Well, today is the last day of 2009. What a journey it has been! We have seen such water under the bridges of our lives, such that we could never have imagined before. There are things and ideas in place now that even fifteen, twenty years ago we would never have thought of.
The increasing rate of connectivity has become a crazy spiralling avalanche descending on us with increasing volume. We are connected now in ways that even the science fiction writers, those wise-men of future things-to-be had dared not envisage.
What fuels this incredibly dizzying ride of connectivity we are on is our own intense desire to be connected. Faster better stronger longer higher shorter wider thinner - we are barrelling down the highway to super-connectivity at such a pace that we won't even have the opportunity to blink when we pass that point. And then, from Super- to Hyper-Connectivity.
At some point (presumably) our technology will fail us. Electrons can only be whipped faster to a certain point, even light-speed computation won't satisfy us for long. We need to look beyond the nuts and bolts of our current thinking and look for different ways to satisfy the powerful urge to communicate.
I often muse that we won't really be satisfied until we gain the ability to communicate at the speed of thought, the speed of predictive instant-icity. Yes, I just made that up, but probably that's the result of trying to describe something that doesn't yet exist.
Someplace somewhere recently I was reading that the human brain communicates at hyper-speed. The point of the article (Note-to-self: must dig that one out again) was that the physical properties of our neurones and the synaptic reactions were limited to the physical/chemical properties of the nerves etc. themselves. The point being that our thinking is faster than the physical properties of our bodies could sustain.
Simply put, we think faster than our bodies should allow us to.
Certainly, someone, somewhere will figure out the mechanics (quantum or otherwise) of this enigma. But the analogy is hidden in there. We long for, we yearn and strive for that same kind of connectivity with others which we experience inside our own minds.
Effectively, we yearn for an almost telepathic connectivity. Who was it that said "Everything Old is New again..."?
Imagine a world where the Internet was instantly accessible. Perhaps not the WWW as we know it now. What if, for instance, we could plug into the echoes Plato, Socrates, Tesla, Einstein, you, me - the world?
If we are all drops in an ocean of reality, surely we must be able to connect with one another in some way other than through mechanistic playthings? Surely, a "meeting of the minds" must be possible?
Perhaps we are paving the way for this with our toys and machinery. Perhaps we are creating a consciousness of connectivity that is pushing us into Hyper-Connectivity. And, methinks, if I am connected to you in a way that is as intimate and immediate as that which I can envisage, perhaps then I will understand you, and you will understand me.
Perhaps that Hyper-Connectivity will enable us to become the Creative Genii (Geniuses) that we truly are. Perhaps when we cannot hide in compartmentalised secrecy, wars and misunderstandings and deceit can no longer stand in the light of Hyper-Connectivity.
What a world would that be! Bring it on, bring it strong! I'm up for it right now - so where do I plug in?
What a way to burst into 2010! I can't wait!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Simply Feeding Life
Maybe it's this time of year. Christmas always has an introspective lead-up to it. Amongst all the frenzy and the buzz, there's also a sense of taking stock, of taking a sobering look at the year that was, and all the promises we made to it, back when it was fresh and newly minted.
Life is as Life does, but that seems barely a pale excuse given the fresh anticipation we held of it back then. Was that only 11 months ago, we entered with much fanfare, hype and anticipation into the empty room of a new twelve-month? Hmm...
Looking back personally, I realise I've simply been feeding Life. Reactively responding to and attending to its needs and necessities, doting on it with the distracted attention of a parent watching the telly while mechanically feeding the baby, missing at times, and wiping away the stains amidst much fussing and clucking. Such is, I find, the attention I pay to Life.
Yet Life is as much full of promise as a new-born, and the attention we pay to it over the intervening years we get back in spades after a time. Perhaps it's patience we have un-learned? The patience, perhaps, of a farmer planning crops and harvests years in advance. Perhaps we've lost that kind of personal vision?
I've come to a personal undestanding, for me at least, that Life requires more than just feeding. It requires love and patience and understanding, and being involved. If Life, to me now is a mechanical rote of days in and out, then perhaps I'm just getting out what I put in.
Maybe what's needed is a bit of engagement. After all, how often have I spoken to my life of my dreams and aspirations, my likes and loves, dislikes and druthers? Seriously! We blithely utter "Affirmations" to no-one or no-thing in particular and half anticipate that it might work. Why not tell it to Our Life? Well... Me to My Life. Sit down, have a conversation with it! Why not?
