Actually it
makes no sense to say one thing “equals” another.
No? Why not?
Well, what
does it mean – a equals b?
Er – that a
is the same as b, I guess.
Precisely.
Precisely
what?
How can a be
the same as b?
Well, if
they’re equal they must be the same – like two identical bank notes.
Good example
– which works well at the 3D level.
I’d expect
it to work at any level. How can two identical bank notes stop being identical
just because you change dimensions?
Because they’re
not really identical.
I thought we
just agreed that they are.
Yes, in 3D –
they’re as good as identical – which is why we can equal them.
And you’re
saying this is not true elsewhere?
Precisely.
But how, or
why?
Well, you’d
agree that there will be some miniscule physical differences between each bank
note, wouldn’t you – if viewed under a magnifying glass or microscope?
Yes, but
that’s hardly relevant.
True – but it’s
indicative of the fact that identical things are only provisionally identical.
Well, if
that’s the best you can do – I’m not impressed.
Oh, I’m just
starting.
Go on then.
Well, they
also have different serial numbers – assuming your bank notes have serial
numbers.
Big deal.
They’re still the same value. I can still use them in any shop to buy an
equivalent amount of goods.
Yes – but still,
we must leave no stone unturned. There might, after all, be a difference
between the words “equal” and “equivalent”.
You’re
splitting hairs.
I’m not so
sure – but we’ll worry about that later. Now, the real sticking point is that
everything, no matter how identical it appears to be, has its own horoscope.
?! What?!
Meaning –
everything has a specific time-date stamp – and some locational info attached –
not to mention something not unlike a mood.
Oh come on
Merry – you can’t say a banknote has a personality!
Mood or personality – yes, actually I can. It all depends on how it came into being –
at a time of optimism and growth, or during inflation, or economic depression.
It’s impossible that anything be created without having a certain energy stamp
of the times and conditions it was born under.
Oh.
That’s on
top of the bare meta data – the time-date stamp for example.
Oh. So, do
you think these things really matter? It’s not like we pay attention to the
character or personality of individual bank notes, is it?
No, we don’t
– and so here in 3D we’re able to assume things are to all intents and purposes
identical – when in fact they might be very, very different.
I still fail
to see how two identical bank notes can be very, very different.
That’s not
altogether unsurprising. Let me give an example. A happy bank note will bring
good luck, successful purchases, whereas an unhappy bank note will be more
likely to tear, to get lost, to be used for something nefarious or unpleasant.
If you say
so – but that still doesn’t mean they’re different.
Ok – in 3D,
as I said, they have a good enough likeness to termed identical, but the other
data, however insignificant it may seem to you, is physically visible in other
dimensions.
It is? How
do you mean?
Well, if the
time, date or mood of the bank note is different – then on the other side of
consciousness it may have a physical form utterly unlike that of an equivalent
banknote – because x, y and z can and do matter substantively.
You mean two
identical bank notes could be as different as a table and a chair?
Oh, much
more so. They could be as different as a rhino and an amoeba.
No way!
Precisely.
It beggars belief, does it not?
Indeed it
does. And this is true of all things – or only bank notes?
As you’ve
already realised – this is true of all things, which begs the question –
whether or not we can meaningfully say two things are “equal”, or what we
actually mean when we say so.
Well, as we
don’t tend to go off into other dimensions…
Wait a
minute – are you sure you know what you’re saying?
No, should I
be?
Well, you
don’t even need to “go off” into other dimensions because you’re already in
them. Your mind-body-soul spans numerous dimensionalities. The fact that you
may not be consciously aware of them is almost irrelevant.
Oh.
And so this
assumption that things are or can be “equal” is tantamount to a refusal to
allow or consider the omnality of which you be part.
Oh.
The minute
you start recognising the omnality – the substitution model falls by the
wayside.
The substitution
what?
Substitution
model – where one thing can be substituted for another, because
They’re
essentially identical – which is very convenient – is it not? Do you really
believe it would help our development if we had to consider each and every
banknote as unique? Civilisation would grind to a halt.
Actually –
that’s not true.
No?
