The Secret of Everything

Copyright 2015 A. O. Neuron All Rights Reserved Also available for Amazon Kindle

version 0003.77 2

Table of Contents Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................5 Part 1: The Way to Understand Everything......................................................................................................9 What is Reality, Really?..................................................................................................................................11 An Example of the Universal Model............................................................................................................13 Perspective is All We Can Know...................................................................................................................15 Discovering the Illusion..................................................................................................................................18 What are Relationships?.................................................................................................................................20 Everything is a SPIR.........................................................................................................................................21 Anatomy of a SPIR...........................................................................................................................................24 The Meaning of Using a SPIR.......................................................................................................................27 The Geometry of Perspective Scale.............................................................................................................27 The Importance of Representation..............................................................................................................28 The Purpose of Perspective............................................................................................................................31 Part 2: The Reality Around You, The Reality Through You..........................................................................34 We Draw Illusions, and are Drawn to Them.............................................................................................36 Searching Chaos for Paterns........................................................................................................................39 The Vastness of You..........................................................................................................................................40 What is Thinking?............................................................................................................................................41 Everything Is Relative to Your Perspective................................................................................................42 Drifing In and Out of Relevance.................................................................................................................45 The Power of the Logical Narrative.............................................................................................................47 Evolving Our Story...........................................................................................................................................48 The Meaningful Now.......................................................................................................................................51 The Living World Around You.......................................................................................................................53 Part 3: The Qest....................................................................................................................................................56 What is Happiness?.........................................................................................................................................57 How to Be Happy.............................................................................................................................................58 The Art of Resonant Relationships..............................................................................................................59 Becoming Comfortable with Your Self........................................................................................................61 Avoiding Things You Don't Want to Experience.......................................................................................64 The Art of Resistance.......................................................................................................................................65 Resistance is Futile...........................................................................................................................................67 The Goodness of Inequality...........................................................................................................................68 Right and Wrong, and Karma........................................................................................................................69 Does Evil Exist?.................................................................................................................................................71 The Joy of Human SPIRs................................................................................................................................72 The Role of Technology...................................................................................................................................75 What About Science?......................................................................................................................................76 Part 4: In Pursuit of the Universe......................................................................................................................78 Is the Universe Infinite?..................................................................................................................................81 The Potentials....................................................................................................................................................82 What is Energy?................................................................................................................................................84 Spacetime...........................................................................................................................................................85 Time is Another Mater...................................................................................................................................86 Time and Physicality.......................................................................................................................................86 Mater..................................................................................................................................................................88 The Nature of Gravity.....................................................................................................................................89 The Laws of the Universe...............................................................................................................................90 The Only Law in Town....................................................................................................................................91 States of Harmony, States of Mater...........................................................................................................92

3

The Meaning of Phi & Pi................................................................................................................................93 Phi is Everywhere in Physical Reality.........................................................................................................93 SPIR Systems.....................................................................................................................................................94 Illustrating a SPIR with Simple Math.........................................................................................................95 The Secret of the Universe.............................................................................................................................97 The Expansive Now-here................................................................................................................................99 The Color Scale...............................................................................................................................................100 Relationships Meet Resistance...................................................................................................................101 The Genius and Schroedinger's Cat..........................................................................................................102 Size Doesn't Mater........................................................................................................................................103 Observing the Instrument............................................................................................................................103 Searching the Past for Answers..................................................................................................................104 The Theory of Nothing..................................................................................................................................105 Part 5: Consciousness, Dreams, the Perfect Reality, and You..................................................................106 The Consistency of Conscious Being........................................................................................................108 The Present is a Gif That You Never Got (but Hints at a Relationship That You Did)...............109 Relationships and You...................................................................................................................................110 The Naturally Artificial Human..................................................................................................................113 Living the Dream............................................................................................................................................115 The Physical Dreamworld............................................................................................................................116 Dream Interpretation of the Physical World..........................................................................................118 Everything is Harmonious...........................................................................................................................119

4

Introduction We will begin to uncover the mysteries of our reality by looking at things from a new perspective; one that keeps the subconscious self in mind. The subconscious mind understands reality far, far beter than the conscious mind ever could, and we can learn a great many things about our own lives from it. By using the same method that both our conscious and subconscious selves use to perceive – presented in the first chapter of this book – we can discover the answers to questions like:            

What is the meaning of life? What is the universe, and how did it begin? How can I be more happy? What are space and time? Do good and evil exist? What does it mean to be good, exactly? What is the purpose of my family and friends? What are dreams? What are mater and energy? What is antimater? Where does my reality come from? How can life be beter and more interesting? What is gravity and how does it work? What is consciousness?

We are able to answer these questions and much, much more using a relatively simple system that can be applied to anything and everything. The reason it can be universally applied is because this system – a simple formula – gives birth to perspective, the foundation for your every experience and reality. As a civilization, we now understand that approximately 96% of the universe is a complete mystery to us. Scientists also know that we are unable to perceive more than 99% of the electromagnetic spectrum. Less than 1% of your body's DNA is human and only about 10% of your body's cells are of human origin. Further, 1/3 of your entire life is a mystery, as we don't yet know what dreams are. And afer thousands of years of conscious introspection we still don't know what consciousness is. Intelligence and emotions are also mysteries, as are time and gravity. We understand a bit more about the brain inside our head, but know litle about the brains found in our gut and spinal cord. It would be reasonable to say that, despite all of the advancements we seem to have made we do not actually have much of an understanding about the reality we find ourselves in. A rational and encompassing explanation may even be beyond the reach of science. It follows that any previously unknown yet valid explanation of reality will appear to be completely ridiculous and counter-intuitive from our current perspective. Everything in this book will be just that. But we will also uncover the mysteries of our reality using a new kind of logic. This book will clearly demonstrate that what we perceive as reality is actually our interpretation of relationships between things that cannot themselves actually be perceived. By focusing on the relationships between things rather than trying to figure out the things themselves, reality is relatively easy to understand. Further, we will demonstrate how creating reality as we wish can be as simple as re-interpreting special relationships that are already there. 5

If we know that we understand only 4% of the universe, can we really assume that we know the extent of what we don't understand? Could it be possible that we don't understand much at all because our basic assumptions about reality are of the mark? If, for example, we had a test with 10 problems of increasing dificulty, we are not 50% done if we are on question number 5. We first need to know all of the answers before we can say how complete our test is. We cannot say that we understand the answer to even the most basic questions simply because the solutions to problem numbers 9 and 10 may require a complete rethink of the fundamental assumptions that seemed to work so well for problem numbers 1 and 2. The last answer on the test will always be blank simply because by then it will be obvious to us that the answer is far beyond what can be reasonably expressed with language. This book holds that we each have an inherent understanding of how reality works but do not yet have the concepts and language that would enable us to use this understanding consciously. Part of the purpose of this book is to introduce new concepts and new ways of thinking so that we may approach a more complete understanding of our reality. Fortunately, there are no right or wrong answers on this great test of ours. There are only answers that make the next question more dificult to uncover if we are convinced of their truth. What is “true” is likely beyond both the flexibility of words and the limitations of perception, so we can start by geting rid of our assumptions about what is true. We can even assume that nothing we can perceive is absolutely true at all but, instead, learn to work with the reality of the relationships between what we know in order to approach the direction of a truth that we cannot perceive. If our answer is, “We don't really know, so anything is possible,” it can open doors and our eyes to an understanding that we couldn't see was already there. It is a litle ironic to think that the universe may only be a mystery because we have been thinking that perception equals reality the entire time. We assume that we can objectively sense reality when it can only be experienced subjectively, as this book will demonstrate. Further, we will demonstrate how what we consider reality is an illusion that is actually more real than any truth could ever be, and how this paradox is possible. Science now understands that “color” doesn’t exist outside of our brains' interpretation of it. 1 What our brains do is perform an amazing feat of calculation, taking the relationships between the impulses generated from cells in our eye and interpreting them as color where no real color exists. Rather than being a property of the thing that we're looking at, color is a sensation that exists entirely in our minds. We will also discover that what we're looking at exists entirely in our minds, as well. We are surrounded by these and other illusions. But how and why? And how can we create our own convincing illusions? In this book, we will illustrate how reality itself is a sensation based entirely on relationships between things rather than the things themselves having any reality, and how we can use this understanding to our advantage. There is no point in breaking past an illusion that has come to be all we have ever known. It is the nature of perception, and the reality of perspective. It is not just impossible to “become one” with the universe, it is irrelevant. How boring would it be to exist as nothing-in1

As well, there are no universal rules that define ‘color’ solely on the physical properties of light. Color is subjective rather than objective, even though it appears consistently throughout your reality.

6

particular? To have nothing to compare yourself with? To have no relationship with anything because there is nothing else? Instead, we can learn how to work within the illusion to understand the what, how, and why. We will discover how all of the answers to the questions we have are completely within our lives right now. The answers you seek are in the way you pour a glass of water, walk through the door, or looked in the mirror today. We don't see it because we're focused on the illusions rather than the relationships. We think what we see is the reality. But, like as in a film, the story of our existence is in the magic between the frames and not in the reality of the individual frames themselves. You don't have to wait for anything or do anything special to uncover these mysteries. The answers are not somewhere else. They are where you are right now. Forget about becoming one with the universe; All-That-Is should be you with your myriad of interesting relationships, perspectives, and experiences – not the other way around! And so here you are... forgeting what you are so that you have a chance to relate to anything and everything. But how is any of this related to making friends, eating delicious food, listening to good music, geting the kids ready for school, saving up for a new house, going on a trip, looking out of the window, or taking out the garbage? When you do anything you are working with illusions. What you are doing is interpreting something else that you cannot perceive. You could say that you are breaking down the vastness of the nothing-in-particular that you actually are (or, All-That-Is) into smaller bits that you can perceive so that something can make sense right now. Just like you interpret your dreams in concepts, sights, sounds, and shapes you already understand consciously, you interpret this vast reality in concepts you understand – your life. It may seem like you're taking out the garbage but this is actually part of the illusion. You are experiencing something else entirely. The conscious-you finds a way to interpret the reality of the subconscious-you in a way that makes sense. If that way is taking out the garbage or looking out of the window then that is what you experience. Let's take an example of something we might do every day – talk on the phone. The voice on the other end of the line may sound very real to you. The voice responds to your questions and statements, and has a personality. You remember the same voice from countless other conversations in past. The voice even knows of things that no one else does. To you, this is not just a “voice” but a real person. However, the voice that you hear is no more real than the dream you had two nights ago. What you are hearing is a representation of something else that is produced from electrical signals interacting with your telephone. The voice on the phone seems quite real and connected to a real person, but you are still interacting with a representation of a voice rather than an actual voice. But the representation doesn't end there. If, instead, you were to speak to your friend in person your mind would be showing you its representation of that person. You would be perceiving the signals sent by your brain, even if you are standing in front of them and listening closely to their voice. At every level of your experience you are interacting with a representation rather than the “real” thing. As we will see afer this introduction, the reality is not in the person, place, or thing but in the relationships that are had. We cannot perceive of anything directly because the reality of it only comes about through its relationship with something else. We only know of “hot” because of our experience with “cold”, and we can't know of either by themselves. These dependencies extend to everything we can imagine and are how we can perceive of anything.

7

We will uncover the nature of reality as being not a collection of convincing illusions, but of these representations being the way we can experience very real relationships. It is interesting to think about what is beyond the seemingly infinite layer of representations but, perhaps more importantly, we will discover how we can use this knowledge and understanding to change our lives, create and discover the reality we want, understand just about anything, and experience a kind of living that we did not realize was possible. We will discover the four fundamental elements of all that exists. We can break down any particle, object, process, being, event, feeling, thought, and everything else into four simple elements. We can do this because your perspective uses these four elements to create your reality and fill in all the amazing details. You are using them right now, subconsciously, to read this book, think about it, perceive the area around you, remember the past, and discover the future. And you use them to do everything else that you could possibly imagine. The four elements are four “leters” that comprise the language of perspective. Without these essential elements there is absolutely nothing that exists, because without them there is no relationship. You cannot speak without making sounds, you cannot see without photons of light, and you cannot perceive without using these 4 elements. Many, or perhaps most, of the concepts presented in this book will seem to be too fantastic to the point of being unbelievable. But I present to you that nothing in this book is true, but everything in this book will be reasonably explained. Truth may not need to exist, because it is likely independent of perception. The only question that maters when reading this book is, “Can I use any of the material in this book to understand or change my reality?” You may also find that this book needs a second reading, as the perspective you have when you finish the book may be diferent than when you started. That also means it is writen for diferent kinds of viewpoints, so you should at least find a litle something useful. And feel free to skip any section that you might find a bit confusing; you can always come back to it later if you want. The first two parts of this book provide the foundation for this new understanding. It is a logical illustration of an abstract process, so it may at times seem like your neurons are firing a bit too much in some sections as we explain things that really can't be explained using writen language. Afer we have grasped the basics of how it all works we can begin to see how it relates to the ebb and flow of our human lives, to the world around us, and see how we can make use of it in our everyday afairs. We will also uncover how your subconscious mind at each moment ingeniously uses this formula to automatically discover (or, “create”) the reality that you experience, and illustrate its meaning. The secret to everything, as we will see, originates from your own subconscious mind.  This book is available on Amazon (for Kindle devices and apps) at htp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VPT0F82

8

Part 1: The Way to Understand Everything

9

Interfacing with Reality Everything in this book is derived from a new, never-before-published formula that, quite simply, expresses how reality is formed. This simple formula – illustrated on the right and simplified with stories and explanations throughout the book – can be applied to everything from the micro to the macro because it is the key to how perspective works. Perception is how we know of reality, and perspective is where our entire reality is born. As we move into a deeper understanding of reality in these pages we find out how we can apply this system (called “SPIR”) to our everyday lives and also answer the truly important questions. But first, let's learn the basics. Perception is

We know that words are representations for other things, not the things how we know themselves. But ofen, these representations are good enough of reality, and perspective is approximations for what we want to do. All we need to do is use a simple where our word like “financing” and someone else can understand the more complicated concept we are trying to convey. The leters used in a language entire reality is born. aid in everything from thinking to communicating to understanding. They do this by transforming complex things into simpler things, allowing us to interface with more complex realities in a much easier and more eficient way. We use interfaces all throughout our reality to make sense of it and help us create and discover meaning in our lives. The remote control to a television, for example, allows someone to interface with the more complicated functions of the device such as re-programming the setings or finding another signal. Using our senses we can see, hear, taste, touch, and smell our surroundings that first come to us as complex electromagnetic signals. You can – using just 26 leters of the English alphabet in your mind to interact with your fingers – write just about anything you can possibly imagine as a way to interface with other experiences. You can literally draw a combination of abstract symbols on a page to change reality, build things, fall in love, retell entire histories, start revolutions, move people to tears, end wars, change your life, inspire people to change their own lives, create music, write a prescription that can cure someone, create a legacy for your ofspring, and a countless other things. Throughout history, the mixing up of shapes and sounds into language was powerful enough to serve as the foundation for humanity's actions as it adopted agriculture, formed governments, built large pyramidal structures, applied medicine, put Europe in the Dark Ages for 1,000 years, started the Renaissance, bought and sold enslaved humans, brought people out of enslavement, wiped out entire populations, started new countries, made billions of people believe in a particular way of thinking, put humans in space, built planet-wide networks of information creation and sharing, and so much more. On a biological level a mere 4 “leters” of DNA are able to communicate the instructions for life itself and carry the codes of your distant ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago. Like DNA, the SPIR system is a language that we make use of without knowing how and is even more fundamental to the birth of reality that your subconscious and conscious selves make use of. This language of perspective is far more powerful than arbitrary shapes and sounds invented only a few thousand years ago, and even more powerful than a language used to encode genetic information for organic life forms that are a very small part 10

of your entire perspective. If spoken language, a system of communication with other human beings that was invented thousand years ago, can completely transform how we perceive and interact with the world around us and help us to build entire civilizations and all the amazing things that go with it, imagine the power of the language of reality itself to form a consistent and convincing existence for us to see ourselves in. Consider SPIR as the basic language of reality, a direct interface with all that you can possibly perceive, think, remember, and experience. If you can conceive of anything it is acting as either a Structure, a Potential, an Interaction, or a Representation (SPIR). These elements are able to communicate the instructions for creating reality itself and encode everything that exists into a single perspective. Every part of your reality fits into one of these elements, and forms relationships with other SPIRs to create the reality that you know and experience. You can use the same formula to discover and create anything you can possibly imagine, simply by changing how you interpret these relationships. It can also be used consciously to logically manifest whatever experience you desire. We will uncover a bit more of how you can use it to change your reality but first let's understand what it means. The language of the subconscious mind works because it is a direct interface with our extended consciousness to form reality. Why should the workings of your subconscious remain a secret forever? There is no reason you should be a secret to yourself. There is no reason we cannot, as a species, evolve to create whatever reality we want, just as we do in our dreams. If we can advance our understanding of the world around us to transform sand into silicon and make powerful computers to perform previously unimaginable feats on devices no bigger than our hands, then imagine what we can do with subconsciousness. The sand doesn't have magical properties, and neither does subconsciousness. But they both seem magical without an understanding of the processes involved. The power to shape reality comes from our ability to see what is already there in new and useful ways ways, and transform it into something else. You don't need to understand what it all means right now. We will discover the meaning in this book, illustrate its usefulness in everyday life, and also use it to answer some of life's most important questions. We will find out why a question like, “What is time and space?” is just as important as questions like, “What should I be doing with my life” or, “How can I make more friends?” and are perhaps have even more value for your immediate reality. What good would understanding the universe be if we could not use that wisdom to improve our lives and tweak the quality of our experience? What sense would it make to have a deep understanding of the universe and of reality but it not being enough to satisfy feelings of loneliness, pain, or even hunger? We will learn how the world that we experience is a representation of the reality that we don't experience, and what it means for our everyday self. What is Reality, Really? Your subconscious formulates your entire perspective and every experience in your past, present and future using a method that we will outline. But what is reality? Reality is representation. What we call “reality” is an interpretation of something else that we do not experience. You may look around and think you are experiencing reality, but what you're actually experiencing is a field of representations for other things that you are not experiencing. Everything that you see, including your body, is more than 99.999% empty 11

space.2 However, we still think we are perceiving reality. What are perceiving is, instead, an illusion that interfaces with reality. That is because the subconscious mind not only uses energy in the most eficient way imaginable, it doesn't use energy at all. It doesn't need to. It only needs to approximate something and then interact with this representation. The fewer ultimate representations there are for things the less interactions that are needed until we reach nothing-in-particular. Everything that exists, including what we consider reality, is a purposeful illusion that is meant to provide the means for something far more real to come into being: relationships. To illustrate this trick of the mind more simply let's imagine that you are looking at a digital photo that you took of a good friend of yours. The image obviously represents your friend and is, without question it seems, the person that you know so well. The image captures as many of her beauties and imperfections as any image can. Could you then say, “This is my friend”? Probably not afer considering it for a minute. You might say that what you are seeing is only a representation of your friend, and that your friend was somewhere else (i.e., not inside your phone or computer). Your friend is more than the representation, or so it would seem. But what if at that moment she called you on the telephone? Surely, that voice could only be one person. She knows who you are, can recall times you've shared together, and knows things you've not told anyone else. It most definitely has to be her. Even then, you may be aware that what you're hearing on your phone is your phone's representation of her voice electronically transmited rather than her actual voice, and your brains' interpretation of those signals. But what is her actual Reality, for voice? Can you really know what it is? If she was standing in front of you all intents talking about what happened to her today, would you be hearing her actual and voice or listening to your own interpretation of it? When you touch her are purposes, you feeling her or your mind's interpretation of the electrical impulses does not received when you appear to touch her? exist as we know it

Thinking of this further it could be said that, despite all the pictures you've seen, countless hours on the phone, and times you've met her in person you've never actually experienced her for who she really is. You've only ever experienced your interpretation of what she is. In actuality, you've experienced your perspective. Of course, your friend is far more than your interpretation of her. But where is she? Can we experience reality for what it really is? How do we not mistake our interpretation for the actual reality? If what we call reality is actually a representation of something else, it is an illusion. But, fortunately for our endeavour, that means only illusion exists and there is no such thing as an absolute reality. What we know as reality is actually representation.3 Reality, for all intents and purposes, does not exist as we know it. Illusion is the only reality that we can know of anything. That we can get valid feedback from illusions tells us that the illusion is real enough, good enough for whatever we want to do, and is likely an interface with something greater. Reality is an illusion that makes sense and can interact within itself. In this way, illusions allow us our only interface with what is true. 2 3

We'll get into why space isn't exactly empty (not because of electromagnetic and other fields) because there is no such space, later. That brings us closer to the origin of the word “real” which means, “belonging to the thing itself” or “relating to things”.

12

An Example of the Universal Model Let's take a quick look at SPIR again using human reproduction as an example. Reproduction is expressed in the following graphic as the logical intersection of male and female that forms a harmonious relationship that can be perceived; in this case, the birth of a baby. The Potential element is the main actor in the process. It always has two “opposing” sides to represent the primal forces of chaos and order. In this example chaos and order are expressed as male and female, respectively. The chaos side is always trying to randomly expand while the order side is always trying to contract. The order side also handles the Structure and so sets the stage for interaction between the two sides. In our case, it means that the female side hosts the reproductive process. Now that the terms for engagement have been set, the two sides are able to interact. Each side sends a continuous stream of “ambassadors” to interact with the other side in order to bring the relationship to a harmonious equilibrium. Each side also makes a “tribute” to the other side; in this illustration and as an example, the female side provides an X chromosome and the male side provides a Y chromosome.

In the beginning of the reproductive cycle (here represented by the spiral) there is overexpansion (via rapid cell division called cleavage) followed by an over-contraction (called compaction) as a balance between the two extremes is found and a fertilized egg implants into the uterus. Once a harmony between chaos and order has been achieved over the following months, the cycle is complete and baby is ready to be born. This is, of course, an over-simplification of the entire process of reproduction. An important point to note is that each part of the SPIR cycle is made up of other SPIRs. Every part of any process, from the micro to macro of that process, is itself a SPIR that functions the same way as illustrated here and works with other SPIRs to form the reality that you experience. 13

A Family of Relationships Can you describe what the color “red” is to someone, without comparing it with something else? Red does not exist objectively. It not only needs to be defined through other things but exists entirely as a relationship with other things. Red, or anything else that you know, does not exist independently. Not only can you not describe color, feeling, and smell without comparing it with other things there is nothing you can talk about, think about, do, or express without using something else as a reference. The things that make up your reality may seem separate but they are illusions that draw from the same source – relationships. Where was "4" before you added "2+2"? We don't care that numbers are abstract concepts that have no physical reality. We only care to use the product of a relationship between two illusions. Perhaps the answer will help us to build a house or manage our finances. The aspect of reality that maters is the relationship between illusions, not the illusions themselves. A metaphysical relationship can be interpreted as a representation that goes on to form part of another illusion, resulting in more relationships. When we perceive reality what we are doing is like taking the frames of a film and using them to form a relationship that can be used for something else, or at least perceived. When we perceive we are not perceiving of something directly, only its relationship with other things in our perspective. “4” without any other numbers existing would make no sense, as there's no frame of reference. When we set it next to other numbers it becomes part of a picture of reality that we can experience. If you see a cup begin to fall to the floor you are likely to perceive the next logical relationships. Perhaps you will perceive of the cup's relationship to the floor as it breaks. Or maybe the fluid inside will spill. Other relationships will result, such as pieces of the cup spreading out on the floor when it breaks, or the sound it makes in the air as it drops. Although we can say that perception is awareness via our five senses we would be ignoring the awareness of things when we think or feel. And we have far more than five senses if we include the senses of every organ, cell, and organism in our bodies that come to our awareness indirectly. Perception is really the means by which we interpret reality [defined in the following section]. However, for this book we will stick with the usual definition. The amazing thing about metaphysical relationships is that you can interpret them any number of ways. Perhaps you interpret the cup, instead, as receiving a leter in the post, or stubbing your toe, or seeing a squirrel jump to another tree. Seeing the squirrel jump, for example, would be the same as the cup hiting the floor to your subconscious mind because the relationships are the same. They're two ways of interpreting one relationship. When we observe a person walking into the room we are interpreting the next logical relationships into our perspective. If it didn't make sense we wouldn't perceive it. Perhaps next week diferent things will make more sense and the same metaphysical relationships will be interpreted as us moving a lamp to the other side of the room, or whatever. Using our senses, though, we see only the products of the relationships rather than the relationships themselves. Have you ever had the feeling of déjà vu, that somehow you've already been somewhere or experienced something before? Are there any repeating paterns in your life that you can't explain, at work, home, or with friends? Does anything seem like the same thing over and 14

over again, interpreted in diferent ways? Those are the metaphysical relationships at work. Each representation symbolizes a metaphysical relationship in the same way that the word “cousins” represents particular members of your family, who are also each a representation. You could, for example, invite your cousins over for lunch and get to know them more, forming a closer relationship. One relationship could represent countless other relationships, similar to how a good relationship with Aunt Anne could bring you closer to her siblings. A representation is an interpretation of countless other relationships that no longer need to be in your perspective. We don't need to say 1+1+1+1 when “2+2”, “4” or “four” will do. We've already approximated it, so the other symbols aren't necessary. This entire field of representations is like a geometry of relationships, and it is the nature of perspective. Perspective is All We Can Know Let's clarify a bit how we'll use the words “perceive” and “perspective” in this book:  perceive: to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses  perspective: the particular angle, view, or interpretation one has of a reality You perceive things via your senses, but you can consider perspective something more of a mental picture of your reality that goes far beyond your five senses to includes your thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and more. Perspective is like the algorithm you use to form a unique interpretation of reality. No one else shares your perspective, because perspective is formed from relationships that we call consciousness [to be explored]. Our mind tries to make sense of whatever it is perceiving, no mater what it is. If we cannot make sense of something then we cannot relate to it. In order to perceive of anything we must be able to relate to it in some way. If we cannot relate to something that well, it is simply ignored or replaced with something that we can relate to beter. For reasons that we will illustrate, perception is very eficient. So eficient, in fact, that we perceive only what and how something is related to us. We translate things that don't make sense into our cognitive framework so that it does make sense. A newborn baby, for example, does not perceive of the details of a face because baby doesn't have much else to compare such details against. The sounds of mother's voice are very relative to baby's perspective, however, and is something heard even in the womb. Baby will therefore connect with it most. Baby's brain, in fact, uses mother's voice as the preferred mechanism by which the parts of the brain responsible for language learning are activated,4 among other important infant developments. On a similar note, a mother can pick out her baby's cries out of a room full of other babies crying, because it is the voice that she herself relates to the most. Our ability to perceive only what is relative to us means that we cannot perceive of what we cannot imagine. It also means that we make things relative to us so that we can perceive them. Our reality comes from our imagination. More accurately, our reality comes entirely from our perspective and how we interpret metaphysical relationships that are already there. Perspective is not the same as opinion or belief. If you believe that you can fly that wouldn't be your perspective. That being said, many aspects of what you might believe may be translated into your reality and you could interpret these in various ways.5 Perhaps a belief 4 5

Refer to htp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101221521952234.htm However, what we consider our “belief” is actually a sense of our reality [to be discussed]

15

that you could fly is actually something else that you cannot accurately describe. It is convenient to say that when we are walking down the street we are moving our legs to transport ourselves on the ground. But that is only one aspect of what is really going on. What is really happening is a change of perspective. That is to say, we change how we interpret our reality at every moment whether we are sleeping, walking down the street, working, talking, or whatever. When someone walks into the room where you are siting, we can say that they are using their legs to move themselves into the room. Or even, we can say that they're "walking into your perspective". We don't yet have the vocabulary to conceptualize these things, so we use what is most convenient for conversation. We know that when we are looking at the moon we are not actually seeing the moon as it is but, instead, processing light photons in the cells of our eye. We interpret the signals and call it “moon” even when it is only as far away as our own perspective. We are perceiving the signals in our mind, not the moon. But what does the moon look like without the signals? What is beyond the perception of something? Imagine a subject so complex that afer a 1 day class you still cannot begin to understand it. Imagine that 1 year was not enough, and not even 4 years of classes would allow you to really grasp it. Even afer an entire lifetime you could not fully understand it. The understanding cannot be contained in any one class, so you need a seemingly endless number of classes. Any understanding is not contained in any one class itself but in your relationship with the material presented in the class. Now imagine that instead of trying to learn an extremely complicated subject you were trying to perceive something that only appears to be complicated: what you really are. Imagine that this truth could not be perceived because it could not be contained in any one perception or interpretation, but required a seemingly endless variety of interpretations. Like a dog trying to catch its tail, it appears to be a complicated efort when it is in fact the simplest thing. We are trying to perceive something that is beyond perception. We try to perceive of something so simple, in fact, that it does not exist. It is simpler than perception. When it “moves” it is so energy-eficient that it uses no energy, only relationships. We can't "see" beyond our own perspective. You cannot know of another perspective because the moment you try it becomes a part of your own perspective. You cannot feel exactly what your friend is feeling, only interpret it into your own thoughts and feelings. The signals that you interpret as the moon do not come into your perspective, it is the perspective. Before the signals were in your perspective they weren't anywhere. The moon exists only in your perspective and nowhere outside of it. You have simply interpreted a metaphysical relationship in a way that makes sense to your reality. At each moment we re-interpret what is there. Each moment is a representation of a Nothing that cannot be perceived. What we perceive and experience and the way that we perceive and experience it is the same thing. A change in your perspective may be interpreted as motion, time, space, events, processes, etc. When something moves it is not moving independently of your perspective. How could it? We can only ever perceive the interpretation.

16

Our reality is the method by which we interpret primal chaos, or “Nothing”. Your body, the clouds, the trees, your neighbors, friends, stocks, cookies, and ladybugs are not only from your perspective they are your perspective. As we do not perceive or experience something that isn't logical to our perspective we cannot perceive of this Nothing. “Nothing” doesn't make sense. It is illogical. It follows no patern or form. It adheres to no understanding or structure. If we could somehow perceive of this Nothing we wouldn't see anything because there would be nothing to compare it against. Even as we describe Nothing we make it something. That is the birth of consciousness. So instead of everything-in-one (Nothing) we have it all spread out before us as an illusion 6, interacting in a field of relationships ready for us to interpret in any way that we want. Some things appear to be closer to our perspective, and other things seem to be further away. When we see someone walking into the room we are re-interpreting the relationships in our perspective. There is no one actually walking into the room no more than there is anyone talking in your head right now as you read this. You do it in order to make sense of the relationships, and relate. You see someone in one instance, you hear a voice in another instance, and imagine seeing them in yet another. It's the same type of illusion. Your brain has a diferent view of reality than your hands or eyes do. In the cognitive sciences it has been demonstrated that a simulation of something will make the brain react in the same way as they would react to the “real” version of that thing. Although your brain can distinguish between an illusion and what we call reality it responds similarly to both. Our mind knows that both are illusions, but consciously we do not think that way. And interestingly, the brain maps what you think happened rather than what actually happened, and may not know the diference between the two kinds of experiences.7 Your brains don't care about what you think is reality, because what you think is an “illusion” and what you think is the “real” thing are the same type of illusions. Only the relationships between things, not the things themselves, are important. Is mentally humming a tune a reality or an illusion as compared with the “real” song? How about listening to the song on the radio? Or over a telephone? Or listening on your headphones? Or seeing a live performance of the song? All of these are representations, and each is an illusion as valid as the others. There is no “reality” of the song. There are only representations that form relationships that we interpret to be a song heard in various ways (depending on the relationships). We aren't emotionless if we see an image of someone being hurt, even though we know it is an image and not the “real” thing. Even an animated movie could bring us to tears. What maters more than how “real” something is is the question of how relative it is to your current perspective, and the relationship it has with other things in it. If you see an onion next to a painting of an onion, which is more relative to your perspective? The onion that smells like paint, or the one that can make your eyes water? If you're a chef, then perhaps the onion you can cook with is more relative. If you're an artist then perhaps the onion in the painting is more to your taste. 6 7

It is an illusion because it is still Nothing, afer all. “Brain Maps Perceptions, Not Reality” htp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031210420632920.htm

17

Changing your perspective is as easy as changing your interpretations of the things that make up your reality. If you interpret something diferently you can have a diferent relationship with it. You can change your reality by changing how you interpret things. Let's learn more about the basic relationships and then go from there. Discovering the Illusion [Feel free to skip this section. It's about the beginning of the universe, so could get confusing.] What we sense as reality is not anything real or solid but the perception of the relationships between illusions. Observe the image on the right. Do you see the foam itself or the structure of the foam bubbles? To you, the reality of the bubbles is based on its structure. You only know of the structure because you can see paterns, making sense of it. Perhaps there is really only one uniform bubble, but your perspective shows you lots of diferent bubbles. Without its structure you would not be able to see it. You are able to perceive by processing paterns, and without some kind of structure you don't perceive anything at all. By adding structure we are able to perceive. But the structure itself is not the reality. If you zoom out, all the individual structures you saw before would become part of one structure – perhaps a single 45 degree angle. It would then be surrounded by other structures you didn't zoom into. If you zoom in you wouldn't see a structureless foam but simply more structures. (Meaning, you would still interpret relationships no mater what level of micro or macro you're on.) It doesn't mater what those structures are or that they're illusions. The important thing is that the structures are there so that the foam can be perceived. We know of one thing only in relation to something else. What we call reality is simply looking for paterns in chaos (or “the void”). The paterns aren't really there, but we would not be able to perceive of anything without a structure, so we make up a random patern. We interpret chaos in a way that makes sense to us. We then relate these paterns together, like drawing a line from one point to the other, and put these in order so that they make sense. It is like looking at stars, seeing shapes that aren't really there like gods, humans, and other animals, creating stories from them, and calling it reality. In our reality we can represent the primal patern as a sequence of numbers. The numbers are not important. They are just a way to represent the structure. Reality doesn't come from these representations but from the relationship between representations. This sequence begins as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and so on, which is just adding the last two numbers together to make the next number. The “beginning” of the universe is a part of every perspective, being the foundation of reality at every moment. Let's find out how perspective is formed by looking at the meaning of the first few numbers in the sequence and finding out what they actually mean: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, and 5. Starting with a nothing that cannot be perceived (0), we define it as “Nothing” (1). Exploring the extent of Nothing we have an infinite potential that doesn't really exist because it can only be compared to itself (1, again). It then pretends there is something else (2) that 18

interacts (3), forming the illusion of something real (5) via the relationship between the two. If everything was perceived as one thing, unified, there'd actually be no perspective because there'd be nothing else to compare anything with. So, we limit the infinite potential of allknowing, all-seeing perspective with some kind of structure. When we add structure we are dividing Nothing into 2 somethings that seem diferent. In this way, the 2 something-diferents forget that they are actually the same thing. But we're not done just yet. Importantly, we must allow the 2 somethingdiferents to interact to solidify the illusion of their separateness. By interacting they can pretend to be separate from whatever they are interacting with. Without this illusion there is no consciousness or perspective, as consciousness is a relationship that forms some kind of perspective. The relationship of the 2 illusions builds a resistance that seems very real, called reality. From each perspective this illusion seems more real than anything else, including its own source. As the illusions interact with the new reality, the process repeats itself again and again. The geometrical shape of these somethings helps us to perceive, and each forms a part of our perspective from its relationship with other things. If any something in this geometry shifs, the entire geometry is also shifed (because it is actually one thing). Now imagine that this foam can be read by your perception like the needle of a record player, providing you with reality as it “reads” the relationships in the foam. As it senses the foam it also “writes” to it simply by shifing its geometry, allowing for the impression that it is moving through space and time, thinking, feeling, and being. When you are looking at something, you are sensing this field of relationships and interpreting it as your experience. The foam is a field of all relationships called the geometry of perspective. It is reality. This process can also be expressed as an equation: s((p+p)/p)+i=r. The following illustration adds numbers: 1((2+2)/2)+3=5. Let's break it down: In order to know itself,8

(S) Structure / logic

2+2

All-That-Is (or, nothing-in-particular), seemingly infinite and without perspective and reality, destroys itself (an impossibility), creating /2 the illusion of separation,

(P) Potential / illusion

3

and the relationship between all the seemingly infinite and separate parts is born,

(I) Interaction / relationships

5

“creating”, or discovering, reality.

