a matter of perspective

Introduction:

And then it hit me! Maybe that happened for a reason!

The information contained in this is from my own knoggin, and user discretion is advised! When writing it, I was mostly concerned with following a line of thought, so when oh say: “this is…” or “that happens…” or this fact, or that fact, please use your own judgment! (I’ve tried throughout to indicate my certainty of facts and assumptions, but a few got away. And looking back on it 5 years later, a bit of the science is out, but I have yet to disprove any of it where it's relevant to the point I was trying to make. Although the description has failed minorly here and there, the 'picture' that I saw has rejected ALL of my MANY attempts to disprove it) I won’t cry if you don’t believe, or disagree. This was more about my trip, and the inspirational moments that I’d had over the 11 years leading up to it. Some of the things that I’ve said, I had a hard time believing (even though, at least to me, they made sense logically), but forsake of what this journey was infactually all about, I decided to let myself believe (for the moment). … So, I guess you could say that this whole writing has been an experiment. …And it all seemed to work out in the end. So there you go…

Maybe, only by fully discovering that you don’t know anything, can you truly open the doors to absolutely everything.

Chapter One:

Do you need to believe something in order to know it? If I asked you what color, say a lighter was, and you ‘knew’ it was red, so you would also believe it

Tomorrow you go to the eye doctor, and discover that you are in fact colorblind, and confuse red with blue, and that the lighter was actually blue. In time, you discover that when you see a particular quality in the color that you see as red, it is actually blue. You’d know that the color that your eyes saw was red, when you’d actually believe that it was really blue.
Do you have to know that you know something, in order to know it? Is this concept not the very meaning of what is called instinct?

Philosophers through the years have stated through the years that you never really ‘know’ anything; everything that you know is, somewhere up the line, based on an assumption.

Doesn’t this concept also say that there is the possibility that you may actually know everything, and are simply not aware of it?

I believe that we are born knowing everything. Babies would have absolutely no way to communicate (and are probably not even aware of it). Their bodies aren’t developed enough to use language, or signal this in any way

In order to learn, you have to discover how to judge: “Is this piece of information relevant?” “Do I need to know this?”

By discovering how to judge, and similarly focus your attention, your ego (sense of self) clouds your absolute knowledge.

By focusing on something, you are by definition putting pretty much everything else out of focus. Imagine a TV: its screen is nothing but a bunch of red, green, and blue dots (or similar). Seen from a distance, the pictures on the screen make perfect sense, but focus in on one of the dots, and all you can see is a dot that seemingly randomly changes intensity, but does little else. The picture on the screen no longer makes sense. When again seen from a distance, the variations of that dot can be accurately predicted by the context of the rest of the picture.

Children are said to be more intuitive, and indeed seem to know things.

You’re told: “you’ll get it, just don’t try so hard.

Sometimes the best ideas come from those unencumbered by knowledge

You know everything in your dreams.

Isn’t ‘concentrating on the task at hand, actually clearing your head of all information, and just letting it ‘come to you’?

What would thinking without language be like?

Religion’s been around for thousands of years, and its pretty much the only information that’s been around that long. Why?

Explains: esp., and intuition

Under normal circumstances, I don’t believe that you ever forget anything. The house is still there, but it’s just not on the map anymore. Why? A thought can trigger a long lost memory that hasn’t entered your mind in years, and years.

Religion says that the power to ‘know’ God is in each, and every one of us.

What is inspiration? A nudge in a certain direction perhaps?

How much room in your head is occupied by irrelevant, trivial information, and addictions? TV; you have to stop at a red light and wait for it to turn green, even tough nothing’s coming. (And the consequences of what may happen if you don’t wait (ticket). Addictions as in something that you’ve learned that is easier to do, than to not do, like eating certain foods, chocolate, certain interactions with people, driving when it’s not necessary etc. as well as drugs and alcohol.

My dad once said to me, “I took better pictures before I learned photography.” Why did this memory stay in the forefront since I was like 8? Why did I find it important?

Maybe you know everything, but are trying to cram it through English, relative to the experiences in your memory.

If the beginning of the universe, the end of the universe, and the duration are predictable (indeed what all science reaches towards), then we should also, somehow be predictable.

If we are predictable, then one of the next logical steps is that our actions, and indeed our whole lives, could in fact be predicted (if you could somehow keep track of all of the variables). From beginning to end.

If we can be predicted, our whole lives already written for us, why could we possibly be here?

Does it have something to do with what you get out of it? What you learn? What you discover?

What happens when you listen to what your body tells you, without reservation, or doubt, or shame? When you don’t pull back because of opinion, or judgment, or fear? These are skills that have been taught to you from day one.

They say that a pregnant lady craves ice cream and pickles. Why does she crave these? Her body has kept a catalog of the contents of everything that she’s eaten in the past, and when it needs, say vitamin A, she’ll crave something with vitamin A in good supply. When she craves ice cream and pickles, there’s something in […] that her and her baby need. […] were chosen because it’s something that she’s likely to eat. (The body doesn’t seem to care about taste, or style, or fashion).

I’m hungry, yet I keep writing. Not really writing, more thinking that I’m hungry. Why? What would happen if I ate? I’d feel better, and quit concentrating on eating.

Ok, a trip to Mac’s and three or four Pop Tarts later, I’m no longer hungry, and if I weren’t writing about it, hunger would no longer be the focus of my concentration.

Ooo! 3 or 4 Pop Tarts, I knew I shouldn’t have eaten those. I could explain why I did, but by now, ice cream and pickles (without the pregnancy) should about sum it up.

Your body seems to know more than you do

When you learn to, say play guitar, aren’t you really learning to coordinate your fingers so you can play without thinking about it? Doesn’t it in fact trip you up when you do think about it?

Learning is how you relate to your physical world.

What would a deaf, blind, quadriplegic know? (I guess assuming from birth.)(If, indeed, they would let it live)

By saying god, I guess you could say that I mean The Total Sum of Knowledge. So, of course I believe that there is a total sum of knowledge. You could say, “Wouldn’t God be the one that created the Universe?” Ah yes, a very valid question. …But what created god? (Blasphemous!)

The Egyptian civilization has by far outlasted any other civilization (at least that I know of); they reigned for around three thousand years. That’s a thousand longer than the time since the birth of Christ. How did they survive this long? Did their beliefs play a part?

They were also one of the very first recorded, truly ‘civilized’ societies.

Why did they believe that humans could become gods?

Maybe your brain acts as some sort of radio (or what ever) receiver.

When a brand new concept dawns on you, and all of the little closed doors in your brain open up, and you get the big picture on what you don’t know, but I suppose, may be learned, why is this such a cool feeling?

When you get this picture, where does it come from? Where did you get the picture? Can you doubt something that you don’t know exists?

