To us, the earth is huge, the sun is massive, the universe is unfathomable. Atoms are minuscule, cells are tiny, insects are small. We have a sense of scale, a grasp on size, an understanding of how big everything is compared to us. We have some expectation that the size which something is will be the size of another similar thing.
But... our perspective is small. We are tiny compared to the Earth, the earth is small compared to the solar system, the solar system is minuscule compared to the galaxy. Without the technology we've built, how would we even know that there was a universe out there? From our small perspective, the stars are burning lights in the sky, nothing more.
I've mentioned before that time moves in cycles, but cycles are not exclusive to time. The shape and scale of things is cyclic as well, space itself is cyclic. It is as if everything is caught in a spiral fractal. We know that nature functions in fractals, from the way waves move to the shore to the way leaves grow on a tree, even down to how ants pattern their tunnels underground. Everything that seems random to us is in fact fractal based, meaning that there is a mathematical logic to it, even if it is one that we do not readily understand. It is the very order of the universe, the order of time, a logic and intelligence that governs everything.
Fractals are (from our perspective) infinite. You can eternally zoom in or out of a fractal and you will continuously find one image after another that resembles all of those that came before it and all of those that will follow.
If the nature of Earth is governed by fractals, then it is logical to assume that all of the universe is as well. That means that for every teeny tiny thing you can find here on earth, there is a massive scale version of it out there in the universe, somewhere. Take for example the atom - it has a nucleus and is orbited by electrons, just like our solar system has a sun that is orbited by planets. Our solar system is near other solar systems, and on a large scale is part of a galaxy. That galaxy then is like a cell, made up of molecules made up of atoms. It even looks like a cell just as our solar system looks like an atom. Begin to net those galaxies together, zooming out in perspective and they start to look like tissue - you know, muscle, bones, etc? What we know of the universe has been extrapolated into an image of it, and from the viewing distance it looks very much like brain tissue. The similarity is uncanny, even a bit startling.
Imagine that every atom upon the earth is in fact a tiny solar system. The different types of atoms relate to different stages or types of stars. Each has a different number of planets circling them. Think of just how many atoms there are in your body alone, then the entire Earth... then the entire solar system. The number is so high we don't really have a number for it. It may be above the google-plex, beyond our capacity for imagination. Imagine that the number of atoms within your thumb alone make up an entire universe.
Turn the lens and look the other direction... our entire universe is in a drop of dew on the grass of some other existence.
This is not only plausible but quite likely, given that nature follows fractals and as far as we know fractals are infinitely large and infinitely small, repeating the same shapes and archetypes all along the way. I think the smaller the particles that science discovers, they will continually find there is always something smaller than that particle. I think the larger our view of the universe gets, the more we'll see is out there, bigger and grander than our own universe, infinitely continuing on. Like a mobius strip, in every direction we travel there will never be an end, there will always be farther to go.
Einstein theorized that the closer you are to a mass of gravity, the slower you perceive time to move and the farther you are from that mass of gravity, the faster you'll perceive time to pass. Let's assume that this idea also applies to scale. The higher you go on the scale of size, the slower time is perceived and the lower you go on the scale of size, the faster time is perceived.
Therefore, the massive atom of our solar system appears to remain in roughly the same place and remain relatively ageless compared to ourselves. Yet the minuscule solar system atoms within our cells, which constantly reproduce and die off, burn away so quickly we can't even imagine any life occur ed in that time-space at all. Yet within those atoms could be planets with life on them that stretches on for great ages in their perspective, though it could be mere minutes or seconds in our own. A supernova of their sun could have just made your hand itch a little bit.
Years ago I downloaded a simple program called "Life". It was individual pixels on a screen that reproduced or died out according to a very simple formula. The cycle was quite beautiful to watch, and I had the impression that it was accurate to how our own civilization would appear from a distance.
When you consider things in this infinite fractal of time and scale, letting it thoroughly saturate your mind, you can understand that all of your life occurs in a fraction of a second and nothing that happens here on Earth is all that significant in and of itself. It is the whole, the fractal, that matters. The individuals all become a part of that whole, and every one of us is made up of a billion or so other tiny wholes, which are each made up of a billion other tiny individuals, and it eternally stretches on.
Our every movement, our every action, our very lives are just a blip on a screen, exploding into other fragments that then go on to do the same, eternally, cycling through the dance of eternity which never begins and never ends, like dust caught in a whirlwind forever spinning and twisting into new patterns.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Understanding Creation
The age-old war between science and religion continues to range on. The extremists on both sides are often the loudest speakers in the whole debate, and would have us believe that science and religion cannot possibly coexist. With arguments that one cannot accept evolution without being atheistic, or suggesting that science that disagrees with the bible is invalid, the rest of us are left to wonder where the middle ground lies and if, in fact, there is a middle ground at all.
This conflict isn't recent and stretches back at least as far as alchemy, astronomy and medicine - when science was young and the church was strong. The church threatened, denied and even put to death practitioners of the fledgling sciences, effectively silencing them as much as possible and preventing their disagreement with any accepted religious facts. Now we are on the flip side of the coin, where science is overtaking religion in it's acceptability, with arrows flung from all corners of modern society and culture in religion's direction. These days, to those "keeping up with the times" religion can be seen as little more than a joke.
Fortunately, most people already fall somewhere in the middle ground. Going to church but accepting science's findings as at least something to consider, or working in a scientific field while retaining (or gaining) a belief in God. Seeing science not as witchcraft but potential, and seeing religion not as fantasy or vice but as a desire to know God, or know if there is a God.
What can be seen in the media on either of these topics is disheartening. People from one side bashing the other, trying vehemently to shatter their beliefs, desperate in their need to be the one that is right. When you take a step back and look at the fray from a detached perspective, you see that there is a lot of fear driving both sides of the debate. This is where the need to be right comes from:
A genuine and clear faith in something does not foster the need to be right about it. One may wish to share what it is they have learned or believe, but they can also accept that others have their own views.
The need to be right, on the other hand, is an expression of the fear of being wrong, turned around into an aggressive action. Whether that action is relatively harmless, such as verbally pushing the people around you to accept your beliefs as their own, or rather harmful such as the "convert or kill" mentality, it is still an expression of fear. The innate subconscious process is to understand that the more people who believe what you believe, and the fewer people who speak out against it, the more likely it is right.
