Middle Pane

absurdism, philosophy, science, music



One in Many; Many in One

Self – One in many; Many in one

The self is steadfast and constant.  It is an un-moving, non-judging observer.  To do otherwise is to form identification giving rise to something separate.  Rising from the self is the mind.  The mind provides commentary and observation on the outside world or reality.  The mind, through perception and interpretation, gives rise to the body.  The body is the thing that forms a physical barrier between us and the outside world.  This is where we start to actually perceive ourselves as separate which gives rise to others and everything else.

Here is the thing.  That mind-body perception is just one of many.  If this mind-body arises from the self, then everyone that I am perceiving is arising from the self.  The self emanates out from underneath this mind-body, but it also spreads out from everyone and everything that this mind-body perceives.  So this mind-body is one in many forming many in one.  I am a projector and a receptor of the self.

Mind-Body Perception

The mind perceives the outside world through senses. It is only aware of reality through an interpretation of the sense. The ears feed in sound waves that are then interpreted into something that is meaningful or identifiable. The body is also perceived through senses. What we interpret as the body is not reality, it is only perception of reality. So really, I am not the body, just as I am not the outside world.

Thoughts also seem to come that way. The original, real thing, followed by echos and perceptions. The mind echos the true event or reality. Those echos mix together and form a sense of identification. I am not really the echo, I am the source. I am not the body. I am not even the mind.

But perhaps an echo is still part of what I am. I am the observer and the observed. To say that I am not something denies me saying that I am everything. I can’t be everything minus something. That doesn’t make sense. I am and I am not the body. I am and I am not the mind. Semantics. I guess it is more freeing to lose the identification than claim it, even though it is a infinitesimally small part of our composition.

Fractals and Imagining Higher Dimensions

If we are a simulation, then we must be a recursive function, a fractal.  With each iteration, the fractal animates.  The iterations extend forward and backwards through infinity.  A given iteration in the fractal represents a specific point in time, the collapsed state of everything.  Every unique particle existing in a specified state to form matter, light, reality.  Each step represents a quantum frame of information, and the movement of the steps flips through the frames and animates reality.

In mathematicsiterated function systems or IFSs are a method of constructing fractals; the resulting constructions are always self-similar.

IFS fractals, as they are normally called, can be of any number of dimensions, but are commonly computed and drawn in 2D. The fractal is made up of the union of several copies of itself, each copy being transformed by a function (hence “function system”). The canonical example is the Sierpinski gasket also called the Sierpinski triangle. The functions are normally contractive which means they bring points closer together and make shapes smaller. Hence the shape of an IFS fractal is made up of several possibly-overlapping smaller copies of itself, each of which is also made up of copies of itself, ad infinitum. This is the source of its self-similar fractal nature.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continue reading “Fractals and Imagining Higher Dimensions”

We’re Already Dead (But That’s Okay)

A harmonic oscillator in classical mechanics (...When you compare yourself to others, you are automatically creating a separate self.  How can you be better or worse than anyone else if everyone else is a projection of your mind?  A collapse of the wave function causes all potentialities to go to a specific state.  Does the observer collapse the wave?  Or does it spontaneously decay into a specific state?  If it is spontaneous, then that implies that the observer is not in control.  The observer is merely the observer.  Or is it when the observer performs judgment or identification with the observed that the wave collapses?

The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.–one-of-the-m.html

The thought that whatever you think happens when you die is what happens is an intriguing one.  And if what I think happens is that when I die I go back and live all other parallel universes then that is what happens.  That is what is happening.  A series of higher dimensional deaths rising through all dimensions.  At all times remember that you are simultaneously on all layers in all possibilities.  All all times remember that you exist and do not exist simultaneously in all layers in all possibilities.  Or maybe it is best to just forget it all.

And what is considered death?  The death of attachment?  We continue on to the next thought based on perceived past and current situation.  We cling to that next thread in the story.  Certain events, like sleeping, meditation and death allow for a larger break in thought and a larger release from clinging.  This is the time of no-thought.  As the Wanderling points out below, no-thought is not absence of thought.  There is always thought.  No thought is the absence of thought within thought.  Since there are always thoughts, then any thoughts that I think that I am having are not the true thought itself, but thoughts within a thought.  Or if you like, thoughts about thought itself.

Those larger consciousness shattering events allow us a larger break with continued ego identification.  in the break and silence we spin through the higher dimensions rotating and landing in a different spot on the return.  The less we try to control ourselves in that spin the better.  As the Platform Sutra points out, once there is an identification, we are ego clinging to that line of thought and we cannot get out until the next break.  It is really even further, we cannot pull ourselves out until the next awareness of the break.  The good news is that we don’t have to wait until death or even sleep for a break.

The moment you realize you are not present, you **ARE** present. Whenever you are able to observe your mind, you are no longer trapped in it. Another factor has come in, something that is not of the mind: the witnessing presence.

Eckhart Tolle – The Power of Now

There does seem to be a pull to a specific line of thinking.  A line of thinking that makes this world and existence possible.  It is hard to deny that the reality that we are currently experiencing is one that has been identified as being important or useful for growth.  Otherwise we would just float around without any attachment.  I think that this is where the ego does come in handy and it helps provide a linkage between conscious and unconcious thought.

The Wanderling’s thoughts on Kensho and the “attainment” of no-thought:

The locus classicus for the concept of no-thought is the Platform Sutra, and in regards to no-thought says in so many words:

“No-thought” means “no-thought within thought.” Non-abiding is man’s original nature. Thoughts do not stop from moment to moment. The prior thought is succeeded in each moment by the subsequent thought, and thoughts continue one after another without cease. If, for one thought-moment, there is a break, the dharma-body separates from the physical body, and in the midst of successive thoughts there will be no attachment to any kind of matter. If, for one thought-moment, there is abiding, then there will be abiding in all successive thoughts, and this is called clinging. If, in regard to all matters there is no abiding from thought-moment to thought-moment, then there is no clinging. Non-abiding is the basis.

As we can see, after the break in thought, successive thoughts continue to flow, but one no longer abides in, or clings to, these thoughts. Nowhere is there mention of any kind of disappearance of, or absence of thought. “No-thought” refers to nothing other than an absence of abiding, or clinging. Other seminal Ch’an texts, such as the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, characterize no-thought in precisely the same manner.

Be here now, no other place to be
All the doubts that linger, just set them free
And let good things happen
And let the future come into each moment
Like a rising sun

Mason Jennings – Be Here Now

Continue reading “We’re Already Dead (But That’s Okay)”

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: