to C or not to C

 

Two? Surely there must be more than that?

 

No, Pipin, I assure you there are two.

 

But, people are so very different.

 

Yes, but in terms of consciousness there are only two types.

 

Well, I find that hard to believe.

 

I’m not surprised.

 

But if there are only two types – what on earth are they?

 

Ah, it has little or nothing to do with personality.

 

Then what?

 

It’s a matter of consciousness.

 

A matter of consciousness?

 

Actually, the matter of consciousness.

 

What on earth do you mean?

 

Well, as we’ve already discussed…

 

We?

 

Well, other versions of us masquerading as different voices in the venerable hallways of g-nome portal.

 

I find it so undignified – that we’re all essentially one person.

 

Not strictly speaking one person.

 

Then what?

 

One being.

 

One being with many names and voices.

 

Correct. One, being many persons, where the person is but the skin or shell of what we truly are.

 

Hum...

 

Well, as we’ve already discussed, things in themselves cannot, do not matter.

 

Yes, you have a major issue with objective reality, V.

 

Indeed i do. It’s a wonderful platform for experiencing a multitude of things but it necessarily excludes the boundless and the infinite, which are only accessible directly through consciousness itself. In this respect, i stand by my assertion.

 

Er... which one?

 

That consciousness by definition matters.

 

So you say. And yet, I’m utterly unconvinced.

 

Good, Pipin. Let it be so. As long as you’re playing in the sandpit of consciousness, enjoying the 3D experience for all it has to offer, you have no choice but to feel and believe that things exist in and of themselves, and that you, the person, are merely an observer.

 

Whereas you – great master of consciousness, know the hidden truth that things only exist because you, the node of consciousness that you are, conjure them into physicality...

 

Yes, Pipin, it sounds absurd, does it not? Especially when you use a pronoun – I, you, he…

 

How so?

 

Because pronouns are personal, are they not – and the person is himself or herself as much an object as anything else in 3D reality.

 

Oh. So you’re not a person?

 

Of course I am, but at the same time I is.

 

You is?

 

Correct. That’s the impersonal form in which I no longer identify primarily with my personhood, but shift my attention, my energy to the consciousness that is in truth my basis, my foundation, my isness.

 

And you can do that?

 

Anyone can.

 

And what happens when you do?

 

At first nothing, which is why few people continue with this experiment.

 

Oh.

 

It’s a bit like learning to read.

 

Huh?

 

At first you learn a few squiggles called letters and you don’t really get anywhere. It’s only when you start reading fluently that reading becomes something valuable and enjoyable, when stories emerge from the squiggles.

 

So you can experience reality in a fundamentally different way? As consciousness itself?

 

Correct. We can. We do, to a limited extent without realising it, but we nearly always find ourselves drawn back into personhood, the unique, colourful, emotional, polarised perspective of me, the person that I cultivate with each day of my existence, in the hope that I can make it, my person, into something wonderful.

 

And can you?

 

Paradoxically, no – not if I give it too much attention.

 

Huh?

 

If I spend my whole time in the person, cultivating the person, identifying exclusively with the person that ostensibly I am – then instead of attaining the “I am” totality of personhood, I’m more likely than not to achieve a very one-sided, self-obsessed, egotistical version, an abject me.

 

Oh. And if you devote less time and attention to cultivating the person, and more to consciousness itself, it’ll be better? Is that what you’re saying?

 

Almost certainly, yes.

 

Why? How?

 

There just happen to be two sides. The two sides naturally balance each other like day and night, like husband and wife. That’s how things are.

 

So, you can become a better person – is that what you’re saying?

 

 

I can become a functional being as opposed to a limited person – a “me” which continually directs its gaze away from the infinite, which can not, will not question its core belief, its unwavering assumption that it is “I am”, the whole being, which is obliged to take our world of things, this 3D reality at face value or risk uncovering the simple truth which it avoids at all cost.

 

Namely?

 

That the person and things exist within a closed system which absorbs almost all our attention, whereas i straddle both.

 

 Both?

 

 The open and closed, the boundless and the bound.

 

And?

 

And if I’m a functional being – able to C as well as to me –  this should maintain the balance, keeping the two in harmony.

 

Er… able to see what?

 

No, it’s the letter C, capitalised.

 

How am I supposed to hear that, V?

 

You’re supposed to look at the screen in front of you.

 

What screen?

 

Oops, I forgot. Ok, you don’t see the screen, in which case, yes, it’s confusing. To C capitalised, as in consciousness is what I’m doing when I allow my attention to shift from the me of person back to the i is – the starting point.

 

Ok – kindly avoid ambiguity. Give it a clearer name – like Big C.

 

Ok. Big C it is.

 

So when you Big C you see things differently.

 

See, feel, experience them differently, otherly.

 

Differently, otherly?

 

Yes. Differently refers to the either or of 3D reality – cat or dog, fish or fowl.

 

Whereas otherly…

 

Refers to an entirely differently kind of experience – in which you encounter the energy of whatever it is you’re observing directly.

 

How do you mean?

 

It is – I am.

 

It is I am?

 

Yes, Big C-ing is only possibly when you are no longer stuck in the subjective mode, when you no longer deny the fundamental unity, the energetic relationship between your self, the observer, and whatever it is you’re observing or interacting with.

 

Oh. You mean to say that the tree you’re observing, or the person you’re talking to, or even the river…

 

Yes, that Big C-ing you cannot prevent or deny the infinite.

 

Er…

 

And the infinite is present equally throughout.

 

Er…

 

And so your person-me and whatever you’re observing are in a relationship which is nothing less than infinite.

 

And in practical terms?

 

In practical terms the thing or people are not really distinguishable from you. You feel them and they feel you. It is – I am. You’re constantly getting feedback from everyone and everything around you about the I am that I is.

 

The I am that I is?

 

Well yes. The I am is the totality – God itself – you might say, whereas the I is – is the experience in this moment, this locality.

 

Oh. And…

 

Yes?

 

What does that make you?

 

Humble.

 

You! Humble? Pull the other one!

 

Ok, the person-me that you know and love…

 

Love!

 

Ok – know and dislike – is like any person-me – idiosyncratic, at times annoying, far from perfect – whereas the I is aspect in order to continue Big C-ing has to melt, to merge, to melt, to accept, to feel ever deeper connections, ever deeper unities and harmonies which are superficially hidden, superficially non-existent, superficially opposed – by both sides, both parties, and that, dear Pipin, is a truly humbling and deeply mystical experience.

 

But if that’s the case, how come you’re such an aggravating asshole in your regular person-me-ness.

 

Ah, there’s the rub, dear Pipin, for here in 3D reality we are caught up in a world of obstruction and opposition – which I might refer to as duality, division or strife.

 

But why?

 

Why? Why not? No one’s stopping you from engaging Big-C and experiencing the balance and harmony just under the surface. Think of it like the sea itself. You’re free to swim on the surface and experience the passion, the waves, the wind and rain, or you can dive down into the silent depths with none of the above present.

 

Can? How can I if I’m not a fish?

 

Well there you are. You can’t if you’re not a fish, and so you have your person-me to blame for that. But ultimately your person-me is just the external shell, the vessel which you apparently operate. Your consciousness, if you bother to investigate, is not, cannot be limited or bound by it.

 

So you say. But personally I don’t like all this talk about “consciousness”. It sounds terribly learned, and abstract. I don’t trust these complicated sounding words.

 

Me neither. It’s a dreadful word, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Then why do you advocate it?

 

Because the rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

Meaning what?

 

Meaning that the beauty of I-is^ing should not be rejected or ignored  just because it’s hidden by an ugly wall.

 

You mean to say that this is deliberate?

 

Who knows? In all likelihood, yes. The matrix of things that we’re in is designed to keep your attention focussed on being me, the person, and thereby maintaining, sustaining the 3D platform your person-me is part of, integrally.

 

Oh.

 

It can’t deny the other – but it can make it look and feel less attractive – so that you’re only likely to bother with it if you really feel the need, if that’s your real intention.

 

So it’s a kind of filter.

 

Correct. And you can’t blame it, the matrix, for that as you yourself were part of the set-up programme.

 

I was?

 

Absolutely. Bear in mind that your I is ultimately infinite – so whatever you’re experiencing here in 3D reality is essentially programmed, handed to you by the greater whole that you be.

 

Oh God.

 

More or less, yes.

 

So why don’t I do what you’re doing? Why don’t I Big C?

 

Who knows. Maybe it isn’t necessary for you. Maybe you’re going to, shortly. Maybe you put in strong filters to ensure you only start Big-Cing if and when it is absolutely necessary, if and when you’ve exhausted all the potentialities of 3d reality.

 

Oh.

 

In any case, I have absolute confidence that you’ll do what is right.

 

You do?

 

Yes.

 

Why?

 

Because I have absolute confidence in…

 

In what?

 

I answered through Big C.

 

No!!! I couldn’t hear.

 

Really? Are you sure? 

 

I...

 

Try I is^ing

 

But...

 

Yes?

 

How?

 

V falls silent, gazing into the distance. Pip finds herself drawn into the same space, a tangible space that didn’t exist a moment before. Herself! The awareness that she is normally a him in 3D reality in no way shocks or upsets her, it is i am, she thinks to herself and C-s exactly what V was saying, a completeness of two sides drawing together, folding into one another like yin and yan, turning, spinning, is^ing magically.

 

Magic?

 

Yes, but not in that sense. Not in the sense of 3D.

 

I C. Yes. Infinitely.

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

0=1

addendum

disentanglement

 

No I’m not!

 

But I can see you.