In essence, human beings are pack animals, just like dogs, cats and wolves. We do not trust our own individual judgement, we need to know that the majority of people around us agree. It is how pack animals know that doing something is likely going to be safe and beneficial. If one or more members of a pack avoids eating meat that smells spoiled, the young ones will likely do the same and pass that information down to their own offspring later in life. This is why trends happen, and where the "everyone's doing it" mentality comes from. We automatically accept that if most people are doing something then it is ok to do it. It doesn't matter if this "thing" is beneficial or harmful, or neither.
Interestingly enough, we've also conditioned ourselves to accept that what we see on television and other media represents the majority. In this way, things that were formerly taboo can easily become commonplace just as things that were formerly accepted can become taboo. Two examples - there was a time when getting a tattoo indicated that a person was in a gang, rebellious, a biker, or any other number of negative connotations. Parents would actually disinherit their children over such a thing, and these people were marked as outcasts from society, pretty much permanently. Along comes television and magazines, showing musicians and other public figures with tattoos, effectively making the mainstream opinion that tattoos are not only acceptable but also could make one more acceptable to the rest of the population by fitting in.
The second example is smoking - once accepted everywhere, indoors and out, through the pervasiveness of the media smoking has come to be considered one of the foulest things a person can do. It even seems like people with face tattoos are in a higher acceptance in society than people who smoke. (according to the media)
Now both of these things - tattoos and smoking - have their unyielding followers and they both have their risks. Both can be easily shifted between acceptable and not acceptable in the public view, because they both have that inherent "matter of opinion" quality to both their negative and positive connotations. Both also range in acceptability based on moderation. The person who smokes occasionally on the weekends is more easily accepted than the person who smokes 2 packs a day. The person with a cute tattoo here or there is more easily accepted than the person who barely has a blank inch of skin. Really, it is all a matter of perception.
And TV - it owns perception. Lock, stock and barrel.
But, this post isn't intended to out the ills of television and other methods of advertising. It's about that middle ground between science and religion.
What it really comes down to is that each individual is likely driven by some segment of the rest of humanity on their decisions about religion vs science. Some of it is probably also experience, whether from being directly involved with one of the two or from the impact persons from either side have had in their lives.
Our beliefs (or lack thereof) are more-often-than-not a product of what we are exposed to, instead of who we are deep down.
In the end, it really does not matter who was right. The discussions, the discovery, the fascination, the impact on who we are - this is what matters about religion, science, and anything else on this lovely planet. It won't matter who was right or wrong, because ultimately knowing something beforehand doesn't change how it happens. It just means you knew it was coming.
It is more important to listen to your own inner voice than it is to trust any human being you see, hear or meet. They aren't you. They don't share your exact history or experiences, they can't see through your eyes or walk in your shoes. What they think is not and should never be more important than what you think. Or, more importantly, how you feel.
So if you want to find the answers to the great debate, to find what will make sense to you, my suggestion is this:
Turn off and clear out all distractions. Find a quiet place, preferably surrounded by nature to remove all human influence, and let yourself be. Just sit, contemplate or meditate, watch the grass grow or birds flutter through the trees. Forget the arguments, the duties, the responsibilities and the opinions of others. Listen to your inner voice, for it is wiser than the sum total of humanity and what we think are the answers to life.
PS: originally I was going to go into my thoughts on religion vs science, and veered off to what actually appears here when I realized it doesn't matter what I think, and what I think is probably obvious. If you want to know, I think we are more and more being able to understand creation and the harmony with which God created everything through science and our ability to learn and discover more and more about the world around us. I've never been an extremist, I walk the middle path, the edge between the two razors. To me, everything is a part of a great whole, one that we cannot see because we're far to close to the action. At about a thousand steps back, maybe we could begin to see something bigger than ourselves.
This conflict isn't recent and stretches back at least as far as alchemy, astronomy and medicine - when science was young and the church was strong. The church threatened, denied and even put to death practitioners of the fledgling sciences, effectively silencing them as much as possible and preventing their disagreement with any accepted religious facts. Now we are on the flip side of the coin, where science is overtaking religion in it's acceptability, with arrows flung from all corners of modern society and culture in religion's direction. These days, to those "keeping up with the times" religion can be seen as little more than a joke.
Fortunately, most people already fall somewhere in the middle ground. Going to church but accepting science's findings as at least something to consider, or working in a scientific field while retaining (or gaining) a belief in God. Seeing science not as witchcraft but potential, and seeing religion not as fantasy or vice but as a desire to know God, or know if there is a God.
What can be seen in the media on either of these topics is disheartening. People from one side bashing the other, trying vehemently to shatter their beliefs, desperate in their need to be the one that is right. When you take a step back and look at the fray from a detached perspective, you see that there is a lot of fear driving both sides of the debate. This is where the need to be right comes from:
A genuine and clear faith in something does not foster the need to be right about it. One may wish to share what it is they have learned or believe, but they can also accept that others have their own views.
The need to be right, on the other hand, is an expression of the fear of being wrong, turned around into an aggressive action. Whether that action is relatively harmless, such as verbally pushing the people around you to accept your beliefs as their own, or rather harmful such as the "convert or kill" mentality, it is still an expression of fear. The innate subconscious process is to understand that the more people who believe what you believe, and the fewer people who speak out against it, the more likely it is right.
In essence, human beings are pack animals, just like dogs, cats and wolves. We do not trust our own individual judgement, we need to know that the majority of people around us agree. It is how pack animals know that doing something is likely going to be safe and beneficial. If one or more members of a pack avoids eating meat that smells spoiled, the young ones will likely do the same and pass that information down to their own offspring later in life. This is why trends happen, and where the "everyone's doing it" mentality comes from. We automatically accept that if most people are doing something then it is ok to do it. It doesn't matter if this "thing" is beneficial or harmful, or neither.
Interestingly enough, we've also conditioned ourselves to accept that what we see on television and other media represents the majority. In this way, things that were formerly taboo can easily become commonplace just as things that were formerly accepted can become taboo. Two examples - there was a time when getting a tattoo indicated that a person was in a gang, rebellious, a biker, or any other number of negative connotations. Parents would actually disinherit their children over such a thing, and these people were marked as outcasts from society, pretty much permanently. Along comes television and magazines, showing musicians and other public figures with tattoos, effectively making the mainstream opinion that tattoos are not only acceptable but also could make one more acceptable to the rest of the population by fitting in.
The second example is smoking - once accepted everywhere, indoors and out, through the pervasiveness of the media smoking has come to be considered one of the foulest things a person can do. It even seems like people with face tattoos are in a higher acceptance in society than people who smoke. (according to the media)
Now both of these things - tattoos and smoking - have their unyielding followers and they both have their risks. Both can be easily shifted between acceptable and not acceptable in the public view, because they both have that inherent "matter of opinion" quality to both their negative and positive connotations. Both also range in acceptability based on moderation. The person who smokes occasionally on the weekends is more easily accepted than the person who smokes 2 packs a day. The person with a cute tattoo here or there is more easily accepted than the person who barely has a blank inch of skin. Really, it is all a matter of perception.
