So it doesn’t actually exist?
Does anything?
Very funny, Dee.
No, but seriously – for something to exist it has to be beheld by you or
me – it has to fit into our living world order – or whatever you want to call
it.
I don’t agree, Dee. A house, a tree, a mountain – they all exist
regardless of whether you or I are able or willing to see them.
Ok. I registered my doubts and concerns, and that will do at present.
It’s a moot point, Floyd. We take our conscious awareness for granted because
it’s all we’ve ever known, and because it seems to be unable to influence or
affect the world we’re constantly in the process of apprehending, yet something
tells me this consciousness thingy we’re so careless of is way more important
than we realise. Something tells me it’s the difference between theory and
practice – that in some way it actuates things – lifting them into a mind realm
they wouldn’t otherwise be part of.
A mind realm? Is that how you see our reality?
Well, isn’t that what it is? It’s more than bricks and mortar, isn’t it?
It’s reality as opposed to space-time-ality.
Ah – I think I see what you’re getting at.
In reality things exist – but only when they’re been observed or
registered here in reality but anyone able to do so.
And what about animals? Are they able to do so?
I don’t know. I guess so, yes – but really – I don’t know. Does it
matter?
Well, it would be nice to know.
I agree – lots of things would be nice to know – but knowing more
things, or too many things – locks you even further into the mind-clamp of
matter – whereas consciousness itself doesn’t necessarily know things.
No?
Not necessarily.
Er… how do you mean?
It can, and perhaps should as much as possible – take in or register
things – without trying to hard to “know” them, or fix them into a rigid order
of things, definitions and interlocking hierarchies.
Er…
If we can tread lightly – mentally – and see things less as “things” and
more as representative of an underlying quantum order – which isn’t thing based
at all – which flows, fluctuates, flashes in and out of existence – or in and
out of rival or opposing states, then we avoid the trap of concreting ourselves
into one version, one state of matter.
Oh.
As then we, perhaps, become enslaved by our own minds obsessive need to
fix things in place – starting with ourselves.
Wait a minute – we don’t fix ourselves in place – what nonsense is that?
Don’t we?
No. We’re flexible. Some of us, at any rate do yoga – physical and
mental yoga.
Great! But the mind – or the rational mind, if you like, has needs of
its own – and if we don’t keep the balance between the things of physical
reality – and the non-things of the quantum field more or less in balance –
then we’re almost guaranteed to get locked in place. Like cement.
I don’t see why.
Correct. No one ever does unless they’re tuned into the quantum field –
in which case they see how humanity is desperately trying to avoid the other.
?
What Milan Kundera calls the “unbearable lightness of being”.
Milan who?
Never mind, Floyd. He’s a writer, or was. He’s probably passed by now.
Oh.
Anyway – back to what I was saying about space-time.
Yes. It’s ridiculously arrogant of you to claim that you know better
than all the greatest scientists of the last hundred years.
Yes, I agree. But that doesn’t alter the fact that space-time, as such,
does not or cannot exist.
Groan! No one’s going to believe you, Dee.
And what? Since when did I need mass approval. Besides, this is a
private conversation.
It is?
To the extent that any conversation can ever truly be private.
Precisely. Your quantum field puts the kibosh on things like privacy,
does it not?
Well, yes, privacy doesn’t really mean much if everything and everyone
are linked by a quantum field which has little or no respect for so called
space, or time, for that matter.
Which is precisely why this is all a big mistake.
Look Floyd, I understand your difficulty, but we can’t spend the rest of
humanity locked in Cartesian or Newtonian space. They were great while we were
exploring the mechanisms of 3D reality, but they are now anachronistic.
Er… I’m not sure I fully understand the difference between Cartesian and
Newtonian space, Dee – but in any case, they both recognized that there are
dimensions which exist like a grid and which can’t just be ignored or
circumvented.
Yes, that’s sufficient.
But how do you propose we can now just consign 3D reality to the dustbin
of science?
Well, not the dustbin, Floyd. Each generation builds on the findings of
the past. We had to really test the limits of space – the rules, if you like –
in order to figure out discrepancies and vulnerabilities.
Like a hacker trying to get in to a protected system or site.
Yes. Hackers have to be smart. They look for vulnerabilities and doing
so they get a better understanind of how things really work. But hackers are
not the only ones.
No? How about burglars.
Yes. They do the same – but so do inventors, like the guys who were
risking life and limb to get mechanical planes into the air at the end of the
19th century, and the beginning of the 20th. They were
defying the scientific beliefs of the day – working on a hunch – determined to
prove that machines heavier than air could get airborne no matter what the
scientist thought and claimed.
Ok. So you think you can navigate gaps or corridors between normal space
or time?
Yes, of course we can, in fact, we’re probably doing it already at the
atomic level without even knowing how.