No – I never
said you can’t apply the principles of commonality – but to deny what is – the fact
that axes such as space or time fundamentally alter, affect or redefine things
is to deny humanity any future progress into the omniverse.
I thought
the omniverse was some kind of collection of universes?
Not if the
word “universe” means it’s the one and only, by definition.
Well, if it’s
the “one and only” how can you have an omniverse that is more?
Simply by
recognising and incorporating other axes – which may not necessarily go through
the zero point of space and time.
What?
Like I said.
But if they
don’t – then…
Then you
have a mess, you’d think, would you not – like a tangled plate of spaghetti…
Unless?
Unless there’s
some neat little trick that sets things right.
And?
What?
Is there?
What?
Don't be so
coy, Merry. Is there a trick that somehow incorporates the omniverse into the
universe.
Yes and no.
Groan.
Yes there is
– but it involves shifting your angle of perception.
Uh?
You see,
with the 3D model you’re always looking one way. You’re always looking out over
3D reality from the zero point of objective, material perception.
Ok.
Whereas, in
fact, your perception can and does swivel round.
Uh?
Like I said –
it can and does – and doing so – swivelling round – it also shifts to a virtual
zero point – a zero point which appears to be anywhere but zero on the 3D
model.
Holy Cow.
Yes.
Anarchy.
It looks
that way – until you get used to it.
How?
Well, it all
really rhymes.
Rhymes?
Yes, rhymes –
so even though you’re seeing things from a completely different angle – such that
your two 10 dollar bills are now a fish and a bar of soap – yet elsewhere in
your awareness they’re still what they were – and the two representations,
outlandishly different though they appear to be – actually rhyme and fit
together nicely.
Holy Smoke.
Because you
discover an extra factor.
You do?
Yes.
Which is?
Which is…
Uh?
Is – the s
factor – for want of a better name.
You don’t
have a name for it? It can’t be that important then.
On the
contrary – it’s vitally important – which is precisely why it doesn’t really
have a name.
Groan.
It’s a kind
of slide rule – if you know what those are.
Not really –
but I can guess.
It means
that everything – no matter what – relates back to you.
Oh – why am
I not surprised? I knew you’d want to do that. You always do, Merry.
So you can
neither extract yourself from the equation, nor from what you’re observing.
The old
quantum mechanics thingy, innit.
Kind of.
So… I don’t
really know what to make of all this.
That’s to be
expected. Here – watch this.
Merry – er…
Jesus Christ – how are you doing that?
I’m essing
the chair.
It’s
floating mid air – and making me feel sick to boot.
Yep. Because
it’s forcing you to perceive something that can’t or shouldn’t be perceivable
in 3D reality. In other words – it’s stretching the limits of your credulity to
breaking point.
Ow – stop it,
please.
No. It’s
your turn to snap – or yield.
How? It
hurts.
Strange your
vision.
~Strange it?
Correct –
insert the wavy line – you know full-well the chair hasn’t really moved. You
know that I’ve just essed my perception – sliding through dimensions to the
point where the chair is now reversed against its background – a bit like the
reverse perspective they use on icon paintings.
Reverse
perspective – like lines converging as they get closer?
Kind of.
Quit trying to think this – it won’t work.
Then what,
before my head splits open.
Strange it.
Ess it. Move your head like a serpent back and forth – get a more fluid,
pulsing perception. The other configuration is close at hand, just waiting to
be seen.
Like those
3D pictures – you mean?
Yes.
Ok. At least
my head’s hurting less.
Blur your
vision a little.
Oh.
See it?
Nearly.
Something shifted but then I lost it.
Keep going.
It’s close.
…~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..~~~~~~~.~~~
wheeeeeee!
Like it?
Oh
yessssssssss. Amazzzzzing.
Where do you
prefer to be?
Er…
You can’t
say – can you?
Er…
Because you
can’t have one without the other.
Oh.
You’re still
here in 3D – but alternately you’re not.
…
You’re able
to perceive the reality from behind the scenes – where each and every object
you took for granted – the chair, that table, those two bank notes…
Oh my God –
they’re completely different!
And yet they’re
still identical.
But it feels
like there’s a hole, no, not exactly a hole… in my head.
I’d insert a
double u.
A double
what?
Double u.