Nature’s most ideal (neutral, natural, desired, perfect) shape seems to be a circle. The circle is seen absolutely everywhere. Either physically, as in planets, stars, falling drops of water, or in circular systems like orbits, the way nature recycles, and indeed the entire cycle of life for everything, people, plants, landscapes, planets, stars, and maybe atomic particles (if the big bang theory is correct). Why? Is it a sign? Are these cycles related, like clockworks?

How much of what you know is related to things that were created by man? (TV, fashion, products, etc)

Language allows us, almost forces us, to create a reality of our own design, which couldn’t exist without language. Would life be more, or less ‘real’ without it? Would you ‘know’ less?

Why do seemingly irrelevant, unconnected ideas, or things seem to stick out in your brain for no apparent reason? (A lame example might be: a movie in a video store screams, “watch me! Watch me!” for no apparent reason, or a strange thought pops into your head and lingers until you discount it). Does it happen repeatedly? Maybe with the same concept, but in a different context? Does it sometimes connect to things years later?

It’s gross because you think its gross. Its stressful because you think its stressful (because you make it important), its lame because you think its lame, etc.

Fear happens when you aren’t confident of the outcome of a situation.

How much of what you know comes from what other people tell you?

How would your life change if you had never found out what you look like? If they’d never invented the mirror, or you never saw your reflection in a pond, etc?

How is what you do for a living important? How does it affect you when you don’t like it?

Maybe we don’t know anything, because everything we know is related to figuring out how the things that we invented work? (E.g.: language, or “did that really happen, or was that just an unknown anomaly with telescopes?” or “ you mix this product with that product, and this happens. Now what can we do with this new product?” etc.)

Do our things, or lack of things, make us doubt ourselves? Our own judgment? Or others?

If you had nothing, would you worry about being robbed? If your apartment were empty, would someone breaking in be that big of a deal? (Assuming you weren’t home to be harmed)

If everybody had everything, or nobody had anything, how much competition would that eliminate? Hate?

Envy?

What happens when you just let yourself believe what you want to believe?

I think that the Bible, etc, are ambiguous for a reason. Only you will get what you need out of it. It’s just sort of a manual for life.

What did they have in terms of material distractions when it was written?

It seems accurate, why?

Why did the Egyptians think that the brain was a useless organ?

Sex, the original addiction

What did Jesus Christ really teach? How did he inspire?

If I said, “You’re nothing but a fuckin’ retard!” what would your reaction be? Why? How would this situation change if you never felt that spark of hate? Or even the initial feelings of being hurt by my statement? Would you understand the situation better? Its causes and effects? And indeed feel more at peace, and in tune?

Why does acid give a strange sense of knowing, and understanding? The understanding of incredibly abstract concepts that indeed seem to translate or transpose into ‘normal’ life. Does it actually help open those little doors in your brain? “I talked to God” is definitely not an uncommon side effect.

Maybe we are born knowing everything, but God (what ever that means), as punishment for eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge, gave us doubt?

Imagine I come over and bring ten puzzles with 5000 pieces each, and dump them all on the same table. There are ten pictures to build, and fifty thousand pieces on the table. You still know what all ten pictures are, but that doesn’t really relate to your very full table of puzzle pieces. You have a hard time relating to the information on a single puzzle piece, and nothing really makes any sense. But you still know all ten pictures.

In time, you manage to get the border of one of the puzzles complete. (Or at least you think that you do, but all of the piece shapes for all ten puzzles are pretty much the same; only the picture is really different).

If I were to come along, seemingly randomly, pick an unplaced puzzle piece, state that “this piece goes right here, believe me!” and place the piece with some random position and orientation, within the border of the puzzle, what would happen?

Time and memory would tell us that this piece is now ‘in’ the puzzle, and that its picture, orientation, and position may be correct. …But one or all (orientation, etc) may also not be correct.

The only external way that you have to judge this situation is by how much you believe me; how much you trust me based on things like experiences with me and my judgment, and your temperament. How much you ‘like’ me. Unfortunately, if you see me in a positive way I can still be wrong, and if you see me in a negative way I can still be right. But if you don’t judge this puzzle piece, it will scream at you until you do. This is where religion comes in.

MY THINKING MODEL:

Thought is divided in separate parts:
[Outside, physical world] --» conscious language processing -» conscious concept processing -» memory -» subconscious concept processing -» unconscious function --» [action]

Any processing level can propose an ‘idea’, but only talks to the next immediate layer on either side. Consciousness tends toward the physical world, and unconsciousness, or sleep tends towards the sub conscious concepts.

Action is on the very tail end, and yet action seems to be able to come from any level, why? When you learn how to use your body, those pathways are cemented through all of the layers, like a well-designed highway through a city. Other ‘well used’ information gets treated with the same respect.

What are emotions? Perhaps, simply a tool to help translate large sets of complex variables through the memory to the subconscious. More complex emotions stem from higher levels of thought.

If an absolute knowledge exists, my guess is that it would lie in the subconscious concept layer, which, I believe would process in negative space, while all other idea-processing layers would process positive space information.

The subconscious concept layer is buried (maybe by design, as in the Adam and Eve example) well within, and below your version of the outside world.

When information moves from the physical world to the subconscious, all of the actual info concerning the outside world is deposited, or saved in the memory (with an emotional tag), and you’re left with is the processes emotion for the subconscious to calculate through.

When your subconscious wants to relate an ‘idea’ to the outside world, it crunches through the variables, forms an emotion, which picks up relevant memory info on the way, and from there, works its way out.

So, now let me reask this question a slightly different way. What would thought be like without the grounds for the conscious language processing level, or without the memory level (which would be a newborn’s case)?

Maybe a look at other animals might help. It seems likely that other animals don’t have the conscious language-processing layer. Their information wouldn’t be filtered through language, and so would go from the outside world, directly to the deeper level, the conscious concept layer. They wouldn’t have the complexity of thought that we have, but could they have a better, simpler understanding because they are closer to it?

I have no idea what life would be like without memory, and therefore, without time. Without memory, time (a man made measure of the distance between two events) would be irrelevant. (In fact, I think time is probably where we go wrong with our true understanding of the universe (and by the same idea, God)

Einstein pretty much invented our current theory of time with his theory of relativity.

What would happen if you had followed your true, and pure passions from day one, good and bad? Would you have learned your lessons faster? With better understanding, and less repetition? How would this change things?

Maybe our goal in life is to ‘learn’ (or ‘relearn’, should the story be) ‘everything’. To ‘discover God’. All of the necessary info seems to be available to each of us (as religion predicts). Maybe that’s the test. We have ‘forgotten’, and over time all ’50,000 pieces’ can be put back together. …But, as they say, only if you truly believe. For only if you truly believe will you have the confidence, and lack of doubt necessary.