Oh you're right! Maybe I've partaken of too much Spirit, and not enough Christmas. Yet I can't help feeling like I need to do something differently with My Life next year. Maybe this is it, maybe not. But the inevitable introspection drives me to look at all sorts of different - some might say absurd - possibilities to alleviate the faint disquiet I feel at this time of year.
Hmm.. perhaps also, I might just need a good cup of tea...
Life is as Life does, but that seems barely a pale excuse given the fresh anticipation we held of it back then. Was that only 11 months ago, we entered with much fanfare, hype and anticipation into the empty room of a new twelve-month? Hmm...
Looking back personally, I realise I've simply been feeding Life. Reactively responding to and attending to its needs and necessities, doting on it with the distracted attention of a parent watching the telly while mechanically feeding the baby, missing at times, and wiping away the stains amidst much fussing and clucking. Such is, I find, the attention I pay to Life.
Yet Life is as much full of promise as a new-born, and the attention we pay to it over the intervening years we get back in spades after a time. Perhaps it's patience we have un-learned? The patience, perhaps, of a farmer planning crops and harvests years in advance. Perhaps we've lost that kind of personal vision?
I've come to a personal undestanding, for me at least, that Life requires more than just feeding. It requires love and patience and understanding, and being involved. If Life, to me now is a mechanical rote of days in and out, then perhaps I'm just getting out what I put in.
Maybe what's needed is a bit of engagement. After all, how often have I spoken to my life of my dreams and aspirations, my likes and loves, dislikes and druthers? Seriously! We blithely utter "Affirmations" to no-one or no-thing in particular and half anticipate that it might work. Why not tell it to Our Life? Well... Me to My Life. Sit down, have a conversation with it! Why not?
Oh you're right! Maybe I've partaken of too much Spirit, and not enough Christmas. Yet I can't help feeling like I need to do something differently with My Life next year. Maybe this is it, maybe not. But the inevitable introspection drives me to look at all sorts of different - some might say absurd - possibilities to alleviate the faint disquiet I feel at this time of year.
Hmm.. perhaps also, I might just need a good cup of tea...
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Repost: LifeQuist joins the Resonant Networks Network
I'm excited today. The LifeQuist blog is being copied to the new site Resonant Networks. [www.ResonantNetworks.net]
Resonance is the definitive collaboration, it defines the interactivity of one or more vibrational sources as they reach out and interact with each other.
It's in the spaces between that the harmonies occur. Like one raindrop on a still pool of water, radiating out until its rings touch, ripple through and subtly play with the energies of another drop. It is a mathematical ballet, based on distance and frequency and predetermined physics. But it is beautiful and un-predictable.
Unpredictable because, the randomness of a drop of falling water relative to any other constantly creates new patterns and interactions. If we are all, metaphorically speaking, a drop of water, it is by our unique position, our unique place in the world that we define our individual selves.
We interact, we resonate with others in the same pool. We give of ourselves by the very act of living and being. By our interactions we create amazing music. In the spaces in between
Resonance is the definitive collaboration, it defines the interactivity of one or more vibrational sources as they reach out and interact with each other.
It's in the spaces between that the harmonies occur. Like one raindrop on a still pool of water, radiating out until its rings touch, ripple through and subtly play with the energies of another drop. It is a mathematical ballet, based on distance and frequency and predetermined physics. But it is beautiful and un-predictable.
Unpredictable because, the randomness of a drop of falling water relative to any other constantly creates new patterns and interactions. If we are all, metaphorically speaking, a drop of water, it is by our unique position, our unique place in the world that we define our individual selves.
We interact, we resonate with others in the same pool. We give of ourselves by the very act of living and being. By our interactions we create amazing music. In the spaces in between
Monday, December 7, 2009
LifeQuist joins the Resonant Networks network
I'm excited today. The LifeQuist blog is being copied to the new site Resonant Networks. [www.ResonantNetworks.net]
Resonance is the definitive collaboration, it defines the interactivity of one or more vibrational sources as they reach out and interact with each other.
It's in the spaces between that the harmonies occur. Like one raindrop on a still pool of water, radiating out until its rings touch, ripple through and subtly play with the energies of another drop. It is a mathematical ballet, based on distance and frequency and predetermined physics. But it is beautiful and un-predictable.