(R) Representation / interface

1

8

Or, paradoxically, know that it does not exist. This is the process of the “absolutely now”.

19

What are Relationships? We'll talk about relationships throughout this book to illustrate many of the concepts of your subconscious mind. But what do we mean when we say “relationship”? Just as you have relationships with others that you cherish you may draw a blank when trying to define what a relationship is exactly. But you know who your relationships are with, how they afect what you do and how you feel, how they allow you to meet others and develop bonds with them, and more. But the relationship is itself without definition – we can only interpret a relationship into something that we can perceive. That's how we know a real relationship is behind the illusions we interact with. We come up with terms to try to define a relationship, like “dad” or “my brother”. When we say “family” what we mean is the relationship that all family members share together, rather than referring to individual persons. But it's not one relationship. It's a geometry of many relationships. When we think about family we can think of the individuals that make up a family as the representations and “family” as the reality that is experienced. We illustrate the geometry of these relationships in the image on the right. We may think we're seeing an airplane, for example, but what we are actually experiencing are many diferent kinds of relationships. The airplane does not exist by itself, but only in relation to other things. Further, it's a simple representation of a far more complex reality, like saying “dad” instead of trying to define something that cannot be defined with words. As you can probably guess, the endless variety of relationships can become quite overwhelming. That is why our subconscious mind makes it simple for us. Instead of having to perceiving of a myriad of interactions directly we perceive of a person, place, thing, process, emotion, thought, etc, that approximates them. Rather than having to interact with all of the individual things and relationships that make up a wall, for example, all we need to do is perceive the wall and interact with it. We can also change our relationships by finding new and diferent representations of those relationships, or even re-interpreting what we already perceive. While we cannot perceive of relationships directly we can sense them intuitively in our reality by paying atention to the representations around us and how they interact harmoniously with one-another (or don't seem to). As we will learn throughout this book, it is the nature of your subconscious mind to simplify your reality as much as possible as it minimizes interactions by representing things and making paterns, and then interacting with the representations through relationships. A relationship can be thought of as a meta-patern, or family of paterns. Using our language example again, this would be like being the first to invent words for concepts you wanted to convey. Each word, or handful or words, could save you from having to write out pages of descriptions for concepts each time you wanted to write about them. Your finished work, a manuscript for example, would represent the entire relationship. Each person reading it would interpret it in a diferent way, much as we interpret the geometry of relationships in unique ways to come up with whatever reality we choose to experience. 20

Everything is a SPIR What is the mysterious bubbly foam between your fingers that gives the impression that you are taking a shower, thinking about your day, driving somewhere, or experiencing anything? These are the four elements9 (SPIR) at work.

Everything in your perspective conforms to this model, from sub-atomic particles to talking with your best friends about a new film to your body to the way you walk along the street to entire civilizations to distant galaxies to the particular way air flows over the shoulders of a 17th century soldier waiting for commands. When SPIRs interact together we get the geometry of perspective. Consider the geometry of perspective as a map of every kind of relationship imaginable in reality. But it's not just the map; it's the territory. It is what we perceive as our entire reality and being. When you look at your hand or the sun, you are actually perceiving the geometry of the SPIRs. Every thing that you can imagine is a representation that has a SPIR at its core. As we have discovered, these SPIRs are actually representing something that is beyond perspective, allowing us to interface with it. The logical narrative of reality is illustrated through their interaction, as each harmonizes with others to form reality. The narrative is how chaos collapses into space, which is reduced to a vacuum, which at some point collapses into protons, hydrogen, our Sun, infra-red light, and a sandwich and to other complexities where it's re-cycled all over again. The subconscious mind does not need to understand the details of everything along the line of this great cycle. You don't need not know subconsciously how much the particles in a sandwich weigh before eating it, stripping the sandwich of its electrons in a process that we perceive as tasting like harmony. You only need to know the relationships between the simple representations in the SPIRs. Your subconscious doesn't need to care about the complexities of how you interpret something, only know how to draw a line from one something to another. You are free to interpret these relationships as the Sun, a sandwich, a marriage, or a car. However, the reality is not in the Sun, the sandwich, the marriage, or the car but in the 9

There are actually 5 elements, with one being number 4. It is not used, as it represents nothing-in-particular and is already satisfied with Potential (2) + itself in the SPIR equation. It is a proxy for something that does not exist because it cannot be perceived or imagined. If it could somehow divide itself up, it would be the other 4 elements.

21

relationships between them. We see the Sun consciously but subconsciously we are interpreting the same relationships in another way. This efect is more obvious in our dreaming reality where, upon awakening, we ignore the subconscious dream interpretation of the relationships and focus on a more physically-oriented interpretation that makes more sense to us our waking self. We can be aware of our conscious self in the dream only as we relate to it when we awaken, whereas in the dream the awareness of the waking self is “just a dream”. The diference between the conscious reality and the subconscious reality is only in how either interpret the same relationships. Because any complex process or thing has a reality that depends upon its relationships it can be far easier for us to understand anything and everything. The relationships that allow a scientist to perceive of gene mutation in the morning are perhaps the same relationships that allow them to perceive of taking a break in the afernoon or taking a shower in the evening. The way in which we interpret the same things diferently makes us not see that they are actually the same thing. We confuse the illusion of how something looks, behaves, or responds with the reality of what it actually is. The reality is that we can only perceive of relationships, not perceive of the things we know through our 5 senses. We don't need to understand anything in detail, only how the relationships work. Whenever something is too complicated in our perspective (meaning, it requires an abundance of interactions) we simply represent it and form a relationship with the new representation. For example, there is no need to sense the entire electromagnetic spectrum of our universe. It's far too complicated to make sense of it physically. We need only represent the entire spectrum in a way that makes sense, as photons for vision, heat on our skin, sounds, time, and space, among other ways. Other parts of our bodies, such as cells, may interpret the same relationships in diferent ways that make sense to them, for their own purposes. Oxygen is useful to one part of our body but detrimental to another part, or a minute to a rock or tree may be a far diferent experience than a minute to a human, for example. Though the illustrations you will see on these pages are simplified – and necessarily inaccurate – versions of SPIRs, the essence of the process is the same. Two seemingly opposite forces spiralling into each other and balancing out to form a harmonious representation of their relationship that we call reality. We'll leave out some of the more complicated SPIRs (such as DNA, partiallyillustrated on the right) and focus more on how reality is formed from the intersection of opposing forces. Let's take a look at some of the more obvious SPIRs.

22

23

Anatomy of a SPIR A SPIR is basically a system where two compatible things come together in a certain way to make a third thing. We don't think that reproduction of another human is the same process as how everything else in the universe comes into being, but the process is exactly the same because the origin is perspective. Here we will explore the basics of reality-forming SPIRs. What we know as reality is the logical intersection of two illusions – chaos and order – forming a harmonious relationship that is perceived as being real. The reality of this representation can then be used to interact with something else, and so on.

What we know as reality is the logical intersection of two illusions, chaos and order, that forms a harmonious relationship that is perceived as being real

The two sides of Potential are chaos and order, appearing to be opposite so that each side seems more real. The infinite potential side is chaotic. The limited potential side is orderly. The limited potential side is the logical side, so it makes a Structure to reduce the infinite potential side to more balanced proportions. The interaction between the two sides builds a resistance, which becomes a Representation. The basic physical shape is known in science as a torus, the fundamental form of balanced energy flow. [For more on Potentials, please refer to page 82.]

In our illustrations, the positive side (chaos) is represented by red. The negative side (order) is represented by blue. Yellow is what comes out of the two sides interacting. Their interactions are represented by positive and negative flows coming out of one side to the other. Interactions actually produce 3 representations: a main representation between the two and 2 others, one from each side of Potential. However for simplicity's sake we will mostly cover the main Representation, as well as to try to make the illustrations as simple as possible. Although the reality of a SPIR isn't exactly what you see here it's a good enough approximation to get some understanding of the process. Let's review the 4 elements of reality again, and its formula (on the right): S = Structure, logic P = Potential (positive/negative, chaos/order) I = Interaction, exchange R = Reality, representation, interface Structure is fairly easy to understand. It's basically just rules and logic. Interaction is just that: things interacting and exchanging, and something else coming out of the relationship.10 When two things interact according to some logic, reality is. (Again, the “two things” are of course illusions but the relationship between the illusions is real.) 10 Just imagine Interaction as a field that extends outward to all other SPIRs. The closer another SPIR is the stronger the interaction.

24

What Do We Mean By “Logic”? The word “logic”, used in this book, means any kind of order or structure. It does not imply that there is only one kind of logic or a single reason for things. It refers to the element of Structure and is something used to make sense of something else. There is as much logic as there are ways to perceive things. If, for example, you are standing on your head because it feels good when you do it 3 minutes a day then it is logical. You have formed a narrative that makes sense from your perspective. It need not be completely efective from beginning to end, nor be a part of anyone else's perspective. It just needs to be “good enough” to facilitate some kind of meaning, or at least take you to another representation. In this way many things previously seen as “illogical” become logical when one considers that things have an order that depends entirely on the perspective. The logic doesn't need to make sense to everyone, or science, or popular belief, or even anyone else, for it to be entirely valid. Everything is perceived via logic so therefore everything has some kind of meaning. The trafic paterns on the streets of Mumbai are part of the logical narrative of driving in Mumbai, but not of the logical narrative of driving in Munich. The “nonsensical” rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic are logical in that person's narrative and related narratives, but would probably not be logical in another narrative. As logic equals Structure, logic increases in proportion to perspective. We need not uncover “reason” when thinking about the Structure of our perspective. We are ofen not aware of our own reasons, beliefs, and opinions about things. Turning on a light and then leaving the room for 3 days is logical because it is part of an overall narrative. You have a light that can be turned on, and it is in a room, and you have the ability to leave, and leave for 3 days. All of these things are utilizing the Structure of your perspective, so for purposes of this book it is considered logical, whether or not we agree with a particular reasoning. (And in another way, the light, the room, and the days are just illusions and interpretations of something else. Sometimes the way we interpret something can make us not sense the Structure, and therefore its reasoning or logic.) Descartes' famous axiom, "I think, therefore I am," is as meaningful as, “Bananas are yellow.” The logic of "I think, therefore I am" does not exist in any conclusive reasoning but in the ability to put together a sentence using a constructed language, as demonstrated with “Bananas are yellow”. Both sentences are made up entirely of representations, but we mustn't forget that interpretations made via language are also assumptions about their relationships. The first sentence assumes that there is an “I”, it does something, and that means something else, while the second sentence assumes that bananas exist, are anything, yellow exists, and bananas are related to it. They are both equally meaningful because their reality depends entirely on their interpretation. They are also equally meaningless. The meaning of any statement, or of any thing, is entirely dependent on the logical narrative in which it has been interpreted. Such statements are not true statements because of the nature of their dependencies.11 We can be careful not to confuse our interpretation of relationships (such as a banana, for example) with the logic or Structure that allows us to perceive of the relationships. 11 Descartes, likely having realized the fallacy, later changed the axiom to “I am, I exist”, but the fallacy remains the same. Perhaps an evolution to “I, I” would have allowed him to see the pointlessness of the exercise.

25

SPIRs in Action SPIRs are how perspective works. Everything that is perceived is part of a SPIR system that interacts with other systems.12 At the center of each is a representation discovered from the interaction of Potentials. Everything from neurons to currency to business to weather is a SPIR system. Its interpretations appear in our ancient stories, traditions, and depictions such as a snake eating its tail, ying-yang, puting two hands together to get a result (prayer), or the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the story of Adam and Eve, among other things.

12 However, this process is not ad infinitum. It doesn't go on forever, as infinity doesn't really exist. Each need only be represented somehow, and a relationship come out of representations interacting. And everything that “exists” only need be represented in a single SPIR, which is something like S((P+P)/P)+I

26

The Meaning of Using a SPIR Using a SPIR is like a dimensional bending that merges two realities. A reality is only a reality when it is formed from the resistance, or relationship, between two Potentials. When one thing is harmonically opposed to something else it is not a reality itself but exploring its Potential. When one thing works against another thing, both will be changed appropriately and a new reality discovered. When we build something, we can build with an inherent limitation that will balance these natural forces as we create new realities. Although we can try to remember our infinite potential, it is only when we forget some of that SPIRS are the infinity that our real potential is known. way in which we discover our own

We discover reality by forgeting who and what we are. Both sides of meaning Potential are connected at the core and can therefore interact to make reality. We are both of these sides at once, as this is the structure of our own perspective. The more the sides interact the greater the representation, and the more convincing the reality. We cannot know the experience of one side of Potential without experiencing the other side. SPIRS are the way in which we discover the meaning of our own existence. The Geometry of Perspective Scale Everything in existence is a resistance formed by the relationship of seemingly opposing forces. Resistance is relative because Potential forces can vary, which makes harmony relative. Water as a gas, for example, is chaotic harmony, while ice is ordered harmony, and water as a liquid is harmoniously balanced with both. This “fractal” spectrum of harmony forms the geometry of perspective that we find ourselves in. As everything is a representation of something else we can think of all things in the universe (from going out for cofee to chemical reactions to space and time) as being on a type of scale of perspective. For illustration only, imagine that more complex relationships (such as cofee) are further down13 the scale from simpler relationships (such as space), which are closer to the center of the spiral. The illusion of “cofee” depends on illusions at higher octaves (such as space or hydrogen), so we can consider cofee a more complex relationship. Where physicality is concerned, the primal relationship of chaos and order is represented by the electromagnetic field. Our reality is not an electromagnetic field, but it is the least complex representation of the chaos/order relationship in our perspective. The electric represents chaos and the magnetic represents order. From our physical perspective all 13 Up and down are just illusions to make sense of reality, and this illustration

27

relationships have electromagnetic properties. But of course it's just another illusion. We can therefore consider “life” and our physical reality as an electromagnetic reality in order to understand, perceive, and work with other interpretations of the primary relationship on the scale. The Importance of Representation [Feel free to skip this section if you already have a grasp of how representations work.] Imagine we were having a discussion a thousand years ago and I said that I could throw light at you from a box and recreate your image on it. Amazingly, you would not perceive my digital camera as I perceive it. You would, instead, have an experience that makes sense to you, in whatever way. It might be that what you see is a rock polished so that it reflects your image. The rock in your perspective is as real as my camera because we are both interpreting the geometry of relationships into something that is makes sense to each of us. But I am not holding the rock any more than I am holding the camera, because the camera is my interpretation of the relationships, not the reality. Each reality is as valid as the other because each is an interpretation.14 There is no interpretation of reality that is independent of your perspective, plain and simple. When you perceive something, you are perceiving the relationships of other things you can only sense by interpretation. Your perspective is a highly eficient approximation of everything that exists. We approximate our complete reality through representations, which are specific interpretations of a group of relationships. When we use a computer, for example, it is not that we are interacting with a separate physical object to perform tasks. The physical object we see is a metaphysical representation of lots of other SPIRs working together. The computer you touch is no A representation more real than a word on its screen that you copy and paste. Just like an application can't do anything without having a relationship with a system is a specific interpretation of to run on, you've developed these representations in order to do a relationship or something via relationships you could not otherwise do. Through group of representations we can interface with metaphysical relationships. relationships

We can use our minds to add 1+1, or we can use a calculator. Working with the representations (“1” and “+”) allows us to discover new perspectives. We cannot add the two numbers together if we didn't symbolize them. It is similar to how you, as a baby, verbalized words using your vocal cords in order to be able to think in a new way and learn how to interact with your physical environment. If you drive a Ferrari, you are interacting with the representation. It is not possible to actually drive a Ferrari because a Ferrari does not actually exist, and neither does driving. Only the relationship between you and the representation, the car, is real. But a broken, old Ferrari is a diferent representation than a newer one and a diferent reality and experience would be had because of the diferent relationships and interactions involved. In order to change our reality at each moment we simply interact with diferent 14 With a diferent sense, you can fool someone's sense of taste by giving them water and telling them it's milk. Blindfolded, of course. For a few short moments they will taste milk. In this example, however, the camera is not at all relative to the other person's experience.

28

representations, or interpret our old representations diferently. Even a slightly diferent interpretation could mean new interactions, and therefore a new reality. This allows us to reinterpret what is already there and discover something new. A representation is part of someone's reality depending on how they interact with it. It can influence their emotions, their perceptions, their beliefs, and what they experience. It can completely shif their reality under the right conditions. But it is not the representation that is doing this, it is the relationship that the representation interfaces with. The reality that “results” from interacting with one representation can be the same as from another representation. Joining a club in order to improve your status through networking could take you to the same kind of relationships as learning to play the piano, for example. Though the 2 interpretations of the 1 relationship would likely be diferent, to your subconscious mind they are the same thing. The 2 realities are just as real because both are approximations. But an approximation (or, representation) is all we can possibly know. There is nothing that can be truly represented. The illusion becomes reality. However, everything is as true a representation as it can possibly be. That is to say, as close to truth as it can be. Your reality is the perspective that uses the least amount of interactions possible. The more out of balance a representation is the more energy it would take to represent it, as it would require an excess of relationships to perceive it. Even that which has not ever been symbolized in our awareness can be represented. As soon as we think of it, somehow, it is a representation that is ready to interact. If something cannot be related to it does not exist. Existence is dependent on relationships. Without a relationship, something cannot exist or be existence-free, or be conscious or consciousness-free. Yet, subjective experience is not a representation of objective experience, as the method to perceive reality subjectively has no counterpart in objective reality. There is no true objectivity. For anything to be objective it needs to be independent. Truth cannot be represented, not socially, scientifically, or mathematically. A truth does not exist within the framework of anything in a way that would make sense in the narrative of whatever is trying to perceive it. Truth does not relate to any representation, and so therefore cannot be perceived. In a similar way, we can represent the process of drinking water from a glass mathematically but not in a way that is useful to the person that wants to drink it. We cannot therefore truly approximate “drinking water from a glass” with science or maths because the representation may not relate to its reality. What we are measuring with becomes what we are measuring. Something that may be easily proven (i.e., made more relative) in one reality may not make sense in another. A physicist's understanding of physics is useless to a baby walking for the first time, though baby is working with a diferent yet equally valid interpretation of physical relationships. The reality of the subconscious mind would not make sense mathematically, politically, or biologically, for example, because diferent representations are used. The systems that we build are primarily based on representations rather than relationships, so it is dificult for us to see how things are connected. However, our subconscious can understand the relationships between things but not how we consciously interpret those things. You already make representations that work for you in your reality. The computer you use is completely representative and interacts with other representations, shown as follows: 29

Each key...

(representation)

on the keyboard...

(representation)

corresponds to a switch or circuit...

(representation)

which allows an electrical impulse...

(representation)

to flow through...

(representation)

and the microprocessor...

(representation)

to read it and find its place in the character map.

(representation)

The icons on your screen, every bit of information you receive, and every other associated thing are all representations given life through relationships. Even the electrical impulses which make your fingers type, and your vision that interprets the signals, are representations. Every level of the representation is logical to the system that uses it. All is a field of representations in the geometry of perspective that we call reality. Take away the representation, however, and the system will still function because it is not reality that controls the system but the illusion.15 You don't need to know how a mouse works in order to do amazing things with it. You need only use it in a certain way. That is, you only need to work with the representations in a certain way to form other relationships: the mouse clicking the icon, for example. Fortunately, the mouse has a physical structure built-in to allow it to work and allow us to interact with other aspects of our physical perspective. If you showed a mouse to a roomful of people who had never before heard of or seen a mouse and you told them what it could do, some people might start writing with it to make it do the things you said while others might pick it up and hold it to their ear and talk. Everyone in the room might think you're a bit crazy if they weren't aware of how to logically interface with the capacity of the mouse in their reality. If someone was keen to use it properly based on the instructions provided then they would be learning how to make the representations work for them. To others, it would seem like magic. The representations around you form relationships that are your reality. You don't remember something because it's stored in your mind. You remember it because of the mental map of representations that you are working with. Take away the relationships and you have no memory because there is nothing to interact with for the memory to be perceived. Did you ever have a memory of something that didn't really happen? Or maybe you visited somewhere for the first time that you could have sworn felt exactly like a place in another city. Perhaps you smelled something that brought back old memories, or met someone that reminded you of someone else. Perhaps you saw something you've never seen before and intuitively knew about it. Perhaps we are talking about déjà vu again. This is thinking past the representations you are experiencing and sensing the relationships. To your subconscious, two things that look diferent could be the same thing if the relationship is the same. These relationships form and reform your memories and experience at every moment. Fortunately, our memories of the past seem very consistent, and our current reality seems 15 The intersection of two illusions, or Potentials, is reality, and therefore the illusions “control” reality. For example, taking away the nucleus of a cell (its supposed "command center") will have no efect, and it will continue to function as normal.

30

stable enough. But why does our reality seem consistent despite all the chaos described here? We are actually perceiving relationships rather than the physical objects and events. The part of us that is aware right now interprets these relationships in a way that makes sense. We can interpret these relationships however we want, as long as it is logical somehow. But we don't get new interpretations from new representations. If you, for example, are taking a trip overseas for 3 years it does not mean that the new place is a reflection of your new feeling or reality. It could just be that you are interpreting the same relationships diferently. When we value something not because of its physical properties but for its relationships, then we have begun to understand reality. When we learn to perceive of relationships then we have begun to learn how to perceive of and be conscious of ourselves. Interpret your current mental and physical representations diferently and you've found a new reality. The reality you seek really is right before your eyes. With dreams prety much the same thing is happening. You dream of being a wheel rolling into a brick wall with a clown hanging of a basketball hoop and think it's weird because you're thinking of the way it looks (or feels) physically rather than the geometry of relationships. Those things are happening in your interpretation, not the geometry. The Purpose of Perspective We perceive in order to explore relationships. This is the nature of consciousness. We cannot perceive of what we cannot imagine, because what we are perceiving is our interpretation of metaphysical relationships. If we do not seek out relationships with something (anything) then we would not exist. It is because of this that we explore relationships with everything in our perspective, to some degree. This exploration is not so much creating consciousness as being conscious. If one thing relates to something else then it is conscious. The consciousness, of course, is not created from the things themselves but from the relationships between the things. In life, it is of no particular importance what kind of relationships we explore. We create relationships in order to exist, not to make existence beter. The metaphysical relationship someone creates with their window could be the same as the metaphysical relationship someone else has with their pipe. Someone could lose a son and develop a stronger relationship with a neighbor's nephew. Nevermind these things you cannot see. What maters is the harmony in the relationships that are around us. The reality that results from one thing relating with another thing can be interpreted as happiness, sadness, fire, pencils, cookies, faith, beliefs, etc., depending on the balance (or type of harmony) between the things relating. But we need not worry about how we are relating to things that we want or don't want. It would be easier, and perhaps more efective, to consider the things in our immediate reality that we are relating to more closely. Because a representation is a stand-in for something else, and that something else is a standin for something else, and so on, we may never know what something represents. We can, however, take a look at what something relates to, and then try to figure out intuitively the relationships that may come about from interacting with it. Although we perceive these things in a way that is relative to us and spread out logically in a field of spacetime we are actually perceiving every relationship simultaneously. 31

When you are siting in your living room, the universe exists (literally) within the entirety of your perspective. This is because every relationship that exists is represented in your perspective. At that moment there is nothing outside of your living room (or even behind you) until you perceive it. The reality of everything else is “contained” in the relationships and our interpretations of those relationships.16 The sound of a dog barking implies that a physical dog is there, but again it is a representation. The barking sound may not be from the same metaphysical relationship as a physical dog, because you are not interacting or relating to the sound as you are the dog. As we cannot perceive of a “Nothing” we separate the nothingness into a seemingly infinite variety of representations in order that we may try to perceive of Nothing from it. 17 We represent and interpret Nothing in order to exist, though it cannot actually represented or interpreted so we get a seemingly infinite variety of Potentials and representations and a seemingly endless universe. This trial at "perceiving nothing" is what may appear as perception of "here" and "now". At each moment the entire universe is created anew because each moment is a representation of the interpretation of Nothing. Everything that exists is represented in your current perspective. New York City, for example, does not need to exist until you perceive it. Yet, you can never perceive it in its entirety because its entirety is not there. You are only perceiving the representations: a photo of New York, the name "New York", the idea of New York, etc. These representations may hold the same relationships as the city itself, because any of those representations could have the others eficiently “packed” into it, like a fractal. In this way every representation is like a holographic memory file that contains other representations. They are all representative of relationships, afer all, so take up no space or time. When you look at the moon or distant galaxies (or something or someone else) you are interpreting relationships. Distance in space or time is just the logical placement of something in our perspective. A distant planet or person is rarely as relative as the something that is closer to us. If you have just landed on planet Mars, for example, you will represent Earth somehow (perhaps with pictures, or in your mind) and these new representations of Earth could become more relative to your perspective than the physical Earth itself. As you have a new representation you have interpreted the “Earth” relationship diferently, which will cause you to interact with it diferently, which will afect the reality and its meaning. We may even become more atached to the idea of Earth (which you've represented with pictures) than the actual planet, without realizing you've created 2 Earths in your perspective. The way you perceive of something depends entirely on how you interact with it. And the more you interact with something the more you see it in your reality, because you will begin to interpret your other relationships the same way. The broken window of our previous example will begin to afect how we perceive the windows around it. As we interact with our reality, so does our reality become. 16 Another way to say it is that reality is procedurally-generated via the SPIRs algorithm, makes it logical and consistent, and seemingly endless. 17 However, “Nothing” neither exists nor doesn't exist. Existence is irrelevant to it.

32

How Can the Answer Be This Simple? We have not found the answer to everything, perhaps only discovered somewhat simpler questions. Yet, it is far easier to formulate complicated answers than any simple questions. There is no limit to how complex we can make something appear, nor how much we can divide it up and make it seem like reality is a far greater task than it actually is – all we need to do is throw time, space, and resources at it to imitate the infinite reality it seems to be. Whenever we are looking for the answer to something we can consider how what we have already discovered relates to other things in our perspective in order to find the underlying logic upon which the discovery of our answer may rest. We can also use what we know already to relate to the things we do not yet know. We can meet anyone in the world with a few of the right introductions, no mater how secluded they are, and we can find any answer we want with a small handful of reasonable logic, no mater how impossible it may seem. The simplest answer is that which has the most logical questions. Indeed, we limit the chaos of a question with the reasoning of an answer, finding a harmonic resistance between the two that may not make the most sense, but is good enough to work with to get a step farther. Something that applies to everything can seem repetitive, even a litle boring, which is why we make the simple more complex in the first place. But when we have minimized the interactions required by our relationships then we have reached a most beautiful simplicity. Any answer is not simple where perspective is involved. We would not want it to be. Complication allows us to exist, and eat sandwiches. But we can make eforts to ensure that our journey is harmonious with the stops we make along the way, and whatever complications that arise flow from the most simple.

33

Part 2: The Reality Around You, The Reality Through You

34

The Story of the Boy and the Genie There once was a boy who met a genie. The genie gave him 3 wishes. "I wish for an endless supply of wishes," the boy commanded with a smart grin. "Very well," said the genie, herself smirking. "You have an endless supply, and two more wishes afer that." The boy didn't take long to think of another wish. It was something that he had been thinking of for quite some time. He wished for a spaceship to take him far away from Earth. He travelled quite far away from his home, his parents, and his friends, and along the way he wished for things like air, food, water, friends to play with, and anything else he wanted. Although the journey to other worlds was fun, afer a while he grew tired and wished for an endless amount of physical energy so that he'll never have to rest. Though even afer that he still had an unlimited supply of wishes lef, which somehow comforted him for now. Yet, he was still quite lonely because he continued to realize that his every experience, from his friends to the air he breathed, was an illusion. “They only came to be and came to play because I wished it,” he thought. It was all an illusion, really. He eventually came back to Earth because he grew lonely and missed the things he could not control. He was actually tired of creating his reality, and missed dreaming about things and geting excited about them. He missed fighting with his brother because it also meant that he liked making up with him and felt good about his ability to defend himself or try to run faster. He missed his homework because it gave him something to do and meant that he would have a sense of accomplishment when he finished it. He missed his parents because even though he didn't agree with everything they said and it was far from a perfect family, they have been there since the beginning and know him beter than anyone else. Along the way, he had somehow lost all hope. But he was hoping to gain it back. Afer considering all of this for quite some time he decided that life is beter lef to its own elements. His last wish from his endless supply was to 'undo' his first wish, and return the endless supply of wishes back to the genie. He destroyed his never-in-a-lifetime chance at geting whatever he wanted. He lived a much happier life afer that for a number of years. But still, in the back of his mind was the lingering thought that it was all an illusion. That somehow his life, which he was now quite happy with, was something that he wished for and wasn't real. Perhaps it was all just a dream that he wished for as he talked in his sleep, and the genie hadn't told him. He wanted to feel more secure than that. He wanted life to be itself, chaotic and wild and good and bad, and to be as real as it could possibly be. He wanted to feel alive. What an awful thought! To think one is not real and does not exist. "What could be worse that having absolutely no value?" he would think. 35

This troubled him far too much and he soon began to lose sleep over it. One day he made a decision. He finally used his second wish. "I wish I never met the genie!" he exclaimed. With those words and a puf of smoke the genie vanished forever. In some ways it was already too late. Having had an endless supply of wishes, the boy was a genie himself. But for the remainder of his life he never once considered it, nor thought it was even possible. His best wish, by far, was to be able to dream again and forget that he ever knew that part of himself and all the things he could do by simply puting two and two together. We Draw Illusions, and are Drawn to Them Imagine you could do anything, be anything, know anything, simultaneous to the desire or want or need. Imagine you were an omnipotent being in all imaginable ways. How boring and purposeless would that be? In that way, could forgeting be more exciting? How interesting would it be to create an endless maze or illusion for yourself to bring a sense of purpose to your existence? Could limiting your infinite potential make sense? When you listen to someone speak about something they are really excited about, eat delicious food, watch a talented athlete or musician, or something that makes you feel wonderful, isn't it great that you have no idea what is coming next? Wouldn't it be more interesting to be amazed rather than be bored because you already know everything? How wonderful would it be to have a relationship with something that isn't you, or to learn about or do something new like it's the first time? If you are everything all ready, what logical choice do you have other than to divide up your existence into infinite illusions, and forget that you did just that, if you want to exist and perceive of anything? Without the illusion there would be no experience because there would be nothing to compare it with. Forming relationships with illusions is the best we can do. The more we relate to things the more those things seem to exist. The illusion is far more interesting than the reality, as the true reality does not interact. We are, thus, drawn to the illusion. But the interpretation of reality comes entirely from you. What maters is not whether or not something is true but how you relate to it. A fictional story could change your life as much as a non-fictional story. Surely, media and governments everywhere take advantage of our brain's lack of concern with “truth”. Another person appears to be separated from you because you have managed to convince yourself that your perspective comes from your body, because that is where “relevance” seems to be centered. It is not much diferent than thinking that your sense of self comes from your senses. You do not so easily experience the perspective of your heel, for example. And you do not so easily experience the perspective of the person across the room. There seems to be a dividing line between “you” and “other”, and it looks like your body. The illusion of high-relevance in your perspective is your body. But we fool ourselves again when we think that what is outside of our bodies is not very much related to what we are. Siting in the comfort of our homes is an illustration of our perspective, we might think, but siting in a boring meeting for 6 hours somehow isn't also an illustration of it. We focus on the physical 36

illusions rather than the relationships, so the connection is more dificult to see. If the world was entirely in your perception, where would 534 Ridge Lane be? What is Proust doing right now? And where did grandma's chocolate cookie recipe come from? Things seem separate in space and time because, again, we are focused on the physical illusion. The 534 Ridge Lane illusion could be right in front of us, re-interpreted in a way that goes along with the logical narrative of our current experience. This also means that a pair of shoes drying in the sunlight in the year 1292 could be more relative to you than a person you last saw a couple of weeks ago. Both are a part of your perspective (as the concept of shoes in 1292 was just introduced to you) but one interpretation of something close to you could be those old shoes, and another interpretation of something not so close to you could be the person from a couple of weeks ago. Surely, if 5 people gaze at an abstract painting and were each asked their interpretations we'd get 5 diferent responses. Each is interpreting the random noise diferently, it seems. 18 The painting itself does not exist outside of the interpretation. The interpretations of the painting do exist, however. We sense relationships and interpret them as “thoughts”, “opinions”, “events”, “beliefs”, etc. What of all the details you can think of that comprise your world? Everything from the macro to the micro is a random interpretation of Nothing, formulated in a way that makes some kind of sense. Each interpretation will appear to have some basis in reality because each interpretation is as real as any other. We can only compare illusions with other illusions. We can apply logic to someone picking randomly from a deck of tarot cards, for example. We can formulate a story from the chosen cards into something that has some validity to it as we interact with the person to whom it is directed. This, too, is an interpretation of Nothing as real as any other kind of interpretation where paterns are formed. The more the parts of the story interact the more real the acting and play seems. We can do the same with any obviously random phenomena. But we also do the same with everything else we think is real and true and isn't so random. When you are looking at something you are interacting with it. When you are experiencing it you are also integrating it into your logical narrative. Your reality is a logical representation of existence. It doesn't mean that if you are in the bathroom there are quasars and galaxies in the shower, unless that's your thing. However, it does mean the same relationships that can be interpreted as quasars and galaxies are there in your current perspective in some way. Every aspect of your perspective dances with every other, forming a geometry of relationships. As you interact you also become. When you look at a television, for example, you are interacting with those values in your perspective. You are, you could say, merging with television technology-consciousness and television media-consciousness. The more you interact with it the more your reality will be oriented to it because your focus has changed the other aspects of your perspective to match the updated logical narrative. Drinking alcohol, for example, we are interacting with the alcohol on more than one “level”, so to speak. We are interacting with something we interpret to be alcohol (but of course is not). In another perspective the alcohol is represented and interpreted diferently. Pouring alcohol into a gas tank would not make a car drunk, but it could make its owner “drunk”. 18 Although there seems to be 5 diferent interpretations, there is only one. Yours.

37

The alcohol is an interpretation of something else “higher” up the pyramid in the image on the right. We interpret simpler relationships in a way that makes sense to our logical, usually more complex narrative.19 Interacting with a representation of something is also interacting with its other representations in ways that depend on how relative they are to our reality. For example, the relationship that is interpreted as gravity can also interact with other, simple interpretations such as time and density, depending on compatibility of interactions, but may not interact with other, more complex interpretations such as ice or disease. Some of these experiences are very compatible with our perspective (such as drinking water) and some are not. If we drink dish washing liquid, for example, it would not be a balanced relationship and it will afect other parts of our reality up and down the pyramid, even before we drink it. Sometimes the efect of these interpretations may be confused with punishment for a particular action, or karma. The efect is not equal to the action, of course, because the efect is an illusion. What maters is how our interactions with relationships change from the action rather than the action itself. Someone could do bad things their whole life with nothing “bad” happening to them, and someone could be good to everyone and have only bad things happen to them. It's not about being rewarded or punished, of course. Wouldn't you know... it's all about the relationships. Time and space are also here in the pyramid. Chaos is interpreted as space, then again as the expanse of the universe. Order is interpreted as galaxy clusters, then again as galaxies, solar systems, planets, land masses, cities, and so on, for example. All of the complex interpretations at botom are from the simple relationships at top. When you remember an event, for example, you're not actually remembering how you experienced it at the time but perceiving an aspect of your current experience. You are reinterpreting something that appears to be “past” but is actually just as “present” as anything else that isn't relative. It would be like looking at 3 cars and thinking the “past” was the car you used to like, the “present” was the car that you like now, and the “future” the car you didn't like (yet). You're actually looking at 1 car but you spread it out in time and space to make sense of it in your reality. Spreading out space and time like this enables an endless variety of other stories to unfold. It is not “past” just because you're not atracted to it anymore. And it would not be “future” because you don't like it yet. But as you unfold the story of your existence you use past, present, and future tenses in order to make the story more interesting and give depth to your reality. We organize all of the random chaos into an order that makes sense for us. It makes sense that some things are there while other things are here. Some things are big and others are small. Some things are past and other things are present. These are the interpretations that provide meaning to our existence as we relate to them. We confuse this patern-making with reality when it's really just how perspective works. 19 We even interpret good things to be physically “high”: htp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1520432641

38

In the following illustration we see that diferent perspectives will interpret the same metaphysical relationship in diferent ways. The perspective of the boy meeting the genie is the same as a flower blossoming in another perspective, in this example.

Reading a story about a boy and a genie would be a diferent interpretation than seeing the film version or being the boy himself. Each could be from diferent relationships, or the same. And sometimes two identical things could be similar interpretations of diferent relationships. This could get confusing, but we can eventually learn how to use our intuitive sense to tell the diference.

Space and time are irrelevant in this way. A person, place, thing, event, etc., in past, present, or future could be interpreted in another way in your perspective. A debate in a forum in current-day Greece could be interpreted as a forest fire in Australia hundreds of years from now, or the ofice politics of the East India Company a few hundred years ago. None of these interpretations were “first”, as space and time are also interpretations. Each perspective interprets the chaos diferently. But the relationships are the same, in this example. Searching Chaos for Paterns The act of perception could be more appropriately termed “patern-making”, building a logical narrative out of chaotic stimuli. We build identities that relate to paterns and find comfort in what we seem to have discovered. We look at randomness and automatically find order, though order is not inherent in randomness. We break down chaos with order, and perspective is born. The image on the right is a representation of chaos and how we find random paterns in it. We interpret a basic shape (closer to the top of the pyramid on the last page) and re-interpret it in other aspects of our perspective, making it more complex the more it interacts. Eventually we will interpret it physically, as something we can see and touch, as our senses interact with it. As light adopts denser aspects when it interacts with 39

more complex things, such as objects, the objects also adopt simpler aspects with they interact with simpler interpretations. Like the universe, life is random. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. Something is only “bad” because that is how we interpret it (and things that are relative to it) in our perspective. We will see what fits within the logical narrative we already have and ignore things that don't fit. We will ignore the “good” of bad things and people, and ignore the “bad” of good things and people. But good and bad are illusions that depend entirely on your interpretation. Finding meaning through the interplay of opposites means that we will usually create dramas where none existed before. (Some of us do this more than others, to be sure.) This human need for drama is actually a need to find paterns in the nothingness and make sense of things that don't actually exist. Again, the more we interact with the illusion the more real it seems. Involving others in the drama is one of the many ways to increase this interaction and heighten the sense that our experience is real, solid, and that we exist. Finding a balance in the chaos/order relationship is harmonic resonance. It's what makes us feel good, things taste good, perceive beauty, etc. Happiness, as we'll illustrate on page 57, comes not from “positive” but from “positive/negative” relationships. Other names for this harmonious relationship are flow20, “in the zone”, resonance, balance, nirvana, beauty, proportion, peace, etc. However, these usually forget the opposing force that makes it possible. Relationships that are not resonant make us feel a bit like we don't exist, because it takes more interactions (or, more energy) to perceive of them. When something is easier to perceive and interact with it is easier to feel like we exist. The The paterns we less interactions we need for this the less friction there is in our reality. experience are As the brain is an interpretation of the mind, the brain discover paterns in order to use energy most eficiently. It isn't concerned with what is behind the illusion, because it would just find more illusions. Interacting with the illusion is just as good, and it interacts with the illusion that it is most comfortable and compatible with.

the most eficient illustrations of what cannot be perceived

As the universe is an interpretation of nothing-in-particular, it discovers paterns in order to interact most eficiently. No real energy is used, because the representations are only “interacting” with other aspects of themselves. As what we consider energy is the relationship between illusions, energy is not created or destroyed but re-iterated. The paterns we experience are the most eficient illustrations of what cannot be perceived. The Vastness of You Do you need to understand physics and calculus before you walk or jump? How is it that load-bearing Kenyan women understand calculus, gravity, and kinetic energy as well as any physics professor to balance heavy items on their head and walk across plains and up and down hills? If you tell a lie, what part of you has told the lie? Is it your heart? Your fingernails? The heel of your toe? Your mouth? Or perhaps one of your brains? 20 Refer to the works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, particularly the book “Flow”. Also htp://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow

40

Are we like spheres, with no beginning or end save for an edge that helps us to define who we are? Where is your edge, really, when your electromagnetic outline extends far, far beyond your skin? Is that part way out there not you? Is there really any point where you can say “this is me”? As we have demonstrated, “you” is not the body or representations like skin, brain, eyes, etc. These are illusions whose purpose is to form a framework for interaction. You are the relationship of all that you know and all that you don't think you know. The real you is perspective, and the true you cannot be perceived. Of course, you can expand your idea of "you" to include other aspects of your reality such as where you live, your family, where you eat, your house, your watch, or even your subconscious. These things can help us to focus our identity but they should not be confused with who and what we are. Every person, place, thing, event, thought, and emotion you experience and don't, whether in your immediate focus, extended focus, or peripheral focus, is all your identity. What is anything you see or experience but your perspective? The expanse of your perspective, you, includes all things you could possibly imagine. You do not need to understand physics in order to walk or sit. An aspect of you all ready understands it quite well, and you re-interpret this relationship as something else, perhaps muscle movement. The understanding of the entire universe and of your entire reality is represented in your current perspective, right now. We can think that we're not there yet or that we have some more evolving to do, but then we'd be missing the point. When we do something, anything, our entire perspective is doing it, too, in its own way. Stand on your head and you'll do the same thing in your dream reality, too, in its own way. Every part of your reality will be doing the same thing. Your experience is of the same value of relationships in another perspective. Did you walk down the street today or are you re-interpreting what you are doing in an other perspective? Are you thinking, feeling, moving, touching, talking, loving, seeing, or interpreting? You are free to interpret things as you like. And here you are. In order to limit your reality, increase your focus. In order to expand your awareness of reality, unfocus on it. Never mind how the other aspects of your perspective do it – people, books, or teachings. Our fingers can only ever point ultimately to nothing. Make up your own rules, and interpret things as you like. There is no need to focus on everything or anything if one is looking to increase awareness. Why focus on illusions? Un-focus and see how you interpret what is already there. What is Thinking? The psychologist George Miller wrote, “It is the result of thinking, not the process of thinking, that appears spontaneously in consciousness.” When we think, what are we actually doing? When we think we are interpreting the geometry of perspective in a way that makes sense to us at the time. We are not aware of how we think because what we call a “thought” is not a thing, but a relationship. A thought does not exist by itself, only in relationship with everything else. A relationship can be interpreted as any kind of person, place, event, process, or thing. 41

Perhaps one interpretation could be a hammer that you can hit a nail with, while another is you meeting a friend at an event, while yet another interpretation is you thinking of what you will do tomorrow. If our science understands that a hand exists in three dimensions yet is made up entirely of things that do not exist in three dimensions, what is our hand really? Is it a threedimensional interpretation of something that is beyond three dimensions? Could it be said that something that is not perceived to be three-dimensional, such as emotions or a personality, could be interpreted in three dimensions? How is it our mind, which we do not consider three-dimensional, can form and interact with seemingly three-dimensional objects in our imagination and dreams? How could it interact with such objects in our waking reality unless it interpreted those objects in a way that made sense to it? If we could translate a three-dimensional object into five dimensions, for example, it would not have the same form or reality, as it would need to relate to and be compatible with the other things around it in five dimensions. What if our three-dimensional hand is actually an interpretation of something that has two and four-dimensional aspects? What if our thoughts are interpretations of things that we can touch, see, or atend? The mind understands that dimensions are just types of interpretations. For convenience, we spread out these interpretations so that they make sense and we can interact with them in a logical way. Those things that interact with other things of the same type are relative, and so are placed together in space, time, dimension, or whatever. We don't realize that a hammer and the thought of the yellow submarine on a billboard could be the same thing. Our thoughts can be interpreted physically, and physical things can be interpreted in our thoughts. The process by which this happens is SPIR, and we do it all the time. The expression in our physical perspective is diferent, of course, as it will have diferent interactions and need to be physically compatible. A certain physical object in a room or arrangement of objects can make you feel uncomfortable, for example, because the physical object represents something else that may be discomforting. Thinking, like any feeling, sense, or object, is an interpretation of something else. This is more obvious when we are thinking in our dreams and our dream reality changes simultaneous to our thought or feeling, but less obvious when there is more friction involved as we experience more complex realities like physicality. Everything Is Relative to Your Perspective [Fast forward to skip this illustration of time travel and how your experience is relative.] Imagine that you met someone who told you they were from the year 2130 and used a type of machine to visit your time. Not believing them in the slightest you ask for a small demonstration. The time traveller accepts, but need a few days to prepare. A week passes and you've already forgoten about it until your new friend mysteriously appears in your bedroom in a sparkling cloud of darkness. Surprised, you remember your previous conversation and afer some argument about you needing more sleep agree to accompany your new friend. Your time travel demonstration will include the two of you going 42

back more than 100 years into the past to Times Square in New York City the evening of April 15, 1912. “But first,” your friend warns, “we'll need to make a few stops.” The first stop is Times Square in 1987. You both spend a few minutes there before jumping again, this time to Times Square in 1956. Aferwards, 1932 and, finally, April 15, 1912. Amazed, you don't think about the nature of the jumps, as you believe it to be part of the demonstration. However, you find out that they are a necessary part of your journey. “If we didn't make some intermediate stops, you wouldn't really notice anything,” your friend explains. Everything in your perspective is relative to your current space and time. But you are not standing in space and time, you are interpreting something else to be a certain space and time. You can't just appear in another space or time suddenly. There needs to be a transition between one and the other, making the whole process more relative. Your logical narrative needs to adjust to the new perspective and make sense of it. When you return to your home time you find out that you were only in Times Square in 1987 for a few seconds. To you it seemed like you were in 1956 and 1932 much longer than you actually were.21 Your perspective has made sense of the transition in a way that is necessary for it to relate one place to the other. This is similar to how our brain will ofen fill in missing information if there's a visual blind spot. In order for you to experience Times Square on April 15, 1912, it needs to be a part of your logical narrative. It may even be that you have found yourself there without the help of your friend. Perhaps a kind of wormhole materialized in your kitchen one day. But your perspective formulated the relationships (and the story of the time travel machine, and someone else operating it) to make sense of it for the integrity of your logical narrative. No mater what you experience, you must make sense of it somehow. The logic of your experience is not “true”, but it is a good enough approximation to provide you with consistent and convincing perceptions. As well, we ofen re-interpret our past in a way that we didn't actually experience but makes more sense to us today. As you find yourself standing in Times Square the day that one RMS Titanic sank into the ocean, you'll find that the properties of your home-time would still permeate your perceptual facilities, your body, and just about everything else you experience. You are essentially focused in two places at once, with a grip on neither. It would take some time for your perspective to adjust to the new reality because the geometry of the 1912 perspective is foreign to the geometry you know so well. While you adjust to being in 1912 you feel the sky and air has a diferent quality. The light is diferent, too, but you don't specifically know why. You may even throw up your lunch, which momentarily shifs you back to your home perspective. Your interpretation of 1912 is still heavily influenced by what is relative to you. You seem to be losing your bearings. Looking around, you don't see what you'd expect. You hear people talk about a ship sinking 21 As you experience 1987, 1956, 1932, and 1912 you are actually also experiencing your home time, as you are still interpreting the other times from your home perspective. Space and time have realities that depend entirely on their interpretations.

43

but you do not hear “Titanic”, but something like “titanium” or “Truman”. People walk about the street but they appear to be wearing the same clothes as people in your time do. Looking around a bit more you see a group of people wearing clothes from an older period, and then suddenly everyone is wearing vintage clothes as your perspective adjusts. Your perspective is a bit confused as it adjusts to the new geometries. Your interpretation of 1912 is very similar to your interpretation of your home time, at least for the first few hours or days. Everything looks a bit similar to what you'd expect of Times Square today, but still there's a peculiar quality to it. It seems almost like a dream. You would, in fact, probably call it a dream even if you were actually standing in Times Square in 1912. It would feel just like a dream because it is both a dream and reality. Looking around, you see things you can relate to. Things look old and new at the same time. A line of cars is in the middle, with their drivers standing outside. You get closer, taking a peek. Every interaction changing your geometry of perspective and drawing you into the 1912 perspective. The more you interact with it the more the dream turns into reality. If we did not experience our dreams changing so rapidly, we would get lost in them and forget about our physical reality. We could spend “years” in a dream but our conscious minds would not be aware of it. Focusing on a particular geometry and interacting with it changes how you interpret reality. Everyone you meet in 1912 is there because they have interacted that much with it.22 Nevermind what year it is, or the time, or who you think was born first. You find yourself in your current time and space because that is where you expand your focus, interacting with whatever is there. We actually do this quite ofen. Your perspective adjusts and here you are. We normally call this adjustment period “waking up” or “newborn baby”, but your perspective as a baby is completely diferent than your perspective as an adult. As a baby you're likely still interpreting your new reality from your previous one. Both perspectives are equally valid, of course, in the same way that two friends can read the same book and yet have diferent opinions and perspectives on what they read. Past-oriented events and representations are interpreted into our perceptual framework. To the other persons in Times Square, you appear to be quite normal. A bit diferent somehow but you still fit within their logical narrative. They may even see you in clothes that fit the time. This is what we are doing at every moment. Look around yourself right now. You assume that everything and everyone you see is from your current time and space. You are, instead, interpreting a variety of stimuli and integrating them into your perspective so that it all makes sense somehow. You are not only making paterns, you are making stories. A person shaped like a cloud walking down the street next to you would not make sense, so you either ignore it completely or re-interpret it as something else. A “ghost” makes a bit more sense, but it's not the time and place for a ghost, as your story goes, so perhaps you interpret it as a flash of light or a fog instead of a cloud-like humanoid. Your memories of past are actually distant interpretations of present relationships. You are not remembering your past, you are remembering an aspect of the present that is “shaped” in a way that you have determined “past” things to be shaped like. It all fits into your logical 22 More accurately, the people you see are aspects of your perspective. These aspects are relative, so of course they interact with things that are relative to it. In this instance, the 1912 reality has a relative, 1912 interpretation.

44

narrative. You do not see that the broken glass on the floor exists at the same time as the glass on the table, so you make up a story about it that makes sense. If broken glass was suddenly to appear on the floor in front of you, you may even suddenly remember breaking the glass yourself and implant the memory and allow it to interact with other things that make sense. The memory isn't really there, and neither is the broken glass. This is the nature of perspective. We perceive space/time to be two things because it is logical for us to distance things that are not relative. 1912 and 1987 are the same time, and Times Square and your home are the same space. Time and space are interpretations, not things or realities independent of your perspective. 1987 is not so relative to your current perspective so you place it “in the past”, not interacting with it that much. 1912 is even less relative and outside of your focus, so you place it in the distant past. We do the same with space, making the things that don't seem relative to us further away. There is an aspect of you focused on reading these words. It knows how to “read” and give those perceptions to your brains. You don't need to know exactly how you're doing it, since you work with the representation. There is also an aspect of your total perspective that is focused on other times and spaces. As you stand in Times Square on April 15, 1912, your more modern perspective would be in your peripheral focus. The modern world, in fact, would not even need to exist. The relationships only need to be represented, and they would be so in your conscious 1912 experience. In some ways, a seat across from you now could be more relative to your current perspective than your own body 10 years ago. When we shif focus we sometimes consider the previous focus to be in our memory. But sometimes when we shif focus we consider the other focus to be something around us. Your geometry may change and the relationships in your reality may change, but you do not become irrelevant to yourself. Perhaps you no longer see something in your reality that you saw before, or perhaps it is “past” or is now far away, but its reality is always near. It is an interesting illusion to perceive someone else, or something as being past, or something over there. It is easy to think that these are not you. But you can only ever experience your unique perspective. And there is no need to resist the endless illustration of you. You're not a resident of your own perspective, or someone observing your perspective. It is entirely You. Drifing In and Out of Relevance [Feel free to skip this section if you already have a good grasp of how relationships work.] Imagine that you are outside in the park. There are many people around doing various activities. There is a group of people playing catch nearby. Some of the people you know, and some you don't. As you look closer you immediately notice a strange phenomena happening. The people that you don't know seem to be throwing a ball at a very high speed in the field. This is odd, because the people that you know a litle are moving much slower than the strangers are, and the people you know well and are friends with are moving even slower still. Your brother and your best friend are also playing catch with everyone else. When you look at them both, however, it seems as though they are moving at an exceedingly slow pace. As the strangers throw the ball to them the ball slows down considerably, matching their speed. 45

During a break in play you go over to talk to your brother. He is chating to one of the strangers – whom you observed moving very rapidly on the field – and introduces you both. You find out that this person's name is Steve and you happen to both work at the same company. He introduces you to his friend Marya but beyond a simple greeting she does not say much. When the game resumes you notice that Steve is moving slower than he did before you met him. His friend Marya is still moving fast but is somewhat slower than she was before. This is an illustration of how the geometry of perspective works in a relative way in our reality. As we cannot perceive everything-at-once, we logically order our perspective. As there are many things in our perspective, this logical ordering makes some things relative to us and some things not relative. Some things, like our bodies, are very relative to us and others, like a distant star, are not at all relative. Everything in existence is somehow represented in our perspective, not as a person, place, or thing but as a relationship. We interpret these relationships in an endless variety of ways, each an interface with a much greater reality that we cannot experience. Some things we relate to more and some things we relate to less. The highly relative relationships in our perspective are usually closer to us than other relationships. These could be interpreted as our bodies, our family and friends, our work, the place we live, or any number of other things that we know. Relationships can also be re-interpreted if it makes sense to your overall logical narrative. The relationship can still be there exactly as it was before but it can appear to be entirely diferent. If you move to another country, for example, you may wonder how you could be comfortable in a place that is so foreign from what you're used to, or even wonder why you may have similar problems as you did back home. In such a way only the interpretation is diferent but the relationship could still be the same. How do the people, places, and things in our lives drif in and out? Why does one best friend from childhood still want to hang out, but your other best friend does not? What does it mean when people die, or are born, things change, circumstances shif, or people move to other places? In our scene in the park, the people that we had a relationship with were a more significant part of our narrative and geometry than others. It doesn't mater if we like them or not, as relationships in the geometry are not about wanting or liking. Usually, though, it means that we will experience those things and people more in our reality if our geometry is like theirs. It could be that your brother is a significant part of your geometry and so he is more of an influence (whether or not you are aware of it). Someone you met for only a short time is also part of this geometry, representing a relationship that shifs a bit “closer” to the other things that are in your reality. The park itself and every aspect of the experience is an interpretation of relationships. A person is not interpreted diferently than, say, a blade of grass just because the person has eyes. Thus, relationships with non-human parts of your reality are no less valid. An old pair of jeans may be more relevant and influential to your perspective than the person you just met. There is consciousness everywhere there is a relationship, whether or not your realize it. You 46

may never see the person or the park again, but the relationship may be interpreted later on as something or someone else. Your physical body is likely the most relevant aspect in your perspective. We seem to have prety much the same face, thoughts, and personality that we've always had. We have an innate sense for relativity and patern-making and are in a constant state of harmonizing all of these relationships. We try endlessly to interpret what is beyond interpretation and so perceive what appears to be motion through space and time, jumping from one thought to the next, and going through emotions. Although we usually consider only our body to be who we are, our more real body is everything in our perspective. When a relationship shifs in the geometry of perspective we may illustrate this as meeting someone new, going to another place, losing someone, picking up something, talking to someone, etc. The interpretation fits the logic of our overall story. If our story is more oriented to business, perhaps it is a new business contact or a renewed contract. If we're more inclined towards plants and animals perhaps one blossoms or another gets sick. Our experience follows the logic of our reality. We are always interpreting relationships but the interpretations must still make sense to us. A person cannot just disappear when our metaphysical relationship with them changes drastically for whatever reason. Instead, that person may, for example, develop an illness or die. Perhaps we might interpret this as a friend going on a trip, moving in with us, geting a job in another city, or becoming even beter friends. Again, everything must be interpreted in a way that makes sense in our reality. The Power of the Logical Narrative Reality's logical narrative is basically a story that makes sense to us. It is the backbone that our entire existence rests on. It is the method by which we perceive and how anything makes sense to us. Indeed, it is how chaos, or nothing-in-particular makes sense to us. We search the chaos of Nothing for paterns where none exist to give meaning to our perspective and, by extension, our lives. The paterns that we find have no reality whatsoever outside of our perspective. Although they're paterns that we just make up, they mean everything to us. We become very atached to them, and rightfully so. Not only do we naturally seek out paterns as a survival mechanism, only we can perceive the paterns that we make. Everything that exists fits into the logical narrative of Nothing 23, then fits into more complex narratives from there (following a patern like 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8...). Perspective is a more complex narrative than Nothing, but spacetime is a more complex narrative than perspective. Each fits into the potential defined by the simpler, more logical narrative. Making paterns is the only way to perceive, and the only way to try to perceive chaos, the nothing-in-particular. Perspective is all about taking random stimuli and building a story from it. By existing within a logical narrative we can perceive of reality in a most eficient 23 The most logical thing is that which applies to everything. Thus, Nothing is most logical. But how is it that the primary relationships afer Nothing are logical when they are defined as having “too much expansion” and “too much contraction” as compared with later relationships, which express seem to express phi more closely? It is because they can apply to everything, express the limits of both Nothing and Something, have the most eficient interactions through the most eficient representations, and inherently allow for more complexities within those limits.

47

way; we simply make up our own connections as we go along without having to consider whether or not it is relevant to us. We simply interpret something in a way that makes sense to us and it automatically becomes relative. Further, we form representations of all the most complex logical systems in our perspective. Instead of having to perceive (and interact with) countless systems of chemical-like electromagnetism we perceive of other humans that have a clear physical form, a much more eficient interpretation. Instead of having to experience the nuances of relationships of a group of atoms entering someone's body we simply see them geting sick or feeling energized. Rather than having to calculate the involved harmonic relationships in a specific “sector” of perspective we call physicality, one need only experience walking down the street. As we cannot aford to use what we don't actually have (energy) we represent everything in perspective. Everything we sense, think, feel, etc., is itself a story that makes sense of something more complex, and we give it life with more simple representations. A thing is but a lifeless abstraction that comes alive when it relates to another. A smile is a wonderfully simple representation of more complex feelings that do not know how to smile. At each stage of the story are illusions that only have meaning when relating to something else. Illusions interact together via logic, making something else that can be related to something else, and so on. Thus, a pathway is formed that can relate the string of a guitar with the stairs of a library. It may be that the stairs are climbed as the strings are plucked and the reason our foot may hit the wrong note as we ascend the staircase may not be obvious but the logic is neither in the stairs nor the string. Our reading of a novel that we just got from the library could mirror the same relationships as the strumming of the guitar. To our subconscious, they are the same thing interpreted consciously as the same ratio. The story that we experience is how we are interpreting relationships in the slice of our perspective that we happen to find ourselves in at this moment. It is like receiving a leter whose contents are entirely dependant on where you are opening it. If you open the leter on a warm beach its contents may be about the your aunt Maggie who loved taking you to the aquarium in the summer. If you open the leter on the train you might read a fast-paced story about a family of country geese who make a move to a big city. Every part of the story doesn't need to make sense to you consciously. It need only mirror the relationships that you are interpreting in the same way that a dream might mirror your thoughts when you sleep. However, we do our best to consciously make sense of things as much as we can without drifing too far of from the harmoniously balanced narrative of the subconscious mind. You could say that your conscious mind completely influences every aspect of your reality because you are the one interpreting it. This probably isn't obvious now, as our interpretation is not a “decision”, but as we evolve we may find language and concepts to illustrate the process of what we are doing at each moment. Evolving Our Story Those things in your perspective that seem far away are more complex ways of looking at those things in your perspective that are near. As the parts of your immediate reality interact more they become further expressions of your more basic and simple interpretations, expanding outwards in space and time. A single relationship as close to you as your nose 48

could be an entire civilization thousands of years ago. You have only re-interpreted the simpler relationships into more complex ones. There is, you could say, a buterfly flapping its wings at the top of the perspective pyramid, balancing chaos with order. Our physical bodies are one of the ways that we interact with physically-oriented perspective. Your arm is a simpler, more eficient representation of “you” than someone else's arm. You know your arm is relative to you yet it is dificult to perceive of reality through it. But instead of perceiving reality through your arm, your arm is one of the many ways you are expressing reality in order to interact with who you are. Your arm makes sense in your story, but beyond the story it is irrelevant. It's just one of the many countless ways you interface with something else. You exist beyond any narrative but in this narrative you still say “I” or “you” to conveniently make sense of who you are by separating yourself in order to interact with everything in your perspective. We do not usually think that we are experiencing ourselves when we walk on the grass or sit on a job interview. We tend to think that we are experiencing our world as active observers. You can look at your hand right now and even though you know it is atached to your body and you can feel it, it is extremely dificult to experience reality from your hand's perspective. Experiencing yourself as a blade of grass or as a job interview is dificult not because it isn't you or your perspective, but because you wouldn't remember it. This would be like having a short conversation with someone that was speaking an alien language – you wouldn't remember any of that, either, because you don't have the concepts or representations that would absorb the representations of the experience. When you look out from someone else's eyes you become that person, with the same thoughts, feelings, memories, and emotions that that person might have. You have no memory of other realities because you are entirely focused on your own. If you focused on another reality you would cease to be your particular memory as you now define yourself. And that is exactly what you are doing right now without realizing it. As we move, breathe, and live we evolve our story. We walk on the ground, but the ground itself is an illusion that would not exist if not supported by the entire structure of our perspective. One thing is not only relative to something else, it depends on everything else in order to exist. Our perspective cannot be divided, or parts deleted – we must represent whatever we want to “erase” in order to maintain its integrity. Our next experience, and last, must be related to our current one. But how do we find the path of the story, our defined narrative we hold so dear? How do we manage to interpret the chaos in a way that makes sense to our everyday lives? How did the first hominid make fire many thousands of years ago, or know that it was even possible? Some methods of exploring our logical narrative we call intent, coincidence, or accident. Perhaps the first induced fire was intentional, perhaps it was an accident. Both methods are still part of a logical narrative that seeks to make sense of the world around us. It could be, for example, that a fire suddenly appeared in a pile of dry leaves to the astonishment of a family of nearby humans. The humans, before they could witness “fire”, had to make sense of it in their reality. The sky was clear, without lightning. How did it happen that there is a fire, which we have seen being sparked before with lightning? Perhaps the humans interpreted the same relationship before as looking for fish in a river and seeing the fire of their own eyes stare back at them. But that was some time ago in the geometry of perspective, and now the same relationship has made its way around. How do 49

