Absolutes (musings from early March, 2016)

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

"It is the curse of invisibility to desire beauty.
It is the curse of beauty to desire invisibility."
- Jonathan Barlow Gee

Each desires what they can perceive, but which they lack in themselves.
One polarity attracts itself to the other which repels itself.
The motive of life is to overcome polarizing duality.

Beauty, love and freedom are all qualitative attributes rather than quantitative traits or constituent components; they cannot be "summed up" using the variables of logic, the abstract descriptions of language, nor even be fully and finally contained inside any one form, let alone specific example, of human expression.

Intelligence, inspiration and uniqueness are all quantifiable traits innate within a person's character at any given moment; they can be "weighed and measured" by applying logical questions, abstract hypotheses and tested using scientific method(s) to determine their presence or absence. If a person is smart, they have a high IQ, if inspired, gifted, and each truly unique, though rarely are any aware of this.

How can it be that everyone is a unique, differently detailed individual, and yet many people have forgotten this, become ashamed of it, or try to hide and reject it? It is because the quantity of intelligence, the quantity of inspiration, and the quantity of all possible unique combinations of innate traits, are all quantifiable, and thus finite in total sum.

If there is a limited amount of total available knowledge (as in, a maximum cap determined by place and time placed onto the amount we are able to learn, know and remember, let alone build from), then there will be an inverse correlation between the sum of the human population and the average intelligence quotient. Everyone will know a little bit, many will know some, some will know much, and few will know all.

Thus, while "mastery," and hence also "slavery," manifest themselves in the social orders humans invent based on quantifiable traits, these aspects do not arise, aside from in novel forms as entertainment, within cultures based around contemplation of qualitative attributes, such as "quality time," "quality of life" and "equality" of uniqueness. In short, if one pursues the solid, materialism will provide a path toward Rome; but if one chooses to pursue the metaphysical, idealism will prove you are already home.

Peace.

As long as everyone is obsessing over injustice, nobody is using any time objectively inventing alternative models. That is how we stay slaves. Peace.

As long as even ONE homo-sapient remains possessed of the notion that killing is NOT wrong, but MAYBE hypothetically justified "given certain conditions," "in some cases," or "if this," "when that," etc. then NO ONE is going to be able to evolve to humanity's full potential. Peace must precede freedom. If we wish to be free to use our abilities to their utmost, we must first demonstrate we do not intend to do so to cause harm or to damage the material cosmos. Until then, the savagery of our former stage in evolution, as great apes, will continue to hold us back and anchor our potential to and inside this material realm. As long as there remain genocidal sociopaths vying for popular authority, mankind remains not a species of "spiritual beings having a physical experience," but merely an aberrant mutation able to perceive, but not to enact, the difference between "right" and "wrong." Without this sense of fairness, equality, justice, ethics, morality, etc. people who are able to evolve even a little bit beyond the lowest-common-denominator will continue to be seen as freaks and punished while alive, even if elevated in myth and considered "saviors" after being killed by the people of their time. Until the time when "reason" prevails over the obvious injustice, savagery and unworthiness of "war," I have nothing more to say about ANY specific instance of politicians' verbal abuses, the "scandals" instigated in entertainment to distract us from corporations rolling back declared human rights, or anything else that is "trending" in our user-specific news-feeds. I hope you, gentle readers, will understand my position in this regard, and not think me "isolationist," "indifferent," "hermetic," or "uninformed" in regards to the daily examples of human injustice, inhumanity, cruelty and hatred. I'm just busy trying to think of a better way to educate the least intelligent among us, to elevate them to achieve a sense of morality and ethics alike the rest of us, and to help them see they do not need to continue to make the choice to spread hatred, lies and prejudice, bigotry and the lowest standards of diplomacy, but that they can simply choose to quit and to "see the light" of reason anytime they wish. Peace.

Every action available to humans is a compromise between Absolute free-will and Absolute determinism. Absolute free-will is abstract, creative, intuitive, seemingly random and unpredictable. Absolute determinism is mechanical, efficient, logical, permanently programmed and indestructible. Therefore, every action available for any human ever has been Relatively either based more on their own free-will or on environmental determinism. Individualism tends toward and advocates for relative free-will, while institutions and Statism espouse relative determinism. The laws of physics governing inert matter determine the actions of the vast majority of the cosmos, while free-will is a rare and microscopic mutation opposing these. Although immutable entropy wins in the end, all choices - whether to enforce or oppose this rule - exist due to our inescapable free-will while alive.

