James, do you have to stand on one leg in the middle of the road with a plant pot on your head?
Obviously not, Taisia, no.
Then why in God’s name...
Beep!
Will no one put a stop to this censorious beeper?
Bit tricky Megan. It's baked into the cake.
What cake?
Our so-called 3D reality.
But I never encounter it normally... Only when...
Yes?
When I'm with you.
How strange, I wonder why.
Indeed. But you still haven't explained...
And am not likely to do so. I have better things to do.
Like standing in the middle of a busy road with a plant
pot on your head? Yes, I see what you mean.
Do you?
Well, I was being sarcastic, if you hadn't noticed.
I had my suspicions but I prefer to leave them in a state
of benign, unresolved ambiguity.
Is that so?
Absolutely.
Why, if you don't mind me asking?
Not in the least…
…...................Well?
Well what? I don't mind you asking.
But you’re not going to answer?
Why do you say so?
Because 27.5 seconds should be more than sufficient time
to start explaining yourself.
Should be, yes, if this were a regular common and garden
explanation.
Which it’s not?
But if it touches the fabric of reality itself...
The fabric of reality? I was just asking why you are
making such an exhibition of yourself!
Yes, but apparently you were making a couple of
assumptions which you wished to validate.
I did? I think you're mistaken. I was merely asking a
perfectly reasonable question.
Yes, it was perfectly reasonable to assume that I was
being strange in some way, but not reasonable to ignore the possibility that there
was and is reason to my madness.
Er... But you yourself refused to provide an explanation.
Did i?
Absolutely. As you still do.
Because I’m unable to park my car in the available space
doesn’t, in fact, mean that i don't have a car, or that i don't wish to park
it.
Er...
Your 20 or 30 seconds is more than ample for an answer
that can be handled mentally, within the framework of your normal 3D reality.
I should say.
But if my answer pertains to fundamentals and/or
absolutes, then the same time slot may be woefully inadequate.
But...
20 or 30 minutes may likewise be inadequate.
Come on!
In some extreme cases 20 or 30 years might be
insufficient.
No way!
It all depends.
On what?
On the fundamentals.
Er...
On what is being asked and the degree of sincerity with
which I'm willing or able to answer.
But really...
For time is of the essence, as they say, and if the question’s
answer pertains to the essence as opposed to normal homogenous reality,
then time itself may and indeed will be part of the answer.
Time itself?
Absolutely.
But...
Yes?
I don't see how.
That goes without saying.
I mean how can time be a factor in itself?
Now there’s the million-dollar question.
How do you mean?
Understand that, you basically understand everything.
?
Or I might have said – understand that and you no longer
have to wait 20 years for the answer to crystallise. Time no longer matters.
No longer matters?
Literally. No longer.
So I could skip the wait?
Absolutely.
Absolutely? If and when I'm able to accept the absolute
as opposed to insisting on the time y’space bound material representation.
Ding!
So we’re basically in the realm of Deep Thought, the
supercomputer programmed to solve the "ultimate question of life, the
universe, and everything" in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy,
which after 7.5 million years finally comes up with the long awaited answer...
Precisely...
(27.5 seconds)
fundamental questions need astrological time spans to be solved
if, that is, you wish to solve them from within the paradigm, mathematically.
The paradigm being?
General relativity.
You mean Einstein’s theory of general relativity?
Not really. We don't need anything more than rudimentary
mathematics in our quest to pin the tail on the pig, to ascertain what is
clearly lost-in-space. What's the point of all those numbers if the
fundamentals have been airbrushed out?
Then what “general relativity” are you referring to?
The one that describes the paradigm we’re currently in with
so-called “things” that purportedly exist in and of “themselves”... objectively
Non-Einstein general relativity? First I heard of it.
“What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any
other name would smell as sweet.” The fact that both general relativities
commit lèse-majesté by excluding the inexcludable, your alpha and your omega, is
what matters – the duck may quack but without wings it ain’t gonna fly.
Er...
Endlessly kicking the can of conscious-ness down the road,
excluding perpetually the majesty, the absolute, the sovereign-t – answering rational questions on the assumption that a. time exists, b. time is constant and c. time
is, to all intents and purposes, unlimited is like assuming I can endlessly
borrow more without ever having to pay down my existing debts.
