"What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason.
How infinite in faculty. In form and moving
how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel.
In apprehension, how like a God. The beauty of the world.
The paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this
quintessence of dust. Man impresses not me."
- taken from Hamlet, by William Shakespeare
The paradox of existence; existence IS, while it also DEVELOPS/UNFOLDS. The SPACE/TIME Continuum IS, while within this continuum each STATE is interrupted by an EVENT, which leads to a new STATE. The human species resides within the boundaries of existence, and is therefore subject to these 'laws'. If mankind uses his memories, associations, traditions and stories as a basis of comparison whenever a new EVENT occurs, one should also take a look at WHERE these memories, associations, traditions and stories are stored and where they find their ORIGIN.
A story is, in fact, nothing more than a series of EVENTS and descriptions of STATES. As is language. Both body-language and verbal linguistic communication are based on the constant Q & A of existence, and from this point of view, the human body can be seen as the ultimate reality-browser; a puppet which can be used to traverse the limited dimensions of space/time, and to tell stories... to 'act out' on the stage of the world... As is explained in "Is this a dagger I see before me?", we are that which we think to be we are, and thus it really is the thought that counts (from one to twenty-six, in this case). What happens in 'real' life is just as much a story as are those stories that have already been written down. It's just a matter of perspective.
Studying the languages we use to communicate should provide us with an insight in the fabric of 'our' reality. Language is not only what we use to convey stories of things that have already happened, but also to describe things that are happening in our present, and things that may or will happen in our future. And just because someone doesn't speak, doesn't mean he's not using language, so language here means both verbal non-verbal communication. A punch on the nose tells you a hell of a story; the story of you being punched in the nose. One man's fantasies can be another man's reality, so it should be quite obvious how relative REALITY is. Wether something happens 'for real' or 'in a book' doesn't make much of a difference, really, but that doesn't mean that the human race isn't part of any story... we ARE involved, so it might be worth thinking about the human experience for a while...
Logic and eMotion are two things to keep in mind here, while the nature of existence can be summed up as CONSTANT CHANGE. The only constant is change, yet the more things change, the more they remain the same. Thus, throughout millenia, the human race has displayed the same behaviour over and over again, which raises some questions as to the reason of human existence. What is this... human race, anyway? And more importantly... who's winning???
You are who you are. Nothing more. Nothing less. So who are you? And why? These are devastating questions to a conservative mind. Identity and motivation have always been of great importance man. Questioning these things confront him with all his insecurities and doubts he might have on subjects such as life and death, right and wrong, and meaning.
The division of actions or events into good and evil may have worked a long time ago, but nowadays the overwhelming cascade of information in which people are engulfed by media, and the complete lack of proper education amongst large groups of people, have made it impossible for many of those people to develop an integrated understanding of ethics and morality in relation to their everyday experiences with the world around them.
To find out the boundaries within which we can act all we want, it is prudent to establish what is ethical and what is not. At least, if we want to be able to enforce certain of these established boundaries at a later time, should someone try to cross them. If acting is our motivation (and it is), then we should know where to draw the line. But,... how can we formulate restrictions if we don't even know what we are? We would be judging solely on speculation and assumption! And should it turn out to be true that our environment (not to mention ourselves) is subject to constant change, then how are we to establish rules now that still make sense in years to come?
But let is return to the 'current' situation, and approach this acting-business based the actual here and now, instead of on a state of the things that might someday arise. If one hurts your feelings, you would be perfectly justified in questioning such person on his conduct, as long as you didn't realise the why and how of your getting hurt. Ignorance is not a sin, and it may even be a virtue. If you are to complain however, both you and the one that hurt you should be able to explain your motivations. This approach will lead to a system of absolute justice; a more thorough explanation of this sort of justice for the information age can be found in Digital Justice.
In short, there's only one thing missing in modern society, and that is the means of measuring wether certain behaviour is unethical or not (note that it may also be argued that 'ethics' is a major disease of these times, though I won't go into that now). There are many solutions to this problem, but all those solutions have one thing in common: establishing new definitions and re-establishing old ones. What is a life-form? What are the rights and duties of sentient organisms? The first question we'd have to ask ourselves, is: "What are we?".
The humanoid species is a carbon-based life-form. When you get right down to it, this means that we are nothing more than a bunch of carbon-units, moving around, going about our business. Quite smart carbon-units, I must admit, but carbon-units nonetheless. The fact that we even have this concept called 'beauty' in the first place, merely indicates that we don't have to struggle constantly to survive, and have enough time on our hands to even look at ourselves in the first place.
About 90% of our physical presence consists of water, which doesn't sound very impressive either. Still, we are incredibly egocentric. Something to think about...
Take a good look in a mirror, and tell me what you see. It's you, isn't it? That's what I thought. But look again, and this time, think about what you're doing... You're looking in a mirror, at yourself. Think about the process of 'looking' for a minute. Indeed, vision is processed by your eye-balls, and then sent on to your brain.
If you would open up your skull (not recommended to novices though), you would be able to see your own brain in that mirror too. Apart from the fact that it's quite ghastly (at least, to most people) to stand there looking at your own brain, it's also fascinating: you'd be standing there, looking at the device to which you would ascribe vision and perception. And, do you really actually SEE things in the first place, or do you merely THINK that you are seeing them?