I believe in reincarnation. This is why: you are what you eat - you consume life in order to survive - this life was ultimately grown from the soil - you poo & pee - this (is supposed to) goes back into the soil - this feeds the up and coming generation - until you die - your body (again, is supposed to) lies on the ground, and ultimately goes back into the soil - this also feeds the next generation (and in fact goes into forming the baby in a pregnant mother’s womb!). It all gets recycled! What does that say about the possibility of a collective intelligence? Maybe its one big life form that we grow out of, like a finger, or a wart.

…And in fact, if you want to get that way about it, the atoms that build the molecules, and compounds themselves, and pretty much everything else, are byproducts from the death throws of ancient, long dead stars.

Why is a magician’s trick magical and mysterious? It’s because you don’t know the ‘trick’, there’s absolutely nothing ‘magical’ about it. I believe religion, and the bible (etc) should only be looked at this way. It makes more sense when you do. The possibility of magic just increases the possibility of wrongful doubt, and makes it less believable and more cultish. Nor am I saying one should take it like a pill, and swallow it; draw your own meaning.

I believe that we as a species are on the right track. Control is the key to life. However, where I think we unfortunately go wrong is the direction in which we aim our controlling desires. I propose that focusing that need for control inward would produce more pleasant results. Discover yourself, and fight to keep the pathways, and doors open and clog free. Traditional learning styles force us to close doors, which cause ‘traffic jams’.

What is the overall, underlying idea behind religion? …Or its message, if that suits you better?

What did Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohamed, (etc) actually teach? Like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, how do we know that because of the fact that we’ve focused, and concentrated so hard on what the words say, we haven’t inadvertently affected their meaning? How would you really know?

I know that sounds like a paradox, and it probably is. Maybe the only ‘real’ interpretation is the truly honest, pure, addiction free message that you get from it, without the doubt caused by what facts others think they know (including, and especially the preachers).

I bring up religion quite often because, although this question of the meaning of life, etc, as been more than likely pondered by every being capable of pondering such a question, unfortunately most of the recorded work seems to come from the highly colored and charged writings, and beliefs of religion. The validity of these ideas is supported by the sheer length of time that these ideas have held.

It may be worthwhile to add to my thoughts on reincarnation. I also believe that there is a constant, set number of ‘souls’ available they get recycled in the same way. In order for there to be more, say people, there has to be less say grass, or chickens, or dogs, or anything else you could call ‘alive’ or a combination of such things. The values may not be equal for each though, like say 4 dogs equals 16 chickens, or a billion blades of grass etc. Hmm… or maybe its only one big soul that we’re all part of.

The only real major difference between most religions is the presentation of the concepts. The concepts themselves stay pretty static. Why? Could this mean something?

If you were to account for all of the ‘stuff’ that goes into life, like what the cells are made of, how messages are sent within the body, etc, the total sum of life would still be greater than the sum of all of its parts.

How often, when hearing about giant leaps in achievement (intellectual, scientific, artistic, etc.) do you hear the innovators say ‘It just came to me”, or similar such statements? What exactly does this statement mean? Or imply? How likely is truth here?
What does art do?

They say: “genius is the fire that lights itself.”

By saying “they say…” I, of course do mean the people who do, actually say such things. What else would I mean? Dumb ass!!!

How did the emotions involved in your processing of the previous statement color the meaning of that statement?

Positive and negative space. Basically, positive space is what something (it) is, while negative space is what it is not. You still get the exact same shape, but it’s just a different way of looking at it. Imagine a stenciled letter. The positive space would be the space of the letter itself, while the negative space would be the space around the letter, starting at the border with that letter. (It just depends on which area that you paint black. It’s the same shape.

I found this interesting: This positive/negative space concept, for me was created by the book ‘Drawing on the Right Side of Your Brain’. This book ‘screamed’ at me since I had first heard of it, about 11 years ago. (I didn’t read any of it then). This spring, after about a month and a half of almost unbearable need, I finally bought and read the book (and learned this concept, and others). Why sis this particular art book scream at me so, for 11 years? There were other books out there, why this one?

This concept should definitely come sooner in the explanation of my theory!

Time: The Doppler effect is an interesting phenomenon. It happens when waves (say, sound waves) travel faster, relative to you, as the source approaches you than they do as the source distances itself from you. Imagine a car horn. You are standing on the sidewalk. When the car moves towards you, the pitch of the sound goes up because the sound waves are actually traveling faster (speed of sound + speed of car = speed of sound that you hear). When the car passes you, and is moving away, the pitch of the horn drops, because relative to you the sound is traveling slower (speed of sound – speed of car = speed of sound that you hear). (It never changes for the dink in the car though!)

Physicists say that a good theory should be just as accurate when aimed back in time, as it is when it’s used to predict the future. How could this affect what you know?

Time isn’t a constant linear vector (vector means a quantity with direction) quantity. Relativity states this. But rather, it’s a more organic, varying quantity that seems to be affected by gravity and distance, and seems almost held in place by the speed of light. Einstein says that the speed of light is the same for everyone who ‘views’ it, or measures it regardless of their velocity (a vector speed quantity). Hence its famous name. The speed of light is relative to all who view it.

So, what’s your point? What does that have to do with anything? Interesting things happen when you use this in the basic velocity equation: Velocity = distance / time. Or, V=d / t. If time were a constant, linear, ‘static’ quantity, the speed of light would increase, relative to you, as you approached the source of light (as in the Doppler effect), and it would decrease as you distanced yourself from it. Relativity says: No this doesn’t happen with light (electro-magnetic energy) for some reason! Light speed is the same for everyone, regardless of their velocity! (The frequency (or color) may change, but the speed is constant).

Reorganized, our equation reads T = d / v. With velocity being constant and unchanging (the speed of light), time is the only thing that can change when you vary the distance. Einstein’s theory pretty much says that time is a measure of space. What does that mean?

Relativity is far more complicated than the, but this is one of its predictions. This theory has revolutionized our understanding of the universe, and in fact actually allows us to communicate with satellites, and other things in orbit. What it predicts seems to agree with what we see in the universe.

In essence, everything has its own value of time.

What does this do to things?

Stephen Hawking ‘talks’ about time. He says that in order to ‘see’ time the way that we do, three things must happen. He says that there are (in a theoretical sense) three arrows of time: The Cosmological Arrow (whether the universe is expanding or contracting), The Thermodynamic Arrow, the second law of thermo dynamics states that things always go from an ordered state to a disordered state as time increases, or disorder always increases with time. And The Psychological Arrow, the direction that your memory works (you remember the past, not the future). In order to experience time the way we do, all three of these arrows must be pointing in the same direction.