And TV - it owns perception. Lock, stock and barrel.
But, this post isn't intended to out the ills of television and other methods of advertising. It's about that middle ground between science and religion.
What it really comes down to is that each individual is likely driven by some segment of the rest of humanity on their decisions about religion vs science. Some of it is probably also experience, whether from being directly involved with one of the two or from the impact persons from either side have had in their lives.
Our beliefs (or lack thereof) are more-often-than-not a product of what we are exposed to, instead of who we are deep down.
In the end, it really does not matter who was right. The discussions, the discovery, the fascination, the impact on who we are - this is what matters about religion, science, and anything else on this lovely planet. It won't matter who was right or wrong, because ultimately knowing something beforehand doesn't change how it happens. It just means you knew it was coming.
It is more important to listen to your own inner voice than it is to trust any human being you see, hear or meet. They aren't you. They don't share your exact history or experiences, they can't see through your eyes or walk in your shoes. What they think is not and should never be more important than what you think. Or, more importantly, how you feel.
So if you want to find the answers to the great debate, to find what will make sense to you, my suggestion is this:
Turn off and clear out all distractions. Find a quiet place, preferably surrounded by nature to remove all human influence, and let yourself be. Just sit, contemplate or meditate, watch the grass grow or birds flutter through the trees. Forget the arguments, the duties, the responsibilities and the opinions of others. Listen to your inner voice, for it is wiser than the sum total of humanity and what we think are the answers to life.
PS: originally I was going to go into my thoughts on religion vs science, and veered off to what actually appears here when I realized it doesn't matter what I think, and what I think is probably obvious. If you want to know, I think we are more and more being able to understand creation and the harmony with which God created everything through science and our ability to learn and discover more and more about the world around us. I've never been an extremist, I walk the middle path, the edge between the two razors. To me, everything is a part of a great whole, one that we cannot see because we're far to close to the action. At about a thousand steps back, maybe we could begin to see something bigger than ourselves.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Just How Persistent is Memory?
With news articles about people who've received organ transplants and had sudden changes of habit or personality and movies like Mr. Stitch and the Eye, the question of where exactly our memories or souls are stored in our bodies is quite a big one. Never was this more the case than today, with partial and maybe even whole brain transplants gaining potential in the medical world.
I have speculated previously that the brain itself may be nothing more than a connection point, a translation device that puts the impressions of the soul into thought and feeling forms that our consciousness can understand and express. In time we can learn to trust a more direct communication from the soul via our intuition and inner voice, bypassing the brain itself. (this is, in basic form, a goal of eastern Buddhism)
In the past, when heart transplants first became a reality, people commonly accepted that the soul centered on the heart and that transplantation of the heart would replace a person's soul. Now that the surgery is common, there are reports of people who have had significant personality changes but not everyone experiences this. Cells and chemicals that are thought to participate in memory storage have been found throughout the body, not just in the brain as was previously thought.
So are our memories stored in our brains, our hearts, our entire bodies, or possibly even our very DNA? Or, are the memories stored elsewhere and accessed by our bodies?
In Greek medicine and other traditions, the organs each relate to certain emotions and are even governed by those emotions (or vice versa). This is where the concept of dying of a broken heart comes from - that the emotional stress of love lost is so great it can actually stop your heart. The throat is tied to communication, and it is believed that if you're holding back an important truth or not communicating your feelings, it can cause problems with the throat including a loss of the ability to speak. Such it goes with all of the internal organs, each dominating or relating to an emotional response and diseases of that organ being thought to be caused by related emotional distress. People who have certain personality traits tend to have similar appearances. People who have similar genetic predispositions tend to have similar appearances and personality traits. I'm referring to people outside of direct family lines who are not related within at least three or four generations, often so many generations that finding a link would take a vast amount of research.
It is also relevant to consider that medical and emotional patterns tend to run in families, both determined by genetics to some extent, even among family members who've never been close or barely known each other. Adopted children who've never known their families can have personality traits resembling those of their genetic families.
A question of the recollection of past lives comes up as well, are we genetically retaining the memories of our genetic ancestors? Or are those memories coming from our souls?
Are we nothing more than the sum of our parts? If it were possible to transplant our brains into another body, it would seem that one way or another we would no longer be ourselves. Whether because of connection to the soul (which ties to more of the body than just the brain) or our personalities being within the sum of our organs not just the brain, it seems we would lose something of ourselves.
These questions also would apply to cloning - if our DNA and thusly organs and brain are the sum total of who we are, then a clone should have every memory that we do, because they would have the same DNA. The new "us" would be identical to us in every way, except that from the moment of first consciousness new memories would begin to form which would diverge the two personalities. Also, in cloning, what of disease? If a person is infected with a disease, say Polio, and cloned, would they retain themselves whilst "defeating" the infection and it's consequences? It's safe to assume the new clone would not retain physical damage such as removed organs, scars, etc, but they would have the memories of receiving that physical damage.
It seems the biggest question in religion, medicine and science is what is it that makes us who we are? Where is that piece of the puzzle coming from, or are portions of our personality and memory stored throughout our beings? Would each of us be exactly who we are had we been born with a different soul?
I feel as though some change occurs when a different soul is born into a body than may originally have been planned. Whether to the benefit of fulfilling a mission in life or the result of someone else choosing not to fulfill a mission and causing a change in the pattern of births, I'm sure that this happens somewhere along the line.
In my own case, prior to my birth there were some pretty solid plans in place. Then something changed. All at once, I was to receive a different name and grow up in a different location, and know different people than I would have. Even my birth date changed, as I was born two weeks late and even that late there had been no labor, no contractions, as if I was attempting to wait even longer for my birth. If you consider astrology, numerology and childhood environment, every piece changed dramatically from what was expected at about 3 months in utero to the conditions at my birth. The factors which changed who I was to be impacted the lives of a few other people quite dramatically. Yet, the genetic aspect remained unchanged.
So, just how persistent is memory? Does it travel through DNA of generations or is it remembered by our souls and accessed partially by our brains? Are types of feelings or emotions triggered within certain organs or do they also come from our souls?
Are our bodies like computers with the soul acting as the hard drive? You can pull a hard drive out of any computer and plug it into another computer, which will then function mostly as the original did.
It seems this is just another series of questions asking "who are we, really?". Will we ever find the answers?
