There are very few things which all can agree upon. Different interpretations of events and philosophies and the possibly infinite multitudes of variability in the thought processes of physical beings leaves little chance of universal agreement upon anything. Despite this, there is a completely universal concept -- the universe. Beings within it at one time or another acknowledge their presence within the confines of what we call the physical universe, that place of blazing fireballs in an ocean of nothingness.
The degree to which people accept the facts of this experience or their various interpretations for such phenomena has no significance to the intangibility of this mode of existence. The parameters are preset and the number of possible outcomes indelibly fixed. I do not wish one to believe that ones existence in the physical world to be confining although it is difficult not to see it so. One body, one lifetime, one chance to make a dent in a vast stream of existences does seem to be a rather strict set of rules by which to abide. Of course, few readily accept such limitations. Many believe in extended existence beyond bodily termination and any sort of belief in magic, miracles, or mythology is to entertain the notion that we or other beings can defy the limitations of our possibly temporal existence and limited capacities.
It is to the world of our waking, the normal level of awareness selves which I which to address first and separately from any other less widely accepted and more abstractly founded notions of life. Since it is the physical world which provides the inputs for any larger more harmonious or more just notions of order for living things, the information that this sole base source provides is fundamental if not intrinsic to understanding interpretive drives of conceptually based environmental landscapes. What the physical world is should be considered in conjunction what it compels those who perceive it to do and the mental framework they construct as to the various ways of interpreting it.
Our minds adapt, or more accurately are manufactured to be shaped by our physical environmental worlds as much as our bodies are. What concepts we are exposed to and what existence we encounter come to us through our senses, our links to the physical world. Even our organization for abstract thoughts can sometimes take the form of physical storage systems. Those who believe purely in a physical form of existence think that those similarities of concepts to physical things might stem from the argument that the physical world creates consciousness. It is through the interaction of material chemical substances in the physical brains of species which cause thoughts and consciousness, they would say. That our minds should so greatly be shaped by a physical existence and the fact that we tend to think of ideas as 'things' are just logical deductions from fact based experience. I do not wish to argue this case as my preference has been undoubtedly given away and a perceived bias would taint any attempts at fairness. I will do my best however, to state the facts which the physical world portends and leave it up to the reader whether or not to believe or disbelieve them.
Humanity and other species are masses of protoplasm which exist and function to reproduce themselves. This is a process which can continue over a time span covering many generations. Certain observations about the species' environment can be communicated from one generation to another thereby enabling descendants to avoid hazardous situations and objects. These species undergo constant subtle mutations while interacting with their environments which enable them to better conform with a changing world. These mutations occurring prior to the births of offspring are passed along to the offspring, and over long periods of time these changes can lead to the creations of seemingly new species of similar genetically based forms. Different species vie for dominance over potential rivals for resources under any given environmental conditions. When a species overpopulates a region it risks depleting its food sources and greatly lessens its chances for survival. When this happens or when a species perceives no great threat from other species, it can turn upon itself sensing others of its kind as potential rivals for limited food resources.
Beings within a species go through stages which constitute a series of experiences which are in sum called a 'life'. These stages are contained within the concept of aging and has three distinct phases. The growth stage goes from conception to a period in time shortly after sexual maturation. During this time many species' young require the assistance of others within their particular species to protect them until they are able to withstand the dangers in their environment on their own. The reproductive phase is often the longest phase of a physical being's life, providing they are not killed. Some species have members which are strong enough to live beyond this into a post-reproductive stage. Shortly after full growth is achieved, beings' health deteriorate at an incremental rate which lessens the aged's ability to physically challenge rivals.
Many species have members distinguishable into groups which we call male and female. Different physical attributes and different social roles differentiate the members of sex in a species. In some species one sex dominates the other either by physical disproportion or by temperament. By these definitions, male and female, it is the female which bears the offspring by either laying a fertilized egg or by giving birth to a live child. For such species to survive, members of both sexes must continue to survive and remain fertile. Also, conditions must exist for mating to occur and full gestation in addition to keeping the young healthy while relatively helpless. These conditions must occur often enough to provide sufficient numbers of that species to overcome environmental hazards and premature deaths of species members not able to reach a sufficient age for reproduction. Large numbers of a species members also allow for a greater number of genetic combinations which increases its ability to adapt to different environments and survive.
The larger environment which these complex multi-cellular organisms inhabit are spheres of a variety of elements created by and orbiting around larger spheres of hydrogen fusion reactors called stars. The surface of these stars is a continuous chain reaction of atomic energy which creates heat and enormous waves of energy/particles called light. These waves spread out into the relative voids between these stars until they hit something to become particles called photons. These photons provide nutrients to photosynthetic organisms (plants) upon the orbiting satellites of these stars and form the basis of a food chain upon which all other organisms rely.
Without discussing the enormity of the time scale of the entire universe which makes even our own planet's age pale by comparison, the sheer vastness of the age of Earth makes not only the lives of individuals seem insignificant, it makes the life span of entire species seem insignificant. Upon these facts and upon the certainty of death, we build some mental structure to provide us with the courage to forge on and create a life which seems to us to be far more significant than the evidence of which our senses and rationality would lead us to believe. Immortality by this viewpoint is unobtainable but the perpetuation of the species can be viewed as an attempt at the impossible. If we do indeed view those of our own species as extensions of ourselves then we are given cause to give ourselves to something greater and bigger than we are, an immortality of ilk.
Though this universe may seem overwhelming in its breadth and diversity, it nonetheless confronts us with its own and our own existence. Those who view these facts of physical existence alone cannot hope to ever find any meaning other than that which their imagination might see. As I have said before, meaning is something we create and not something which lies waiting to be discovered. The fact that the universe exists pushes us to wonder why it exists. The greater perplexed we become, the more we wonder why. To come into awareness with no clear memories and to be confronted with this bizarre monstrosity makes us curious even if we were not so to begin with. It is this strangeness followed by more and more understanding which leads us to believe that life is a means of acquiring knowledge. Those who think in these terms cannot help but realize the improbability of a total understanding of the universe in any given lifetime. For those unwilling to dabble in speculations of eternal or numerous lifetimes, the idea that learning is the aim of life would be disheartening.
It is the inflexibility of the physical world which causes us to cherish material things. That which can give us material pleasure is readily comprehensible. That which causes suffrage for some post-life reward is regarded by many as dubious to say the least. Those who ask us to give up that which we know for something we cannot ever hope to understand or experience until a time when we may not be able to understand or experience anything, they ask a great deal. Yet there is never a shortage of takers for this seemingly absurd offer. Other than humanity having no rationale whatsoever, a thought which has crossed my mind from time to time, the only explanation I can think of is that this awareness of an eternal existence is not unobtainable while we live. Maybe we have an awareness of another form of existence which makes such absurd arguments make sense to us.
From a purely logical standpoint we should ruthlessly acquire all the resources we can to better ensure our survival. One could say that in a collective sense, that is what humanity does. Groups of people, particularly nations, show savage ferocity and great amorality in securing resources and improving their chances to survive if not dominate all others. At the same time, on an individual basis humans seem to acknowledge that such a crude form of civilization is far from desirable. They are more than willing to sacrifice immediate selfish gains for the sake of the group as a whole. Granted that this could be a biological recognition of the primary motivation as being the perpetuation of the species, but it is also true that those who subordinate themselves to the group are often aware that those who lead do not do so for the benefit of humanity or the group as a whole. Sometimes beings acknowledge that they can be true to what they believe is right without being in error even if it contributes to empowering those who are not right. Conflicts undoubtedly occur for often helping the many means helping the many who are helping themselves.
I believe that people sacrifice their comforts, personal desires, and ambitions for others because they feel they get something for it in return, something far more valuable than any amount of wealth can compensate for the lack of it. This inner drive cannot come from the circumstances or situations of our lives (other than being taught) for the simple reason that it does not make any sense. It runs contrary to all that we see and experience about what the world is really all about. Yet often as soon as someone communicates this belief in altruism, we embrace it as tightly as we embrace life itself. There are many cases where our love for principles and morally based ideas which do not occur as a part of nature, becomes greater than our love for life itself. Maybe it is because life is harsh and unfeeling that we dare to think we know how it should be. Maybe it is because we cannot accept the limitations and the helplessness which we are confronted with that we inevitably come to wish for more than we can achieve, some perfect world where we gain peace through ending others' misery. Or maybe it is because we knew better all along.
Chapter 2 --- Eternal Life
The Immortals
Beat fast oh heart of endless motion
that carries us through the shrouded stillness
of the omnipresent cold eternal night
which holds countless souls captive,
entombed within its endless fiefdom
smothered in angst and robbed of sight
Move quickly you who dare to think
that you have any relevance to it all
or it to you or you to what is right
lest you may learn that nothing matters
to life which you may cherish or despise
and to death which merely continues this plight
No future is real and the past slips away,
not wanting to be remembered or relived,
not holding onto you nor letting you hold it
as you are perpetually thrown into nothingness
and then let to grasp at something
yet that something never enables you to quit
Constant scurrying with nowhere to go
is the empty fate which befalls us all
and holds us in the wake of endless questing
after truths that lose their importance
as easily and as often as we lose our lives
without diminishing our spirit's vesting
Perhaps the most erroneous lack of judgment in my life is how little I value material things. To our conscious rational minds, the material world is everything. If life is to exist, then surviving to achieve that which will prolong life at the very least can be considered only natural and sane. Yet I, like so many others, have raised the value of ideals higher than the value of life itself. This potentially grave error may or may not be foundationless and its veracity may well hinge on one of the most intriguing questions that the human mind has ever formulated. That question is "are we mortal or are we immortal?"
From the point of view that existence begins and ends in the physical universe, the mere existence of such a question epitomizes the arrogance of the human species. Out of fear of death or maybe delusions of grandeur we dare to think we are above the truths of the physical world and we think we can continue in existence for indefinite or infinite amount of time. Such notions would surely seem absurd were it not for the fact that an overwhelming majority of humans on this planet believe that they possess an immortal soul and that this intangible indestructible force is their true selves. Despite what I may think, not many people would contend that believing this could or would make it so. As most would see it either they are correct in this assumption or they are mistaken.