To attain absolute freedom means to be removed from all boundaries, to have no limitations, and to be totally at liberty to do anything one imagines. This is the natural condition for sentient animal species, including humanity; as lions roam the wilderness, so the minds of people wander. At all times, waking and in dreams, the mind has infinite capacity for imagination, invention, intuition and inspiration - far beyond the limited material resources available to fuel, excite or in any other way build up or be used to make real and manifest what can be envisioned only by the mind's eye. In short, the mind's freedom is always absolute, its capacity for creativity is always infinite, and its ability to perceive is always far in excess of limited physical elements.

Because the mind can imagine beyond the limits of reality, there extends beyond the limits of reality an additional level of "mind over matter," that, insofar as it supersedes the entirety of material reality, can also control all outcomes in material reality to its own will's ends, or even if it so wishes destroy all material reality. Does this mean the mind created the cosmos? No. Does this mean the mind of the cosmos is the biblical character of "god"? No. Does this mean the mind can, at its utmost extent, destroy the entire cosmos? Yes. Does this mean the mind of any one individual person is capable of destroying the entire cosmos? Yes.

the more the mind expands, the less it desires to destroy the cosmos.

the cosmos only contains the mind until the mind expands beyond it. As the mind expands upward toward the limits of material reality, it approaches the speed of light (one planck distance per one planck time) and at this rate it passes the barrier dividing the 4 universal elemental forces below from a hyperspace of tachyons and antimatter exotic dark matter above. The mind can attain even further than this hyperspace halo around the local universe as well, and not only penetrate into all our local universe's "baby universes" forming from black-holes inside our own cosmos, but also those other "parallel dimensional" cosmoses, almost the same size as our own, that surround ours in the 6 cardinal directions of space. The mind can, and has, journeyed even beyond the confines of this realm into the realm(s) beyond the confines of all conceived of extensions of the known laws of physics. The mind is, truly, infinite in its capacity. It is limitless and without border. It goes wherever it wills. It sees more than is, then deduces from this pleroma what exists as true reality. The mind is greater than god.

The smaller the entire cosmos becomes relative to the infinite capacity for expansion of the mind, the less the mind perceives as immediate the sensations experienced by the body. Thus, the desire within the mind to destroy anything, which arises as a direct reaction to the body's experience of physical stimuli, is nullified the "further out" the mind wanders away from this core cause of the "ego's" suffering. Suffering is the ultimate illusion from the point of the view of the expanded mind. The mind that has gained a vantage point of utmost awareness, of utmost perspective, has attained a position whereby they hold within their power the ability to break worlds, to split cosmoses, to obliterate time, however whereby they feel completely disempowered toward employing this ability.

if you are following signposts and landmarks left by your predecessors along a predetermined path toward a foregone conclusion... then your veneration of such prior "trail-blazing" adventurers might be just.... but if you seek to go anywhere beyond their boundaries, eventually you will have to stop following in anyone else's footsteps and begin to leave ones uniquely your own.

god is an imaginary idea. it means whatever you want it to mean, everything everyone wants it to mean, and nothing. saying the mind is greater than god is like saying the mind is greater than a pile of shit, because a pile of shit, insofar as it is undeniably real, exists, while god is only a theoretical concept. The mind contains within it the perception of the ideal of god and the perception of the reality of the pile of shit. But, as the saying I made up goes, "shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which piles up faster." lolz

theism is an antecedent to domestication. Animal taming, use as labor, breeding and husbandry, use as pets, etc. all that began prior to the concept of a theist deity. It is therefore possible, IMO at least, that theism is a means of human domestication: implementing a "messiah" or "god" concept as a "master" over the domesticated "flocks" of animalized people, dumbed down into a herd-mentality, etc. The idea to create the idea of "god" to use as a means of domesticating people into sheep-like, docile, feeble, inbred beasts of burden, had to have occurred in the mind of some nefarious wizard as a result, most likely, of hallucinations brought about by use of (even then) sacred natural substances, and been inspired by yearning to account for the desire for but lack of tangible evidence for an afterlife. The notion of a spiritual "master" is uniquely a human idea. The "tribal hierarchy," "pecking order" or "food chain," however, is not.