I have speculated previously that the brain itself may be nothing more than a connection point, a translation device that puts the impressions of the soul into thought and feeling forms that our consciousness can understand and express. In time we can learn to trust a more direct communication from the soul via our intuition and inner voice, bypassing the brain itself. (this is, in basic form, a goal of eastern Buddhism)
In the past, when heart transplants first became a reality, people commonly accepted that the soul centered on the heart and that transplantation of the heart would replace a person's soul. Now that the surgery is common, there are reports of people who have had significant personality changes but not everyone experiences this. Cells and chemicals that are thought to participate in memory storage have been found throughout the body, not just in the brain as was previously thought.
So are our memories stored in our brains, our hearts, our entire bodies, or possibly even our very DNA? Or, are the memories stored elsewhere and accessed by our bodies?
In Greek medicine and other traditions, the organs each relate to certain emotions and are even governed by those emotions (or vice versa). This is where the concept of dying of a broken heart comes from - that the emotional stress of love lost is so great it can actually stop your heart. The throat is tied to communication, and it is believed that if you're holding back an important truth or not communicating your feelings, it can cause problems with the throat including a loss of the ability to speak. Such it goes with all of the internal organs, each dominating or relating to an emotional response and diseases of that organ being thought to be caused by related emotional distress. People who have certain personality traits tend to have similar appearances. People who have similar genetic predispositions tend to have similar appearances and personality traits. I'm referring to people outside of direct family lines who are not related within at least three or four generations, often so many generations that finding a link would take a vast amount of research.
It is also relevant to consider that medical and emotional patterns tend to run in families, both determined by genetics to some extent, even among family members who've never been close or barely known each other. Adopted children who've never known their families can have personality traits resembling those of their genetic families.
A question of the recollection of past lives comes up as well, are we genetically retaining the memories of our genetic ancestors? Or are those memories coming from our souls?
Are we nothing more than the sum of our parts? If it were possible to transplant our brains into another body, it would seem that one way or another we would no longer be ourselves. Whether because of connection to the soul (which ties to more of the body than just the brain) or our personalities being within the sum of our organs not just the brain, it seems we would lose something of ourselves.
These questions also would apply to cloning - if our DNA and thusly organs and brain are the sum total of who we are, then a clone should have every memory that we do, because they would have the same DNA. The new "us" would be identical to us in every way, except that from the moment of first consciousness new memories would begin to form which would diverge the two personalities. Also, in cloning, what of disease? If a person is infected with a disease, say Polio, and cloned, would they retain themselves whilst "defeating" the infection and it's consequences? It's safe to assume the new clone would not retain physical damage such as removed organs, scars, etc, but they would have the memories of receiving that physical damage.
It seems the biggest question in religion, medicine and science is what is it that makes us who we are? Where is that piece of the puzzle coming from, or are portions of our personality and memory stored throughout our beings? Would each of us be exactly who we are had we been born with a different soul?
I feel as though some change occurs when a different soul is born into a body than may originally have been planned. Whether to the benefit of fulfilling a mission in life or the result of someone else choosing not to fulfill a mission and causing a change in the pattern of births, I'm sure that this happens somewhere along the line.
In my own case, prior to my birth there were some pretty solid plans in place. Then something changed. All at once, I was to receive a different name and grow up in a different location, and know different people than I would have. Even my birth date changed, as I was born two weeks late and even that late there had been no labor, no contractions, as if I was attempting to wait even longer for my birth. If you consider astrology, numerology and childhood environment, every piece changed dramatically from what was expected at about 3 months in utero to the conditions at my birth. The factors which changed who I was to be impacted the lives of a few other people quite dramatically. Yet, the genetic aspect remained unchanged.
So, just how persistent is memory? Does it travel through DNA of generations or is it remembered by our souls and accessed partially by our brains? Are types of feelings or emotions triggered within certain organs or do they also come from our souls?
Are our bodies like computers with the soul acting as the hard drive? You can pull a hard drive out of any computer and plug it into another computer, which will then function mostly as the original did.
It seems this is just another series of questions asking "who are we, really?". Will we ever find the answers?
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Best of 2011
As we move into 2012, I'd like to share with you my favorite posts of 2011:
Beginning Again
This is the first post from 2011, on the subject I know best - myself. I talk about the new year and reflect on the past and how I had changed.
Faith
A description of true faith.
Four Stages
The four stages of learning something new, and of creation.
Jesus and Minimalism
Biblical quotes spoken by Jesus describing the original minimalist approach to life.
I've Avoided This Subject...
My against-the-grain viewpoint of the death of Bin Laden.
Change
Inspiration on bringing change to the world.
Embracing Pain
On accepting the pain of life rather than fighting it.
Honesty
Honesty - beyond our current understanding into the heart of what it means... recognizing that our actions often lie to ourselves and to others.
I hope that you've enjoyed this sampling of posts and that my writing is beneficial to you! Here's to a bright new year for all of us!
Beginning Again
This is the first post from 2011, on the subject I know best - myself. I talk about the new year and reflect on the past and how I had changed.
Faith
A description of true faith.
Four Stages
The four stages of learning something new, and of creation.
Jesus and Minimalism
Biblical quotes spoken by Jesus describing the original minimalist approach to life.
I've Avoided This Subject...
My against-the-grain viewpoint of the death of Bin Laden.
Change
Inspiration on bringing change to the world.
Embracing Pain
On accepting the pain of life rather than fighting it.
Honesty
Honesty - beyond our current understanding into the heart of what it means... recognizing that our actions often lie to ourselves and to others.
I hope that you've enjoyed this sampling of posts and that my writing is beneficial to you! Here's to a bright new year for all of us!
Friday, January 13, 2012
A Twisted Sense of Morality
These days it seems we have confused morality with law.
If it is legal, then it is ok to do... right?
Laws are generally written by those who stand to benefit from them. Therefore, what is legal or illegal will always be skewed by whomever makes up the ruling class. It's illegal for two people who love each other to get married, (marriage shouldn't be government sanctioned in the first place - separation of church & state, people!) yet it's completely legal for an insurance company to steal from its clients.
Yes. Steal. Hiding behind "policies" doesn't make it any less stealing. In fact the only reason we don't call it theft is because it is considered legal. Another example is companies working a clause into all contracts that takes away a person's right to sue that company. That's called bullying and it isn't an acceptable policy... and we shouldn't be supporting it.
We live in a society where it is legal for the rich to steal from the poor, a person can (and will) be denied basic needs like shelter and medical care because of whether they work a job or have insurance, and we are helpless to teach our children anything different unless we completely remove them from society (which, incidentally, is illegal according to society, as children are legally required to attend some type of government sanctioned schooling.)
