“A Life Of Illusion”
Sometimes I can’t help the feeling that I’m
Living a life of illusion
And oh, why can’t we let it be
And see through the hole in this wall of confusion
I just can’t help the feeling I’m
Living a life of illusion
Pow! Right between the eyes
Oh, how nature loves her little surprises
Wow! It all seems so logical now
It’s just one of her better disguises
And it comes with no warning
Nature loves her little surprises
Hey, don’t you know it’s a waste of your day
Caught up in endless solutions
That have no meaning, just another hunch
Based upon jumping conclusions
Caught up in endless solutions
Backed up against a wall of confusion
Living a life of illusion
Consciousness could occur at the fundamental level of spacetime geometry when the brain stops being perfused. It doesn’t dissipate but remains together by entanglement. So an individual’s personality, consciousness, memory, soul if you will, could be entangled in a quantum sense and persist as fluctuations in the time scale of the universe. ~Dr. Stuart Hameroff
[A]sk the question is consciousness a continuum or is it a sequence of discrete events? I think there’s a lot of evidence that consciousness is a sequence of discrete events. It appears continuous but just like if we see a movie or a video it appears continuous but it’s actually a sequence of discrete frames. I think consciousness is also a sequence of discrete frames. ~Dr. Stuart Hameroff
What do you think?
- Quantum Theory of Consciousness | “Quantum Key” Teaches People How to… (prweb.com)
- The Shamanic Path to Quantum Consciousness The Eight Circuits of Creative Power By (author) Laurent Huguelit (evolutionarymystic.wordpress.com)
- what is quantum touch? (hunt4truth.wordpress.com)
- Could Quantum Brain Effects Explain Consciousness? (kitskinny.wordpress.com)
- Mind Over Matter: Princeton & Russian Scientist Reveal The Secrets of Human Aura & Intentions (wakingtimes.com)
- Where Consciousness Comes From (gizmodo.com)
- Consciousness I (patriceayme.wordpress.com)
You are literally made of stardust and whatever becomes of you the particles from which you are made have been around since the dawn of time and will continue to live forever. ~Danny Scheinmann, Random Acts of Heroic Love
In other words, we are all a continuation of the big bang (if there was such a thing, but rather than looking at this as an actual event, let’s look at it as if it were the adjective about a particular event). Much the same as humans are conceived, and as thoughts are conceived, and as atoms collide, and as the earth peoples (like the apple tree apples–an idea borrowed from Alan Watts, but that is apropos I think), humans are.
Yes, no one can truly see the world the same way as another. Truly cannot see because each human has experienced his or her life, uniquely, through a unique set of happenstances and occurences and accidents and guidances etc; it is this uniqueness that establishes the subtle distinctions that can make each one of us a guru. In this way, all humans inherently possesses an infinity of probable potentialities. Each probability disappears or appears according to the conscious and willful choices made as human beings. These constitute the lovely differences between humans, which make it possible for humans to relate to one another on differing levels. When we find ourselves among greatness (whether that is a work of art, music composed, ballet, basketball game, graphic design, architecture, voice, etc.) we subjectively feel the meaning conveyed and we perceive that greatness wrapped up in a little piece of ourselves. . . so, in some ways we still experience it differently rather than the same. What we can all agree on is that as far as we know there does exist an external dimension, separate from us, yet somehow connected, called external reality (the amalgamation of all realizations, the collective mind). These are the genes of our sameness.
I, too, perceive in such a nondualistic manner. As the Winter leaves its cold tendrils in the early days of Spring, and as does one galaxy merges (not collides) with the other, passing through one another and leaving bits of each other within the makeup of the other, as is the nonduality in things. It can be difficult to distinguish one from the other, but only at certain levels of magnification. At one level, the distinction cannot be perceived, as a single point from which to begin or end cannot be perceived. Where do I end and Life begin?