I am not one to be overwhelmed and moved by the ingenuity of the human race. I see a species mired deep in divisive and often destructive beliefs which at times seem to defy all explanations based on reason. It is entirely conceivable to me that my beliefs of a relativistic world and others beliefs in an immortal soul to be completely without a basis in fact. However, the validity of my or others beliefs is not to be the emphasis of this chapter. I intend to discuss the ways in which immortality is envisioned and the effects these views have upon peoples actions.
There appears to be two major tenets of belief in an eternal soul. These are the spiral type multi-life views and the single lifetime judgmental view. The spiral type I label as such because it maintains that life is a circle between life and death, and through many lifetimes we move toward a greater or more complete understanding of the universe. The single life judgmental view is not completely dissimilar. It too presumes some pre-existent state as well as an equally outside of time eventual resting place be it nice or nasty as the case may be. This view of life contends that this life forms the basis upon which a judgment shall be rendered as to whether or not a person deserves an eternal purgatory or an eternal heaven. Another harder to define view is a merger of these two which I have stated. This other view supposes that though we are judged according to actions in our lives, a decision as to our final resting place may take more than one lifetime and that we can be given second chances to right our previous wrongs.
Before I get into the specifics of the differences of these subdivisional notions of eternal life I would like briefly to mention the common effects they have upon humanity. Frankly, they have made suffering more tolerable and perhaps for that reason, more prevalent. Injustices can be accepted with the belief that they are merely temporary and that in the end all wrongs will be made right. Sacrifices are to be rewarded and goodness along with virtue will live forever in the heart of some benevolent god. These beliefs most importantly say that there is more going on here than what we can see or know. These concepts give us new ways of seeing so that what we see is not so much what is there but what we wish to see there. Few people would die for money and only fools would die for glory but many would kill and die for ideals and the pain and sting of death for most is lessened by the idea of an eternal soul. It makes losing everything for nothing a reasonable choice.
It is difficult to say which view, spiral or judgmental, is inherently more susceptible to having negative repercussions upon societies. Hinduism and its beliefs are of the spiral type and they seem to have helped reinforce the caste system of social stratification to such a degree that it lasted thousands of years. This system included a whole class of people labeled as untouchables doomed from birth to a sort of social slavery. The reincarnation theory supported this in that whatever position they were born into was due to the sort of life they had earned or deserved from the previous one. Thus anyone born into extreme wealth earned that wealth and anyone extremely poor had better cast off any bitterness because they did something wrong to be born into such misery and unless they accept it they might wind up in a worse situation next time.
The judgmental view of other religions has led to many purges of foreign cultures to 'save' them from ideologies and behavioral patterns thought to be evil or blasphemous. The rationale was that they were 'cleansing' the Earth of 'heathens' who were not being murdered but merely being sent to be judged for their 'primitive savage' beliefs. This view also has made many quite eager to do any actions that they were told were good and righteous by those with the proclaimed authority to judge such things. Killing despite the "Thou shalt not kill" Commandment is an example of human interpreted exemptions to supposed divine rules. However there is no evidence that Christians or Moslems were any more vulnerable to persuasion and manipulation on religious grounds than were those of different religious backgrounds. Soldiers of all faiths were often reassured of everlasting glory for their sacrifices and violent deeds, if not everlasting life.
Both Hinduism and Buddhism can be said possess the spiral type view of life. It is through a series of lives and life experiences that one comes to a state of Nirvana or total oneness with all of existence in a blissful happy state. This view accentuates the value of knowledge, particularly spiritual knowledge and it speaks of existence in nonphysical worlds. Though life is a continuous circle between life and death, neither is thought to be completely unlike the other. It is by trying to find the underlying force within that one enables oneself to move further upon his or her journey of self discovery.
Christianity and Islam tend to have a judgmental view of external existence. The carrot and stick approach of heaven and hell tends to herd people to adhere to strict rules of social behavior. Though the judgment is supposedly left to God, many zealous preachers and pundits have not been shy about making their opinions known. Religious instruction is given to keep followers from straying from the path of righteousness and falling prey to the manifestations of temptation. Thoughts about eternal life are generally expressed in human-like terms and heaven is thought to be a sort of exclusive club where only the truly pious can gain entrance. I am not claiming that these are the current beliefs of the majorities of these faiths, only that these are the images upon which current teachings are founded.
How people view eternal life and their own souls varies greatly even within particular religions. Some people have more abstract notions of formless consciousness' while others tend to think in more visual and concrete terms. Though these differences can lead to unusual and fascinating variations among different cultures in how they think of and express ideas of the eternal existence of their spirits as well, the most important theme is that they are not their bodies. This precept sets the stage for greater control over their worlds for they are in fact removing themselves conceptually from the physical world and partially entering a world of their own conception.
As long as one views himself or herself as their bodies or even as objects within their environments they remain susceptible to and dependent upon such existence. But when people withdraw further into their own and group consciousness', they stretch the boundaries of what they perceive they can do and may actually increase what they are able to do. Believing one is a vaguely defined concept not based on or comparable to anything in the physical world is a very powerful and potentially dangerous thing to do. Doing so without a solid belief system can lead one to be open to any of the opposing forces that a consciousness can manufacture or contact. In most people there is no danger so long as they accept to live by the rules of their own existence. It is only when people seek to control other existence's outside of themselves that they latch onto loosely defined structures which give them greater apparent control, only to find later that they themselves were losing control.
I do not mean to say that any of this is absolutely real. I only wish to state the risks that can be run when one is unsure of what one is. I doubt that anyone's belief structure is without weaknesses and I assume that if anyone was completely without doubt in himself or herself then that person would either appear as a complete fool or as a holy godlike person. It is our unsuredness which keeps us searching to find better explanations and new ways of understanding and interpreting experiences. How we define ourselves is crucial to what we experience and our belief in what is possible affects what we experience. We negate or preclude from experience that which we believe cannot be. It is for this reason when we open our minds to the infinite by leaving our total existence, whether in size or time, in doubt we open a perceptual world as infinite and as expansive as space itself.
Chapter 3 --- The Consciousness Specific Perspective
Mine is the Sun
Mine is the sun
and for me it shines
It gives me the food
upon which my soul dines
Mine is the earth,
its oceans and its land
It gives me a place
upon which to stand
Mine is the life
that exists everywhere
It gives me purpose
among the others there
Mine are the stars
and the vastness of space
for they are in me
as I observe their place
There is a deeply personal way of interpreting life and its events. It goes beyond what is, what is physical, and instead concentrates on what happens. We can think of motion while thinking of objects in motion. The connection between what is and what happens seems unbreakable yet with some effort we can think of happenings without thinking of their causes or originating elements. A far easier task is to think about the objects alone rather than the changes in the universe alone. When this approach is carried to how one perceives life it is possible to negate the importance of all objects and their interactions except for how they affect you, the living consciousness perceiving them.
When something happens in the world, perhaps in some far off land you have never been to, you can stop and ask yourself "How does this affect me? What steps should I take to change my ideas about the world or about life? What viewpoints does this challenge me to consider or reconsider?". How we believe the world functions and our opinions of it are constantly put to the test every time we interact with the world merely by observing it. If we settle deeply into this perspective, what is happening becomes merely an impetus, a push which moves us toward a higher realization of ourselves. The entire universe becomes nothing but a staged play for an audience of one, the perceiver consciousness.
The perspective rests on at least two suppositions; the existence of a perceiver and a way or patterned form in which there are more real or higher realizations which we are being pushed into growing into. That a perceiver consciousness exists I doubt would be contested for anyone reading this or for me to be writing this, a limited intelligence or partially knowledgeable consciousness must exist. My consciousness must be limited for the purpose of writing this to affect some sort of change which could probably be done more directly by a completely knowledgeable consciousness by direct manipulation. If anyone were to be reading this, I would assume they too had limited knowledge otherwise there would be no point in reading it as they would already know what it said.
Given the assumption that at least one perceiving consciousness and possibly many others exist, the way in which I perceive my own consciousness as well as others pushes me to conclude that other possibly 'higher' realizations also exist. The fact that my conscious knowledge is rather limited and that new knowledge in forms of new experiences does affect changes in myself at least to the extent of expanding my conscious memory and triggering choices which I must make in how to deal with these events. All of this leads me to believe that some ascent into more knowledgeable states occurs as a necessity of existence. Just what these states are is up to others to decide. What should be kept in mind though, is that the accumulation of experience tends to push people toward more flexibility in how they regard others and life, and that this growth often destroys value systems which are not adaptable to larger more inclusive organizational systems. In a phrase, they become more 'open minded'.
Obviously more openness to viewpoints and broader reaching concepts are not the only points of 'spiritual' growth. Although greater empathy and understanding may indeed be prerequisites for such change, they are not the end of the road. It is the speculation of such universal notions which shapes, distinguishes, and defines consciousness' and I shall not push my limited views upon others. I instead seek to set up an organized approach in how we view such notions in a way which provides for consensus yet does not constrict the creative notions of others who may ponder such subjects. For this reason, I turn from the 'where' of growth to the 'how'.
While still maintaining the consciousness specific perspective, I shall attempt to expound on how growth occurs. In RELATIVISM 2 I stated that conceptual growth is bound by the limitations of perception. One can increase his or her own concept of their own existence only to the limits of their own perceptual worlds. Growth can defy the confines of an individual consciousness by the incorporation of other consciousness' into a singular common consciousness. How one views what his or her own existence is defines how he or she can grow conceptually and still maintain an individual ego. Yet these sentences do not state the means by which growth occurs.
There are two aspects of spiritual growth which I have yet to address. These are expansiveness and choice. Although I have stated that growth can be ascribed to ones concept of oneself becoming more and more inclusive, I do not wish for this to be confused with expansiveness. As we live, we continually gain new experiences which our conscious minds can indiscriminately draw upon. This accumulation of data could be said to expand our consciousness itself. If we indeed do have an immortal soul which can go through numerous incarnations then this simple expansion through the accumulation of knowledge and experience could indeed be most revealing as to the nature of the universe. This expansion could fuel our growth by continually forcing us to reassess ourselves in relation to our worlds and thus one day lead to more inclusive definitions.
Choice is a much more complicated subject. If one believes to any degree in fate, then their belief in choice is commensurably diminished. I doubt that either belief will fail to gain its share of supporters and detractors for some time to come. I shall sidestep this debate by saying that most can conceive of if not accept the statement that we have a large degree of choice over our actions. Although circumstances may abruptly be thrust upon us, often we consciously decide upon a course of action to take. This can be used as another measure of gauging growth. It could be said that when we choose we stand at a crossroads with one choice being correct and the others leading us away from growth. Though different people have different opinions over what is right and wrong, it is correct to say that our determination of whether or not we made the best choice is based upon our perceptions of the effects of that course of action.
