Picasso's chair

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.

Oh – that doesn’t sound so bad.

And thus the twain which never shall meet, strangely do, here in omnality.

Oh.

O 2