we interpret it this time considering the variety of interactions that have occurred since? Suddenly, our cousin appears on the other side of the fire. “How did he get there? I thought he was on the other side of us. Never mind the reason, though, it's starting to make sense now. Somehow he is the cause of the fire, because he is near it. His hands are doing something, but what? He is making rocks do the thing we do sometimes when we are happy. If we hit them together hard enough they will spark. But now he is doing this in a pile of dry leaves! It makes sense. The small sparks are falling onto the dry leaves and sleeping on by them. They are holding onto the sparks until there is fire. Yes! It makes sense!” we might think. Perhaps the relationship that can be interpreted as “extreme, focused heat” in another aspect we interpret as “fire” more relative to what is happening now with our cousin and the leaves. Perhaps the fire just suddenly appeared without context. We simultaneously develop the story along with the perception of the relationship in order to make sense of it. Perhaps our cousin “suddenly” appeared behind the flames as a way for us to make sense of it. He did not magically teleport from one side of the field to the other. He isn't there in the first place, and neither are you. The grass you lay on, the sky, the air, and the humans are all parts of the logical narrative – each aspect an interpretation that makes sense. The details don't mater too much, it could be anything. It is not the story that maters, but the relationships. One representation is as valid as any other, as long as they make sense somehow. Sometimes we intuitively sense the path of the story and know how to get from point A to point B, if that is our intention. But ofen, we experiment to see what works and what does not. Sometimes we follow other interpretations, which come to us as intuition. And sometimes we don't know at all. We are blissfully unaware that whatever path we take is the path of a story that makes sense somehow. Someone might have noticed that hiting a rock against a stone chips the stone away. Before that, maybe they were throwing leaves at the stone to interact with it. Each interaction further evolves the entire story. One doesn't need to know how something works, just that interacting with something makes something else. We only need work with the representation of the relationship rather than the relationship itself. By observing how something may make sense from another aspect, we simply perceive the representations. When we are children we see adults do things and we make our own sense of them. This way, we don't have to spend so much time interacting – we simply represent more complex interactions by perceiving what the adults are doing. We don't experience the complexities of a job just yet, just represent it by mom geting home before dinner and having money to take us out on weekends. We externalize the story so that we can illustrate logic far more easily than if we did not. (This is, afer all, what happens in the story of how Nothing becomes something.) An athlete may suddenly break a new record. Other athletes see this and extend their own logic. Suddenly, many other athletes are able to do the same thing that was previously not a part of the logical narrative because they didn't interact with it before. The first athlete did something that represented the new relationship. We can use representations such as language to direct others others to knock down a wall on a construction site, but talking to the wall directly doesn't seem to work. But why not? Not 50

because of any physical laws. There are no such laws, only the laws of perspective. There is only what is a part of our logical narrative and what is not (or not yet, if at all). The moment we see someone talking to a wall and knocking it down is the moment when we introduce it into our perspective and begin to interact with it. This is not to say that we will experience more of it, or even know how to do it. But when an experience becomes part of our reality then we are more likely to interpret things in the way that requires less interaction. “Monkey see, monkey do, and monkey done,” to pair a phrase with its logical extension. Your subconscious doesn't care whether you knock down the wall with a hammer or the sound of your voice, only that the relationship is interpreted and you interact harmoniously. It is easy to get caught up in the details and specifics of the story, not understanding that they don't mater. Whether something is high or low, good or bad, light or dark is entirely irrelevant. We usually only see and care about the logic that we've created and remember, rather than someone or something else's logic. Their logic is, afer all, an aspect of your own. We should not forget, though, that what you represent as “my story” is made up entirely of other stories. As your body is a simple representation of a more complex system, so is another person's story a simple representation of more complex stories. Everything we experience is a guidepost on our journey to make sense of chaos through our stories (logic). We don't need to understand the geometry of how it all works. It's kind of boring, anyway. We need only simply things for our mental, emotional, psychological, spiritual, or physical dramas. Working with the stories that we already know we can achieve the same understanding of these universal realities as we would meditating for 1,000 years, and it would be far more interesting. A train going in an apparently wrong direction is still nevertheless on track. We could even say that we don't mind taking far longer than is necessary, for sake of interaction. The truth, if ever it could be perceived, is irrelevant. Never mind so much about how we interpret these truths that we cannot know directly. Just assume that we interpret them in a way that makes sense to us right now and will continue to re-interpret things in a way that makes the best of sense in the new realities we uncover. The Meaningful Now Life is like a production of a television reality show. There are thousands of hours of footage taken of the actors. But the producers and story editors use only the small fraction of the footage they have that fits the story they want for the show. If the producers of “The Reel World” decide that a particular character will be biter and miserable, for example, they would then edit out the 99.996% of the 2,000 hours of footage taken over the past few months that doesn't show the character being that way. We do the same with our lives. We have particular opinions and beliefs about our own identity, and other people, places, and things, ignoring the great majority of what goes on in our reality. This we see as too boring and uneventful, so we edit it out as soon as it comes to our conscious awareness and pretend it has no meaning or role in our patern-making. We do the same with our reality, editing out more than 99.99999% of what we sense and calling it empty space. We consciously make paterns but don't make paterns with everything – we package the remainder up, represent it, and make sense of the representation. We pick and choose to weave the story of our selves into something that makes sense and has some kind of 51

meaning. Life is one giant selection bias. What we ofen find most meaningful in our lives is that which we can relate to the most. We translate everything we can into rather narrow, pre-determined parameters and filter out what we can't relate to. If a being from the non-existent 5th dimension materialized in front of you now, you wouldn't see it as it sees itself. You would see it as it makes sense for you to see it – perhaps a delicious fruit tart or aunt Bety's photos from her trip in the Caribbean. We ignore most of reality and re-present it as something that we can easily relate to. This also means that we translate time into something that we can easily relate to. There seems to be a past that was before now, a now that is before us, and a future that we have never before experienced. This makes sense to us and is a useful way to craf more interesting (interactive) stories, but we are still interpreting time to be a linear, natural phenomenon when what we are actually perceiving is the logical nature of our perspective. Time, as illustrated in a later section, is the compression or ordering of endless space, which itself is an interpretation of chaos. In the basic ordering of things there is that which is less relative to us and that which is more relative to us. In this way we experience only “past”. There is no present or future, unfortunately. There is only something that we remember, can relate to, or relates to something else that we know (called “past”) and something that we don't remember and aren't relating to as well (called “future”). In our perspective, the future is like random chaos and the past is like order. The “present” is the intersection between the two, but we do not experience the intersection because it only has a reality in relation to the two. In the same way that there is no absolute good or absolute hot, there is no absolute past, present, or future that can be perceived or experienced. We do not perceive or experience time – we perceive relationships. What we refer to as “now” isn't a point in time but a point in relativity. The illusion of time illustrates this point: although we can say, “It is now 10:32 AM” there is no such thing as exactly 10:32 AM. It is something we made up. We can break down a minute into seconds, and seconds into nanoseconds, etc., but we will never reach an exact time because time is an illusion that depends on other illusions for its reality. Time is only the page numbers of our story that we use to help keep track of the order. 10:32 AM is no more universal than the clock we stick it to. “Now” cannot be experienced. If you hold your hand a mere 30 centimeters in front of your face you are seeing your hand as it was 1 nanosecond ago, which is the time it takes for light to travel from your hand to your eyes. Look around you, and you are experiencing a reality that is never “now”. As a rule of thumb, the distant past is less related to your perspective than the immediate past, though its complexities are still represented in it. We are experiencing the past as it happens but it drifs away from our current perspective, like a train leaving the station. You know that the people in the station are continuing to experience their lives “now” even though you have lef but don't experience it with them because it is no longer relative. Other, less relative parts of you are experiencing everything in your past as a “now” just as the much more relative parts are (in the current time). Everything in our experience is represented and spread out logically in space and time – but the distance is only our interpretation of it, not the reality. If one day we travelled in time as easily as we do now to other countries it would be by finding the relationship between the distant perspective and the current perspective. We would take something (such as a rock) and extract its memory at the same time as 52

inserting some of our current perspective into it.24 We would be realizing that the past is simply an aspect of our current perspective, not divorced from it. The two continue to interact. If we did not relate “here” with “there” then it would take an endless amount of energy because many more interactions would be required to replace the more simple representations. Amazingly, we consciously do the same with space already. When we want to travel from here to there we relate the two together by means of transport, which represents the whole process in a way that makes sense for us. The hard part, though, wouldn't be experiencing the past perspective. It would be to be consciously aware of it in your current reality. You could, if you wanted to, just stay in the distant past but your perspective would shif to the new aspect (past) and your present would be present in a diferent way, and you would never know you made a shif. Your reality would simply be interpreted in prety much the same way, and you would likely not notice a diference. If this sounds like everyday experience, it is because it is. We cannot travel to the past or travel to anywhere, not even across the room. We simply re-interpret what is already there. When we remember a dream, for example, we are not remembering the dream but experiencing our interpretation of the dream. In order to remember it we re-create it in a way that makes sense to us in the present. We need to connect it with our current perspective in order to perceive it. Similarly, a past memory is not a memory of something that used to be relevant but something that is relevant in the current perspective. You've divorced most of the physical aspect of it, so you don't really experience that part.25 Let's imagine that we are remembering a stressful or traumatic event from our past. As we remember this past we are actually re-interpreting the present in a way that includes things that are related to you but “feel” diferent – and you mark these as “past”. Perhaps our body responds with increased anxiety or stress as we perceive these new elements just as it would be if it was happening now. The past is not a memory or record of what happened before but an interpretation of current stimuli that has no more bearing your reality than something going on now in a diferent city. You are what you interpret yourself to be. The Living World Around You You can sit quietly in your chair even though there are trillions of interactions going on in your body at this moment. You represent some of these by simply talking, breathing, or thinking. As you breathe you interact with your environment quietly, like a conversation that is just below a whisper. There's no need to think of it, or even know how you do it. We do not need to be aware of how anything in our body works. We don't even need to be aware of how our reality works. Can you imagine the endless physical, chemical, electrical, mechanical, and other dynamic processes that you manage because you are able to represent them with thoughts and actions? You don't need to understand the biochemical details of walking – you just do it. You digest food without being aware of how it's done. You are capable of perceiving and working 24 That is to say, allow our current perspective to be entangled with the memory (its now) of the rock we have extracted. 25 However, you could interpret this physically as an illness, physical feature or ability, or protein chain, etc. It is only as real as your interaction with it.

53

with your entire reality because you inherently know how to package the complexities and then work with those representations in a much more eficient way. Every aspect of your perspective is related to something else. This relationship is what we'd call consciousness. As relationships are all around us, so is consciousness. The physical, chemical, electrical, mechanical, and other processes that you don't need to be aware of are conscious because they are being related to. There is life in our bodies but we don't generally think of it as having a life of its own, or even thoughts and feelings. The living things in it knows that they are part of a system – your body – just as you know you're a part of a community. Each has its own perspective and isn't focused on the bigger picture, or even the smaller picture. It needs only find representations for something it does not seem to be (yet) and then interact with those representations, just as you do. Anything in your reality, such as an electronic device, is related to who and what you are in some way. We shouldn't confuse the inside or outside of any thing with its meaning. The ugliest or most disproportionate of things can be as meaningful as the most beautiful or proportionate of things. The meaning depends on our perspective, not its perceived harmony. We use tools, technology, devices, and other things to help us discover meaning in our reality and to make paterns, like using words to have a conversation or using eyes to see. If the device allows us to connect with a friend, then when we dial their number or send them a message it is our story unfolding as we touch and interface with the complexity. Any thing in our perspective, whether it's a toaster, a mobile phone, or a pile of leaves is something as alive as any other person in this story. Consciousness is in the relationships between all things and within all things, not just in things that have eyes to see. We tend to somehow think that the things around us are not aspects of our perspective, but of course they are. It is easy to see how your life could be an extension of who you are but perhaps more dificult to see how a computer, the Sun, or even a person might also be an extension. If the thought of a computer occurs to you in your imagination you may think somehow it is meaningless, not realizing that this is an expression of who you are no diferent than a computer you can use to connect to the internet with. The only diference between the computer in your imagination and the one in your physical reality is that you interact with the computer on your desk physically. We believe in the reality of the physical computer because it looks the same as our belief in it does. It has the same physical properties like other things that we trust in. We know where the computer came from, that other people can see and use it, we remember having had it for a while, etc. When we are dreaming we believe in the reality of the dream computer more, because it looks the same as the other things we believe in while dreaming. But the computer in our imagination just appears. We don't experience its story because it isn't logical to the perspective that is trying to think of where the computer came from. If we could follow our imaginary computer's story we would see how it, too, interacts just as much as our physical computer and it would therefore seem just as real to us. We tend to think that something is not real if we cannot relate to it. Someone seeing a headline about 100 people dying in a fire last night, for example, will likely react with far less emotion than hearing a story and seeing a photo about a single person who was atending his younger brother's wedding party before a fire broke out as he was making his speech, killing him and others. Never mind that he was only one person among many men, women, and children there, each with their own stories.

54

Reality, for us, is in the story of how things fit in our logical narrative, regardless of whether or not they are reasonable from other perspectives. There is life in every direction in space and time, no mater how much of our current perspective is in it. We relate to all of it in a way that is more logical to our subconscious, not in a way that is consciously obvious. Until we understand that we see reality through relationships instead of things, we will miss the meaning of what we perceive. Everything that can be perceived is an illusion with meaning, because without the illusions perspective would be meaningless. The wonderful illusions that fill our reality with all manner of existence are enveloped by the life and consciousness of relationships.

55

Part 3:: The Qest

56

What is the Meaning of Life? Your life is as you make it. That is to say, you are free to interpret the relationships that already exist however you want. What is important is not how you interpret what is already there but how you are relating to the reality you find yourself in. Life is not about finding yourself, but finding yourself in others. When you understand that everything in your perspective is an illustration of who and what you are then you have discovered a very important part of the equation. The missing pieces of your true identity are not in your name, how you look, where you live, what your job is, or how many friends you have. Although you can only ever experience the extent of your own perspective, the true “you” is everywhere in your reality in the relationships between the things that you perceive. The meaning of life is not in finishing university and geting a mortgage on a house and filling it with a family. Those are interpretations of what is already there and not to be mistaken with the actual meaning. The question is, “Are the individual things and experiences in my reality balanced with my entire perspective?” Is the relationship of the house with your family harmonious? Does the mortgage balance with the family's needs? Are the members of the family happy? Is your finishing university something that feels good, or makes you uncomfortable when you consider how it afects your family? Most importantly, do you realize that the things you see and experience are diferent interpretations of the same thing? Life is an endless parade of engaging illustrations that allow us to experience the relationships we would not otherwise see. When we balance the random chaos of existence with order to make for a balanced relationship it ofen gives us a sense of satisfaction or happiness, so let's explore what that is. What is Happiness? Imagine a spiral. In the center of the spiral are the things most relative to you: your body, the place you live, your family and friends, your personality, etc. The longer the spiral goes out the more you find things that aren't close to you in time, space, thought, and emotion: a stranger's car at a garage 3,500 miles away, the weather in another country, what someone is doing right now in a place you've never heard of. At the end of the spiral are things you can't even begin to imagine. Now, consider that things and events in your life happen more or less randomly. Each is represented by a face in the illustration on the right. You'll notice the random events that hit the spiral have a smile, the ones that almost hit it are neutral, and the ones that miss it have a frown. If the face touches the line, you feel happy. If it's perfectly aligned, you feel really happy. But if the face doesn't touch the line you feel neutral or sad, depending on how far away it is from the line. 57

This is an oversimplification, of course, but what it does is show how the persons, places, things, events, etc., that resonate with our perspective make us “happy”. When we feel happy about something we are actually sensing a balanced relationship and interpreting that as an emotion. We can ofen intuitively see this balance or lack of balance around us using our instinct. For example, a particular range of radiation on the electromagnetic scale from our Sun allows us to walk outside without much clothing. Oil doesn't have as balanced a relationship with water as tea leaves. Or, might experience dificulties in accomplishing a particular task or driving on our way to a particular event, and think nothing of it.26 The spiral represents the foundation by which our perspective discovers paterns and makes sense of the randomness. You can feel “happy” no mater what condition you're in, how much money you have, how many friends you have, etc. It's all about how we interpret things and where along the geometry of our perspective we place it. You could, for example, travel to another country you've never been and feel good for the entire first day, even though you are in a time and space that is completely foreign to you. We each have our own interpretations of what a particular balance, or lack of balance, feels like. Although we may ofen interpret such metaphysical relationships as a feeling of happiness or contentment, sometimes we may also interpret the misfortunes of ourselves or others as a balance, feeling happiness or satisfaction even. A relationship can be interpreted however we like, even if it means sometimes we don't know what to make of it. We tend to be atracted to things that are more relative to us – closer to us on the scale – because those things have a higher chance of a connection with who we are, as the spiral is more concentrated as relativity increases. If you focused on what isn't relative to you – far along on the scale – you could still find some connections but they're not as likely. How is it that a prisoner could be satisfied with being in prison afer having spent 25 years there? The world that has become more relative to the prisoner over the years is what he or she would most likely be atracted to and comfortable with (despite how they or society might feel on the surface). Or we could meet a stranger and, as we get to know who they are and relate more with them, we draw them closer to the center of the spiral. Before we met them they weren't as relative to us so their (completely random) actions were much less likely to connect with us. Perhaps we didn't understand their joke, why they wore an old watch, or didn't quite understand their behaviour. But as we draw them closer we are more likely to connect with them because the random distribution has a greater chance of hiting the spiral in the center, where resonance is more concentrated. Then we get their jokes, understand why they wear an old watch, and understand their feelings more. We may even excuse their bad behaviour, whereas before we would not have without the connection. How to Be Happy Being happy is not a mystery. As we have illustrated, being happy is how we interpret a balanced relationship of chaos and order with something else in our perspective. We won't find any examples of happiness that doesn't involve relating to something else. The “secret” to happiness, then, is to simply relate to more things. Or, at least, understand that it is okay to not feel happy if you are choosing not to relate to things much. As we relate 26 The dificulties are random, but this randomness is also interpreted into the logical order of our stories, albeit with a less harmonious placement than other things.

58

to more things we draw those things closer to our perspective, increasing the chances that we'll experience a balanced harmony in the randomness. Find your perspective in the world around you and these connections will come automatically. Conversely, you can lose connections by relating to things less. You can lock yourself in your room and never go out, fearing the extent of your perspective, but how sad would it be to not want to connect with one's own perspective? The feeling of happiness is likely the opposite of being “one” with the universe. When we are “one” with the universe we are All That Is, and nothing-in-particular. To be “nothing” and connect with nothing, having no relationship and unable to experience harmony because of the lack of relationships with “other” is frightening. We naturally avoid this emptiness in our perspective, creating endless illusions out of thin air in order to avoid this fate. (That is, in fact, what we have done.) When connecting with your perspective you don't need to worry about what isn't relative to you. Everything is represented in your current perspective, whatever it may be. As you sit in the room whatever perspective is outside the room needs not exist. A sound from a car on the street is only a sound if you do not experience anything else about it. As reality is endlessly represented, what is “out there” is represented by what is “in here”. The universe of atoms and molecules that make up your hand need not exist in a reality where simply perceiving a “hand” makes more sense. The atoms are folded into the geometry of the hand. Focus on what is relative, and the rest will fall into place. Why do people ofen choose to live in a neighbourhood with people like themselves? Why do we want to be friends with people that we have a lot in common with? Why do we do the same things over and over? Is it because we don't want to evolve or expand our perspective, be inclusive, or shake our reality? Or is it because we naturally tend to perceive best what is most relative to us, and make connections more easily with those things? Focus on what is relative, and Happiness isn't about the feeling of happiness. The feeling is itself a the rest will fall representation as much as the chemical that transmits the feeling is just an into place.

interface for something else. Happiness represents a balanced, harmonic relationship between you and something else, not mater how far away it is in time, space, emotion, or thought. We can be just as happy with something that is 10 years away as something that is right around the corner.

When we consider the state of happiness in our lives we should also consider whether we want “happiness” or really want what we're already used to. Do we want mysterious new things that we hope will fall in the right place on our spiral or do we want to interact with what is already relative to us, hoping that we can make it harmonious? To answer this, we can consider how much time we spend a day finding replacements for the things we aren't satisfied with. Perhaps maintaining our existing relationships (too chaotic, too structured, or balanced) is more desirable than an unknown that we may or may not connect with. The Art of Resonant Relationships When we have a resonant relationship with something we have a strong connection with it. It doesn't mean that you will feel happy from such a relationship, just that there's a good connection. (However, as we've already illustrated, you're more likely to feel good things from such relationships.) 59

Let's imagine that, for simplification, two forces in a relationship represent two sides of a SPIR. The variety of relationships in perspective vary as much as perspective itself does.

A job that you're happy with could be a relationship like 34:21. In this example your employer could be on the positive/chaos side as it seeks to maximize productivity, and you could serve as the negative/order side as you balance this out with limited productivity to naturally balance the relationship. If you limit productivity too much you will throw the relationship out of balance, causing discord and perhaps geting fired. If you increase productivity too much you will also throw the relationship out of balance, perhaps causing a great deal of work-related stress or illness as the imbalance is interpreted by your body, for example. 3:5 is a television show you love, and 5:67 is a show you don't. 89:144 is a gourmet meal, whereas 3:491 is eating sawdust – you want maximum taste but the sawdust limits it too much. The relationship is what you experience and feel, not the show or sawdust that are only representations of the relationships. This means you can feel really good in just about any kind of job if the balance is right. It also means you could be extremely wealthy and dissatisfied with your life if the relationships are not properly balanced, or extremely poor and feel happiness from your harmonic movements with the world around you. Interaction between the two sides is always bi-directional. Each side exchanges parts of itself in a continuous process of discovery. If a gourmet meal is “144” and your taste buds are “89” you interpret the stripping of electrons from the food (among other SPIRs going on) in such an exchange as deliciousness. You get electrons from one system to simultaneously add to your own system as the food interacts with various acids in your body, eventually providing energy and nourishment. But consider that your meal is also enjoying you in a similar way, benefiting from the harmonic exchange on the journey of its own logical narrative. There really are no actual SPIRs that work together and seek out an impossible balance. It is, like life itself, a wonderful illusion. (SPIR is among the first of the complexities outside of Nothing, however.) Perspective is our interpretation of All That Is (or nothing-in-particular) in the simplest way imaginable that becomes complexity when we try to perceive what cannot be perceived. Ultimately, this constant give and take is a busy balancing of illusions that are already as harmonic as they can possibly be, because they are all the same thing. The more we realize that one thing is the same as another, the more resonance we experience in our reality.

60

Becoming Comfortable with Your Self How can you become comfortable with all of your perceptions and, thus, yourself? Is it necessary to accept everything in your perspective – everything that you know or have known, everything in your experience, and everything that you can possibly imagine? We needn't love or even like everything that we perceive, or pretend to. It isn't natural to force love or good feelings on everything in our perspective. We cannot “love everything” no mater how good it sounds. That would be an imbalanced SPIR and not a healthy relationship. Counter-intuitively, if love is how you interpret some feelings then you also need a dose of hate for some other things. You can't have one without the other. This is not to suggest that you begin to hate things, of course, but to realize that hate is as natural as love is because what you are loving and hating is your own perspective. As you begin to accept all of your perspective (not just the good things) then you can begin to feel more comfortable with your complete self. It's not easy to think about, but what is hate but order in disguise? The subconscious mind doesn't care about love or hate, or how we interpret anything else. It does not perceive those interpretations – we do. Love and hate are words that represent how we interpret certain aspects of our reality, emotions, and thoughts. They are dificult to define precisely because they represent other things that are not those interpretations. One interpretation of “love” in the geometry of perspective could be a chair that feels really nice to sit in, while another interpretation of “love” could be a colleague that you don't like talking to but, nonetheless, still work with. Emotions are interpretations that help to define humanity and our lives, but they are no more true than the chair or colleague is a true representation. Your interpretation guides your emotions. What is more important than defining love and thinking how to give and receive love is to know that when you look at someone or something, you are looking at who and what you are. Everything else will take care of itself, naturally. When you talk to someone or interact with anything in your perspective, you are interacting with yourself. In this way we can feel the natural love and happiness of our perspective not because we are focused on what we think is “good” but sense the harmony of our perspective in seeming opposites and unrelated things. If we feel angry or upset with something or someone then we can understand that we are just geting angry at ourselves. Eventually we will tire of being angry with our own perspective, and that feeling can more easily be interpreted as something else. Atraction and repulsion is the nature of consciousness. Problems arise when atraction and repulsion are thought of as two separate forces. There is nothing wrong with interpreting something as good while interpreting something else as bad, as long as we know that both are our own illusions that illustrate the natural chaos/order relationship. Without interpreting something as “bad”, we can't interpret something else as “good”. Good and bad are not absolutes but depend on each other for their reality. If you want to get rid of the bad in your life, then both good and bad need to be re-defined and re-interpreted. It wouldn't be natural to focus and promote good while pushing bad away unless we wish to create something that lacks balanced harmony. We can pretend to love everything and be absolutely good, but it's just an unnatural fantasy that will afect other things in ways we don't want. It is more natural to simply relate more to what you want (without pulling it towards you directly), and relate less to what you don't (without pushing it away). Do we know the extent of our own perceptions? If we observe someone being dishonest do we deny their direction relation to us by thinking, “Why are they dishonest?” rather being 61

more aware by asking, “Why do I feel this way?" or, “Why am I interpreting it like this?” To realize that you are everything you perceive isn't easy. We have conditioned ourselves, out of necessity, to believe otherwise. The things and experiences that make up your perspective seem so not-me that even realizing that the darkest African person you have seen is a close relative of the lightest English person you have seen would appear far easier in comparison. How is our lack of understanding of how a plastic bag floating through the air similar to the lack of understanding between two close relatives speaking entirely diferent languages? In both cases were are distracted, or even fascinated, by the details that we can easily sense and the laws of nature that are implied. We mistake the clever illusion for the reality. How is everything in your reality a compatible interpretation? How do the things you supposedly don't like fit in the same space and time with the things that you supposedly do? How could a friend that we have grown to love so dearly do something that seems to be wrong or unfair towards us? Again, the value is in the relationship rather than the details that you see and experience. The details are just interfaces with an expansive consciousness that unites everything in one perspective: yours. If I told you that on planet Ghubird it is common for people to greet others by slapping them in the face, what would you focus on? The details or the relationship? You might think that it is a strange practice but not really think about how it relates to other things in the reality of planet Ghubird, and how it might make sense to the people there. Similarly, you might get “a slap in the face” in your reality without realizing how it relates to the entire story of your reality. You might focus on the details – the slap, the pain, the loss – but not its relationship with the other things in your perspective. An old story about a farmer illustrates this: One day one of the farmer's horses ran away. The farmer's neighbors heard the news and came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned and brought with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the farmer. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses and was thrown to the ground, breaking his leg. The neighbors again came to the farmer to ofer their sympathy. "May be," replied the farmer. The day afer, military oficials came to their village to draf young men into the army for their campaign. Seeing that the son's leg was broken they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," replied the farmer. It is dificult to figure out, consciously, what we really desire or like and what we really resist or dislike. We focus on the details of something but not the relationship. That song we think we hate keeps playing in our mind. We continue to run into someone we don't like. Someone you know isn't good for you keeps coming back, and you let them. We continue to do things that we think are bad or make us feel guilty. If we are reading a self-help book, for example, and have the urge to skip over a section that might hit a few nerves and make us feel uncomfortable, we are not doing that subconsciously but consciously. We are interpreting what our subconscious has “already read” (via its own interpretation) and consciously interpreting it as something else that we want to avoid. We 62

ofen block out relationships we may not want to interpret if doing so will change our reality in a certain way. Perhaps it's someone we don't want to call back or a meeting that we intentionally miss. These relationships may be expressed in other ways that may not be so appealing to us consciously but at the same time cannot ignore. Think of it as you telling yourself, “That was me that I just ignored.” What is most relative is not what you think you like or desire the most or are puting the most energy into, but what is easiest to perceive and interact with in any way. If it's easier for someone to smoke a cigarete than to quit smoking cigaretes, then cigaretes are probably more harmonious with their perspective. If a person says they detest violence but enjoy a number of violent movies, then violence is more relative to them than they probably realize. Focusing on the good side of things will eventually have the opposite efect, as (for sake of simplicity) you will give yourself a lesson that good and bad are the same thing. So by focusing only on one side of the equation you would experience the other side, which balances the experience as it illustrates its more complete nature. This could take a long time to figure out, however. You may even try to force yourself to interpret what is bad to you as something good, further entrenching your perspective in the illusion of opposites. In life we explore relationships. It doesn't mater what relationships we interact with, as long as it appears to be something. If something did not have value to your reality then it would not be experienced or perceived. We tend to resist things we do not like, but this only allows that kind of interpretation more space in our reality. Being comfortable with your perceptions is not about accepting everything or “turning the other cheek”. That would be focusing on the irrelevant details. Instead, when you understand your relationship with your perspective there is no need to resist or classify anything. You simply play with the illusion. You can find what you want in what you have already. You can see what you love in what you hate, and what you hate in what you love. You can see how things relate to one-another. To take an example, let's say that you want a new job and devote your entire Saturday to your job search, preparing for the interview, etc. There is a knock at the door; it is a boy you don't know. You decide to ignore it because you are trying to focus on finding a new job. You have successfully ignored your perspective and focused on the details rather than the relationships. Ignoring your perspective when it is so obviously in front of you is a type of self-rejection, as you are actively denying your own signals. However, this experience could be what leads you to your new job. It doesn't mean that you need to invite him in for tea and have a discussion but perhaps opening the door to tell yourself to go away gives you an idea that you had not thought of before. When we are open to interact more with ourselves then we are opening the door to a world of experience and understanding that we did not realize was there all along. When we resist ourselves it is like thinking, “That isn't me. That is something else!” The illusion of our perspective becomes even less evident. We don't realize that when we experience something we are actually experiencing the illustration of ourselves. What we want is already here and now. We have only to perceive the relationships. Again, we need not experience what we think is in our perspective. This isn't about loving your enemies, but realizing that enemies exist because that's how you interpret a part of your perspective. If we want to have a more balanced experience and wonder about all the things we think we don't like, all we need to do is find more agreeable interpretations. Or, to put it an other way, "If you don't want to fight, read the book instead!"

63

Avoiding Things You Don't Want to Experience Our experiences are interpretations of the metaphysical relationships that are the fabric of existence. What we experience is not “meant to be” any more than our particular interpretation is. But sometimes we want to avoid certain experiences that we'd rather not think about, or draw other experiences closer to us. How do we do that? Let's say that a certain undesirable event was likely to happen and you wanted to avoid it as much as possible. Although we cannot avoid experiencing the relationship we can choose how we interpret the relationship. To your subconscious mind there is no diference between falling to the ground and watching a chair fall to the ground if the relationships are the same. As we cannot perceive these relationships directly we can only control what is relative to us. If something isn't relative then we will not perceive it. If a thought-being from planet Cucumber thinks its way over to your kitchen, for example, you might perceive it as strange sounds that you will eventually find to be coming from the sink because thought beings aren't relative to you, but sinks are. As no one else knows or understands how you interpret metaphysical relationships except for you (your unique perspective), it doesn't really mater how they are represented or what they look like. Instead of experiencing falling to the floor why not make a video where you are pretending to fall, instead? Instead of someone continuing to experience physical abuse at home why not live somewhere else so the abuse can be experienced as an uncomfortable bed? These are of course dramatic over-simplifications but it does underscore “fate” being entirely dependant on what is relative to you. Fate is not someone being injured in a car accident if they don't like wearing seat belts or drive like an idiot. What does the thing you don't want to experience interact with? What are the relationships involved? If a child is afraid that there's a monster in his closet, how can he dispel the monster if he's never seen it? How can the child get rid of experiencing the monster that he thinks is in his near future? We have only to find a good-enough representation for what we do (and don't) wish to experience. Focusing on details rather that relationships would be like the child focusing on the monster's fangs. But how does the monster relate to the closet, the child, the items in the closet, the room, the house, and other things that happened that day? If the child thinks the monster will atack him, how might atacking himself empower the child to take control over his reality? Or cleaning up his closet? Right now, in various ways in our lives we interpret the geometry of relationships however we want and then make up a story to go along with it. We interpret the good and bad and everything in between in ways that will make overall sense. We don't need to like it or agree with it – it only needs to be logical. We do this with our every present experience and also the past as we interpret some things as memories rather than experiencing them physically now. Representations are everywhere in space and time, allowing us to draw experiences nearer to us as we re-interpret relationships that are already there. We bring the distant galaxies down to Earth by re-interpreting the relationships that allowed us to perceive them in the first place. We can re-interpret events from our past as present experiences, or things we know to be far away to be near. We can skip the experience of entire worlds by representing them as something else. “As above, so below,” as is said. Calculus, for example, had been discovered thousands of years before Newton and Leibniz reinterpreted some ancient manuscripts from India. The Indian version of calculus was 64

interpreted diferently and so did not have the same reality as when the two famous scientists re-interpreted it into ways that were relative to them, which just so happened to be relative to a lot of other things going on at the time in England. Imagine if, instead, the calculus from thousands of years ago was represented and interacted with the same. We would have "skipped" thousands of years of development within, perhaps, a few hundred years. (How crazy would the Caesars updating their statuses on a social network be?) Calculus is, itself, a representation of a process that need not be experienced. This means you can "avoid" lots of maths with it because it is an eficient interface with those realities. 27 Or how about a bronze computer from over 2,000 years ago that was found in a sunken ship at the botom of the sea, the Antikythera mechanism? The device allowed the interface of other realities that were represented by it – as any computer does – but another representation sunk the ship and prevented the computer and perhaps its inventor from safely arriving to perhaps technologically advance humanity further. We can atract or repel the experience of anything by representing it. The relationships will still be expressed, but it'll be neatly packaged up in your perspective by the time you see it. Most of our reality is, in fact, experienced this way. An event is interpreted in your perspective as a news story rather than you experiencing the event, for example. We can interact with a sport that someone else plays. We need not experience the reality of someone who drinks soda all day when our friend Sebastian represents that already. There is nothing behind the representation (the maths, the news, the sport, etc.) until it becomes more relative to your perspective and experiencing that reality is a part of your story. But even behind the representations that you unpack are more representations. When we can interact with the representations in a certain way, we call it reality. We also call it reality when we can use representations to interact with other aspects of our perspective, or represent other aspects we'd rather not experience. The Art of Resistance Without resistance there is no existence. Without something to resist the seemingly infinite expanse of Nothing, there is nothing. As one side of Potential resists the other, both can appear to be a part of our reality. But what is resistance, and how can we use it properly? The play between two illusions (the Potentials) through resistance sets the stage for every aspect of your reality. One thing appearing as two sides that pretend to resist each other so that both may exist. Resisting something, you are actually supporting it. Resistance is how two illusions interact and illustrate Potential. By resisting the “other” side, one side can uncover its own logical narrative and strengthen its reality through interaction. If you love something you are also resisting it, because absolute love would be impossible. If you experience “now” you are also resisting it, because absolute now cannot be experienced. If you are atracted to a particular color you are resisting it and atracting it at the same time. Without both sides of the coin, neither side could be supported. If you did not resist the color it would, in theory, consume you until that color is all you are and you could perceive of nothing – not even yourself. If cold did not resist hot, cold would become hot and both would cease to exist from lack of definition and comparison. If you resist something you don't like, you are also atracting it. If you actively resist a thing 27 The calculations of the more basic maths are still being performed, but not from that perspective.

