Floyd and Dee discuss things

 

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 19^th century, and the beginning of the 20^th. 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