"LOOK, I can SEE the engine which enables me to SEE". Quite a paradox, if you think about it. Just as much as "I think I can see the engine which enables me to think that I can see".
This way of thinking leads to the conclusion that everything we see must be, in some way, a projection. A projection of what? Well, I leave that entirely up to you. It leads us to believe that all the world is, indeed, a stage, which is being shaped by the games we play on-stage. As if it were some kind of collective hallucination, which enables us to believe that it might actually be there, even though it is merely a projection.
We base our ideas and our motives on our interpretation of that which we think to be 'reality'. Since we know that our senses can deceive us, we try to establish a link with other beings; beings which we perceive to be quite similar to ourselves. We call ourselves humans, or homo-sapien, and to ascertain wether we are perceiving 'reality' the way we are 'supposed to', we try to communicate with those shapes and patterns we perceive to be similar to those shapes and patterns we perceive as being our 'body'... How do we ascertain which parts, which colors, shifting and blurring everywhere we look, belong to our 'body'? And how can this be possible without having some means of comparison? Indeed, confusion is as the very basis of what we are. Only through a collective illusion there's a slight possability that two beings will be able to agree on anything whatsoever.
Having wondered about both our physical presence (Ugly bags of mostly water) and the stage on which we are to act (Is this a dagger I see before me?), our most important question remains unanswered: "Who are we?". By knowing what the props and the stage are like, a puppeteer won't necessarily know who he is himself. Our true self, or what is often referred to as our 'soul', still hasn't been defined!
Assuming for a moment, that we are what we perceive ourselves to be, it won't take a genius to figure out that most people nowadays belief their brain to be their center of operations. The hypothalamus, were resides what also commonly known as 'the third eye' or 'the inner light', would play an important role in our being.
If you were to see the central-nervous system as y'r basic I/O (Input/Output) component of the brain, then one could argue that, say, at the point where conversion of lightwaves into the units used by the central-nervous I/O, a reality-inversion, or CONversion, takes place. The structure in which this conversion takes place would then, in this case, be the eye-balls. The fragment of chaos which we would call 'visual reality' would be harnassed on the trajectory from retina to the point on the optic nerve beyond the cross-convergence of the information coming from both eyes.
This manifestation of the 'reality-particle' could lead to a very wonderfull coincidence indeed, as will be explained in the deception of gravity. It would also explain why a symbol such the pentagram pops up so very often; beauty as seen from the rennaisance-point of view, the law of fives or whatever you may call it. This way of thinking could literally turn our world upside down and inside out! Now this would force us to adapt a new attitude towards life; like Star Trek's first Vulcans, we might probably be forced to temporarily adapt pure logic as a sole means of survival until we've figured out new rules and regulations, as this is a process of trial and error during which many people will disagree with each other; this friction is not unlikely to cause much aggrivation amongst mankind, which could be quite dangerous considering the awesome destructive capabilities of our technology.
Gravity, as defined by Einstein's theories on relativity, is might not be inherent to existence, nor to the universe. It's the architecture of the eye itself, which is responsible for the way in which boundaries of our visual universe are perceived to be folded in on themselves!
As the reality-inversion/conversion that creates the barriers of visual reality happens within the structural design of the eyeball (cosmological constant/perception of gravity), it is well worth studying this architecture. Like sound, vision consists of waves, and the eyeball is merely a filter to isolate the incoming waves within the visual RANGE.
In short, incoming light travels along the following path before it reaches our perception:
Incoming light ->- Retina ->- Optic Nerve ->- Optic Chiasma ->- Cortex Occipital Lobe on each side of the Brain ->- Perceived Visual Reality
The shape this reality takes on is predetermined to a certain degree, and can be derived from the shape of interaction as contained within the elements, components, and functions which, in turn, together make up the structural design of the architecture of the eyeball
There are many different fractals one can make up out of circles and triangles, but there's only one possible way of infinitely repeating a square. By drawing a Grid.
If the square is the root, and the shape existence takes on is constrained by this shape, then the shape would not be constrained at all, unless there was some way to establish the borders of this square by making it part of a grid. By establishing it's boundaries. Again, this would be of no use, since the grid goes on infinitely. The only way to make a square (root) the basis of a reality-container, would be by bending the grid in such a way, that it's curvature would fold it in on itself; this is what I call wrapping up a piece of quantum-candy.
The point of convergence will be the bottleneck of the resulting container. This point can be compared with the quantum-singularities at the beginning and end of our universe. Whatever takes place between those points is dictated by the way it was wrapped.
Since chaos leaves unlimited options, this wrapping up of realities is not a bad thing at all. Everything will remain possible, as long as you don't take that mechanism apart. Curious, isn't it, how a square has 4 corners and 4 sides, and how a pyramid has one point of convergence. The corners establish the sides, and the top of the pyramid establishes the projected reality. Four corners and one projection? Well then, there can't be any other option than to start thinking of the interface with reality as sort of a fifth force, can we? Well, hell, since we're speculating anyway, why not take a minute to think about an Obelisk as well? Could this be some sort of an antenna? A conductor for electricity? A gateway to another world? Ha, you figure it out yourself...