65

or a person you are also becoming that thing or person, because part of your perspective then focuses on it more. Pushing something away you are, in a way, transferring your energy to it simply by interacting to shif your perspective more to it. Without resistance there is no interaction. Instead of geting completely lost in a film, person, place, or object we interact with and resist them to maintain our own integrity. We unknowingly resist and atract everything in our perspective to some degree in order that we may have a perspective. Imagine a magnet that has a lead ball levitating in the air above it. The magnet is pulling on the ball, but also pushing it away at the same time. The “resistance” between the two forces is the position (or reality) that the ball finds itself in. This position is the golden relationship (phi), a balance of reality between the two illusions. You could push the ball towards the magnet, but it would take more energy that just leting it float where it has the least amount of resistance. Reality is that which takes the least amount of resistance to experience. We cannot inhale without exhaling. Our bodies do not grow at night without shrinking a bit during the day. We cannot like something without disliking parts of it at the same time. There is no “absolute” cold, love, height, pressure, or beauty, because those things do not exist by themselves. There is only harmony between two illusions, and sometimes it is balanced. You could say that we are beings resisting a state of nothingness so we create illusions to seem like we exist. Resistance is at our core, and it is not a bad thing. The harmonic resistance between atraction and repulsion (chaos and order) is the nature of our existence. Because balance is needed, expressing just one extreme or another will not produce harmonic results or a stable reality. Resistance must be a part of the process for a harmonic reality to come about. A casino where there are only winners (or only losers) cannot survive. A religion based on “good” that does not integrate “bad” will not be successful. A story where there is no conflict is not an interesting story at all. With resistance there is life. However, when we lean too much on either “atraction” or “repulsion” our experience may not meet our intentions. When we don't understand that we cannot atract something without resisting it at the same time, unwanted things may be experienced. We might even feel sometimes that the entire universe is acting against us or not giving us what we want, not realizing that we are just experiencing the balance of our perspective. A tree that resists a strong wind is the first to snap, while a nearby blade of grass that finds a balance within the two opposing forces is simply blown back and forth. If, for example, you try to resist a person completely you are interacting with them even more than you would by focusing on something else. To your subconscious, it doesn't mater if you interpret one thing as good or another thing as bad. Only your conscious mind cares for such distinctions. You may think, consciously, that you don't like something and want to voice your opinion about it but what you are actually doing is puting more of your focus on it and interacting with it more. You might then wonder why you get more of what you don't like. If you push something away because you do not want it in your life all your subconscious sees is you interacting with it and forming new relationships as you interact. We ofen atract the things we don't consciously want, and ofen repel the things that we think we do want. If you do not want something in your life, make it and the things it has relationships with irrelevant by focusing on something else. This might be a bit tricky because sometimes the thing we think we don't want is atached to the things we do want. Another way is to reformulate your relationship with what you don't want by realizing that the two opposite sides are the same thing. We can either realize the harmony between the two sides or try to 66

push one side away. We sometimes wonder why conditions might worsen when we think we're doing the “good” thing, but the two sides are intertwined with each other. A government that wants more law-abiding citizens, for example, would do well to decrease the number and extent of laws rather than increase them. A structure can be made stronger by introducing empty spaces arranged harmoniously within it. Without silence between the notes of a composition there is no music. If it seems that your reality is working against you it is not because of some cosmic force. It is simply the way you are interpreting your reality. When we resist parts of our perspective (that we don't want) and wonder why other parts (that we do) seem to be working against us, we have misunderstood how our reality works. Neither side is good or bad, so there is no need to resist our own interpretations of either side. When we perceive the same opposing forces in the clouds above our heads we do not call it hostility, oppression, or say that the system is working against us. We may simply say that it is raining and know that opposing forces are necessary in order for reality to run its course. When we perceive “evil” or things we think of as bad it does not mean that you are the antagonist or are doing bad things to the other parts of your reality, or even punishing yourself. Rather, you are simply interpreting the opposing forces in a certain way. The more we resist the natural harmony inherent in our reality the more complex the structure of our perspective must become to support it, requiring more interactions to maintain the same reality. This is the busy-ness of being lost in the illusion of complexity. To properly resist something you give it room to exist somehow in your perspective. How you interpret it is entirely up to you. To “defeat” or reject something is to defy your own perspective. There is no need to reject what you do not perceive, so the question is why are you interpreting it in that way? Resistance is Futile Let's imagine that I gave you a task for one week. Your task was to do all that you can to hate and resist the Brazilian wandering spider, one of the most deadly spiders in the world. I don't tell you why you need to hate this spider. That's up to you to figure out. You have one week to hate it. How do you imagine that you can hate and resist something that you don't know that much about? You'd first have to learn more about it and find something about it to hate. You have a good idea how you might start out; it's a deadly spider, afer all. You then find out that it's both aggressive and venomous. Appropriately, it might even wander into your bedroom while you're sleeping! Now that you've found a few good reasons to hate this spider, you can begin to filter out your experiences that don't fit with your new logical narrative. But, in developing negative feelings for the spider you've done something you didn't really intend to do. You see, in order to resist the Brazilian wandering spider you'd first have to focus on it. You cannot continue to resist what you are not interacting with. How can you hate something that you didn't have a relationship with in the first place? You might find that this spider finds its way into your reality. During that week, and perhaps for even longer, you find the spider “suddenly” everywhere. It's featured on a television channel, it pops up unexpectedly in your search engine results and news feed, and your 67

entomologist friend happens to mention it. You even meet a guy from Peru whose cousin was biten by such a spider. Because you focused on repelling the Brazilian wandering spider in your perspective two forces came into play: atraction and repulsion. You consciously focused on repulsion, but thinking about it atracts the specific interpretation. You may have been thinking you are pushing the thing away from you when you are, instead, in a relationship with it that doesn't feel good. So, instead of ending up with a harmless, stained photo of the spider (which is one way the relationship could have expressed itself harmoniously) the spider wandered in through your front door and bit you in the ass. In order to get rid of what you don't want, don't focus on it. Think about this: every time you resist, reject, deny, hate, or try to get rid of something you are actually interacting with it and, thus, atracting it to you. If someone puts a glass of spiders in front of you there is no need to push it away. You'd just be interacting with it and making it more a part of your perspective. Why even look at it or talk about it? By interacting with something you are creating possibilities. Two things come together in a relationship – you and something else – and make a third thing such as an emotion or a new experience. Instead, make it irrelevant. Find something else to ponder, and walk elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are not ofen aware of what we actually like and don't like. We only know a litle of what is in our perspective. We catch ourselves singing or thinking of a song we don't like and pass it of as the song having a catchy tune, rather than realizing that we are atracted to it. We work or spend time with people we think we don't like, or find ourselves in situations we think we detest. But they are still in our perspective. Why? We are atracted to whatever we find in our perspective, plain and simple. That's why it is there. More specifically, we are atracted to how we interpret the relationships that become the reality we experience. Our entire perspective is how we interpret everything. Rejecting some of your own interpretations of reality is a futile efort (because you cannot separate positive from negative). Learn to relate to your entire perspective. We naturally use positive and negative forces for every aspect of our existence. If our bodies didn't resist the food we put in our mouths we wouldn't be able to digest it, as there would be too much mass if it wasn't broken down inside the body. When space is broken down we get things like light and hydrogen, which eventually become what we eat as more complex interactions are formed. We atract and repel these, too, by making simple systems more complex and then breaking them down again into even simpler ones. Although the cycle seems to go on forever, from the origins of existence through our bodies and down to subatomic particles again, there is really only one process at work that we interpret as a seemingly endless reality that we cannot actually perceive. We resist in order to exist. The Goodness of Inequality We are, by nature, journeying through the illusion of inequality. We propagate the illusion of opposites in order to experience life. If all temperatures were equal and there was no such thing as “hot”, for example, temperature would not exist. We should not be fooled by the illusion of equality, however. Endless variation of the same thing is what perspective is. By wanting things to be equal we are wanting interpretations and relationships to be the same, which isn't natural at all. How can one person or thing be equal with an other when the relationships in the geometry of perspective are diferent? 68

Inequality is inherently natural. Nowhere in the natural world do you find things that are diferent but equal. Not even the sides of our own bodies are equal. For some reason, we are compelled to feel that humans must be equal to each other in order to live harmoniously. The universe is naturally unfair, but harmonious. It is harmonious precisely because it seems to be unfair. Harmony is far more important than equality, because without opposing forces working together there is no resonance with All-That-Is. Further, there is no need to perceive everything in the universe as one. It's okay to perceive duality and see some things as "good", or positive, and see others as "bad", or negative. Just understand that what you are perceiving is a completely harmonious you, and ofentimes what you might interpret as bad is actually good for you. It's the reason we exist. Without the illusion of "other" there is nothing. Experiences are neither positive nor negative, as they are made up of lots of positive and negative things coming together. That makes your reality neither positive nor negative, good nor bad, but a balance between seemingly opposing forces. You can think of your reality as a way your subconscious mind shows you that you are the things you perceive and there is no real diference. But the nature of our perspective requires we see a diference, so we go through existence experiencing things that seem separate from who and what we really are. You need not realize that your perspective is actually you in disguise, but life would probably be experienced more harmoniously if you saw all the elements working together. Things do not come into your perspective without your “consent”, because you are your perspective, even when you don't understand that you are. Unfortunately to our subconscious, what we want and what we like is of no importance. What value does liking one thing over another have if both are aspects of our perspective? What good would it do to consider wants that change constantly from a perspective where time is irrelevant? We see something as separate from us, or do not understand the nature of good and bad and everything in between because we simply do not understand the entirety of it all. If you see someone being abused, is it happening in your perspective or outside of it? Would everything in your reality perceive it the same way? If not, could your perception be subjective and depend on your interpretation? Would an ant or a cloud also perceive the abuse in the same way? Could we then say that not only is the abuse in your perception but in your interpretation? The only question that the subconscious mind would ask it, "How harmonious is this relationship in the current reality?" We are then free to interpret the relationship however we like, as harmoniously good, harmoniously bad, balanced, or anything else. Right and Wrong, and Karma As an example of karma, let's say that you were leading a nice, stress-free life without anything really bad happening. One day you got angry and hit someone. The next day your pet gerbil died. You may link the death of your beloved pet to your anger the day before and think the two are related by karma, one causing the other. It could be, instead, that the geometry of relationships changed when you interacted with the person by hiting them. In your new perspective the gerbil was not compatible. It would not just disappear, of course, but must take a logical departure from your reality. Death is one of 69

the ways the gerbil could make its exit. It could also depart by running away (and coming back if your narrative meets it again), someone else taking care of it, etc. We interpret the geometry of perspective as a logical narrative, so it appears to us that things flow in a linear fashion. We see cause and efect where there is none. Although there's no consequence to any of your actions in the way of cause and efect, this doesn't mean that we can act irresponsibly. You could say that at every moment the entire universe is interpreted anew from the formula of your perspective, everything happening at once. By interpreting a relationship in a particular way you are making something more relative to you, whereby your entire reality becomes more like the thing you have interacted with (going in all directions, past and future) and the way you have interacted with it. We cannot really know if something is good because we cannot perceive of all things at once. If someone feeds the hungry can we say it is good? What if the hungry party is an alligator and humans are being fed to it? Does it then become bad? What if it's a silly new online game for charity where $5 goes to a good cause for every zombie human you feed to the alligators? What if the charity funnels money to those doing nefarious deeds? We do not know what something is unless we know how it relates to everything else. The definition of something is found in everything else. There is no "good" or “bad” independent of perspective. Something becomes good only because it appears to be that way in the current perspective, not because it actually is. One thing becomes a “cause” and another an “efect” not because it is, but because that is how we define it. We do not know the cause of something, nor its efect, because we cannot perceive of everything. If we see someone throw a ball to a catcher we can claim that the catcher was able to catch the ball because someone threw it. It makes sense, and it is valid. However, it only makes sense because that's how we interpreted it. When we experience something that seems to be the direct result of something else, we are not experiencing cause and efect at work. We are experiencing a new reality where diferent parts come together and dance in unison. Some parts we know, some parts we don't yet know.28 When something new shows up or we experience more of it in our reality it is because it is more compatible with the new perspective than the thing it replaced. When someone disappears or their presence diminishes it is because they are less compatible with the new perspective than other things. A chair doesn't move because we move it – it isn't actually there in the first place. We perceive the chair moving because we fold the entire universe into a neatly-packaged reality that we can then try to make sense of in an easier, more digestible way. Yet, we are folding relationships into themselves rather than trying to package up everything that can be perceived. We cannot contain the entirety of reality in a single experience so we make up paterns to perceive a changing perspective, not realizing that any change is simply us puting two or more illusions into some kind of order. The chair moves because that is what we see when we look at the relationships inside the fold through the medium of perspective. The general population, as it stands today, is only interested in clear distinctions between good and bad. A book such as this, for example, would be read by many more people if it focused on things like “love and light” or “positivity” or “healing” and talked about the world and reality as if they were black and white. Somehow, we believe such things like beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but don't apply the same reasoning to good and bad, right and wrong, and this and that. Taking this farther, we ignore the good in people we consider 28 That is to say, some parts are related to our previous reality and some parts have become related.

70

bad and the bad in people we consider good, as if either became more or less true by perceiving it. Surely, evil is just as valid and important a reality as good is. Otherwise, such things would not be perceived, nor would such polarities be so entwined. As we are not ever satisfied with our interpretation of All-That-Is, we experience a continually-changing reality that seems to always be the most logical reality that we can experience at that time, regardless of how we feel about our own interpretation of it. Does Evil Exist? What we call “evil” is just a word that conveniently and eficiently represents a concept that would not exist without other representations supporting it. At the top of all these endless representations of representations we find All-That-Is. There is no absolute evil, as absolute anything cannot be perceived. That is to say, there is nothing that is evil without it being defined that way by comparing it with other things. Evil doesn't exist in a silo. There is no partially evil, either, as parts are illusions of a nothing-in-particular that cannot be entirely perceived. “Evil” is inexorably defined by what we know as good. Evil is an interpretation. As we interpret, so do we atract. We are not atracting evil if we interpret something as evil, but we are conditioning our perspective to see more things like that as what we have interpreted relates to other things in our reality. It is no diferent than a broken window atracting more broken windows as your interpretation of the first broken window influences your interpretation of whatever is around it. If you interpret something as bad or evil then you are atracted to the interpretation in some way. Any perception takes interaction. You didn't need to interpret it that way at all, but for some reason you chose to do just that. It doesn't mean that you yourself are evil if you perceive something else as evil. However, the more it is perceived in your reality the more you are choosing to interact with it in such a way. The only diference between good and evil is in the interpretation. To one group, for example, Professor Silverlake is evil and morally wrong. A second group identifies with Professor Silverlake and doesn't understand why the first group thinks him evil or wrong but, instead, thinks Professor Yellowlake is evil and morally wrong. The fly on the wall perceives both professors, but not in the same way. To this fly, and to the floor that the professors walk on every day, the question of them being good or evil is irrelevant. The only question for each member of both groups is, “Why do I perceive myself this way?” No perspective is more valid than any other because it is all one perspective: yours. Other perspectives are illusions, aspects of your perspective. You cannot experience beyond your own perspective, and you can't possibly know what's going on outside it. If you were to step in someone else's shoes, so to speak, you'd still be experiencing an aspect of your perspective. We cannot say that something is true simply because a great majority of the people that we know seem to feel the same way. Look around again. Do you know how each colony of dust feels about it? How about the angle of the shadow? How do all the physical and non-physical things in the room feel? Although other human beings are an important part of our perspective, the vast majority of our overall relationships have non-human aspects. Perhaps one of the most dificult things to think about is that you are all you could ever possibly perceive in the one perspective of the grand reality. When we are considering this in relation to something natural like a plant or a tree, it is easy to consider and digest. But when 71

we extend that to things that we don't like or think of as “evil”, we move beyond novelty into a place that highlights the very nature of our own existence. We don't want to think that we are the source of all the bad things in our perspective because it would provide far more certainty and responsibility to the question of the source of everything else. “If Genghis Khan exists entirely in my perspective, then I am completely responsible for all Genghis Khan did. It also means there is no limit to who and what I am!” This can be a frightening thought if one thinks of it that way. We normally avoid thinking that we are already connected with everything else (as it misses the point of existence), so we make random distinctions. Some things taste good, others not so good. Some things we like, some things we don't. Some things are really good, others are really evil. It's all an illusion, of course – a kind of serious game. Another part of your perspective has a diferent geometry of perspective (a diferent “angle” so to speak), so probably has diferent likes and dislikes. Your own perspective right now is likely diferent than it was last week or last year. But they are all aspects of the same thing. We feel separate with things for a reason: to connect with other aspects of ourselves. It is hard to look at oneself without a reference. It is natural to want to have mirrors so we can see who we are. The reflection is not the real thing but it is good enough to work with. Although it is natural to not feel totally connected with other things we can have a harmonic relationships with the things that are not “us”. Yes, evil exists. It exists as much as the deliciousness of a slice of pie or the joy you might get from the movie aferwards. The devil is only in the (mis)interpretation of the harmony that surrounds you. The Joy of Human SPIRs Although we intuitively understand how SPIRs work we do not really consciously understand the process. Our misunderstanding, or perhaps ignorance, of natural systems creates variations that are still natural, but emphasize the positive force more than a balance of forces. We end up with systems that have no or litle opposing force, something designed to pursue infinity instead of a system where infinity is balanced by limitation. In other words, we ofen want certain things to go on forever without end, thinking that this is the model that makes the most sense. Endless advancement, laws, creativity, happiness, profits, income, family, productivity, and more. Such social systems are riddled with logical fallacies such as confirmation bias and argument from authority, as they are not designed to depend on opposing forces. These are not inherently negative or harmful systems but systems designed to facilitate the pursuit of meaning in our lives. They work as they're supposed to. (And we will see how such systems are perfectly natural). But because they do not integrate opposing forces to beter balance them they do not promote and facilitate as much harmony as they could. We adopt an endless variety of these circular SPIRs in order to interpret relationships with them in the hopes of creating more meaning in our reality. Each of the following systems is a meta-physical tool interpreted into one’s physical existence for the purpose of giving focus, meaning, and to transcend and transform our daily lives.

72

System

Type

Form(s) of Endlessness

Omnipotent Entity

Religion

Conversion, Enlightenment, Sufering, Omnipotence

People Management

Politics

Laws

Measurement

Science

Knowledge

Government

Authority

Regulation

Money

Business, Capitalism

Profits, Growth

Human Resources

Employment

Productivity

Chance

Gambling

Jackpots

Creativity

Art

Expression

Entertainment

Celebrity

Fame

Physical Achievement

Sports

Winning

Media and Social Inputs Television, etc.

News, programs, articles, etc.

Food

Cooking, Eating

Recipes, Taste

Audio

Music

New songs

Image

Consumerism

Shopping

Environmentalism

Sustainability

Preservation

Formal Education

School

Learning

Circular SPIRs tend to be overly-emotional, with supporters defending the recursive logic of the structure's narrative at all costs. Again, these are not bad or harmful structures; they are the focus of much of our reality. We can, however, say that they're chaos-heavy structures without an inherent opposing mechanism built in for more balanced relationships. Many corporations, for example, seem to exist for the sole purpose of competing to stay in business and provide executives with busy-ness, no mater how meaningless the overall afair is. Other businesses may fill a trivial need with a line of relatively meaningless products and services that serve no other purpose than to keep the company in business. Ofen, those subscribed to a system will begin to see their reality through the lens of the system. Operating by natural systems ourselves, we cannot interact with any system without adopting some of its perspective. And although we can find utility in each of these systems we should not forget that, as we interact with them, we are also integrating our own perspective with it. For example, the more we interact with traditional, formal education (or those who have been so educated) the more imbalanced our own perspective becomes until we find ourselves overly confident in the supposed truth of what we have learned. It must be noted that any system conforms to SPIR on some level. These systems will afect limitations in other, unintended ways, usually with the stakeholders involved. Many aspects of environmental “preservation” promote ill-health in humans 29 and lead companies to increase prices unnecessarily, for example. An ever-expanding economy comes with increased consumer debt. University tuition prices rise without end, discouraging students from pursuing an education. The more laws there are the more people are found to be breaking the 29 Such as the toxins in energy-saving light bulbs that leak out when heated, which are not in incandescent bulbs.

73

law. Endless news is being shared where there is none, focusing on irrelevant happenings and creating a false sense of importance and priority. A myriad of recipes means that you will ofen have no idea what you're eating, which may afect health. The list goes on. Without a logical system at its base or a strong enough natural limitation a system will sufer from an endless variety of logical fallacies and likely evolve diferently from what was intended and also afect other systems in unintended ways. But this isn't an argument against these types of systems. We all enjoy things like music, food, and the by-products of scientific discoveries among other wonderful things. We can, however, learn to build systems that have its own opposition built in to discover healthier types of systems that are more natural. Some of us realize that allowing for sadness can lead to a more healthy psychological and emotional state rather than pretending that everything is good. An educational system that has “known/unknown” at its base might allow students to discover for themselves, becoming instead a way to facilitate the pursuit of learning rather than rote memorization. A governmental system that had “authority/non-authority” at its base might build cities where innovation, experimentation, and personal freedom can thrive, or cancel out a percentage of existing laws every year. We have circular SPIRs at the core of our civilization, ingrained in its every gear. Natural SPIRs seem almost counter-intuitive, as if they were not compatible with ego. Can you imagine a national holiday for sadness where we were encouraged to cry over something? A company saying that it wants to reduce prices to benefit consumers because its profit margins are too high? A news program saying there is not much to report today, so they will lead with something happy? A team of scientists saying that they made too many assumptions the past 10 years and need to start over? Or environmentalists proclaiming that we should follow nature's example and allow some species to expire, naturally? It is silly to consider these things precisely because circular SPIRs are so ingrained in how we do things, but even more silly to formulate systems with endless chaos at their core. These systems seek to nurture infinity in a way that allows for limitless expansion like a rising sea without boundaries. Instead, an endless parade of logical fallacies such as argument from authority and confirmation bias30 are found in its wake. These systems typically promote the interpretation of ambiguous information as supporting its existing structure while ignoring other information that challenges its fundamental assumptions, unless that information poses a direct threat to its survival. Each system develops a logic that is apparent to its proponents. A test to see how rigid the beliefs are for any system is to see how it works with contradicting or opposing information. Does it recognize that there are other equally valid realities? If the system does not operate by confirmation bias there will be no need to confirm or disprove new information that has revealed itself. In order for the integrity of the logical narrative to be sustained, circular SPIR systems ignore and reject information that does not conform to that already in place. Without confirmation bias, we do not perceive of reality. As humans, we need such systems in order to live and perceive as humans. However, we should be aware where we are subscribed to a belief system that may inhibit our movement and interaction, or shield us from new information in the pursuit of an infinity that does not exist. As we pursue circular SPIRs we will explore a system's seemingly limitless possibilities. Let's assume that our family of humans from our prior example are now comfortable with fire. The 30 Science, economics, education, media, medicine, corporations, and other are especially prone to the “argument from authority” fallacy.

74

discovery may have been one of chance or intent, but the humans learned that if they allow these two things to interact in a certain way it will result in a third thing that can be used for something else. At first the making of fire is a novelty, shown only to close associates. Then, interacting with other systems, it expands as a new property of special occasions or conditions. From there there practice of making a fire spreads as much as it can until it reaches more balanced systems that limit the spread of the practice. As systems tend to pursue the limits of their capacities, the humans will eventually use controlled fire for cooking food, building shelter, medicine, hunting, and burning down entire forests. We must assume that if a system is designed to be unlimited then it will eventually try to pursue the capacity for which is was intended, and even beyond what it was intended for. We focus on the present reality rather than the unlimited nature of the system itself. Surveillance starts in Thursdays between 5 and 6 in the afernoon and proceeds over time to encompass all 168 hours of the week. Conditional rules will eventually try to flow to unconditional rules. A website selling a single broken laser pointer will explore its endless capacity for person-toperson transactions and may eventually become a telecommunications provider. A search engine will try to explore the endless applications of its algorithm. A political ideology with the capacity to change how people live and work will eventually seek to do just that. At each stage the system integrates its constituents as part of its logical narrative. Frogs don't mind being boiled if each gradual increase in temperature makes sense from the last. Each change will appear to be logical in the system at that time, even if the system itself is based on logical fallacies. The joy of circular SPIRs is a head-first joyride into the depths of a chaos that we can only perceive by imposing our own endless order. We interpret the chaos as the endless perception of a mirrored illusion, perhaps not realizing that when we let go we will experience a greater balance that will naturally find its way to the harmonious space between the two extremes. The Role of Technology Technology, the systematic application of a technique, is the means by which we interact with our reality. The technology we use is our interface. Technology, as we've seen, is not just new technology such as mobile phones or graphics processors but also old technology such as language or the way we communicate and interact with others, the way we think and sense, how we eat, our sleeping and working paterns, etc. We use technology to build relationships with other people, ideas, and the objects we see (and don't). Technology is everywhere. Like anything else, the reality of technology is entirely in perspective. So what is technology, really? What does it mean that in our perspective we may see computers that are being made to think and develop intelligence or that people are increasingly connecting with each other around the world? Are we building intelligent machines, or are we reverseengineering ourselves and discovering the timeless narrative of how we came to be? Is technology how we progress into the future, or the method we use to make sense of how we discovered our own fundamental relationships? Translated into the reality of space and time, evolution might very well work backwards as well as forwards. A human engineer would look at how the brains work and re-engineer them, considering them highly ineficient and filled with legacy (and unnecessary) parts. "We are optimized for an ancestral environment and not the present one," it might be said. Fortunately, perspective is much more of an engineer than its more complex human creativity can conceptualize. Of the brains the mind may say, "This system is a wondrous 75

composite of complete possibility, making relative all available states of chaos and order.” The secret life of our technologies is that we are discovering new ways to interact more closely with our perspective, even as our world seems to become more complex. 31 We can use the web to explore new relationships with words and images or explore relationships from a social application on a mobile device. Technology illustrates our primal need to perceive other as we interface with reality. From the illusion of one being two and interacting, we can exist. By making perspective more complex than it actually is we can be more secure in our existence when the illusions interact. When we pretend that we are not all ready connected, we have a convincing reality. Technology helps us to discover the meaning of our existence and provides the backdrop of a convincing reality for this continual discovery, but the meaning itself is as much an illusion as the technology is. What About Science? Science, although useful in the pursuit of ourselves, is unfortunately based upon the mistaken premise that we can accurately perceive reality. Science admits, however, that we can perceive almost nothing – less than 1% of what exists. This chaos-heavy, simultaneous atraction and repulsion (or, contradiction) is generally unstudied, as perspective is not able to be factored into modern equations. That science does not test its basic assumptions – accurate perception – goes against core scientific principles. We haven't actually made much progress since the days of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, despite how shiny things may appear on the surface. It is time we applied the scientific method to science itself. Scientific observations are assumed to be objective when they are subjective. Unfortunately, modern science would fail its own test; the scientific method cannot be tested scientifically because the foundations of the method rest upon assumptions independent from experience. "..there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.." – Kate and Vitaly (2000) The nature of something cannot be observed independently of the observation (as it is). There will always be "perception" of something, even when perceiving through an apparatus. 32 Are you perceiving properties of the electron, properties of the electron microscope, or properties of your perspective? Circular systems based on authority and legacy tend to sufer from the argument from authority and sunk cost biases. We assume that the logical narrative of others whose ideas are popular and respected should take precedence over the others who don't have popular ideas, while not seeing the emotional efect that the celebrity and status of others have on reasonable thinking.33 We assume that the technological and scientific progress made over the past few hundred years could have not been far exceeded with a diferent kind of 31 In this way, technology is like gravity. See, The Nature of Gravity in Part 4, “In Pursuit of the Universe” 32 Math is the only science that does not need to be based on reality. But its discovery is still a human invention. 33 An example of this fallacy, amusingly demonstrated by amateurs: htps://www.youtube.com/watch? v=4BlLX03OJRU

76

approach to science. We haven't experienced an alternative, so we have nothing to compare our progress to. But we don't think that a saying like, “a broken clock is right twice a day” would apply to us. Of course, we can move the hands of a broken clock and point it wherever we want. Why fix what works during the 2 most important times of the day? Logical fallacies can always be reasonably explained. This is not an argument against science, however. Qite the contrary, an argument for the scientific method to be applied to where it will have greatest efect. If we, for example, were to make science objective at points of interaction (publishing, funding, and peer review) how would it be diferent from today's environment? That science research cannot be published objectively should demonstrate one of the ways we could begin applying the scientific method to itself. If a scientist is bribed or pressured (via funding and de-funding) to subscribe to and promote a certain logical narrative and ignore others, it would be folly to say that research is being done objectively. A researcher that depends on grants and funding from any outside organization will likely be influenced by the needs, opinions, and other influences of that organization, rendering their eforts subjective. Another researcher may not even begin to pursue a hypothesis that may possibly find others in strong disagreement. Further, if the impetus is subjective, the research will not be objective. Subjectivity makes most, if not all, of the sciences a circular SPIR system that is beneficial to us in a certain kind of way that we've become accustomed to, but one where fundamental assumptions are not questioned, only one kind of understanding is presumed to exist, and the logical narrative is emotionally and vehemently defended. How can we pursue parallel universes in spacetime while at the same time waste time arguing against parallel theories? How can anyone insist that 10-dimensional worlds exist while ignoring the other 9 dimensions of a particular argument? The power and influence of science today is not unlike the power and influence of Western religion during the Dark Ages when what was being preached was not what was being practiced. In order for science to truly flourish we must begin to apply the scientific method to itself. If we were to apply the scientific method to science itself, what illusions would we uncover? This kind of meta-scientific discovery is the reason such a thing would not happen, nor should it. Science as we know it would cease to exist. Rather than destroying our current method of scientific reasoning we can, instead, learn to balance the equation with a more harmonic relationship that takes into consideration the necessity of opposing forces to hold up a solid foundation, much like the Ancient Greeks and Romans did when building structures that can outlast most any we build today using brute force. Instead of approaching these big, ancient questions about the universe with a small, crumbling handful of logical fallacies in tow let us begin to observe from the origin of perspective.

