Discourse on the essential nature of things.

The verb "to be" represents the Universal concept of "existence" in any "form". Verbs imply "action" over (or through) time, which refers to the fourth dimension, in which the third-dimensional, physical, material Universe (or any part of it) "evolves". Therefore, existence simply refers to "being" as perceived as being "formed" over "time". Therefore, non-existence simply implies the opposite, meaning the Universe (or part of it) "lacking the essence of being". "Being" is actually a far more subtle concept that we might normally expect. But consider it. You can use "being" when attempting to communicate what you are through perceived characteristics. In other words, you sometimes use the term with adjectives, which are simply subjective concepts used to communicate a perception (an individual reality) to another. In other words, without the five senses with which we perceive, there is no way that we could "describe" any physical features of objects. This makes sense, because without the sense of "touch", how could we imagine what physicality/solidity/matter mean? Further, you can use the concept of "being" with a noun.

But think for a moment, what does a noun represent? It is a word that represents a form with an essence. What a lot of confused members of the forum continue referring to as "definitions", are actually verbal and conceptual approximations of the essence of nouns. What is this essence? It's the root/central/energy-nucleus/ideal structure of any noun, which is what any object labeled with that word must obviate. I think most of you would quickly agree that anything there is a word for, there could be a symbol made to represent it, correct? Well, what if this symbol comes in the third-dimensional holographic form as a physical object moving through time and space? What if you are actually a physical representation (represented physically, because (what?) you have the concept of a third-dimension) of a concept? An energy essence-form?

It comes from having two eyes and its ability to break down white light through a refractory process. This refractory, visual process is similar to all of the other sensory absorption processes (hearing, touching, tasting) in that your organs are converting analog (physical/moving) stimuli into electrical impulses (like binary code) which the brain "perceives". You are not as closely connected to the "tangible reality" as a physical view would demand. How you are actually connected is through vibrational frequencies. These frequencies (which we can represent in numbers, thus allowing us to measure and understand them objectively) are interpreted by our brains, exactly like we are antenna or computers. We both take in and send out vibrations. It is our form of communication. But what programs us?

That would be the life-force/energy/qi/electricity/way/spirit/soul/Dao (all different aspects of the same thing, which approximate separate, but significant, subtleties of the Universal Essence). We are actually programmed on a spiritual-energistic level by this "subtle" force, and it provides us with an essence. In other words, our bodies essentially form the physical shell for the spirit of the idea of a human with respect to the third-dimension of God's/the Universe's experience/existence.

How did the Universe begin? Well, (I've used this analogy before) first I think we can all imagine that there was originally nothing. If there was something, we'd have to wonder how that got there. That would just give us a lesson in what infinity without learning means. Besides, there is "something" now, I think we can all agree, so it must have been formed at some point. So what did we have originally? A void stretching to eternity. Since no one/thing was in existence "yet" to measure time, it could be considered infinite. So, you're Probability/Possibility** and you have eternity and you get bored, because nothing's going on. You take out your infinitely-sided die which represents the infinite possibilities that may spring forth from the current moment, and you roll and roll. Eventually, you're going to roll something that will lead to the stable, balanced, evolutionary (thus, no chance of it collapsing on itself) development of a Universal system. My friend Digit has referred to this as an omni-multiverse system, in which God/the Universe is self-correcting, and is able to essentially gauge His/Its evolution/perfection through an infinite array of subordinate but communicative perceptions (kind of like how our cells send our brain the data it needs to create a "picture" of its surroundings). Surely we could agree that the idea of perfection seems to fit with an object best representing (in all subtle ways) the essence of the object's category. This is what God's/the Universe's aim is: perfection/completion/total equilibrium. Anyway, the die eventually would have to come out with the side representing "this" Universe, which is certainly a possibility as we can all attest. So, how did it become third-dimensional? In other words, where did "space" come from?

Well, imagine this eternal void with nothing in it, which means that a vacuum of "space" must have existed as well. This is clear because something infinite, like this void, would be so "heavy" that it would collapse in on itself were it not for the vacuum of space. (Kind of like the empty "space" that makes up the majority of every single atom, right? Which is the building block of matter, supposedly?) Surely this makes sense to all of the physicists here, right (force vs equal and opposite force)? This vacuum was essentially a type of suction or negative pressure balancing out the void. An equal and opposite reaction to the force of the void. These forces created a tension (in infinite terms, remember) which of course was, in a Universal sense, a reaction. This reaction became measurable in the form of electrons, which represented the infinite supply of potential energy created by this infinite tension. Being potential energy, and being infinite, meant that "apparently" randomly these electrons/electrical-magnet/energy units would condense where most plentiful and slow-moving. This led to the creation of matter: dense, slow-moving, "organized" potential energy. [For those into quantum physics: what happens to an electron when measured? You can only measure its position or speed, but not both at once. Why is this? Because the electron is energy-matter. The faster it moves, the less potential energy it has. The slower, the more potential. At this point, the electrons gain weight for sitting around "long" enough to be "perceived", kind of like when you sit on the couch instead of using your potential energy). The more grouped together into a complex structure = the more powerful and more conscious the entity formed is.]

