Ok guys, did
you ever consider how we get to plus 3?
What is
there to consider? You just write it down. There’s nothing to it.
Precisely,
there’s nothing to it, in other words, that plus 3 is, in fact, nought.
Oh come on!
You’re playing with words.
Am I?
Yes, my plus
three can just as easily be three dollars, three apples, three cats.
Ah, so three
can be noun or adjective, you’re saying, and you want me to believe that
they’re essentially the same?
Well, anyone
can see that three can describe anything. It’s not exactly controversial.
Yes, there’s
nothing very controversial about three cats, I concede, but how do you get
them? Do they just
materialise from thin air?
Well, there
are plenty of cats. It’s not exactly difficult to find or borrow three if we
need to, but honestly, I don’t see why we need bother. This is maths, an
abstract science.
True, so we
can abstractly borrow three cats from the abstractium, or the mathematicum, we
could call it.
Why do we
need to borrow? There’s nothing to borrow. It’s purely abstract, purely
theoretical.
Ah, but is
it?
Well
obviously.
So purely theoretically
you have three cats which exist as nothing more than a vague or idle whim?
Why put it
that way? They exist abstractly.
So if I
abstractly give you a parachute and push you out of the airplane?
I’m dead.
Or
abstractly give you a million dollars?
I’m
abstractly grateful – which doesn’t amount to much.
How much
does it not amount to?
Er...
approximately zero. The same amount it cost you to give me those dollars in the
first place.
So, you’re
agreed that your purely abstract three cats amount to nothing more than nought.
In
practical, physical reality, yes, but mathematics is a conceptual reality which
lives its own parallel life. We can figure stuff out there, crunching numbers,
and get a positive result here.
A positive
result from zero?
Well yes –
but maybe that’s not so strange... We are actually adding something of great
importance and value – our mental application, our intelligence, our curiosity
and commitment to advancing our understanding of things in general – all of
which can benefit from these forays into the abstractium or mathematicum, as
you call it.
Yes, except
you seem to have got the maths wrong.
We do? What
do you mean?
You seem to
have assumed you can extract yourself from the equation.
Huh?
That you can
just think about things and come up with solutions to mathematical problems, playing
around with numbers as if they’re just thingless things which you can create or
uncreate at will.
Eh... like I
said – this is abstract thought – of course we can create numbers at will –
plus three for example – where did that just come from? or three frogs?
The problem
being that the mind doesn’t work that way – every thing you touch with
your mind – everything you think about – no matter how big or small – is a
direct, inseparable moment or part of creation – the same creation that started
all those billions of years ago with an event your tongue in cheek cosmologists
refer to as “Big Bang”.
No-oh. I can’t
agree with that hypothesis.
Actually it
isn’t.
Isn’t what?
A
hypothesis.
What do you
mean?
It’s a
direct statement of fact corresponding with the first law of thermodynamics –
that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Er...
What that
means is that everything unfolding at any moment of time is a continuation of
Big Bang – which never in fact went away.
Look Psi –
Big Bang was a hugely explosive energy event – I don’t think you can equate
writing plus three on a piece of paper to the creation of the universe.
Yes. That
goes without saying.
I beg your
pardon.
It goes
without saying that you don’t think something. Not thinking it is your way of
balancing the equation via nought or not.
Que?
Either you
do it consciously by accepting nothing can be created or destroyed – as I do –
or you "don’t think things".
Nope. You’ve
totally lost me.
Not
surprisingly. As long as you use the “I don’t think” get out of jail free card,
you can go through life, maths or cosmology without joining the dots – without seeing the
totality – the inextricably interconnected nature of thought and thing – of mind
itself and whatever mind is considering abstractly.
So you mean
to say that I’m a part of the equation – of what I’m thinking about?
Er yes – how
could it be otherwise?
Like in
quantum mechanics – the observer affects whatever it is he’s observing.
Undeniably –
but not because he’s observing it.
Then what?
That’s the “I
don’t think” way of explaining it.
I don’t
think what?
I do
positively think nought is a part of whatever it is I’m considering – which, of
course, it is, but isn’t it perhaps time to consider what, in fact, nought
might be?
I er... I
don’t know.
Precisely.
Caught in a loop, aren’t you? Desperately trying not to consider the basic
fundamentals – the fairly obvious fact that something cannot be created from
nothing. Were you to consider that fact – you’d see that you, your
consciousness – whatever that might be – holds the balance.
Er...
That for
every thing – be it plus one, two, three, chicken or dog, brick of bridge you’re
able to create either physically or abstractly, there needs must be a balancing
entry on the other side of the ledger.
You mean
like in book keeping?
Absolutely.
So nothing
can be created without...
A
corresponding nought-creation – which the mind tends to see as a minus entry –
thus your plus three is real and possible here in 3D reality, in maths, in
conversation or in thought only because , automatically, it’s borrowed from the
other side as a minus three – or rather – to us it’s minus three looking across
the y axis at the other side – but to them, over there – it’s positive.
Er... how
can it be positive to them if it’s minus to us?