We are? I’ve never seen atoms flipping from one side of the universe to
another.
Well let’s take it one step at a time, Floyd.
ok
At the atomic level you are a vast agglomeration of atoms – like a
nebula. You don’t have a body as such.
Ok.
Something somehow holds that agglomeration of atoms together – firstly –
and secondly – enables them to move “together” – as a body, as one.
Well yes – we obviously have a body, or are a body so it goes without
saying – a body by definition has to be able to hold together and move
accordingly.
Yes, but understanding this process at the atomic level is fraught with
difficulty.
I don’t see why.
Yes, because you take it for granted – thinking as you do from the level
of a single body.
Well that’s because our body is real, Dee.
Yes, it is – meaning reality enables us to think and act at a higher or
larger macro level. Reality allows this automatically so we give almost no
thought to the complexity or impossibility of what it actually involves.
Complexity? Impossibility? I simply flex my muscles and move my arm, or
my leg.
Simply, yes, within 3D reality – but at the atomic level 3D reality
doesn’t really exist. There are just atoms which are somehow aligned or
connected but as for moving them with muscles – there’s no such thing. The
atoms are not themselves subject to muscular forces of contraction.
Then what moves the atoms?
Good question. We haven’t really given it much thought, have we?
Probably because it’s unnecessary. If I can move at the cellular or body
level using muscles, why should I care about how the atoms themselves do so?
Because without understanding the underlying atomic level you’re never
going to go beyond so called space-time. You’re going to be stuck with 3D
mechanics based upon an incomplete or erroneous idea of what space itself, or
time actually is.
Erroneous? How can it be erroneous if we’re able to measure it and
operate successfully within it?
Within the 3D metrics it’s not erroneous, Floyd – but those metrics
preclude any further development. We want to get our plane into the air, don’t
we? We want to find the holy grail, so to speak – which means we need to figure
out what’s missing.
And?
And what?
What’s missing?
Everything.
Well, I’m glad it’s just a minor detail like everything, Dee. I was
concerned that it might have been something unwieldy, something fundamental –
but if it’s “everything” as you put it – we have nothing to worry about. Jesus
wept! Have you any idea how absurd this is, Dee. You’re telling me we’ve got
everything wrong, or failed to see everything – in spite of the fact that we’ve
built planes, rockets, nuclear reactors and incredibly advanced computer
systems?
Amazing, isn’t it, Floyd, the extent to which we’ve managed to advance
and squeeze through or past our limitations.
More than amazing, Dee, it’s downright miraculous, which is why I don’t
believe a word of what you’re saying.
It’s the same with anything – you can only get so far using a certain
kind of language or platform – they all have their structural limits. A body is
no exception. Very few people live beyond a hundred – and if they do they’re
usually decrepit.
Hardly surprising, Dee.
Yes, but the cells in your body are constantly regenerating so why can’t
you?
Er… I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical explanation.
Of course there is, but it isn’t just a human body, Floyd.
No? Animals are the same, aren’t they.
Yes, but not just animals.
Ok, trees, bacteria, everything.
Yes, but not just organisms, Floyd.
What then?
Countries, civilizations, religions, any system we are able to identify.
But some countries like China are thousands of years old.
Yes, but they only survive if they go through death and rebirth – during
which millions die and their very existence is temporarily suspended. But it’s
more than countries or empires – we’re talking about anything that exists –
like a fiat currency, for example – none of them last beyond a fairly clearly
prescribed time span.
And what’s your explanation for this?
Well, the first thing is to make the observation – and not to simply
take it for granted or ignore it.
Ok – you’ve made your point. You’ve made an observation which seems
rather obvious to me – things decay or they become outdated. I don’t see what
we’re supposed to infer from this.
Firstly, we need to recognise that the word “things” applies equally to
both organisms and non-physical things – such as even a language, a currency, a
religion or a scientific system.
Ok. Things both physical and non-physical, biological and
non-biological. You’ve made your point, but what does it mean? What can we
learn from this?
Don’t you see, Floyd?
I see exactly what you’ve pointed out.
Yes, but what’s the connection? What can we conclude?
You have pointed it out yet.
Ok. Normally we assume that things that are physical and non-physical,
or things that are biological and non-biological are wildly different, do we
not?
Yes, I suppose so.
Whereas, there now appears to be a commonality between them all, doesn’t
there?
Yes, all things decay or change into something almost unrecognizably
different given enough time.
Good. So what’s holding it all together?
Huh?
What’s the commonality.
The what?
The common denominator.
Er… change?
Well yes – change is one, or part – but change itself is a constant,
given enough time – whereas we see that most things, structures or forms manage
to hold together and defy change for a certain period of time, until things
collapse.
