If you're not working at doing nothing, then you are so not understanding the flow of Nature. In fact, you become the antithesis of that flow. The more we spin from the center of natural flow, the tighter our tether stretches, and we will be drawn back to nothingness by living rightly, or it will snap and we will extinguish ourselves. There is no “solution;” it’s a myth.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Make your own reality in three easy payments of $29.99! Seriously?

Reality exists in the form of Nature. There is no end or beginning of reality. We do not create our own reality; we simply process stimuli based upon former experiences and sensory perceptions, and even now, we utilize artificial tools to help us interpret increasingly smaller parts of reality, which respond in a manner that our limited physical world cannot comprehend. Our experiences are based upon our interpretations of reality. We use restricted parameters of language to define, discern, and categorize our interpretations. “Blue,” for example, is a color in the spectrum of natural light. It is absorbed by certain elements, and is thus translated by our eyes as a particular frequency of light. But “blue” does not exist unless there are beings who can interpret “blue.” The light exists, and the elements that reflect the frequency for “blue” exist, and the frequency for “blue” exists, but the word “blue” is a name for our human optical perception of that frequency, which does not create color unless there is an eyeball available to receive and interpret it. It does not change the reality of light, elements, and vibrations. We interpret this vibration, and we label it. “It shall be “blue.””

But what if a person is color-blind to “blue”? “Blue” then does not exist in their interpretation of reality. But reality still remains constant for all beings. The vibration or frequency for the color of “blue” is happening, but if a person’s eyes cannot interpret that vibration, they simply cannot see that color that other eyes can pick up. Does that make them wrong? Does it make them delusional? Or does it make them different? What if our species wasn’t supposed to see “blue,” but through an anomaly (genetic mishap), there were some people born with the ability to translate “blue,” and they kept breeding people who could see “blue”? Now, the person who could not see “blue” is the anomaly, yes? But how does it affect their natural role? Perhaps being able to see “blue” or other colors has led us to develop more and more “blue” things that have become problems for the world as a Whole. Does our new ability to see “blue” make us “justified” simply because the majority is now able to see “blue”? Or are there simply more of us who are “wrong”? Can you understand why I keep saying, “Take it to nature,”? We must see beyond interpretations to the core of universal truth in order to know what is viable or not and what is ethical and just or not.

When we label things with language, we restrict their value, their inherent meaning, and their vastness. We subvert the spirit of the thing we label. If we call a woody perennial a “tree,” then we have just restricted all woody perennials as “trees.” Then we might narrow the field and call a tree with certain leaves and bark a “birch tree,” but that is still too restrictive for the individual tree. And no matter how deeply we go with labeling parts, we will still lose the essence of the “personality” (a dangerous term here, I know) of the single birch tree in question, because we are relating to it in an artificial and superficial way. In other words, my name is “Jeff,” but there are other people named “Jeff” in the world. Are all “Jeffs” the same thing? What about the deeper aspects of all of these “Jeffs”? Does my physical construction and DNA make me unique, or is there more to this “Jeff” than that? (Some people might say there’s nothing deeper; perhaps “two monkeys and a yo-yo” in my noggin. But I guess even that says something about our interpretations, or lack thereof, of essence and realtiy.)

Once again, we are using names to define our interpretations of things, but this means that we begin to develop superficial perspectives of reality. Take the word “infinity” or even the word “void.” Those things are beyond our restricted interpretative abilities, particularly as we continue to lose touch with spirit. Even labeling them restricts their reality, their inherent essence and vastness, yet we do it in order to have crutches for our minds to “get a grip of the intangible.” We need to learn to “let go” of ourselves as individual beings who need those crutches. You cannot grasp the infinite if you are stuck in a realm of finite, subjective, interpretative tools, folks. Even with spirit we do this; we invent religions that give us crutches so that we can imitate some form of spiritual awareness for lack of having true connection as we continually reinforce our fabricated existence in our artificial world. While we interpret things subjectively, we devalue life. In turn, we treat other beings as commodities. We kill, extirpate, rape, reap, poison, enslave, buy, sell, and throw-away other life. This is shameful, but as long as we decide (and I say “decide” to illustrate that we are taking grave advantage of our gift of free will here) to interpret reality, we can get away with whatever evil we wish. Well, at least until the Realists stop it from continuing. This is coming.

Going back to “blue,” if I can see “blue,” and I like “blue,” then I will tend to gear my perceptions of my existence toward “blueness.” I might paint my walls “blue,” and I might wear “blue” clothing. I might even try to develop ways to turn my food “blue.” But I am not creating a reality; I am simply adopting what I desire based upon my interpretations of reality, and I am ignoring and even inhibiting things that do not fit my personal desires within my interpretation. Further, I may cater to my appeal for “blue,” which mitigates my spiritual deprivation in some way, by compromising the integrity of other life-forms through pollution or destruction so that I can turn my entire world “blue.” This is how we function as a species. We do put ourselves into—or allow ourselves to be restricted by—these “tunnels” of interpretation through our existence. We base our paths upon not only what we interpret as “reality,” but even upon what we are told is reality by other interpreters. Can you not see that this is insane? Probably not, because your tunnel has diverged from the reality of Nature. How can you experience the smell of the outdoors, the feeling of the breeze and moisture on the air, the sight of the forests or oceans, the sounds of the wildlife, and the connection with the spirit of the Whole, while you’re driving in a closed, climate-controlled vehicle, wearing your sunglasses, the radio assaulting you as you attempt to watch the road while sipping coffee and negotiating vehicles, lights, and pedestrians . . . ?

We do not live in reality. We seem to exist in spite of it, actually. We live in our interpretation of reality, and it is subjective, which means it will never and can never be viable for all beings. It’s time to change. It’s time for a spiritual shift. And if people can’t make a spiritual shift in the real world, then others will change “their reality” for them.

No comments: