numbers

Ok guys, did you ever consider how we get to plus 3?

What is there to consider? You just write it down. There’s nothing to it.

Precisely, there’s nothing to it, in other words, that plus 3 is, in fact, nought.

Oh come on! You’re playing with words.

Am I?

Yes, my plus three can just as easily be three dollars, three apples, three cats.

Ah, so three can be noun or adjective, you’re saying, and you want me to believe that they’re essentially the same?

Well, anyone can see that three can describe anything. It’s not exactly controversial.

Yes, there’s nothing very controversial about three cats, I concede, but how do you get them? Do they just materialise from thin air?

Well, there are plenty of cats. It’s not exactly difficult to find or borrow three if we need to, but honestly, I don’t see why we need bother. This is maths, an abstract science.

True, so we can abstractly borrow three cats from the abstractium, or the mathematicum, we could call it.

Why do we need to borrow? There’s nothing to borrow. It’s purely abstract, purely theoretical.

Ah, but is it?

Well obviously.

So purely theoretically you have three cats which exist as nothing more than a vague or idle whim?

Why put it that way? They exist abstractly.

So if I abstractly give you a parachute and push you out of the airplane?

I’m dead.

Or abstractly give you a million dollars?

I’m abstractly grateful – which doesn’t amount to much.

How much does it not amount to?

Er... approximately zero. The same amount it cost you to give me those dollars in the first place.

So, you’re agreed that your purely abstract three cats amount to nothing more than nought.

In practical, physical reality, yes, but mathematics is a conceptual reality which lives its own parallel life. We can figure stuff out there, crunching numbers, and get a positive result here.

A positive result from zero?

Well yes – but maybe that’s not so strange... We are actually adding something of great importance and value – our mental application, our intelligence, our curiosity and commitment to advancing our understanding of things in general – all of which can benefit from these forays into the abstractium or mathematicum, as you call it.

Yes, except you seem to have got the maths wrong.

We do? What do you mean?

You seem to have assumed you can extract yourself from the equation.

Huh?

That you can just think about things and come up with solutions to mathematical problems, playing around with numbers as if they’re just thingless things which you can create or uncreate at will.

Eh... like I said – this is abstract thought – of course we can create numbers at will – plus three for example – where did that just come from? or three frogs?

The problem being that the mind doesn’t work that way – every thing you touch with your mind – everything you think about – no matter how big or small – is a direct, inseparable moment or part of creation – the same creation that started all those billions of years ago with an event your tongue in cheek cosmologists refer to as “Big Bang”.

No-oh. I can’t agree with that hypothesis.

Actually it isn’t.

Isn’t what?

A hypothesis.

What do you mean?

It’s a direct statement of fact corresponding with the first law of thermodynamics – that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Er...

What that means is that everything unfolding at any moment of time is a continuation of Big Bang – which never in fact went away.

Look Psi – Big Bang was a hugely explosive energy event – I don’t think you can equate writing plus three on a piece of paper to the creation of the universe.

Yes. That goes without saying.

I beg your pardon.

It goes without saying that you don’t think something. Not thinking it is your way of balancing the equation via nought or not.

Que?

Either you do it consciously by accepting nothing can be created or destroyed – as I do – or you "don’t think things".

Nope. You’ve totally lost me.

Not surprisingly. As long as you use the “I don’t think” get out of jail free card, you can go through life, maths or cosmology without  joining the dots – without seeing the totality – the inextricably interconnected nature of thought and thing – of mind itself and whatever mind is considering abstractly.

So you mean to say that I’m a part of the equation – of what I’m thinking about?

Er yes – how could it be otherwise?

Like in quantum mechanics – the observer affects whatever it is he’s observing.

Undeniably – but not because he’s observing it.

Then what?

That’s the “I don’t think” way of explaining it.

I don’t think what?

I do positively think nought is a part of whatever it is I’m considering – which, of course, it is, but isn’t it perhaps time to consider what, in fact, nought might be?

I er... I don’t know.

Precisely. Caught in a loop, aren’t you? Desperately trying not to consider the basic fundamentals – the fairly obvious fact that something cannot be created from nothing. Were you to consider that fact – you’d see that you, your consciousness – whatever that might be – holds the balance.

Er...

That for every thing – be it plus one, two, three, chicken or dog, brick of bridge you’re able to create either physically or abstractly, there needs must be a balancing entry on the other side of the ledger.

You mean like in book keeping?

Absolutely.

So nothing can be created without...

A corresponding nought-creation – which the mind tends to see as a minus entry – thus your plus three is real and possible here in 3D reality, in maths, in conversation or in thought only because , automatically, it’s borrowed from the other side as a minus three – or rather – to us it’s minus three looking across the y axis at the other side – but to them, over there – it’s positive.

Er... how can it be positive to them if it’s minus to us?

Presumably because their spin is the reverse of ours. To be honest, who cares how? It should be fairly obvious that they see their side in a positive light – in the same way we see ours in a positive light too. It’s kind of illiterate to talk about minuses – isn’t it?

Er – I don’t see why. If I’m driving backwards at 10 miles an hour...

Then you’re driving at minus ten miles an hour – from our perspective – no?

Yes, exactly.

But are you really driving backwards?

No, you lost me.

Well – you’re still moving forwards.

No I’m not – I’m moving backwards.

Only if you insist that the front of the car has to be that end – and not the other. If, on the other hand, you didn’t insist on fixing things mentally – as you currently do – but you allowed your mind to move freely either way about the y axis, then you’d see things differently.

?

But this isn’t going to make any sense whatsoever until you’ve experienced it – which means you have to leap into the quantum age of thinking things nought.

???

Thinking things nought – in other words, allowing the knowledge and awareness that no thing actually exists in totality – only if the two sides are kept apart – with you rigidly holding the divide – the eye of the observer – one way.

But... I can’t accept that no thing actually exists in totality. This sandwich in my hand – which I’m now raising to my mouth and taking a bite out of – you mean to say in totality it don’t exist? That’s absurd.

Absolutely. Weird. Absurd – these are epithets describing the quantum state of things. But in stead of thinking about it in terms of “quantum physics” – you can simplify matters and just go ahead and accept the obvious.

Er... which obvious are you referring to?

That things are just a function of consciousness – that consciousness works both ways – on the one hand holding one side in dominance with the awareness – while at the same time holding the other in unawareness, as pure consciousness – pure abstraction, pure art – so to speak.

So the other side amounts to nought – and thus – by your own logic, can be discarded, disconsidered, ignored.

Can be and is – as long as you wish to be an idiot.

Hey – wait a minute – no ad hominem attacks.

None intended – “idiot” here is a purely technical, legalistic term referring to a person who chooses to deny and ignore the other side of things – the “pure consciousness”, abstract or dark matter side of things.

Oh – so you weren’t trying to be offensive?

Nope.

Well – it still sounds pretty offensive. I think you should choose a different term.

Like vets referring to a female dog as a bitch, or doctors naming body parts we’d rather not hear named. There is a time and need for purely technical terms – which sadly, are misappropriated by laymen.

So what’s the other type of person then – the one who isn’t an “idiot”.

That person is not a person.

?!

A person is someone who has taken sides and stepped into his or her personhood.

And there’s an alternative?

Naturally.

What, if it’s not a secret?

No secret. It’s a human being.

Oh, big difference.

Correct, a big difference.

Actually, I was being sarcastic, in case you didn’t notice.

Big difference because the human being is neither one thing nor the other.

?

Neither plus three nor minus three. That’s why he/ she is referred to as a being – and in your beingness you’re in a trans-axial state.

A what?

It should be self-evident. Either we can describe it as a trans-axial state – which is a kind of 2D flat earth representation – or three dimensionally your y axis just happens to go right through you – so instead of trans-axial we could describe it as bi-volving state.

Er...

Bi-volving because you’re spinning both ways – centrifugally as in 3D reality personhood – ever outwards into a perceived future or further forwardness, and at the same time centripetally, ever inwards ad infinitum.

In towards what?

What do you think?

I have no idea.

Good – that’s a fairly good definition.

Huh?

Spinning inwards in towards “I have no idea” as you put it – which is another way of saying spinning inwards, ever further towards and into nought, the same nought that lies at the heart of your proposed Big Bang.

Er... this is giving me a head ache. How can we spin inwards? There’s nothing inside – just cells and atoms.

Just cells and atoms? What about energy? What about field lines? What about waves or ripples of consciousness which extend throughout the entire universe – and just happen to have their focal point – their zero point somewhere deep “within” you?

Er... sounds a bit theoretical and needlessly abstract to me.

Yes, in the same way your plus three, or three dogs are abstract.

Oh – so now its three dogs, is it?

The point is, that the system of logic you’re using – the path or patterns or reason your mind is able to wander along are mono-directional. You have one side of the equation which is a lot of fun to play with, up to a point.

Exactly – who says we need your other side – which is lost in space and time – which leads precisely nowhere...

Because it is everywhere. Do you really think you’re moving forwards?

I like to imagine I am.

Or that the universe is expanding.

Yes, I do. Why not?

So something that emerges inexplicably from nothing billions of years ago – which is theoretically, according to your monological way of seeing things – surrounding by nothing whatsoever – if it’s surrounded by anything at all...

Actually – now people are saying there are lots of universes – so ours could be expanding relative to others, you know.

Could be, could it – expanding and contracting – a bit like the lungs or human heart. That’s a nice step forwards – it’s beginning to sound biological.

Look Psi – of course I’m not really able to explain all this particularly well. I’m hardly an expert – and this kind of thing is incredibly complicated. That’s why only a small number of scientists or mathematicians really understand what’s going on.