77

Part 4: In Pursuit of the Universe

78

The Greatest Trick Afer more than 500 years since Copernicus first turned his mind to the cosmos, cosmologists agree that only about 4% of the universe is understood. The remaining 96% is unknown and termed 'dark mater' or 'dark energy', which is an other way to say that nearly all of the universe is a complete mystery and we shouldn't be so confident. As well, science still doesn't understand why the act of observation would afect the measurements of sub-atomic particles. However, it is understood forces like gravity can influence the visual perception of moving objects 34 and the perception of time, and the mind can be influenced by other forces like electromagnetism. There are also some new theories on the fringes of quantum physics35 that suggests the mind can interact with information in the universe at the Planck scale36. The subconscious mind understands that observation comes from perception. We are never observing anything outside of our perception. The universe could not possibly be divorced from perspective because perception of anything (including everything, or even other perspectives) is entirely subjective. If the universe had a beginning it would be fully contained in the present moment. As time does not exist outside of perspective, the only cause and efect is the illusion of whatever logical narrative we have come up with to explain an endless variety of random data. The “beginning”, if there is such a thing, is not an event but a simultaneous process that never stops. We can look to the first few numbers in the Fibonacci series to find out how this process is all ways unfolding. Here is the subconscious mind's interpretation of this random data. We begin with the numbers 0, 1, 1, 2, and 3. Each successive number is a sum of the previous two, starting with 0 and 1, then (0+1), (1+1), (1+2), (2+3), etc. In the beginning, there is nothing (0). No reality or form, no perspective, and no relationship. “Nothing” cannot be perceived because there is nothing else to compare it with. It can also not be understood because it cannot be perceived.37 Nothing tries to know the expanse of its nothingness (1) but at the same time has nothing else to compare it against (1, again), so cannot really know anything. It exists and doesn't exist simultaneously, the birth of Structure.38 From this illusion Potential (2) is born. In order to know something, duplicates itself and then forgets itself ((2+2)/2). Infinite Potentials then appear. All of the Potentials Interact (3) together, forming relationships. These relationships build an illusion of one thing being related to an other thing. Perspective, movement, and consciousness are born. When we perceive “reality” we are actually perceiving this geometry of perspective and interpreting it in whatever way. Nothing, expressed in the formula of the subconscious mind, is the empty space between 3 34 “Your Perception of Gravity Is All Relative, Study Finds” htp://www.livescience.com/132906-brain-perceives-gravitysenses.html 35 “The Weird Efects of the Mind and Gravity” htp://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/621 36 Definition at htps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale 37 Therefore, nothing in this book is true. Just think of it as a reference. 38 That "Nothing" neither exists nor doesn't exist is the primal Logic. Like an empty box, it is only empty because it has been defined as being empty. Without Logic then the emptiness is irrelevant. Another way to think of it is 3-2=1; Interaction without Potential = Logic

79

and 5. (This, of course is 4, which finds itself in our formula as 2+2.) Duplicating Potential (2+2) is an important step because from it we get infinite potential, which is the same as nothing-in-particular (or, Nothing, which is the non-existent 4). A potential that is infinite has no perspective and could be considered absolutely random, because there is nothing else to compare itself against. We then take away Potential again (/2) in order to create the first relationship, or logical narrative – a nothing-in-particular that seems to be an infinite something. That is to say, we look at all of the Potentials and see a randomness that makes no sense whatsoever (and makes us feel like we don't exist). We then make it “less random” by picking one potential and making sense of it. This then becomes our complete reality. In order for there to be the illusion of existence and reality, you must forget that you are Nothing and interact with the illusions (the other aspects of you that you forgot about in order to be able to have a relationship) as if they are not you, in a way that builds a logical narrative. Reality is created from the logical interaction of representations that manifest as separate entities. Nothing cannot be perceived, so it is perceived as an infinity of things that are separate. In order for a relationship between two or more things to be possible they must forget they are the same thing. We are unable to see beyond this illusion, of course, but try as hard as we may. The universe and everything in it is a representation of this process. It's your perspective, a seemingly endless expression of consciousness, relationships, geometries, realities, stories, thoughts, and everything else wrapped up in a nice logical narrative. It is the greatest trick in the universe. You can try a bit of this trick yourself by staring at some clouds for a while. Eventually, you'll notice some paterns that aren't actually there. Maybe you'll see a rabbit or another shape. If it was thousands of years ago perhaps you'd notice that before there is rain the clouds get dark. So, you might come up with a logical narrative that the clouds are heavy because Zeus secretly met with the storm-inducing god Notos to bring torrential rains onto an unsuspecting populace. You can then pick out some other random paterns (from a seemingly infinite selection) that confirm your observation, such as a very wet messenger from the North. A few hundred years later you notice some other random paterns that other people adopt that seem to conflict with an older narrative, so come up with a new logical narrative, ad infinitum. You might even observe people close to you create drama out of thin air. This human need for drama is actually a need to see paterns in the nothingness, to tell a story that doesn't actually exist but appears to make sense anyway. The drive to feel like one exists is primal. When there aren't enough paterns for someone to feel like they exist, they simply make them up. What seems rational today could be ridiculous tomorrow. Not because we are ignorant, but because we simply interpreted the randomness in a certain way. Even today, the greatest thinkers may not agree on the how or why of something. Each perspective interprets the chaos diferently for a total of relationships to unfold. Without random interpretation the universe does not exist, but perspective makes it so.

80

Is the Universe Infinite? The world around you seems to go on forever, to the outermost reaches of the universe and beyond. But does it really? Are we really looking at something infinite when we peer out into the heavens or into the endless layered details of the microscopic world? Cosmologists use maths to help explain the universe. But we mustn't confuse the infinities of maths with the infinities of the universe. Of course numbers can go on forever if that's the kind of system we use. If we divide 10 by 2 we get a nice round number. But dividing 10 by 3 we get a fraction that goes on forever. So where did the “infinity” go for the first calculation? We're using the same number system and same approach, but we've shifed from a 10-2 perspective to a 10-3 way of looking at the world. Why do some things appear finite while other things, in the same system, appear infinite? Why does my body appear finite from the perspective of my eyes but infinite from the perspective of an electron microscope? In some perspectives, infinity appears to exist. The real question is, “Can infinity be perceived?”. The subconscious holds that we cannot perceive what is beyond our perception. From the formula of perspective, we can see that if infinite Potentials exist then there would be no perspective. Therefore, infinity is meaningless because it is only a value-less concept to represent that which cannot be perceived. In order to discover a basic and concise explanation for the world around us, we must start from the right place. If we, for example, tried to calculate the exact tax on our groceries from a 10-3 perspective, it may take quite a long time. We may even come up with a logical narrative to explain the complexity, postulating that the supermarket exists in 10 dimensions or has a counterpart in 3 parallel universes, and then invent a method to describe it all that looks absolutely beautiful – from the 10-3 perspective. We probably wouldn't care to realize that a child could do the calculation for us if we simply started from a 10-2 perspective, something more relative to what was being observed and “good enough” for the purpose. If I brought home for you a nice big Box of Chaos, its reality could not be contained in any one perception. Looking into it you would think that the box goes on forever in endless dimensions. It would appear infinite, because you would not be able to perceive it in its entirety. In our above example, we cannot perceive the entirety of 10 divided by 3 but we can perceive the entirety of 10 divided by 2. From one perspective reality appears infinite because it cannot be contained in our perspective. It appears chaotic – but chaos is simply an order that we do not yet perceive. From our perspective the universe seems to go on forever in every direction. The only diference is that there is no perspective that can “contain” the entirety of the universe, so it appears infinite. Some perspectives just have diferent logical narratives than others. Some of these logical narratives provide a more useful explanation of everything and how to work with it. Some of these narratives can put you on the other side of the galaxy by simply thinking about it. But it would still be patern-making, however useful the paterns would be under certain conditions39. Reality can only be approximated. Our universe seems complex because we're starting from a vantage point that makes it appear that way. We make observations but rule out perception (and mind) as irrelevant, 39 What is an iPhone to an ant? What is a phe^(mo)du7 to a human? Each subscribes to the narratives that are relative to their geometry of perspective. Be careful the next time you accidentally step on an anthill. You could have just destroyed a time machine experiment.

81

when instead they could be the primary tool for discovery. We build exceedingly expensive machines that do the same work an elementary school drop-out could do – if we started from perspective that was more relevant to what we're observing. Any observation is actually an observation of your reality. When we perceive, we are observing our own perspective and making sense of it in whatever way. If something appears to go on forever, perhaps it's because your reality cannot be contained in any one perspective. The universe and everything in it is an expression of the geometry of perspective. The physical manifestation of this geometry is electrical forces, the operating field of physical perspective and the primary physical SPIRs. These, and everything else in the geometry of perspective feature two opposing forces – potentials – at work to create a special relationship that we interpret as something. The Potentials The Potential sides of a SPIR are what makes us able to approximate reality. One thing pretending to be two things (via opposing sides) that interact together in a structure, forming a reality. Let's take a look at some of the names we know the illusion of opposing sides by. Positive Potential

Negative Potential

Chaos

Order

Creation

Destruction

Vacuum

Mass

Expand

Collapse

Repulsion

Atraction

Emission

Absorption

Explosion

Implosion

Space

Time

Heat

Cold

Fire

Ice

Emotions

Logic

Infinite

Finite

Nothing

Something

Electromagnetism

Gravitation

Capacity

Ability

Production

Capital

Electric

Magnetic

Remember

Forget

Volume

Density

Objective

Subjective

Macro

Micro

Good

Bad

82

Kinetic energy

Potential energy

Health

Disease

Awareness

Ignorance

Dreaming

Wakefulness

Nutrients

Toxins

Output

Input

Hydrogen

Oxygen

Strength

Muscle

One side wants to expand forever (chaos) while the other side works to limit the expansion (order). When the two sides interact in a certain way – forming a relationship – you get a representation, or approximation of the relationship called a resistance. The new representation can then form another relationship with anything else, though the success of that enterprise will depend on compatibility. When anything on the lef interacts with anything on the right, we get something we can use. When creation interacts with destruction we get life, for example. When vacuum interacts with mass in a certain way we get radiant energy. When female interacts with male in a certain way, we get baby. Each of these systems can have subsystems of their own. The illusions can also interact with other illusions to form reality. An electrical field, for example, interacting with time is an electrical wave. All of the illusions interacting together forms the entire universe. But not every aspect is balanced. Let's look at the relationships between the first few numbers of our series (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8) again. Sides

Ratio What

0:1

0

[beyond perspective]

1:1

1

Nothing-in-particular

1:2

2

Too much expansion

2:3

1.5

Too much contraction

3:5

1.66

Stabilizing...

5:8

1.6

Approaching harmony

As you can see, the primal relationships are imbalanced, yet still harmonious.40 We can have too much of one side and not enough of the other side. We can find extreme cold, too much production, too much pressure, too much strength, etc. However, these aspects will eventually relate to other aspects to balance out and are, by nature, always harmonious. You can think of something that is “too strong” as being chaotically harmonious and in the beginning of a more harmonious relationship (1:2).41 It might even interact with something that makes it “very weak” to balance the equation. But, again, imbalances are still harmonious. The more a Potential interacts with other Potentials the more equilibrium there is between 40 Note that this is a simplification. It, for example, should not imply that there is too much space and not enough time (since space:time is “higher” up the scale). There is a lot of space and hydrogen, to be sure, but this is balanced out in other ways. They are conceptually imbalanced but inherently harmonious at their Nothing core. 41 As everything interacts, you can also have relationships such as 2:8 (something that would be “too cold”, for example) or 3:55 (something that would be “too massive”, for example).

83

the two forces as it approaches a more balanced ratio, called the golden ratio. When an illusion interacts with another illusion of the same type (positive-to-positive, for example) discordance results. Discord is natural and can be maintained for a while, but it is not balanced. A lack of balance may mean that more illusions from the other side are required – such as energy or time – to smooth out the equation. A lack of harmonious relationships is highly ineficient. For example, we can take a trip into space using discordant methods (such as a misunderstanding of spacetime) but it will require far more time, energy, and resources than using concordant methods. Or, when two of the same electrical fields interact they might cancel each other out. Or, we could work out in the gym to build muscle for 5 hours a day, but will be paying with other Potentials that may contribute to ill health. Ideally, any aspect of one side is paired with an aspect on the other side for balanced, eficient, and optimal results (around 1.61). When two illusions on the same side are paired together you get imbalance, poor performance, disease, ineficiency, etc. For example, cold isn't good for muscle performance because the two are diferent interpretations of the same thing, but heat balances out muscles in a more harmonious way. However, the body becomes cold to assist in melatonin production before sleep and stimulate other processes. Gravity and mass are paired, but gravity does not have an efect on another interpretation on the same side (mater). Cold air is dense, and warm air is not. Disease is subjective, and health can increase capacity. Chaos implodes, and we get the universe. 42 Further, each of these illusions is just that – an illusion. They are not absolute. You can never have “absolute male” or “absolute heat”. The interaction between two illusions forms a representation. We will explore a few of these representations in this book. What is Energy? Energy is the resistance between vacuum (void) and mass. It is mass contracting the vacuum, reeling it in from its endless expansion. In other words, energy is interaction as relationships form. The more compatibly things interact the more “energy” is perceived. As one thing relates to another thing more, it relates to another thing less. Energy is created in one corner of perspective and destroyed in another. The type of energy that is perceived depends on the relationships of the things that are interacting. When we think about how reality is modelled we must be careful not to restrict ourselves to three dimensions. Just like in space where there is no “up” and “down”, there is no real positive or negative with an illusion. Illusions can also interact with themselves and others to make something new. A photon could be on the expansion side of Potential while a “blue” photon can be on the other side, for 42 There are other processes involved, of course, from other SPIRs. For example when there is a collapse of “male” by the female at human conception. We will only be covering the basics in this book.

84

example. We can also consider the other aspects of the Potentials when thinking about something. Health of the body is as much a factor of light as the food we're eating, for example, or when considering the nature of gravity we may do well to consider gravity's efects on female versus male. Potentials are harmonious with other interpretations on the same side, but balanced with others on the opposite side. Spacetime As we can see from the following model, what we call “time” is actually the spacing of chaos. Time makes the space (in more native form) perceivable. Thus, spacetime is born. To illustrate, let's imagine a universe without space or time. It is “chaos” (or, nothingness) and is, for all intents and purposes endless because it cannot be perceived. Along comes Structure, which is just chaos trying to come up with some kind of random patern. Chaos splits itself in two via this structure, forming spacetime. When we look out into the universe we are actually seeing this efect. Looking at one galaxy we see it as it was 3.2 billion years ago. Looking in an other direction we are looking back in time several hundred million years. Each thing in space is a diferent time, like each location in cyberspace is a diferent IP address. As you can see from the illustration, the two sides interact. On one side we get dimensions of space, which is the geometry of perspective. On an other side we get an endless spacing of time. Each thing that appears to take up “space” is actually taking up spacetime. Two galaxies exist in the same space but appear to be two separate things because of this time-spacing efect. It is one thing, divided by time. It is all the same thing: chaos. Breaking it down makes it perceivable. But it must be broken down into a seemingly infinite array of spacetime. When you are observing two separate things you are actually observing one thing. Since it's not possible to observe only one thing (1:1) it is endlessly divided into perceptible parts. When we perceive distant things we are peering into the past but when we are talking to the person siting next to us we are also perceiving the past, although to an exceedingly infinitesimal degree. Not only does everything in the universe – so to speak – exist in its own spacetime, the person siting next to you is you in an other relative “time”. The “now” cannot be perceived, save for what is not now, as we think of it. Time is on the negative side of the equation, along with energy and light. Time, like light and energy, is contracted chaos, or space. We can observe the contracting of space in a photon. As a photon of light enters a medium it 85

seems to “push” itself as it exits the medium. This efect is space being ordered, contracting via light. Through a medium space needs to contract more in order to maintain its integrity relative to its logical narrative, as the density of the medium does not allow space to contract in the same way as it did outside of the medium. As it exits it is still contracting itself as it had been in the medium and again adjusts its contractions to the environment. We can observe this repulsion/atraction efect as it repels itself away from one aspect of its perspective to another, expanding and contracting at the same time. Time is Another Mater As you can see from the last two illustrations, the relationships between time and “antimater” is the same. That is because time and antimater are the same thing in diferent forms. When the vacuum Potential and the mass Potential interact, energy is born. The by-products of this interaction (mater and “antimater”) come from each side trying to “overpower” the other. These by-products also interact, as Potentials, forming other things. Time (“antimater”) and space (“mater”) interact, forming the “spacetime” representation of physicality. When an element interacts with other elements, we get diferent variations of the same thing such as time and “antimater”. The interactions are not limited by themselves. One does not come before the other. It is the universe of perspective, so they only appear to be separate, or separated in spacetime. Time and Physicality What is time? And why does our physical existence seem to inexorably follow the ticking of the clock? The beating of our heart seems to keep track of the passing moments for us as we go about our day until time runs out and our body perishes. Where does a second go when it has passed? Humans invented clocks to keep track of time, but why does time seem to keep track of us? Where did time come from? Nature seems to care more about relationships than the hours of a clock or weeks of a calendar. Birds migrate whenever they anticipate having access to the most abundant food, and take note of the weather to time it. Pets will become confused by artificial light, and even our own sleeping paterns have changed from polyphasic sleep to a sleeping marathon. 43 43 Not a beter or more natural sleep, just common in some pre-Industrial societies: htps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep

86

We set our internal clock (or, circadian rhythm) according to relationships, not the time on the clock. Our relationship with the sun, the seasons, with children, with work, etc., is the geometry of perspective illustrated in spacetime. As our relationships change, so does it. A sundial illustrates our interaction with light and darkness. Hourglasses, astronomical clocks, and water clocks also illustrate our interaction with the world around us. Even some old mechanical clocks illustrate these relationships by telling stories or making bird sounds. It is by understanding these relationships in our logical narrative that we can understand what time is. Our sense of time is based on the interactions and relationships between illusions. Time flows neither backwards nor forwards. We are simply sensing relativity however it may flow. Just as we will lose the sense of the length, width, and breath of an object if it is suspended in mid-air without a background to compare it against, we will lose our sense of time if the signals are changed or removed. Time is the pace of relative interaction, a resistance that allows an interface with electromagnetic potential (chaos) to balance relationships (order). Without relationships there is no sense of time or space. If time is an illusion of the senses, then was anything ever created? In this way, no energy can ever be created or destroyed not only because there is no time independent of perspective but because there is no energy (or, relationships) independent of perspective. Although you are, right now, travelling through time at a rate of 1 second per second, this is only a measurement of the clock. The rate at which you're navigating the geometry of perspective is not constant. Our actual interpretation of time does not depend on the clock. Let's imagine that time is like an endless swim in the ocean. When you're swimming you notice the waves are fairly constant. Sometimes the wind seems to blow harder, making the waves come more quickly. Sometimes there is litle wind, and time just drifs by. You know that each wave has a relationship with other waves, but you don't see how or even where the waves are coming from. Boats that pass by create bigger and stronger waves, but you can see these coming a mile away and avoid them if you wanted to. You could slow down time dramatically by swimming to a stress-free place, but you convince yourself that it wouldn't provide meaning to your life. High tide seems to be when you are working hardest, providing more meaning to the time you're experiencing. Low tide is good because it gives you a good rest. But the rest of low tide depends on the activity of high tide. When your friends are swimming nearby there are more waves, but smaller and more manageable to the point that the waves seem to fly by. Of course, you are also making waves and sending those out in all directions in the same way that you are geting hit by ways whose source you do not see. The waves do not count the passing of time, however. They are your relationship with the world around you. Each wave is a representation. You assume you are interacting with the wave but you're actually perceiving the relationships. When you felt one wave hiting your face, did you notice the thousand tiny waves before it or was your perception folded in the bigger wave? You see 1 wave because you are relating it to other waves, all the while ignoring the fact there are no waves – only lots of water that seems to move. We pick out paterns to make sense of reality where no paterns really exist. Those paterns then become an aspect of our reality, allowing us to build the logical narrative of our lives. You're born, you grow up, you go to school, you work, you die – and everything in between. 87

Without the ability to illustrate the narrative by puting some relationships before others, much of the meaning is removed. The waves help us to absorb reality in manageable chunks. Time, along with space, is our way of organizing representations into a logical narrative so that we can extract meaning from the illusions. We tend to not only perceive physicality in three dimensions with orientation but also time and space; we know that in space there is no “up” or “down” or North, but we orient ourselves as part of the patern-making. We do this with time as we do with space, superimposing the dimensions of space onto the directions of time where there are none. The directions could be mixed around and the efect would be the same. Past could be future, instead, and we wouldn't know the diference because the relationships would be the same. Mater How does the structure of mater relate to the structure of perspective? All mater can be said to be electrical in nature. More importantly, what we call mater is perspective in nature. Although the diference between two types of mater is in the properties of the atoms, the relationship between the atoms is due to how the atoms are distributed electrically. An atom is “created” from the resistance of a proton and an electron. Although representations are like cavities created from the resonance of two or more objects, nothing fills the cavity. The cavity interacts with other cavities – thereby acting as a Potential element – creating the “outline” of a newly-discovered representation from the relationship. Each part of the atom is also a representation. An electron, for example, has four numbers used to describe the electron. The electron is also a SPIR system, as are the proton, neutron, etc. Each element maintains all other relationships at the same time, retaining a “memory” of other interactions that afect its current interaction. The spins of an electron are manipulated by electro-magnetic fields, themselves SPIRs. A family of SPIR systems interacting via perspective is the geometry of perspective.

88

The Nature of Gravity What we term gravity is the relative resistance between chaos and order (repulsion and atraction). We tend to think of gravity as atraction, but what we are seeing is an equal harmony between the two opposing forces. The states of gravity – gravitational expansion, gravitational contraction, and gravitational equilibrium – are all acting at the same space and time. Gravity is a relative phenomena, being resistance between two Potentials rather than a constant force. Gravitational expansion is chaos. Expansion is the expression of energy, like electromagnetic energy moving outward. Gravitational contraction is order. This is observable in the formation of moons, stars, planets, and other concentrations of mater. Contraction is the “creation” of energy through close relationships. Gravitational equilibrium is what is measured as gravity, the resistance between two primary forces. It cares not for an object, but its mass (which is not a measure of how much mater something of made of, but a value of the relationships between constituent parts). Standing on a planet, for example, you are afecting its mass because gravity considers no distinction between you and the planet – you would be part of it. The more one thing relates to another thing the closer its position in spacetime and the less resistance there is for gravity. Gravity would consider the orientations of all the SPIRs that make up all things related to it the “mass”. As the mass of a body is a variable, its gravitational relationship will also vary (i.e., not be gravitationally constant). More distance (chaos) is balanced with less gravitational atraction, while more mass (order) is balanced with less gravitational repulsion. Though gravity atracts and repels at the same time, it is not a force that pulls or pushes anything or floats in space between objects. The universe is expanding and contracting at the same time because of relationships, much like how 100 people forming a tight sphere can expand the sphere while simultaneously geting closer to a select few others in groups. In this way, the same proportions are maintained in relative distance and no “additional” energy is created, but only shifs as relationships shif. As one person moves to form a more energetic relationship with another person who is like them, one also lessens the energy of another relationship as some others become less relative. As resistance is relative, to each person space would seem to contract while, to the groups and sphere as a whole, space expands. In a similar way, the Sun does not push or pull on a distant object but is atracted and repelled by things relative to it in the chain of 89

relationships, and atracts and repels the distant object as it is folded into the more relative object. To the Sun, there is no need for the distant object to exist, as it is already harmoniously compacted in the closer relationships. What we call gravity is the chaos/order spectrum of repulsion and atraction. Gravity is not a constant but a relative resistance between the two Potentials. When gravitational forces are not in balance they are observed as something else, such as radiation (expansion) or energy (contraction). Gravity itself is not a force that pushes and pulls on objects, as there are no objects to push or pull on. Gravity is an aspect of all things and is not an external force but an internal “sense”, as all things atract and repel all other things.44 We should not, for example, confuse the weak smell of apple pie from the house next door with our very strong sense of smell. The “strength” of gravity is not in its force but in its ability to (for lack of beter terms) send and receive information about the relative position of things to harmonize relationships, regardless of space or time. In this way we can compare it to space, which does not push or pull on physical objects but is simply a field where those objects can express their geometry of relationships. Space is a sense of relationships, as is gravity.45

The Laws of the Universe Can you name a law that is outside of your perspective? We might assume that reality's ultimate truths exist in the world of mathematics. Further, we might assume that mathematics – a human invention – is somehow independent of perspective and we only discovered what was already there. However, it would be impossible to discover or invent what is objective, as discovery relies on perception, and is thus subjective no mater how universal it may seem. It is more reasonable to assume that mathematics is one way to interpret what is already there, rather than an ultimate or absolute way to model or define a very small part of all reality. A series of beautiful and elegant (read: harmonious) interpretations, if you must, but interpretations nonetheless. We could, if we were so inclined, interpret the Special Theory of Relativity using peanut buter sandwiches. The result would be far more crude and complex than other methods, illustrating just how convincing mathematical interpretations, which present the universe far more simply and beautifully than sandwiches, can be. We assume that most simple interpretations we have discovered thus far are the ultimate, most objective truths when in reality the supposed laws of nature we've discovered over the centuries are mere approximations precisely because they are only interpretations. The Standard Model of particle physics, for example, is supposed to unify electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, but does not.46 Electricity and 44 This correlates to Newton’s Law of Gravity, where bit of mater in the universe has a relationship with every other bit of mater in the universe, but extends the relationship beyond atraction to each bit maintaining a harmonic ratio between all things. 45 Also refer to the section, “Relationships Meet Resistance” in Part 5. 46 htp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S023702269230220142983

90

magnetism, as another example, are only symmetric in empty space, absent of any actual magnetism or charge.47 It would not be unreasonable to suggest that mathematics, because of its approximate nature when applied to our biggest questions, is a subjective interpretation that relies more on perspective. Perspective, or something like it, is likely the only way to really define reality. Perspective is the most fundamental property of everything that we know, and don't know, to be. In this way, what we call “the universe” is a subjective perception. What we think about when we're thinking about the universe is concepts that either have or don't have some validity in our perspective. If there was a law that applied to the universe and everything that exists, would it not also apply to dreams and our imagination? If the law is absolute, then you should not be able to go against the law in any kind of way. If the laws of quantum physics defy those of conventional physics, then it could be said that no universal physical laws have ever been discovered. Dreams “defy” conventional physics just as quantum physics does, perhaps even more so. If we say that our physical laws are absolute but do not apply to some aspects of our own physical being (such as a sense of self) then they are neither absolute nor universal. Rather than experiencing the laws of physics, thermodynamics, biology, chemistry, etc., it may be more reasonable to assume we are experiencing the structure of perspective made more complex via physicality. Gravity, for example, would then not be a law of nature independent of perspective but one of the ways the physical aspects of perspective is defined. Instead of a force that has a reality beyond perspective, perhaps gravity is how we interpret the existence of an over-abundance of 93.5 degree angles in the geometry of perspective. If there is one law at work in the universe, it is the law of energy perspective. It holds that everything that exists is eficiently represented somehow in your perspective. Representing illusions as much as possible enables eficient interactions to take place in the geometry of perspective. These are not exact representations, of course. That would not be possible since the source material cannot be perceived. The representations need only be “good enough” for interactions to result. Like the laws we have come up with, they are approximations. We represent Nothing (or, absolute randomness) so we can interact with it via a logical narrative. Randomness is automatically represented and integrated into perspective as soon as we interact with it. As soon as we “perceive” of Nothing it becomes the illusion that makes up our reality. Reality is not by itself logical, only the experience and perspective of it is. The reality beyond perspective is meaningless. It is only when we perceive Nothing by applying random (inherently meaningless) interpretations and calling it perspective that something meaningful is born. The Only Law in Town If we were to peer deep into a nose until it is not a nose we'd probably see that the only real diference between it and the flower it smells is how the parts that make up both interact with each other. Surely both a flower and a nose are made up of the same stuf that makes everything else up, although we may find that they are arranged diferently for their respective purposes. This brings us back to the only real force at work in the universe – energy perspective. A flower does not smell as a nose does because it would not be eficient for it to do so. It 47 Most theories of elementary particle physics aside from The Standard Model predict that magnetic charges should exist in nature, along with their magnetic currents. None have been observed in nature.

91

would take far too many interactions for the collection of atoms and molecules that we call a “flower” to smell like a nose. As interactions are organized into groups of SPIR systems that dance with the harmony of chaos and order we see eficiency itself. The balance between the two forces is mirrored in the balance between systems, and groups of SPIRs, until we zoom out to find the overall harmony that makes for eficient interaction at the level of perspective. When is a nose not a nose? When it is no longer eficient for the atoms and molecules to maintain balance with the overall structure in the kind of relationship that leads you to interpret it as a “nose”. The particles that make up your body can be anything in the universe. But right now they are most eficiently your body. “I” is the harmonic resistance between chaos and order. The perceptible here and now, “I”, is the most relative and eficient illustration of everything that is. Our interpretations of reality also follow this patern. Any person, place, thing, event, etc., is most eficiently whatever it is interpreted to be right now. Our interpretations are complex relationships that confuse us into solidifying their reality as we interact. Ours is the perspective that requires the least number of interactions to exist. We do not just perceive of relationships – we are the relationships. What we call consciousness is the same as a relationship, as each relationship is a perspective. The law at work in the universe is simply perspective. We perceive what is most eficient for us to perceive, sensing the interpretation of the geometry of relationships that requires the least degree of interactions to fold everything into the focus of a here-and-now perspective. That is to say, the law of the universe is “I”. States of Harmony, States of Mater As we have explored the macro of the geometry of perspective scale in Part 1, there is also the an equally important micro scale. The micro scale is seen in the various states of all mater and non-mater. Taking the example of water [see illustration] as a representation born of hydrogen and oxygen potentials, we see chaotic expansion in its expression as a gas to its orderly contraction as a solid to its eventual harmonic resistance as a liquid.48 As water cools (order) below 4 degrees centigrade, it contracts to a latice structure that we call ice. Diferent states also work together in a harmonious way that is independent of space or time. For example, bones of the physical body expand and contract at a diferent rate than the brain, which grow several times in size afer conception to adolescence, when it decreases 10-15% in size. 48 Further, each of these states is also a system of its own where gas, for example, would have its own perspective that it is the harmonic resistance of and water is another of its states.

92

The Meaning of Phi & Pi Imagine a line that tries to go on forever. This is the “infinite potential” side of Potential, expressed in chaos. Limited potential collapses it by imposing order on it. Here are the two forces at work, and where the sense of reality comes from. By simply perceiving, we limit the potential of chaos. However, both sides interact and form relationships. The infinite potential side tries to expand the limited potential side, and the limited potential side does the same. However, it is limited potential that controls the show (as it is born from logic and order, whereas infinite potential is born from chaos and disorder, beyond perspective). But what about pi? Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, is what you get when infinite potential goes unchecked: chaos, represented by a circle that goes on forever. By introducing order into the equation we can perceive reality by limiting potential. The two sides make endless exchanges, interacting and forming relationships that we call motion, light, energy, gravity, peanut buter sandwiches, etc. Our human-oriented physicality leans more to the contracted side of things, with more limited abilities and awareness. It is natural for us to want to balance our limitations by creating circular SPIRs in our society and culture, and in our sciences. Phi is Everywhere in Physical Reality In the early 13th century a man named Leonardo Pisano Bigollo travelled to the Middle East and brought back knowledge of two important things that originated elsewhere. The first was the Hindu system for writing numbers, an eficient way of representing numbers that opened up new possibilities in mathematics and science.49 The second was part of Ancient Egyptian geometry that we now call the “Fibonacci” series. This endless sequence of numbers expresses various paterns found in nature50 such as seed heads, pinecones, fruits and vegetables, flowers, the spiral movement of leaf and branch distribution, tree branching, honeybees, weather, galaxy formations, and even humans 51. Modern financial systems also use it.52 The Fibonacci sequence begins with 0 and 1, and the last two numbers are always added together to come up with the next in the series. The first few numbers in the sequence are: 49 An example of how we can learn to work with the representations in perspective to discover new realities. 50 More examples can be found at htp://io9.com/529852588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature 51 Most of the human body's parts are of one, two, three and five segments: fingers, nose, mouth, eyes, and three segments to each limb. The proportions and measurements of the body also conform to the golden ratio, as Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man illustrates. When a person's face conforms to these proportions, using various points such as their pupil, nose tip, hairline, nose width, etc., we say that their face is “beautiful”. 52 Reference htp://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/0332104.asp

93

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987... The ratio between neighbouring numbers (1.618) is called the golden ratio, phi, and “divine proportion”. Molecules of DNA conform to this ratio and sequence, measuring 21 angstroms wide and 34 angstroms long. Of course, “ratio” is simply another term for relationship. What is important is not the numbers themselves but the relationships between the numbers. In this sequence we also find our numbers “1, 2, 3, 5”, the numbers of perspective. These numbers are the first four non-zero numbers that can be used to find the quotient of the golden ratio. This relationship doesn't care for the details (since every detail is all ready represented), only the relationships between the representations. The relationship forms the reality. We tend to focus on the representations and miss the substantially more important relationships that they facilitate. SPIR Systems SPIRs do not work in a vacuum but interact with other SPIRs. Each element of a SPIR is multi-functional (as the four elements are interchangeable, as they are actually four diferent aspects of the same thing). The Potential element of one SPIR can serve as the representation element of an other, for example. In this way the SPIRs can interact. This leads to everything in perspective being systems of SPIRs. The following is an example of how SPIRs work together in the process of photosynthesis.

94

Illustrating SPIR with Simple Math Much of the understanding our ancient ancestors had of the 4 elements and how they worked together has been lost either in our journey to complexity or in the changing interpretations of words and concepts. Though there is evidence to suggest the ancients had advanced knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, or perhaps even electricity 53. Here's an illustration of SPIR to uncover the sum of 65 x 32 using a mathematical operation still in use by Ethiopian women today, as well as in modern computers:

53 Their ability to electroplate fine gold would have required it, as would have walking and painting in dark, underground areas inside pyramids and tunnels without using soot-forming candles, torches, and oil lamps.

