The Tissue of Thought

What Can You Come Up With?

A thought seems to be the fundamental building block of what may be called the raw language of expression. Whenever a thought is formed, the consorting urge/drive to express the thought, is born. An unexpressed thought has no other agenda than fulfilling its constant urge to be refined and expressed or to be dismissed and be left alone. It is with intention I refrain from the word "forgotten." Will the thought you had be forgotten if you choose to release it, or, is there a metaphorical paper it will be eternally recorded upon? What makes you think that the text you delete does not get recorded instead? Just joking, of course. Wait, am I?


Whatever form, temper and aspiration your non-expressed thought has, it has the necessary ability to influence reality simply by existing. In this regard, it is of no difference if you choose to express the thought. The function of expressing a thought is nothing less and nothing more than satisfying the nature of thought. Thought seeks to be expressed, yet not all of them are worth expressing. How can you tell if a thought is not worth expressing? Well, THAT thought would be worth expressing!

It seems safe to state that the proper thought is a thought worth having and cultivating, regardless of its spiritual direction. It should be able to give something to you, or it should be able to take something away from you. Note: taking something away is not always an offensive or hostile act. You may be able to take away the harmful form of fear from someone which is not necessarily wanted by its resonator. Taking away the concept of beauty from someone would be much more challenging. And totally unnecessary,too. But the attempt could have entertainment value, which is of absolutely focal importance.

There seems to be no ultimate significance if the thought is nice or negativistic. What important is, is the thought itself and its potential to influence reality. Notice that there is not a single thing other than thoughts that can influence reality, and here is how: all actions are originating from thoughts. All that is an element of the outside world you can relate to: has a consorting thought behind it.

The outside world-, more precisely: the model of the outside world one walks/thinks around with, has a tremendous influence on what the thought itself can be. What you can come up with, is dependent on the quality of the inner model you have of the consensus reality.

One might state that one has the perfect model of consensus reality. But there is no movement, no development, no flux in something like a perfect model - perfect model is an oxymoron, anyway - as there is no further function to a perfect model.

Perfection is a limit. Perfection is THE limit.

In other words: the perfect model of consensus reality exists indeed, and it is called consensus reality. It is the model of itself, working. It is working by the constant effort of all sentient beings that it contains, each trying to decipher consensus and its infinite aspects. Maybe, JUST maybe: creating it by the process.

What all this gives us? In my current opinion, it gives us great and proper freedom - nevertheless the promise of it - and invites us to seek out methods to be able to construct more involved models of what can be done.

There is no limit to what you can think.

Because, in reality - hah! - everything can be done. If not in a form of existence that has physical characteristics, then you can do all you can think of inside your mind. Doing something inside your mind is necessarily more than not doing it at all, though it surely is less than doing it for - real. What you are lacking here is the availability of stimuli. You are making a model of the most fruity pastime you can come up with, and the only thing preventing you from living that reality is the lack of the proper stimuli for that. On the other hand, if the stimuli would be there, then you would have no problem living the best reality you can invent, correct? You have the model of the stimuli, as you have the model of the taste of chocolate. Once chocolate - stimuli - is present and you choose to taste it, suddenly reality becomes more palpable since you are occupied with living through the sensation of the chocolate as opposed of being occupied with constructing the taste and the numerous other qualities of the chocolate. In other words: the chocolate can have an autonomous existence that is not dependent on you. It is as yours as it is anyone else's. THAT is proper chocolate.

In the example above, what was relevant to our present lamentation, was the ability to construct the model of the chocolate by utilizing thought. Imagine for a moment that you are not an aspect of consensus reality - which you are if you are reading this, sorry to shock you to the core and beyond - but consensus reality itself. Thank you for sticking around! Once you are consensus reality and you find a sentient being in "yourself", then what benefit you can have by giving space and time for that particular sentient being? The question contained the answer. Once again: what benefit you can have by giving space and time for that particular sentient being? The question contained the answer.

You can have benefit by giving space and time for that particular sentient being.

In fact, this is the only way you can gain benefit by. If you are consensus reality, then the only way for you to be entertained is to give place for absolutely every thought and every emotion and every sentient being. The question is not "why should you?", the question is "why you should not?"

From this point on, thought seems to be showing an intimate nature. Thought seems to be an instrument in the skillful hands of consensus reality, an instrument that seeks to construct and offer relevant models OF-, and TO what it was made of. One can not help but theorize the existence of a mysterious hidden source which is in the position of giving ultimate function to all it contains and it is not acceptable to regard this mysterious source anything less than a mysterious source indeed, granted you are lacking direct contact with it, except of course of reckoning it as a mystery.