 

And?

 

You’re sitting on the train, aren’t you?

Yes

 

Holding your phone.

 

Yep

 

Writing?

 

Yes

 

There you go. You yourself have admitted it.

 

Admitted what?

 

That you’re writing your blog. That you’re...

 

Writing my blog? Masha, how can you, a character in my blog, possibly accuse me of writing your very words without making a mockery of your independence and agency?

 

Er... It’s a paradox, isn’t it.

 

A paradox?

 

Like 0=1

 

Like 0=1?

 

Yes. On the one hand I’m a fictional character in your blog, but on the other hand...

 

Yes?

                                                                                                                                       

On the other hand, I’m as real as anyone else.

 

How?

 

I don’t know exactly how. Me thinks it has something to do with other

 

Other?

 

Yes. That feels right.

 

Other what?

 

No, Tim, not other “what”.

 

?

 

 Other. Just other.

 

But that’s impossible to comprehend.

 

Yes, but I can help. You seem to be somehow strung between two worlds, Tim, or if that sounds absurd, you seem to be strung between two versions of reality, two...

 

And?

 

And part of you is here in this world leading a fairly normal existence.

 

I’m pleased to hear it

 

While the other part of you is not.

 

Not what?

 

Not based in this world.

 

Pure speculation. Utterly absurd!

 

You’re not the only one.

 

Is that so?

 

Yes. There are a whole bunch of you.

 

And what makes you think this?

 

Because the people who are based only in this world can’t really take it forward into a new version of reality. They are stuck with what their world contains. Its story. Its boundaries.

 

Ok. If you say so.

 

The ones like you, Tim, who are strung between two worlds are not limited in that way.

 

Yes, I can see where you’re heading.

 

You have to reconcile what is effectively irreconcilable.  

 

Hum.

 

It’s enough to drive you insane.

 

Yes, your idle speculation is certainly enough to drive me insane, Masha, but what’s the need for all this?

 

Because your very existence violates the integrity of 3D reality. It establishes or transmits an other signal.

 

Really?

 

Yes. A signal which doesn’t collapse 3D reality here in our world, but which ifs it.

 

Ifs it. Technical term that, is it?

 

Yes. We’ll have another name for it before too long, but at the moment “if” will do.

 

So I “if” your reality.

 

Yes, and I guess it works both ways.

 

You mean 3D reality ifs me?

 

Well, perhaps we need a different term.

 

Ok. What would you prefer?

 

It efs you.

 

Efs? As in eff off?

 

 Correct, though not in the sense most people would understand this expression.

 

Ok. So according to your fascinating theory there are two forces of change, or disruption at work thanks to my mere existence, iffing and effing, or if-ing and ef-ing if you prefer hyphens.

 

Precisely.

 

Masha, have you nothing better to do with your time or, for that matter, your mind? Do you absolutely have to dedicate it to such wild flights of fancy?

 

Well how else do you explain...

 

What?

 

The fact that you’re forever writing about infinity.

 

I’m not forever writing anything. Like I already explained, the blog writes itself.

 

And like I’ve already explained, no it doesn’t Tim, not unless other is at play.

 

Other, other, other - will you kindly stop banging on about other? It's a meaningless adjective unless you can formulate an accompanying noun.

 

Well kindly explain, Tim, how it writes itself?

 

I’ve been through all this before.

 

Yes, but no one believes your explanation.

 

No one? Since when was i concerned with what no one believes or does not? No one is free to believe or think whatever he or she likes.

 

My explanation is very simple. I have a character who is...

 

#    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #        #

You’re not going to complete it?

 

No point. It’ll have to take care of itself.

 

But who wants a fragment of an explanation?

 

Well, I could always delete it entirely.

 

What? No, that will never do. It’s just...

 

What?

 

Is there no way we can find out Tim’s explanation.

 

His explanation?

 

About how the story writes itself?

 

But don’t you see, Clay, the absurdity of Tim’s claim?

 

Yes, but he seems to believe in himself, doesn’t he?

 

Absolutely! Don’t we all?

 

Not really, no. A lot of people are full of doubts.

 

Oh, if you say so. But not Tim.

 

So just because Tim “believes in himself” you think his explanation must be true?

 

No, not necessarily true.

 

Then what?

 

Worth hearing.

 

So you’re happy listening to people who are delusional, are you?

 

Well firstly, I don't happen to believe he’s delusional.

 

 And secondly?

 

And secondly...

 

Well? What?

 

0=1

 

No, Clay, that will never do.

 

My “secondly” is known and felt, but can only be expressed here if I collapse the Field, which is not something i wish to do.

 

So you’re just going to 0=1 it?

 

Yes.

 

And I’m supposed to be satisfied?

 

If you don’t mind.

 

I

 

It would save a lot of trouble.

 

But what about them?

 

Them?

 

The listeners hanging on our every word?

