As I sat the other day with one of my Psychic Library books, ‘The Chocolate House’, I began getting impressions about plants grown for food and how they were once considered repositories of knowledge by ancient cultures, and that it was believed that by consuming their produce that you would also then embody their knowledge. I thought it fairly revelatory at the time, having forgotten that I’d channelled something similar about the trees outside my window some months ago. Indirectly it gave rise to the piece of writing above.

Belief is a peculiar thing. If I believe something is true, and I get some kind of sensory confirmation validating the experience, then to all intents and purposes, it is true. The dilemma one has as a rational human being, capable of free-willed thinking is that with every belief we run the risk of compromising our sense of personal integrity. We believe that we are separate from the environment that we occupy, and in some distinctive ways such objectification aids in our reasoning processes. Through objectification we can evaluate for and against qualities of perceptual experience. I refer to it as perceptual experience in order to remind myself that our experiences are very much dependent on our sensory perception of ourselves and the world around us. If we create our own realities, then at what point does the waking consciousness become aware of the belief that such and such is valid, and therefore true and real?

It would seem to me that through our very human desire to objectify the world around us, the sense of separation this creates causes a delayed response in personal awareness. We might find it difficult to comprehend that we were at all responsible for the very godlike creation of the physical world around us, not to mention ourselves just from mere thought alone, and an almost predetermined disposition to perceive things in a certain way. Where do the thoughts originate if we are not aware of them at our usual level of waking awareness?
Why is it so difficult to perceive where a creative, world-building thought begins and where it culminates as physical, sensory matter?

We might buy into the belief that the development of our beliefs is as a result of cause and effect, though more in the sense that we experience the world around us, and then make a sensory evaluation, with our conclusion being the resultant belief that such and such experience is valid. However, I believe that our limited ability to evaluate experience in anything other than linear terms is a determinant in our ensuing confusion when dealing with such divine provenance. But you have to consider the nature of perception itself. Without our ability to perceive ourselves and the world around us through our physical senses, then there is little way to prove that either we or the world around us actually exists in the way that we believe it does. Our physical senses are our benchmark. The physical body is the equipment that allows the very specific interpretation of physical, human reality. Like a digital camera, our biological equipment focuses on certain aspects of the world around us, with the internal sensor evaluating the qualities of the environment, and making adjustments within the equipment itself in order to capture the most favourable evaluation of light. Yet the camera is incapable of functioning without some kind of agent directing its operation.

If the sense of separation we feel between us and the world around us is just an illusion, then the cause-and-effect hypothesis is moot. Without objectification there is only effect. One requires the ability to perceive linearity in order for the hypothesis to work. One might also counter that as human beings we seem to be heavily predisposed to linear thinking, that it is in fact the most likely reality. However, our ability to objectify the world comes from our ability to imagine freely many possible scenarios, including being able to imagine a possible reality that is devoid of linearity. There is an odd sense of a recursive logic that I always get when I think about such concepts. But I have to hold fast to the premise that whatever I can conceive of within my imagination is possible within the scope of my conscious awareness. Having put this premise to the test over the course of my life has given rise to a sense that chance and coincidence are faulty concepts that can only result from the lack of trust required by an objective mind. Belief works outside of any sense of objectivity. The ability to separate, and thus categorise and objectify must stem from subjectivity. Therefore, the effect must come before the cause if you think about it. The answer exists irrespective of the question.
If consciousness exists irrespective of a linear perspective of it, then it says much about the nature of human perception, particularly waking perception, in that it is more limited than dreaming perception for example, or anything else that exists beyond that.

In order to explore concepts and possibilities beyond the mundane and the linear, we must begin from a higher platform, the likes of which we are more than capable with imagination. The vast scope of our imaginations should be an indicator of what our physical organisms are capable of. “Where there is a will there is a way”, this saying isn’t without merit. Without the ability to imagine possible outcomes, it would be impossible for us to function within the world irrespective of what we believe. In order to perform any action, we must first be able to conceive the idea that we want to perform that action, and then execute it. How we perform that action depends on how we evaluate our experience of the world around us, and how we apply our evaluation to our actions. Yet it is most difficult to separate thought from sensory input or output. We cannot say with any certainty where one begins and the other ends. Both can be said to happen simultaneously, in which case any sense of linearity becomes arbitrary, and merely a way of identifying processes. Objectification is a product of simplifying our evaluative experiences in ways that can be more easily digested and communicated to one another. However, it isn’t the only way we communicate thought, it is just the way best suited to verbal communication. And that’s the key to understanding our current beliefs about the nature of human perception and reality. The development of language is an intrinsic component of linear thinking. We trip over tides of words in order to get at the truth of our perception of reality. Eliminate verbal language, and thus linearity, and a clearer perception of personal reality can be achieved.


Tuesday, 27 December 2016 – 3:31pm

We tend to believe that concepts such as non-linear existence, omnipotence, or omniscience are somehow outside of our comprehensive reach, or usual awareness because of the emphasis placed on verbal language, and its requirement that concepts be qualified by adequate linear analysis. Verbal language is woefully ill-equipped to discuss or describe such ideas with any kind of clarity, because they just don’t follow the prescribed model where one thing follows another. In fact, we deem inexplicable, ideas that do not fulfil the cause and effect formula to be confusing, or not making very much sense. At the very best we might attribute tricky subjects such as these as falling within the remit of imagination or intuition, and therefore lacking in value because they cannot be explained adequately. There are many experiences throughout our daily lives that we have to find the words to express or explain, especially when communicating emotional states for example, and which we might struggle to do so because these kinds of experiences don’t actually require verbal thought to be recognised or actualised. Many of our daily actions do not need verbal language to qualify them. Most of our actions, emotions, and reactions are non-verbal. A smile does not need words in order for you or others to understand its meaning or possible implications.

Verbal language is not the only form of communication available to us, and furthermore we function quite happily without the almost constant internal and external diatribe that we are so accustomed to and willingly subject ourselves and others to without a moment’s thought for all other data that we may be both sending, receiving, and experiencing simultaneously.

I’ve said it before, but language is a dangerous tripping hazard when it comes to examining the nature and the validity of personal and mass beliefs. Verbal language forms the only possible proof we have that anything exists at all. Through verbal communication we are able to reach a consensus of belief, and with that rules can be made and control exercised. The use of verbal language is a form of social wrangling. It is designed for the very purpose of definition and thus control. To define something implies that it has perceptible boundaries, even if the boundaries are notional, as is the case with all beliefs. When a belief changes, then its perceptible boundaries change.

With rules imposed by verbal language comes reprehensible behaviour as people believe that they have a right to exert their position in favour of some fallacious consensus, that such and such is true and therefore more valid than something that doesn’t quite fit the model. Such judgements incur problems like sticky-tape attracts fluff. There is no happy medium when it comes to the tussle between words, as people battle with one another in order to justify their long list of self-doubt and negative belief.

Share your thoughts

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

You are commenting using your 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