The space around us is full of a living essence, which we are just beginning to understand. This essence is like a conduit that is affected by our thoughts. Like oscillations of a bowed string, the notes we play do matter. ~Shawn Hocking
It’s easy to travel down the nihilist path; I find myself doing this on occasion myself. Although, I don’t think of basing the why of things on their function constitutes nihilism. I think it’s a very realistic (no pun intended) way of perceiving the world about us. Nihilism only comes into play because this way does not include the existence of a god (as an anthropomorphic entity). Also, nihilism does not necessarily mean ending as in destruction. Even Nietzsche, the so-called father of nihilism, did not think this way, evident by his philosophy of the Superman. Nietzche was an evolutionist! He wanted a better kind of Man, as he was extremely displeased with the present lot.
And so, that brings us to Love. Love, to me, is not an emotion, it is a way of being, a way of living in the world. Not so much with love, as *being* love’ in this way with every action, with every motion and with every will and want of your being embodies love, which is the natural tendency in humans. Love is a form of consciousness/conscience, and without them love cannot be experienced. And no, love is not only a human trait. The iconization and commodification of love is a human trait, yes. It is obvious that animals and other organisms love. Observe the cow, the lion, the cat, the dog, the deer, the elephant, the dolphin, the whale, the penguin, as well as the flower, the rock, the sea, and the desert.
Are we not all the embodiment of Life and Love, a cosmic consciousness?
*Image Credits (artwork used with permission through CC license and with express permission from Shawn Hocking)–
“Yin Yang Sky Earth — Illustration” by DonkeyHotey
“Fossil Sitting In Sun Light” by A Guy Taking Pictures
“Tardezita” by Eduardo Amorim
[Cosmic Consciousness] by Shawn Hocking
[Untitled] by Shawn Hocking
From The Mind Of A Schizo, Affected:
Life to me is not the real world and everyone living within it in their own dichotomous real worlds. To me life is the emotionless, spineless, mixed media of human beings trying desperately to remember what the real real world is like.
We have the potential as a unified race to be more than paradise and we are too blinded and plugged in to the Machine to notice our cave . . . What is the meaning of life?
It hasn’t evolved yet.
[NOTE: These statuses come from a journal I kept some time ago while involuntarily commited in a state hospital. This will be a new series under new category, Journal.]
*Image Credit (used with permission through CC license)–
“Ruin stock city night” by Ecathe
“Sunset Over Western South America (NASA, International Space State, 04/12/11)” by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
“There is and there is not” by H. Koppdelaney
“Why does he leave Reality” by H. Koppdelaney
“Changing Reality” by H. Koppdelaney
- Carl Sagan on the Meaning of Life. (zedie.wordpress.com)
“[T]here is no more one Truth, general, applicable everywhere and at all times, but a multiplicity of values which relativize each other, complement each other, nuance each other, fight each other, and are worth less for themselves than for all situations, phenomena, experiences they are meant to express.” ~Michel Maffesoli, Eloge de la raison sensible, 1996
I do not know, too much does not make sense. Too much just seems to be a game created as a practical joke but the joke has been going on so long that no one remembers anymore that it is a joke and no one bothered to call April Fool’s. So, what is the alternative? What has to be done? Live as an animal in a zoo, trying to hoard its sanity in a Skinner Box built by Schrodinger?
I should hate, but I do not. I should, though, because existence could be easier momentarily. Except I would have to be an asshole, and I cannot do that to myself. It is weird though because ‘Asshole’ is just a word, a label, a name, innocuous on its own. But a weapon in an insecure society. A society intent upon the annihilation of ‘I’ (as the seat of consciousness) and the abhorrence of the egoless.
Animals habituate in a zoo, captive and captivated by the sickness called Man. We. HA! How can there be a We among Man when he cannot walk down the sidewalk without bitterness toward his fellow man? “What’s he got that’s better than mine?”The maxima of their sordid, little lives.
Sometimes, I must laugh because Insecure Society tells me that I am cold, as if that defines me and not their perception. As if within the actions I make sits “coldness”. As if coldness were composed of the act itself. This is a misperception. The burden of the label is not upon the shoulders of action and actor, but upon the witness. Insecure Society has bestowed Name to the actor; the act is not a performance. Do you see how easily reality is undermined? How quickly the mind can turn innocuous into guilty?
