in which tom solves every paradox under the sun

she generally ignores listening to all their conversations – they’re never really about her – always, in fact, a thinly veiled affirmation or validation of the very self who is speaking, the very person, be that tom, harry, jamel purportedly discussing her –

her? who on earth?

so called “infinity” – the big I, if you will – and is it any coincidence that all of them like to use that very “I”, the symbol which in fact denotes the infinity constant…

infinity constant? what the heck?

the infinity constant, denoted big I, [as opposed to infinity itself ∞, neither to be confused with small i in mathematics denoting an imaginary number] is paradoxically defined in “beyond 3D – a user’s guide to all that is, by Rutherford Ecklespog” as “a definite value or number which is, nonetheless, incalculable, indeterminable or unstatable in 3D reality” for to do so, as i’m sure you’re aware, would collapse the wave function generally referred to as “consciousness”, or more accurately “conscious-awareness” of the person or individual running the hemispherical 3D operating system, thus voiding their user terms of service agreement unless, that is, the said individual is able to function ambi-spherically, transcending the one-sidedness of 3D reality, perceiving instead the uncontained her of infinity – thereby enabling disentrainment from one particular, locally dominant signal or wave – allowing concurrent and apparently contradictory layers of matter and meaning, even alternate versions of reality to co-exist when the i that is me is no longer rigidly fixed in one position, but is able to slide across the corpus callosum, or quantum equivalent thereof, is thereby free to experience a range of different frequencies at which point, so to speak, 1 and 0 cease to be mutually exclusive opposites, allowing what appears to be logical chaos and anarchy, a recipe for disaster that should and would melt-down the very mind that me requires in order to i – instead engaging infinity as an eagle does the thermals it soars upon, naturally, instinctively. what on the ground down there would have been an impossible quagmire is up here almost effortless poetry-in-motion, but woe betide the daedalus or icarus who would fly before being ready to reconcile peacefully the two intransigent hemi-spheres. 

“is this eagle really me?” you might ask.

tis a moot point for 3D reality is far, far below, and yet consciousness is a continuum, is it not, or so Rutherford Ecklespog argues: “to the very same extent that our i appears to be conscious and aware of the fact, wholly engaging both mentally and physically infinity, riding her thermals as an eagle, one's i is no longer able to differentiate, no longer willing to assume that big I herself is any less conscious, is no longer able to determine where “my” consciousness ends and hers begins or vice versa, is no longer able to be certain regarding where in fact, or what i am or is – without, in attempting to do so, severing the link and denying the very I holding me aloft on the thermals of ambi-sphericality, beyond 3D”

0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=0=1=012:13

yet, today, inexplicably 012:13 interrupts her usual detached state of being all things to everyone and she finds herself third – a not entirely indifferent, nor wholly disinterested party to the following blip in her boundless data stream:

zero…

equals one?

you're asking me?

you're asking me

ah, yes, very good – the question is, apparently, an active component of the math – a different energy charge, if you like

but if i don’t – if i want my math to be practical, sensible, unidirectional?

you're welcome to it – you get to choose

i do?

a math that is true to life, with unpredictability and indeterminacy within a framework of predictable, calculable probabilities, or a pure math which is left-brain isolated from so called material reality, dealing with numbers as pure abstracts, as if one or zero actually exist independently, or can do so

of course they can

of course they can, agreed, by definition, in pure maths in the glorious seclusion of left-brainia

huh?

it's a place, isn’t it?

left-brainia?

yes

a place?

yes, apparently so

but that’s...

weird, isn’t it?

you're telling me

as real as the place we now occupy here in physicality – as long as i’m able to maintain left-brainia as a state essentially isolated from the rest of me, or the rest of reality

and if i can’t?

when i can’t left-brainia collapses back into a greater whole – the mind or me or conscious-awareness, if you like, of left ‘n right brainery

O

indeed

huh?

O as in o, the perfect mathematical expression of yes, i see, it is

er?

yes?

can we rewind?

sure, why not

zero equals one – you know perfectly well that this is utter nonsense

correct

and yet you persist in stating it as a fact, as truth

as a definition

precisely, a meaningless or impossible definition

well spotted

so you don’t deny your folly

why should i? the world needs folly, particularly beautiful, inspired folly such as my own, which just so happens to be true

!?!?!?

if, that is, you step back from left-brainia’s secluded isolation and embrace the real meaning of numbers, in their entirety

but how can you persist in contradicting yourself so flagrantly?

how, dear tom, can i avoid it, if hum

if what?

if the very term “if” is a product of a reality in which things are often hypothetical, in which things co-exist under or within alternative jurisdictions which are apparently, yet not necessarily diametrically opposed

so you’re unable to resolve your contradictions, and therefore decided to offload them on me

on the contrary – i recognise and accept that so-called “contradictions” are part and parcel of the fabric of reality, and do not therefore need to be denied or “resolved” as you put it, willy nilly

willy nilly?