95

In this example, we have not magically created “2,080”. We have only discovered it and it is now a part of our perspective. We can now interact with it, forming new relationships. Each Potential can flip between positive/negative, depending on the relationships. The two sides of Potential are afected by the relationship, forming two other representations besides the main representation, each weighed to whatever side of Potential it belongs to. When represented physically, for example, the positive side could weigh itself towards an “electric” representation, providing electricity to a physical device, while the negative side could weigh itself towards a “magnetic” representation, producing a magnetic field. If we used this process more mentally we could also use the relationships to afect change in our perspective simply by thinking about it mentally to afect our physical interpretations. 54 Your entire reality is made up of SPIRs. Imagine that you are surrounded by these and your body is made up of these, each interacting with those around it and navigating the endless “electromagnetic” fields to find a balance. Further, imagine that some of these SPIRs that make up your physical body extend far beyond it and had a relationship with all that you perceive. And some of the ones that seemed closer to your physical body are interacting with lots of other SPIRs around it. Some of these are “connected” with the Earth's SPIRs, giving the impression of gravity. Others give the impression of heat, sound, light, space, time, currency systems and financial transactions, social relationships, or even people, places, and events. Some SPIRs are even interpreted as parts of our body, from skin to muscles to flesh and more. When we perceive, think, feel, etc., we are interpreting these SPIRs and their relationships. SPIR is the only process at work in reality and the entire universe, as it is perspective. When we perceive or think of any process at work it is a SPIR and its associated SPIRs. 55 From the universe itself to galaxies, planets, oceans, towns, taking a drive, going to eat ice cream, all the way down to what appears to be the smallest of the small are all SPIRs at work, constantly shifing, moving, flipping polarity, and relating. However, we do not need to perceive of each “individual” SPIR and what its doing, only the relationships.56 In actuality, there are no individual SPIRs, only representations of the process. If there was a colony of SPIRs in front of you it would look like a table, a tree, a mouse, or whatever. And as each has an afect on the other, perceiving this field of representations becomes quite easy. You need only perceive the table – not the sub-SPIRs that make up the reality of the table – in order to interact with it. The table becomes the reality of its SPIR systems at work and is an approximation that other SPIRs can use to interface with them. Our being is our ability to afect these relationships by forming SPIRs of our own. We make use of this process all the time, subconsciously, when we do anything. These are not forces, they are relationships. Nothing is an obstacle, and physical size doesn't mater. All that maters are the relationships. As such, we can build our own SPIRs however we wish. 54 Something that will be covered in a later book 55 However, all SPIRs exist on the same “level”, though it may not appear so. That is because every something is just as much of Nothing as anything else. Every something is an interpretation of Nothing. 56 This is similar to how cosmologists don't need to calculate the gravitational efect of every object in the universe when trying to figure out the Earth's motion, only the Sun and sometimes the moon and the other planets are enough to provide an approximation or representation.

96

The Secret of the Universe We illustrate nature's eficiency in the Fibonacci series. The order of our “natural numbers” of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc., may work for us but it is not the most eficient or logical route for nature, or the subconscious mind. Let's consider the diference between a human perspective and a more natural perspective with an example. John is looking to go to Brookes University afer high school. Like his brother and mother he is interested in studying medicine, and Brookes has a reputable medical program and is also close to home. We may consider the best way for John to get to Brookes is to study hard and make sure he scores high on the maths and science portions of the entrance and other exams. The most eficient and logical path for nature, however, is for John to simply walk down Third Avenue all the way to the Pointe intersection and turn lef. John is only 10 years old, but needs to give his brother, who atends Brookes, a couple of tools from the garage. From your conscious mind, the most natural and eficient way to get from 0 to 10 is to go through the other 9 numbers first. From your subconscious perspective, the most natural and eficient way is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, because each successive number is an interface with the numbers before it. Here, “5” is a representation of “3” and “2” that we can interact with. Your perspective unfolds reality in the most eficient way possible, and no more. You could say that it is intuitively aware of all geometries in your perspective so automatically knows which way is the most eficient and logical way to go. For us, the shortest distance between to points is a straight line. For the subconscious, the shortest distance is one that logically interacts in the most eficient way possible, using the natural folds of what is already there. John's perspective could also take him on a bus ride or have him being dropped of by his dad if there was a logical narrative that made those experiences most eficient. If John's perspective made dad and dad's car more relative at that moment (meaning, his dad is around and is available to drive), that may very well be the case. So the most eficiently logical way for John's perspective to get him to Brookes may be to take a ride with his dad, but first stopping to get ice cream and take a walk through the park. The mind is aware of all geometries in your perspective because it is the foundation of that perspective.57 The most elemental force in the universe is this perspective. The geometry of perspective, when illustrated numerically, is the 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc., series. Further, our perspective unfolds the illusion in a way that produces the simplest (or, most balanced) geometry. As nothing exists outside of our perspective, there is no need to calculate infinities (if infinities existed). It need only “render” or calculate what is most relative. You could say that nothing exists until it interacts with something else. It would mean that the entire universe is contained within your current perspective, and need not exist until it needs to but only for those relationships that it needs to exist for. Everything in existence is already represented in your perspective in some way. The representation serves as a proxy to interact with everything else. Nothing in your perspective need be real for interactions to take place, only the illusions are necessary. Further, something only needs to be represented inasmuch as you are interacting with it. If, for example, you are listening to music and only interacting with its sound because you have your eyes closed, there is no need for your 57 However, it is not aware of your interpretations.

97

perspective to “render” the music device until it needs to, because it is already represented in other ways. If you touch it with your eyes closed, then it need only render the sensation of touch in your geometry of perspective. Amazingly, that would mean you can have sunlight with no Sun. And when you are looking at the Sun, the energy of the Sun is very minimal. It's only "Sun temperature" when it needs to be. Schroedinger's cat in the box isn't in the box afer it closes. Afer that, only meows are needed for the integrity of the logical narrative. Perspective wastes nothing. Scientists know that no energy can be created or destroyed. But the subconscious mind knows that no such energy exists, only representations of what appears to be energetic. The universe (or, more accurately, your perspective) does not waste energy. It is so eficient, in fact, that it does not use energy at all.58 It uses the relationships between illusions. The relationship between one thing and an other thing is not created or destroyed, it simply changes. There is no real motion, only the appearance of it as relationship values change and we logically relate to other representations. What we call energy comes from relationships. The goal is not to be energetic but to afect relationships. More specifically, energy is an illusion “created” by the resistance between representations. The type of energy that results depends on the representations (and their requisite geometries). The only reality of anything is that it is a representation. The things it represents are also representations. Motion is everywhere, but it is not absolute because it is not independent from perspective. How and where one thing moves is diferent for each. Motion is relative. Everything is in a state of motion but this “motion” is how we sense relationships that seem to change as our perspective changes. It it is our perspective that changes, not the thing itself. The thing itself is an illusion. As the reality of something is the relationship of that thing with other things, so too is the motion. If there is no motion how would our Sun's energy be produced if no energy is created? Even if it is powered by nuclear fusion59 we are still saying that the energy comes from two or more lighter atoms fusing into a larger one. If we consider our Sun, instead, a representation or our interpretation of something else then we can consider that its reality lay in relationships as it interacts with other representations. This would include its solar system and everything else in the universe to some degree, perhaps even a source for the endless supply of particles in the nuclear fusion model. That is to say, the Sun does not exist in a vacuum, and neither does anything else. Everything has a relationship (and interacts) with everything else through folded relationships. When a representation changes so do all of these relationships. No energy is used, none is wasted. As everything is represented there is no need for the things being represented to exist in your reality. What does this mean? Look away from the sun and the Sun is wholly represented in its light. There is no more “Sun” as you know it. Close your eyes and your physical reality is fully represented in your other senses. Go to sleep and there is no room. Your perspective no longer needs to “render” this part, because it is all ready contained in other values. By representing everything, Nothing-in-particular remains an eficient illusion. Physical motion is abstract motion. Energy is abstract energy. 58 Of course, it can't use what it doesn't really have. There's no need to: pretending to do it is just as efective, as anyone who's ever had a wet dream can atest. 59 A mistaken premise considering that extremely high temperatures would be required in this model, which coronal holes show are not found inside the Sun.

98

Space and time are not true realities, but measurements of abstract relationships. We think a table is 2 meters tall because that is what the measurement reads, not realizing that we are also measuring the yardstick and the table's relationship with everything else in our perspective. As the only value is the relationships between the representations, the representations themselves need not truly exist (or even show up!) The Expansive Now-here Imagine that you are living in a flat 2-dimensional world and you come upon a 3-dimensional apple. Being 2-dimensional, you do not see how an apple can be round, juicy, and red all at the same time. It's a strange concept for you. So you perceive the apple as being born circular, evolving into something juicy, and turning red as it gets older. This narrative makes more sense because it is presented in a manner that you can easily perceive. You can relate to birth, life, and death. You would not then be perceiving what the apple actually is but this is no diferent than you right now perceiving an apple as being separate from the tree, the person that eats it, or the table it rests on. We perceive the apple in a way that conforms to our paterns, not in the way natural to itself. We are unable to perceive of what anything really is, because in order to do so we'd have to take relationships away. Of course, we are not 2-dimensional beings or even 3-dimensional beings, but we can have those properties. Anything can be translated into another perspective, but the interpretation of the thing would change. Are our thoughts 3-dimensional? How about our emotions and personality, or bodies? Even quantum physicists agree that something as physical as our hand is made up of things that don't exist in 3-dimensions. But what happens when our emotions are “translated” into 3 dimensions? Or our personality and thoughts? Let's broaden this thought experiment to something else. Imagine that you are somehow peering into a 4-dimensional world and behold a strange sight. In it, you see a civilization with seven sides. The first side you see is Ancient Sumer. The second is Ancient Egypt. The third is Ancient Rome, then the remaining four sides: Medieval Europe, Iroquois, the British Empire, and one you've never seen before called Doumis. Whenever something happens on one side of it, it simultaneously afects each of the six other sides. Like the inability to perceive of an apple as being round, juicy, and red all at the same time from two dimensions we are unable to perceive of one civilization being all seven from three dimensions. Since we are unable to perceive something absolutely (or, perceive all of what it is) we perceive only parts that represent a whole that can never be fully-represented. But this doesn't mean we will be aware of what something represents. A sound outside the range of our small slice of the audible spectrum may appear as a light within the visible spectrum. A geomagnetic explosion may be interpreted, in our perspective, as political chaos in a particular country. An interesting cloud may be an old colleague. The sound of running across the floor may be interpreted as a breeze in an “alien” perspective. The representations themselves don't mater – nature doesn't care if something is a boat or a sun, only we do. The relationships between the representations is what maters.

99

In mathematics, chaos theory holds that the flapping of a buterfly's wings in one place can create a system that may evolve into a storm in an other place far away, given enough time. The subconscious mind holds that they are diferent aspects of the same thing, like standing on a fractal and viewing it from two diferent angles. The Color Scale The color spectrum also illustrates the scale of perspective, as we can see in the following illustration. (Note that red photons are larger than blue photons so will have larger electromagnetic fields, which may lead to mysteries in the sciences and form the basis for quantum physics.)60

60 The famous double-slit experiment in quantum physics uses only monochromatic light. Using a light with more than one color the experiment will break down, because the efect depends entirely on the wavelength of the photon. (Photons of diferent color wavelengths will have diferent paterns through the slit.) A red photon will be larger than a blue photon, and so will its magnetic field. Photons passing over an object will bend from the interaction of the magnetic fields. A small enough slit will produce the paterns seen in the experiment but a large slit will not, as the photon's magnetic field will not interfere with the slit. When the photon passes through a slit with two sides some photons will bend in one direction and some will bend in an other direction. This efect is light difraction, but because two slits are being used the difraction will form an interference patern.

100

Relationships Meet Resistance As Earth moves through the solar system, it does not have time to adjust to the new position of the Sun so that its orbital balance may be maintained precisely. It must do so simultaneously, lock-step with the Sun and planets, at all times. Supposedly, nothing travels faster than the speed of light. However, there is no speed of relationships when two things relate.61 This is instantaneous, because a relationship doesn't change without afecting all other relationships at the same time – they must keep to the same ratios. We see two things in our interpretation, but the mind “sees” nothing-in-particular. The Sun and the Earth are the same. In our slice of reality the two seem to be diferent things rather than two aspects of the same thing because the aspects contain complicated relationships. Our perception separates these seemingly-diferent aspects into two things, to make sense of them. Just as light may travel more slowly in a medium such as water or air, relationships travel more slowly in the mediums of perception. Some of the “angles” in the geometry of perspective are like mediums for us to interpret the relationships in. Our sight – one medium – has an angle that doesn't block our view of relationships so much, so we can interpret a new relationship slightly faster than the speed of light. Our sense of hearing has an angle that is more sharp, so we interpret new relationships much slower. Our brains, however, will slow down our vision and speed up our hearing to harmonize the senses. Imagine, if you will, a sphere with 7 other spheres nested inside it. There is a bug at the smallest sphere at the center that carries a message to the surrounding spheres. The message is actually a blank piece of paper, but the first sphere that it arrives at interprets the paper to be a simple geometric shape. This sphere then marks the paper with its interpretation. Each subsequent sphere receives the same message when the bug gets to it, but can only interpret the message in a way that makes sense to it, like a painting. The last sphere gets a message with all the markings of the other spheres, but still interprets the message in a way that makes sense to it. Each sphere thinks it is geting a diferent message, but the message itself doesn't actually mater since each interprets it their own way. It only maters that the bug is delivering something that the spheres can relate to. Without the bug they would not know that relationships were possible. Further, let's imagine that the first sphere from the center is called “Light”. The Light sphere interprets the message as fast as the eye can see, because besides the shape of the paper it doesn't have much else to relate to. There is nothing complex to interpret. Therefore, it meets less resistance than do the other spheres that need to relate to more and more geometry, and each takes time to interpret it (as the geometry complexifies) in a way that makes sense.

61 Relationships are considered simultaneous because if something travelled “faster” than relationships (time thus being irrelevant) it would not have a relationship and would therefore not be able to be perceived.

101

As resistance is the “result” of two potentials interacting, we can see how spheres meet with resistance as each sphere interprets the message. The spheres, or SPIRs, of speed, movement, change, thoughts, events, emotions, etc., of everything in the universe are interpreted this way. The greater the resistance, the more complex the angle (so to speak) and the more the SPIR represents other geometries (or, has other geometries folded into it). One SPIR can have any number of other sub-SPIRs folded into it. What was a simple relationship at the first sphere was interpreted to be other, more complex relationships, in there other spheres. In the illustration above, sound is a more complex octave of light, having interpreted the same relationships in a diferent way. We perceive most that which takes the least amount of energy (or, relationships) to perceive. We have the greatest relationship with that which we perceive, and interpret, the most of. The Subconscious Mind and Schroedinger's Cat The subconscious mind doesn't know anything about Schroedinger's cat. The funny thing about the famous cat experiment is that there is, of course, no cat (or experiment) to begin with. There are only relationships that we interpret to be “cat”, “box”, etc. For sake of argument, however, let's forget about reality and pretend there is a cat for a moment. This illusion only lasts for so long, however, because once the cat is in the box it ceases to be a "cat" if we are not perceiving the entirety of the cat. It reverts back to being an array of relationships that can be interpreted as a cat, or a meow, or movement in the box. Perspective is eficient and will not waste energy allowing the interpretation of relationships that aren't perceived. If the box moves afer we put the cat inside, the cat exists only in our imagination. The movement does, too, but it is relating to our perspective more than the cat we don't see. If we hear a meow coming from the box, it does not mean there is a cat inside. The body of the cat needs only exist in our perspective when the body is perceived because there is no actual body, only the interpretation of a body in our perspective. We don't interpret what we don't need to. We would not interpret the cat's whiskers if we did not see the cat and its meows can exist independently from the cat itself, the cat being folded in whiskers and meows. Unpeeling another layer of the illusion we can know if the cat is alive or dead before we open the box because of the nature of relationships. The reality of the cat is represented, even if the entire cat is not there as we knew it. This is similar to how gravity from our sun “knows” about the state and position of the Earth some 8 minutes before we can measure (not predict) it. Relationships are instantaneous, unconstricted by our interpretation of spacetime, and the relationships that make up the cat can be observed outside of the box before it is opened. The irony of the Schroedinger's Cat experiment is that it is a thought experiment that sets up a scene – illusions – that we interact with; the cyanide, box, cat, experiment, etc. This allows us to confuse the illusions for reality. Its paradox is that the experiment can only be measured from the same perspective. 102

Size Doesn't Mater Should we discover the most fundamental element in the universe we will see that it is independent of "size" atributes and is, instead, fundamental because of function (another way to interpret a relationship). The study of the universe is ultimately a study of our own perceptions. As we have seen, the pink elephant in the laboratory is consciousness. Without it no hypothesis or experiment can take place. It is likely the most ill-considered variable in most experiments. The universe does not obey two diferent set of laws depending on the size of the object. Something is not more fundamental because it is perceived to be smaller. Size doesn't mater to something that considers only relationships. We experimentally observe sub-atomic particles behaving diferently because that is how we observe. Things more related to how our senses and brains are structured appear to behave one way, while things less related to how we are sensing them appear to behave another way. We're back to dividing 10 and 2 (the physical world), thinking it is diferent from dividing 10 and 3 (the sub-atomic world). A friend's life will not be understood by examining their organs. We will not have an even deeper understanding of them by analyzing their cellular structure. We can claim that the system of beliefs and thinking that govern our friend's life is not mirrored in their DNA, but we'd be missing the point. When we are at the cellular level what we're observing is no longer our friend but other kinds of life physically integrated.62 Your friend is not aware of the microbial life inside their body nor does he or she need to be. The two living systems are as deeply related as the contents of your wallet. Yet, each behaves according to their own interpretation of a fundamental set of rules. When we conceptualize the world of sub-atomic particles we need to do so from a sub-atomic perspective rather than one based mostly on physical operations. We look at a sub-atomic particle against a backdrop of subjective spacetime and wonder what strange rules apply. Not only does this require new vocabulary to decouple our connections to physicality when thinking about something that has very diferent physical atributes, but an entirely diferent way of thinking about physical things. Observing the Instrument Although scientists can theorize about (and find evidence for) particles that travel faster than the speed of light, they can only perceive the results at or less than this speed of light. An inch will be measured as an inch, even when it's not. Perspective is also a medium for light to travel in, and a way for measurement to interface with reality. The instrument that is used for the measurement or observation is rarely considered as afecting the measurement or observation, but ofen what is being observed are the efects of the instrument and whatever it is relative to rather than what is being observed. It is obvious when you look through a telescope that your perspective is changed, but less obvious when using other instruments because one has no physical frame of reference with which to compare and used to model what is being perceived. Instruments can be references of interpretation, but are used as a means to observe reality. For example, looking through an electron microscope we do not see electrons. We see the reality of the electron microscope. 63 62 Reference: htps://web.archive.org/web/220122061250420930/htp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_body_politic/ 63 We are, more accurately, looking into that section of the geometry where the instrument appears.

103

If you invented a new gestalt spectrometer that is designed to capture oompa particles, you'd probably find them eventually with a bit of tweaking. But it doesn't mean that they exist outside of your interpretation. Satisfied with your results you'd find a place for it in the logical narrative of your field of science. Other scientists could then find the same particles using the same or a similar instrument, verifying your results. However, other instruments without such relationships in their immediate geometry, like a kaleidoscope or a pair of binoculars, will not allow you to interpret oompa particles in the same way. (Remember though: the other scientists would also be a part of your perspective, as would their findings be. Surely your perspective is apt to agree with itself more times than not.) Searching the Past for Answers When looking into our historical past for answers we can consider not only the words and their original meanings but how the terms were used in their original contexts. We can consider that we are looking at the past from our current perspective, not the past perspective. Consider today we have four quantum numbers of the electron (used to describe it) in physics: the principal, azimuthal, magnetic, and spin quantum numbers These numbers are useful to physicists in their description of the electron, and by extension of mater. Let's further imagine that 1,000 years from now we have a new kind of science. Also, in a few hundred years there is a Second Dark Ages for 500 years and much the information from before the 22nd century was lost. However, some scientific records stored in quantum computers survived and these four words found their way into whatever English will evolve into in 1,000 years. But instead of being used to describe the electron they morphed into the words used to describe the 4 parts of the day:    

Principal: 12am to 6am Azimuthal: 6am to 12pm Magnetic: 12pm to 6pm Spin: 6pm to 12am

Because the meanings of the words have changed we don't have any context with which to pivot our understanding of how the terms were used in the 21st century. We assume that our ancestors in the 21st century thought that the day was divided into 4 parts because, judging by the extraordinary amount of land used for farms compared with our cities, farms must have been humanity's most important enterprise. Farmers must have used those 4 terms to keep track of what to do when. How primitive! Further, English isn't really used that much anymore. Like Latin or some of our far older languages it became unpopular over the years. And with each translation the original meaning becomes further lost. The dominant language is now "Fang". Here are our 4 words translated into their meaning in Fang:    

Principal: midnight refreshment Azimuthal: breakfast meal Magnetic: mid-day meal Spin: evening meal

Future researchers interpret our primitive understanding to mean that god took his four 104

meals a day and counted the number of bites of each, and the number of drops in his drink. From these bites and drops, reality was formed every day. We cannot assume that a concept used thousands of years ago still retains its original meaning and context, or relationships, today. Or, that the language we are using to understand the original language in has all the corresponding words and concepts in our language. Further, that any integral yet non-obvious features of a writen language (such as the sound a particular shape makes or the diagrammatical component of a section of hieroglyphics) has any modern counterpart. Instead, we get words whose meanings have changed over the years, names of forces that become names of gods and other entities, mythologies that only make sense as imaginative stories and not actual descriptions of anything real, and structures, shapes and other artefacts that have lost their meaning. It would be amusing to imagine a nuclear power plant being thought of as a "government tomb" where heads of state are buried because in 1,000 years we build structures with nanotechnology and look at the 21st century with a nano-perspective. So much time, efort, and resources were used to build nuclear reactors they must have been used by government for its own benefit. The Theory of Nothing Philosophers have been searching for a single representation that applies to everything for thousands of years. Cosmologists have been searching for an ultimate theory that explains all physical aspects of the universe in a single law since the Big Bang. A “theory of everything” that could be applied to any field would not appear to be scientific at all any more that it would appear to be political, religious, economic, psychological, etc. Surely, it is not even thought to be possible that everything could come from a single source. Such a theory would appear to be a theory of nothing-in-particular and, thus, not seem very interesting or useful at all. How would it relate to anything in particular? How could perspective be “the answer” that unites every question ever writen down? Surely it must be more complicated than that! It is easy, and sometimes elegant, to make something more complex. But it is dificult to make things appear simpler and less complicated. We are inclined to represent new discoveries, not ones that are ingrained into our being. In our search for meaning we cannot help but to play with illusions, and to represent things that do not actually exist. It is not interesting to discover something that relates to everything without first being secure in knowing that one would still exist if one understood that existence is irrelevant. Unification is to be avoided at all costs if we are to survive. When we consider something that can be applied to everything we must be sure that it is simple enough to be perceived from any perspective. A theory of perspective, or even Notes from Your Subconscious, could be a step in the right direction but it is not the ultimate answer. There may be no ultimate answer or ultimate representation of what is true. We may discover new relationships that are interesting and become more relative to us than the former, but this likely goes on forever until we realize that there is no right answer. A theory of everything would be quite useless, as nothing-in-particular is irrelevant and without perspective. A theory of nothing would make far more sense.

105

Part 5: Consciousness, Dreams, the Perfect Reality, and You

106

What is Consciousness? The word consciousness derives from the Latin conscius, “to know with”. This is similar to the word science, which is also derived from the same root scire, “to know”. Although we cannot know anything without consciousness, in the breadth of all our sciences we have no definition for what consciousness is. Consciousness and science are connected at the root, but you'd never know it by how far they apart they've grown. We cannot know if we've really progressed without knowing how far we've come. Is there anything that you're completely aware of? Reality is unlike our experience – we can only perceive our interpretations. We cannot see, hear, touch, taste, feel, or even think beyond our perspective. For us, our perspective is all that is, but is not yet enough to perceive reality. The day that we give up the notion of truth is the day that we learn to work within the illusion to find out, instead, what truly works for us. We think of a consciousness that can be aware of something – but even illusions laugh at such thoughts. The term conveniently hides the reality that we cannot be aware of something directly. Consciousness is all about relationships. If you look at your hand you are not seeing your hand for what it is. Although the illusion seems like reality it is the only way to perceive we've ever known, and so it becomes our reality by default. What the hand is really like is irrelevant, and likely does not exist without an interpretation of it. It doesn't mater how something sees itself, either, as that is also an interpretation. If you see yourself as tall and bear-like and someone else does not, it doesn't mean that they aren't seeing you for who you are. Perspective cannot be shared. Even as you look in the mirror you are interpreting the electrical signals coming from your retina as they were in the past; we cannot even share perspective with ourselves because the moment we do it becomes another perspective. If you could perceive the signals directly you'd still be perceiving an interpretation. True reality cannot be perceived directly. Truth has no perspective. Illusions are more important than reality because they allow relationships to exist, whereas absolute reality does not. What is important is that which we can use. The illusions “create” consciousness simply by relating to each other, making up the geometry of perspective we call reality. Consciousness, by itself, does not exist. We can only know of other – it is impossible to know of your self on a 1:1 relationship. Such would be beyond perspective because there is nothing else with which to compare. So we make up “other” in our body, our thoughts, our beliefs, our actions, other people and things, and events and activity all over the Earth, round infinity and back again.64 Watching a film, the illusion of motion is very convincing. We are so engaged in the drama we forget that we are watching individual frames rather than something lively. The magic happens in the relationships between the frames to give us a picture of reality. We, too, will find consciousness not in the frames of existence but between those illusions. What do you consider your "self"? If it is your body, then what do you do with a part of your self when you clip your nails or cut your hair? If it is only the living part of your body that you consider your self, where does your self go when you lose weight? If it is your mind, do you gain more self as you get older and wiser, or perhaps lose part of your self if you can't 64 That is to say that we can represent infinity and interpret something to be infinite, but infinity itself does not exist. The universe is no more infinite than finite, as there really is no “other” other than something that cannot be wholly interpreted and so seems to go on forever in our natural interpretations.

107

remember something? Where is your self when you are dreaming – in the dream? If consciousness is "awareness of my own being", what does it mean to be aware of another being? Are you independently aware of your being, or are you just using one part of your “self” to sense another part? If you are more than your brains, could you be aware of what remains if your brains were shut of completely? There is no one point that we can say, “This is my self” because there is nothing to point at. We are wanting to point between the frames but end up focusing on the frames themselves for the answers because we can see them. The notion of self must, paradoxically, include other things. There is no self without what we don't consider our self to be. In order to be we must relate, as we cannot be by ourselves. We must be in relation to something else that is (or isn't), as we cannot be conscious by ourselves, only in relationship with something else. In order to think or feel, we must relate to what we are thinking and feeling. By thinking, we open a dialogue with something we do not yet sense our self to be. By feeling, our emotions flow to where they were not but a few moments ago. In order for consciousness to be, it must be conscious of it being something else. In our brains are mirror neurons which fire the same way if you do something as they would if you see someone else doing the same thing.65 That we may be conscious, we must forget that we are there already, but still remember how to get there. This brings us back to the root of consciousness, the Latin term for, “to know with”. We are conscious when we know with something else, forming a relationship. But, as what forms conscious relationships is a variable, consciousness is relative. We are “conscious” by relating to one thing more and another thing less. As an example, the more aware we are of dreams the less aware we are of waking reality. And the subconscious mind is not aware of the name of what you had for breakfast, but you are. The Consistency of Conscious Being Let's imagine that you are having conversations with two people siting in two separate rooms. The subject of the conversations is clouds. The two people you are speaking with are exactly the same except in one way: one person knows what clouds and its related concepts are, and the other person does not. When you talk to the person that knows what clouds are, they are able to relate to the representation (“clouds”) as well as other concepts in the conversation such as beauty, form, lightness, and flufiness. They know why a cloud can be white and airy or grey and heavy. They know all of this because they already have relationships with those concepts. Thus, this person has a conscious awareness of clouds and can follow the conversation with great ease. However, when you talk to the person that does not know what clouds are, they are unable to follow you. They can only begin to relate to clouds by listening for concepts they can relate to, and then relating “clouds” to those. Now imagine that the two people you have spoken to are actually the same person that can consciously decide when to remember and forget about all the cloud-related concepts. As “consciousness” is all about relationships, we can be conscious of something by simply relating to it. The more we relate to something the more conscious of it we are. 66 Further, we can relate to other beings that seem more like us, such as other people or certain kinds of animals, and we consider those to have consciousness, too. If you were able to relate to a 65 Reference: htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E 66 Though, again, this means that we are then less conscious of something else.

108

cloud by talking to it, you might even consider it also has consciousness. But what cannot relate? It is all consciousness. It is not possessed, however. One is only conscious via relationships – without some kind of relationship there is no consciousness or subconsciousness, or perception. This is no diference between your conscious self and subconscious self; they are the same self, but seem diferent as it relates to concepts. Where the relationship between one thing and another is not relative (i.e., not clearly defined) to our waking consciousness we call it subconsciousness. The more we relate the deeper we can perceive. This is what makes the subconscious mind great. It forgets itself to form a relationship with what it has forgoten and uses the relationship to form paterns that propagate reality, allowing for a seemingly endless interpretation of all the geometry. Your perspective makes everything possible. The Present is a Gif That You Never Got (but Hints at a Relationship That You Did) Our lives seem to revolve around the present moment. It seems like we're on the edge of something amazingly new and continuous, yet perfectly balanced between the known (our past) and the unknown (our future). It seems to be all we can be really consistently sure of, like an always-changing, active and perfect memory. But, unfortunately, the present doesn't exist. We know that when we look at the stars we are looking back in time billions of years, as it takes a really long time for their light to reach us. Light from our own Sun does not have too far to travel but is still around 8 minutes old. Although sound and light take time to travel we can still function as though they were instantaneous occurrences, as our brains don't seem to care for how old or new something is. Looking at our own hand or listening to our own voice we are not seeing or hearing it as it is in the present, but as it was in the past. The diference is in nanoseconds, but it is still significant enough that it isn't truly now. These illusions work well enough that we can manage our lives without struggling with fundamental properties of physics as we walk down the street or pay our bills, but it also points out that we are not able to experience reality directly, only the workable illusion of reality. Also, the importance of relationships. Light travels from our Sun at 671,000,000 miles per hour. Sound travels to your ears at 768 miles per hour. You can walk home at about 3 miles per hour. But a relationship is instantaneous. The Sun has already formed a new relationship with everything around it before its light has had a chance to think about it. Your brains already have a relationship with a decision several seconds before you are aware.67 Gravity of the Sun knows where the Earth is going to be long before its light reaches us. The geometry of relationships does not care how we interpret spacetime, because space and time are just resistances in its geometry. The question is, “What is relative?” If your 5th grade teacher's words regarding success are relative to you, it won't mater how long ago it was. Her words will resonate with you wherever you are, regardless of time. If you chiseled out a shoe and a chair from the same block of relationships, perhaps one shoe will not be as comfortable as the other when you're wearing it, or siting in the chair makes you feel like going for a walk. 67 Reference: htp://phys.org/news12723952619.html

109

Gravity of the Sun doesn't care about stars in other galaxies, as those relationships are already folded into relationships of whatever is nearby. What is far is folded into what is near. Everything doesn't need to be known, only the harmony of what is close needs to be sensed to extrapolate the totality of everything else. If Jupiter was somehow to disappear, the “shock” of the unfolding relationships would push the Sun a litle, then pull it back as it organized the unfolded relationships into new folds. As people and things disappear from our lives we may also be shocked in such a way. Your past and future are also folded like this. Past and future are simply experiences that aren't so relative to you. The resistance between the two we call the present, but even this cannot be touched. The present illustrates the universal illusion. Is it time that allows us to perceive an apple as round, juicy, and red? These things are just our interpretation of the relationships behind the apple that allow us to see it that way. We are perceiving what is related and folding up the rest into the wide arms of potential. We are perceiving the same apple as a seedling, an apple tree, an unripe apple, a ripe apple, a halfeaten apple, and a roten apple – but all folded into the round, juicy, and red apple because that is the apple that is most relative to us. It is not the speed of time that causes the “delay” of perspective, but our own swinging on the geometry, like monkey bars, as we sense the next closest bar to swing on. What we call the immediate past and future are the next bars backward and forward, but the present is our time spent between bars, floating in an experience that has no representation. We are not conscious of the present because awareness of the present only comes about through a relationship with something else, in what we call past and future. The future expands our awareness, while the past contracts it. The harmonic equilibrium in the middle, the resistance, is our present. We seem to be move forward in time as our bodies are powered by chaos and limited by order. The past burns the future like oxygen burns hydrogen in the fuel cell of our bodies, beckoning us electromagnetically as the past turns to rust. Chaos and order, forever tugging at each other. Only their progeny seem at peace. Relationships and You Blissfully surrounded by illusions, the more an illusion relates to something else the more real it seems. Focusing on these relationships is how we fall asleep, how we manage to wake up, and how we go about our day. By the magic of relationships the familiar is a window to the unfamiliar. We can relate to anything through what we already know. You could say that perception is information about relationships, and as we perceive something we get information about those things that it represents, and other things that are folded into it. The light you see when you look up at the night sky has not travelled for billions of years. It travels only from the edge of relevance to your immediate perspective. The light you see takes no time to travel. It's a relationship. There is nothing in a person's reality that exists by itself without interacting with everything around it. A broken car in a garage will interact with the surrounding environment and may even influence the geometry of other things and people nearby. Stresses at home or in the workplace are a part of the total perspective, not limited to what we consider to be the cause of the stress. Every aspect of your reality, every person and thing you like and don't, drinks 110

from your cup and bathes where you bathe. The separation is only in our imaginations. What we call chemical addition, for example, is not addiction to a chemical but a person's relationship to their surroundings where interaction with a certain drug can help to facilitate the relationship, and sometimes force a temporary logical narrative. In this way, the drug is an interface with a reality that parallels the current one in relativity. Or, you can say, the drug enables them to adapt to the other aspects of their environment that they perceive. The body doesn't know the diference between the drugs in our food or any other drugs, only the efect they have on how you interpret relationships. Some efects are more powerful than others and may have unintended consequences. Look at this cute litle hamster. She's ambitiously climbing his wheel like there's no tomorrow. His litle feet seem to fly to each rung of the wheel, but she never quite reaches even the height of the center axle. Some of us might see the hamster running up but never out and begin to wonder about our own place in society, feeling like there's no end to the race like the hamster might. Others might not see a hamster at all. But the big question is how does this hamster understand calculus? Is she over qualified for his job as a hamster wheel operator, or is there some kind of magic involved? Worms also perform what we call calculus to find food.68 But how? We are not more intelligent than a hamster, nor more intelligent than each other. Some of us learn faster than others not because of intelligence but because we meet with less resistance in our interpretations, relating to more things and are thus able to interpret relationships in a more balanced way when it comes to overall harmony. But humans are not the only beings that interpret relationships – all of reality does. If you have a well-kept house, for example, and decide to not fix a second-floor window that was recently cracked then the other windows around it may begin to interpret relationships diferently. They are more likely to adopt the interpretation of "brokenness" and atract more opportunities for broken windows and related manifestations. The entire property can be afected by this small change in the interpretation of relationships. Tomorrow has found a new interface. These relationships are integral to our universe and our lives. We naturally want to create relationships with something... anything. We constantly seek out opportunities to create a relationship with someone or something else to further the illusion of our existence. A person, place, thing, idea, anything that is or can be somehow represented. We give names to this consciousness-creating process: love, lust, hate, obsession, laughter, passion, anger, fetish, happiness, etc. It doesn't mater what kind of relationship it is. We don't know anyway – we can only interpret them. But we create relationships in order to feel like we truly exist. When you interact with something you are sharing a relationship with it. Consciousness is interaction, and neither comes first. Anything you are aware of you are interacting with. For example, we cannot see a distant star without a photon from it interacting directly with our sense of sight. You cannot smell dinner on a plate without the molecules in the food interacting with your olfactory neurons. Similarly, we cannot think of someone else without their representations directly interacting with our thoughts. And as we relate in present, so do we become in past and future. 68 Reference: htp://www.livescience.com/5022-worms-calculus-find-food.html