Unpredictable because, the randomness of a drop of falling water relative to any other constantly creates new patterns and interactions. If we are all, metaphorically speaking, a drop of water, it is by our unique position, our unique place in the world that we define our individual selves.
We interact, we resonate with others in the same pool. We give of ourselves by the very act of living and being. By our interactions we create amazing music. In the spaces in between.
Resonance is the definitive collaboration, it defines the interactivity of one or more vibrational sources as they reach out and interact with each other.
It's in the spaces between that the harmonies occur. Like one raindrop on a still pool of water, radiating out until its rings touch, ripple through and subtly play with the energies of another drop. It is a mathematical ballet, based on distance and frequency and predetermined physics. But it is beautiful and un-predictable.
Unpredictable because, the randomness of a drop of falling water relative to any other constantly creates new patterns and interactions. If we are all, metaphorically speaking, a drop of water, it is by our unique position, our unique place in the world that we define our individual selves.
We interact, we resonate with others in the same pool. We give of ourselves by the very act of living and being. By our interactions we create amazing music. In the spaces in between.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Dr. Who and the Authorised Allowers
The old Beast Aleister Crowley wrote "Do what thou wilt", and in doing so highlighted the great morality play of right and wrong, allowed and unallowed, freedom and control. Why is it that we are so apprehensive of our own ability to decide for ourselves, and yet pay only lip service in defence of this, our natural liberty?
Take the Internet, for instance. Back in the day, it was the new Wild West, the frontier of the bold and daring. Fortunes were made and lost, right and wrong were interchangeable bedfellows in a stormy romp. Slowly but surely however, we have allowed the (sometimes deserved) misfortunes of innocents old and young to be the saplings of the fence-posts which increasingly encircle, tame and corral that wide open prairie of uncharted possibilities. This, we do, so well.
Where there is unlimited, we limit. Where there is potential, we caveat. Where there is personal responsibility, we abdicate.
So what does this have to do with Dr Who? WHO??!!!
I've been a fan of Dr. Who since before television started seeing rainbows. Still, I must say I totally enjoy David Tennant most as the Doctor. Personal preference, get over it.
David brings to the character that boyish innocence, that charm of wonder, that freedom of power that comes with self-allowing. Dark dingy path that fills you with dread? Right, lets go down there, and at a run if you don't mind! Like a cat, the good Doctor always falls on his feet - even when it appears not to be so. Why? Because he allows it to be so.
Now if you, or I would run down that dark dingy (and did I mention dank?) path, our morality play would immediately kick in. Is it safe? Could I get hurt? Why does it look so scary? All of which, of course are the straps and ties which fasten us to the real question, "Are we allowed?".
Oooh-look, big shiny spaceship, open doors and no-body stopping us from going on board. First question I bet you'd hear "Are we allowed?"
How blithely we give away our Allowed-ness. Like Oliver offering up his bowl, "Please Sir, fill it up with a dollop more of Allowing" we ask for it. Even when there's no-one there. Even if we can't imagine of whom we'd ask this, we'd rather stop and ask of thin air - "are we allowed?"
Well here's the trick. In the asking, we give it away. Before we asked for it, it was ours. Now all of a sudden it ain't. Sad, sad creatures that we are.
Yes, Do What thou wilt. Precisely. Al Crow might have had something there...
Personally, I prefer the Wiccan version "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt". Perhaps that suits better my internal morality play. It is mine to allow after all.
What do you allow yourself? Really. Can you dream it? Zen this one:
What would you do, if you knew you could not fail?
In life, I believe, there is no failing - except failing to do. So get on with it already! You have my permission, I'll Allow it - but only if you ask nicely.
Take the Internet, for instance. Back in the day, it was the new Wild West, the frontier of the bold and daring. Fortunes were made and lost, right and wrong were interchangeable bedfellows in a stormy romp. Slowly but surely however, we have allowed the (sometimes deserved) misfortunes of innocents old and young to be the saplings of the fence-posts which increasingly encircle, tame and corral that wide open prairie of uncharted possibilities. This, we do, so well.
Where there is unlimited, we limit. Where there is potential, we caveat. Where there is personal responsibility, we abdicate.
So what does this have to do with Dr Who? WHO??!!!
I've been a fan of Dr. Who since before television started seeing rainbows. Still, I must say I totally enjoy David Tennant most as the Doctor. Personal preference, get over it.