humanity has, for as long as there have been homo-sapiens, migrated in a very specific pattern: always - whether as nomadic hunter-gatherers following tribes of wild game animals, or as semi-sedentary summer cave-dwellers co-habitating with neanderthals in modern-day Gaza, even following the advent of polities - toward a very specific goal: the retreating horizon itself. The first homo-sapiens known of now were migrating northward through the continent of Africa, so it begs the question of whether our earliest ancestors could have possibly inhabited the polar continent of Antarctica when it was unglaciated during the last north-hemisphere ice-age, when there were glaciers over North America instead. Following this people spread eastward along the coasts into australia, oceania and ultimately across the pacific to South America, preceding other land-locked migrations into North America from Siberia across the Beringian straight. Once they had reached as far as they could go to the east, they doubled back on themselves and this led to the beginning of the "indoeuropean" migrations from the indian sub-continent into europe, either via the mediterranean and middle-east, of else north via the caucus mountains. Ultimately, these indo-europeans "discovered" north America again, and thus here we are now.

oh, and btw, at exactly no point along that entire timeline I just gave have humans required as "necessary" clothing, weapons, tools, farming and / or domesticated animals for survival. People could live naked in the woods eating fruits and berries. That was what we did for thousands of years before the invention of the grind-stone and even the earliest cultivation of domestic grains, stored in silos such as (I think) Gobekli Tepe. People do not NEED any of the innovations unique to our species to survive. We could survive without talking, let alone without cars and television sets.

when "leaders" are psychopaths whose only authority over you derives from their coercion against you using military-industrially manufactured weapons of mass destruction, perhaps it is time to live without "leaders" like them, let alone without leaders at all?

The method of attaining the absolute freedom and infinite capacity of the mind is to expand one's consciousness, to detach one's mind and sense of self from their body and present surroundings, to achieve a meditative trance state and to attain absolute stillness and motionlessness of the mind, the "ego-death" ridding the nervous system of electrochemical activity, reducing the brainwaves to a flat-line. As the "ego" loosens its grip upon the body in the here-and-now, the aura of the mind, like a sphere around our body, expands away from it in all directions. This is the merkaba, the vessel for the atman or "astral body." Then, this expanded "ego," or "central self-concept," attains true motionlessness relative to the movement of the body through "absolute space," as a being on the surface of a rotating planet orbiting a star in a galaxy, etc.

how is it that truth can contain paradox? how is it that the "ego" or "central self-concept" is set "free" by attaining stillness and motionlessness? How is it that the mind that expands to attain power ceases, once having attained it, to desire to expend it? The dimensions beyond the simple cubical confines of euclidian demarkation of newtonian space are fraught with paradoxes. "There is," as the saying goes, "a snake pit at the gate to paradise." This figurative "hell-hole" is the nature of "worm-holes," this "rabbit-hole" the nature of "black-holes," and this seemingly illogical, conundrum-riddled, impossible-shaped isomorphic loop is actually our own cosmos, simply turned inside out.

The cosmos is being swallowed upward into a super-massive black-hole surrounding it beyond the speed of light; the brain is, likewise, alike a little black-hole, ever ingesting but only ever so rarely successfully expressing, the quanta of knowledge upon which it subsists; we cannot escape entropy, only hope to twist its impact back on itself; we are each only a grain of dust on the whirling cyclone of time.

What is wisdom? Socrates is famously quoted, "wisdom is knowing you know nothing." This philosophy, that "the beginning of wisdom is fear of god, and wisdom means knowing how little you know," was already ancient by the time of the Greek Golden Age of philosophy. However, this was then and remains now only "popular opinion" on the matter, and as we all should know by now, "popular opinion" is not always right, and can often simply be misinformed about what would be the best option for it to choose. So, in this case, it is possible that "popular opinion" - even though by now dug in by some 4,000 years - maybe wrong. Thus the statement "wisdom is knowing you know nothing," maybe wrong, and its opposite, that "wisdom is knowing everything that can be known," could be true instead, or even that both could be equally true, or untrue, and that any other definition for the word might possibly work just as well.