No idea what you’re on about.
The scam that we call science, that’s what I’m on about: numbers
representing things, things conveniently disconnected from the presence...
Huh?
the presence of mind, the consciy-ness. Let’s switch that
round – science unscammed is my only real concern – in which the totality of whatever
is and the I of the conscious-perceiver interact, somehow, directly, fundamentally
– rendering all your calculations, your panoply of “things” suddenly irrelevant
and redundant. In short – I am: it is –
discovering to our wonder and amazement that I is at the very centre of things
– that things are never, by inference, simply things.
Like the observer in quantum mechanics affecting the
outcome of whatever is being observed? or quantum entanglement? Is that what
you mean?
Yes, but more… much, much more. The relationship, we learn,
is fundamental. It conceals the seemingly invisible elephant in the room.
Er... exactly what elephant would that be, James?
What elephant? Why, infinity, of course.
Infinity?
Infinity in ubiquity, described mathematically with the
simplicity of “zero equals one”. The game changer sans pareil.
Zero equals one? Which any rational person would dismiss
as an absurdity.
Naturally, until they bother to heed the elephant hidden
in plain sight, and recognise the fact that I – the conscious perceiver,
and the totality interacting with me are not, in fact, the polar antipodes we
take them for, once infinity is brought out of quarantine, back into play, from
the broom cupboard under the stairs back to ubiquity.
Wait a minute… You can’t mean to say that the totality on
the one hand – the vastness of space and time, if you like, and the little
frail bundle of consciousness at the centre of my existence – the I-me, on t’other,
are somehow interconnected or interdependent?!
Absolutely. Yes siree!
?!
That is where the absolute leaps out of the murky depths
of infinity and makes itself known. There’s really very little to add.
But…
Unless you accept the fundamental co-union of 0 and 1 –
the life spark of consciy-ness on the one hand – and the inky black depths of all
that is – the so-called totality on the other – then you’ve
inadvertently excluded infinity from the conversation – or from your
pseudo-scientific discourse. In other words, you’ve inadvertently admitted that
you’re only really interested in discussing the convenient half of
reality.
Er…
As in 42 – an essentially meaningless number which does,
however, in the context of Deep Thought’s lengthy journey into time y’mass
answer the question.
It does?
Sure – if you’re willing to face the inconvenient half of
things which, arbitrarily you’ve been excluding.
Which is?
Which is.
Is?
Is.
We don’t seem to be communicating very well, Dorothy.
You’re just repeating my question.
So it would seem, but then again – infinity has a habit
of not conforming to one’s demands or expectations, does it not?
I…
Yes – 27.5 seconds later
I wouldn’t know. I cannot claim to be in any way
cognisant of, or familiar with, the structure or nature of your precious
“infinity”.
Mine, yours, precious or unprecious – infinity is merely
a mathematical term – a symbol – a name to describe the fundamental
relationship between the two sides of things – the I and the not i.
Er… don’t you think you’re being somewhat obsessively
humancentric in all this?
What’s humanity got to do with it? or centricity for that
matter?
Well, your I seems to be of equal weight to all else – to
the entire universe with all its stars and galaxies.
Correct.
Which is patently absurd.
Absolutely.
Well there you are.
Indeed. The infinite is always going to be absurd to the
finite mind – or the “me” that is busy doing everything possible to exclude
infinity from the equation, from the calculus of life.
But…
Yes?
Why would the vain and egoistic “me” work so hard to
exclude infinity from the equation? Surely there’s some mistake? The “me”, on
the contrary, likes to emphasise its massive importance, does it not?
Yes, it does, but that’s neither here nor there.
Huh?
For as long as it’s denying 0=1, as long as it’s working
strictly within time, within matter, within space y’things – it’s merely naval
gazing – twiddling fingers and thumbs – playing games with numbers and counters
on a checker board – but totally avoiding, totally denying, totally excluding
the simple, simple, basic fundamental requirement – the absolute – the
underlying relationship between that which is – no matter what – which has to
be and can only be apprehended and perceived through the I being me – and “not”
– the other half – the non-conformist, awkward side of things that refuses to
play ball – refuses to slot into that oh-so convenient scheme of things.