You may say: “That thing about the thermodynamic arrow is crap! When I form a memory, the thought goes from a disordered state, to an ordered state, which that law doesn’t allow for!” This is a very valid point, but when you form a memory you burn energy to do so. You convert chemical potential energy (food, and ordered state of energy) into heat (pretty much the most disordered state of energy). The amount of disorder created by burning the energy by far outweighs the order created in forming the memory. What implications can this have?

If I told you that there were other, different colors. Colors that you’ve never seen. How would you judge my sanity? Would you say that I don’t know what I’m talking about?

Haven’t you, yourself ever wondered if there were more colors?

‘Light’ is a very broad spectrum of wavelengths, and could be renamed ‘the electro-magnetic spectrum’, if you desired to do so. Visible light (indeed where visible colors live) is nothing more than a small section of this electro-magnetic spectrum. From about 4 – 7 hundred million million waves per second. Other wavelengths (or ‘colors’, if you like) in this spectrum include: x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, and infrared radiation, to name a few. So now, if I asked you: “what if there were more colors?” what would you think?

A student of Wittgenstein may say: “You’re just playing language games with the word ‘color’!” which, I guess is true, but how did these games keep you from understanding the true nature of color?

Color is nothing more than a measure of the energy that electro-magnetic radiation has.

“What if there were more colors?” Well there are!! Why had this disconnected, seemingly irrelevant question come to me? Could it be pulling me toward a simple, non-magical explanation, contrary to what the question seems to imply?

Maybe light is more important than it seems.

Have you ever actually seen yourself in a dream? (Maybe that’s why it was important)

There is a huge difference between ‘knowledge’ and discovery. A friend once asked me a question, that it think about sums up the difference (supposedly its started many a fight): Lets say that you know everything. Everything about how your eyes work, light works, how your brain perceives things, etc. Everything about everything involved. …But you’ve never actually seen a color before. Now, one day, all of a sudden in your black and white world, you see a yellow banana. Would you learn something new then?

This theory of ‘letting it come to you’ is indeed difficult to accomplish, and may be where our barrier to understanding lies. When you think about something, you are, by definition, injecting ‘what you know’ into the equation. …And how do you contemplate what you don’t think about? Unfortunately, you have to know that you’re watching TV in order for that to happen.

How do memory and time factor into this?

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle- states that you cant predict both the position, and the velocity of a particle (such as an electron, or a proton). The more precisely you measure its position, the more you affect its velocity. …Or, the more you ‘look’ at it (remember that light is a form of energy, and in order to see these infinitesimal particles, you have to “shine” light with a wavelength that is smaller than the particle itself on it, If the wavelength is ‘bigger’, the particle wont scatter the light. …and the shorter the wavelength, the more energy the light has… the more energy you give it, the more the particle’s velocity is affected.)

How does this relate to the clockwork, circular systems theory? Perhaps as a sort of a floating error routine type of variable?

I believe that dreams may hold the answer to some of this. With my thought process model, dreams live in the subconscious concept layer, and have very little communication with the outside physical world, or the conscious language layer, so language plays an extremely minor role in dreams. (Which, from personal experience, and conversations, and readings, seems to agree with popular theory). Sub conscious can only ‘talk’ to, or relate to memory directly (the brain paralyzes the body during sleep to keep one from acting out their dreams) and seems to do this in an abstract, disconnected way (as it prefers abstract concepts, and processes in negative space). Time also seems to play an extremely minor role in dreams as well. Why?

[Thinking model] To give you an idea of just how long this process takes: I just used how many words, and how much time translating a concept, or idea, that ‘dawned’ on me in (snap fingers here) that long? You can probably see the conscious linguistic, and conscious conceptual thinkings inefficiencies.

You think to yourself in English. If English were more efficient, would you be smarter?

Insanity happens when you don’t believe a major portion of what you ‘know’. “You see ‘real’ in a relative way, how does it relate to you?”

Most people’s view of their reality is nearly static. They hold on to it with everything they believe in. For dear life, if you will. What happens when something topples a few of their core beliefs, and all of the building blocks that go into what they believe, and indeed ‘know’ come crashing down? Why, they go insane! They are suddenly painfully aware of the things that they don’t know. They don’t know what to believe, or who to trust. They just don’t know anymore. In extreme cases of this, “I talked to God!” is again, not uncommon.

Another interesting thing about Relativity is of course Einstein’s famous equation: E=MC². This has some amazing implications. It has to do with how much energy is released when you convert an atomic particle (mass), into pure energy. Basically, it says that matter is a form of energy. What could this imply?

This equation is supported by the existence of the atomic bomb (Lol, that’s probably why it’s famous)(sadly). Energy = mass X the speed of light squared. (The speed of light squared is an enormous number!). C = 300,000,000 meters per second, so C² would be 9,000,000,000,000,000,000. An easier way to look at this equation may be (it’s not the correct way, but it gives a better idea)(because matter (mass) is a form of energy: Energy released = energy in the form of mass X 9,000,000,000,000,000,000. You can see how much energy is stored in matter. What does this do to things?

You may say: “When I light something on fire and burn it, aren’t I releasing the energy stored in the matter? I mean, when I burn a log in the fireplace, there’s less matter left when the log has burnt, than was there before it burnt!”

This is both true and not true. When you burn something, you are reacting it with oxygen. The heat from the match (energy input) initiates the chemical reaction. The oxygen then ‘steals’ hydrogen (and other things as well) to react with, and produces carbon dioxide and steam (for the most part. The other things can form other chemicals as well, (carbon monoxide, ozone, and a host of other nasty things) as a waste byproduct. The heat energy comes from the breaking of the molecular bonds that hold the atoms together in a chain (or molecule). All of the mass is still there (smoke and fire are actually solid particles, and carbon dioxide, and steam etc. (gasses) have mass as well. Nuclear bombs convert nuclear particles into pure energy.

So yes, you are pretty much converting the mass of the log into energy, but you’re still left with all of the mass. On the other hand, what E=MC² is about is taking a few atomic particles and smashing them into each other with immense force, thus causing some of the mass to be annihilated, turning it into enormous amounts of energy. No more mass. Gone from existence. The hard part is coming up with the input energy necessary. Its return exceeds, by a staggering amount, the energy input required. (As shown by the equation.

To give you a very rough idea of the comparison, take a liter of everyday gasoline. It has something like (I cant truly remember the number, but I think I may be guessing high (lol!) so…) in the million Joule (a unit of energy) range. This could power you for a very long time (your car, not so much). Compare this with the previous (E=MC²) number.

Work this equation backwards and you’ll see that something put huge, astronomical, unimaginable amounts of energy into letting us be here! What in God’s name could that mean?