Ah – they do, do they?

Well, they understand it better than me. They’d be able to give a far clearer, less muddled explanation of things than I can.

And do you think they’d be able to do so without thinking things?

Huh?

Do you think they’d be able to do so without thinking things?

Er, what do you mean? How can they explain something without thinking about it?

So the answer is no – am I correct?

Well – yes, but you’re being absurd. Why would they want to explain things without thiking about them?

First law of thermodynamics – conservation of energy. By thinking about things they’re bound to change them – meaning their explanation refers to something that no longer exists – something already in the past. The dog cannot, will not ever catch its tail.

Er... I think you’re being needlessly dismissive. 2 plus 2 equals four regardless of whether you think about it or not.

Yes – but as you yourself admitted – these numbers you’re using about pure abstractions amounting to nought – whereas the universe we’re describing – of which you are a part – is not, cannot be a pure abstraction – it’s physical, has mass and...

Yes? What?

It’s infinitely responsive to whatever you are thinking, feeling or observing.

No it’s not.

Correct – no, it is nought – which is essentially another way of saying “I do not think so.”

Oh God – I can’t win with you Psi. You’re obsessed with your definition of things – as if the whole of reality is a banker's credit and debit ledger.

Ok – well do you have a better explanation for how things just happened to come into existence?

No... well yes – I’m confident that our scientists have done a reasonably good job explaining things, and I’d be able to myself if the maths weren’t so darned difficult.

Which, in fact, it ain’t.

What? Of course it is. The maths is well-nigh impossible.

Look Travis, maths is just a language. If you’re able to speak English without any great difficulty and explain things to someone else – then you can handle Big Bang. You don’t need to play their number game.

No?

No. The beauty of maths, and the problem with maths is that it’s "either or"  – either 4 or 5, either minus or plus.

I think you’re oversimplifying things. I’m sure maths is an incredibly powerful tool. 

Which it is – to describe things. But we’re not really interested in describing things – are we?

No?

Because as soon as we do so, we’ve already affected them – they’re already different – we’re perpetually behind the curve with no chance of catching up – no matter how powerful our computers, how big our telescopes or particle accelerators. Physical reality can always run faster than us – because it’s a function of our bi-volving consciousness.

Er...

Things have to be thought into existence. They cannot exist as purely abstract numbers. In other words, at the speed of thought matter is borrowed from nought – creating an anti or dark matter on the other side of the axis, and on the other side of any thing manifesting.

Anti or dark – you’re not exactly trying to be specific with your terminology, are you?

Because from our perspective it can be perceived to be “anti” or “dark” matter – but on that side of things – it ain’t.

Ain’t?

It is a perfect expression of nought.

Um...

Perfect, in the sense that nought comes into focus when set against the backdrop of the thought which on our side manifests as matter. Unless you’ve bothered to go into consciousness and trace the pathways of thought - how it interacts in some way with the unthought – then none of this will make very much sense. Suffice it to say that the science and technology you’re going to be developing in the next thousand years or so will be based on an ever greater awareness of the bi-volving, biologic nature of consciousness. Little by little you’re going to learn how to do things differently – as your awareness of the other side of mind evolves – as you come closer to sensing how creation is something fundamental and on-going – how your very thoughts are instrumental in shaping the world and rewriting the story of life itself. Luckily, now you find yourselves in a situation where the old world order, the old maths is failing you – the wheels are turning still, frantically spinning, but there’s no traction – the vehicle is no longer moving forwards – in fact, it’s beginning to move backwards ever faster into the...

What?

Into what you perceive to be an abyss – but appearances can be and are deceptive.

Phew! You mean it’s not an abyss.

No – it’s an abyss alright – unless you become aware of how you’re...

What? Don’t fade on me now, Psi – I need to know.

You need to know nothing Travis.

Nothing? How can I know nothing?

I don’t know.

Oh God.

Yes. That’s one way – up to a point... You’ll be amazed what you really know when push comes to  shove.

Well I’d much rather push didn’t come to shove. That sounds like a trip into horrorland.

Yes – into the void – but really – it’s time. You can’t avoid the void indefinitely. No-thing beckons and you have everything to gain – so God’s speed – I wish you bon voyage into bi-volution – it’s time to open up your trans-axial partnership. We could start right away – if you like.

We could? Er, how?

Repeat after me – zero equal one, it is – i am.

No, I can’t – it’s too absurd.

There you go – you’ve just started along the path of least resistance. Not the one I’d have chosen – to be honest – but ideally suited to your current state of mind.

Oh hell.

Precisely – highway to hell. Your job – as I see it – is to prove to yourself that hell is not all hellfire and damnation, that hell, in fact, can be bright – and if you look at what’s happening in the world around you – it seems like you’ve already made a valiant start.

To be continued...