I will concede that some judgments of the appropriateness of certain actions or inaction's seem to come from an internal judgment making apparatus. We can be sure that we have made a correct choice or have 'done the right thing' even though the consequences can prove to cause great suffering upon ourselves and those whom we love. When this happens we sometimes question not only our choices by also our conceptions about the value of, or justice inherent in, the universe itself. Sometimes we question our own worth and whether or not we are deserving of good fortune.
So we can concentrate on the effects we have upon our environment in how we judge our own worth and we can judge the effects that the environment has upon us and our notions of ourselves. Undoubtedly, we will continue to appraise ourselves by our successes and failures or by our attempts to manipulate our environments to achieve results which are beneficial or pleasing to us. Whether the results of these efforts benefit others or prove harmful to others will probably eventually affect how we judge our own values as we inch closer to a greater feeling of affinity with all else in our environments. Judging the effects the world has upon us is more difficult because there is no set scale with which to measure. What we are or may be is constantly changing and what we experience can affect us in ways which we may not be consciously aware of now but we will be painfully aware of later.
The consciousness specific perspective can be very powerful for an individual to take. The chance of negative use is great for it relinquishes all importance of anything and anyone in ones environment to subservience in how they affect the given individual perceiving that viewpoint. This opens the door for a complete absence of morality which on one hand expands the options that one might consider, yet on the other opens one up to do oneself harm by seeming to harm those whom may be there for the very purpose of teaching empathy. The potential benefits of this viewpoint go far beyond merely better understanding and controlling ones environment. It places an individual consciousness squarely in the middle of all that is happening in the universe and it impels that consciousness to recognize the significance that those happenings have for itself and its growth. So often we forget that all which happens to us is indelibly a part of us and that we are lost when we try to separate ourselves from it.
Chapter 4 --- The Concept of Fate
Destiny
All that mortal man
may ever hope to achieve
exists upon the whim
of the great god Destiny
A notion of total order
born out of a chaotic world
mesmerizes us still
as its legacy is unfurled
All that is and will be
shall be forever in its debt
and all who bow before it
are released from guilt and regret
Believers benefit little
for freedom pays the cost
to keep the idea alive
even as life itself becomes lost
If the concept of eternal life could be said to be a major impetus to drive beings fearlessly to reckless actions, then the concept of fate could be said to be the great pacifier. Though the idea of fate or destiny can move people just as boldly to extreme acts, I believe that overall it tends to reinforce the status quo. It explains all things merely by stating that they were meant to be. By whom and for what purpose is assuredly something not all hold in agreement. Some people also believe that some things are fated yet other things are not. Whom one marries and when one dies fall into the category of what some believe to be fated even if they do not believe that smaller less significant decisions in their lives are equally predetermined.
I shall begin by immediately attacking what I have just stated. Many devastating wars were begun because one side thought it was its destiny to prevail over the other. All great leaders could be said to have possessed a sense of destiny in how they perceived themselves and this feeling possibly may have propelled them into doing the things which history has recorded them for. These examples I would like to distinguish from a hindsight notion of destiny that historians may perceive when looking back upon events and deciding that certain events seemed inevitable. I mean by those examples a precipitous belief that an event or outcome beyond ones control was inevitable and that the given perception acted as an impetus to events.
Given the historical significance that notions of fate and divine will have played upon the course of human history, one might wonder why I feel that the notion of fate is an inhibitor agent and not an instigating one. I say that fate as a concept is a detractor from the forces of change because I do not believe that most people really believe that they are destined for greatness. It also may well be possible that for every one person who felt destined for greatness and achieved it, hundreds held similar notions yet failed. (This does not diminish the significance of the role such feelings had played in their lives.) Nonetheless, the notion of fate seems to reinforce acceptance of organizational systems of society by giving them a philosophical justification in addition to their physical realities of existence.
More than anything else, the idea behind fate is that we are deprived of choice. Some things are meant to happen regardless of any actions we might take against them. What is interesting about the notion that ones fate can be known ahead of time is that only those predictions which come true are examples of fate. Those which were erroneous obviously were not fated to be because they did not happen. Predictions not dated can remain to be believed indefinitely. Fate is generally not perceived ahead of time but instead exists more as an after-the-fact explanation of events. The implicit meaning of fate, whether aimed at the future or the past, is that events can happen only one way. Our perceived control or lack of control is affected by any belief in fate. Some would say we never possessed any real choice while others would contend that we do or did once have choice but that the tide of events make our choices inevitable. Some believe that what we are experiencing now actually happened long ago when we once had a choice but now the story is set and no adjustments can be made.
So what does the notion of fate propel us to do, if anything, or prevent us from doing. As I have said, the notions of fate seem to affect the flow of events when those notions are forward in nature. If we believe something may happen we may act according to that belief or not, but when we are convinced that something is fated to occur then we may otherwise be more committed to our planned course of action or be more fatalistic if we stand opposed. If that conviction was misguided we may need more time to recover from that setback and reassess our beliefs. Believing that something currently existing or something yet to be is a matter of fate can prevent us from deciding to oppose that person, thing, or idea. We either give up all reason to pursue causes we believe to be doomed or we participate in them without expectations for any success.
Some people use the notion of fate to predict what will occur. If all things must occur according to some preset order or plan, then it would stand to reason that these overall trends could become known and an individual might accurately predict the outcome of events. This goes beyond merely believing that one can foresee the outcome of events yet to be. This belief in fate means that one believes that the outcome can only happen a certain way and that a given result MUST occur. Failures in divination are perceived as failures of the perception of such occurrences and the belief in the rigidity of order is maintained.
I do not believe in any prophecies except for self-fulfilling ones. Thus I believe that when someone is able to predict (at a statistically meaningful rate) the outcomes of events, they are affecting directly or indirectly those outcomes or their own life's notoriety. Whether one believes he or she can tell how events will occur (regardless of their beliefs of fate) depends on how they regard themselves, whether or not they deem themselves capable.
Humanity's belief in fate is long-standing and most likely shall not greatly change. Since belief in fate needs not to mean that such fated happenings can or should be known beforehand, it is a tough concept to prove or disprove. Though I have said that the notion of fate may have a sedative effect upon the aspirations of humanity, hopes too can be believed as fated to be achieved. If indeed faith in ones convictions as well as faith in ones chances for successfully achieving ones dreams determines the likelihood of their outcomes, then the concept of fate can prove to be an invaluable tool to helping one achieve the impossible.
Chapter 5 --- Seeing Beyond Abstractions
Once is me
Once is me
yet I am
every time
close at hand
Over and under
above is below
neither I am
neither I know
Yet and then
both are now
never was I
only how
Once is me
more is less
falling away
from the crest
How to categorize life, the experiences of living, thinking, feeling masses of stuff such as ourselves, this is no easy task. Explanation after explanation comes and goes, is believed and then discarded but never is there any real answer. I have listed thus far a few ways in which we view life. We can look solely at physical existence and delve into its hidden past hoping to find further clarification on what exactly we exist as and how it came to be. If we believe we are spirits temporarily residing in this world then such truths, if they can be definitively ascertained, lose meaning to us. I do not presume that there is any one definition of life that will ever please all nor do I think that I would likely stumble upon it. I would say this might doom me to fail if life is indeed a quest for the perfect theory to explain it.
This explanation which I shall now discuss really isn't one. Whether this is some sneaky way of evading the limits I set upon myself I do not know. Regardless, here goes. We can look at the physical world and we can look at its processes of action and we can look at its effects upon us. Another way of interpreting things is just to experience it all. In other words, believing that there is no need to explain what is for the whole lump sum is constantly explaining itself. Sure this seems a cop-out but how else can anyone explain it. We can look at the parts (existence), we can look at the processes (learning, growing, and actions) or we can see the whole picture without subtitles.
To see life as a series of events, of moments, connected together for the sole reason of perception goes beyond any feeble attempts to make sense of it. I know this sounds stupid and I always have hated it when someone suggests that the meaning of life lies beyond our capacity to understand it. Therefore in the interest of keeping my self-respect intact I hope to clear up this supposed ambiguity. Thought is a way to represent reality by transforming it into abstractions which we can manipulate. Existence itself lies beyond our abstractions and does not in an obvious manner change when we manipulate its abstractions, or symbols of reality. Words, memories, of objects or events, and concepts of order and natural laws are all attempts at copying our experiences to be used and organized by our minds. Yet the copy never compares to the original.
So if this is all true, how can we ever hope to find any answers. If the only way we can judge something is by abstractions about it, how can we know it. Pure experience can be recalled and relived, although we know not whether distortions occur in our records of them or in our abilities to recall them. Yet meaning, that ever elusive all inclusive anchor we all long for cannot be derived from experience. It must be invented. Are the alternatives to live closer to the center of life while depriving ourselves of any organizing factor, and conversely, to build some conjectural basis to cut ourselves off from what we are truly experiencing yet experiencing the peace of mind even false understanding brings? Neither option seems very appealing.
Focusing on events alone void of any interpretations does seem desirable even though a little bit naive. Detachment from ourselves, our hopes, our dreams, wishes and intents does appear to be hard to achieve. Many would also doubt whether or not this achievement is desirable. Here I am not speaking of detachment from oneself such as monks may seek, but instead a fusion of oneself with the entire picture. Rather than observing or experiencing events, one becomes a piece in the puzzle of events which unfold around him or her, a sort of bird's-eye vision of oneself within the sphere of all existence. Rather than the drop perceiving the sea, the whole picture is taken in at once, the drop, the sea, and infinity.
This approach to viewing life appears to be useless. Without inspiring meaning, no courses of action could stem from it. Perception itself is no theory to be proved or disproved, it merely is. However, the destruction of the walls conceptually between the perceiver and the perceptions may indeed result in the formation of a new concept. This does not change the fact that a concept is nonetheless a representation of experience which can only lead to a dilution of ones ability to perceive. To a large extent we do each see ourselves in existence in communion with our world, otherwise we could not function effectively within it. Saying that this is some kind of revelation would be erroneous. It is true however, that we do not continuously see ourselves and our world coexisting in a mutual sharing or blending.