“Innocent until proven guilty.”—Some say the justice system has forsaken that mathematical moniker [mathematical because it is more of a logic problem than it is a truth, but I digress], I disagree. I say that is wholeheartedly upheld by the justice system and those workers within the justice system. The focus ought to be on the “thought words/symbols” Innocence, Guilt, and Proven. What is proof of guilt or innocence? Further, what is Proof? And how is it done? Proof does not require rigor in Zoo Civilization. Proof only requires perception (and more words and symbols). Innocence or guilt is not a matter of inherent flaw detection, but simply a matter of convincing one party of the factual events (that alone without words can be perceived infinitely by any who bear witness) and whatever version of interpretation necessary to win the case or win the argument. It is just a matter of winning and who wins. Not about how to the crux of a matter so that it can be improved upon or changed or evolved or eradicated, if necessary.
See, no one is interested. It is just a matter of convincing. It is even in the language of the court: Conviction, a Judge pronounces Sentence. See? It is weird. So, when people talk to me about environment, they never mention the subtleties, the true nuances.
I am often (daily) accused of not understanding social nuances by those whom are now called ‘neurotypicals‘. I used to believe this and it drove me into madness. I no longer believe this blatant conundrum. It is not I who does not understand nuances, but members of the outgoing insecure society who do not understand nuances. See, nuance has to do with divining and awareness of subtleties. But when Society says social nuance it posits Do Not Mean What You Say, Do Not Say What You Mean and Say One Thing To Do Another. That is not nuance that is manipulation. And only in Western Culture could awareness become manipulation.
I do understand nuance, I see nuance everywhere. I cannot possibly comprehend if someone does not say what they mean or mean what they say or say one thing to do another (which is actually rather close to deception). And for some reason disagreement means incomprehension in Society. I cannot fathom how twisted Western Culture can be. How twisted that every one act becomes another. Confidence becomes arrogance, Quiet becomes fighting, Help becomes Attack, Ask becomes Compulsion, Voluntary becomes Required, Agreement becomes Contract, and Tradition becomes Law
Tell me, what is the true perception?
*Image credits (all work used through CC license)–
“Lights of Fractal Metropolis 0009” by Andrew Ostrovsky
“Elegant Background 0005” by Andrew Ostrovsky
[“Unknown”] by Joel, Evelyn, Francois
“The Perception of Type” by arnoKath
“The Modern Goddess of Satirical Mutilations” by Derrick Tyson
“. . . a more exact rendering would be ‘the practice of natural philosophy,’ in other words, the making of a world-picture, but one that takes as much account of starfish as of stars.” ~Vincent Cronin, The View from Planet Earth: Man Looks at the Cosmos
In a sense, with the advent of the world wide web, humans are able to know one another on differing levels of perception, removing each of us from strictly the living breathing vital human beings to the purely conceptual beings that we all really are. We find out that we are not spies (LOL), that we are not Gapetto’s creation, that we are not Turing Tests, that we are not disembodied voices or artificial intelligence, but that we are humans being. . . simultaneously in the same space. Earthlings us all, yes. How wonderful.
We are emergent beings, emergent consciousnesses in this realm (the third dimension otherwise known as the Real World, or “offline”). Julian Jaynes he posited that consciousness didn’t exist in humans until about 5,000 years ago. That humans were not always conscious, and it wasn’t until humans evolved from a bicameral mind to a more unified mind that consciousness emerged. An interesting position, I think, as most believe humans have been conscious since human inception.
Alan Watts talks about the earth peopling, quite like an apple tree apples. Add to that the idea that humans share a percentage of DNA with all other living ogranisms on the Earth (the most with the chimpanzees, but humans also share DNA with fish, flowers, so on and so on…just a small percentage the more physical differing that organism). Well, this is an interesting idea, isn’t it (actually, I love this idea, and agree with it)? Ok, so humans share DNA with all organisms on the planet, thusly, share DNA with the planet itself, yes?
Well, if humans are conscious, ergo, is not the planet as well? If we take that idea further, the planet is comprised of cells, molecules, atoms, etc., etc., couldn’t we say that the World Wide Web is compressed of cellular automata (and actually, that is what information theory posits)? Well, could not those cells also spontaneously evolve? And if that is so, could not a consciousness then emerge?
