What is reality? What is real? Can we ever know? Is there an objective reality of things that exist independent of our ability to perceive them? Or, can we only define reality by what we hold in our heads - the logical thoughts and sensory impulses directed to our Brains and subjectively interpreted by our Minds? I have no idea! These are important questions that have been asked for ages by many great minds. Because everything we can ever hope to know about anything is ultimately translated into electrical impulses in a Brain that are interpreted by a Mind, some argue that reality is forever an illusion. At the same time, being equipped as we are, to sense things outside our own physical parameters, leads some to speculate that there is an external reality that exists independent of us, that is not an illusion - a reality that our senses - and Minds - have evolved specifically to perceive, a reality to which we are inexorably linked.
Scientist exploring the very small have found reality to be a perplexing dichotomy between indeterminable waves or clouds of probability and determinable particles or points of certainty. At the quantum level, it seems that reality is both wave and particle. But, because our scientific methods of perceiving this quantum level of reality is so inadequate we are unable to define certain aspects of existence. In other words, it is suggested that by examining, measuring and otherwise attempting to perceive these tiny clouds of energy, we alter them in ways that make them something other than what they are. Further implications suggest that by grasping at a cloud of probability, we actually cause it to turn into a point of certainty... and that "reality" in this sense, does not even exist UNTIL we attempt to perceive things, thus creating reality where there was none. For this reason, many view the previous statement about reality being both particle and wave as incorrect, preferring to describe reality as the knowable particle state that occurs when we examine and measure, thereby leaving the unknowable wave state, that exists when we don't examine or measure, to be considered as something other than reality, or... as evidence to the ultimately undeterminable nature of reality, i.e. reality being forever an illusion.
If you look elsewhere on this site, you will notice that we have examined this same pattern of turning a cloud of possibilities into a point of certainty before, in the practice of translating a symbol into a sign by way of defining content, context and intent, and thereby establishing meaning (see Content + Context = Meaning elsewhere on this site). Quantum physics says that when we try to define a quantum cloud/wave of probability, it becomes a quantum point/particle of certainty = reality. Likewise, in a similar manner, the more you define an abstract esoteric symbol, the more it becomes an absolute exoteric sign = meaning. The question I have is whether the collapsing of the wave function produced by measuring a quantum cloud of probability is instantaneous or gradual? I don't know. In the case of symbols and signs, it is gradual, i.e. meaning comes into focus as definition of content, context, purpose, and intent are increased. In the arena of symbols vs. signs, it is theorized that they are the same thing, the only difference between them being the degree of this definition and how definition of meaning helps to create a kind of social reality of knowable things. Thus, it is theorized, that an adept author could take us back and forth between clarity and ambiguity by varying the amounts of definition of content, context and intent used at any moment during a presentation. So the question is... whether the same is true for quantum physics? Is reality both wave and particle? Can the science of quantum physics take us back and forth between clarity and ambiguity and present varying degrees of reality? Are there varying degrees of reality, or is that like being a little bit pregnant?
If it is possible to traverse quantum reality gradually, the next question would be whether our measurements of the tiny clouds of probability destroy something, or create something? Do they prevent us from perceiving the "truth" of reality - that it is amorphous and unknowable, or do all those measurements actually help to bring reality into focus, the way explanation of intent helps to bring meaning into focus and create a social reality of knowable things? People who prefer that tarot be all about the self, and acts of Flexible Association that are unencumbered by external explanation, might argue that a symbol is indeed destroyed by explanation i.e. "explain it and you drain it," and thus might argue that the "true" nature of reality is also destroyed by our attempts to examine and measure clouds of probability.
-----
The Threshold of Reality
When the ramifications of quantum uncertainty, found at the sub-atomic level, are imposed upon the clockwork certainty of the universe, our sense of reality is disturbed. A Unified Theory of Everything might one day resolve all of the discrepancies of reality that we struggle with today, or... such a theory may never appear. In the mean time... what if we consider the possibility that the micro world and the macro world are not necessarily meant to be describable by the same terms? What if... looking into those clouds of uncertainty is like looking into the eye of a hurricane? If we try to describe a hurricane by examining its eye, we will get a very different description than a description derived from examining its spiralling mass of clouds and storms.
In a hurricane, there is often a clearly defined threshold where the violent activity of the spiraling mass changes, abruptly, into a center of complete calm. People who experience hurricanes often remark about what a completely different world they experience, as the eye passes over - eerily different. To know that all around them there are violent storms, but at the center there is sunshine, and complete calm, is weird. I would imagine the same to be true if transported into the mirco world of quantum uncertainty... (except, of course, with the stormy vs. calm analogy inverted... in other words, with the uncertain world of "quantum foam" as the violent terrain and the knowable clockwork universe is the calm terrain). In any case, it would be a very different world, but, like the eye of the hurricane, it would not be considered a separate world. The eye and the storms are one entity. So if a Unified Theory is possible, perhaps it is in need of some kind of description of a threshold between these appropriately incompatible realms.
In a hurricane, it is calm at the center... and calm beyond the circumference. In the model of existence being put forth on this site, we find paradox at the ultimate insides of any entity, and paradox at the ultimate outsides, beyond infinity. Paradox is where things are allowed to be two things at once - like wave and particle. In the book All Things Are Numbers (seen elsewhere on this site) a model of existence is developed through a process of coagulation that describes a path of definition that is the inevitable result of a beginningless beginning that is rooted in paradox. Upon developing a theory of sequence, it is theorized that definition is the inevitable result of a process of sequence that begins from a foundation of paradox and must develop or evolve away from there to the complexities of our known universe, thus yielding the chaos of infinity, which in turn yields the order of a finite entity. This process is thus comparable to the collapsing of a quantum wave form into a particle of reality by way of human perception. The book further theorizes that every entity we know of develops this way, creating fundamental parameters of existence. These parameters of existence are thus considered comparable to the clouds of probability, or quantum orbits of electrons that make up an atom. In this way, the model of existence being put forth on this site proposes the idea of parameters of existence coexisting within the same reference frame as the particles of reality that are produced from those clouds of probability, when contemplated by a human mind or measured by a scientist in a lab.