Our ability to be self-sufficient is becoming less and less legal, there is absolutely no where you can go in the world if you wish to be a non-citizen of any country and live outside of an economic system. There are places you could disappear to, but not from a legal standpoint.
So it is legal to steal, under certain conditions, legal to kill, under certain conditions, but illegal to marry whom you choose and illegal to live how you choose, even though it causes no harm to anyone else?
It's legal to viciously protest at a private funeral yet a peaceful protest against something which harms the common man can be met with police action?
It is clear that laws benefit those in power and if they harm the common man, it isn't a concern of those in power.
Every day millions of people go to work and on behalf of companies that cause great harm within the world. Lies are perpetuated, resources are squandered, the common man is harmed by the actions of the powerful, even as it is the common man who is often forced to carry out those actions. Those people are bound to do so by laws and a system that are against anyone who disavows the status quo.
It doesn't matter whether the "system" is broken or not...there shouldn't be a system in the first place.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
These were the wishes of our forefathers. These are their words. Sadly, we lack everything they strove to create. We are not united, we have no justice, we have no tranquility, rather than defending we are foisting our government's views upon the world, general welfare is downtrodden, and the blessings of liberty are under lock and key where we can never witness them.
If it is legal, then it is ok to do... right?
Laws are generally written by those who stand to benefit from them. Therefore, what is legal or illegal will always be skewed by whomever makes up the ruling class. It's illegal for two people who love each other to get married, (marriage shouldn't be government sanctioned in the first place - separation of church & state, people!) yet it's completely legal for an insurance company to steal from its clients.
Yes. Steal. Hiding behind "policies" doesn't make it any less stealing. In fact the only reason we don't call it theft is because it is considered legal. Another example is companies working a clause into all contracts that takes away a person's right to sue that company. That's called bullying and it isn't an acceptable policy... and we shouldn't be supporting it.
We live in a society where it is legal for the rich to steal from the poor, a person can (and will) be denied basic needs like shelter and medical care because of whether they work a job or have insurance, and we are helpless to teach our children anything different unless we completely remove them from society (which, incidentally, is illegal according to society, as children are legally required to attend some type of government sanctioned schooling.)
Our ability to be self-sufficient is becoming less and less legal, there is absolutely no where you can go in the world if you wish to be a non-citizen of any country and live outside of an economic system. There are places you could disappear to, but not from a legal standpoint.
So it is legal to steal, under certain conditions, legal to kill, under certain conditions, but illegal to marry whom you choose and illegal to live how you choose, even though it causes no harm to anyone else?
It's legal to viciously protest at a private funeral yet a peaceful protest against something which harms the common man can be met with police action?
It is clear that laws benefit those in power and if they harm the common man, it isn't a concern of those in power.
Every day millions of people go to work and on behalf of companies that cause great harm within the world. Lies are perpetuated, resources are squandered, the common man is harmed by the actions of the powerful, even as it is the common man who is often forced to carry out those actions. Those people are bound to do so by laws and a system that are against anyone who disavows the status quo.
It doesn't matter whether the "system" is broken or not...there shouldn't be a system in the first place.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
These were the wishes of our forefathers. These are their words. Sadly, we lack everything they strove to create. We are not united, we have no justice, we have no tranquility, rather than defending we are foisting our government's views upon the world, general welfare is downtrodden, and the blessings of liberty are under lock and key where we can never witness them.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
A Story
Once there was a great civilization possessed of intelligence and compassion, they surpassed all others in their accomplishments and harmony with one another. The inhabited a huge city, marvellous in its architecture and powered by nothing more than natural elements, unaltered and interlocked in perfect order. The people of the city had evolved to a state where they communed with the great consciousness of them all, the sleeping god, the universe itself. All necessary knowledge about existence, time and space could be received upon asking questions of the universe, listening and trusting the answers which came forth. They had learned to exist peacefully with all of life, learning and loving all that was. Their wisdom enabled them to be guardians of the Earth, watching over all of the other creatures and bettering conditions around the planet.
The time came when other beings on the planet, who were not as evolved, looked up to the civilization not with awe but with jealousy. Why should they have the control over all that knowledge and technology, while everyone else could only accept what they were given? The other beings became angry, and began to rise against the great civilization with their primitive yet violently powerful technologies. What they lacked in finesse they made up for in brute force, creating weapons which could cause great destruction and would leave their mark upon the Earth for thousands of years to come. The great civilization knew that they could not hand over their technology, for the unevolved would eventually use it for great evil, but they also knew they could only protect it for so long before they were destroyed.
A council met and a decision was made. The great civilization would take the most powerful and basic notions of their knowledge and impress it upon the world, so that it could live on to serve the world again some day, once another civilization rose to understand the true meaning. Great pains were taken and much time was spent to design the perfect way for the symbols to survive over millenia, despite war or famine, conquest or strife. A selection of those less evolved were brought in and subtle changes were placed into their mind. Each of the group received the same messages, male and female, so that they could pass them on through generations. Eventually, these messages would exist throughout their entire race, helping them to strive forward towards evolution and peace. The basic symbols: A spiral, a circle, a cross, a star, geometric shapes, impressions of creatures and their meanings, and finally an instinct that there is always more to learn was placed within the people's minds. The message wouldn't be obvious to its carrier, but as the messages disseminated, the people would eventually find them unignorable, drawing them on walls of caves and seeking to define their shapes. Eventually, the people would discover things within those symbols that would begin to unlock the keys of true knowledge.
Once the task had been completed, the people were sent back to their homes far from the great civilization, back to safety. The great civilization, knowing that destruction was imminent, began to dismantle every bit of their technology and destroy every fragment of their knowledge. The great city became a hollow shell, filled with ethereal beings drifting about, awaiting their demise. They knew so much that they had no fear of destruction... only the hope that one day all beings would evolve beyond the need for struggle, jealousy and war. They knew that a great civilization would rise again, like a phoenix rising from the burning ashes of its former self. Mankind would someday grow beyond their feeble minds into beings of great strength and great serenity.
With the sound of metal shells piercing the air, the end finally came. The flames and smoke rose from the great city as all within it disintegrated. The humans overtook the city once the smoke had cleared, scavenging for anything they could find and use to their benefit... but they found nothing. Hollow buildings with ashen bodies. They left empty handed.