just to please an obsessive compulsive left brain hemisphere which is either unable or unwilling to accept its very real limitations, and therefore insists that reality has to conform to its linear and sequential logic, irrespective of the fact that reality frequently reveals and exhibits in plain sight a glorious profusion, a splendid abundance of perfectly non-linear, evidently irreducible contradictions. the either a or b model explanation doesn’t cut it. matter can no more emerge from no matter than organic, self-replicating biology can emerge from inorganic matter, to name but two examples. the problem, you see tom, is not with a particular explanation but the insistence on assuming a “particular explanation” can possibly cover both sides of reality both directions of meaning or sense aggregation.

huh?

because you can’t have your cake and eat it.

er...

meaning or sense have to be built up, woven or spun from their respective points of origin – either a north or south pole

either from a zero or from a one

and never the twain shall meet

yet, paradoxically, never can they be truly separate for neither can be, let alone exist, without the other

er...

so paradox, it transpires, is a state of mind which we have to welcome and embrace, to dance with the devil of implied contradiction if

implied? meaning it isn’t real?

whyever not? It can be real to the extent that reality is an agglomeration of things interacting with each other without fundamental reason or rhyme, yet irrelevant, inconsequential, of zero significance on the other side of perception where reality is first and foremost an assumption, true or false, made by an overactive conscious-awareness, that things can or do exist independently of it, the source of seeing, thinking, knowing – which can oscillate between zero and one, between the point of a circle or wave which actually appears to make contact with, to touch this reality, and the remainder which isn’t even remotely connected.

er

in actual fact zero and one are two alternate ways of perceiving the same truth, the same thing, the same – either in terms of the hole, or the whole – either in terms of one the divisive advancing “male” or in terms of zero, the all-encompassing, spinning, motionless “feminine”. either or, both or even neither, for ultimately perception can always pull a wild infinite from its hat, can see things utterly uniquely without reference to anything else, the third waiting in the wings, waiting to step into the ring and ensure that things do not descend to a dull and predictable either or, for what would be the point? what would become of us, of me, of life, of meaning and the universe if things were simply either a or b, if infinity were eliminated from the equation?

so you’re intent on keeping infinity alive and well at all costs, even if that requires you to destroy mathematics by insisting that zero equals one?

but imagine, for a second, what would happen if you could somehow eliminate infinity, the zero equals one, from the equation

but infinity is not defined as zero equals one which is evidently the cause of this misunderstanding

on the contrary, there is no misunderstanding, i assure you. infinity can be defined however you like, but no definition can give you as broad or as bold, or elegant an infinity as zero equals one, which is why by default, at the current stage of our linguistic and number awareness we’re sticking to this particular explanation.

but...

yes?

it's preposterous: zero can’t equal one

yes, i completely agree – it is preposterous, and yet nonetheless zero does by definition equal one if we are to avoid eliminating infinity, the wild card, or trinity, from the equation.

but no one’s trying to eliminate infinity?! it's always welcome if and when needed, but this is not an equals opportunity exercise in establishing token representation for infinity

absolutely, token representation is too little too late, is it not?

no, i meant to say that infinity, like any number, value or symbol, can be inserted easily enough if and when needed

“inserted”?! are you out of your mind?

?

you can’t just “insert” infinity willy nilly

i said “if and when needed” didn’t i – which is hardly willy nilly, as you put it

you seem to be utterly oblivious to the fact that infinity is neither a number nor a value

huh?

neither big nor small, though in any particular instance it could manifest as either

then what in your estimation, gregory, is infinity?

in my estimation?

yes

how on earth could i possibly make or provide an estimate for infinity? would not the very attempt to do so defeat the objective

i’m sorry – i fail to understand what you mean

yes, evidently, if you expect mean to mean something or other, which is precisely what infinity never is, nor was, nor can be

but you yourself said it can manifest as a big or small number

yes, but just because something happens to manifest a certain way on a certain occasion doesn’t mean that’s what it actually is, does it?

i... can hardly say

good! “hardly saying” you are coming closer to, within a whisker of describing infinity

but in that case your description of infinity is essentially meaningless

correct, to the hemi-spherical rational mind that demands imperiously the satisfaction of something tangible, something more or less certain, but doing so simply implies that you’ve taken the lazy, unprofitable path of describing things exclusively in terms of things, which is an idiot’s excursion into the unrelenting wilds of tautology.

wait a second...

yes?

we're describing things in terms of laws, causes, or concepts which enable us to better understand, to better model, utilise or process those things

blah blah blah – things compounding things, leading you ever further, ever deeper into a corpocracy of thinginalia, ever further from mathematical purity and the simple, fundamental underlying truth

