Fundamental Thinking; Reality as a Design

While I take a break from my logo that is apparently due next wednesday not a week from next wednesday (ugh) I'm going to write some reflections based on my thoughts about the whole 2012 fiasco.

I'm not going to go into 'conspiracy theory' all too much but I am going to interpret this significant date according to what I have studied based on design theory and philosophy. Yes.

Its going to be so simple it'll blow your mind away...

All of these thoughts have been cooped up in my head since the release of the 2009 movie, 2012 (which I never saw). In my opinion all these theoretical physicists that talk about 2012 are only getting half of it right and most of it is just BS.

And so we begin ---

In my mind, this reality is a design. And to understand design we must define it. The definition of Design means to intensify an already existing message. If reality is a design, reality must have a message. Design, all types of design, contain a set group of principles that can be applied to -all- design disciplines. Principles such as; unity, contrast, balance, movement, proportion, emphasis, and finally space. But how can the designer apply these principles to Nature (the physical and spiritual)? Very Simply.

The designer must understand the timeless commandment, "And so above and so below and so below, as above." When this is completely accepted and understood it can be transformative. In order to understand the Universe, which I define as One Song (Uni = one, verse = song), we need to understand what it means to be ONE; to be unified, to be unified does not mean to be civilized. In order to be one, we must be divided, and in order to be divided we must be one.

"But that's contradictory," you say.

Exactly. The second principle of the universe (or design) is contrast, otherwise known as dualism. Like I said earlier; in order to be one, we must be divided, and in order to be divided we must be one. 1 cannot exist without 2 since 2 contains opposing (but sometimes attracting) polarities. These opposing polarities when attracted to each other they become a part of the whole. For example, in a work of art, there is often positive space and negative space that make up the whole composition and make it unified.

After reading about how there are only two emotions in existence: fear and love and reading about how energy is consistent and essentially all energy is the same, I had conjured up this equation:

[A+ B-] / [b- a+]

Where [A+ B-] refers to everything in the macro universe and [b- a+] refers to everything in the micro universe. The midsection indicated as ‘ / ’ is where everything commingles.  This equation can be applied to pretty much everything and thus got its name, “The Equation of Life”.

  

[A+ B-] / [b- a+]

can also be written as:

space-time [A+] time-space [B-] / time-space [b-] space-time [a+]

Dark [A+] Light [B-] / light [b-] dark [a+]

Space-time has these characteristics: positive, balls (particles), illusions, dark physicality

Time-space has these characteristics: negative, waves, light and consciousness (infinity).

The dark side [space-time] is visible, charming and appealing, just showing the beauty of the visible universe, only 4% of the universal mass.

The light side [time-space] is harmony. It conducts the nuclear dance of both visible and invisible universes; it is the only force that links them all. It is provoking an invisible alchemy.

So physical reality, the explosive world, would be characterized as [A+ B-]

The spiritual reality, the implosive world, would be characterized as [b- a+]

So let's consider this equation, that was written to help us visualize this world, and apply it to the end of the world scenario. 

First, before we continue, lets discuss movement as that is the next principle of design. The artistic definition of movement is; the arrangement of parts that draws the eye through the composition.

However, to better understand movement as a design principle lets put an addendum; Movement or motion creates the illusion of time and therefore change. The Law of Motion changes not, but all things change in motion. For motion is the force that holds events separate, each in its own proper place.

To put it simply; if we stop time... we end motion, which creates the illusion of time and thus we will propel ourselves into infinity and beyond...

British philosopher, Aleister Crowley stated clearly,  “Man will no longer worship God as an external factor, as in Paganism, or as an internal state of consciousness, as in Christianity, but will realize his identity with God.” Thusly, the end of the world scenario is the end of the dualistic approach to life. The end of the human frontier... because once we become ONE with 'God' we will be unified.

You exist, but at the same time you do not.
You're awake, but at the same time you are not.
God is man. While at the same time Man is God.

So what's the end of duality? The beginning of infinity, of unity, or a complete composition. Instead of a reality containing of harmonic proportions created by duality we will have a monochord, one vibration that will vibrate within all of us.

(to be continued)

Its been awhile since I last thought about this blog post, but almost a year later I had a similar conversation with a -- er colleague -- of mine who studies light, sound and form as well. While procrastinating packing my dorm room up, I ran across an alternative science database that I haven't found before and this article. The article focused on the age-old idea that the earth is flat. I have had written ideas before suggesting that the earth/universe could indeed be flat: Holographic Reality and the World is Flat and the Universe is Flat. Apparently there are a few people out there that still believe that the world is flat.

