To continue:
Neither label ("choosing" or "creating") tells the whole story. I'm a little more comfortable with calling what we're doing "driving". The word has two meanings, probably connected. What we do to a car is probably derived from what we used to do to a team of horses, and that in turn is probably derived from what we do to a nail. As we're moving through the scenery our view is constantly changing, and sometimes we forget that we're actors in it, and our very presence changes the totality of it even before we count our perceptions and thoughts as part of that Universe.
If we have a destination we're likely going to take a more direct route than if we're just wandering aimlessly around the landscape and happen to land at that place by accident. We are continually choosing the points that we pass through as we drive. As human actors, we can steer through our reality to our goals, goals that we acquire by deciding that we want them. But our driving to a destination is a bit simpler than driving toward a life goal. We don't always know how to get to our life goals. Nevertheless, the metaphor holds in that we're making myriads of decisions along whatever kind of route (physical or metaphysical) that we take.
Back to dimensions. Just for a moment let's put all 11 dimensions on a numbered line: 1) left/right 2) front/back 3) up/down 4) splar/quark, etc. What if the dimensions you're sensing on the tip of your nose at this instant aren't 1, 2, and 3? What if they're 3, 5, and 11? What if they're 1, 6, and 9 to your sense of touch and 4, 6, and 7 to your visual sense? It feels (sense of touch) like an insect is perched on it, but you can see (sense of sight) that it's a wasp. If it were 4,6, and 8 to your eye it would have been a caterpillar. Taking either path would have left either the wasp or the caterpillar in another universe. You chose the caterpillar, so now you're standing in 4, 6, and 8, but it's not as though you noticed a change. In fact, it looks so much like 1, 2, and 3 (except for that caterpillar) that you get the idea that it's always 1, 2, and 3. In one universe everything you're seeing really is in 1, 2, and 3 except for a caterpillar/wasp sized bubble at the end of your nose. If you had put on the red shirt this morning, everything except the bubble is in 1, 3, and 5.
In fact, every point that you perceive exists in all 11 dimensions, but our equipment can only pick up three of them. And it's rarely the same three. And it might not be the same three that it was a moment ago. It all depends on the consciousness/branching.
Now, if you can't tell which three dimensions your 5-sense/dimensional perceptual field is perceiving at any point in space/time, then it cannot be proven that all the possibilities that could be created at any point don't already exist there and (because one dimension is Time) always have existed there. And you could also exist in all of them and always have.
Now doesn't that make you infinite?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Acceptance
We hear a great deal about Acceptance these days, as though it were some state that required some effort, some discipline, some method to attain. What is overlooked is that Acceptance is what Consciousness does all the time. Moment to moment a parade of sensations, thoughts, and feeling is always going on. First a marching band, then the guys on the miniature motorcycles, then a gaudy float, then a street theater group, then .... Everything is accepted by Consciousness in turn.
We humans, however, tend to confuse the judges' clipboards in the reviewing stand with Acceptance. That acceptance (small "a") is the fruit of judgement. As each event passes by, a "Yes" or "No" is generated by the judges. But Consciousness Accepts this judgement the same way it Accepts everything else that passes by. "Input Accepted. Next."
Where we create pain is in the decision that the judgement has Meaning for us, and in the turning our attention to "I Need to Do Something About This". If we rather turn our attention to the Acceptance that Consciousness is doing all the time, the problem disappears.
We humans, however, tend to confuse the judges' clipboards in the reviewing stand with Acceptance. That acceptance (small "a") is the fruit of judgement. As each event passes by, a "Yes" or "No" is generated by the judges. But Consciousness Accepts this judgement the same way it Accepts everything else that passes by. "Input Accepted. Next."
Where we create pain is in the decision that the judgement has Meaning for us, and in the turning our attention to "I Need to Do Something About This". If we rather turn our attention to the Acceptance that Consciousness is doing all the time, the problem disappears.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Characters and Drama
What if we pretend that we're actually the viewer of the movie called My Life? The viewer is who you really are, and all of the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and other stuff belong to a bunch of characters in that movie. The characters aren't really who you are, they're just made up by actors. Most of the time you think these characters are who you are, but the mere fact that you're watching them means that they are not you. They are your Conditioning masquerading as you.
There are a lot of places we can go with this little game. For instance, we can start asking the question "Who does this character remind me of?"
As patterns or themes start to emerge, you can name the characters. So what does your cast of characters look like? Here's some of mine:
There are a lot of places we can go with this little game. For instance, we can start asking the question "Who does this character remind me of?"
- Maybe it's your mother or father.
- Maybe it's a teacher you had a long time ago.
- Maybe a childhood friend.
- Maybe a childhood enemy..:
As patterns or themes start to emerge, you can name the characters. So what does your cast of characters look like? Here's some of mine:
- The Judge (sounds and feels a lot like my mother)
- The Despairing Convict (my mother as Victim)
- The Foreman (sounds and feels a lot like my father)
- The Misunderstood Genius (I got that one from a high school teacher)
There are more, but you get the idea. Recognizing these characters can help you recognize them as conditioning and keep you from getting stuck playing one.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Unified Field
Last night a number of edgy, new physics, new thought ideas all came together in a flash in this unlimited mindspace of which I'm fortunate enough to to be a custodian. The ideas are:
Let's start with Zero Point Energy. Most Quantum Mechanical and Cosmological explanations of the Universe come with the concept that at every point in the Universe there is infinite energy. Normally that's a stopper for most attempts at formulating a Unified Field Theory. To hear them tell it, it just won't do to have all that energy hanging around at every infinitesimal point. All those infinities tend to clog up your equations kind of like division by zero does. In fact, you could make a case for "x / 0 = infinity" if one plays around with Limits the way one does in Calculus. That makes zero look like the flip side of infinity, but that's another story.