In the model of existence being put forth on this site, there is a hurricane-like threshold of existence between the idea of opposites that are separated by duality vs. opposites that are united in paradox. In this model, reality is one thing, in two parts: 1) a reality we can't know - paradox - with all the perplexity and uncertainty of quantum physics, and 2) a reality we can know - a universe - with all the clockwork certainty of universal physics. Paradox is the eye of the hurricane. Universe is the spiralling mass... with the curious phenomenon of aligned photons - a single particle existing in two locations as one particle - as the carrier or transmitter of cosmic flux from the ultimate paradoxical insides to the ultimate paradoxical outsides... thus bringing us around from the very small on the inside (micro) to the very large on the outside (macro)... a phenomenon that leads to the perpetual collapse a universal wave form from without... causing quantum physicist to end up chasing their own tail!
 |
|
To seek the Mind with the mind is absurd, and only leads to paradox... which is Divine!
|
No one has ever been to the ultimate outsides of the universe. How do we know that we are not chasing our own tails? How do we know that the universe, when viewed from the outside in, doesn't look exactly like the quantum world, when viewed from the outside in by us today? If you were chasing your own tail, would you recognize yourself and stop? You might recognize yourself from behind, but what about the entire workings of the universe? Do you think the entire workings of the universe would be as easily recognizable from such a unique, disconcerting, paradoxical perspective?
-----
The Threshold of a Dream
Whether our actual universe includes paradoxical, cosmic flux that has us chasing our own tails in pursuit of reality is irrelevant. It is not the purpose of this essay to answer that question for anyone but the particular system of thought being presented on this site, which is devoted to creating a proprietary universe into which we can perceive significance in tarot. If you choose to ignore the perplexing, and impossibly paradoxical ramifications of a universe rooted in such annoyingly ridiculous notions as cosmic flux and paradox, then you are left with human perceptions. In that sense, reality is about perceptions and is indeed a persistent illusion.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Philip K. Dick |
Some argue that the Brain and the Mind are separate entities, and that a Mind "adopts" and inhabits the Brain of the individual, such that when the Brain dies the Mind lives on to be reincarnated. Others argue that the Mind is dependent upon Brain function to exist, such that if we terminate Brain function we terminate the Mind. I don't see that it matters either way, as long as we acknowledge that Brain and MInd coexist during our manifest existence. What happens after we go, appears to be anybody's guess. The book All Things Are Numbers offers several analogies to suggest how we can view Brain and Mind as superimposed entities - one comparable to a particle state (Brain) and one comparable to a wave state (Mind).
To a Brain, reality equals electrical impulses. To a Mind, reality equals patterns of electrical impulses. The problem with defining reality by way of perception alone is... once sensory input has been received by an Objective Brain, it is immediately interpreted by a Subjective Mind... first, as an initial reaction, then, as a reasoned response. This act of perception immediately changes things, in the same way as our perceptions change waves into particles; it causes wave patterns of probability to collapse into particle patterns of certainty. Once sensory input has been received, it becomes the "property" of the mind. The mind receives information like a pack of wolves being thrown a piece of meat. In the case of our model of existence, that would be five wolves, representing five physical senses (hearing, seeing, touching, smelling and tasting), five mental senses (thought, vision, feeling, instinct and temper) and five metaphysical senses (mind, spirit, soul, heart, and essence) working together to help us understand both the tangible, intangible and transcendental aspects of reality. And, like a pack of wolves, one of those five will dominate, causing each bit of perceived reality to be interpreted a certain way for that particular entity... causing that particular entity to exhibit certain behaviors that are characteristic to that dominant sense (see the idea of Constellations of Consciousness in the essay Dreams and Dreaming elsewhere on this site). In this way, it could be argued that we all become participants in an objective reality of patterns that are harmonious to each subjective reality of perceptions.
But, some don't like the idea of an objective reality that exists independent of our ability to perceive it. Some argue that reality is just electrical impulses in the brain, and, like the quantum cloud that does not yield reality UNTIL we collapse the wave form with our perceptions, reality does not exist without the aid of our perceptions. But, if reality is defined as electrical impulses in the brain and nothing more, then how do we differentiate the impulses we have while awake from those we get while asleep? Some argue that dreams too, are made of electrical impulses in the brain. Does that mean dreams are real? If dreams are real, then, if I have a "sex dream" about someone I'm lusting after at work, and the person who I had sex with in my dream doesn't know that we had sex, did we have sex? If that person claims that we didn't have sex, wouldn't that be an indication that the sex I thought we had, by way of electrical impulses in my brain, wasn't real? What is my legal obligation to a child that is born from such dream sex, and who only appears sporadically this night or another, and maybe never again? If I have a dream where I kill someone, and the next day I see them alive and well, wouldn't that be an indication that my act of killing them wasn't real? If I continue to wake up to such disappointments over and over again, mighten I learn that dreams in general are not real if things in my world don't change because of them? If someone else kills me in their drerams, do I die? If they stop believing in me, do I go away? If the electrical impulses that make up dreams are not real, but the electrical impulses received from my senses, as they hear, see, touch, smell and taste the world around me are real, might that be an indication that an external reality exists, and that an external reality is indeed necessary to differentiate the impulses of reality from the impulses of dreams? Is it possible that through our physical senses, we are tethered to an external reality? Is it possible that through our dreams, imagination and private thoughts, we are released from that external reality? Is it possible that our dreams, imagination and private thoughts are the illusion, not so-called reality?
Human perception alone is not very reliable as a means of defining reality. People who have had a leg amputated have to deal with a thing called "Phantom Pain" where their mind continues to think it has a leg that isn't there. Is it there? If reality is only in our mind, why does that person fall down when they attempt to use their supposedly missing leg? Could it be, that in an external reality that exists independent of our faulty senses, a leg is in fact missing, and that that is why the amputee falls down when attempting to walk? Without the acknowledgement of an external reality that exists independent of us, and changes because of us, we are lost in a fog... a wave patterned cloud of fog, waiting to be collapsed into a particle patterned entity of existence - to be added to the external reality to which we are tethered. This is what we do every day of our lives - we grope our way through each day, trying to confirm that the external reality we believe to be out there is in fact the way our faulty senses tell us it is. The theoretical model being put forth on this site is an attempt to describe a particle patterned entity of existence. But don't be alarmed... it is also supposed to represent the wave patterned cloud, before it is collapsed by perception. Does that mean it only exist when I explain it and others perceive it, or does it exist independent of any explanation from me or perception by others? Is perception everything?
If I step off a curb and get flattened by a speeding bus, but... because I am so oblivious I never know what hit me... did it hit me? Do I need to perceive the speeding bus before it can exist and hit me? If so, did nothing hit me? Or is it possible that we actually collide as objects in an objective reality of things in space and time? Am I still alive or am I dead? Can I put myself back together like a cartoon character and continue on? Something is different if we can no longer walk hand in hand along the beach. If we need brain function to think, then having my brains splattered by a speeding bus means that I am no longer thinking, therefore, in a world where perception is reality, I no longer exist... that is... if "I think" means "therefore I am." How did that happen, if reality does not exists outside of me and my thinking brain? Did I kill myself... with an illusion? It doesn't matter that my arms and limbs and head detached upon impact, because I never had an actual objective body in any objective sense of things in space and time... so I still exist... somewhere... like a dream?
In a world detached from an external reality, I could put myself back together like a cartoon character and continue on. But, in a world tethered to an external reality, I think I'd be dead and gone.. unless we believe that the mind lives on after death and that all I need to do is find a new body to inhabit. I'm not sure how that works though, as all bodies seem to be born with minds already attached to them, however undeveloped. It seems more likely that the mind is connected to brain function and when brain function ends, the mind ends. In that way, the mind is like a snowflake; it develops... it is unique in complexity... and then it melts away in due time, never to see another one like it again. The components of me might get used again in compiling a new mind, but I, as I am today, get absorbed, or scattered (see the essay Reincarnation elsewhere on this site).
-----
The Totality of Reality
Many believe that perception is not reliable. It could also be said that perception is also NOT the TOTALITY of reality. But... perception IS a significant PART of reality. In that sense, perception is a window TO reality - that is... IF we believe that there is an external reality that exists independent of our ability to perceive it. If there is existence independent of our ability to perceive it, then reality is not the illusion - perception is the illusion. Or, to be more precise, what we actually perceive is not an illusion, but to think that the totality of our perception equals the totality of reality IS an illusion. Perception is a phantom, projected image, through a blurry and sometimes chemically distorted lens of physical, mental and metaphysical senses, attempting to experience what is "out there," and translating that information into patterns of electrical impulses in a Brain to be interpreted by a Mind - in other words, one context perceiving another context... a smaller context perceiving a much, much larger context. Thus, like the blind men feeling the Elephant, and drawing different conclusions about what it is they are perceiving, no single human context will ever contain the totality of the much larger universal context of external reality. Each individual, context (a Mind) contains a small portion of reality (the Universe). All contexts put together will still not equal the totality of reality. But that does not mean that the parts of reality that we know are an illusion. It just means that there is more TO reality than any ONE of us will ever know... and probably always will be. It is my personal belief that people who define reality only by what has accumulated in the heads of each individual, and eliminating from that definition all notions of yet-to-be-experienced external reality, are giving an incomplete definition of reality.
 |
|
Empirically, we will only know parts of reality. Logically, we can speculate about missing parts. Individually, we don't know much. Collectively our senses and our speculations build a theoretical, social reality. To this study of tarot, all these levels represent reality. It is a spectrum of reality that is revealed gradually. The invisibly drawn, archetypal armature is real. The transient manifestations of archetypal essence are real. And our partial perceptions of the transient expressions of the archetypal essence are real. If reality is an illusion, illusion is reality.
|
We can only know what we know. And what we know does NOT constitute the totality of reality - in the same way, a map of a territory does not equal the actual territory. What we know is only our PERCEPTION of a small PART of reality, in the form of patterns of electrical impulses in our Brain - which our Mind turns into a map. All we can ever really know for sure is that our brain is being stimulated by something, and that when our brain is stimulated, it creates patterns of recognition. Our "MIND" is the library of those brain patterns. By collecting, comparing, contrasting, combining and constructing pieces and parts of reality, we build a more complete map of reality. That's how maps get drawn. And as our techniques of perceptions improve, our image of reality improves. Look at some of the earliest maps of the world. They were drawn by collecting, comparing, contrasting, combining and constructing data brought back by a series of individual explorers with partial images of the continents. Some look distorted compared to the much improved techniques we use today, including images from space. But in their time, they worked as a representation of "what is out there." Same thing with the blind men examining the elephant. This parable is often used to illustrate how stupid we are when it comes to perceiving "what is out there." But when people relate this parable, they usually accentuate the heated arguments that occur from people who believe they are seeing all there is to see, and arguing when it doesn't match someone elses belief of seeing all there is to see. In doing this, these people often stop short of presenting the idea of collecting, comparing, contrasting, combining and constructing data from all those sources into a complete image. If this were done, the Blind Men parable could be used to show how intelligent we are.
|
Just because what is out there is a transient expression of a transcendental essence
does not mean that what appears is not real.
-----
Just because what we perceive is not the totality of that transient expression
does not mean that what we perceive is not real.
|
The model of existence being put forth on this site is an attempt to describe that world of perceptions and experiences, as well as the world of theoretical speculations about an archetypal armature. Theory being that the perceptions we have of reality form patterns in our brain that accurately mimic patterns in an objective external reality that has its roots in archetypal essence. In other words, we can't know the totality of reality, but... if the objective reality that is "out there" is reduced to basic abstract patterns, we might be able to reduce our perceptions to the same level and "know" the totality of reality on a primordial, archetypal, transcendental level of basic fundamental patterns! The interpretive complexity of the subjective Mind, as it tries to understand the electrical impulses of the objective Brain as it perceives the infinite diversity of manifestation that blooms from archetypal roots, is never ending for a small context trying to perceive a larger context like the universe. But reducing to simplicity levels the playing field. This is where the idea of archetypes comes in.
Archetypes are primordial, archetypal, transcendental and fundamental patterns! This is what every idea being put forth on this site is devoted to describing. The nine numbers of our number line are like nine "blind men" examining an "elephant" of primordial, transcendental, archetypal patterns. Each number is a window of perception to an objective universe of patterns, that are theorized to be the archetypal armature of existence. People impatient for ideas directly related to tarot icons might feel cheated by all this reductionist talk of patterns. But if these patterns are indeed archetypal, then knowing them means knowing the tarot icons... as well as reality itself. Thus, each archetypally rooted icon of The Numerical Tarot is a partial window on that archetypal level of reality. Thus, it becomes the job of YOU, the reader, to collect, compare, contrast, combine and construct a complete picture of that archetypal reality from these individual parts.
-----
The Cloud and Canopy Mandala
Here is a mandala that is used in another essay on this site. There, is is used to symbolize the idea of a forest of trees with a canopy of leaves that represent TheTen Thousand Things of everyday life, that hide a world of archetypal patterns within.
 |
|
In this mandala, a cloud of probability lies at the center, waiting to be turned into a particle of certainty by the perceptions of humans creating signs, symbols, words, notes, icons and types. Between the cloud and the symbols lie pathways of etymology that lead us through the canopy toward the archetypal essence of each icon.
|
In this mandala, a cloud of probability lies at the center, waiting to be turned into a particle of certainty by the perceptions of humans creating signs, symbols, words, notes, icons and personality types. Between the cloud and the symbols lie pathways of etymology that lead us through the canopy toward the archetypal essence of each icon. In this particular mandala, there are two icons for each of nine numbers... and zero; ten thousand things reduced to nine... nine things reduced to four... and a point. These are the "blind men" of tarot, examining the "elephant" of reality. Each one is a window for us to look through, to see a portion of reality.
-----
Virtual Reality
People who acknowledge that all we can ever know is just electrical impulses in a brain will often suggest that the "truth" of our acquired knowledge is itself unknowable. To my mind, the people who put forth this perspective are expressing a particular type of mindset that typically lives in fear of deception (see Consider the Source elsewhere on this site). By acknowledging that perception = deception they fulfill this need for fear. People who have a keen interest in the very idea of truth versus lies, or fact versus fiction, relative to an acknowledged ability of humans to deceive, will naturally extend this paranoia to their philosophical ideas and project this human trait upon their notions of ultimate cosmic governance. Who can we trust? The doubts provided by this kind of mindset keep alive a perpetual state of distrust that will forever deny the establishment of any ultimate truth. That is... IF we think there is a difference yet to be revealed to us between what we think we know and what really is. Many of the people who embrace these doubts have even used this notion of unknowable truth value as a theme in stories about reality, suggesting fictional scenarios that include brains being hooked up to computers that feed us a simulation of reality, or elaborate experiments where reality is presented in the form of a movie set with fake facades and actors playing parts. How do we know that what we think is reality isn't one of these elaborate lies? Because everything is just electrical impulses to the brain, there is NO WAY for us to EVER know.
The acknowledgement that what we THINK is reality MIGHT be an elaborate lie, accomplishes two great things - it confirms that there will never be any absolute truth... except... to know that there is no absolute truth. And, it encourages us to stop asking questions, because of the futility of never knowing truth. These are good things, because of how they effectively put us into the paradoxical realm of The Absentia (discussed in numerous places throughout this site)... a realm of unknowability, where we are told to see more by not looking. But... as far as contributing to the understanding of the apparent reality of our human perceptions, this mindset contributes very little. Outside of this point of view, I would argue that, indeed, if there is NO WAY for us to EVER know that there is ANY difference between an actual reality and what we perceive to be reality, then in fact there IS no difference. It is for this reason, that I would suggest that there is in fact a deception at work in this philosophy of deception! Typically, people of this mindset implant the suggestion into our minds that there is in fact an omniscient entity of some kind, out there, somewhere... establishing and implanting a virtual reality into our minds, an omniscient entity who could confirm that there is indeed a difference between some actual reality and our perceptions of reality. But... if such an entity is never produced, or not produc-able - to imply that it does exist or could be produced, is a logical deception.
|
If there is NO WAY for us to EVER know that there is ANY difference
between an actual reality and what we perceive to be reality,
then in fact there IS no difference.
|
Revealing this omniscient entity is what many of these FICTIONAL stories are all about. A FICTIONAL tale might reveal a person - like a mad scientist who has our brains in a jar, hooked up to a computer - who knows that there IS a difference between reality and our perceptions. In some stories, that omniscient entity might be depicted as coming to tell a hero which side of the reality/illusion equation he is on, and then taking him to see the other side - the "true" reality. But this is FICTION!!! Meaning... until an entity like that actually appears to the world at large, we will never know which side of the reality/illusion equation we are on, or if there even is a reality/illusion equation to consider. So... given that fact, I would argue that we are equally justified in assuming either reality or perception to be the same as the other, until such time as someone/something makes it clear that they are not the same, and makes clear what differences are to be known. Our perceptions might be a foggy, blurry lens upon an external reality, and we may occasionally get things wrong... relative to later, supposedly clearer revelations and discoveries. In that sense our perceptions are an illusion. But this question of whether the external reality that we think is out there is actually an elaborate deception being maliciously perpetuated upon our senses by an undisclosed source needs to be proved - not JUST suggested. Given the theorized inability of our minds to ever be able to do that, it very likely will never be proved. Thus this deceptive mindset inclusively identifies itself as irrelevant to any definition of reality. In this way, it is more accurately a definition of the non-reality of The Absentia.
Other people, like me, are just brains with no way to know the truth of what we know. Thus, we can't prove that we are on the illusion side of any reality/illusion equation. Likewise, we can't prove that we are on the reality side either. No one can even tell us, with certainty, what the difference is, or that there even is a difference. No matter who we are, we can only suggest the possibility that there MIGHT be a difference, and that my mind, alone, without someone/something telling me what is what, can never know whether there is a difference or not. So until someone/something else, can show me that there IS a difference... there is no difference. If we are on the illusion side, let's talk about the illusion. If we are on the reality side, let's talk about the reality. Clearly, it makes no difference, if we will never know any difference - reality is what it is, and always will be. When this alleged all-knowing entity comes to show us that there is a difference, we may be shocked to find out that we have been discussing an illusion, and that the illusion is nothing like the "true" reality revealed to us. Or... we may find that the illusion we have been discussing is exactly like the "true" reality. Or... we may find that we are on the reality side, and everything we have been discussing is real. Or... we may find that there is no reality/illusion equation at all, and that everything we think is real is actually real. But until it is made clear that there is a reality/illusion equation, and until it is made clear which side we are on, and what the differences are, the question is irrelevant.