?

that zero equals one

which you cannot prove or demonstrate

ah, but if i am right then i will find myself aligned with none other than infinity herself, flying high amphi-spherically

oh, so now she’s a she is she?

whyever not? or an it if you prefer, or any other label, just as long as we recognise that these are merely tools of convenience, that infinity by definition cannot be encapsulated

ok i get the message. you seem to have discovered a new version of God

yes, that’s not as ridiculous as it seems

so your infinity is intelligent?

no

or benevolent?

no

then how on earth can you meaningfully describe it as a replacement for God?

because although it is neither intelligent nor compassionate, yet within infinity there be intelligence and compassion which can be called on, harnessed or utilised, if we have a good working relationship with infinity

but...

yes?

how can you have a “working relationship” with something that is completely inhuman and impersonal?

presumably because we ourselves are products of infinity, and start by attuning to the infinite within which we ourselves manifest

and then?

then infinity does what things cannot

?

reversing your laws of matter and causation to uphold the basic truth that nothing can detract from infinity itself, nothing can get in its way or prevent it from bringing to pass whatever best serves the simple underlying... um

that zero equals one?

that zero equals one if i am willing to is

i beg your pardon

if i am willing to is

yes, i heard you, but it makes no sense

none whatsoever – that’s the beauty of it

?

making no sense it catalyses or crystallises my 0=1 awareness, ensuring that i delocalise my conscious-awareness, that i enter the equation paradoxically as

for a minute there i foolishly thought you were going to say what

well perhaps i did, bearing in mind that the natural tendency, the bias is to make matter, to one, to thing

so you go the other way

we allow infinity to make what she will of us

yes zero square

apparently so, though none can say how or what in fact this is

and zero squared is one

if i is aware of one being nought

and is i aware of this

yes, it would appear to be so, if infinity is anything to go by

if infinity is able to reveal the unmade, matterless side of things

indeed

the three the one the two

the two the zero one

if numbers had souls

if numbers could matter more than the origin of whatever is i am

indeed

in no uncertain terms

zero squared equals one, he declares

if root one be

not is

am zero tree

while she smiles in serendipity

O

Iii

O

epilogue

those of you who elected to read this as a 3D text will now most likely be wiping up the cerebral nosebleed it almost certainly induced, perhaps asking whether hemi-spherical masochism is in fact the best path to enlightenment. my apologies. you are right to question the ingestion of the above as a healthy dietary option. our g-nomeportal sanitary committee is providing free baby wipes and dr pepper flavoured chewing gum as a consolation for those wishing to be consoled. before considering taking legal action please note paragraph 23.4.4.2 on page 493 of the g-nomeportal user agreement which stipulates that liability is, ultimately, in the eye of the beholder, not to mention the fact that g-nomeportal is registered in C3 (as opposed to 3D) which kiboshes your envisaged jurisdiction, not to mention the fact that 0=1 legal entities are notoriously difficult to pin down at point of fact. but should you wish to persevere you have our deepest admiration and utmost respect. were your energies to be channelled instead into eradicating poverty or saving the woolly mammoth from foregone extinction you would almost certainly succeed and your world would indeed be a better place.

some of our 3D subscribers however, will have sensed a something tantalisingly not quite visible but on the tip of their febridly pulsing corpus callosum, something that makes them want to believe or imagine some hidden trace of poetry was woven into the text. they would be mistaken of course, yet we appreciate the undeserved compliment. they are sensing something else – the C3 navigation of mind-matter masquerading as text on your side of the corpus callosum. sensing is almost seeing, but try to keep a grip of reality and avoid imputing beauty or truth where in truth there is a flight log plus advertising and live stream comments by subscribers.

so were you to be infinity herself, beloved I, i’ll try not to get emotional, you would see a juxtaposition of noise and verbage, flight and folly, and you know what, somewhere in the middle of all that a third pops out of non-existence, an unexpected proof of alchemy i’ve secretly been working on for several years now, sadly inaccessible to none but the certified insane or credentialed saint, neither of whom would be particularly interested, but i live in hope and continue to tweak the formula in the misguided belief that somehow, someday i’ll (as opposed to ill) succeed (as opposed to suckseed), so there

i gratefully thank the ways and memes committee for affording me the rare and wholly undeserved privilege of being allowed to step out from behind the screen of humble anonymity to address my subs directly. and if you’ll be good enough to paint me an illustration or two, i guarantee that we’ll get you a corpus callosum (or quantum equivalent thereof) upgrade in the post in a jiffy. meanwhile, don’t forget to like and subscribe, and meet me and the rest of g-nomeportal’s ambi-spherical development team at the eagle’s nest on Monday evenings after work between 7.15 and 7.30 pm. bye for now.