It seems safe to state that the form of existence the human condition is subjected to - matters of thoughts as flesh and emotion - consorts with this need/ability/constraint to conceptualize about the nature of reality, building it, refining it in the process. No matter how proper, how beautiful, how horrendous, how flawed your concept of reality is - what matters is that you HAVE a concept and reality gives space and time for it, growing itself by the process. Cool, huh?

In this regard, the relevance of you questioning your own necessity is nothing less and nothing more than you questioning your own necessity. This relevance is huge, as there is no greater power in the universe than the one who grants you the freedom to resonate:

I don't need this!

Then the question ensues: what are you in the need of? What is it you think you could be operating more efficiently with? Not just in physical reality, but as a soul. In my current opinion, as soon as one confronts this question, then it is a tame suggestion that answers for the question can be found, if sought properly. What is a proper method of seeking? Easy: the one that yields a result you can form benefit of. Not an answer to comfort the individual soul, but an answer to comfort ALL.

Keep in mind though that there is no "real" result, because result forms where you stop at. As such, an intelligence is nothing less and nothing more than a mirror of its perceived surroundings and its value should be determined based on the beauty-, or on the horror of the pictures it is capable of revealing. A beautiful and a horrific image is an equally valuable addition to the whole which can be whole only if accepted as nothing less than rampant potentiality.

There is as much beauty in beauty as you can put in it.
There is as much horror in horror as you can put in it.

There is as much beauty in beauty as you can get away with.
There is as much horror in horror as you can get away with.

Remember, there is no result, because result forms where you stop at.

In the projection of this, what is important, is the quality of the thought, and this also is the factor that determines if a thought is worth having-, perfecting or sharing. The total of these thoughts and feelings in flux are creating the model of reality and the question ensues: how real the model is? And a possible and playful answer for this promises great fun: it is as real as it gets.

If you enjoyed this here article, check out my comic:
Planetseed
If you are to circulate magnificently pleasant vibrations:
Buy me Beer
Read more!

to Infinity!

and Beyond . . .

- press the shoes, baby! -
Read more!

The Illusion of Physics

Chaos, Order, Stimuli - the Prime Entertainers

Chaos is information. More precisely, Chaos is but raw information, being without form, without agenda. In order to be accessible in a reality with a physical nature to it, information needs to take on various forms so it could be perceived and/or deciphered by an outer intelligence which constructs its reality with significant physical aspects to it. Intelligence is non-physical in its nature and it is capable to manifest similarly non-physical data from the medium which is constructed to contain the information. In a text, letters are not the information. Letters are but the medium to contain the information and it is intelligence that deciphers the transmission through an understanding of the meaning consorting with the words, made out of letters.

Notice however, that, regardless of the intricacy and the subtlety of the form, pattern and the dominant way information manifests by, as soon as the manifestation itself occurs, information necessarily becomes the faithful entertainer of Order. While Chaos is nothing less than rampant, raw, formless potentiality capable to manifest absolutely everything what consciousness could conceive, the manifestation itself necessarily happens according to the rule sets of Order, though these rule sets could vary from extremely loose to extremely constrained.


To expose this notion from a different angle: once Chaos, as prime originator and inventor of information chooses to deliver some of its creations for outer scrutiny, the creation must take on a form which could be related to. A potentiality-, a form-, a pattern which could be related to, which could be observed, is necessarily part of Order. As long as Chaos is perfecting its invention, this particular potentiality remains a private resonance Chaos cultivates secret intimacy with. This kind of intimacy probably should be maintainable as long as desirable, that is: as long as the creator who is in connection with the field of Chaos is satisfied with the clarity and the quality of the information intended to be transferred.

As such:

Chaos is Ink. Order is Paper.

And, once the two do meet - stimuli is born. The thought/information seems to be in existence as the living tissue of Chaos prior its resonator conjures it and evaluates if the thought is worth perfecting or sharing. Regardless of the decision, all thoughts and all things non-physical seem to belong to this infinite potentiality field of Chaos and it also seems that all thoughts and all things non-physical could be invented, invoked, modified and/or perfected as desired.

In this regard, it seems defendable to state that Chaos and Order are the primal tools of information, a delicate hierarchy in which Chaos entertains Order, in which Order manifests the input of Chaos as an output that the outer intelligence could relate to. The number- and kinds of forms information could shape into are limitless, yet, as soon as a particular medium is constructed to contain the intended information, then Chaos, as Originator, submits to Order, since all potentialities - including the prime potentiality: information - must bow to certain rule sets in order to be perceivable by an outer intelligence once physical conditions are present. Once such a potentiality occurs: a stimuli is created.

Chaos is Ink. Order is Paper. Stimuli is Message.