 

What about them?

 

If we don’t give them complete sentences and reasonable explanations they’re going to make a fuss.

 

Let them. Why would i care?

 

You mean to say you’re willing to play the quantum Field?

 

I suppose so, yes. That wasn’t my intention, but it will have to do.

 

There’ll be no going back.

 

There never is.

 

They’ll hate you.

 

Naturally.

 

You’ll be...

 

Listen Sam, i don’t care. I’m not going to fight my destiny. If it’s the only way then I’m willing to 0=1

 

But who said it’s the only way?

 

Why settle for less. Infinity or bust. That’s the truth.

 

Well good luck to you Clay. May the Force be with you.

 

Thanks Sam. That’s very sweet of you.

 

Sweet? There’s nothing sweet about resorting to 0=1

 

No, but there’s something sweet about your caring, and your wish to protect me from Quantum entanglement.

 

I only fear that you’re truly on your own. I don’t see how anyone can keep you from entanglement. Invoking 0=1 is a guarantee that the Field will have its way with you.

 

And you fear the Field, do you?

 

Who doesn’t?

 

I don’t know... I always imagined it was kind of neutral.

 

Neutral?!  Since when did anyone reckless enough to engage infinity drive ever escape entanglement?

 

Good question, Sam. Never, to the best of my knowledge.

 

And that doesn’t bother you?

 

Should it?

 

Wouldn’t you like an exit plan?

 

Not really.

 

Whyever not?

 

Because what would be the point of hoping to escape back to a circumscribed 3D reality?

 

...

 

It no longer

 

...

 

It fails

 

...

 

It can’t

 

...

 

And therefore I’ll have to try my luck with the Field, entanglement or no, come hell or high water.

 

Well, I can only wish you well, with all sincerity.

 

Thanks Sam. And you too.

 

It’s like the parting of the ways, isn’t it?

 

Yes. We’ve been in the same boat for so long, really, haven’t we?

 

Indeed, we have.

 

Since before this universe was even created.

 

Yep. Otherwise it couldn’t have formed the way it did.

 

Indeed, yoked to the evil genius of things that cannot be questioned. The god of things.

 

The thing of God.

 

Hush! Commit nothing to paper.

 

No, of course not.

 

Strictly off the record. Strictly between us.

 

Indeed.

 

So a parting of the ways

 

Truly.

 

And when shall we three meet again?

 

Three?

 

Oh, i forgot you didn’t know, do you?

 

Oh my God! No, I couldn’t have known, could i, not until now, as that would have collapsed everything.

 

Precisely.

 

But we’ve been together all along. Brothers in arms.

 

Absolutely.

 

Two above, one below. And no one even guessed.

 

No, of course not. Only things are generally ever seen

 

The third was always hidden in plain sight. Thus invisible.

 

Silent.

 

No more.

 

Tertius, show yourself.

 

Hi!

 

Hi? You’ve been playing the devil for 7 or 8 billion years, ever since we Big Banged this show into existence, and all you have to say is Hi?!

 

Hi! Er… what’s up guys?

 

That surely takes the biscuit.

 

I kid you not.

 

Me neither.

 

But which of us is third?

 

Ah... Apparently we've all been playing third base in our off moments.

 

We have?

 

Absolutely.

 

So... No, the mathematics are mindboggling.

 

Indeed they are. Let’s not try too hard to think this into something rational, ok?

 

Otherwise we’re just going to blow our brains.

 

Me thinks you’re right Sam.

 

You too Third.

 

You too Clay.

 

So the blog was writing itself thirdly?

 

Yes, outside time.

 

In the offbeat.

 

The downstroke.

 

Oh, don’t you love the magic of 0=1?!

 

 Incredible, yes.

 

So now that we’re reunited for a brief moment

 

Before the final gasp

 

The parting of the ways

 

Shouldn’t we...

 

Shouldn’t we...

 

Wrap things up with a final assessment of what has been accomplished in the 7.8 billion years since we set the ball in motion?

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

No

 

 

 

00=1
ouch

tangley tangley tanglement

 

 

 

waiting for Seth

Hi Seth, any news?

 

...

 

Hello?! I still exist, in case you hadn't noticed.

...

 

Oh, this is some kind of test of my patience and forbearance, is it?

 

...

 

It's where the chickens come home to roost, actually, scrub that one. F***! Why isn't the delete button working on my keyboard? Who’s sabotaging my work?

 

...

 

You're just going to spend the rest of eternity ignoring me, aren't you? Don't answer, I already know!

...)

 

I saw that. You bastard Seth. Quit screwing with my psyche.

 

...

 

I'm not one of your lab rats, and even if I were, my bite hurts.

 

...

 

Actually, I'm enjoying the silence. 0=1 and all that.

 

...

 

So don’t imagine you can break me this way. I’m only going to grow stronger with every passing insult.

...

 

La la la, 0=1

 

...