Maybe the concepts of death and object permanence cut us off from a feeling of oneness with our environment. We perceive that one day we will be gone yet our world will still be here, wherever here may be. We and physical existence are bound to one day part and this may be why we stop believing that this is us, that we are our surroundings including ourselves. Yet if the events we experience are us, then events rise above the din of mere existence. We are happenings and though happenings occur in time, they are not time. Though they involve objects, they are not objects. And though they abound with limitations they are as lucid as a dream and as boundless as the concept of infinity.
Chapter 6 --- Guiding Spirits
Saviors Unseen
Angel in the darkness,
guardian of my spirit
show me the way out
of my troubles
by lending me your
pristine vision
Lead me to a safe haven
far from this bleak place
which forever taunts and tries
to break me
by stealing all which
I hold dear
Show yourself to me
for even as I am nothing
but an open book to all those
beings such as thee,
I cannot alone uncover
me beneath the dust
For much of human history a belief in supernatural entities enthralled with the mire of human affairs has greatly affected humanity's perception of its place in the universe. Whether it took the form of the human appearing overlords such as the Greek gods or vague nonphysical beings who intervene in the natural courses of our lives, such views have been common to us all. Polytheistic religions obviously deal with these notions in more detail, yet even in single god religions ancient polytheistic traditions have affected the very souls of these religions. Entities form around functions of practical use to people such as providing for a good harvest, protection, and the granting of wishes. There are so many different aspects to our lives that is hard to personify one who does everything all the time. Though belief in a grand controller is predominant in most religions, many religious officials will accommodate those who may wish to establish ties with other religious icons of their particular sect which seem more identifiable and more personal.
The specifics of these spirits varies from culture to culture but their functions do not. Basically their functions are to reward us with things that please us or at the very least, to keep away that which may cause us harm. We behave according to our perceptions of what these beings' expectations for us may be. Helpful spirits we try to please to obtain rewards and bad spirits we generally try to keep away by either appeasing them or directly confronting them. This confrontation usually requires the assistance of another 'friendly' spirit to enable us to triumph over the negative one. I am only discussing these perceived spiritual beings in regards to how they affect us, material beings, because that is how they are generally viewed. We tend to be concerned with ideas that have practical applications or tangible effects and people for the most part are just not moved by notions of 'higher' existence's which are disinterested observers. Yet if someone adds the possibility that these beings can help or hurt us, humanity's attention becomes greatly increased.
Self-perception is a key to how people react to these ideas of controlling entities. When people generally perceive themselves in a positive light, something almost completely determined by cultural circumstances, they try to align themselves with positively influencing spirits. If however, they fear that the requisites for those spirits aid are too difficult to realistically believe they can be achieved, then they may become fearful enough of it (or them) to join opposing forces. The accessibility to the positive spirit(s) favor also varies from culture to culture. When those standards are easily met, more people will choose to align themselves with the positive healthy forces rather than those which they themselves perceive as destructive or self-centered. If the culture instead views winning the positive's favor as a privilege of the few rather than a prospect open to everyone, most would align themselves either against this entire view or against their perceived elitist enemy spirits. Those who have negative self-perceptions are given ideas of higher beings which share their feelings or frustrations and are inadvertently given ideas of higher beings with which to forge alliances.
To best serve humanity, views which have a large degree of acceptance by positive spirits towards the bulk of humanity should predominate. If the average person of society can identify him or herself to a spirit which cares about life and helping goodness prosper, then that person will automatically tend to act in similar ways. Yet if those same spirits are judged harsh and unforgiving upon normal human transgressions, that culture itself may come to align itself with a perceived negative entity.
Acceptance by positive spirits can be perceived as easy or difficult and this can affect whether or not one is willing to court their favor. If acceptance is easy, direct change in behavior is not greatly affected. Indirect change is harder to estimate for once one is perceived to be protected by the good against evil, that persons entire life may be changed. He or she might aid causes which that person feels are good or may fearlessly challenge those that they feel are wrong or negative. On the other hand if acceptance is perceived as difficult, then direct change can be extremely noticeable. Indeed, in some cultures winning the favor of some benevolent spirit may dictate the entire behavioral pattern for that individual's lifetime.
It may seem a bit simplistic to categorize perceived guiding spirits as positive or negative. Sometimes a spirit's specialty cannot be easily distinguished as being either good or bad. Also, many people frequently ask positive spirits' aid in pursuing courses of action which may seem to others as being blatantly selfish or destructive to another person or persons. Some cultures believe that killing something or someone is a way to please a positive spirit. Those who believe in an omnipotent benevolent spirit which loves all beings also believe that it created a world of such misfortune and degradation that it often surpasses our willingness to recognize it as such. Despite the incongruities, the general thrust of the argument of the 'higher' spirits argument is that there are such beings which do have different, possibly opposing aims, and that these beings are available to aid lowly beings such as ourselves as long as we are of a like mind (and compliant). Good spirits will aid us to do good things and bad spirits will aid us or cause us to do bad things.
The power of choice is greatly emphasized in this view of existence. No factor is as great as the possibility that we are open to choose amongst the various choices of whom to affiliate ourselves with. This decision making can be believed to form a judgment upon which we shall one day be tried. The correct choice depends upon which spirit or spirits are the stronger and will prevail over the others should a contest occur. Such notions as supernatural rewards and punishments concepts exclude or limit the ideas of fate and destiny. Predestined failures cannot be condemned if their shortcomings were an inevitable result of their conception. Likewise, all success one achieves would belong to the one responsible for them and the idea of fate robs one from such responsibility. The idea of guiding spirits can apply to notions like fate though. These spirits which we concede, if we believe in them, can affect control over our lives could quite conceivably rule over our entire lives. This belief would not justify a parallel notion that we could be held liable for our mistakes.
These two divergent views, that of our being mere puppets of 'higher' more powerful consciousness' and that we have a clear choice over our lives, over our beliefs, and over which higher consciousness we may turn to, they exist in many simultaneously. Just as our own physical world has its rules, our perceived notions of a higher spiritual reality is thought to have its own rules. The first is that we cannot be forced into making mistakes but are free to make our own mistakes. This enables us to maintain a belief that we have control over our own actions. The idea that even these powerful guiding spirits have rules they must obey points to an even greater notion of order in the universe. Mighty titans like good spirits and bad spirits can battle it out in an infinite battlefield yet even they must play by certain rules and pay the price when they break those rules. Again, I am not saying that any of these speculations are true, only that these are believed by people and I believe that what others believe affects what this universe is all about. Imagined friends or foes could prove just as helpful or as deadly as real ones.
These 'higher' spirits to me represent ways of bending the rules. When we form a life or a world of existence in which to enter into, we do so according to certain preset conditions which regulate what we are and what we are not, as well as what we can and cannot do. 'Higher' spirits which we can appeal to are ways to admit a partial defeat without conceding the game. We admit that we have gotten ourselves into more trouble than we can deal with, so we look for a way out which can only be achieved by momentarily stepping outside the bounds of what we believe to be possible. This enables us to return to our previous circumstances with only slightly more favorable chances for a desirable outcome. I am not saying that these 'spirits' are have no purposes or intents of their own created by material beings' expectations of them. Yet I do think that the need to create or sustain them at all is for the purpose of defying the bounds which we ourselves sought to establish.
There is one point which I have not yet discussed and that is how we preserve our notions about freewill. Why this is important is obvious to me because without freewill, the ability to choose among different courses of action, you have no consciousness' and without consciousness, no life. All of life would become a farce. When we conceive of entities powerful enough to break the rules for us on occasion we give them their own limitations as I have previously mentioned. We retain freewill by believing that in the end we can only be hurt by our decisions, not by the powers that be. Yet we can and do ask that these spirits remove for us those rights from others by giving us unfair advantages simply because we, not they, bothered to ask. Any intervention upon our own behalf involves removing from someone or from events, the possibility of behaving any other way than the way we choose. Thus for that one moment in which we seek any divine intervention we raise the self above its environment and treat all else as objects to be toyed with. Therefore, the belief that guiding spirits must obey rules of solicitation applies to the self only as others are clearly at risk of having their choices robbed from them if we should (and could) seek such miraculous aid for ourselves. They are at risk of being puppets of higher consciousness' while we are free to control our own lives. We see ourselves and others as equals until we decide to break the rules of existence. Then and only then, it is the self which seeks to control and yet perceives itself as remaining free from control.
This is a problem which is rarely dealt with. Such controlling spirits are not thought to be a great influence by most upon daily activity. Intervention pleas to such perceived beings is for most people infrequent and the expectations for success do not often run high. Yet when we do appeal for such assistance we ask for others even indirectly to be affected by controls which we would wish to assume others could not achieve over ourselves. To desire such providence is to momentarily destroy the affinity which we have with our environment and to relegate all of existence as subservient to our own needs.
Chapter 7 --- The Life Story Perspective
Each One of Us
Each one of us is a performer,
we are actors comics and such
giving the performance of our lives
to an audience outside our touch
and though safely within our guise,
we have never before risked so much
Each one of us has one part to play
and only one chance to play it well
We will always be linked to this role
when others remember and tell
of whether we reached any of our goals
and of whether we stood tall or fell
Each one of us is truly privileged
to be playing within life's hallowed halls
and those of us who are truly blessed
courageously answer all curtain calls
hoping only to at their best
when at last the curtain falls
The realities of physical existence give birth to a certain way of viewing life. It enables us to single out a single lifetime apart from its context. It may be said this is no different to how each of us views our own lives, yet also we learn from other past examples as what to expect from life in general. We see life as a series of events beginning at birth and culminating at death. In between these two points exists what we tend to call ones life story. This may seem to be just adding a new term to things I have already mentioned but even if this alone were my purpose, a new chapter would be justified for this is a very important term.
From our earliest childhood we are enthralled by the telling of stories. These experiences shape what we come to expect from life itself. Stories have a beginning, a setting of the stage for the drama which is yet to come. Events build in an interesting and easily identifiable way which makes us concerned with what is happening. Purposeful action is what stories are primarily concerned with and recognizably determined effects are given to satisfy our rising curiosities. Finally and most importantly there is a conclusion which puts the story in its proper perspective showing us the event or condition to which all else was a preamble. The main situation is resolved, its effects revealed, and we are contented that we have learned something valuable. This may seem a bit over generalized but these are the basics of what stories are all about.