111

You Are Not Human Just as consciousness exists in relationships rather than individual somethings, humanness is a state of being rather than a state of physicality. We are human because of our relationships. Your physical body is a massive collection of both physical and non-physical consciousness. 69 Approximately 100 trillion bacterial cells, each with its own consciousness and thoughts (via relationships), inhabit your body. You have 10 times more more bacterial cells in your body than human cells. What we refer to as human DNA actually has anywhere from 100 to 1,000 times more microbial genes than what we think of as human genes. You are, in actuality, not human. You stopped being human the moment you were born and microbial life began to take over. A complex microbial ecosystem stakes claims in our digestive and respiratory tracts, our teeth, and our skin. They establish increasingly complex communities, like a forest that gradually takes over a clearing. By the time we’re a few years old, these communities have matured, and we carry them with us, more or less, for our entire lives. Less than 1% of our genetic make-up is human DNA. It’s easy to ignore the astonishing fact that we are not nearly as human as we think. “Human beings are not really individuals; they’re communities of organisms,” says McFall-Ngai. It’s not just that our bodies serve as a habitat for other organisms; it’s also that we function with them as a collective. As the profound interrelationship between humans and microbes becomes more apparent, the distinction between host and hosted has become both less clear and less important — together we operate as a constantly evolving man-microbe kibbutz. Which raises a startling implication: If being Homo sapiens through and through implied a certain authority over our corporeal selves, we are now forced to relinquish some of that control to our inner-dwelling microbes. Ironically, the human ingenuity that drives us to understand more about ourselves is revealing that we’re much less “human” than we once thought. [from The Body Politic70] To you, an aggregated consciousness, riding a bicycle is a simple activity. It does, however, require the rapid execution of successive calculations of physics, trigonometry, and calculus. Calculations that would be quite impossible for anyone to do (rapidly, if at all) with their brains are easily and quickly performed by the other types of consciousnesses related to their person. You quite ofen and easily perform calculus at speeds that would make Isaac Newton burst into sweat. We take these abilities (or relationship-consciousnesses) for granted and say that it just comes naturally to us, without ever actually knowing how we do it. Other types of animals have also been shown to perform calculus,71 but perhaps researchers never thought to apply the same question to humans. We can perform calculations of physics without thinking about them because parts of us do make those calculations. We are then intuitively aware of the result because we need only sense the representation that has the answer folded in it. These microbes pass from one person to another, and from system to system. If, for example, a microbe in your body has figured out how to perform a certain feat it could spread to other persons, depending on the geometric relationships. They would then know how to perform the same feat because they now have the same microbes with similar relationships. Ideas, thoughts, and much else comes from these sub-systems. You are as human as the clothes you wear. 69 Just as our brains operate in both physically and non-physically-oriented (metaphysical) geometries. 70 htps://web.archive.org/web/220122061242225838/htp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_body_politic/ 71 htps://web.archive.org/web/220122061242225838/htp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/7051/title/Calculating _Dogs

112

The Naturally Artificial Human The evolution of humanity is both artificial and natural. Before recorded history we were rarely the most adapted to our surroundings. Most ofen, we were one of the weakest and least-adapted animals. But we learned how to invent and use technologies to our advantage and change the dynamics of our survival as a species. We should realize, however, that this is not much diferent from what other species do. Our intelligence has evolved with the help of tools and technologies. We are not so much “naturally” intelligent as the intersection of natural and artificial intelligence evolved from technology we discovered, from the axe, to language, to farming, to the axis. What kind of memories would we have if we could not communicate with others or assign names to objects and concepts? What kind of problem-solving ability would we have if we did not build more complex lifestyles and social structures? What would our brains look like if we never learned to hunt or grow food? Somehow these kinds of developments are part of natural evolutionary processes but, paradoxically, the activities themselves are deemed unnatural. Our bodies are as artificial as any tool we use, as both are illusions and interfaces with a greater reality. Thus, a farm is not less natural than a forest. Our body is not more natural than a mobile phone just because it is an organism – a rock is not an organism, either. A rock is formed by so-called natural processes, but a mobile phone is formed from human activity taking advantage of natural resources and processes. The diference between this and the natural resources and processes used in the reproduction of another human is the degree to which the conscious mind is involved in the process. The more human consciousness doesn't direct something, the more natural it seems. Conscious activity is not considered an aspect of nature – suggesting that there is no consciousness in what we call “nature”, or at least human consciousness isn't natural and anything we choose to do is divorced from it. It would not seem that a mobile phone is natural even though it naturally exists entirely in perspective, or its warm surface is home to countless microbes and bacteria of its owner and anyone who has ever touched it, or that it is a harmonious composite of known physical laws that allows you to extend part of your awareness halfway across the world. But if we consider consciousness to be relationships rather than human-like intelligence, one thing is just as natural as another no mater what it looks like. The complexity of the more true natural world – that is to say, everything in reality – confounds us as we lose sight of the more important relationships between all things. But by adopting a physical body and using various tools and technologies (all aspects of perspective) we have learned how to extend our immediate perspective much further and relate more closely with things that were previously not relative to us. We should not punish nature's complexity, while ignoring its simplicity. Technology is a natural process. In perspective, there is no distinction between what is natural and what is artificial. All relationships are natural. Everything that can be perceived is natural, as perception itself is natural. As beings with perspective, we explore relationships and add artificial stories and interpretations on top of the native relationships we find in the geometry of perspective. The perception of a tree is as artificial as a plastic milk container, as they are both artificial interpretations of what is natural. It follows that we are as much artificially intelligent beings as we are naturally intelligent beings. We cannot perceive nature, only interpret it artificially. If illusion is good enough for All-That-Is, then it should be good enough for us, too. Further, we as humans have evolved as a result of artificial selection. From an evolutionary 113

perspective, our technology has removed most of the selection pressure on “naturally fit” atributes. The more we make use of technology the more “natural” evolutionary selection becomes irrelevant. We have, in efect, selected ourselves. We were not created by our beautiful Mother Earth, soupy random chance, or the Spagheti gods. Each of us is born of perspective and its relationships. Consciousness is, indeed, everywhere and anywhere a relationship exists. We can think of the human mind as perfectly optimized for all of space and time, as the mind considers illusions as reality. What is the origin of space and time if not our perception? The mind needs not classify anything as either artificial or natural. It doesn't care to classify dreams as either natural or unnatural, because it doesn't mater. The human mind doesn't care if a fire comes about from what we think of as artificial or natural means, and neither does the subconscious mind. Rather, “How does this relate to my perspective?” We don't yet realize it consciously, but the only thing that maters is the relationship between things no mater where they come from, how solid they appear, or how long they've been around. From a more universal perspective, convenience stores and strip malls are just as “natural” as the trees they replaced. Is there any part of a strip mall that is not derived directly or indirectly from nature? We worry about over-development when meat consumption has a far, far greater impact on the life of those same trees.72 But is there any process that we have come up with that somehow extends beyond the initial impetus of All-That-Is? Have we outwited the universe by adding tax to a stick of gum? We are not so clever, but we think of something that evolved over millions of years as "natural" while more recent creations are not. However, the first convenience store also took millions of years to evolve, as did language and everything else that we consider artificial. Babies are not artificial because they are made by human activity, and neither are artificially-inseminated babies. If a convenience store is unnatural, so are our dreams and imagination – they all arise from complex human activity. Although we might consider a young boy talking with three girls at the same time to optimize exposure to the atention he might need human nature, we still consider this kind of activity separate from nature itself. Might a tree have no concept of the artifice of human activity as it positions its leaves to optimize exposure to the atention of sunlight? We separate ourselves from nature, nature from the universe, and the universe from ourselves. Everything is naturally-occurring because there is nothing that works outside that which encompasses all of nature – perspective. Could we say that the activity of human nature is somehow unnatural because we think it is special? How arrogant it is to assume that we are the top of the food chain when our supposedly “human” bodies are less than 1% human? 73 We are literally being consumed alive by other organisms. Or perhaps we claim to be the most advanced species when we cannot understand the language of any other species, nor consider that consciousness applies to them as well? We are more interested in spending billions of dollars to build a giant machine that might open up a portal to other dimensions and create black holes than we are in really trying to figure out what a Beluga whale might have to say. Can we assume that every species naturally believes it is the most special and most wise and sees value in whatever it has managed to create, just as we tend to do in groups or as individuals? We persist in thinking that we have the capacity to destroy a planet that was here billions of years before we started picking our noses, and will likely be here billions of years afer we are gone. 72 In 48 states of the US alone, nearly 60% of all land is used to produce meat. (41% used by livestock for grazing, and an additional ~18% to grow crops to feed livestock only.) However, only 3% is considered developed land, home to 75% of the population. Also, most freshwater resources are used for meat production. 73 The human body has about 20,000 human genes and 2-20 million microbial genes.

114

If plants and animals use language, are they not also using technology? Granted, language is a technology hundreds of thousands of years old but it is still a tool that we invented. Might they have invented their own means to communicate? Let's not assume that plants and other animals have always had such abilities, nor are clueless as to what they are doing. Of course, plants do not speak any language that humans have constructed, or even possess organic brains to support their long term memory and ability to learn.74 However, plants have been found to talk to each other through nano-mechanical vibrations.75 Could this not also be considered technology that evolved to suit the needs of the entity using it, similar to our own development of vocal language to communicate? We might even consider that we term our inventions “artificial” when they could very well be more natural than we realize. Are genes natural if they afect human activity and behaviour? We consider genetic expression natural, but the expression of a cultural facet, such as wearing a suit, artificial. Is the evolution of a larger brain in humans natural when considering it paralleled the evolution of our tools over the past 2.6 million years? Artificial evolution is not separate from natural evolution, but married to it. When genetic changes are driven by culture and technology, how divorced are those things from nature? We are artificially intelligent because much of our intelligence has come from the use of our tools (“artifice”). But this extends to everything that we have invented, not just physical hand tools. Beyond language, there's reason, society, culture, arts, the sciences, games, history, media, and just about everything else in our dayto-day existence. The artificial and natural work together as one. Nature is chaos, and technology is order. Like everything else in the universe, we cannot exist by ignoring an opposite. We have not evolved into rational beings any more than we have evolved into hygienic beings. We have the capacity to think with some degree of rationality to make associations, but we pair rationality with our emotions to continue to evolve as a species. We do not eat for nutritional value alone. If things like eating or sex did not feel good many of us would not be compelled to do them as much as is required for our growth, genetic mutation, and ultimate survival. We do not care primarily for what is true, such as purely rational beings would, but what feels good, is useful, and we can relate to. Needing evidence for something before acting is rational, but evidence is nothing without a relationship with the person taking the action. Smoking may be bad for your health from a rational standpoint, but perhaps the possible outcomes aren't so bad when weighed against the emotions that compel one to smoke. Beter than rational beings we are logically emotional beings, balancing chaos with order to express All-That-Is. In this way, and like a dream, what is natural ingeniously supports itself. Living the Dream You are having a dream of being in a restaurant and eating a delicious meal. The waiter comes over to ask how the food was, and you had to respond exactly how you felt – it was the most delicious meal you've had in a long time. Now, in your dream you may feel that it really was a very delicious meal. Let's consider a question: who cooked the meal? If you were still dreaming you might think that the cook in the restaurant made your meal. If you become more conscious of the dream upon awakening, you might still feel that the cook 74 htp://sciencewa.net.au/topics/environment-a-conservation/item/2745-greenhouse-experiments-show-plantslong-term-memory/2745-greenhouse-experiments-show-plants-long-term-memory 75 htp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130250720602855.htm

115

made the meal but also realize it was “just a dream”. A bit more aware, you might then realize that it was you who made the meal and made it delicious. Yet even more aware, you might realize that there is no meal, table, waiter, or restaurant, and that these are illusions that enable you to have some kind of perspective. Where do we find ourselves now, in waking reality? We ofen find ourselves thinking that it was the cook who made the meal. We are still conscious of it all being an illusion, but what purpose would perspective serve if it did not allow us to have a perspective? The most valuable perspective in this scenario is to sit in the restaurant and enjoy your meal. In this way we are exploring relationships. That is to say, in the “most conscious” awareness there is no relationship. Once you know that everything you perceive is an illusion you begin down the path of destroying your self. So, dreaming is preferred. The more convincing the dream is, the beter. If you need to create a dream that is so convincing it seems like reality, so be it. If the reality is so convincing that even the expansion of consciousness – dreaming – is deemed unreal then you've done well. And so here we are. What isn't a dream? That is to say, you can't look around and not see something that isn't an interpretation of something else. In the next few notes we will explore not only what is going on when you fall asleep but how that “dreaming” reality permeates your waking reality. The Physical Dreamworld Your consciousness is the harmonic intersection between chaos and order, regardless of whether we are awake in the physical world or awake in the dream world. You cycle through the scale of the SPIR of conscious relationships [illustrated below] at all times, from the seemingly infinite, chaotic world of the subconscious to the seemingly finite, ordered world of physical reality. 76 However, you are always conscious. The metaphysical part of the spectrum is the world of the subconscious. It is the expansion of relationships to an infinity as you try to remember yourself as everything. As you dream you begin to contract the awareness of these relationships until you “awaken” physically and focus on the idea of consistent experience and things being solid and real. Physicality, you could say, is the over-focus and limiting of relationships. However, the impetus for infinite expansion is found in our use of circular SPIRs [see page 72] to try to balance the limiting focus that physical being requires. Our physical focus is so strong we ignore the relationships that make something as simple as a door possible. We would look at a door and say, “This is a door, and that's a fact!” and forget all of the other active relationships it has. By harmonizing the two forces, your subconscious mind can be more physically conscious. We 76 Simplified in the illustration as “metaphysical world” and “physical world”, though there are diferent flavors of both, and much “between” and beyond. And, they are both diferent flavors of the same world.

116

are always conscious, however, regardless of how chaos or order are a part of our awareness of relationships. Waking and dreaming and everything else related to consciousness is all part of the cycle of this awareness. We give it diferent names depending on how much expansion and contraction there is, like conscious, unconscious, subconscious, various dreaming states, etc. When you are physically conscious it is dificult to recall your dream perspective, and when you are metaphysically conscious it is dificult to recall your waking perspective. 77 Like any other resistance between two potentials, consciousness is relative. If you are physically aware, your dreaming perspective is not. If you are dreaming, your waking self is not conscious (i.e., not relating to the physical world that it knows). But the amazing thing is that both your waking self and dreaming self are perceiving the same world. The dream world is an interpretation of the physical world, similar to how light is an interpretation of energy. Light, sound, and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum have physical properties, as science tells us. Light exerts physical pressure on objects in its path78 and we can see because of photons interacting with our eyes. If we could somehow experience what light sees from its own perspective, our view of the world around us would be quite diferent. Yet, light surrounds us and we are able to use a small slice of its reality in our everyday lives, without even thinking about how amazing it is that we can relate to something so seemingly non-physical. Light not only interacts with our physical being, it is itself an aspect of the physical world. The world of the subconscious or dreams is not a separate place or phenomena, or in your imagination. You are living in it, right now. The dream world is entirely physical. The physical world is far, far more expansive than even your wildest imagination. As we have learned at the beginning of this book, we perceive a very thin slice of physical reality, less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum that allows us to see and hear, and much more.

Let's imagine that we are drifing of to sleep and hear a sound that we are quite sure isn't coming from anywhere in the waking world. It must be a sound in our dreams, but it sounds so real. Do you think you just made it up or are you interpreting part of the other 99%, a part of which you can possibly perceive subconsciously? If this sounds crazy, then dogs and other animals that perceive other parts of the 99% must be out of their minds. Is it so far-fetched to think that we can be conscious of some of these other relationships, too? Is it a dream to think that we have relationships with some of the 99% of reality we ignore? Might the people you dream about still be interpreted in other ways when you wake up, and therefore continue to exist? Perhaps it not so hard to imagine that we have our own “light” or metaphysical sense to perceive the world in a diferent way. Surely, we have this already with intuition, gut feeling, dreams, the subconscious, thinking of something new, and more. But we still perceive what is relative to us, not foreign, no mater what state we're in. 77 Not to be confused with remembering what you dreamt when you awaken. This is still the physical interpretation of the dream world rather than remembering a dream perspective itself. 78 Or, at least that is what the science books tell us. It is more logical that nothing exerts a physical force directly but interfaces with electromagnetic potential (chaos) to balance the relationship (order) of whatever it is interacting with.

117

As we relate to the world around us more we call this sleeping or dreaming. However, this is not increasing the number of relationships but simplifying them. The Sun doesn't need to relate to everything in the galaxy to maintain its position in the cosmos (contrary to scientific understanding) but only simplify existing relationships to conserve energy (by interacting eficiently) to react to the position of every atom in the universe at every moment so it doesn't get out of position in the slightest way. A bird in a flock, for example, does not do this by trying to perceive the position of every other bird in the flock, but by following the position of a few birds immediately around it, which serve as its interface to the rest. There is no need to try and relate to everything when everything is already neatly packaged in what is relative to you. Again, the numbers 3 and 2 are folded into a 5, which contracts what it represents from expanding too much. The physical world contracts the metaphysical world, and folds it into its every waking relationship. The physical world and the dream world are two interpretations of the very same world. One interpretation, the physical, is a more complex interpretation of relationships but still represents them. Although relationships are more dificult to form where there is more resistance, such as while in the physical world, sometimes the table you see is just a table, sometimes it is a house, and sometimes it is the memory of dry leaves. Dream Interpretation of the Physical World We interpret our reality at all times whether we are awake or dreaming. We also interpret our dream world while we are awake, and our waking world while we are dreaming. Take a look at the following image and think about what is going on. There are as many ways to interpret it as there are perspectives, from a snake wrangler clearing an infestation in an abandoned house to colored pixels on a 2-dimensional plane forming paterns, to just about anything else that can be imagined. It makes no sense to try to interpret another perspective, including your own. If you remember a dream about a snake and you think the snake represents someone you know, why do you remember the snake instead of the person? If we think our dreams mean something or are trying to tell us something, what is your current experience telling you? What is your life trying to tell you right now? Is every experience and event filled to the brim with meaning? This isn't to downplay the importance of dreaming but the normalcy of dreams and subconscious reality. They are as much a part of your life and experience as anything else that you've done today. Every moment is an interpretation. A dream is not very logical to the waking perspective so we interpret the dream experience to make it logical to our waking mind. Is it coincidence that the things you remember about your dream are elements and carry-overs from your waking experience? Now imagine that you are trying to convey what is happening in the image to a friend that cannot see the image. It would be dificult for them to make sense of what you are saying if they did not have the proper language (representations) to relate to it. This is what happens when we awaken and try to make sense of our dreams. We are trying to interpret a perspective from another perspective that uses a diferent language and representation for its reality. As our waking language cannot translate the dream experience into concepts that we can grasp, we can 118

only remember paterns that seem to make no sense. In fact, we translate the dream experience so much so that it becomes something else. Without an interface we cannot relate. Without the same language and representations, the dream world and subconscious experiences don't make much sense. As we awaken we begin to un-relate to the reality and lose the interface, unable to remember the reality of our experiences from only a few moments before. If you made up words and concepts for every aspect of the image and explained all of it to your friend while they were looking at it, then they can relate to it much more. You would then be beter able to describe the image and they could experience its reality. The words you made up are interfaces to the new perspective, and portals to it as you use the new concepts. We might interpret a relationship in waking reality to be, for example, someone drinking a glass of water. This makes sense to us because we can see how the person, the water, the source of the water, the glass, etc., relates to other elements in the reality. When we are dreaming we can also see how diferent parts of the dream relate but lose the sense of these relationships when we awaken. We may just remember one interpretation of the dream but not how it relates to other things in the dream. The logic of the dream part of your perspective is diferent from the logic of the waking part. Our waking perspective needs more interaction and relationships to experience the same reality. In a dream the relationships are easier, so even a simple relationship is logical. Imagine that the two perspectives are experiencing cleaning a room in your house at the same time. The dream perspective experiences the room being dirty and the room being cleaned the next moment because it sees the relationship between the two states and that “clean room” is an aspect of “dirty room”. Opposing relationships are natural to it, so it doesn't see the conflict. However, the waking perspective doesn't see the relationships so easily and needs the narrative of how the clean room came to be. It will take “time” to contract the space of the geometry of perspective as you jump through the logical narrative and make the clean room logical in your reality. If we lucid dream we are using a similar conceptual framework and representations that can beter interface with our waking consciousness. When our waking perspective shares in the experience we think we are experiencing the dream first-hand. This lucidity of metaphysical awareness is the harmony of chaos and order of consciousness that we can experience more of if we give our natural tendencies a litle more exercise. How do you manage to fall asleep? You simply create a bridge by relating with a representation of the dream world. You hear a sound or see something in your mind. Perhaps the sound becomes a bird becomes a street that you live on becomes friends becomes an entire story. Now your consciousness is in the dream world because you unfolded a simple relationship. When you remember that you are already living a dream, all of existence becomes a lucid, encompassing reality. When you forget the natural metaphysical relationships between all things, then you awaken to the individuality of physical perspective. Everything is Harmonious

Although the relationship between opposites forms everything in existence, no real opposites exist. As we have learned, without the illusion of opposites there is no reality. As these two seemingly opposing forces are interpretations of the same thing, all things that exist are in harmony with each another. For All-That-Is is naturally in harmony with itself and all that it is. On the scale of you, your perspective harmonizes reality whether or not you realize it. We have explored the universe through the self and have seen that the edge of the universe is only as far as our own perspective may take us. It doesn't mater what lay beyond it, as we 119

can be assured that it will be cut out of the same quarry from where we find our existence. Beyond what we are there is only what we truly are, something so great it cannot be contained in any one perception. What is water but the beautiful expression of a universal chaos and order that manages to hide in the mountain of our existence as a relationship between hydrogen and oxygen? If we add more chaos it harmoniously expands to a gas. If we add more structure to the relationship it contracts to ice. These expressions are all harmonious with the simplest realities of being, relationships, and perspective. Nature isn't ofended by expressions of chaos and order in whatever form they may take. Time and space allow ice to exist for as long and as much as it is harmonious with what is immediate to it. If our own water turns to ice or gas, why should this nature upset us? We consider these opposing forces to be natural when coming from a non-human source, but against the nature of our perspective if coming from something that looks like us. Surely if someone else turned our water to ice we'd need to think twice about it, forgeting their close relationship with our own perspective. Is there any diference if nature expresses the reality of opposing forces through a person rather than a storm when a person is also an expression of your nature? We can only interpret relationships that are the most eficiently harmonious expressions of All-That-Is. How we interpret these natural relationships is up to us, but we can never reach beyond this chaotic harmony to find something that is out of order. Your Perfect Reality We can either have truth or we can have perception. We can't have both. If there's “truth” there's no perception of it. If there's perception, “truth” cannot be perceived. We can perceive only an illusion that is more than a good-enough approximation for our reality. Reality is the intersection of two illusions, chaos and order, that forms a harmonious relationship that is perceived as being real. Your perception is the most perfect thing you'll ever experience because of this beautiful harmony. There is no reality more perfect or more amazing than the one you're experiencing right now. Forget about what something looks like or feels like. Forget that your bed might be a litle too hard or the neighbors might be too loud on weekends. Forget about how money might seem to have a life of its own for a moment, and sometimes doesn't come home for weeks. Those are illusions. Think of it as the subconscious thinks of it; the beauty and wonder of the relationships between illusions, not the transient markers for relationships that come and go. Focusing on the physical aspect of things is like geting a present and obsessing over the wrapping and completely ignoring what's inside. How amusing would it be to think that the wrapping is the gif itself? There wasn't even a nice ribbon on the last one! But yet, this is what we do. We focus on the representations and assume that the physical interpretation of something is where the real value is. What is a perfect reality? It is not the perfect job or the perfect life according to your hopes and dreams. It doesn't mean geting what you want. The subconscious mind doesn't care about how many times you've fallen on your ass or how many obstacles you think you've overcome. It doesn't care about how many cars you think you own or how much you think you recycle. Those experiences exist in your complex interpretation of reality, not in the simplicity of reality itself. Unfortunately for some of us, how you interpret reality is far more 120

important than what you are doing in it. A single, carefully-considered interpretation can do more for your life than a thousand achievements ever could. A perfect reality is the balance of all relationships. That's what your perspective is doing right now. You may not see it as being “wonderful” if someone dies from lung cancer because they have been smoking cigaretes for 20 years. Perhaps they were well-loved and will be missed. The subconscious mind sees relationships, not the illusions that we focus on. It knows only that the person has been interacting with something (that we interpret as cigaretes) and another relationship forms (that we call cancer). As far as the subconscious is concerned, the relationship worked out well, despite our own protests. How you interpret it is up to you. Your reality is a perfect representation according to the value of every person, place, thought, thing, process, emotion, and experience in your perspective. These experiences are all relationships doing their thing, and you doing your thing by interpreting them as you wish. The process that “creates” your reality is perfect. How you decide to experience it is entirely up to you. There is an endless variety of interpretations, it seems. Pick one. If it doesn't work, pick something else. How beautiful is it that you're not stuck with one interpretation? You could pick and re-pick thousands, even millions of times if you wanted to. And that's exactly what we do. Moment afer moment, day afer day. In an absolutely perfect existence there would be no drama. In fact there wouldn't be anything else, either. It is the drama that focuses reality. The resistance between chaos and order can be interpreted as anything you want: good and bad, high and low, angelic or evil, happy or sad, and everything in between and back again. It is understandable that we could get lost in the process of all these relationships and think that this drama comes from somewhere else. But it is entirely in the perspective you call your reality and you therefore have a choice in how to interpret it. Without “order” masquerading as a cold and nasty soup we would not know a hot and delicious pizza. We need one in order for the other to be experienced. We would not exist without the two seeming opposites interacting. This also means that there is no higher state than the one you're in now. There is nothing to “ascend” to, there is no heaven or hell, and there are no angels waiting for you. What else is there to discover but the variety of your own perspective? You are perfectly free to interpret the relationships therein however you want. How amazing is that! You are the most beautiful and wondrous thing that could ever be imagined. But “you” are not just the you that you see in the mirror. “You” is perspective. You are something born of nothing-in-particular in all of its hell and glory. This is the stuf of existence. And we delightfully ignore the power of the moment to create all of reality as we go about our day. It's quite dificult to see yourself without a mirror.79 Now imagine this on a cosmic scale. You are that which leaves home for an eternity in order to forget who you are so that you can remember yourself once again in every possible kind of relationship. You are the happy ant that plays with dust. You are the angles in a room on the 5th floor. You are the rookie eating your enemy's heart. You are the light running through the galaxy's veins and the unfunny clown. 79 Some call it vanity. In other ways, it's a confirmation of existence as much as being able to consistently see your nose and hands from your eyes. Without such signals to illustrate our existence, how true would we feel?

121

You are that which takes an endless variety of perceptions and perspectives to try and reproduce. You can't really remember yourself completely, but you sure do have an amazing time trying! You formulate all of the poems, birds, laughter, love, clouds, hats, and swords in the world and across the heavens to try, time and time again, to capture your essence. You are the life of life. The wonder of the wonderful. That which the endless variety of your perspective tries to capture but cannot begin to. That is the endlessness of how awesome you are. You try through all manner of drama of every possible measure to form a universe of things that – for beter or for worse – cannot capture even a small fragment of the impossible-toperceive. But you don't even think about giving up trying to look at yourself in the mirror once and for all. Who are you? You are whatever is possible to be, in whatever way you want. You are always your best interpretation, no mater how itchy your underwear gets. You are one and the other, and neither, all at the same time. You are so confident in your existence it seems like you don't exist just to be able to make a grand entrance at every moment. But this is a paradox. You don't want to be nothing again. Not existing is so boring and lonely. You only want to be able to perceive yourself, but by doing so you get lost in the everything. This is how you like it. Being many-things-at-once reminds you of being nothing-inparticular, and that's not the direction you want to go. You want the illusion of something-inparticular; far more exciting! You don't want to know the intimate details of how you breathe – you just want to breathe! You don't need to know the intimate details of your cells and hormones and other internal processes when your body needs adenosine triphosphate. Why should you care? You only need to feel the hunger! You don't need to have intimate knowledge of your system needing more DHA than it did 5 years ago, you only know you love to eat salmon and you want some right now. When you eat, you don't need to know how your body breaks down food into electrons, you just think about what you'll be doing when you digest. You represent more complex processes as simply and eficiently as possible so you interact with the other things that you've nearly forgoten about. You have complex representations with vast inner galaxies that interact with other worlds, but you see only a chair and a table. Representing these realities more simply allows you to interact with them in ways that would never have otherwise been possible. Who wants to sit on a micro-galaxy? And so here you are again. Impossible to define, impossible to perceive, impossible to merely think of... but how wonderfully amazing it is that you try endlessly, again and again. Try is this illusion, and as much that we can possibly do. When you try to perceive something so amazing and indescribable that it is beyond perception, even a litle piece of it is still worldchanging and wonderful. A couple of tiny words on a piece of paper can literally rock your world. Our “try” is enough to create an endless universe of interpretations, exploding and imploding at every moment and filling in again with an entirely new something that we can perceive as whatever we want. Your clothes do not illustrate the complete essence of who you are. Your friends don't reflect it completely. The dishes on the table do not capture the essence. The dirt blissfully hiding in the comfort of your fingernails cannot even daydream of such wonderful things. You are so wonderfully hidden yet so spectacularly visible because it is this chaos/order relationship 122

that formulates your existence and extends to everything that could possibly be. Are we alone? Are you alone? If everything in your perspective is “you”, what and who else is there? It would seem from this that you are, indeed, alone. Is it true? What else is there when you are everything? Ahh... But you are not actually “everything”, because then you wouldn't exist. You are an interpretation of everything. You are not alone, because then you'd be nothing-in-particular, all by yourself and not existing at all. Being "alone" is irrelevant. You could not be more surrounded by everything. There is no need to worry about being alone when you can form relationships with everything in your perspective. We tend to focus on a handful of people in our lives and the dramas we produce. But the subconscious mind sees the relationships with everything, not just people. Imagine knowing as much about the life of the table in your room as you do about your closest friend. Imagine knowing that the water you just drank has a memory of an interesting family of fish that liked to play all day in the ocean. Imagine having a “conversation” with the bone in your finger about what it was like being part of the Sun. Imagine knowing what pets and other animals and plants are thinking and feeling. Imagine an older person shouting at their television and it shouts back, in its own way. This is no more crazy than still hearing the same voice in your mind as you read these words. You are just interpreting what has been there all along, in a way that somehow makes sense. If anything, having 10 close human friends and family would be lonely existence compared with the amazing life of 10 close human friends and feeling a connection with everything else around you. The more relationships you have the more alive you feel. The more harmonious the relationships, the more you feel yourself fold into the arms of the universe itself. Nothing can be irrelevant when there is so much of something else with which to compare. So here you are. A universe of relationships to explore. And all this love, this beauty, the cheeky grins, these hats, these countless swords and all the stories and poems that will ever be writen are a part of something entirely wondrous and beautiful. This particular story – the epic drama of existence – is all that needs to be and is the most real thing that could ever possibly be imagined. Beter than merely being something that exists, you are that which can relate with whatever you want to exist. You are all that you need to be right now. There is no need to be anyone else, go anywhere else, do anything else, other than what you are doing right now in your perspective. Until, of course, you re-interpret everything again and explore a universe of new relationships. In one word, the you we have here tried to describe is perfection.  If you enjoyed this book, buy it on Amazon. Thanks! More books to come. htp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VPT0F82

123