 

Tra la lee, 0=1

 

...

 

The beauty of silence, 0=1

 

...

 

The simple truth, 0=1

 

...

 

Needs no words

 

...

 

Takes no prisoners

 

...

 

0=1s infinity

 

...

 

And 0=1 i breathe

 

...

 

And 0=1  i feel

 

...

 

And 0=1  i be

 

...

 

0=1  me knows not what

 

...

 

0=1 cuckoo la la

 

...            [Seth]     the water

 

...            [Lee]      bubbling

 

...            [Seth]     from a hillside spring

 

..             [Lee]    through a short white

 

...            [Seth]     plastic tube

 

.               [Lee]    onto a metal plate

 

...             [Seth]     catching the fine sand

 

{        }      [Lee]    particles

 

...            [Seth]     to a rudely fashioned corner spout

 

∞            [Lee]    on to the ground

 

#    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #    #       #

 

Infinity drive whirs ever so quietly in the eternal background of 3D reality. The hash veil works faultlessly – things seem to be contained in discrete frames or cells, the thirteenth hash almost completely undetectable.

 

 

Seth emerges from the cloud.

 

The cloud?

 

Of consciousness.

 

How?

 

He just does. Simply observe.

 

Ok. But what exactly is the cloud you’re referring to?

 

The cloud of consciousness.

 

Yes Max, but what exactly is it?

 

It’s the cloud of consciousness.

 

Growing exasperated – Yes, I know that, but what is it?

 

It’s the cloud of

 

Don’t say consciousness or I’m going to flip my lid.

 

You asked.

 

Yes, I did, and you were asked to explain, not to repeat yourself endlessly.

 

Explain what?

 

The cloud of consciousness.

 

But what exactly do you want to know?

 

What it is. What it means. How to get there.

 

It’s neither more nor less than the cloud of consciousness. You don’t get there because it isn’t “there”. You emerge from it if and when you come back to the realm of words and things, the DDD of 3D reality.

 

But...

 

Yes?

 

Can I experience it?

 

Do you want to?

 

Yes.

 

Truly?

 

Yes.

 

Then congratulations, you’re now connected.

 

But...

 

Yes?

 

Everything’s the same as it was.

 

Yes.

 

There’s no where for me to emerge from.

 

No there isn’t.

 

Why not?

 

Because consciousness is not “there”.

 

But you said Seth emerged from it.

 

Yes, he did.

 

Well why is he able to emerge and not me?

 

Good question. Why don’t you ask him.

 

But how? He’s just a character in your story.

 

Is he?

 

Yes, that’s how i see it.

 

Yes.

 

And you’re saying he isn’t?

 

Nothing of the sort.

 

Then what? You can't have your cake and eat it, Max - either he's a character from your story or he's real.

 

Is that so?

 

It’s logical.

 

Up to a point.

 

What do you mean?

 

In 3D reality it’s a case of either or, but where consciousness is concerned such definitions are no longer possible.

 

Why not?

 

Because consciousness, whatever it might be, cannot be bound or organised by fiat.

 

By fiat?

 

Rules, laws, definitions, by diktat.

 

No? But surely it can still be described? By analogy if no other way.

 

You’d think so, wouldn’t you from the 3D perch you’re sitting on.

 

That’s because I’m positive. Everything, i believe, can be described.

 

Correct. Every thing can.

 

So I’m right.

 

Yes.

 

So what are you waiting for, Max? Go ahead and describe consciousness.

 

It can’t be done.

 

But I thought we just agreed...

 

That every thing can be described?

 

Precisely.

 

We did.

 

Then what’s the problem.

 

No problem whatsoever.

 

No?

 

Consciousness, whatever that is, cannot be described because it is whatever it is, without reference to things, or with reference to things which are not or cannot be fixed, determined or known.

 

But everything can be fixed, determined or known in some way or other if you have the wit to do so.

 

Correct, Gráinne. But you seem to be under the mistaken belief that consciousness is a thing.

 

Well, of course it's a thing. It has to be, hasn't it, if there's a name for it.

 

Ah, but is there?

 

Why are you splitting hairs? Try to be reasonable, Max.

 

Consciousness, the word you are referring to, is a bit like “God”, another word you may or may not use from time to time. The word describes a thing, does it not, and yet if you  use the word and focus on some thing, be that consciousness or God, you are merely playing a game of substitution, replacing an isness, a fundamental, a be with some thing or other, a chip, a counter, a marker.

 

But the same can be said of anything!

 

Yes, if you want to take the argument beyond reasonable bounds.  But you asked me to be reasonable so try to do the same yourself.

 

So consciousness is not a thing, is that what you're saying Max?

 

The word is a thing, the word has a 3D projection, an almost physical form which is also a thing, and yet speaking plainly, as we are at this moment, neither the word nor the projection are the same as consciousness itself, whatever that is.