Then what?
I want you to think for yourself, Floyd.
Well change and a certain quality of thingness – like an identity –
that’s holds things or organisms together while they grow bigger and stronger,
until eventually they grow so old and weak that they collapse or break up.
Good. Do we have a name for that quality of thingness – which gives us a
flute as opposed to a piano, Mandarin as opposed to Vietnamese, Christianity as
opposed to Islam?
Er… I can’t think of a name for it, Dee. It’s just a natural process in
which something emerges from the totality of anythingness – and then becomes
discrete or defined – assumes a certain kind of personality – or certain traits
or features which make it readily distinguishable.
Yes, Floyd – just like an identity, really – just like a person who is
slightly, subtly different from every other person – just like a snowflake –
every one of which is unique until it eventually melts.
Well, that’s all good and proper, Dee, but I don’t see how it’s going to
get your plane into the air.
Ah – but we now need to ask what holds these things together.
We do?
What incubates them while they’re growing and establishing themselves.
Er…
What’s the substrate.
No, you’ve lost me there.
Like a seed growing in the earth. It can’t just grow without something
that holds it in place. And it needs water, warmth, then light… all kinds of
inputs. So what’s the substrate?
I – don’t – know.
Ok. I disagree, Floyd. I’m sure you know exactly what it is – but you’re
ignoring it because like everyone else, you take it for granted.
Ok Mr Genius – what do you think I’m ignoring.
Reality.
Reality? You think reality is like an incubator or a nursery – that
reality is a thing that enables things both physical and non-physical to emerge
and grow.
Well yes, what else could it be?
I don’t know. It could be God?!
Yes, we could call it God – but then a bunch of people are going to get
religious and say that it has nothing to do with science, whereas we’re trying
to understand the actual process in order to be able to hack the system and get
our plane into the air.
Ok – we’ll say reality is in some way an agent or force that enables
things to grow. Happy now?
Well, let’s see what we’ve got. If reality is not just a name for our
space-time experience as we’ve assumed – but is actually a platform of
mechanism that enables us to emerge into space time as bodies or entities, and
likewise bring forth all matter of things within this so-called reality, then
what does this imply?
I – don’t – know.
Are you sure, Floyd? Perhaps you’re doing your best not to think it
though. Perhaps something in your mind desperately doesn’t want you to join the
dots and see the connections.
Whyever would that be?
I don’t know – it just looks that way. I can speculate – perhaps
allowing yourself to see the way things really are threatens the existence of
your current system. Any breakthrough – any revolution in how we see the world
or how we see things can wreak havoc – can bring down the existing paradigm and
enable the new one to emerge.
So I’m afraid of change, you’re saying?
Maybe we all are.
You don’t seem to be.
Oh, I’m afraid of change too, Floyd – just not this one – it’s already
something I’ve had to face, process and accept.
Maybe the fear’s a good thing. Maybe it protects me from over-rapid or
premature change?
Maybe, but reality, if I’m not mistaken, has already shifted so
positioning yourself as an inertial brake is now an exercise in futility.
Did you see reality has already changed? How can you know?
Crazy, isn’t it. If I’m right – if 3D reality is already locked in the
past – if we’ve already entered a new era, as I suspect, then things that were
impossible to see are going to become clearer and clearer now. The old version
of reality is now obsolete, the old King is dead, long live the King – a new
one is waiting to be crowned.
And this new one – what is it?
Well, reality is something we’re becoming increasingly aware of as a
thing in itself.
O – K…
We’re beginning to relate to it as a field – as something which is not
just neutral space-time – as something which we have to experience.
So back to your conscious-awareness thingy.
Yes.
And experiencing reality changes the nature of things?
Yes, once we realise it’s a kind of field – which we’re part of –
integrally – because our conscious-awareness is not something limited to my
brain, and little electro-chemical reactions therein.
Oh.
It would have to be part of the field itself – extending out beyond the
thing that is me or my brain – connecting into the electro-magnetic or
psycho-physical field that reality comprises or exists within.
Ah – you’re admitting you don’t know which of the two it is!
Absolutely – I have no idea – and perhaps that’s the way it should be.
You can’t know everything, Floyd.
No? I thought that’s what you were striving towards.
Striving towards knowing what I need to know in order to grow into this
new reality – yes – but recognizing and accepting the limits of what can or
needs to be known in order to do so. Gorging ourselves on knowledge is no
different to gorging ourselves on food. There always needs to be a healthy
limit – a healthy awareness and acceptance of what cannot or should not be
known or said or done
Or eaten
Or eaten at this moment in time – while I’m assimilating the new forms
and things because for every 1 there has to be a zero – both data and things
require space or silence or emptiness in which to grow and resonate, do they
not?
I – don’t – know…
0=1