The destruction of the city set a plague upon the Earth. The weapons the humans had used were poisonous to life itself, and in its defence the Earth turned in upon itself. The plates shook, the volcanoes erupted, the oceans boiled into steam and rained down again. The planet cleansed itself of the poison, of the people, of the shame brought upon it. Few survived, the lucky few selected to be born with messages had been given a gift, an instinct of how to survive the coming destruction. They had fled to the farthest corners, hiding in places the destruction would be the mildest. They survived, their message survived.
Having nothing, the humans had to start over. As they relearned their basics of survival, the message began to throb within their minds. Out it came, painted on cave walls, carved into objects, sung into songs. The pressure of the creative spirit within them overcame and found its way into the world. As civilizations began to develop once again, the message continued, singing louder, pouring out with more descriptive images and more complete songs. In time, the message would change the world, when humans finally began to really listen.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Hiding in Plain Sight
Where is the line between popular culture and coverup?
I don't think of myself as much of a conspiracy theorist, but I'm sure that there are those who would disagree. Today's article leans pretty far in that direction.
In my reading I saw an article title that sounded like it would be about Mary Magdalene having been a wife or lover of Jesus. My first thought was "that isn't news, The DaVinci Code was published quite a while ago". The article wasn't about Mary M at all, but my own reaction to it sparked an interesting question to ponder.
Is "fiction" that is written about history, religion, or fantastical (but possible) events triggering us to automatically assume the events must be fictional just because a fictional story was public knowledge?
I think that the answer is yes, and I think there are implications from this that could be interesting.
Dan Brown wrote the Da Vinci Code as fiction, based on information from historical sources, and it is entirely possible that all of the mystery in his book is actually fact. However, because the book is presented as a fictional story, we subconcioiusly discount any of the facts in it as nothing more than interesting trivia.
Fiction - no matter how much truth is in it - is assumed to be nothing more than a story. A facinating and amusing story that ignites the imagination with the "what if's" but still just a story. It even goes to the extreme of people being embarrassed to tell others they think something is real because it was the subject of fiction. The fiction itself isn't debunking any truth to the events, it is elaborating on them and even speculating about further possible meaning, but the connotation of fiction gives us the sense that these events are like any other myth or story. (I personally think most myth isn't just story)
Here's where the consipacy part comes in - if there is a truth you want dismissed by the majority of people, just make it a book or movie. Think about it. Have you seen Men in Black? Will Smith is hilarious and the subject becomes completely laughable, lighthearted and fun. The movie portrays the rumored about MIB as quirky, slapstick, not a threat. Sure, they can erase your memory but they'll tell you a pleasant story instead so it's ok. They might even better your life in the process. Something that was terrifying and potentially deadly becomes funny overnight. Today, you see a man in a black suit looking like an agent and it is a lot easier to say "Hah that was a funny movie. Not real though, he's probably just a businessman or CIA or something". If you go to the very core of the ideas in the movie - that there are aliens on earth, that the government covers it up and that there is an elite group of agents who are usually in black suits and don't seem to have identities, these ideas all existed long before the movie but not in a humerous sense. It was something people (the few who were aware of the possibility) were genuinely concerned about and when mentioned to people who knew nothing of it, it could potentially spread a bit of panic and concern. Since the movie this is no longer a concern, because mentioning it to the average person is going to get that "hah, yeah that was a funny movie. I totally saw it. Stop pretending it's real that's stupid" kind of reaction.
The thing is, it is nearly impossible to tell what the real trigger for these books & movies is. Is it the subculture belief in these things that the authors/screenwriters find facinating and decide would make a good story? Or is it a deliberate attempt to make sensitive and potentially panic or revolt causing information public knowledge while also making it appear completely fictitious? Or, is it a coincidental benefit to both?
This is the question we might never get an answer to, but the stories keep on piling up. Video games are in the mix now too...
It does explain one thing for me... why the government and any supposed shadow groups like the Illuminati would allow such sensitive information to appear on the big screen. I've always heard it is safest to hide in plain sight, but this takes that to a whole new level.
Next time you enjoy one of these pieces of fiction, take the time to wonder just how much of it was true. You may be surprised by it someday.
I don't think of myself as much of a conspiracy theorist, but I'm sure that there are those who would disagree. Today's article leans pretty far in that direction.
In my reading I saw an article title that sounded like it would be about Mary Magdalene having been a wife or lover of Jesus. My first thought was "that isn't news, The DaVinci Code was published quite a while ago". The article wasn't about Mary M at all, but my own reaction to it sparked an interesting question to ponder.
Is "fiction" that is written about history, religion, or fantastical (but possible) events triggering us to automatically assume the events must be fictional just because a fictional story was public knowledge?
I think that the answer is yes, and I think there are implications from this that could be interesting.
Dan Brown wrote the Da Vinci Code as fiction, based on information from historical sources, and it is entirely possible that all of the mystery in his book is actually fact. However, because the book is presented as a fictional story, we subconcioiusly discount any of the facts in it as nothing more than interesting trivia.
Fiction - no matter how much truth is in it - is assumed to be nothing more than a story. A facinating and amusing story that ignites the imagination with the "what if's" but still just a story. It even goes to the extreme of people being embarrassed to tell others they think something is real because it was the subject of fiction. The fiction itself isn't debunking any truth to the events, it is elaborating on them and even speculating about further possible meaning, but the connotation of fiction gives us the sense that these events are like any other myth or story. (I personally think most myth isn't just story)
Here's where the consipacy part comes in - if there is a truth you want dismissed by the majority of people, just make it a book or movie. Think about it. Have you seen Men in Black? Will Smith is hilarious and the subject becomes completely laughable, lighthearted and fun. The movie portrays the rumored about MIB as quirky, slapstick, not a threat. Sure, they can erase your memory but they'll tell you a pleasant story instead so it's ok. They might even better your life in the process. Something that was terrifying and potentially deadly becomes funny overnight. Today, you see a man in a black suit looking like an agent and it is a lot easier to say "Hah that was a funny movie. Not real though, he's probably just a businessman or CIA or something". If you go to the very core of the ideas in the movie - that there are aliens on earth, that the government covers it up and that there is an elite group of agents who are usually in black suits and don't seem to have identities, these ideas all existed long before the movie but not in a humerous sense. It was something people (the few who were aware of the possibility) were genuinely concerned about and when mentioned to people who knew nothing of it, it could potentially spread a bit of panic and concern. Since the movie this is no longer a concern, because mentioning it to the average person is going to get that "hah, yeah that was a funny movie. I totally saw it. Stop pretending it's real that's stupid" kind of reaction.