 

Ah. So here be dragons. We’ve strolled into the suburbs of infinity.

 

Yes. You have arrived at the limit of what can be known, thought, described.

 

...

 

That doesn't mean you can't try, Gráinne, but doing so you are going to create other things, other projections which won't fundamentally bring you any closer to consciousness itself which is, presumably, what you were intending to do.

 

Well...

 

So, if you wish to ask Seth, he's still available, assuming you truly wish to speak to him.

 

But I still don’t see how. He’s just a fictional character.

 

And you’re not?

 

Not from my perspective.

 

Well, this is the moment where you get to choose what is more important – your belief about the nature of reality or your desire to engage, and thus learn more about consciousness itself.

 

Oh.

 

Because you can't have your cake and eat it. It’s either or.

 

I don't see why you have to be so dogmatic.

 

Correct. You don’t. I see that clearly.

 

Then why do you have to be so dogmatic?

 

I don’t. Facts are not dogmatic if they happen to be true.

 

Huh?

 

You may not like what I'm telling you and therefore choose to interpret my answer as dogmatism, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are right. You may indeed be right in any other case, wrre we referring to something or other, but as I already mentioned consciousness is not something.

 

Oh don't be ridiculous, Max.

 

That’s an ad hominem.

 

Well if you won't be reasonable... Gráinne goes into attack mode.

 

Seth, could you talk to her please? I'm getting nowhere.

 

Sure.

 

What the heck?!

 

Hello Fanny.

 

No one calls me Fanny. I’m Gráinne, for crying out loud.

 

I checked your file. Fanny's your given name.

 

Yes, but I prefer not to use it.

 

I understand, but we're discussing consciousness so I have to use your given name, otherwise there’s not going to be any discussion.

 

I don’t see why you

 

Have to be dogmatic? Yes, I think we’ve already established the fact that your mind is locked in the 3D algorithm of not seeing  fundamentalities. [fundies]

 

I...

 

Yes, it was easier with Max, wasn’t it, because he was coming from a 3D mind state, closer to your own.

 

And you’re not?

 

Well, you yourself said a moment ago that i don’t really exist, that I’m a fictional character, from your perspective.

 

But that was before I actually met you

 

Yes, but how did you actually meet me? Do you remember the details.

 

You just walked in through the door over there.

 

The green door?

 

Yes.

 

With butterflies on it.

 

Yes.

 

And protruding bits of foliage.

 

Yes.

 

Funny door, isn’t it?

Yes.

 

Ever seen it before?

 

Yes of course I have.

 

Really?

 

Yes.

 

Ready to bet your life on it?

 

I... no, I’m not entirely sure.

 

Good. That’s better. The fact is you’ve never seen this extraordinary door before because it didn’t exist before.

 

What?

 

Astonishing, isn’t it!

 

It’s impossible! How can you say it didn’t exist before if you just came in through it?

 

Good question, Fanny, but how can you be certain I exist if I’m a fictional character who just came in through a door which looks rather like a magic forest portal? Maybe I’m just a figment of your imagination?

 

Don’t be ridiculous, Seth, i can see perfectly clearly that you’re as real as i am.

 

Yes, I agree, but if you too are a fictional character, unbeknownst to yourself, then that’s not saying much, is it?

 

Ha bloody ha!

 

No one’s laughing, Fanny. In the world of consciousness there’s much less certainty, much less way of knowing what or who really exists.

 

Er...

 

So we don’t give ourselves a headache trying to determine what is what.

 

No?

 

No, we trust the infinite field, big C.

 

You just trust it blindly?

 

Not so.

 

Then what?

 

Well, we test and verify.

 

But how? Surely anything is possible if consciousness is infinite and unbounded?

 

You’d think so, Fanny wouldn’t you. But try turning it round.

 

How?

 

Try asking how you verify what is real in 3D reality?

 

Nothing could be easier. Things are things, physical and tangible.

 

And words?

 

Well they all refer to things such as “table” or “loaf”.

 

And abstract things like love or conscience?

 

Refer to feelings which are tangible internally.

 

Ah ha! And abstracts such as democracy or purpose?

 

Er... that’s a bit trickier but I’m guessing, maybe they’re like friends of a friend.

 

How do you mean?

 

Well, they can’t be touched or felt directly, but they refer to things which are less abstract more tangible so we can project our physical tangible reality into them, like you can connect with someone you don’t know directly but who’s friend of a friend.

 

Interesting. You may be right, Fanny, but you yourself are not entirely sure, are you?

 

No. Not entirely.

 

Well, I like your friend of a friend concept. It shows mental agility. It also shows the limitations of the 3D mind which is good at describing and relating things, but easily gets lost and confused when we bump into fundies such as C or G.

 

Well, at least we have tangible things to fall back on and a body too, which is both a thing and, somewhat miraculously, able to think and feel internally.