How this applies to our lives is quite obvious, to me at least. We gain from these experiences the notion that in the end everything will make sense. Once we reach the end of the line and look back upon our lives, we will finally understand what it was all about. We know of a beginning, our births, and we sense a building up from the accumulation of knowledge and memories which pushes us inevitably to new and different ways of interpreting our relationships with existence. This sense of climbing combined with our instinctive needs to rationalize or organize our experiences puts our lives within the context of a story. Each individual experiencing existence is the protagonist in his or her own life's story. The story is thought to have an overall purpose of enlightenment or understanding.
Knowledge is fundamental to this approach of viewing life. Knowledge must not only have a degree of permanence and memories an indefinite lifetime, they must also have meanings of some importance. The reason that knowledge must have a concreteness is that if our lives are indeed stories to be told, then as we understand stories, they must have a meaning or state some kind of truth about something. This insight or piece of information, it would reasonably follow, would need to be recognized by someone or something to have any meaning. And why meaning? Why would anyone tell a story at all if not to teach a lesson, provide someone with another perspective of what life can be or bring, or even merely to entertain someone? Since no story would be told for no reason we would assume our life stories, far more real and personal, would equally not be without purposes.
Who then would we be living our lives for? We benefit from the knowledge embedded within our recorded histories of the human culture. In a sense, we are part of an immense multi-bodied organism which will absorb our lifetimes' works and accomplishments into its collective consciousness in the same way it has imparted others lives into our own. So do we live solely for the benefit of our progeny or do we ourselves carry on the lessons learned by a lifetime's worth of troubles and tribulations. Those who believe in an extended life after death might say that our lives' lessons are meant to learned by us because no one so far as we know is experiencing our individual lives so completely or intensely as we ourselves. But would they deny the influence which we have upon others as being insignificant or less important consequences of our own inner struggle to achieve a greater understanding of the universe or ourselves?
Conversely, those who believe that existence after death in any form is some sort of deluded dream by a fated individual unable to accept his or her own mortality, would they most likely say that the only meaning of our lives (if there be any at all) lies in how we affect the course of others existence's? If we have no existence other than our own physical bodies then no meaning can exist for us after those bodies are dead. The only meaning that can be left would be in the lingering effects we made upon the chain of events during our lifetimes.
I do not wish to imply that all people view themselves in relation to this story type way of organizing our experiences. However, the way life works, such a pronounced reflection of this outlook is upon how we view ourselves that I doubt anyone is completely free of its influence. Most people search for meaning out of their lives. Whether or not this comes from their experiences of stories and are attempts to relate this to their own personal experiences is unimportant. When they search for meaning, what they have to search through is what their memories of those experiences can provide. Included in these experiences is all that they have read or been taught because, as I have said before, that too is an experience. To organize these experiences, some sort of order would have to be imposed so one could sort through them in accordance to what one viewed as important enough or extreme enough facts or experiences to be long remembered. These framework concepts, ones which organize experience to be understood and remembered, provide some sway over what is considered important and what is discarded. It is through the growing body of information we possess and our needs to organize that information, that we perpetually run into the life story perspective.
To view life as an unfolding story is also to view its events within a time perspective. Each event occurs within its proper place in the chain of causes and effects which we experience. In this sense, one could say that the life story perspective is how we remember the events of our lives whenever we attempt to recall them in chronological order. Though this does not overtly require the total structure of the story form, it can lead one to wonder where all of these events are leading to.
How this life story perspective affects a person is hard to precisely define. It pushes us to believe that life is supposed to make sense. This may lead to the belief that the universe is conceivably within reach of a being's attempts to make some conceptual model or order out of it. No doubt some would and some do chase this comprehensive understanding even though they are unsure or even skeptical of their chances for success. Other effects of this perspective may be that some are convinced that their life story is destined for greatness and glory. I doubt that this is so much an outcome of this perspective as of an inflated opinion of themselves.
It is difficult to ascribe specific courses of action from what I have come to call the life story perspective because it is so much a basic part of how we as people view ourselves. We see ourselves as an outgrowth of our experiences and the grim reminders of death which surround us force us to eventually frame our experiences within the context of our perceived prescribed lifetimes. What we expect from our own lives is based on the lives of those who came before whether we are conscious of it or not. Though to some extent we say that we are different or special, in the end we realize we are not.
Chapter 8 --- The Other Self
I cannot see me
I cannot see me
I can stare into a mirror
but only a stranger stares me back
sharing a face like mine
yet isn't me
I cannot hear me
when I speak of what I believe
trying my damnedest to make a sound or stir
to break the grip of fates upon me
or the silence of eternity
I cannot feel me
I cannot even feel what is me
body or spirit, both always elude me
leaving me to wonder why only I
am not even given me
I cannot know me
I cannot know what I am or will be
for what I am will only be shown long hence
the last light these eyes shall see
and I, a mere memory
When each of us thinks of ourselves we may think about our bodies, our experiences, our hopes and dreams, or about our own perspectives and opinions about our lives, things in life, or of life itself. All of these are typical concepts by which we define what and who we are. All of these also are known best by ourselves, those persons directly experiencing them. Somewhere along the line though we learn of another self, one that we do not define and therefore have much less direct control over. Each person eventually learns that others perceptions of him or her do not always match those which one has of oneself. Out of this concept of other beings capable of conscious concept formation and manipulation is born the concept of the other self.
We fear the other self. We often feel it is a threat to our own concepts of ourselves. If it does not match our own concepts of who each of us may be, we go out of our way to show others that they are mistaken. If we are quite secure in our concepts of ourselves we may become brazen to criticism yet NEVER do we go beyond being bothered by those who are embittered, fearful, resentful, or hurt by the fact of our own individual existence's. To a very real extent we acknowledge that we are, to a degree, that which others perceive us to be.
Now I'll admit that there are exceptions to be made. We can dismiss others opinions of ourselves for any number of reasons. That we do not value their opinion or consider them as equals worthy of passing judgment upon ourselves is one that is often used by those who have high opinions of themselves to defer negative reviews. Another is that people with extremely negative opinions of us are not well-informed and that if they only knew us better their opinions would match our own. (I tend to use collective terms as the continued use of himself/herself is awkward.) These and other insulating devices can help us deal with the presence and influence of the other self.
We do battle with the other self in a very direct way. We form a concise model of who we are and attempt to successfully project this image into the psyche of others. The degree to which we are successful at this determines greatly how much of a success we are in gaining what we wish from life because so much of the attainment of goals rests upon the ability to persuade people to our own viewpoints. I do not necessarily mean to deceive people or to coerce them into helping us against their own interests. These are also helpful by some perspectives to our obtaining the objects of our desires yet for now I am limiting this dissertation to self-image projection.
With few exceptions, most of us like to have other's views of us much the same or better than they view themselves even if we do not feel worthy of such prestigious consideration. No one likes to be 'looked down upon' by others and everyone enjoys the benefits of being respected by others. The absence of persecution is a benefit which is universally valued and is bestowed by those with authority and influence to others whom they feel are worthy or whom they consider as equals. To a large degree we attempt to control the other self out of an instinctual desire for self-preservation.
The other self to which I keep referring could be said to be the lump sum of how we are viewed by others. If many have positive images of us or ones which correspond closely with how we view ourselves, we can easily tolerate a few deviants. When the deviant becomes the rule then our real self, that which we perceive directly, is imperiled. Due to the conformatory nature of our societies, we feel pressure to change our behavior to overcome those deficiencies perceived by others. Our concepts of ourselves are endangered by our reliance on the feedback from others which continues to reinforce our beliefs about ourselves. Too much derision cannot help but raise doubts about whether or not we are mistaken about our own concepts of ourselves. And lastly, our status becomes endangered due to the retaliation that the bulk of society directs toward deviation from the norms, whether by direct action or by the failure to provide assistance in times of need.
Though perception of the other self (by other definitions perhaps) is normal and our desires to control it as best we can is rational from a self-protectionist point of view, is there another mystical reason why we fear it or seek to dominate it? Is it possible that our existence's can be shaped or affected by others opinions of it? I can say that we are responsive to at least our own perceptions on how others perceive us. How we feel about how others feel about us shapes the nature of our interactions with them. Many believe that our actions do constitute a basis for others and for our own perceptions of ourselves. If these actions are shaped by others attitudes or our expectations of others attitudes then this does indeed change the basis upon which we build our images of ourselves through our actions.
As we continue to reassure ourselves that we are what we think we are and it is our own perspective which counts the most, the ever vigilant and indifferently cold toll of time makes its impression upon us. Soon we realize we shall be no more and all that shall remain are the impressions and possible misconceptions which we left upon those who shall briefly remain. Others opinions of us do have their significance and sadly, that significance is in no way proportional to the accuracy of those opinions. These different versions of ourselves play many different roles in each of the sagas of each person whom we may meet. Despite our best attempts to control the outcome of our interactions with others, in the end how we are perceived shall be up to them as long as we believe that they are as we, independent.
The real fear of the other self comes from the fact that it is the inverse of something which we feel gives us so much power; the ability to conceptualize things. We take abstract dynamic events and reduce them to recognizable and predictable patterns of experience. The perceptual expectations give us a sense of power or control over them. Once we can conceptualize something or understand it we can soon manipulate it either conceptually or directly. Reducing chaos into order and randomness into predictability is the power of consciousness. It is the fear that we too are but helpless objects to be identified, classified, and thus have its importance nullified by being so predictable as to have its very existence become unimportant, even redundant. The other self represents our place in someone else's schema of what life is and what is to be expected. We either fulfill their expectations or deny to live up to their expectations, both helpless and unaware of what those expectations might be.
At the same time, we incorporate others into ourselves. Gaining what we perceive are the points of view or ways of looking at things that other people may possess, we enlarge our own consciousness'. To do so we must believe that they are predictable, otherwise we could not use them to speculate upon how those persons might react to a hypothetical problem. After a while these person's perspectives may meld into our own and we may consult them without realizing we are doing so. Though this multi-perspective consciousness building may be considered somewhat of a compliment, when it is our own perspectives which are taken, the fact that our whole outlooks can be thought to be reducible to a few predicative formulas can be disheartening. When these formulas are erroneous, we can feel we are being cheated by being praised or cursed for insights which we did not possess.
