Chris Herrington, Contributing Writer
If you let your mind wander, does it do this?
Between our semantic bound sense of a unified field theory and a chaotic guess work expansion of meaningless space dust and enfolding energy sources that seek out only to create a cosmic homogeneity of entropic uniformity, that is between meaningfulness and meaninglessness, there is the possibility that what we perceive as the answer or some presentable explanation of the facts as we think that we know them is nothing more than a worthless shot in the dark. In other words, after all this time, we may still be way off.
Let me then make another guess, one that may not be so outlandish as a coalescence of the space time continuum into a lock and key approach that stabilizes the micro/macro paradigm into a synchronicity, one that may shed some light on the problem of meaning as we face the dire warping of the fabric of human development.
We have long wondered, wandering the face of the globe, looking for clues as to how the human race began, why there is something rather than nothing and what the purpose of consciousness must be given the illusion of independent existence. The issue has been that we always begin with the same givens. If we perform a calculation the same way over and over using the same formula, we will get the same answer, over and over. It has long been suggested that a single formula, an equation of meta-understanding, must be available to the imagination of human kind that explains it all, simply and elegantly. On the other side, perhaps there is no rhyme or reason, and we are, after all, a happy accident that has made its stumbling way down the pike into this oncoming lane of traffic.
To dissolve the entirety, the question must be questioned. If there is no space or time and the necessary state of uniformity that we seem destined for is a design element within the structure of the complexity of this conceptualization of existence, then there is nothing but consciousness and we are all the same person and the concept of independence is a cruel joke of greed that is the cover up of a fear of desolation. We hunt for a non-existent state based on a fear of a non-existent development.
If all of our conclusions are based on our rationalization of the level of comfort be may attain, then we would of course remain extremely short ranged in our thinking. If, however, we allow for a more evolved sense of self-sacrifice, that is, if we rid ourselves of our own fear of death, we might then see ourselves as being a part of this larger picture.
Instead of my needing to know, or have, or do, or go, I can simply be. Given this, there is plenty for all, this is the liberal context. The worry is, if I have what I need why would I work to attain more for later? Likewise, if I strive for myself, ever working to gain more I will never run out unless we all run out due to a catastrophe for example. Then we have been better off, except for in the end we were no better off.
Again the problem is with the question. The animals do not worry about what the other animals will eat. They gather for that day and then they live. Humans gather for beyond their capacity or even their own lifetime. This is not the usual pattern, and in this humans are unique. The animals live their lives without philosophy. They use little science, and they have onboard programming that they are sensitive to that they use to maintain the deliberate structure of their lives. Humans have no such structural development, instincts. The problem is with humans. The problem is, as we may know it, the definition of what it means to be human.
Define this humanness for yourself, and you will honestly be able to face the daily questions. “I get mine, and you get yours,” this is one concept of operation. “Together we can do better,” and this is another. How about a new concept?
We are cosmically the same person. There is no differentiation. To want for myself is to want for you and all others. If we want freedom, for example, then the idea must be the same for all. If opportunity is the same for all then, in this case, we could say that we have freedom. Do we all have the same opportunity?
Let us see how this functions as an ethos for activity. Let us see how we can be peaceful and co-existent. We say that we have faith, but over and over our faith is thrown down in the face of what we call reality. Reality is what we make it in the real paradigm. There is both an over reaching equation and a communal understanding. What is the basis of factionalism? What is the reason for the breakdown of society? Why bother with this something, if it is all going to dissolve into nothing? Peace is not merely the absence of war; it is a state of mind. Are these meaningful questions, slogans, or concepts?
Those who are ready to go to war call peace a pie-in-the -sky concept. Those who are naïve and blissed out often get run over. Where do we go from here? One part present and two parts paranoia makes for psychotic reactionalism. Neither airy-fairy nor hardcore hawk….this is the way of the peaceful warrior. Balance in extreme times…and all times are extremes. After all, the world might have been created full bore 10 seconds ago and all of our memories and feelings downloaded directly into our minds. What if you could go without any programming for one day and see things as they are?
runningturtle87