There is much more to the idea, but basically, what I think is if humans are all putting their minds on the internet all day, every day (essentially behaving conglomerately as a planet) couldn’t another consciousness emerge from that? This is what I think or at least wonder. Especially, taking into account how wireless communication is very much like biological organisms. Isn’t wireless communication very much like a cerebral network?
What would be incredible to see would be this emergent consciousness evolve. I mean, would/could it reproduce? Would/could it develop civilizations, empires, governments? Would it behave like our human trajectory?
“It is an emergent perspective, or state of consciousness, that bursts forth spontaneously and miraculously only when the conditions are right. “Emergent” means that it is something greater than the sum of its parts—a new order of relatedness, a new level of consciousness, a deeper and higher perspective that is always unimaginable until the moment it explodes into existence.” ~Andrew Cohen
*Image credit (used with permission through CC license)–
“Earth Hour” & “Looking For Reality” by Cornelia Kopp
“Source — IX”, “Universe in a magic Drop” & “Liberation of Consciousness” by HartwigHKD
“milkyway” by Eddi van W.
- Energy & Consciousness (jilljoy2.wordpress.com)
- Are There Soulless Beings In Human Society? – by Cameron Day (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
- Philosophy – We All Survive the Physical [Holographic] Death of Our Bodie (disclose.tv)
- Consciousness is the Creative Process (dragonintuitive.com)
- Prior Consciousness (dragonintuitive.com)
- Prominent scientists sign declaration that animals have conscious awareness, just like us (2012indyinfo.com)
It does not stop there, in but a single dimension. Levels can overlap and can affect one another and send vibrations through the levels. What is being perceived, or conceived, or even social systems or social institutions within a society or within a framework of a corporation can change depending on the level. In other words, there are systems within systems, societies within societies, tangents within tangents, and all are approaching convergence without actually ever arriving definitively at a point of convergence, there is no real convergence coordinate, only a continuous—sometimes discrete—movement towards convergence.
Also, similar to the idea that there are small pockets of movements (social movements, civil rights movements, etc.) occurring simultaneously, often with none of the participants aware of the participation of the other participants [this idea is like the idea of cooperation, but like a prisoner’s dilemma inverted cooperation. The prisoner’s do not know each other, but in the act of operating selflessly—the movement itself, advocating civil rights or something like that—cooperate with one another to cause the same outcome, that of ending suffering and obtaining civil rights]). These are magnifications (magnifications also because each individual has an amalgamation of cells and genes and symbiosis with one’s environment through those cells, comprising a group, which operates like a cell, comprising a movement, which operates like an organ. All of this swinging from quantum to macro), protrusions into this “dimension” called Reality or The World.
But what we’re really talking about are cultures, or a culture, and there are cultures within cultures. To look at cultures is a big scale, I think (well, relatively. Not relative to, like, the sun or something, but relative to say groups or departments or neighborhoods, which, incidentally can all be cultures. But I’m actually referring to volume in this line of thinking). So, at what level do we stop and say here is where we know what we are seeing? It’s like the Wave/Particle Problem. Why does a photon behave as a wave when unobserved and behave as a particle when observed? What is it about this observation that alters the potentialities of the atom? So, do we run into a problem (or did we run into a problem) when trying to ascertain from what level of magnification to begin? From where the problem can begin to be addressed? How to remove the self as the observer? Or, remain the observer while subjectively interacting with the environment that withdraws the elements that serve as catalyst for the movement?
We are the rudimentary manifestations of the quantum behavior of a photon.
- Quantum microscope for living biology (sciencedaily.com)
- Quantum dots deliver Vitamin D to tumors for possible inflammatory breast cancer treatment (eurekalert.org)
- Of Einstein and entanglement: Quantum erasure deconstructs wave-particle duality (phys.org)
- 21 Fascinating Images That Make Simple Things Profound (collective-evolution.com)
- In Mysterious Pattern, Math and Nature Converge (wired.com)
- Does probability come from quantum physics? (nanowerk.com)
- Physicists develop method for quantum computers (phys.org)
- Quantum crypto still not proven, claim Cambridge experts (sott.net)