The thing is, it is nearly impossible to tell what the real trigger for these books & movies is. Is it the subculture belief in these things that the authors/screenwriters find facinating and decide would make a good story? Or is it a deliberate attempt to make sensitive and potentially panic or revolt causing information public knowledge while also making it appear completely fictitious? Or, is it a coincidental benefit to both?
This is the question we might never get an answer to, but the stories keep on piling up. Video games are in the mix now too...
It does explain one thing for me... why the government and any supposed shadow groups like the Illuminati would allow such sensitive information to appear on the big screen. I've always heard it is safest to hide in plain sight, but this takes that to a whole new level.
Next time you enjoy one of these pieces of fiction, take the time to wonder just how much of it was true. You may be surprised by it someday.
Monday, January 9, 2012
We Don't Speak Of It
Yet we all feel it...
The deep and intense knowledge that there has to be more to life, more to us, more to everything! Every one of us feels that lack, the emptiness, the gap, the hole in the core of our being. Something is missing and we try to fill it with human desires.
We seek to fill this gap in all manner of vices, in other people, in religion, even in throwing away everything we've been to become something else. Yet we still flounder about, not understanding why nothing we try works.
Every so often, something takes us there, allows us to feel a split second of completion within ourselves. It takes our breath away, leaves us speechless and gasping, can even make tears flow from our eyes. It's there, within our grasp, it's magnificent... and then it's gone. We're left feeling cold and alone again, with only the memory of that... whatever it is... taunting us.
We grasp, we struggle, we chase, we fight, we seek, we steal, we do anything we can to get it back, without even realizing what we are looking for. You see, when that moment hits us, we know something significant has happened but we don't know what has happened. We think that if we repeat our actions, we'll have that experience again, but we don't. We try something new but similar. We try something totally different. We know this "thing" is out there, and we've no idea how to find it again. We fall into discord.
Eventually, after time and possibly even lifetimes, we have an understanding. As long as we are physically moving and chasing, the connection cannot happen again. Only in a moment of stillness could we find it. Then, we let go. We allow the universe to bring to us what we need, when we need it. We stop fighting, we stop chasing, we stop grasping at things. They float into our lives and out of our lives, we accept their presence or lack thereof, and we begin to find an inner stillness that is beyond any stillness we've ever known. The stillness overtakes us, bringing us serenity and peace and finally, bringing us to that place we fought so long and hard to find. Our soul, our connection to the infinite, our silent and unmoving center. The portal within begins to open, more often and for longer than ever in the past.
Eventually, we'll exist in peace at all times, connected to our soul and all knowledge of the universe can flow through us when tapped. Only then will we begin to merge our body, mind and soul into one un-separated being, and soon after we'll leave the physical plane for good.
The deep and intense knowledge that there has to be more to life, more to us, more to everything! Every one of us feels that lack, the emptiness, the gap, the hole in the core of our being. Something is missing and we try to fill it with human desires.
We seek to fill this gap in all manner of vices, in other people, in religion, even in throwing away everything we've been to become something else. Yet we still flounder about, not understanding why nothing we try works.
Every so often, something takes us there, allows us to feel a split second of completion within ourselves. It takes our breath away, leaves us speechless and gasping, can even make tears flow from our eyes. It's there, within our grasp, it's magnificent... and then it's gone. We're left feeling cold and alone again, with only the memory of that... whatever it is... taunting us.
We grasp, we struggle, we chase, we fight, we seek, we steal, we do anything we can to get it back, without even realizing what we are looking for. You see, when that moment hits us, we know something significant has happened but we don't know what has happened. We think that if we repeat our actions, we'll have that experience again, but we don't. We try something new but similar. We try something totally different. We know this "thing" is out there, and we've no idea how to find it again. We fall into discord.
Eventually, after time and possibly even lifetimes, we have an understanding. As long as we are physically moving and chasing, the connection cannot happen again. Only in a moment of stillness could we find it. Then, we let go. We allow the universe to bring to us what we need, when we need it. We stop fighting, we stop chasing, we stop grasping at things. They float into our lives and out of our lives, we accept their presence or lack thereof, and we begin to find an inner stillness that is beyond any stillness we've ever known. The stillness overtakes us, bringing us serenity and peace and finally, bringing us to that place we fought so long and hard to find. Our soul, our connection to the infinite, our silent and unmoving center. The portal within begins to open, more often and for longer than ever in the past.
Eventually, we'll exist in peace at all times, connected to our soul and all knowledge of the universe can flow through us when tapped. Only then will we begin to merge our body, mind and soul into one un-separated being, and soon after we'll leave the physical plane for good.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Fire of Oblivion
In my previous post, I explained something about perception and the cyclic nature of time. With the understanding of those concepts, we can move on to the primary subject:
In this cyclic world that we live in, we cycle ever closer to breaking through the barriers that bind us.
We are souls trapped in physical bodies that severely inhibit our perception and understanding of the world, ourselves, and God. These physical bodies are trapped in the cycle of time and the physical realm. We are like fish in a fish tank, water is placed in the tank for the fish, and around the tank is no water. To the fish, the tank walls themselves are an indescribable and strange force which hold the water in place. To the fish, the outside of the tank would seem like a vacuum because there would be nothing to allow them to breathe, it would lack the viscosity of the medium they normally move through, and they would not be able to travel in all directions as they can in water... in fact they wouldn't have the means to move about at all.
To those fish, everything outside that tank is the same impression as everything in space is to us. Yet, we can move beyond our need to survive in this fish tank. We can meld our body, mind and soul to form a stronger being than any of the three could be on it's own. Even in our present state, of body, mind and soul sort of working together but not really communicating, we're terribly weak.
As time cycles, human efforts experience and ebb and flow, just like the tides. Over a period of history, we make great advances and then fall into darkness, make even greater advances and fall into greater darkness, make astonishingly greater advances and fall into seemingly astonishing darkness. However, through this progress continues to be made.
Every day, we come closer to realizing our greatest potential as human beings. All of our trials and triumphs, our mistakes and accidents, they are teaching us how to evolve. What we endure daily will ultimately show us how to love, and forgive, and to surpass the baser needs of the physical world.
As we live, we also die. We reincarnate into new bodies, bringing with us lessons learned from previous lives and choosing new challenges for ourselves to further develop and shape ourselves. We started out staring into blackness and as we learn, tiny holes are poked into the fabric and eventually where there was only blackness there will be only light.
However, being in the midst of this, it seems rather hopeless. We feel the pull of our eternal selves but we don't understand what it is we're feeling. To us, it seems to be a feeling of loss or emptiness, a hole in the core of our being that we want to fill more than anything. We will try every single physical means of filling that hole - through drugs, food, sex, power, accomplishment, money, controlling others, you name it, we have or will try it. We may spend several of our lifetimes in the same pursuit, until we finally realize that it holds nothing for us.