David brings to the character that boyish innocence, that charm of wonder, that freedom of power that comes with self-allowing. Dark dingy path that fills you with dread? Right, lets go down there, and at a run if you don't mind! Like a cat, the good Doctor always falls on his feet - even when it appears not to be so. Why? Because he allows it to be so.
Now if you, or I would run down that dark dingy (and did I mention dank?) path, our morality play would immediately kick in. Is it safe? Could I get hurt? Why does it look so scary? All of which, of course are the straps and ties which fasten us to the real question, "Are we allowed?".
Oooh-look, big shiny spaceship, open doors and no-body stopping us from going on board. First question I bet you'd hear "Are we allowed?"
How blithely we give away our Allowed-ness. Like Oliver offering up his bowl, "Please Sir, fill it up with a dollop more of Allowing" we ask for it. Even when there's no-one there. Even if we can't imagine of whom we'd ask this, we'd rather stop and ask of thin air - "are we allowed?"
Well here's the trick. In the asking, we give it away. Before we asked for it, it was ours. Now all of a sudden it ain't. Sad, sad creatures that we are.
Yes, Do What thou wilt. Precisely. Al Crow might have had something there...
Personally, I prefer the Wiccan version "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt". Perhaps that suits better my internal morality play. It is mine to allow after all.
What do you allow yourself? Really. Can you dream it? Zen this one:
What would you do, if you knew you could not fail?
In life, I believe, there is no failing - except failing to do. So get on with it already! You have my permission, I'll Allow it - but only if you ask nicely.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Seeing into Being
Where does perception take place? Where is the real cradle of reality? That which we perceive as 'out there' is actually only real 'in here' - in the grey matter between the ears.
How do you know for sure that if you and someone else see the colour 'blue', agree that it is 'blue' and recognise other shades of 'blue', that you and they are internally perceiving the same colour? It's all agreed perception and we blindly believe everyone else's and our own perceptions of blue (or anything else) are the same.
"The Map is not the Territory". Wise words, which some may recognise. Yet we see the world only in terms of the map in our minds. The world comes to us, filtered through the lense of our eyes, interpreted by rods and cones, turned upside down and converted to synaptic impulses and synthesised into a crude analog of what is really out there.
Yet we create the magic trick. We project this map outwards, and overlay it onto what is there. The fit of our projection and the actuality of what is 'out there' is immaterial. What is really important is that we project. This projection is what we believe is 'real', because we 'see' it.
Two people see the same scene. One sees mundane, every-day, the other sees opportunity, excitement, fulfillment. It's the same scene.
What if we could consciously take charge of what we're seeing? What if, in one daring, radical movement, we could take charge of the passive act of seeing, and daringly change it into one of active creation? The Act of Seeing would then become an Act of conscious Creation.
How do you know for sure that if you and someone else see the colour 'blue', agree that it is 'blue' and recognise other shades of 'blue', that you and they are internally perceiving the same colour? It's all agreed perception and we blindly believe everyone else's and our own perceptions of blue (or anything else) are the same.
"The Map is not the Territory". Wise words, which some may recognise. Yet we see the world only in terms of the map in our minds. The world comes to us, filtered through the lense of our eyes, interpreted by rods and cones, turned upside down and converted to synaptic impulses and synthesised into a crude analog of what is really out there.
Yet we create the magic trick. We project this map outwards, and overlay it onto what is there. The fit of our projection and the actuality of what is 'out there' is immaterial. What is really important is that we project. This projection is what we believe is 'real', because we 'see' it.
Two people see the same scene. One sees mundane, every-day, the other sees opportunity, excitement, fulfillment. It's the same scene.
What if we could consciously take charge of what we're seeing? What if, in one daring, radical movement, we could take charge of the passive act of seeing, and daringly change it into one of active creation? The Act of Seeing would then become an Act of conscious Creation.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Year of Positive Thinking
It's official! Positive Thinking doesn't work. Even Oprah says so. Don't believe it? Go Google the news.
Maybe it's a good thing, though. Apparently people cannot believe that merely "Thinking Positive" won't actually get them anywhere, and it makes them more despondent as a result of not achieving their "Positive Thought", than if they hadn't Thought Positive in the first place. If wishes were fishes....
The thought (pun intended) of getting up out of their easy-chair and actually doing something about it . . . well, it's just like, y'know, not very new-age, positive is it?