It is not a pleasant thought that we use others minds as much or more than we use their bodies or their time to service our needs. Each of us likes to think we have sole control over our destiny and that no chart, data, or formula can determine what we can or will say or do in any given circumstance. We feel quite comfortable with the fact that we attempt to absorb all that we find yet we can still be bothered when we realize we too are becoming pigeonholed and simplified by those around us. The other self lives and it is we who give it life. It is we who believe that we exist and by believing that we exist, believe that others exist, and by believing that others exist, believe that other versions of ourselves exist. We say and do the things which determine the shape that the other self will take though we cannot guess at its environment or the influence that environment will wreak upon it. How we perceive how others perceive us greatly enhances our capacities to refine our interactions with others and helps us create the inner-self we believe we are or may become. So though we fight it, attempt to control it, and rebel against it, we begrudgingly accept that it too is us.
Chapter 9 --- Magic
The Magic in You
To give up on life
is the most tragic thing to do
and you could not if you knew
there is magic inside of you
Whatever you want can be yours,
all that it takes is you to make it so
What you want to learn you will know,
wherever you want to be you can go
The key to it all is confidence,
if you think failure then it will be
and you may keep failing until you see
that your belief can set you free
So do not give up on life
and in time your dreams will come true
if instead of feeling sad or blue
you remember there is magic in you
Probably for as long as humanity has sought to reason it has had a category of events which it calls magic. Though we reason, some occurrences fall beyond the limits of logical rationality's ability to explain them adequately so often we do not even attempt to do so. We may proclaim that they are manifestations of divine will or providence. Whatever our opinions may be of such seemingly unexplainable phenomena or whether or not we believe in such things, all of us are somewhat familiar with a concept which we call magic. Though there are thought to be many different categories of magic, including such moral terms as good and bad (black and white magic), I shall limit my remarks to what I call purposeful action magic.
Magic as I shall define it is simply wanting something to happen and making certain events, rituals, gestures, or other types of action which are meant to make that intended occurrence or state of things a reality. Note that I did not specify that such things must occur in some sort of way that goes beyond everyday experience, as is the accepted definition of magic. If wanted a drink of water and I walked over to a river and got myself a drink, no one would consider that magical or abnormal. Yet if I got a drink from a dried up river or suddenly made a glass of water appear without using sleight of hand, few would doubt that that could be called magic.
My definition of magic does not distinguish between the natural events which lead to the satisfaction or fulfillment of desire and the so-called supernatural means by which others are achieved. The term magic is meant to apply to supernatural or beyond the realm of normally explainable happenings. Yet when someone wishes something to take place or desires that a certain state of order be made to occur, and that wish does come to pass, the same prescriptions for that wishes fulfillment match those of a magical happening. A person conceives of what he or she wishes will result and by doing something causes that end state of existence to come to pass, this is also what I call magic even though no mysterious or unusual event occurred. Simply stated, magic is causing ones wishes or goals to come true no matter how spectacularly or mundanely they are accomplished.
There are certain similarities involved in all sorts of magical action both natural and supernatural. The first is that the end result is conceived and clearly defined. Another is that certain steps will be formulated which one believes if followed will result in the achievement of that aim or goal. This is where the similarity ends. These steps are always normally performable actions yet how they are thought to achieve their ends may be very different. If my goal were to become a doctor, some sort of schooling or study would probably be one of the steps I would take to achieve that goal. If my goal was to turn myself into a bird and fly away, I would probably also do some normal action which I thought would help create that wish's fulfillment, such as casting a spell or doing a dance. (Might I add, I neither ridicule nor give credence to such notions.) In both cases the actions themselves are ordinary yet how they are thought to contribute to the achievement of their separate goals varies greatly.
Some steps are thought to make their goals occur naturally. If one went to medical school, studied hard and became a doctor, it may be difficult and commendable but not inconceivable. However the second example requires belief in something else beyond the scope of our normal experiences for it to happen, if it could happen at all. Though the actions may be understandable and easily defined, the way in which they come to cause such a condition may not be. If one believed in a deity or a supernatural being then one could turn to them to and ask them to do the impossible or improbable. Since these beings are decidedly superior we cannot hold them responsible if such occurrences do not occur, lest we dare think we control them. For any supernatural happening of a willful sort to occur there would have to be a belief system which could prescribe the actions by which the ends can be met and a rough idea of how such a manipulation could or would occur.
Often the means by which supernatural events can be achieved is by the intervention of some perceived being who is thought to be capable of accomplishing this feat. The actions which would precipitate this occurrence would likely consist of asking, telling, or begging that spiritual being for assistance. This may include some ritual intended to please that being or bribe it into assisting. Often such things are done within the bounds of religions which officially distance themselves from these ancient patterns of behavior. Prayer alone can be a plea for help from another 'higher' being and good behavior and self-sacrifice' are often thought of as helpful to aiding one to having their prayers answered.
Most often what I call magic involves manipulations of concepts which are thought to have an effect upon those existence's which those concepts represent. There are many concepts which can be said to represent an object or person. A visual image is a powerful concept which can apply to anything which can be seen. Another powerful representation of reality is words, or more precisely, names. Naming something is to give it a sound pattern which is thought to suggest and signify something which exists. One could go as far as to associate object replicas of other objects or people and believe that these visual images, words, or objects give them real control over the real objects or persons which they signify.
It is through these representations of reality that magic is performed. Visualization is a term which applies to forming a visual concept of what you wish to aid yourself or to push yourself into achieving it. This is not normally perceived as abnormal or supernatural. Native Americans were fearful of photographs because they thought this captured their souls and gave others power over them. Words are probably the most common representations we have of realities. Much ceremony goes into naming things and people, and we realize that what something is called can affect how people will perceive it. Our ideas of magic are greatly shaped by words and what we call spells. Words and names have long been thought to have power over people. In some cultures people kept secret names for themselves to keep others from being able to manipulate them by using their names. Even the name of God was once kept secret as it was considered the most powerful and magical. Object representations of people, things, and events are also common. Idolatry is common in religions, even those that proclaim to disdain it. All religions have religious symbols which are thought to possess some magical power. Those who practice voodoo believe that they can affect the fate of others by making representations of them and manipulating those objects.
Whether anyone believes in such things or not, magic is around us everywhere. Writing our hopes down (Joe + Sally), fearing to speak of bad fates, and visualizing our goals, these are just a few examples of how we practice the fundamentals of symbolic manipulation without realizing we are doing so. We use visualization and conceptualization every time we plan to do or say anything. We think of it, then we make it so. Our images are no longer confined to whom we may meet either. Thousands, millions, even billions of people may conceptualize who we are and what we are and that image may indeed become far more important than whatever the truth may be. Names also continue to be synonymous with who a person is and they continue to be considered important. When a person first thinks of himself or herself, often the result is "I am...", followed by their individual name or other label.
Perhaps no symbols we manipulate more than words as we constantly rearrange them and use them to create our own conceptual worlds which we inhabit more directly than we inhabit the so-called natural world. How we arrange and what we think about our symbolic representations of reality affects what we believe we can do and achieve as greatly as our concepts of ourselves does. And it is they that control us even as we attempt to use them to control our worlds.
Chapter 10 --- Persuasion
A Battle of Ideas
Two opposing ideas meet
on an empty desolate plane
and only one shall survive
for this dimension cannot contain
to differing definitions
of where its purpose lies
With the weight of precedent
to be used to gather up force
they charge toward one another
eager to finally decide who rules
by virtue of surviving
the inevitable confrontation
Out of the shattered debris
a victor emerges to gain claim
to this forgotten spectre of the universe
defined by the parameters of an argument
but it is to be forever vulnerable
as it must meet all challengers
By no example is magic so clearly illustrated than by that wondrous meeting of the minds called persuasion. Two or more people meet sharing multiple or disparate attitudes or beliefs and they come away sharing a common belief. Something has occurred to take disparate or opposing ideas and make them one. Sometimes it is found as a so-called common ground or mutual concession by both parties but more often than not one persons beliefs triumph over another's and the vanquished party concedes the error of his ways.
In my saying that this is a good example of magic I do not mean that this event is brought about by symbolic manipulation which results in something happening in the physical world. It may not involve the definition in that sense but it does clearly illustrate magic because it is completely in the abstract. Nothing is changed but ideas. The whole event of persuasion involves invented mental constructs which have no basis in reality whatsoever except by virtue of being believed by a person or persons. One manipulates symbols (words) for the sole purpose of convincing another that his or her position is the correct one. If he or she is successful all that is changed is an attitude in another, a formless concept having no bearing on anything other than what it might encourage that someone who has now acquired it to do.
There are many reasons why persuasion may work in any given circumstance. One of the reasons is persuasion by means of an eloquent argument. No argument, I believe, ever accounts for all variables nor is it clear what its meaning may be in all circumstances. We narrow the focus of our arguments to those facts which tend to support our positions and try to shift others attention to those areas upon which to form a judgment. We appeal to the reasoning process stating that upon a close study of the facts any reasonable person would concur with our conclusions. All that is required for this tactic to work is that our facts be verifiable or not easily disprovable and that our conclusions be commonly deducible from the facts which we present. That there might not be a great deal of evidence to the contrary is always helpful.
What is important here is narrowing the scope of inquisition to that which we consider to be relevant. If there is contrary evidence we can always find some way to disqualify it from consideration. Challenging alternative viewpoints and then dissecting them to find the flaws within any given perspective is often helpful in enabling one to cause another to doubt their beliefs. In any belief on anything there is bound to be suppositions about something and a good debater will stress these unprovable weak links and appear to destroy the validity of the entire argument. To be able to do this effectively while preventing another from being able to do the same to your argument is a way to achieve victory. I realize that I have not yet mentioned that fundamental concept called truth. Whether or not truth is fundamental, an independently verifiable reality, does NOT give it any relevance to persuasion. A preponderance of evidence of what we call a true viewpoint in any given argument does affect the ability of one to persuade another, but whether the argument itself is true or not is insignificant. Lies are just as easy to believe as the truth, if not easier.
Another reason why persuasion works is what I call persuasion by means of a forceful argument. If one is convinced of the veracity of his or her beliefs, this conviction may overpower and inundate another. In this sense an exchange of viewpoints is like a game of chicken. It all becomes a matter of who quits first. I am not saying whoever is the first to break off the exchange is conceding defeat. What I am saying is that each person senses another's commitments to their courses of action and beliefs, and that when one encounters a person passionately committed to viewpoints alternative to those which he or she has only a mild allegiance to, they tend to concur with the other because they acknowledge that the other has probably more thoroughly thought the matter out. Part of the effectiveness of this depends on the amount of faith one has in the others judgment. This is a factor which can dominate any fair appraisal of the speakers, have little or no effect, or doom even the most eloquent and reasonable argument from even being considered.