You are now getting to see or experience the whole in your head.
Oh – “w” – I
get you. Yes – it’s like a new form of stereo vision. You know, Merry – I can’t
believe I never saw it before. It seems so obvious.
It is – and you
did.
Well, I’m
not aware that I did.
Correct. You
simply never bothered to raise what you were perceiving up to the level of
awareness.
Whyever not?
It didn’t
seem to matter, at the time.
No?
No. You had
enough on your plate – enough to do simply processing 3D reality.
But this
makes so much more sense.
I agree.
Then why?
Logic.
You mean to
say 3D was all about experiencing non-sense.
Your words
don’t seem unreasonable.
I can’t
believe it.
Hard, isn’t
it, and yet you can’t argue with what you’re perceiving now.
No, I can’t.
So… the whole 3D thing was a journey – an adventure into non-sense!
More or
less. A thingification – a perception field in which things truly appeared not
to be connected to you directly, fundamentally – just there – minding their own
business, if you will.
But it’s…
Primitive?
Yes. And
obviously wrong…
Now it is.
As long as I’m
essing mad!
Effing too.
Hey – no need
to use bad language.
Look around.
Ouch. ~what’s
happened?
If we can ess
things back into coherence, we can eff them too.
Oh.
The two
letters used to be identical.
They did?
More or
less. Lots of cheap puns in Shakespeare on this account.
He wouldn’t
stoop so low.
He could
hardly help it.
No?
No – he was
constantly shuttling back and forth, essing and effing his audience, trying to
prepare us for a new way of seeing things.
Oh.
So now it’s
your turn. Balance this equation.
It’s
impossible – the chair looks like a Picasso.
Stop holding
onto your existing point of perception. Eff off.
Oh – you’re
speaking technically – I thought you were being…
Groan.
…
That’s
better. You’re moving beautifully. I now see six of you.
You do?
More or
less.
Damn – you broke
my concentration.
You’re doing
fine. Eff off again.
It’s a bit
like doing a Rubik’s cube.
You can do
them?
No, but I
can see the link.
I have good
news for you Zie.
You do?
Yes, you’ll
be able to use this technique to do any Rubik’s cube.
Oh, that’s…
sss sss sss sss
There he
goes… ok, ok, I’m coming. Well done Maestro.
Maestro?
Yes – you’re
effing marvellous.
Ha ha very
funny.
So the chair…
Oh yes – I’ve
got a problem dealing with this.
I thought
you would.
I think that’s
why it took so long.
Yep.
Strangely,
your referring to the Rubik’s cube seemed to help.
Did it?
Yes. I
stopped thinking rationally, and just handled it as a problem to be solved.
So what have
you got.
Can’t you
see?
Not till you
say.
Really?
Whyever not?
Because you’re
the one assembling this particular subset of reality. But I can see you’ve done
a good job.
Yes?
Yes.
How?
The numbers
add up.
Oh. As in
0=1?
Correct. So
stop dodging the issue. What have we got?
Er… Merry.
Yes? You’re
being effing slow.
It’s hardly
my fault, you know. My rational mind finds it hard to accept.
What
Question
mark.
No question
intended. Unless you what this field of perception, naming what you see, it
will escape your mind – you simply won’t be able to recall it.
Oh!
So what it.
Ok, ok – it’s
a b…
..ee..
..tle.. You
knew! How did you know?
I didn’t.
Not exactly, but I had my suspicions.
Oh my God –
this is too much. The chair is a beetle – and it’s winking at me.
Yes, they
like to make eye contact.
They do?
Yes. Bear in
mind that this beetle represents the chaos of the abyss reaching out to you in
a manner that is both recognisable and yet obviously not normal by any stretch
of the imagination.
Oh.
Apparently,
the other side of consciousness, the infinitudes of the abyss, still has some
kind of sense of humour, or personality and relishes the contact it’s now able
to make with you. Suffice it to say it is devouring your seeing vision.
Yikes
Like a butterfly drinking nectar from a flower.
Like a butterfly drinking nectar from a flower.
Oh – that doesn’t
sound so bad.
And thus the
twain which never shall meet, strangely do, here in omnality.
Oh.
O 2