Yet, Napoleon Hill as an example, did have something.
If, in the course of your Everyday, you go about consciously holding the Intention of one thing or another, you invariably tend to spot opportunities that further your held Intention. Of course that takes a certain dedication of will and patience, and a willingness to pursue tantalising leads.
Someone once told me that working on an Intention is much like brooding an egg. Not that I wish to be a hen, but the analogy has some semblance of applicability. Keep your Intentions warm, organise your life around them, don't let the hawks and foxes spot them, and above all, have patience. Sooner or later SOME-thing will happen. Oh, and keep working on it patiently every day until you succeed.
Will it be magic? or Magick? The truth is, it won't really matter once your Intention is manifest. Most often, manifestation will come packaged with some sort of logical back-story to satisfy our own private stick-in-the-mud skeptic - which we all secretly harbour. I often wonder if we don't work harder to manifest a plausible back-story than we actually work to create the desired manifestation of our Intendings. Oh well, in the words of my teenage (and not-so) daughters - "Whatever"!
If the result is The Result, then who cares? Does it matter that it appeared in seemingly "normal" circumstances? Does it matter that it didn't miraculously manifest on the lawns at Parliament House? Does it really matter HOW it appears? Of course not. The same as we all don't wonder every morning at the 'how' of a sunrise, or a bird in flight, or an egg hatching... it just does.
But you can't write a headline-grabbing report on the manifestation of apparently normal, logical outcomes or events. That doesn't count now does it?
"Person buys house of their dreams after working hard and getting a series of promotions"
Yup - riveting. Best seller, I'm sure.
Positive Thinking is fun in an intellectual, quasi-Endorphinesque sort of way.
But not very productive it seems.
Right now I am Thinking Positively about . . . a nice cup of tea.
Still thinking ... thinking ... thinking. Oh bugger it! Where's that kettle?
Maybe it's a good thing, though. Apparently people cannot believe that merely "Thinking Positive" won't actually get them anywhere, and it makes them more despondent as a result of not achieving their "Positive Thought", than if they hadn't Thought Positive in the first place. If wishes were fishes....
The thought (pun intended) of getting up out of their easy-chair and actually doing something about it . . . well, it's just like, y'know, not very new-age, positive is it?
Yet, Napoleon Hill as an example, did have something.
If, in the course of your Everyday, you go about consciously holding the Intention of one thing or another, you invariably tend to spot opportunities that further your held Intention. Of course that takes a certain dedication of will and patience, and a willingness to pursue tantalising leads.
Someone once told me that working on an Intention is much like brooding an egg. Not that I wish to be a hen, but the analogy has some semblance of applicability. Keep your Intentions warm, organise your life around them, don't let the hawks and foxes spot them, and above all, have patience. Sooner or later SOME-thing will happen. Oh, and keep working on it patiently every day until you succeed.
Will it be magic? or Magick? The truth is, it won't really matter once your Intention is manifest. Most often, manifestation will come packaged with some sort of logical back-story to satisfy our own private stick-in-the-mud skeptic - which we all secretly harbour. I often wonder if we don't work harder to manifest a plausible back-story than we actually work to create the desired manifestation of our Intendings. Oh well, in the words of my teenage (and not-so) daughters - "Whatever"!
If the result is The Result, then who cares? Does it matter that it appeared in seemingly "normal" circumstances? Does it matter that it didn't miraculously manifest on the lawns at Parliament House? Does it really matter HOW it appears? Of course not. The same as we all don't wonder every morning at the 'how' of a sunrise, or a bird in flight, or an egg hatching... it just does.
But you can't write a headline-grabbing report on the manifestation of apparently normal, logical outcomes or events. That doesn't count now does it?
"Person buys house of their dreams after working hard and getting a series of promotions"
Yup - riveting. Best seller, I'm sure.
Positive Thinking is fun in an intellectual, quasi-Endorphinesque sort of way.
But not very productive it seems.
Right now I am Thinking Positively about . . . a nice cup of tea.
Still thinking ... thinking ... thinking. Oh bugger it! Where's that kettle?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Creation Horizon
Imagine the tree of life, drawn starting from a single horizontal line, moving from one side of the page as a line, then suddenly as an upward motion, branching up and out into fractal patterns, the trunk, the branches, the twigs, the leaves all formed from the same line, returning down the other side of the tree and finishing again into a straight, horizontal line.What would it be, if that horizontal line represented the horizon of creation? What if that single line could rise up and loop and whorl and swoop, fly and dive in unlimited imaginative ways?