To me the doubt perpetuated by those who live in fear of a grand cosmic deception is irrelevant. I see no use for it, beyond the establishment of no absolute truth, and the cessation of all questions. This is good for understanding The Absentia. But... within the apparent reality of our human perceptions - i.e. The Universe that is logically situated opposite The Absentia - relative truth still has much to offer. By establishing arbitrary parameters of existence that are believed to be as close to absolute as anything we can possibly know, we can say a lot about the reality we think we know. That is the purpose of the theoretical model of existence being presented on this site, as discussed below. It is my perception of what I think I "know." If we buy into the doubt perpetuated by the "grand cosmic deception" school of thought, there is no reason to say another word about anything... ever, in our lives. If the fear brought to us by the possibility that all we think we know MIGHT be wrong is enough to paralyze us into inaction, then we have no business asking questions. All those volumes and volumes of philosophical inquiry get reduced to: What's it all about? Don't know. Never will. The end. Again, we could look at this as a good thing, because of how it effectively puts us in the eye of the hurricane (The Absentia), with no hope of knowing its spiralling mass (The Universe). With that in mind, you can stop reading at any time. However, if you think that relative truth value has anything to offer in the answering of philosophical questions about The Universe half of the Universe/Absentia duality...
-----
Clouds of Clay
Predictability + Reliability = Repeatability which, to many, equals Reality. A lot of scientist spend a lot of time in laboratories of one kind or another, predicting what the results of an experiment might be, and getting reliable results that repeat over and over and over again, from which they declare immutable laws of reality. Which is why so many scientists are shocked, amazed, and in some cases upset, to find, at the quantum level, that the most fundamental building block of existence/reality is actually clouds of energy that are Unpredictable, Unreliable and produce results that are Unrepeatable. This 'cloud of probability' aspect of quantum physics, is a big reason why people move toward the conclusion that reality is not just an illusion in our minds, but is forever and ultimately an external illusion itself... "out there."
But, whereas being unpredictable and unreliable and unrepeatable might diminish all hope of defining any OBJECTIVE reality or ABSOLUTE truth... things that are predictable, in a reliable way, producing repeatable results ARE used by SOME people to suggest SOME kind of reality that we can believe - the kind that doesn't go away when we stop believing in it... be it a social reality of declared laws, or some other system of relative truth value. This KIND of reality should not be ignored or denied, any more than we should deny the existence of the violent storms of a hurricane while standing in the calm of its eye. By examining the eye alone, a hurricane is undefinable. By examining the entire hurricane, it is definable... all the way down to the eye (the paradox of The Absentia, or Quantum Foam).
It might well be that what I am assuming to be an objective reality that exists independent of me and my ability to perceive it, is in actuality nothing more than clouds of probability, and that I myself am nothing more than a cloud of probability... and that together we are all just clouds of probability... shaping each other, like clouds of clay, into definable forms, exclusively in our minds eye, for the simple sake of recognition of one thing from another. All that shaping might only be happening in our minds from moment to moment... or... they might be an elaborate deception being fed to us by an unknown source... or... things might actually have those shapes in an objectively reality that is "out there" around us - it looks as though we will never know for sure. But it does seem bizarre that through the process of shaping things in my mind to create a finite world of reality, that my mind would go to such lengths as to invent every nerve, vein, artery, muscle and bone that I find in the people I meet... and invent such elaborate interconnections between all those complex systems... and do all that without me even realizing that I'm doing it... and do it from moment to moment as I perceive.
Like the elaborate deception theories of those who remind us that we have NO WAY to know the truth of what we think we know... to have all the unbelievable complexity of the universe appear from within my mind, ONLY AT THE MOMENT I PERCEIVE IT, seems like a premise that needs more proof. If I have to perceive things before they can exist, why aren't the people I see just blobs of flesh on the ground? I can't perceive their bones and muscles, they are hidden to me. I don't know what bones and muscles are. How is it they exists within the people I meet? I've never seen my own bones or muscles. What holds me up? If I have to perceive things before they exist, does this mean that a camera set up with a tripwire will reveal nothing beyond what I already know to exist? If existence is only what I perceive, does that mean the wire will never be tripped by things I don't already know? Is it possible for something someone else knows to exist to trip the wire? If so, will I see it on the film, or will it only be seen by the person who knew it to exist? If not, what tripped the wire? If there is an avalanche, will my camera be buried by rocks I never knew existed? Some suggest that an omniscient being imagines all these yet-to-be-experienced things, so that they can exists independent of our minds, and at the same time, not exist as a tangible reality. But if, as surmized above, we have no way of knowing the difference between this kind of omniscient virtual reality and what we THINK is a tangible reality, isn't that the same as an external reality? Isn't it more likely that an external reality - of SOME kind - exists, independent of my ability to directly perceive it, and that it is that reality that will one day trip the wire of my camera, and reflect light from itself onto the film?
At a quantum level, things may very well be unpredictable, unreliable and unrepeatable... and thereby unreal. At a universal level, things may very well be predictable, reliable and repeatable and thereby real. Suggesting to me the possibility of a threshold of some kind that separates these two possibilities - a threshold similar to the threshold that separates the eye of a hurricane from the storms of a hurricane. Perhaps it is a threshold of complexity, where a certain kind of "critical mass" produces some kind of cosmic/quantum "awareness of self" that causes clouds of probability to collapse into particles of certainty on their own... without anyone there but themselves to know of their existence. And that further complexity causes those particles to coagulate into atoms, with atoms coagulating into molecules and molecules coagulating into cells and cells coagulate into nerves, veins, muscles and bones that I then perceive with my senses when I cut someone open. The idea of a cosmic/quantum "awareness of self" leading to an automatic collapsing of probability into an actual reality of tangible things that are "out there" would then correlate with the idea of self-referential paradoxes being the root of all existence - an idea presented elsewhere throughout this site and in the book All Things Are Numbers.