Oh dear… oh dear… my head… my head…
Yes. It’s rather discombobulating – is it not?
Rather? It’s utterly insane.
Or would be – if you yourself weren’t, somehow or other,
of the essence yourself.
Me? Of the essence? As in time being of the essence?
As in duh… quit being so categorical.
But you said time was of the essence…
Cuckoo la la – what matters it what I said? We have
opened a little door and invited infinity to prowl in our neck of the woods. It
behoves us to treat her with the respect she deserves and requires. Anything
less would be grossly disrespectful on our part, and downright dangerous.
Why? Is she aggressively disposed towards us?
No, not at all – but you don’t meet infinity with a set
of utterly trivial assumptions about matter and mass which have no bearing
whatsoever on the simple truth – the reality of is, as opposed to the reality
of things.
Why? The reality of things is not, in my opinion trivial.
It’s rather elegant and complicated. It teaches us not to take ourselves so
seriously – that we’re just a tiny cog in a vast wheel of space and time. It
teaches us that humanity is far from being at the centre of life and the universe.
That we are incredibly insignificant, no matter how important we may persist in
imagining ourselves to be.
It teaches you nothing of the sort.
I beg your pardon!
It teaches you nothing of the sort. When infinity enters
your neck of the woods – either you face her and take her as She is – allowing
her to reoxygenate the waters of your conscious-ness, or you become a force of
denial – a castrated version of humanity, an enemy of life – which cannot or
will not face the fundamentals – the absolute – that is – regardless of your
views and mental constructs – you become that which provides resistance and thus,
paradoxically, traction for the part of life and I-being-me – still willing to
work with Her – still willing to countenance and embrace her uncircumscribed by
time y'space reality.
You mean to say she’s a vengeful Goddess – a Kali of
sorts?
No. Infinity is not anything you or I can possibly hope
to adequately comprehend or describe – in the same way 42 is a largely
meaningless answer to the pinnacle of intellectual inquiry – the culmination of
7.5 million years of ceaseless computation. But you’re welcome to make of Her
what you will. You can even imagine she’s female, if you like, simply because
it was less inappropriate for me to use the female pronoun when describing that
which is in no way part of a closed system.
Well Sion, brave words all these, but in the end
meaningless to anyone who, like me, is a finite being with a body fixing me in
space n' time.
Yes. A mere distraction, in fact.
How so?
Look around. What do you see?
Nothing.
And?
And nothing. What do you want me to see?
I thought you were bound by massy things in identifiable space
and time.
Stop playing with words. I’m the same as everyone else,
and…
And what?
Hey? What happened to the flower pot?
What flower pot?
And the road. You were standing in the middle of a busy
road.
Me? Standing in the middle of a busy road?
Yes, absolutely. You were. I can swear you were.
You can swear, can you? Why on earth would I be standing
in the middle of a busy road with a… what was it you said?
With a flower pot on your head.
With a flower pot on my head? You must think me some kind
of idiot, I expect.
No, really James. You were. Just look back at the
transcript. It’s all there.
I’m not falling for that one Megan.
Falling for what?
That “look at the transcript” ruse.
?
There’s no way I’m responsible for what you said or think
you said.
But why would I say something like that if it wasn’t
true?
Why are you asking me? You’re free to say or think
anything you like. If you’re only working with half, the convenient half of
reality and excluding the absolute itself – then your words, thoughts,
perceptions and beliefs are as good as meaningless.
But – I’m highly rational, almost obsessively so. I’m a
stickler for facts and objective analysis. I’m a
Blundering fool, if you ask me. But that’s just my
opinion. Look over here – what do you see behind the cardboard cut out of a man
with a flowerpot on his head.
Huh? Where did that come from?
What do you see?
A river? Wait a minute – a sea?
A sea? Are you sure?
I… Oh no – oh no – something’s not right.
Really, in what way?
I’m getting queasy. Motion sickness. Vertigo. Something’s
wrong here. Badly wrong.
Here, Malcolm – put this on your head.
Oh thanks. What is it?
A flower pot.
A flower pot?
Yes, can’t you see?