Presumably
because their spin is the reverse of ours. To be honest, who cares how? It
should be fairly obvious that they see their side in a positive light – in the
same way we see ours in a positive light too. It’s kind of illiterate to talk
about minuses – isn’t it?
Er – I don’t
see why. If I’m driving backwards at 10 miles an hour...
Then you’re
driving at minus ten miles an hour – from our perspective – no?
Yes,
exactly.
But are you
really driving backwards?
No, you lost
me.
Well – you’re
still moving forwards.
No I’m not –
I’m moving backwards.
Only if you
insist that the front of the car has to be that end – and not the other. If, on
the other hand, you didn’t insist on fixing things mentally – as you currently
do – but you allowed your mind to move freely either way about the y axis, then
you’d see things differently.
?
But this isn’t
going to make any sense whatsoever until you’ve experienced it – which means
you have to leap into the quantum age of thinking things nought.
???
Thinking
things nought – in other words, allowing the knowledge and awareness that no
thing actually exists in totality – only if the two sides are kept apart – with
you rigidly holding the divide – the eye of the observer – one way.
But... I can’t
accept that no thing actually exists in totality. This sandwich in my hand –
which I’m now raising to my mouth and taking a bite out of – you mean to say in
totality it don’t exist? That’s absurd.
Absolutely.
Weird. Absurd – these are epithets describing the quantum state of things. But
in stead of thinking about it in terms of “quantum physics” – you can simplify
matters and just go ahead and accept the obvious.
Er... which
obvious are you referring to?
That things
are just a function of consciousness – that consciousness works both ways – on the
one hand holding one side in dominance with the awareness – while at the same
time holding the other in unawareness, as pure consciousness – pure abstraction,
pure art – so to speak.
So the other
side amounts to nought – and thus – by your own logic, can be discarded,
disconsidered, ignored.
Can be and
is – as long as you wish to be an idiot.
Hey – wait a
minute – no ad hominem attacks.
None
intended – “idiot” here is a purely technical, legalistic term referring to a
person who chooses to deny and ignore the other side of things – the “pure
consciousness”, abstract or dark matter side of things.
Oh – so you weren’t
trying to be offensive?
Nope.
Well – it still
sounds pretty offensive. I think you should choose a different term.
Like vets
referring to a female dog as a bitch, or doctors naming body parts we’d rather
not hear named. There is a time and need for purely technical terms – which sadly,
are misappropriated by laymen.
So what’s
the other type of person then – the one who isn’t an “idiot”.
That person
is not a person.
?!
A person is someone
who has taken sides and stepped into his or her personhood.
And there’s
an alternative?
Naturally.
What, if it’s
not a secret?
No secret.
It’s a human being.
Oh, big
difference.
Correct, a
big difference.
Actually, I
was being sarcastic, in case you didn’t notice.
Big
difference because the human being is neither one thing nor the other.
?
Neither plus
three nor minus three. That’s why he/ she is referred to as a being – and in
your beingness you’re in a trans-axial state.
A what?
It should be
self-evident. Either we can describe it as a trans-axial state – which is a
kind of 2D flat earth representation – or three dimensionally your y axis just
happens to go right through you – so instead of trans-axial we could describe
it as bi-volving state.
Er...
Bi-volving
because you’re spinning both ways – centrifugally as in 3D reality personhood –
ever outwards into a perceived future or further forwardness, and at the same
time centripetally, ever inwards ad infinitum.
In towards
what?
What do you
think?
I have no
idea.
Good – that’s
a fairly good definition.
Huh?
Spinning
inwards in towards “I have no idea” as you put it – which is another way of
saying spinning inwards, ever further towards and into nought, the same nought
that lies at the heart of your proposed Big Bang.
Er... this
is giving me a head ache. How can we spin inwards? There’s nothing inside –
just cells and atoms.
Just cells
and atoms? What about energy? What about field lines? What about waves or
ripples of consciousness which extend throughout the entire universe – and just
happen to have their focal point – their zero point somewhere deep “within”
you?
Er... sounds
a bit theoretical and needlessly abstract to me.
Yes, in the
same way your plus three, or three dogs are abstract.
Oh – so now
its three dogs, is it?
The point
is, that the system of logic you’re using – the path or patterns or reason your
mind is able to wander along are mono-directional. You have one side of the equation
which is a lot of fun to play with, up to a point.
Exactly –
who says we need your other side – which is lost in space and time – which leads
precisely nowhere...
Because it
is everywhere. Do you really think you’re moving forwards?
I like to
imagine I am.
Or that the
universe is expanding.
Yes, I do.
Why not?
So something
that emerges inexplicably from nothing billions of years ago – which is
theoretically, according to your monological way of seeing things – surrounding
by nothing whatsoever – if it’s surrounded by anything at all...
Actually –
now people are saying there are lots of universes – so ours could be expanding
relative to others, you know.
Could be,
could it – expanding and contracting – a bit like the lungs or human heart.
That’s a nice step forwards – it’s beginning to sound biological.
Look Psi –
of course I’m not really able to explain all this particularly well. I’m hardly
an expert – and this kind of thing is incredibly complicated. That’s why only a
small number of scientists or mathematicians really understand what’s going on.