When we examine "everything that can be known" as a whole sum, we cannot, although we should - if we could, exclude the myths and superstitions upon which our historical records as a species are largely based. Therefore, the validity of a work, such as "the lost book of enki" - that meaning, its authenticity as an ancient myth or its being a forged modern myth made up by Sitchin - is irrelevant. It MUST be included in the corpus of "all that can be known" because, even though it MAYBE fiction, it CAN be known. Likewise with the Veda, the Bible and its apocrypha, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and all other fictional myths up to and including modern times, such as the plays of Shakespeare, the complete works of Tim Lahey, Dan Brown, and Anton Lavey, the entire editing history of wikipedia and everything else online as well - fictional or not, false or true, opinion or fact, etc.

From this sum, as I've argued elsewhere before, can be deducted the "dross" of what is purely false, fiction, superstition, etc. and this sub-set can then be set aside and the remainder, that being what is left over after subtracting from the sum of all that CAN be known the sum of all that is purely DROSS, is what constitutes "USEFUL" information for the progress and evolution of our species and each individual in it. In this context, little from ancient times translates as such into the languages of modern expression: ancient Egyptian cosmology (Ptah spitting) and modern astro-physical theory (the "big bang") have similarities and differences, but only their similarities should be considered "useful" as building blocks or quantum "information units" that can be assembled into a formula.

The ancients, inspiring Euclid to cite Pythagoras for his first book's 47th proposition, were well aware of the mystical nature of triangles, and used them in "summoning" angels and demons in ritual magic. An equilateral triangle (one having equal length sides and all equal interior angles) is exactly divisible into two Pythagorean triangles (by drawing a line between the mid-point of one side and the opposite angle's vertex). So let us label these points so as to logically deduce the relationship of these terms: If "what can be known" is seen as an equilateral triangle, divided into two Pythagorean right-angled triangles - what is "false" and what is "true" - then "wisdom" would constitute EITHER knowing this complete sum OR knowing only the "true" half. So let us consider which is true: if knowing only what is "true" constitutes "wisdom," one may acquire "wisdom" faster and with less study; but if "wisdom" is knowing "all that can be known," then acquiring this form of "wisdom" takes longer and requires much more study; in short, either "wisdom" may be reached by traversing ONLY the distance of the two Pythagorean triangles' shared leg, or else must be reached by traversing around their shorter legs and then those of the equilateral triangle as the Pythagorean triangles' hypotenuses. So what can we divine from these proportions? "wisdom" is a measure of either the longer leg of a Pythagorean right triangle, OR the distance of the remaining leg PLUS the triangle's hypotenuse (and this remains the case for either "truth" or "fiction" alone, and so allows them both to be included by multiplying the one by two). But let us examine this further: say the "longer leg" of the Pythagorean triangle is 4 and the "shorter leg" is 3, thus the length of the hypotenuse is 5: hence the measure of "wisdom" is either 4 (the distance dividing "true" and "false") OR 8 (the leg of 3 plus the hypotenuse of 5). Again, in short, "wisdom" is either 1/2 "absolute" knowledge or else twice only what is "true" or "false."

Thinking "man is the measure" or the "mid-point" between the "above" and "below" is geno-centrism. Thinking of nations and ethnic populations as each homogenous, ubiquitous in their motivation, and as collectives of similarities, is geno-centrism. Thinking the human species is the only one "blessed" by sentient consciousness is geno-centrism. Until mankind aspires beyond such limited modes of thinking as nationalism and racism, let alone our belief in the "exceptional-ism" of the human species, we will not evolve in a direction beneficial to our harmonious co-existence with the cosmic elements. Unless we end our barbarous superstition-based savageries before attaining interstellar outer-space exploration, the cosmic elements will rightly see our imposition as a threat, and will retaliate against us in a manner we cannot prevent. To take up arms against the fates - to kill karma - is a lost cause. If we war against the cosmic elements, we will lose. And when we die, we will lose the one thing that is special and unique in all the cosmos about our own existence - our own personal perceptions; for, when we die, our memories are erased, our ego is dissolved and the electrical patterns of our mind are dispersed for all time. To think humanity capable of a "soul" that can be "saved" in an "afterlife," but to think only those who "deserve" this have one, is geno-centrism also. "God" is not "anthropomorphic;" He is imaginary. Peace.

until our species reaches a moment of realization, a "tipping point" at which it peaks and plots its future course - either how to descend, or to continue on upward - a minority of mutants, capable of thinking outside the "status quo," will continually plague the majority of recalcitrants, urging them to evolve; and only when this moment is reached will this minority either metastasize into a unanimity or be finally sacrificed on a pyre.