I’m feeling somewhat queasy, you know.
Do it!
Ok.
Now stand on one leg.
But…
Do it. You’re going to be ill, very ill unless you do as
I say.
Oh. Yes. Of course.
Now?
27.5
seconds – now merging into 7.5 million years – later. …Now how do you feel?
Fine. Grounded. That’s the thing. An amazing technique.
Really?
Yes. Incredible. It was like I was suddenly centred once
again. Something in the plant perhaps? Petunias if I'm not mistaken... Or the
weight of the flower pot on my head…
Or perhaps the cars driving past on either side?
Oh – actually – I didn’t even notice them at first – I
was lost at sea. Queasy, you know. Those waters.
Infinity.
Ah – is that it?
Well, not quite.
Huh?
You’ve not quite made it back, yet.
No?
I think you have to get a different perspective first.
Yes? Er
I think you need to drive past.
I don’t see how that’s possible really.
No. These things never seem possible until we realise
that possibility has very little to do with the true nature of things, steeped
in almost unfathomable improbability.
?
You’ve been standing here rather a long time, you know.
Well, long enough to come back to my senses. I expect
those drivers think I’m rather potty, you know.
Yes, I’ve had a few reports.
Oh?
They tried to arrest you. Sent a whole brigade armed to
the teeth.
Really? I find that somewhat hard to believe.
You were at the time breathing fire.
Er… Merry – I’m not sure this is making much sense.
A dragon.
Oh dear. Things are getting out of hand.
The cars on the other hand – they were fish.
Fish?
Swimming past in the water.
Not cars?
Superficially, for sure, they were cars, for sure.
Superficially?
But in actual fact – at a deeper level they were part of
Darwinian theory.
How so?
We never really left the oceans, you know.
But – we must have done. We live in houses. Walk on legs.
Drive cars. We’re human.
Superficially, yes.
But under the surface?
Still the same old fish.
Oh dear. I’m feeling a little
Confused?
Perhaps it would be easier to understand if I could
experience it directly.
Who’s stopping you?
I…
Here – look in this mirror. What do you see?
Oh! You’re right! I am a fish. In the water.
In the sea. Nice, isn’t it?
Actually yes. Feels very balanced. In harmony.
Good. Well, have a little swim, if you like. Find your
fins.
Don’t mind if I do.
But while you’re at it – observe this rather unusual
surface.
Oh – what a beautiful shell.
Isn’t it. Shimmers, doesn’t it?
Yes. Shimmers, wonderfully.
And there?
Amazing. I’m in two minds. One’s here in the water
swimming. The other…
Is driving.
Is driving past that nutter standing in the middle of the
road with a flower pot on ‘is ‘ed.
.jpg)
Precisely.
What a ticklish sensation. Like my consciy-ness is many
layered.
Or many fibred. Yes. Ticklish indeed.
And what does it mean?
No idea.
Me neither.
Yet it can be felt, can it not?
Yes. A very particular feeling, an experience of being
here and there.
Here and there.
Or now and then.
Or now and then.
Billions of years apart – perhaps.
Perhaps, indeed, if Darwin was right.
And if he wasn’t?
Billions, millions or 27.5 seconds – much of a much as
far as infinity Herself is concerned.
She-ing it... that be anthropomorphology.
For want of a better word.
Ha – good one – good joke – I’m laughing – I never knew a
fish could laugh.
They can’t.
I’m laughing – a fish – splitting my sides – and the
waters above and below are gushing in and out of me in a way I cannot possibly
conceive or describe.
Tis so.
Tis so.
And the rest, as they say…
Or would if they were able to escape the metronome of day
and night – tick tick ticking away – ceaselessly – locking minds and thoughts
and words into six lines of endlessly looping verse…
is history
0=1
ineffably
no flower pots were hurt or disadvantaged in the making
of this documentary exposé,
which is more than can be said for the bowl of petunias
that sadly crash onto Magrathea along with a sperm whale, after Arthur Dent
activates the infinite improbability drive on the Heart of Gold “space”craft, thereby
rendering the incoming nuclear missiles infinitely susceptible to the fickle
whims of quantum de-causation or Arthur Dentism, if you prefer.
No comments:
Post a Comment