The root of all existence - both everything and nothing - is The Absentia. If we are going to believe that a supreme power imagines both the everything and the nothing of our Universe, The Absentia is the most likely candidate for this role. The Universe is here because The Absentia is not. Thus, The Absentia would become this omniscient, omnipotent "being" that imagines everything for us, so that it is there for us to find with our logical minds and empirical senses. As stated above, The Absentia would also be seen as the omniscient, omnipotent "being" who will NEVER reveal to us whether we are being fed a virtual reality or an actual reality. Like passing through the two points of absentia and finding ourself (diagramed above) one reality will look as real as another to us.
-----
An Entity Is An Entity Is An Entity - Period!
Can evolving complexity produce reality by collapsing clouds of probability into particles of certainty... without anyone there to perceive it? According to theories put forth elsewhere on this site, it is an inevitable function of all things to evolve. Thus, we could say that complexity actually brings reality into focus; i.e. order out of chaos, by way of our Law of Sequence. My subjective perceptions tell me that everything is reality, from a cloud/wave of probability to a particle/point of certainty, just as it is all hurricane from eye to circumference. We can reduce to the simplicity of a cloud or compound to the complexity of a particle, either way... the model of existence being put forth on this site suggests that a presence of any kind, whether unpredictable or predictable, unreliable or reliable, unrepeatable or repeatable, whether perceived as an objective reality by a Brain or conceived as a subjective reality in the Mind, whether it is just someone talking about something ideally, or someone showing something empirically... ANY entity of ANY kind will conform to the fundamental parameters of existence being suggested by the model being put forth on this site.
 |
|
As anthropomorphized icons, the number line is 9 (4 x 2 +1) or 18, or 36 or 72 views of transient reality. As parts of an archetypal armeture, the number line is 9 (4 x 2 +1) or 18, or 36 or 72 views of transcendental reality. We both look at the same thing and see them different ways, depending on which of these windows of partial perception we use. By playing the Shake the Trees game, we can actually indentify wihich window of partial perception we are using and better understand why it is we see different things.
|
The idea that we CREATE reality, moment by moment, with each and every moment of perception, might make sense... IF our notion of reality is ONLY defined by that which is found within a subjective mind. It seems more likely to me, that reality evolves, continuously, from clouds of probability to particles of certainty and onward, using an "Archetypal Armature" or "Universal Blueprint" that resembles the five stages of the theoretical model of existence being put forth on this site, and that our five senses have also evolved as "mechanisms of perception" that correlate perfectly, one to one, isomorphically, with the same parameters of existence being used by an objective reality that is perpetually engaged in the process of becoming, realizing and defining itself - independent of us.
So whether reality is composed of unpredictable, unreliable and unrepeatable clouds of probability or predictable, reliable and repeatable particles of certainty... at the micro level or the macro level... in a brain or in a mind... as illusion or reality... it makes no difference. An entity is an entity is an entity. This study theorizes that fundamental parameters of existence exist, however indistinct they may be at any particular level of perception or any particular moment in time.
|
An entity is an entity is an entity.
|
There are many ways to describe these fundamental parameters of existence - The Numerical Tarot is one. As stated elsewhere on this site, the theoretical model of existence being put forth on this site is an "ideal" model, describing the "Archetypal Armature" or "Universal Blueprint" that governs the shape of all manifest forms. If the reality we see is an illusion, it is comparable to the illusion we present to each other every day with the clothes we wear, which stand as expressions of who we are. We may not be able to see what is under the clothes, or under the skin that is under the clothes, or within the bones that are under the skin that is under the clothes etc. etc. etc. but we can theorize a governing form that gives these surface expressions their character. Theoretically traversing these kinds of layers, produces an archetypal hierarchy that we can use to understand how layers get built up upon the skeleton of an ideal form (see The Invisible Body, and What is an Archetype and Numerical Etymology elsewhere on this site).
 |
|
Are there varying levels of reality? Does the illusion of archetypal essence involuntarily evolve into transient expressions of manifestation... that we involuntarily experience as "something out there"... with our senses... and perceptions... to construct an equally transcendent map with the electrical impulses of our brains, creating a reality in our minds that is itself an illusion, but.. perhaps... identical to the illusion of reality being presented to us by The Universe?
The archetypally transcendant form of an Elephant is written in the code of DNA. It doesn't have to exist as an ideal form that looks anything like an actual, imperfectly manifest Elephant, Nature just knows how to draw an Elephant if or when it wants to. That code has been written. The fourpart code of DNA then correlates with the fourpart essence of our model of existence, and the physical, mental and metaphysical senses of perception that define our nature as much as DNA.
Reality meets us half way, we should be willing to do the same, lest we live in the darkness and confusion of a perpetual illusion forever.
|
What we see on the surface of things might be a transient expression of fundamental parameters of existence, and therefore - to some minds - an illusion. Our senses might not even be able to see all of what is being expressed by each manifestation of these fundamental parameters. But... to me... it is ALL reality - the parts we can see, the parts we can't see, the parts we can know, the parts we will never know, the parts that blossom and die away, and the parts that endure throughout... until the end of this universe - it is all reality to me. How it all comes to be here is anybody's guess; omniscient being imagining it for us, or mad scientist feeding it into brains sitting in jars. We will never know. The best we can do is examine what it appears to be. The model of existence being put forth on this site is an attempt to do just that.
|
Reality meets us half way, we should be willing to do the same,
lest we live in the darkness and confusion of a perpetual illusion forever.
|
If the role of the omniscient being leading us out of the darkness and into the light is assigned to The Absentia, my theory is that, if revealed (and that's a BIG if), we would not see another reality that would reveal our current reality to be an elaborate, malicious deception... we would only see deeper levels of our curently understood reality. Thus, the answer to the question asked above is YES!...reality is gradual. As shown in the diagram above, there are varying degrees of reality between the transient expressions we see and the reality of ideal forms. As stated in the essay What is an Archetype, this is both an inherited influence that is projected, as well as an emotional affinity by which we are connected. It is ALL one reality.