…But before you answer that question, please give me the liberty to play this card as well: One more thing that Einstein’s theory says is the also imfamous “time slows down as you approach the speed of light, and that because of the way weight increases with velocity, it is impossible for anything with mass to travel the speed of light (the closer to light speed something gets, the more infinite its weight becomes, requiring near infinite amounts of energy to ‘push’ it; you would get to the point where all of the (E=MC²) energy contained in the mass would be required to push that same mass any faster. That point is unfortunately, the speed of light). But energy can (light is energy). …And maybe, as scientists predict, it can travel even faster! (Maybe even fast enough to ‘be everywhere at once’?) (Ok, now you can answer that question).

I like Einstein for some reason, who knows why. I have since I was a kid. Before I had heard of relativity, or E=MC².

I believe that you meet people for a reason. Similarly, experience things for a reason too. Everybody has a lesson to teach. Be it the bum on the street, the ‘crazy’ person downtown, the junky pushing his needle in front of you, the cop who writes you a ticket, or even your mom and dad. Similarly the books you read, sports you learn, the things that you like (what ever that implies). All for a reason. To teach you lessons. Good and bad. Easy and hard. Pleasant, and painful. Loving and hating. You have to take what you (really?) need, and ignore the rest; let yourself float on top of it.

We still don’t know what the smallest sub-atomic particle is. Maybe it’s capable of some amazing things! The other ones are. Maybe it’s so small that it has ‘no’ mass.

Ok back, once again, to my thought model. I came up with the idea to try to add my circle theory to my model. Some interesting things happened. Since nature seems to do things in cycles, why should thought be any different? Maybe your version of time comes from the timing of your thought cycles. Your internal clock.

Every layer would be the same still, except that the unconscious function layer acts as a ‘router’ as well as accepts info from the physical world. It chooses whether to send the information to the body or create a feedback loop for further processing. Or neither.

Like a spinning wheel implies, information only travels in one direction. The spinning cycle almost vacuums in input from the outside world through the senses. The router attaches an emotion tag to the information. This tag states how the info is to be used. Its context. The combined info and tag are then sent on their way. Each successive layer reads the tag and adds its share, if it has any. …And so on down the line until it hits the memory. The memory is still the same as in the previous model, and records the information on every cycle, strips the outside world info from it, and sends it on to the subconscious. When the info gets to the router, it decides what to do with it based on the emotion tags.

When active thought occurs, layers are proposing ‘ideas’. The cycle continues (the cycle always continues). This ‘idea’ enters the memory, where its image is held to ‘build’ the thought. If necessary a tag for the router for more information is added. In that case the router will read the tag, and rout it through again. And so on… If the thought needs no more processing, the router decided whether or not action is necessary, and if so, what.

Thought Cycle:
I’ve added a second memory after the subconscious to fit the new cycle model of thought. In order for the subconscious to relate an idea to the outside world, it has to have access to the information related to the world; or to ‘talk’ to the world in a way that the world would understand. This could be the dynamic short-term memory, where ideas and thought come from, as apposed to the ‘tape recorder’ long-term memory before the subconscious.

…So the subconscious is surrounded, or buried within the memory. If the subconscious doesn’t deal with memories, this could indeed explain the need for emotions, or feelings, or tags.

This cycle theory could explain the processing time needed, and energy required to build a thought. The tags could be neuro-transmitters.

Your ‘sharpness’ may come from the speed of your cycle compared to others.

The higher the brain function (fly-dog-human, etc) the more processing layers it has, which implies more thought is possible, and necessary, so to finish the thought, more cycles are needed.

I heard somewhere that the average human brain can keep track of like seven (I’m not sure about this number) different things at one time. Maybe there are a corresponding number of processing loops.

The orbits of planets (and things in orbit around Earth, etc.), a circular system, are never exactly the same twice in a row, but, as we’ve discovered, they are easily predicted. We are near certain at any given point in time, of where something in orbit will be. Our space program depends on it. We can predict many other circular systems in the same way.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems like everything is part of a cycle.

If there is a “fundamental connectedness of all things”, which, at least for me, isn’t such a big stretch, all of these cycles would be connected. Like clockwork. What does that say about predictability, or ‘fate’ if you like?

Science is based on trying to figure these cycles out. That’s what science is pretty much.

If we all lived by the bible (etc.), (not the power driven, greedy bible), and truly held its virtue, how would this affect your mental state? Would you be more at peace? What would that do? What would the ‘evil’ things do to your mental state? What effect would that have? What kind of ‘ripples’ would that send out into the rest of ‘god loving’ society?

The implications of ‘fate’ have some pretty harsh effects on the possibility of free will. I don’t believe that it has to. I believe that we are put here to learn things (I don’t know what), and when ‘God’ wants me to learn a lesson, I’ll repeat it until I get it. If I keep making mistakes, I’m faced with the same situation over and over until I do it right (what ever that is). This could be a sort of error loop in the system, and could explain this ‘ripple effect’ of reactions into the surroundings. If the timing of this cycle depends on the timing of that cycle, and that cycle is stuck in an error loop, then this cycle gets stalled, etc, …and so on, creating a ripple effect of error loops through the system.

So maybe you can buy time. If the cycle theory is correct, maybe the events leading up to your, say car accident wont happen because an error loop stalled the initial event. But maybe that’s part of an even larger cycle, and a lesson learned.

Experiment: it is believed that you can control your dreams if you can realize that you’re dreaming (what ever that means).

A way to test my knowledge theory would be to try to match dream information with information in the outside world. There would have to be a quality that you could check easily in the outside world, but you mustn’t be able to say that it may have been recalled from a memory (even a fleeting memory). I thought of the garbage bin behind my apartment because, even though the bin is known, its contents change quite often. So it wont be the same as the last time I looked at it.

…And well, I’m quite sure that you can get the rest.

A few of the rumors that I’ve heard that seem to agree with things that I’ve experienced are: If you wake up one morning (or whenever you happen to wake up) and you look at your digital (that’s what I have) alarm clock and for the life of you, you cant figure out what the numbers say (it seems that the written language is the same), then you’re probably still dreaming. Another one is, if you flick a light switch that you think should do something, and it doesn’t seem to do anything, then again, there’s a good chance that you’re dreaming.

This cycle theory does some interesting things to the meaning of the word time. Since time would be judged by the timing of these individual cycles, time would be slightly different for everything, or at least relative to it.

The timing in the world I see, the external world, would be set by the cycles of the earth around the sun, and the earth’s spinning cycle, etc. And these cycles are the same for all that view them.

My time would be set by the spinning cycles in my body. My concept or ‘feel’ of time comes from my cycles.

One picks up time cues from the external world based on its cycles. These cycles seem to become predictable (I guess almost hypnotic), and regular. All the while that ‘persons’ ‘time’ runs independently. Now who’s to say if ones ‘time’ cycle spins at a constant rate. “Time flies when you’re having fun” or “Time just drags when I’m bored!” Would the other time cues be constant? Would you know?