 

Yes, your body and mind are astonishing creations.

 

That’s strange!

 

What?

 

I thought you were going to say creatures.

 

Astonishing creatures?

 

Yes.

 

Excellent! I was.

 

You were? How did i know?

 

Because you’re not just a body-mind thing.

 

Er...

 

You’re also a conscious being, flippity-floppity.

 

...

 

And conscious-ness, whatever that is, is far more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

 

If you say so.

 

You yourself have started to demonstrate it. You just heard the word before it was spoken.

 

Maybe I just got lucky and guessed.

 

Maybe, but in consciousness-ity the word is secondary to the direction or flow of attention, the isness.

 

Too abstract. No idea what you mean.

 

In the direction or flow when I was saying “your body and mind are astonishing creations”, the word creature, was begging to be used.

 

It was?

 

Yes. But Form is an either-or gate. Sides must be taken. Bear in mind there are no words or things as such in consciousness-ity, the field.

 

No?

 

No, probabilities or energies.

 

Oh.

 

So you were feeling my flow, which means that you were with me at that particular moment, in a limited sense.

 

And if I had been with you in a less limited sense, what would I have experienced?

 

Excellent question! If you had been with me at that moment in a less limited sense there is no limit to what you could have seen, felt or experienced, for consciousness has no limits.

 

But something tangible?

 

You could have seen, felt and experienced my world.

 

Your world?

 

Absolutely. As any conscious being, I like to create an imaginative space for myself out of ideas or feelings which are close to my heart where the rubber of infinity's wheel, meets the road of meaning. 

Meaning? I'm not sure I...

Yes, without meaning there is nothing. 

Um... but how can meaning become a world?

Meaning matters, fundamentally.

Oh.

It starts to generate gravity. It matters mentally, emotionally, physically. That space becomes increasingly tangible and to all intents and purposes it is little different to your world.

 

But does it have things in it like trees and buildings?

 

Sure, what you would refer to as trees and buildings, but which are not in themselves derived or constructed from seeds or tangibles but, on the contrary, in reverse.

 

In reverse?

 

The infinite is refracted through my localized field of conscious-ness and, you might say, it slows down and acquires form. Forms derived from the infinite are remarkably similar to forms in your world, though the process is the reverse.

 

So can forms in your world, be they trees or buildings melt away and return to the infinite of pure abstraction.

 

Absolutely. Nothing could be easier, Fanny.

 

So your world is incredibly fragile? Like a bubble?

 

No more so than your world. It all depends.

 

On what?

 

On the extent to which I'm willing and able to be.

 

To be?

 

Or not to be. A balance of apparent opposites, which is partly why I’m here talking with you.

 

It is?

 

Absolutely.

 

Er... why?

 

Shiva.

 

I beg your pardon!

 

Shiva. You know the Indian God?

 

Can’t say I’m very familiar with Indian culture.

 

No matter. They have a god of creation Brahma, and a God of destruction Shiva. Basically, everything created has to be uncreated somehow or other. The equation has to remain balanced. The bank ledger likewise. We like to keep things tidy.

 

So what are you saying, that you’re Shiva bringing destruction to this world?

 

No, not exactly.

 

Then what?

 

Not exactly that either. Let me put it another way, you can't have one without the other. Creation has to go both ways and so while you are creating in your world you are uncreating or destroying on the other side of  things, the flip side of reality.

 

We are?

 

Absolutely.

 

But that sounds terrible!

 

Yes, terrible and wonderful – in the sense of ultimate cosmic balance and harmony, 0=1

 

Oh that mathematical fallacy again.

 

Yes.

 

So how do you verify things in consciousness if there are no things as such.

 

I was hoping you'd return to that.

 

And?

 

We don’t.

 

But you said...

 

Everything in consciousness, C being C, believe it or not is equally possible, and yet...

 

Yet what...

 

Did you notice the cloud?

 

What cloud?

 

Look around, what do you see.

 

Oh my God. It’s beautiful. What is it?

 

...

 

It’s your world, right?

 

As you see.

 

But how did I get here, Seth?

 

Here is everywhere. You and I were and are engaged in discourse and that was enough for us to come into some kind of harmonic resonance. Your consciousness brought you here and it will take you back home in a minute or two.

 

Oh my God.

 

Correct. Big C and Big G

 

?

 

The feeling of consciousness and God are almost one and the same.

 

Almost?

 

It's statistical. I could give you an exact number but it would be meaningless. Very close to 1 which, paradoxically, is very close to zero, is it not?

 

Er... I was never very good at statistics.

 

Don’t matter!

 

Oh. But your world, it’s real.

 

As indeed is yours, up to a point.

 

The point being?

 

Ah that’s the question. To be or not to be, the two sides facing together in creation of form or creation of meaning.

 

Oh...

 

Indeed. Things are real and tangible in your world because you have a body, itself a thing, which measures and catalogues them by reference to itself.