Until we finally realize that nothing in the physical world can heal our perceived wound. Until we finally begin to look inward and seek out something greater than ourselves.
Even then, we have no shortage of tests and difficulties ahead of us. Our path is difficult and it is such for a reason. Only by walking through the fire can we burn off what is unnecessary and make ourselves pure. The cycle of reincarnation is the fire of purification, and no where does it burn hotter than here on Earth.
In this cyclic world that we live in, we cycle ever closer to breaking through the barriers that bind us.
We are souls trapped in physical bodies that severely inhibit our perception and understanding of the world, ourselves, and God. These physical bodies are trapped in the cycle of time and the physical realm. We are like fish in a fish tank, water is placed in the tank for the fish, and around the tank is no water. To the fish, the tank walls themselves are an indescribable and strange force which hold the water in place. To the fish, the outside of the tank would seem like a vacuum because there would be nothing to allow them to breathe, it would lack the viscosity of the medium they normally move through, and they would not be able to travel in all directions as they can in water... in fact they wouldn't have the means to move about at all.
To those fish, everything outside that tank is the same impression as everything in space is to us. Yet, we can move beyond our need to survive in this fish tank. We can meld our body, mind and soul to form a stronger being than any of the three could be on it's own. Even in our present state, of body, mind and soul sort of working together but not really communicating, we're terribly weak.
As time cycles, human efforts experience and ebb and flow, just like the tides. Over a period of history, we make great advances and then fall into darkness, make even greater advances and fall into greater darkness, make astonishingly greater advances and fall into seemingly astonishing darkness. However, through this progress continues to be made.
Every day, we come closer to realizing our greatest potential as human beings. All of our trials and triumphs, our mistakes and accidents, they are teaching us how to evolve. What we endure daily will ultimately show us how to love, and forgive, and to surpass the baser needs of the physical world.
As we live, we also die. We reincarnate into new bodies, bringing with us lessons learned from previous lives and choosing new challenges for ourselves to further develop and shape ourselves. We started out staring into blackness and as we learn, tiny holes are poked into the fabric and eventually where there was only blackness there will be only light.
However, being in the midst of this, it seems rather hopeless. We feel the pull of our eternal selves but we don't understand what it is we're feeling. To us, it seems to be a feeling of loss or emptiness, a hole in the core of our being that we want to fill more than anything. We will try every single physical means of filling that hole - through drugs, food, sex, power, accomplishment, money, controlling others, you name it, we have or will try it. We may spend several of our lifetimes in the same pursuit, until we finally realize that it holds nothing for us.
Until we finally realize that nothing in the physical world can heal our perceived wound. Until we finally begin to look inward and seek out something greater than ourselves.
Even then, we have no shortage of tests and difficulties ahead of us. Our path is difficult and it is such for a reason. Only by walking through the fire can we burn off what is unnecessary and make ourselves pure. The cycle of reincarnation is the fire of purification, and no where does it burn hotter than here on Earth.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Cycling towards Oblivion
In this cyclic world that we live in, we cycle ever closer to breaking through the barriers that bind us.
Time is measured in both cyclic means and linear means, though we tend to accept time as ultimately linear. The Mayans had several means of tracking time, and our means mirror them in several aspects. We have our linear year, and yet we recycle months and days. Every year we experience January, February, and all the other months over and over. I've experienced 33 Januaries, 19968 Mondays, 139776 3pms. The most glaring difference is that we view our long count as being linear whereas the Mayans recognized it as cyclic. And it is cyclic, whether we realize it yet or not.
We have a perception problem...which indeed is one we are meant to have. We are so grounded and rooted in the small spheres in which we live, that it is very difficult to extend our vision upwards and outwards, to understand just how big everything else is when compared to ourselves. Those who travel the world, who fly, and the priviledged few who've traveled to space, they have glimpsed something the rest of us can't see. They have seen their homes look small, they've seen the earth look small, they've been places so alien to our normal understanding that it boggles the mind.
Propinquity - it refers to nearness and in demographical terms it refers to spending most of your life close to where you were born. Somewhere around half of Americans live within 50 miles of their birthplace. This means that as a whole, we are not used to being outside the sphere we grew up in. Some of us have never left it, even to travel.
Our perception, is extremely limited to small distances and short time frames, and we really have no way of knowing if our "long count" is cyclic or if it stretches on into eternity because we have nothing to be considered believable evidence.
We have the words of peoples of the past, but we cannot be certain we've translated them correctly and thusfar we have accepted their beliefs to be myths rather than fact. We have the knowledge that the planets cycle, the suns movement through the zodiac cycles, even that the sun's own "life" cycles. We suspect that most things in the universe spin or cycle in some way,
Yet we still think of time as linear.
In my next post I'll get into what I meant by that first sentence.
Time is measured in both cyclic means and linear means, though we tend to accept time as ultimately linear. The Mayans had several means of tracking time, and our means mirror them in several aspects. We have our linear year, and yet we recycle months and days. Every year we experience January, February, and all the other months over and over. I've experienced 33 Januaries, 19968 Mondays, 139776 3pms. The most glaring difference is that we view our long count as being linear whereas the Mayans recognized it as cyclic. And it is cyclic, whether we realize it yet or not.
We have a perception problem...which indeed is one we are meant to have. We are so grounded and rooted in the small spheres in which we live, that it is very difficult to extend our vision upwards and outwards, to understand just how big everything else is when compared to ourselves. Those who travel the world, who fly, and the priviledged few who've traveled to space, they have glimpsed something the rest of us can't see. They have seen their homes look small, they've seen the earth look small, they've been places so alien to our normal understanding that it boggles the mind.
Propinquity - it refers to nearness and in demographical terms it refers to spending most of your life close to where you were born. Somewhere around half of Americans live within 50 miles of their birthplace. This means that as a whole, we are not used to being outside the sphere we grew up in. Some of us have never left it, even to travel.
Our perception, is extremely limited to small distances and short time frames, and we really have no way of knowing if our "long count" is cyclic or if it stretches on into eternity because we have nothing to be considered believable evidence.
We have the words of peoples of the past, but we cannot be certain we've translated them correctly and thusfar we have accepted their beliefs to be myths rather than fact. We have the knowledge that the planets cycle, the suns movement through the zodiac cycles, even that the sun's own "life" cycles. We suspect that most things in the universe spin or cycle in some way,
Yet we still think of time as linear.
In my next post I'll get into what I meant by that first sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)