Though it would be arrogant and foolish to state that there are no radically different realities than the one we perceive as consensus simply because human senses and a massively conditioned consciousness seemingly give no instant access to such realities, only a person with related experiences could possess a legit opinion about this matter. Not possessing the experience does not mean that the experience is nonexistent. How this consorts with the topic? Here is how: once a reality with a physical nature is under observation, - such as the one we perceive as consensus reality - then the concept and idea of separation seems to be an ever-present, ubiquitous phenomena. Sentient beings with a consorting physical form experience themselves as separate from each other and from their surroundings. As such, information, which in its nature - as we will see - knows no differentiation between physical and non-physical, may (maybe must) take on physical forms to be able to manifest the non-physical in the physical. That what stimuli is. An interesting observation is this: though stimuli seemingly MUST exist to express information once physical conditions are present, it is nothing else BUT stimuli which defines the rule sets of a physical reality at the first place. This is a trap, and probably the most mysterious and wonderful ever conceived.

Stimuli is a transmission/exchange of information through channels that may or may not exhibit physical characteristics. It does not really matter, since, as we will see, information remains entirely non-physical during the time it reaches its goal. The goal is manifestation. The power to reach the goal of manifestation is potentiality. A potentiality which has no capacity to manifest - is not worth being called one. Yet, one should not forget that a delicate potentiality is not necessarily picked up by a being who is currently not sophisticated enough to recognize that particular potentiality. In essence: a lack of potentiality of picking up on potentiality could be in effect at some places, at some times.

Manifested information does nothing else than spreading. It is existent prior to its travel, yet, by traveling - taking forms - it is expressed further on and keeps on resonating. Information fuels physical letters as the meaning behind the sentences, yet the meaning itself is entirely non-physical. One can touch the letters, yet one can not touch the meaning. Though one could touch the letters, the ultimate form of this experience - the feeling of the touch - yet again would be non-physical. Information equally fuels the sentient being as a soul, giving it a physical aspect to be able to cope with consensus, yet what the sentient being experiences and constructs its own consciousness from, is entirely non-physical, as well. The experience of the interaction with the stimuli pool is ultimately non-physical. Surely, the touch, the strike both seem to be physical - yet, eventually - what remains is the sensation, the feeling of the touch and the strike and these are manifestations of a non-physical force. One could imagine the touch as one could imagine the strike as they would be real. What separates the imagined stimuli from the physical stimuli? Consciousness does that. Consciousness does that and this is a limit.

The transmission of the stimuli to the observer is the mere fabric information travels along, yet, a consciousness that needs outer stimuli to construct a reality, is necessarily limited. Notice that what the mind constructs as reality is simply an inner interpretation of the outer stimuli. This inner interpretation is lived through by the consciousness as consensus reality, though, paradoxically enough, it is the outer stimuli that the inner interpretation - of the outer stimuli - is built of. If one dreams about touching a hot teapot the mind constructs the sensation as real.

Consciousness is a receiver, capable to interlock with stimuli to synthesize those into non-physical experiences, if, we will: into unique, complex interpretations of the feelings the stimuli have invoked. Consciousness is a canvas stimuli paints images on. Images formed of rampant Chaos, being calmed- and organized into patterns by Order. Consensus reality is created by relating to a stimuli pool/stimuli bank which is observable by sentient beings. Though every physical being with the capacity to experience will create a unique inner vision of the observable, it is interesting to see that experience itself - experience is the sovereign interpretation of stimuli - is yet another concept that is non-physical in its nature. Experience is but the interpretation of the stimuli and ultimately it is but the experience that remains - and that is non-physical. One can not touch pleasure. One can not touch pain. One can - only - feel them. One truly can not touch the touchable, as there is no touch, but the word for it and the experience of the touch. As such:

Information and existence are ultimately non-physical.

And here is the question: if consciousness can construct the reality/experience (which is necessarily non-physical) of the touch, the reality/experience (which is necessarily non-physical) of the pain and the reality/experience (which is necessarily non-physical) of beauty once consorting stimuli is present - then

What prevents consciousness from creating the stimuli itself?

Probably only consciousness prevents consciousness from this. It is what the consciousness regards as "real" that prevents it from living the reality it finds the most beneficial. But, then again - would that be surely fruity if a consciousness could live the most amazing reality it could conceive? Once one shows firm readiness and sober willingness to construct such realities - then the time is right to decide whether this question is worth pursing, or, if there is any other questions worth doing so with.

If you enjoyed this here article, check out my comic:
Planetseed
If you are to circulate magnificently pleasant vibrations:
Buy me Beer
Read more!

Definitions

This section contains definitions. Access those by exhibiting heave metal style pressure on the Read more link below.