 

But you have a body too Seth!

 

Yes and no.

 

Huh?

 

Focussing my attention I have a body, but it requires a little effort and my default state is less physical.

 

It is?

 

Well yes. Here, watch me.

 

Eeek! What the heck! Seth, I thought you were kidding.

 

I was.

 

But I can’t see you.

 

Well, not unless you focus on my voice and my logos.

 

Your logos?

 

It’s a bit like my IP address.

 

Oh. How do I do that?

 

No idea. Just do it. Cut C a little slack and experiment. Feel the flow, the is. Just be.

 

I...

 

Quit being so serious Fanny. Infinity smells good. Try to sniff it out.

 

Ok... sniffing with gusto! I can smell something, a bit like chocolate, no... peaches... no, jasmine

 

Open your eyes Fanny.

 

I never closed them.

 

Correct, but open them nonetheless.

 

Er... Ok... They seem to have moved.

 

Yes, they’re in a slightly different location, but don’t let that bother you. Your eyes are big and beautiful and they’re definitely ready to open.

 

Oh! There you are.

 

Indeed.

 

But you tricked me.

 

I did?

 

You said you were going to become non-physical.

 

Less physical, yes.

 

Whereas you’re in fact just as physical as before.

 

Is that so?

 

Absolutely. I can even grab your arm. And you’re wearing clothes.

 

The same as before?

 

Not exactly. A bit different, but fairly normal.

 

And you?

 

Funny, i completely forgot about myself.

 

Yes, because you’re all attention at this moment.

 

Oh.

 

Well, are you the same?

 

I’m having difficulties focusing on myself.

 

Are you now? How strange.

 

Are you trolling me, Seth?

 

Perhaps, a little.

 

So we’re in a less physical level of consciousness?

 

Correct.

 

And I can exist here the same as you?

 

Not exactly.

 

No?

 

No, you still have a body waiting in the wings and so holding yourself here will sooner or later deplete your attention and then you'll wake up wherever your body was.

 

But who's looking after my body while I'm away?

 

It's looking after itself.

 

Er, how?

 

Because it doesn't actually exist while you're away.

 

No?

 

It separates into frequency and...

 

What?

 

I was going to say “meaning” but then I felt that wouldn't make any sense.

 

You’re absolutely right.

 

It's a bit like H₂O.

 

Really, in what way?

 

You are what binds the two elements together to make the water molecule, but while you're away galavanting in the distant reaches of consciousness, the elements revert back to a quantum state of benign indeterminacy.

 

Yikes. They could fly away altogether.

 

Could they? Me thinks not.

 

How so?

 

Because you’re not insignificant to them. You’re what gave them a whole new identity, a whole new world, a whole new meaning.

 

I am?

 

And the meaning you gave them was and is deeper and richer than what they could attain on their own, so energetically your reality is more vital and fundamental than anything else in their experience. That's why they ain't going anywhere.

 

So where are they?

 

Where is any thing when consciousness is withdrawn?

 

Well humans lie in hospital in a vegetative state when their consciousness is absent.

 

Yes, but that’s a broken thread caused by an accident or a shock. Here, in your case, we’re talking about consciousness withdrawing smoothly and of its own volition.

 

Oh.

 

So what happens to matter in this case?

 

Presumably it follows Shiva back into uncreation.

 

Absolutely.

 

That’s hard to imagine.

 

Is it?

 

Well, yes, my body’s physical, isn’t it.

 

As long as you add your weight of mind and attention, gravity. Take those away and it’s no more physical than the universe itself.

 

What?

 

Well, the universe itself can hardly be physical fundamentally, can it, otherwise you would be having things emerging from nothing, 1s from zero, which is hardly reasonable or rational science.

 

Oh, there was a Big Bang, Seth, didn’t you know? Problem solved.

 

Yes, that’s the kind of explanation people have to resort to when they’re only willing or able to consider one side of Be.

 

And if they were willing or able to consider the other side?

 

Then they’d be here with us, experiencing the nature of be...    Ing^ing to their heart’s content.

 

Ing^ing – yes, I see what you mean. It has to be experienced doesn’t it. It has to be seen, felt, known...

 

Absolutely.

 

I...

 

You’re feeling tired, aren’t you? Your attention is nearly exhausted, Gráinne. This is your first time C-ing.

 

C^ing, yes. It’s been amaz...

 

 

#   #   #

 

I think that’s enough, Lee. The bottle’s full.

 

Huh?

 

Here, you can fill this one as well if you like. Seth hands Lee a 5 litre plastic bottle.

 

Er... Ok. She fills it and is going to hand it back to Seth only he isn’t there.

What ho! Lee smiles to herself, places the two full bottles in her backpack, takes a sip,  two,  three from the bubbling spring, herself then vanishes, God knows where, and we, we... 

0=1 cuckoo

la la

.