-----
Perpetual Collapse of Cosmic Consciousness into Focus Mandala
Here is a mandala you can use to meditate on this idea of Waves of Possibility, becoming Particles of Probability, and eventually a Tenable Reality of form. Human perception might influence and alter reality, but does human perception create reality? Or is it possible for waves of possibility to collapse into particles of probability without the perception of humans... creating a reality that has existed long before human brains and conscious minds, and will continue to exist long after the last human mind has dissolved back into the Cosmic Consciousness from which we all came? We are able to alter the fabric of spacetime, or the web of sub atomic, cosmically conscious interconnectedness, because it birthed us, and our "minds" - we did not birth it. To say that we birth reality through our perceptions of it, would be like saying the hurricane created the atmosphere from which it emerged and to which it returns. I think it much more likely that reality is perpetually collapsing, on its own, from waves of possibility to particles of probability, in its own never ending cycle of Solve et Coagula.
 |
|
Human perception might change reality, but does human perception create reality, or is it possible for waves of possibility to collapse into particles of probability without the perception or presence of humans... creating a reality that has existed long before human brains and conscious minds ever came along, and will continue on long after the last human mind has dissolved back into the Cosmic Consciousness from which we all came?
|
I think reality creates itself... in varying degrees, through the spontaneous collapse of a certain kind of "critical mass" or "quorum sensing," without the help of human minds at all. But, I also believe it is possible for the perceptions of human minds to hasten this process of "quorum sensing/critical mass" and "cosmic collapse." Thus, around the outside this mandala there are eyes of perception, followed inwardly by arrows of flow that illustrate the idea of "human powered" collapse from wave to particle. Each wavy ring is like a superstring! Emerging from the troughs are the four rings of the theoretical model of existence being put forth everywhere on this site. These four stages of existence are described elsewhere in many many ways. Here they represent varying levels of reality from the untenable sea of possibilities (1/9), to faint plausibility (2/8), to a feeling of palpability (3/7), to the substance of probability (4/6) and finally to a tenable reality (5).
 |
This study theorizes that this entire spectrum is "reality" in varying degrees. It also suggests that the collapse of waves of possibility into particles of probability is not so much of a destructive event as it might seem, but is more of a creative event that effectively brings "reality" into FOCUS in the minds of humans. People like to think that by the very act of looking we destroy some "truer" form of unchanging reality, and that what results is an ever-changing, deceptive illusion, or a mere shadow or projection of something more profound that we will never know because of how our act of perception destroys. I say... it's all the same thing, in varying degrees of FOCUS. Waves represent a blurry reality, particles represent a sharper reality... the same reality.
For example: I'm nearsighted. Every 4th of July I go out and look at the fireworks exploding in the sky above me. With my glasses on, I see sparkling lights that twinkle. With my glasses off I see overlapping transparent bubbles dancing across each others path. It's the same fireworks each time - the same reality, one blurry, one sharp. If I were to describe fireworks as overlapping transparent bubbles dancing across each others path, others... with perfect vision... might wonder what I was talking about. However, if everyone had the same blurry vision as me, and we all looked at the same thing, my description might make perfect sense, at least to a majority of people. That is... until someone among us found a way to bring that image into sharper focus. Then... those of us who choose to believe in the validity of that sharper image, would see how fireworks cal also be seen as tiny points of fire, sparkling. When Galileo first looked at Saturn through his newly invented telescope, he thought he saw two moons orbiting. His image was too blurry to see that the blobs of matter were in fact the broad view of Saturn's rings. Saturn didn't change, the quality of our perception changed. On one level of perception, Saturn's rings are still blurry blobs of matter. On another level of perception, they are much sharper rings of matter. The "Impressionistic" style of painting was unpopular to many, when it first emerged. Impressionistic painting departed from tradition by using unrealistic colors, and also by abandoning the extreme FOCUS of realism used in that day, in preference for dobs and dollops of paint that presented a more blurry "impression" of something. Sometimes it's revealing to look at things in a more broad, general... "blurry" way. Other times it is revealing to look at things in a more limited, specific... "sharper" way. To me, it's all the same reality.
-----
Something From Nothing
Can we get something from nothing? Lots of philosophies say no. I'd say yes! Many philosophies, spiritual and otherwise, craft their thinking around the assumption that we can't get something from nothing. But, with the idea that both wave and particle describe the same thing, and the idea that one is just a "focused" expression of the other... and the idea that the web births us... the idea of this entire spectrum being One Reality could most definitely allow for the creation of something from nothing. Thus, we CAN get something from nothing, because nothing IS something (especially when considered from the exclusionary vantage point of The Absentia). Nothing and something are two aspects of the SAME thing - One Reality of Consciousness. Nothing is something in the same way water is a gas, liquid and solid. When water is a gas, are we supposed to consider it somehow better than water as a liquid, or water as a solid? No. Water can have purpose and meaning and utilitarian usefulness in any state. Likewise with the one reality of consciousness and the debates people have between duality and unity, and which one is "better," or more enlightened.
|
We CAN get something from nothing, because nothing IS something. |
When water spills from a glass, are we supposed to be happier when it forms one big puddle, and sad when it beads up into multiple droplets? Is it a lesser form of water when it beads up, and a superior form of water when it is a single puddle? Do the beads of water suddenly become some deceptive illusion of water? Isn't it still just a quantity of water? If we shake the table and cause all the individual droplets to unite into a single puddle, do we suddenly become more enlightened as to the true nature of water, in ways that we couldn't know from multiple drops? Have we created something empirically better... or just different? Can't we say that... like individual drops of water, we are all separate and unique... but, no mater what state we are in, we all remain true to the nature of water. We are all water, either as separate and unique, individual drops, or as one undifferentiated puddle. It's all the SAME reality. To restate this in terms relevant to another analogy given in the essay Why Only Nine, using a map of the United States of America as an example: No matter what State we are in, we are all Americans. Borders are totaly imaginary... but, at the same time, very real. Thus, each State is free to be completely unique within its consciously defined borders, while, at the same time, remaining American throughout.