What matter does is use the energy's potential to do work/change. This use of potential can be measured by dimensions: for example, the third dimension is the stage on which "movement" occurs while the fourth dimension is the stage in which "growth" occurs. However, both dimensions allow for the gauging of perceived "change" in matter, which, again, is simply a "trace" of an energy shift. Consider the stars you see at night. You aren't looking at light. You are looking at physical objects (matter) vibrating at a certain frequency, which is decoded by your sensory organs and transmitted to the brain. The matter you see has absorbed this vibrational/wave energy.

Of course, you know that matter essentially is energy, and is actually able to be transformed into it. Molecular bonds are simply visible representations of the "conscious" potential-energy structure that shapes matter at the atomic level. This same force connects planets to stars and galaxies to one another. The same type of "space" connects the cosmic entities as does "space" provide the necessary "suction" to keep the atom stable. You'll notice that atoms with larger nuclei or bad neutron-electron ratios (heavy isotopes) tend to collapse more. Kind of like larger stars and supernovas and black holes, perhaps? You could call it electromagnetism or gravity, but what it is essentially referring to is an organized energy "field" capable of work and able to be manipulated intelligently (thus according to some sort of measurable rule). We can use "conscious" to refer to anything "aware" of its own (relating to it's unique and essential concept as a whole entity, its ideal) change/evolution.

Now what if those vibrations carried "consciousness"? What if energy expressed its "life" through consciousness/perception? What if the energy field, as a whole, was so complex and "conscious" that it could perceive of the entirety of its potential energy as a Universe, instilling a consciousness into smaller "idea-forms" so as to develop a more and more perfect Existence? What if each atom is its own little one of these? What if their interactions with one another represented possible energy structures, ever being rewritten as unstable structures become noticed (learned of) and consciously removed?

It becomes clear that we must be careful with the words we use. Clearly, each one is unique because of its own, individual subtleties. But it is the synergistic interweaving of these words that allows for more open-minded and Universal objectivity. Defining words cordons off debate and creates inflexibility. It forces us to create more words, and argue with more people over two concepts that were originally (and for decent reason) one. A word is not perfect. It is simply a code through which we connect our "selves" (the sum of our conscious experiences, either those we consider our own or those we are perceived as having) to one another. I will not define a word for you, rather I will question you for wishing to define it. My writing is here to provoke thoughtful, conscious discussion. My words are not the be-all and end-all. They are simply words out there because I think they contribute something meaningful. I do not reject anything a person may believe in. To do so would be to lose his/her perspective. A Universal perspective is comprehensive, constructive, and self-aware.

*Pay attention to the words I use in quotation marks. Those are words for which a broad or often cross-connotative understanding will contribute best to synthesizing of these ideas. Further, feel free to ask for an explanation for why I specifically chose any words. There will be more to come as I think of it. This was essentially a stream-of-consciousness process.

** Perhaps a more agreeable term might be "Possible Condition".

 

lalalalalalalalalalala

 

Tell me what difference isn't and I'm prepared to hypothesize with you.

 

I'd say random and systematic are good illustrations of two apparent opposites which actually occupy ends of a single continuum. So both (and by that logic, neither). And if I may be so bold, I would suggest that we start to recognize ourselves as living out said continuum with our lives (and memory, experience, feeling, knowledge, etc.).

 

That sounds about right.

 

Is my whole idea a hack of unfounded bullshit?

 

I beg to differentiate; silence would help balance this... perhaps in the sense of tranquil reflection? Hope you're keeping up well these days, Androgenicx. I miss your now-silent voice.

Interested that I wrote that a year ago, actually... I didn't think I quite had it all in me that "early", but I guess that was when was becoming much more Universalist and really opening my eyes to the words of Lao-tzu (Laozi) and Chuang-tzu (Zhuangzi). I guess I see this thread as an attempt to bridge that gap that appears to exist between below (the (W)hole) and above (the definition and narrowization of separate things rooted in the principle of Oneness). I don't know... now I would use more mystic language, perhaps, but I still understand those words I wrote as if I thought them yesterday. Now I think less in words, though, and have to instantaneously translate them as I communicate to others. Man... new poll thread idea (and now actualization)!

As for your question about "Adaptation > Manipulation"... I'd say that adaptation is focusedly self-oriented, while manipulation is illusorily externally-oriented (ignoring the reactionary consequences of actualizing the potential to force change on oneself). I hope that wasn't too wordy, but it was as concisely as I could put it without analogies.

You know ye old "ignorance is bliss" I-don't-give-a-fuck-ego-speak? Well, I've often said that "ignorance is bliss... until you find out the truth." I guess just not on the forum, and not for a long while... your question brought that back to me, so thanks.

Hmm... you ask very compelling questions.

 

Good to have you both back again, czarchasm and Androgenicx.

 

Man, pretty cool! That sounds like a journey only you would understand. Too bad we won't hear from you after that point, but I'll just accept the blessing of having you here now.