Maybe these cycles correspond to Hawking's three arrows of time theory. But instead of having a flat linear quantity or quality (like an arrow represents), the arrows are just sections of a spinning circular system.

This may help you judge the validity of what I believe, and this theory: If it was true, and I truly believed it, I wouldn’t be here.

I’ve got a belief: the moment that you discover the true workings of the universe, your time here is done. You will die. (Alright, here we go) if ‘life’ is not ‘real’ as you ‘know’ it; that it’s ‘make believe’ (if you like), you’d cease to exist in it the moment that you realize what it really is.

(So maybe, since a good theory works both ways in time, when you doubt the true workings of the universe, would you live?)

Maybe that’s the choice that newborns have to make in order to survive. Maybe that’s why they cry so much.

Aren’t you indeed forced to “meet your maker” when you die?

…And do you remember the first stage of your life?

The universe looks the way it does because we are here to see it. Or the negative: if the universe were different, we wouldn’t be here to see it. The Anthropic Principle

Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hikers Guide: “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it’s here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
(If the cycle theory is correct) since every cycle has its own independent time based on the timing of its cycle (one cycle = one unit of ‘felt’ time) and if each independent cycle doesn’t necessarily ‘spin’ at a constant rate (at different times this could go through 1 or 6 or 15 or 2 or even ½ or ¼ etc cycles, while that only went through one), then the probability of all the cycles aligning a certain way at a certain time is extremely low. And the chance of everything staying aligned a specific way for more than even the smallest instant is an absolute zero. (Maybe the only true zero in the universe)

Science strives for accurate prediction. It’s based on: “Because of these observations from the past, and the understanding of this small section of the universe at that time, I predict that at a given time in the future, this will happen!”

Again, if the cycle theory is correct, and everything is connected etc: The universe is constantly changing. Another way: if you know the condition of the universe at one specific instant in Time (whatever that means), those observations would not necessarily be true the next instant.

I believe that the only way to truly learn anything is from passive observation; the more you experiment, and “play” with it, the more you affect its truly natural outcome.

Maybe the uncertainty principle factors into this as well. Maybe the fact that you are ‘looking’ at the ‘real picture’ causes a ripple effect of error loop cycles, that actually cause the universe to change. Eliminating you! (If you get that far)

The uncertainty principle may be a built in ‘fuse’ if you will, a safety mechanism to avoid some sort of paradox. To keep the universe from crashing like your computer.

…But what if you could look at it without causing any ripples?

Maybe, only by fully discovering that you don’t know anything, can you truly open the doors to absolutely everything.

Maybe if your thinking is pure and clean and addiction free, etc, you can exist in this world as well as who knows with this knowledge, without dying. …And you would indeed be a ‘God’! (Again with the blasphemy!) Only if your thinking weren’t pure and clean, would you create crushing tidal waves of error loop ripples. Maybe that’s what happened with ‘Satan”. …And ‘evil’ is born.

Maybe only in the ‘right’ state of mind can you handle discovering yourself for the first time, in the “real” universe, without sending out a catastrophic (for you) ‘shock wave’ of feedback into the system caused by the way that you feel about yourself, or your ego if that fits you better.

If you discover the true name of god, you will die.

The end!

Chapter two:

So maybe, this uncertainty principle is the key here. Let’s look at what it says again. The closer you look at a particle, the more you affect its velocity. But the thing is, you say, thought’s not a particle!

Before you think about that too hard, let me add this:

A sub atomic particle can somehow be in two places at the same time. (This is hard for me to believe, but that’s what they say, so…)

Light is made up of near infinitely infinitesimal “packets” called photons (I’m sure that you’ve heard that word before). These photons are particles, but they behave like waves. (This seems contradictory, but…)

Light is a form of energy, and it travels at a constant speed relative to…

Some scientists predict that some (whatever that means) energy may be able to travel faster than light. (Maybe fast enough to be everywhere at once?)

So, now if scientists doubt that they’ve found the smallest subatomic particle (if its got mass, its made out of atoms), and light was a thing called a photon, maybe the photon would be the smallest particle in the atom. How could you tell? What you’d be looking at would be what you’re looking with. You couldn’t do it. It’d be like wanting to take your glasses off to look at them, but you couldn’t see them because, then you wouldn’t be wearing your glasses. It’s a paradox.

Maybe that’s what the Uncertainty principle is there for, to avoid that.

But isn’t it all just energy anyways?

So maybe the …principle (should?) works with energy too.

So let’s put these together for a moment:

Ok now; let’s see if I can spit this out properly. Maybe the fact that you’re thinking about something actually causes the universe to change ultimately creating that something that you’re thinking about. The more you ‘know’ it, the more ‘real’ it gets.

But then I could create a unicorn right here in front of me! Ah yes, but could you truly believe what you know enough to think that you can actually do such things?

Maybe that’s where what everyone else knows as well comes in. …So there’d be limits to what I could create. (But if we all got together, what could we all create?)

Maybe that’s where religion actually comes in

So now basically, what I’m trying to say here is: maybe the world, as you know it, exists because you and others think it does, and indeed know it.

So, maybe the biggest irony in life might be: maybe you trapped yourself in a universe of your own design, because of the fact that you doubt it’s true identity (or rather, know what you know).

The more energy you use to figure it out, or to ‘know’ it, the more the universe changes, ‘making’ what you know; or, another way (which seems to agree with reality), if you didn’t know it, then it wouldn’t exist (for you, in your reality). If you’re not aware of something being there, how can you say that it exists? “If a tree falls in the forest…?”, I’m not too sure that there would even be a tree.

The world, or more the universe, would be a conglomeration of what life knows. The universe exists the way it does because you, and the people that you agree with indeed know it does. There’d have to be certain physical laws dictating that what a (insert species here) truly ‘knows’ has to happen, or else they couldn’t know something. Which brings us to your current model of the physical world, which is pretty much accepted by all as existing in their own interpretation.

Would you trust a ‘crazy’ person with what he says he ‘knows’ about the universe? No, because that fact is what separates you from this ‘crazy’ person. You both disagree with what the other ‘knows”.

…But who’s right?

The one who wins this standoff is usually the one that agrees most with what the popular people know. …But with ‘muscle’, over time the popular people may change what they know; and so the world will change.

This opens the door for what is known as Magick, or black magic, if that fits you better.

They say that there is no black or white magic, but rather the black or white comes from the one who actually uses their knowledge that way. How they express it. How they feel it.

Magic would become a game of what other people know against what you can come to know.

That’s where the hard part, or the magic, lies. If you wanted to, say take a sip of your morning cuppa joe, you’d pretty much have to know that the cup is there, that they’ve invented a drinkable beverage called coffee, that you can, in fact, drink anything, etc, and so on up the line. This is usually not too difficult because it’s all there in front of you in the physical world. You know it’s there.