Dead Truths Lie Buried In Novel Form.

Stewart Brand said "information wants to be free." His statement is only true when information is being limited, but in an unlimited, free environment, information reaches a condition of static equilibrium. When all information available is equally distributed among all of a group's members, as in a condition of "absolute education" - wherein each knows all that can be known by all - then information ceases to be competitive, and the international jostling of espionage - that info-war - ends in a condition of uniform calm, contentment and peace. In short, when everyone knows everything, communication becomes irrelevant.

In an unlimited environment, each action creates infinite ripples of consequences in all directions uniformly. In such conditions, the only "blowback" - unintended consequences or unpredicted outcomes - results when individual, independent wills overlap and the wave-fronts of their karmic choices form a scalar-wave field between them; in such a setting, some of the data each communicates outward only is reflected and returns to its source. In a limited environment, this same effect occurs much sooner.

What is a "living truth"? A "living truth" is a movement or line of thinking that has not yet resulted in achieving its motivating goal, or that has not yet achieved static equilibrium with its environment, or that has not yet ended and thus become calcified in the annals of history. A "living truth" is any idea, imbued with the inspiration of it being a "final solution," an "ultimate truth" or "next big thing," that is carried on like a "torch," and often these motivational philosophies are described as being "lit at dawn by a madman." "Living truths" are more easy to doubt, question and attack than their converse, "dead truths," which are, by contrast, irrefutable, universally generalizable facts about reality - or past "theories" that have since been tested, proven true (or at least workably useful) and been used as building blocks to assemble new technology. For example, a library is a computer, full of knowledge, of which the librarian serves as the random-accessor; it is comprised of "dead truths" in the form of books, each full of data that cannot be unwritten nor its cultural impact on our kind reversed so long as the library stands. Again, a "living truth" is a movement, moved by selfish survivalism, while a "dead truth" is unmoving, indifferent to its impact, and immensely more significant. Unfortunately for human evolution, "truth" is only ever accepted as "self-evident" after a successful movement toward its popular acceptance has completed a shift in the thinking that generates the majority of data; in short, before anyone else will believe in anybody's idea, regardless of how right, accurate and beneficial it would be, there is a struggle to test the durability of the idea against a tide of baseless criticisms, libels and false accusations. Only truths that survive this process intact, shedding off all possible shadows of doubt associated with the personality of their inventor or discoverer, are valued by humankind.

Truths can also be "buried alive" or even become "undead zombies" as well. Philosophy and speculation are truths, not fully formed, expressed in writing with or without the narrative context of a fictionalized setting. The cries for help of a truth being buried alive inside a novel coffin is the sound of "begging the question" - when someone poses questions without positing any answers, leaving loose-ends untied up, or else leaves inferred but unspoken a larger question behind the remainder of their text, such as "is god real?", "what is the purpose of human life?", and / or "what is the ultimate good?". If a question is begged but left unanswered, it further begs the question of: is this really a useful question to ask? Could this question be rephrased to provide an easier answer? When a "living truth" or gestating idea is harvested and communicated prematurely to coming to its fruition as a full-fledged physical theory, it is called "philosophy" or "speculation" and is defined by posing more questions than answers. In this form we find "truth buried alive." Likewise, if a "truth" lies buried, but is rediscovered much later and resurrected, brought back into the common vernacular (as with "neo-platonism" or the resurgence toward "democracy"), it is considered an "undead zombie" form of truth. Like a corpse, raised as a puppet through the secret, dark arts of voodoo, an "undead truth" can be made to dance and replicate the motions of life, but it will not be imbued with its original, nor any identical form, of infusing "spirit," motivating "soul" or living "movement." An ancient truth, modernized for a "new age," a "new aeon" or a "new era," can be considered an "undead zombie" form of truth.

The Fool and Evil yield the same karma, although the Fool does so accidentally, while Evil does so with intent. When a Fool accidentally yields Evil karma, if they do not repent, they become internally ignorant, and if confronted about this point, they externalize arrogance; when inflamed in their self-righteousness, no Evil is more dangerous than a Fool being called a Fool. To repent of Evil karma, the Fool must only realize it has occurred and help to improve it into Good or better karma; thus, ceasing to be a Fool. Only the Sage, freed of All Evil karma by choosing "right" over "wrong," is immune from all of this.