This means of judging what is being said by who is saying it is what I call persuasion by virtue of respect. What we think about someone who is trying to persuade us to believe something is almost as important as the arguments he or she uses and the degree of conviction he or she shows in these beliefs. We can ignore a person right off if we do not respect that person. If we have no respect for them, we are not likely to consider anything which they say or believe as being worthy of our considerations. On the opposite end of that spectrum, we are not likely to question the words or wisdom of those whom we believe can do no wrong (such as martyrs, saviors, and saints). In between we may be persuaded to certain views if we believe that another is more astute, better informed, or otherwise possessing such abilities, talents, or knowledge which we do not. Psychologists call this "appeal to authority" but I feel that the respect comes not from the position of authority but from the superior abilities and capacities to make such judgments that those in authority are assumed to have.
So why do we feel that others probably often know better than we? It is conceivable to everyone that there are others with more information than they on every possible subject with the possible exception of their own lives. Doubt certainly plays a part in why we so often and so easily are made to believe ideas which others profess. Visible or clearly understandable applications of other ideas about something are very persuasive evidence to show us not only that others can and do have better or more knowledge than we, but also that we are at a disadvantage by not sharing these ideas. It is this supposed helplessness we have before those who have such 'superior' knowledge which aids in our imprisonment by them. By thinking that our own viewpoints and opinions are insignificant, we condemn ourselves to thinking and being that which others provide for us.
Persuasion is a way of persecution. We may not be able to persuade most people that our individual lives and contributions to society are important but we can convince a few. Persuasion in modern society is mainly a one-way street with the majority of information and cultural norms being fed into peoples minds with little or no feedback coming out being considered as important. Despite this we are each well-versed in the art of persuasion. We practice it daily when we converse on most any subject. We state a fact or opinion, wait for another person to agree or disagree, and then conclude in agreement or continue the exchange of opinions. To attempt to persuade people of anything is not necessarily to say that we are important, but it is an attempt to prove to ourselves that our opinions are important and that they too are worthy of debate and consideration. And once we persuade someone that we are right, we are vindicated. We can at last say that what we think and say matters because it mattered to someone else as well. We made a difference.
All of persuasion is conjectural. When we persuade people to believe something we often do it by words. We select those words which we feel will have the most pronounced effectiveness. When we succeed in persuading someone else to change their views about something, we have changed an idea into something else. If people's minds can be said to be objects, you have removed something and replaced it with something else. In this sense, we constantly go about attempting to perform magic. We take an unsuspecting person and attempt to inflict our opinions upon him or her. If we do so, our own importance is augmented. That belief which was once a part of us is now shared by more and more people, a concept growing only conceptually.
When persuasion works best it is not done out of selfish reasons to push our ideas onto others. The most advantageous belief to have when attempting to persuade another is that they really want to believe what you have to say. That they are imprisoned living in ignorance which can be averted once you give them the chance to let it go, this is how many see attempting to persuade others. They do it for their own good. They see a person who thinks differently as someone in need of help, or that they will not be truly happy unless they change their views and repent. I do not speak here of just religions, but all levels, aspects, and functions of society. That one is just in forcing their views on others for those peoples' benefits is a common and erroneous outgrowth of the belief that others, particularly the group as a whole, always know best.
To think that you know the truth and you are merely attempting to enlighten another is another similar method of interpreting your discourse's value. When one believes in things which are not true, once told of this in a way that he or she could understand, then that person would completely agree that such attention was beneficial and was absolutely the right thing to do. These models not only prescribe how one should react once he or she is persuaded of the error of his or her ideas or ideals, they also reinforce their own validity by stressing their own values. Each model goes beyond merely attempting to get others to conform to their own beliefs, they judge all and categorize all by what they believe on that issue.
These categorizations and this tendency to view others in accordance to ones own terms has real repercussions on how one can perceive oneself. The persuasion by an individual attempting to make his mark upon the group can be considered healthy, whereas the attempt by the group (society as a whole) to try to persuade all individuals to conform threatens the very concept of individuality. It is the categorization of how people perceive the nature of their relationships with others combined with how they understand themselves which enables them to act upon those courses of action which appear to reduce both the significance and the validity of contrary viewpoints. When this is done by an individual to an individual, it is a fair fight. But like most fights humanity has fought, this is one group versus another which grows until all people are eventually forced to submit to the dominant groups influence as opposing viewpoints become ever more scarce.
Chapter 11 --- The Variance Factor
For No One
This is for no one
who never was nor will ever be
Robbed of any future,
it could have been us oh so easily
He will never hope or dream,
he will never laugh or cry
Never to live, never to die
and never to understand why
He will never know of love
or what it means to be happy
He will never know of kindness
or the true value of sincerity
Fated to be what is not
above and beyond eternity
always and never absent
from what we call reality
Millions of new opportunities
come and go within our days,
few realized, most fade away
but within the realm of possibility
far greater than what can be
exists all past potentialities
which we never have nor ever will see
Maybe it is there that he exists
as an idea long since forgotten
living a life that never was,
giving what will never be gotten
by us in our separate world
of limited possibilities,
side by side yet forever apart
locked in separate realities
If I feel that the greatest mistake humanity ever makes is to consider themselves their bodies, then I must consider our beliefs that our consciousness' exist in a definitive shape molded by our experiences to run a close second. Yes, I do feel that our memories make us what we are yet we are what creates the circumstances which will come to pass as those things which we remember. This need which exists for a multi-junctured reality defined or created by personal choice makes a universe far more complicated than most minds have as yet fathomed. This limited reality, what has occurred as differentiated from what has not, is but a minuscule slice of the dynamic whole.
When we make a choice of action we take ourselves and our whole physical plane from one logical end to another. The means for regulating this transformation of direction (energy) is our consciousness'. Think of it as a train racing along a track. Each decision creates a junction of tracks and the choice represents the new destination. The sum of all these trains, the pattern of their movements, and the design it creates is our physical universe. Each decision we make affects the whole of the universe by changing a portion of the overall pattern. Patterns are created by movements of near trains moving in conjunction or opposition to one another. When one train changes direction one sub-pattern is changed and another is formed. This all allegorical so please try not to take this too literally. Another way to think of it is to picture four objects hanging in empty space. If one object moves away from the others it could also be said that the others are moving away from it. The direction of one object affects the perspective by which all others around it are judged.
Our consciousness' are connected to all other consciousness' in a sense, but in a much greater sense our consciousness' are connected to ourselves. When each junction is met by the train, divergence's occur. The train neither takes one track or the other but instead takes both. In the sense that the train is our conscious selves, we are riding both routes at once. Obviously this branching out of our consciousness' cannot diminish us for if it did we would by now have been acutely dissipated as we have faced millions of junctures within our lives. When we choose anything we are merely choosing what memories we will record or what avenue of events will be played out. Thus within the framework of our own consciousness', there are what would seem to us to be an almost infinite number of diverse 'lives'. Unfortunately or fortunately not every choice we make sets our lives and the universe on separate tracks or creates meaningful junctures. Whether we have a sandwich or soup for lunch is a choice which causes an almost insignificant ripple in the scheme of things.
Being locked into our own consciousness' gives us an enormous amount of room to explore our universe. It is possible to break down the barriers between different event-dimensional worlds and fuse with our own minds in different parallel worlds. Thus to our memory-based minds, we can ride both trains or communicate between trains. It is in this fashion that a consciousness can seem to be in two different physical places at the same time. One reality can communicate memories or experiences to another.
Since I have stated that all consciousness' are separated versions of the same consciousness, it is possible to fuse with any other consciousness at any point in time in any possible reality. This however lies far beyond the much more simple ability to reconcile with different event-spacial versions of oneself. Being the same consciousness, this is more easily attained. The ability to reconcile with these juxtaposed memory tracks depends on the likeness of those realities. Where major events and main memories are identical, cross-communication can be obtained with relatively little effort. This is not enhancing or enlarging a consciousness by any definition for if it is not subtracted from by crossroads, it cannot be said to be added to by cross-communication. All that can be said to be achieved is an exchange of information.
It is not advantageous nor particularly pleasant to over exploit this capacity as the ability to separate what has happened in our particular realities from what might have happened in others constitutes a major basis of the reasoning process. This present single history memory is our present means of understanding everything. The thought that this single history basis of understanding might become lost by evolution has occurred to me.
Other than the likeness of similar happenings, information can often be obtained at grand junctions. If we think of every major decision we make as leading us in different directions, there are occasional events in our lives which occur beyond our conscious control and therefore cut across many different realities. Events such as funerals or other major happenings force us to be at a certain place and time no matter what courses our 'lives' have otherwise taken. It is at these times when a single event presently occurring is being entered into a number of disparate possible same consciousness lives at a common reference point and time that an instinctive joining takes place. I do not mean to confuse what I am saying with redefining life in the face of death. The funeral example could have been any event which cuts across many possible realities and draws many of oneselves together for a common purpose or to inhabit a similar place and time under similar circumstances.
This is commonly achieved quasi-consciously and draws together what would otherwise be highly incomprehensible numbers of possible realities to become grouped into a sort of metaphorical highways of personal events. Different selves come and go off at different points but there are points where they converge thus lessening potentially infinite numbers to lower yet still just as astonishingly high numbers.
The variance factor is how much each of these realities varies from the others. Where the variance is high, individuals can seem lost jumping from one track to another without feeling any common bonding with disparate versions of themselves. Others who live lives with little room for perceived personal preferences tend to stay on major tracks most of their lives. This common sharing of the same life-tracks by extreme numbers of oneselves may lead to a greater feeling of security that they know that they are living their lives the 'correct' way. These lifetimes of little variance may also lead to a heightened degree of forbearance.
If nothing else, this chapter should give people a thing or two to think about. We take for granted that a single history description applies to our physical universe even though we have barely begun to explore it. Explorations in ways science cannot readily confirm await those adventurous enough to tear apart their assumptions about what is and what is meant to be, to look anew at what we think we understand. The clue to the direction humanity shall take if it proceeds at all may be found in how very small children are able to think and understand with a much greater fluidity than adults. Perhaps what we should not teach them, that we ourselves do not understand much about the world, is as important as what we should.