Where did this knowledge come from? It came from the other people trapped in the same universe. Some one knew all of these things, and taught you how to know them as well. So they exist for you now too.

The hard part in magick would be: knowing what other people know, and convincing yourself to know something that might agree with this.

How do you truly convince yourself that there’s a cup of coffee in your hand to drink from, when there is actually no cup of coffee in your hand to drink from at the present time? That indeed would be a trick. But it seems like it may be possible. Only if you could truly admit to yourself that you didn’t know anything though. How else would you know there wasn’t a cup of coffee in your hand? If you were to create something in front of you now, out of the blue, absolutely nothing that you previously knew could still be true.

Maybe if you could somehow channel enough thought energy, the right way, you could convince the atomic particles to group in a certain way. Would that be a hell of a trick. But there would be an explanation behind it still. It wouldn’t be ‘magical’, or mysterious.

Even though everything that you see depends on light, the strange thing about light is that you cant actually see it. You don’t actually see the light; you see how it interacts with other things. The coffee table, the walls, the floor, dust, smoke, the filament in the bulb creating the light, etc. Indeed, if there were nothing for the light to reflect off of, you would see nothing but blackness. As in outer space. (If there were enough ‘stuff’ to reflect it, the universe would be a very bright place)(But that would absorb the light too, so…)

How much do you actually physically touch in a day, thus confirming that yes, it is really there?

How much do you actually examine closer to make sure that yes, this is precisely how I thought it was?

Do you have ‘time’ to do that?

Maybe what I see is just a reflection of what I, and other people are certain of. Only by touching it would you truly know. If you can see it, its not the biggest step to imagine that you could know it (by touching it), so of course, when you go to touch it, you know it will be there; thus creating the object that you are touching.

When someone comes over to my apartment, they see the things that I know, and because they can see them, they don’t have such a hard time believing that they’re really there. So they would exist for them too.

Just because I’m not home, doesn’t mean that I don’t know my apartment, and its state when I left it. …So, when someone comes over then, they will still see what I know.

So, if this person that’s in my apartment when I’m not home, steals everything that I own, then he knows what he’s done, and that knowledge is reflected in what I see. (Because when someone knows something, it has to happen).

So, as our knowledge evolves, it is built on previous knowledge, and logically has to be. Knowing something that doesn’t exist takes an incredible leap of faith, if you don’t know the ‘trick’. So you’d have to know that they’ve invented glass (etc), before you can know that there’s a cup. You need to know there is something called coffee before you can pour coffee into that cup, etc.

…And how often do you doubt that the cup that you see with your own eyes is really there before you pour boiling hot coffee into it? Would you pour the coffee if you didn’t think, and truly know, that the cup was really there? If you didn’t know whether or not the cup was there, if you had reason to doubt the cup being there, what would the chances of it really being there be? Would you pour if you doubted, or check if you did know?

If you were to draw a picture, because of the way that things have to logically progress in your mind (a line cant be there before you draw it), you create the line from beginning, to end, with all of the steps in between.

You hear artists say that a picture, or the sculpture, was there before they got there, they just released it. (what does that mean?)

How much information is needed before you can form a solid (enough) connection?
How much information is necessary before you can admit to yourself that you know something? What is needed? How much would your memory play into this?

Because of conscious thinkings need for some sort of logic, things would still be made the same way.

Before there were people, the world was the place that the animals knew. Because of the limitations of their conscious thought, and inability for physical spoken language, the planet earth was a much simpler, more pure place. They didn’t have the capacity to act, much less know, the results of more highly complex thought. So they didn’t really create things, because there wasn’t much need. What could they really do with the things that they created? Before this, was the place that the plants knew, a still, more simple world. …And so on, and so on..

And then came man… because of their ability, and adaptations to act on more complex thought, man found that he got bored.

When man came along, he learned what that animals, and plants knew, and that’s all that his consciousness was aware of. Indeed all that he knew. So since he wasn’t aware of anything else, he had to create with those. He had to have this, and this, in order to make that. As he thought about it, the universe started to form it. To form the concepts involved (would these thoughts only stay with him, or would they jump into others’ thoughts, as well?). The more he thought about it, the more real it got (for him, in his imagination). When he found a way to create something that which his, the rest of the peoples’, animals’, plants’, etc knowledge agreed with (because that’s all that he ‘knew’), he could convince himself (and others) that he knew this. …And so, the universe would change, allowing him to build the way logic would allow it.

An invention is born! Because it is known by someone, causing it to be able to be seen by others, and their logic telling them that, what can be seen must be able to be touched, they can touch it and know that it exists, and teach others how to know this as well.

Emotions may play into this. More complex emotions seem needed with more complex thought.

All of this depends on conscious logic, and stored, long-term memory.

It seems that creating a believable memory is just as difficult as creating a physical object! Is there a connection? What you know indeed seems to live in your memory, as does the past, with all of its physical objects.

When you think of something, can you set into motion, a chain of events that ultimately, leads up to your knowing? If my cycle theory is correct, with its ripple effect, this seems possible, if you somehow tweaked the system in just the right way. …Or truly believe. Might someone else invent such a thing if you don’t? Or at least think about it?

You come to think that if you behave passively, things will behave in a certain way, and not really change, until acted on by something else. You take it for granted as fact (you have to in order to learn), and wont question it again, until given sufficient reason to. You may use this knowledge often, but never question its validity, because nothing you’ve ever experienced gives you reason to. You wouldn’t question it if you didn’t doubt it, and indeed, this seems to apply to everyone, and is only as accurate as it needs to be.

This sounds like positive space to me, but only the border with the negative space. You know what it’s not, but you don’t really know what it is either.

…So maybe that’s all that you need to know about something, before you can say that you know it. Just information on where the border between knowing, and not knowing, is.

But at which point along the trail can you say that you know it? How, and when, exactly, do you know that you know it? When do you close that door, and take it as fact?
You know something when it supports, and is supported by, other pieces of your knowledge. But how many pieces does it need to connect to, before it is taken as given?

How much of what you know does it take to recognize something? How many cues would you need before you could call it a cup of coffee? (Before you touch it)(…Or have any reason to doubt it?)

Maybe, it’s harder for magick to exist in modern times, than it was in eras gone by, because today, people ‘know’ that it doesn’t exist. In the past, people ‘knew’ less, and believed in more. In order for me to create something relative to you, it’d have to be something, and created in a way, that you could find believable, and possible. …So, the chances of me, say making a dog appear, right in front of your eyes, would be very slim, because you don’t believe that that could be possible.

If you know that I had a dog, and what looked like my dog then walked into the room that we were in, in my apartment, could you believe that? (Could I believe that?)