D

despise:
the incapacity to convince

doubt:
the compass telling where to go and why shouldn't

E

experience:
a sovereign interpretation of any information

F

faith:
the thing you lose if you did not even have it

fear:
the thing you do not fight against, knowing you have lost already

G

geek:
a person who understands a creation better than its creator does

H

hate:
the fear that the one who seems different might ultimately be the same as you

humbleness:
the capacity of being honestly curious

L

love:
the capacity to admire all things for what they seem to be

W

worship:
the ultimate form of acceptance
Read more!

The Effort of Appreciation

Text must be read, music must be listened to to appreciate them. A text or a music necessarily seeks to be appreciated, otherwise, why would any of them exist? It is a selfish thing. Seeking to be appreciated is selfish. True appreciation is a pronounced form of acceptance, though the self that commits the appreciation may simply flatter itself via living through the experience - noting therefore that it has the capacity to be impressed. Once you are impressed, your - perhaps subconscious - effort to experience appreciation is satisfied.

If you are not impressed, then but the lack of appreciation remains, though you exhibited the effort to embrace the potentiality of appreciation merely by facing the subject, by observing if the subject has the capacity to impress and demand appreciation. As humans, maybe we need to accept the limitation that communication between us is only possible by exhibiting/projecting our views and opinions on different aspects and matters of the universe as we perceive it. Acceptance seems to be a very peaceful feeling. Worship is the ultimate form of acceptance. Therefore, it is as good to be accepted as it is to be appreciated. Probably, being accepted is even more fruitful than being appreciated.


Appreciation suggests that the subject of the appreciation is a successful executor of an originally unexpressed effort. Appreciation is a result of you deciphering a message which is capable to impress you. You invoke this inner capacity to be impressed by the outer stimuli, let it be music, images, words spoken or words written. This is appreciation. You appreciate the musician because she has solid skills on her instrument and she is not afraid to show it, you appreciate the writer because he has quality stories to tell and he is more than ready to share.

Yet notice that you are required to make your own effort to appreciate THEIR efforts. Thus, letter, sound, image, art is nothing without the observer, but, in a much less- or much more sober reality - pick, please - the completed piece of art is worthless once it is scrutinized by the proper observer.

The completed piece of art with the proper observer is worthless.

And here is why: the observer offers the effort to appreciate the art, while the creator offers the art that seeks to be appreciated. Thus, it is but the sheer quality and pure nature of effort, in this case, a circulated effort that fuses art and observer together. There is no proper and improper way to interpret art. It is but the effort to interpret. The art wants to be understood, wants to impress. The observer is willing to deliver these relations towards the art once the art is qualified enough to resonate on these channels. Yet, the art that seeks to be appreciated, is but wasted effort as long as there is no cognitive consciousness around it to appreciate it.

Notice though that genius trick of art: art, for most of the time, is clever enough to be recorded. Thus, art survives essentially timelessly, ready to be observed any moment an observer shows interest in it. It is like a recording of a classic music video on YouTube. It remains existent, even when you do not watch it. It always remains ready to impress you. Even better: what it delivers - remains constant. It delivers what it delivers, and lets you, invites you to form your unique appreciation EACH TIME you watch it. Your unique approach towards that piece of art could even be an evolving experience.

Notice how we are forced to exhibit effort to appreciate something. You, as observer of a medium, must summon an inner stance, a cautious assumption that what you are about to read, hear or see, is a vibe of consensus reality that is worth observing. Worth experiencing. Yet the true understanding - if there is such a thing at all, if there is the NEED for such a thing, at all - of any piece of art would require infinite effort. There are an infinite reasons for this. But, first and foremost, you can't claim the liberty that you have the perfect understanding of this and that particular piece of art, and deny an even more better understanding than what you have from a future observer. If you do that, you are ultimately arrogant. Thus, there is no point trying to understand art. Even if you could exhibit infinite effort, you would necessarily fail to understand it, and here is why:

There is NO understanding, there is but the EFFORT to understand. To declare yourself one who understands, is to conclude yourself complete. To announce yourself complete, is to announce yourself free of the need to develop as a living being. If there would be proper understanding of art, than that understanding could be reached and agreed upon, could be achieved, and there would be no need whatsoever to exhibit effort to appreciate art.

Also notice that once we have a lesser kind of understanding or knowledge of a not too robust or even trivial matter, we necessarily lose a quality that the question we started off with had. A convincing answer eliminates that quality. As such, sometimes the desire to know might be less limiting than knowing. Once you know, you no longer possess the desire to know and what you suddenly know, surely has eliminated a magical gap that the question itself - ironically - have possessed.

If you enjoyed this here article, check out my comic:
Planetseed
If you are to circulate magnificently pleasant vibrations:
Buy me Beer
Read more!