Ah – they
do, do they?
Well, they
understand it better than me. They’d be able to give a far clearer, less
muddled explanation of things than I can.
And do you
think they’d be able to do so without thinking things?
Huh?
Do you think
they’d be able to do so without thinking things?
Er, what do
you mean? How can they explain something without thinking about it?
So the
answer is no – am I correct?
Well – yes,
but you’re being absurd. Why would they want to explain things without thiking
about them?
First law of
thermodynamics – conservation of energy. By thinking about things they’re bound
to change them – meaning their explanation refers to something that no longer
exists – something already in the past. The dog cannot, will not ever catch its
tail.
Er... I
think you’re being needlessly dismissive. 2 plus 2 equals four regardless of
whether you think about it or not.
Yes – but as
you yourself admitted – these numbers you’re using about pure abstractions
amounting to nought – whereas the universe we’re describing – of which you are
a part – is not, cannot be a pure abstraction – it’s physical, has mass and...
Yes? What?
It’s infinitely
responsive to whatever you are thinking, feeling or observing.
No it’s
not.
Correct –
no, it is nought – which is essentially another way of saying “I do not think
so.”
Oh God – I can’t
win with you Psi. You’re obsessed with your definition of things – as if the
whole of reality is a banker's credit and debit ledger.
Ok – well do
you have a better explanation for how things just happened to come into
existence?
No... well
yes – I’m confident that our scientists have done a reasonably good job
explaining things, and I’d be able to myself if the maths weren’t so darned
difficult.
Which, in
fact, it ain’t.
What? Of course
it is. The maths is well-nigh impossible.
Look Travis,
maths is just a language. If you’re able to speak English without any great
difficulty and explain things to someone else – then you can handle Big Bang.
You don’t need to play their number game.
No?
No. The
beauty of maths, and the problem with maths is that it’s "either or" – either 4
or 5, either minus or plus.
I think you’re
oversimplifying things. I’m sure maths is an incredibly powerful tool.
Which it is –
to describe things. But we’re not really interested in describing things – are we?
No?
Because as
soon as we do so, we’ve already affected them – they’re already different – we’re
perpetually behind the curve with no chance of catching up – no matter how
powerful our computers, how big our telescopes or particle accelerators.
Physical reality can always run faster than us – because it’s a function of our
bi-volving consciousness.
Er...
Things have
to be thought into existence. They cannot exist as purely abstract numbers. In
other words, at the speed of thought matter is borrowed from nought – creating an
anti or dark matter on the other side of the axis, and on the other side of any thing manifesting.
Anti or dark
– you’re not exactly trying to be specific with your terminology, are you?
Because from
our perspective it can be perceived to be “anti” or “dark” matter – but on that
side of things – it ain’t.
Ain’t?
It is a
perfect expression of nought.
Um...
Perfect, in
the sense that nought comes into focus when set against the backdrop of the
thought which on our side manifests as matter. Unless you’ve bothered to go
into consciousness and trace the pathways of thought - how it interacts in some
way with the unthought – then none of this will make very much sense. Suffice
it to say that the science and technology you’re going to be developing in the
next thousand years or so will be based on an ever greater awareness of the
bi-volving, biologic nature of consciousness. Little by little you’re going to
learn how to do things differently – as your awareness of the other side of
mind evolves – as you come closer to sensing how creation is something
fundamental and on-going – how your very thoughts are instrumental in shaping
the world and rewriting the story of life itself. Luckily, now you find yourselves
in a situation where the old world order, the old maths is failing you – the wheels
are turning still, frantically spinning, but there’s no traction – the vehicle
is no longer moving forwards – in fact, it’s beginning to move backwards ever
faster into the...
What?
Into what
you perceive to be an abyss – but appearances can be and are deceptive.
Phew! You
mean it’s not an abyss.
No – it’s an
abyss alright – unless you become aware of how you’re...
What? Don’t
fade on me now, Psi – I need to know.
You need to
know nothing Travis.
Nothing? How
can I know nothing?
I don’t
know.
Oh God.
Yes. That’s
one way – up to a point... You’ll be amazed what you really know when push
comes to shove.
Well I’d
much rather push didn’t come to shove. That sounds like a trip into horrorland.
Yes – into the
void – but really – it’s time. You can’t avoid the void indefinitely. No-thing
beckons and you have everything to gain – so God’s speed – I wish you bon
voyage into bi-volution – it’s time to open up your trans-axial partnership. We
could start right away – if you like.
We could?
Er, how?
Repeat after
me – zero equal one, it is – i am.
No, I can’t –
it’s too absurd.
There you go
– you’ve just started along the path of least resistance. Not the one I’d have
chosen – to be honest – but ideally suited to your current state of mind.
Oh hell.
Precisely –
highway to hell. Your job – as I see it – is to prove to yourself that hell is
not all hellfire and damnation, that hell, in fact, can be bright – and if you look at what’s happening in the
world around you – it seems like you’ve already made a valiant start.
To be continued...