We got into an interesting discussion about the possibility of the Earth being flat and how it could possibly function as a flat surface.

I posted this link onto my colleague's facebook wall and the conversation began like this:

She commented jokingly, "All photographs of Earth from space are taken with FISH EYE LENSES to TRICK US!!!" 

In all seriousness, I then asked, "No, seriously have you thought about it though?"

She responded, "About a flat Earth? Not with my understanding of physics, which may or may not be faulty. But the Sun is visibly spherical, the moon is spherical, and the planets I've seen through a telescope also have the same light shading as a sphere rather than a disc. I wouldn't consider the Earth to be a special case.

Expanding Earth, that I've considered. "

"But isn't there always a dual option though in this world? What's the opposite of spherical? Flat. If everything is an illusion in this manifest world, things that would appear flat, would be spherical and vice versa, theoretically," I insisted.

She then replied, "I don't really believe the world operates on duality as much as a refracted spectrum of plurality. We could divide numbers as even or odds, but we could also differentiate by multiples of three or fives. I feel it has much more to do with perspective than duality. All illusions are equally false."

And then added, "Can we count a Mobius strip as being flat?"

"It looks like its technically a spiral, so yes," I answered.

Continuing, she said, "I don't know if there's physical evidence to support this, but I still think of the universe as expanding from a central point and collapsing back into itself when its expansion is no longer enough to overcome its gravity."

"Yes. I've seen that in Tibetan art," I said confidently. 

Then I asked, "what if our eyes are natural fish eye lenses?"

She answered, "That's still assuming physical matter is actual rather than perceptual. But we could also be light, shining onto inert information and perceiving it as experience..."

I then asked, "Light shining upon light equals what?"   

"Experience," she said simply.

Then she added, "We could equate light with attention, as we equate darkness with the unseen. There has to be an interaction of some sort for there to be anything to experience."   

"A world between worlds," I said.

 Then she asked, "If we perceive no opposition, interference, interaction, can we perceive otherness or plurality?"

"Are we built to do that? I don't think so, if we could, there would be no division," I responded.

"Light absorption," I then added.

 "That would be the point where illusion refracts as a distortion of reality. We can take a flat sheet of paper and pinch it somewhere, perceiving it as something other than paper, just because it has an apparent shape other than that which surrounds it. It's still the same thing though," she responded.

"Exactly," I said.

Then I added, "If we are beings of light, entering a world of light -- a different kind of light -- we would distort that reality because the present reality of who we are is already light ... the distorted reality is the reality we perceive to be real, as in the world we exist in now."

Continuing, she said, "Holographic apparitions rather than solid, actually separate entities. Perhaps this is why dimensions intersect each other at 90 degree angles. It's just us coming back on ourselves in new ways to experience multiplicity.

So particles are twists of space-time... "  

"Intersections of light. And! If absolute zero is no vibratory motion of any particle, it's because there is no interaction. It would be uninterrupted flatness," she added.

 "Ah ha! Flat," I exclaimed.

  

Then she asked, "We can extend on forever uninterrupted, but projecting requires an other to bounce off of. 0D as a source?" She laughed.

Laughing with her, I responded, "0D would be light though, it has to be."

Thinking out loud, I said, "but things can't bounce off if there is no density to it..."

"It's pretty awesome that we had the same thought train about interrupted light and projections," she said.

Then she asked, "But what -is- light? Consciousness? Beingness? That Which Is or the attention thereof? We seemingly innately equate it with positivity. So that which we see is light and that which we refuse to attend to is dark? I feel like the metaphor works in a literal way, I'm just not sure how."

"Oh shiny!!" I exclaimed.

"Actually, I think "oh shiny" may be the answer to your question," I added.

Pondering, she asked, "How does the light in a holograph work? Bounced off of a reflection?"

"What happens when physical light reflects off a metallic surface? It catches our attention, because  we somehow can relate to it, for whatever reason," I said.

Continuing, she said, "That is precisely why, as I've gotten older, I've become more interested in sparkly sorts of things. Every living thing flourishes with light, and many animals instinctively collect shinies."

Finishing the conversation, I said, "By the way... spirals as expressions of light intersecting with each other? perhaps why they appear -everywhere- in nature?"