Spiritual philosophies embrace the idea of calling manifest existence an illusion, because of how it promotes the idea of letting go of the "things" in life that weigh us down and prevent us from reaching what they view as a preferable or superior realm of Unity, and subsequent Divinity. This type of perspective works well for those who buy into the belief that our manifest form is a grand cosmic mistake, or a fall from grace that makes us unworthy of Divinity, and must be shed like so much filth, to be redeemed, in the eyes of an all powerful God, holding us over a fiery pit of Hell. But I, personally, don't view things that way. To me Unity and Duality are just opposite ends of a spectrum of REALITY. To me, Nothing and Something are just opposites ends of a spectrum of REALITY. To me Conscious and Unconscious are just opposite ends of a spectrum of REALITY... or COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS.
Some philosophies view Divinity as a "Higher" form of Consciousness that - if reached - would make what we currently call reality seem as much of an illusion as what we currently call our dreams. In other words; from the perspective of a waking person, dreams are an illusion, while, from the perspective of Divinity, the life of a waking person is an illusion. I like that idea, because of how it portrays a spectrum of possibilities. But I don't like it for how it supposes a state of Divinity to be superior to that of Humanity. People make Divinity superior, because they (hypocritically) worship (often with the same addictive zeal they've been instructed to relinquish) that which they view as their parent/creator (see Be Gray Every Day elsewhere on this site). People make Divinity superior, because their innate insecurities create a never-ending NEED for something/someone to worship as some sort of guide or protector of life (see Consider the Source elsewhere on this site). People who think that POWER is THEE most important thing in life will typically view this Creator/Divinity as All Powerful, and will subsequently put Divinity on a pedestal, or altar of worship, and kneel down before it in reverence, or... fear, handing over all their own personal power to it... or "Him" as the case may be. What if we didn't do that?
People who worship Divinity as All Powerful, are the ones who are most likely to put forth the claim that the Unity of Divinity is the only TRUE Reality, and that everything "below" Divinity is an inferior (and perhaps even maliciously deceptive) illusion... from which our only purpose in life is to escape. But... what if we didn't do that? What if we viewed Divinity as just another form of Reality... a formless form of Reality. What if reality is nothing more than varying degrees perception... the perception of consciousness... an all encompassing, all pervasive Cosmic Consciousness. Some philosophies do argue that reality is nothing more than highly organized, highly intensified consciousness (see mention of quorum sensing/critical mass above). I like that. By viewing reality not as manifest things or as deceptive illusions of the mind, but as varying degrees of consciousness, the idea of getting something from nothing no longer seems that ridiculous... because... ultimately... consciousness is neither something, nor nothing.
By being neither something nor nothing, what this study of tarot and philosophy calls The Absentia is now seen as a PURE, ineffable form of Cosmic Consciousness. But it does NOT represent a single, isolated "TRUE" "Reality." It represents a single, conceptual point of reality, along a perpetual spectrum of varying degrees of reality, that spans both Divinity and Humanity. On the Divine side, that point of reality is ineffable. On the Human side that same reality is effable... through the combined auspices of BOTH Unity and Duality. On the Human side, our perceptions, or "acts of consciousness" bring Cosmic Consciousness into and out of FOCUS. In this way, intense focus of Cosmic Consciousness results in something out of nothing (i.e. alchemistic Coagula and the idea of Quorum Sensing), while a relaxed focus of Cosmic Consciousness results in nothing out of something (i.e. alchemistic Solve and the idea of Diminishing Returns). Together (with The Absentia) they represent one "true" "reality" (see the essay Dreams and Dreaming elsewhere on this site).
|
Intense focus of Cosmic Consciousness = something out of nothing - Coagula
Relaxed focus of Cosmic Consciousness = nothing out of something - Solve
Human Reality is both
Divine Reality is neither
The Human and Divine = The Totality of Reality
|
As the resolution of a semantic quibble, we could say that the full spectrum of Cosmic Consciousness is all One Reality. But... to the senses of humans, it will remain the intensely focused degrees of consciousness that most of us will continue to call Reality... the ones that are so focused as to acquire a descernable, fininte, regular and repeatable form capable of being seen, felt, heard, smelt and tasted by a brain mapping recognizable patterns in a mind. Thus the diagram noted above, puts Reality at the center or focal point, with illusion on the periphery. However, for those devoted to putting Divinity upon a sacred altar that makes it out to be superior to that of Humanity, this might seem inaccurate and in need of being inverted. Thus it is that those devoted to putting Divinity upon a sacred altar that makes it out to be superior to that of Humanity will continue to laugh at we mortals who think that the chair we stub our toe on is a clear and tangible representation of reality, and that intangible things like spirituality and Divinity are not. But ultimately, I see no difference. To me, the chair, and my stubbed toe, are just intensely focused versions of the intangible spirituality around us. It's all one reality. None superior to another. None more "real" than another. Thus... I try to not put Divinity, or The Absentia, on a sacred altar above that of Humanity. From the perspective of a human, The Absentia is special in many ways, and perhaps deserving of some awe, and maybe even a pinch of reverence. But we should all learn to look Divinity straight in the eye... or Bindu/i as an equal contributor to all of reality. What if we did that?
-----
The Real Illusion of Illusive Reality
In the essay The Forest is the Trees, we utilize a concept put forth in the essay Numerical Etymology, to suggest the existence of a two way path between that of archetypal essence and iconic expressions on tarot cards. In the essay Shake the Trees, we see how traversing this two way path can aid in specificity of expression, when it comes to expressing to ourselves and others what we think we "know" about the less tangible aspects of what we are now suggesting to be One Reality. In the essays Dreams and Dreaming, and The Dream Analysis Calculator, we utilize this spectrum of possibilities to calculate the cumulative effect of multiple subdivisions of duality upon an entity (e.g. a tarot card, a person, an event in time, or a dream). In this way we effectively demonstrate what is being suggested in this essay - that the fragmented world and the unified world are two equally viable aspects of the same thing. They are complementary, rather than contradictory.
|
The fragmented world and the unified world
are two equally viable aspects of the same thing.
They are complementary, rather than contradictory.
|
Below is a chart that illustrates this idea of the fragmented world of "Ten Thousand Things" and the unified world of One Thing being in essence two expressions of the SAME thing. Why should one be superior to another? They aren't. It's all a matter of using the right tool for the right job.
|