Maybe, when I think about my dog coming into the room, the universe changes, causing the dog to think of coming into the room, for a reason that the dog could relate to. Because the dog has ‘free will’, if it doesn’t come, it’s because he doesn’t want to. But the thought was still there. In a human sense, I couldn’t know the dog wanted to come into the room, until it did. Would I think that I caused it to?

But what if I knew that it was going to come? Would that increase the dog’s desire, and actually make it come to find its toy? Would the dog be aware of why it was wanting its toy at that particular moment in time? Would I even contemplate the fact that I made this happen if I didn’t know about the ‘trick’?

The dog would believe that it wanted its toy, and that’s about it, unless it believed in the ‘trick’, and believed that I also knew the ‘trick’.

But then people (etc) could affect my thoughts too! Maybe that’s what the background din of my consciousness is. But only those (living & dead?) that know the ‘trick’ can focus the thought. Other than that I’m left to my own ‘free will’.

Dealing with inanimate, physical objects would be a little more difficult. Nothing that you’ve ever experienced (except, in a dream, mind you) would lead you to believe that you can convince atomic particles anything. (Except by affecting them physically)

With this ocean of ripple effects, one can either, behave actively, or like a baffle, and absorb the ripple, thus dissipating its energy. Anger is a good example. If I’m (pardon the language, but it fits here) fucking PISSED off at something, and decide to blow up at someone, that person, because they’re (most likely) directing most of their energy towards me, may fail to discover a clue, so now he can’t teach someone else a lesson. Now, because my rage most likely lives inside of this person now, as well, they may, intern, take it out on some one (or thing) else: a driver on the street, his best friend, his kids, the dog, maybe even by punching a brick wall (Lol, I’ve seen this happen before, too. The guy shattered half the bones in his hand. What effects do you think that had?), and the like… he amplified the ripple. Made it bigger, and more powerful, indeed making it ultimately spread, and last (and grow?) until it is absorbed by something. The neutral state seems to be to pass it on.

…And if this person that bore the brunt of my anger, had for some reason (like he decided not to), not caught my anger, and didn’t let it affect him, how would that have effected the proceeding chain of events?

Not catching someone’s anger, when it’s directed at you, is indeed a difficult thing! Because of the way your consciousness processes outside information, the neutral state is to immediately immerse yourself into the situation, you focus on it, and perceive this person as a threat, causing initial feelings of fear (because this person is invading you somehow), and then your brain kicks in the hormones… Adrenalin gives you the energy, strength, and the awareness of your surroundings to either stay and fight, or run like hell! (I think its called) noradrenalin causes you to feel the anger, or the rage. It’s the inspiration if you like.

What happens when you don’t let yourself fall into that situation? If, at that moment, you realize that this person’s anger is most likely stemming from the fact that something else (another ripple) has amplified it inside of this person, and that you’re just, in a manner of speaking, the straw that broke the camels back, and you decide not to choose this battle, would that give this situation a different reality? For all involved? … And for all of the proceeding events stemming from this incident?

How would the other ‘evil’ things affect this ‘ocean of ripples’? Would they all not spread, and amplify in the same way? What would the ‘good’ things do? What would happen if there were NO ripples? If it was as calm as an untouched swimming pool, how long could one ripple last? Could it amplify into a boiling, seething cauldron of ‘evil’? Maybe that explains why the evil things are actually evil. If there was such a character as ‘Satan’, maybe that’s what he was guilty of. He inflicted the original sin that has spread, and amplified, through the ages, causing our present cauldron of ‘evil’ (maybe this is how Revelations fits into the puzzle). Maybe religion was just some sort of damage control device to try to convince us to settle down, and just float over it. Thus allowing the raging storm to dissipate, and loose its energy. I don’t think it’s worked. (Maybe it did, until ‘evil’ got a hold of it, and changed its very meaning.)

I believe that diet plays a major roll in your emotions. If thought depends on emotions, and tags (as described in chapter one), and those tags are what are called neurotransmitters (which are (as they call them) chemical messengers in your brain), then these chemicals have to come from somewhere. You would have to get the materials to make them from your food (or things you’d consume other ways (whatever that entails)).

Now, (because of my ignorance as to what these specific transmitters are actually named, etc.), I’ll call them A, B, C, D, and etc. If a certain combination of transmitters A, B, and C are needed to produce emotion X, then its reasonable to assume that if your body didn’t have enough of, say A to produce this emotion, then you wouldn’t feel emotion X as intended. …But you have to feel something in order for the thought to happen! So, maybe you’d use a separate combination of C, D, and E to produce a similar emotion (though, not the same one) as what would result from A, hoping that that similar emotion will make the connection for you. Whether it does or not depends on a vast array of variables.

You say about predicting your future: Well, this depends on that, and those; and those will only happen if these things happen; but if this happens it will affect it all in this way, etc. How far could you take this? Could it go on forever? Would it ultimately be affected by everything? The whole ocean of ripples? Wouldn’t these variables have to come to an end somewhere? Even if they reconnected back with themselves, as in a cycle? What would happen if you could keep track of ALL of them? You could say: “but you couldn’t, that’s just waaaay too many variables!” …Too many for what? Your neighbor’s cat? Perhaps an ape? Yourself, maybe? The smartest super computer ever imagined? What about God?

Maybe, as “The Hitch Hikers Guide” says, the earth and all of life on it, are really just a giant super computer, designed by mice, to crunch through the variables, and ultimately spit out the ultimate question for the answer to “the question of life, the universe, and everything.”

What might happen if every time you made a statement you secretly asked yourself: “What am I taking for granted with this statement?” You usually learn by building on to what you already know. In order to learn a new fact about something, that something almost has to be assumed correct. When you buy yourself a new CD from your local record store, you’re pretty much assuming that you still actually have a working CD player to play it on. Maybe someone broke in and stole it. What if one of the neighborhood kids accidentally threw a baseball through the window and smashed it? Etc…

How do you know that life is the way it is? Did they say that it happened like that? How much of what they say, can actually be believable? How much do you honestly really question?

Conclusion:

I’ve never understood why they put the authors notes about writing the book in the introduction. That’s a bad place for them. (I have no idea where that came from!)

Writing this, umm…I dunno…book, I guess, if you like, was a journey for me, A Fantastic Voyage (pun intended). The world seemed and looked different after I had finished. It felt different. And I highly recommend taking your own journey. I almost felt as if I’d touched God for a brief time. …Before the doors started to close.
The only true moral that I can pull out of this is: Life isn’t what you think it is, and yet, at the exact same time, it's precisely what you know it is! …And that, maybe it’s not the chimpanzee that’s talking on the cell phone trying to look cool! (Chew on that one for a while, it may help you understand the book!)