Could it be that perhaps, below that line is the font of all that is above the line? Could it be that that which resides below the line, that horizon of creation, is like the hand that animates the glove, and the glove is nothing more than an imaginative continuation of the horizontal line?
If we lived in the world, seeing only that which is above the line of creation, we would believe that these constructs are the totality of our environment. Yet, some of us would be troubled by the seeming animation and intelligence hidden “somewhere inside” that set of constructs which surrounds us. Some may even see ourselves as constructs of that creative horizon and be troubled by the animation that seemingly moves us.
And without further information, we would all live in a semi-uneasy existence relying on the unknown nature of existence in order to exist.
Then along comes quantum physics. Specifically Quantum Entanglement theory, which kind of proves that if you wiggle a bit of our construct universe on one side, another bit, at a greater or shorter distance away will, seemingly all by itself, wiggle in unison.
“How odd”, we say to ourselves...
Our disquiet grows. What connects the two seemingly unconnected particles of Universe? What makes them move as one? What could it be that neither time nor distance seems to hold sway over this disquieting, repeatable experiment?
Could it be that, lurking below the horizon of creation, there lies a unified field? A field of unlimited creation, of unbelievable richness and detail, all past, present and future creations, dormant, waiting, ready to come exploding forth above the creation horizon at a bidding.
… but at whose bidding?
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Time is the illusion
Imagine a universe with no time. Imagine there is no travel between here to there. In such a universe we would truly be pervasive, as time is the factor that gives us distance and limits us to locality.
Without time, without distance, would we be "everywhere simultaneously"? Perhaps there would be no concept of "where" - perhaps there just "is"?
Would there be movement? Would there be vibration? Vibrations are measured in cycles per second... or whatever unit of time one feels is appropriate. Vibration is the measured expression of energy over time. Without time - would there be energy? Does time contain or constrain energy in some way, meting it out so that energy does not annihilate itself in one spent paroxysm?
And if that paroxysm occurred, would there be a beginning or an end? After all, these concepts are merely artifacts of systems involving time. Even our language finds it difficult to express things outside of time. How would you describe an endless outpouring of energy? Perhaps, "All that ever is, was and will be..."
What is the concept of one, when One is all there is? Without time, would there be a "two", or a "three"?
Time is what gives order and sequence and constraint to the Universe as we perceive it. Perhaps it is just a human institution designed to allow us to live in a Universe that is in fact a singularity. It may be that it is we who rearrange the Universe into sequential streams, only for the sake of our limited perspicuity and frail sanity.
Time makes for a safe, ordered, structured Universe - a place more pleasant for the human mind to wander. Is time in fact a function of the Universe, or is it a necessary artifact of our consciousness, employed to keep us safe in our primitive brains while we float and drift in the vast unknowablness of an enigmatic Universe?
Time.. time... time for a cup of tea, thinks me.
Without time, without distance, would we be "everywhere simultaneously"? Perhaps there would be no concept of "where" - perhaps there just "is"?
Would there be movement? Would there be vibration? Vibrations are measured in cycles per second... or whatever unit of time one feels is appropriate. Vibration is the measured expression of energy over time. Without time - would there be energy? Does time contain or constrain energy in some way, meting it out so that energy does not annihilate itself in one spent paroxysm?
And if that paroxysm occurred, would there be a beginning or an end? After all, these concepts are merely artifacts of systems involving time. Even our language finds it difficult to express things outside of time. How would you describe an endless outpouring of energy? Perhaps, "All that ever is, was and will be..."
What is the concept of one, when One is all there is? Without time, would there be a "two", or a "three"?
Time is what gives order and sequence and constraint to the Universe as we perceive it. Perhaps it is just a human institution designed to allow us to live in a Universe that is in fact a singularity. It may be that it is we who rearrange the Universe into sequential streams, only for the sake of our limited perspicuity and frail sanity.
Time makes for a safe, ordered, structured Universe - a place more pleasant for the human mind to wander. Is time in fact a function of the Universe, or is it a necessary artifact of our consciousness, employed to keep us safe in our primitive brains while we float and drift in the vast unknowablness of an enigmatic Universe?
Time.. time... time for a cup of tea, thinks me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