The stumbling block is that this quandary is based on the assumption that all dimensions are not created equal. Because of the evidence of our senses, we harbor the unconscious belief that the three dimensions (and to a lesser extent, the fourth dimension of Time) that we're most familiar with are rigid, implying that the seven other dimensions that show up in most versions of String Theory have to be wrapped up in themselves at every point in spacetime .
What if they're not? What if all those dimensions have an equal claim on what we perceive as "every point in spacetime"? If all these dimensions spread out infinitely from every point, then what does that say about the "shape of things"? From a three dimensional point of view that looks like multiple universes expanded outward from every point all the time, Kind of makes the Big Bang look like a small hiccough compared to what's going on at every moment everywhere, doesn't it? If those dimensions are spreading out from everywhere, then "we" are spreading out in them!
How can this be? We appear to each be planted solidly in this 3-4D space. But remember, all those dimensions, all those "I"s are not required to squeeze into "this space", which we are absolutely certain, so certain, in fact, that we never give it a second thought, is the entirety of our world..
The answer is that at any instant, any billionth of a nanosecond, we are making choices. Each of those choices takes our awareness down a particular path through at least eleven dimensions. Just our awareness. The "objects of awareness" that we find here now, including our "selves" and our bodies can be seen as versions appearing in this version of the universe perceived by that awareness.
Using our zero/infinity axiom, we can say that if we demand that a certain set of three dimensions be primary, be "real", then the other dimensions would appear to fold in on themselves to accommodate the three filling all of space, whereas if we give all dimensions equal rights, then they all spread out infinitely from every point.
Another implication of this is that it is impossible to determine objectively whether one's awareness is "choosing" everything in its path moment to moment, or "creating" it, because from the 3-4D point of view there is no way to prove (or even test) that the universes resulting from a different choice exist at all.
Let's try an example. You're driving in your car. Up ahead the road ends at a "T". You have a choice. You can turn left or you can turn right. Whichever way you go, the Universe will have a different history if you go left that it will if you turn right. But even before that, the Universe will have a different history depending on whether you LOOKED left or right first when you pulled up to the intersection. In fact it will be branch at the point where you THOUGHT whether to look left or right first. And so on ad infinitum. So it makes just as much sense to say that you created the particular universe that resulted from your choice as it does to say that you chose it.
If you're interested in this topic and would like to go deeper, here is the source of the term "Implicate Order".
- Implicate Order
- Parallel Universes
- Multiple Universes
- Particle Physics
- Quantum Mechanics
- Unified Field Theory
- String Theory
- Instant Manifestation
- Law of Attraction
- Zero Point Energy
Let's start with Zero Point Energy. Most Quantum Mechanical and Cosmological explanations of the Universe come with the concept that at every point in the Universe there is infinite energy. Normally that's a stopper for most attempts at formulating a Unified Field Theory. To hear them tell it, it just won't do to have all that energy hanging around at every infinitesimal point. All those infinities tend to clog up your equations kind of like division by zero does. In fact, you could make a case for "x / 0 = infinity" if one plays around with Limits the way one does in Calculus. That makes zero look like the flip side of infinity, but that's another story.
The stumbling block is that this quandary is based on the assumption that all dimensions are not created equal. Because of the evidence of our senses, we harbor the unconscious belief that the three dimensions (and to a lesser extent, the fourth dimension of Time) that we're most familiar with are rigid, implying that the seven other dimensions that show up in most versions of String Theory have to be wrapped up in themselves at every point in spacetime .
What if they're not? What if all those dimensions have an equal claim on what we perceive as "every point in spacetime"? If all these dimensions spread out infinitely from every point, then what does that say about the "shape of things"? From a three dimensional point of view that looks like multiple universes expanded outward from every point all the time, Kind of makes the Big Bang look like a small hiccough compared to what's going on at every moment everywhere, doesn't it? If those dimensions are spreading out from everywhere, then "we" are spreading out in them!
How can this be? We appear to each be planted solidly in this 3-4D space. But remember, all those dimensions, all those "I"s are not required to squeeze into "this space", which we are absolutely certain, so certain, in fact, that we never give it a second thought, is the entirety of our world..
The answer is that at any instant, any billionth of a nanosecond, we are making choices. Each of those choices takes our awareness down a particular path through at least eleven dimensions. Just our awareness. The "objects of awareness" that we find here now, including our "selves" and our bodies can be seen as versions appearing in this version of the universe perceived by that awareness.
Using our zero/infinity axiom, we can say that if we demand that a certain set of three dimensions be primary, be "real", then the other dimensions would appear to fold in on themselves to accommodate the three filling all of space, whereas if we give all dimensions equal rights, then they all spread out infinitely from every point.
Another implication of this is that it is impossible to determine objectively whether one's awareness is "choosing" everything in its path moment to moment, or "creating" it, because from the 3-4D point of view there is no way to prove (or even test) that the universes resulting from a different choice exist at all.
Let's try an example. You're driving in your car. Up ahead the road ends at a "T". You have a choice. You can turn left or you can turn right. Whichever way you go, the Universe will have a different history if you go left that it will if you turn right. But even before that, the Universe will have a different history depending on whether you LOOKED left or right first when you pulled up to the intersection. In fact it will be branch at the point where you THOUGHT whether to look left or right first. And so on ad infinitum. So it makes just as much sense to say that you created the particular universe that resulted from your choice as it does to say that you chose it.
If you're interested in this topic and would like to go deeper, here is the source of the term "Implicate Order".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)