Chapter 12 --- The Ultimate Frontier
In Full Bloom
The boundaries between life and dreams
have long fallen before humanity's eyes
and their world has grown far beyond
anything which we can conceptualize
Limitless variations of time and space
are all within reach of our posterity's minds
and our entire history up to this date
is but a tiny segment of what they can find
Their consciousness' are free to roam
among that realm which we call eternity
growing immeasurably with each breath
their almost insignificant bodies breathe
Countless planets and civilizations
have lives and views their minds have sought
yet there is no need for recording them
for they are there with merely a thought
They can comprehend all the universe
yet they realize the limits of their view
because as wide as their horizons may seem
their experience is only what they choose to do
The final point in the evolution of a consciousness is reached when that consciousness is able to cross at will any conceptual barrier between itself and any or all other consciousness'. Many believe that this is the result of dying, that the spirit joins with all else and a total realization of itself and the universe occurs. Of this I am skeptical yet I do not wish my skepticism from keeping myself or anyone else from accepting this 'easy' way out of existence. The reason behind my skepticism is single consciousness to consciousness exchanges after death commonly referred to as reincarnation. If a total understanding were achieved with all equally, such happenings would not occur.
All consciousness' are equal. All arise out of potentiality without physical pasts or continuations into indefinite physical futures. If we (all conscious beings) are all equal consciousness' no bigger, larger, or more powerful than any others and we are all parts of the same consciousness, one consciousness at different times and spaces believing it is different beings, then we are not reincarnations of any other being but instead everyone else in every other time is a different incarnation of ourselves. However, just as there is a need in people to join in common consciousness' with others in their own time, there is also a need for some to join in common consciousness' with others across time. A common consciousness in its most extreme form was defined in RELATIVISM 2 as existing when two or more separate entities believe that they are in fact splits of the same consciousness thus redefining their notions of themselves.
Reincarnation as we call it comes to us as a result of trying to add a time definition to ourselves. From the present looking past point of view, one searches for a frame of reference to give one definition which one is lacking in its present form. From the present looking forward point of view, it is the chance to taste immortality, to give one another life in which to realize its goals. Notions of reincarnation both enhance and diminish (conceptually speaking of course) a consciousness. Knowledge is increased and a greater affinity with another conscious being occurs yet there can be a lessening of the present self's chances for attaining its own goals as time and opportunities are finite in the course of a single lifetime. Likeness of intent and purpose may indeed be a prerequisite for any common consciousness to occur yet individual goals always exist and can be threatened by such bonding.
There is the crux of the matter. How much should a consciousness keep itself distant from other consciousness'? If the end which we are all striving for is a union with other consciousness', is not any enlargement of our own consciousness with others a good thing? Even if it were a given that we are all striving for the total realization of the self (all else), just because an enlargement of the self occurs does not necessarily mean it is the most progressive step we may take towards this end. That which we use to define ourselves, the notion of the 'self', is by its definition mutually exclusive. By viewing ourselves as finite tangible beings different than all else by our reference points in time and space and our differing notions of purpose, we are excluding ourselves from all else to distinguish what we are. To expand this to one or two past consciousness' reinforces the walls between the present self and all others of that specific past time in which the other partner dwells. Still, one could reasonably argue that a clear connection to a specific consciousness is better than a hazy connection to a multitude of consciousness'. Yet the clarity of that single connection is dependent upon and proportional to the severing of other connections.
Reincarnation as we view it is from the context of someone in the present joining with the past, or from someone from the present joining with the future. The present to the past is the major thrust of reincarnation philosophy and it is the most easily understood. Present to future is confusing because our own self is changing up until our deaths and we exist in no single reality but a multiple of realities. Likewise, we can 'throw' ourselves into no definite reality but instead into the lump sum of all possible realities. Present to the past is clearer because the definition of the present precludes a definitive past. Though all possible pasts may be technically possible to achieve conjunctions with, that time line which created ourselves is already very much a part of our present beings. Thus, looking into that definitive past which culminated in the creation of ourselves, the haziness of potentiality is narrowed to a definite number of possible former selves living out what is from our point of view totally deterministic lives.
Therein lies the answer to how our lives can be deterministic or not depending upon how we view ourselves. If we concentrate on our perception on the present leaving the future undefined, we exist in a multitude of possible realities. If we instead transfer our perception to a single possible reality then the events between the present and that possible reality become predetermined. This is an integral part of how we function as any goals we may hope to achieve exist to us as possible realities. We strive to build bridges between those possible realities in which we have achieved our goals and those ones which we presently inhabit where they exist only as possible potential goals. So if we define existence as having goals as I have, predeterminism is inevitable though the rate at which it is enforced is fluid. All of ones life can be put into a deterministic outlook by contacting a possible future self through a type of common consciousness bonding. All events in ones life which went into creating that world in which the other self dwells would be predetermined. Indeed, half of the new self created would see the other half's events as solid, not open to change. Therefore attempting to prefix upon a certain reality in the future can rob one of determining the course of the present.
The key to understanding all of this is that the present exists as a concept. You either believe it exists or you don't. If you believe in it you stand with a definite past and no definitive future, literally anything is possible. We, humanity, believe in it in shades. We believe that the past runs in contiguous lines into the future, that the roads we travel behind us continue ahead in some logical fashion reaching some logical end, and by this belief we create it or add some predeterminism to it. Existing in the present gives one power over the future. Just as we latch onto possible selves in possible realities and thus see and know events before they happen because we preclude them to be, we can choose which possible reality to make real. This often is not done consciously yet always it is done. We search through possible realities until we find the one which we feel is the best, for ourselves if we are selfish or for all others if we are not, and we begin to believe that it has already occurred thus predetermining the events which will lead to that reality.
Appendix
Postscript
Mortal Rectitude
Pushing ever towards the end
we reach out for the newest and latest
and we receive them yet again
never doubting
the relevancy or immediacy
of evolution
Seeing ourselves decay
and knowing our governments and systems,
our attempts to keep change at bay,
condemn us
to see that our lives and ritual actions
are institutions
Doomed to eventual obscurity
we struggle to achieve eternal importance
lest we become forgotten history
always believing
that to be remembered is to live,
an absolution
Pegged into the fold,
locked into a slice of eternal time
chained to life fading and old
ever acknowledging
neither acceptance nor denial
is resolution
Acceptance and denial. We hear about these most often as they pertain to death but perhaps their most definitive and telling reference lies in how they describe our attitudes about life itself. Do we accept our worlds, ourselves, and the inherent justice or injustice of nature or God itself? Is life the striving to accept the absurdities inherent within or is life instead the denial of death. These are the questions from which we shall either command from our chosen points of view, ponder over endlessly, or lie forever ignorant of ourselves for lack of their consideration.
Religions hit us on both fronts. Accept God's will yet at the same time rebel against our real nature. We can talk about a higher nature endlessly but the subjective biological facts of nature (violent, tragic deaths of species, peoples, civilizations, etc.) surpass the brutality of Man at its utmost degree. Kill or be killed, consume life or die as well, against this backdrop we struggle to create and justify morality perhaps not so much as though it must exist but because we could not tolerate life without it.
The most important fact in dealing with our world with or without morality is to believe in it and therefore accept tentatively its existence. Yet life is to me and seemingly should be more than merely existing in and dealing with reality, it must strive to alter reality, to make it different than it was before, different than it would have been had not whomever's individual life had come to be. This is living and if we do not believe that we possess this power to alter reality then we do not believe that we are truly alive.
All religions as well as all philosophies necessarily praise the value of accepting oneself and ones circumstances as a prerequisite step towards accommodating change. Yet religions deny life as well. This is not the true world, the best world, we are not our true, higher, enlightened selves all of which waits forever around the next corner in some timeless eternal we can fantasize about far more readily than we can conceive.
The notion that our common future is bound to be good has its bad points as well. Overlooking momentarily its overwhelmingly generous dispensation of hope to enable everyone or even a single person to gain strength enough to survive or excel, it suggests predeterminism in that no matter what or how much can go wrong the universe, humanity, God or country, all will survive or mature in the end. Yet perhaps the greatest challenge we face during life comes not from any imperceptibly difficult or seemingly insurmountable task or troubles, nor from a lack of faith in the value of values. The hardest obstacle to overcome is the idea that no matter what we do, right or wrong, nothing will change and all will go on almost as if we had never existed at all.
From almost any grandiose point of view this is correct. Everything is born, lives, and dies. The best we can hope for is to make the living less painful, nobler and more fulfilling perhaps, and the death as prudently postponed as possible. What is old age for a civilization? How long is too long for a single species to dominate or by its continued existence, to prevent new ones from arising? Imagine if everyone lived on Earth forever, no births, no deaths, no life as we know it to be. And if it seems likely that death is inevitable and even necessary, does this make life cheaper or more valuable? The more there is of something, even people, seemingly the less it is valued. Though we all, nearly all, will rise fiercely to defend the sanctity of life, killing goes on continually, methodically, and senselessly generally without more opposition than general misgivings.
If we could stop senseless killing, if we could end starvation, famine, disease; what then would we have done? Make it possible for more people to suffer other more painful inflictions we heap upon each other without any relationship to the necessity for resources. If making life longer for people cannot be judged by itself an indisputable achievement, how is it possible anyone might ever agree on what might constitute making life better: the removal of obstacles to overcome, the promise of potential for anyone to succeed? Once success is assured it is no longer valued and without wrongs to be righted, could simply maintaining the status quo ever be considered an achievement? This is all basic and most admit there are no easy answers but what we all fear is that there are no answers at all.
So we put aside our feelings of ineffectualness and pick something to attempt to achieve convincing ourselves of its (and our own) importance. To do any less would be to deny life, which we can do and still live yet it would seem to severely diminish its desirability. We live because... and we must provide for ourselves the answer.
Humanity will die as we all must die. Death is not necessarily a bad thing yet while we live we are responsible for continuing and nurturing life. Prolonging and improving the quality of others lives as well as our own is all anyone can ever reasonably hope to achieve. That goal can be met. If its effects are not long lasting, no matter. If we can keep pain or death at bay for anyone even for a moment that moment, if nothing else in this universe, that moment belongs to us.
