Wirehead Studios

I think we have many times agreed to disagree on exactly the account that pops up here, so maybe it should  be familiar. On that note, I have to again stress that I've never intended to claim certainty, just to deny certainty (in a self-aware paradoxical position of appearing to be certain about uncertainty -- perhaps a bit like being tolerant seems like intolerance of intolerance).



I shall try again, as I don't agree with your claims about me contradicting myself, and see no other way to work it out than by painting a whole and better picture. Here's another attempt to sketch the general picture that I've been working up to.


I take a basic position in every day life, for pragmatic reasons. This is the basic outlook that I use to stay alive, to remain able to converse with others, and so on. It is ofcourse not the same kind of 'using' as wearing a pair of trousers, since I cannot control it fully (it may well be that it controls me, for the most part). I can, however, allow myself to use it to be able to reason, in the following sense:
I cannot give grounds for allowing the principle of non-contradiction to be true. It even seems to be incorrectly expressible, as "a or ^a" shows two different "a"'s, and the supposed shared identity of those I cannot express or understand. However, I allow myself to accept it, and along with it a minimal set of logical laws and uses of language, and so forth. If I would not, I would go (more) insane, could not keep myself alive and could not communicate succesfully with anyone.

The choice to accept, limit or uphold such a position is itself not a matter of absolute conviction: it could happen to me that at some point, I lose my true agnostic outlook, and refuse to question it. I'm not claiming infallibility here, but I strive to keep my choice in this as clear as I can keep it, to and for myself.

Underneath it, metaphorically speaking, lies groundlessness. Endless regress, inability to provide proofs, inability to express (or at least communicate) the limits of language, and so on. This is what I referred to as the 'lack of orientation'. There is no up or down, no 'up' or 'down'. Without all orientation, there is no meaning, no rules of logic (no possibility of consistency or contradiction), no means of communication, no sense of judgement, and so forth. Obviously, a big part of the paradox (or the collection of paradoxes related to it, and I have a hunch we are both at least on some occasions confused about which one the other (tries to) speak(s) of..). This goes, for lack of ways to describe it, beyond .. well, anything. I cannot believe in it, because belief is meaningless in it, I cannot put it at the same level, or compare it with the basic position I describe above, for it does not have any point of direction or orientation to allow for comparison.
I don't mind calling that 'simple' or 'complex', to be honest, since neither word applies. That said, I have no idea if that is the unexpressible thing that you refer to, and obviously I'm fairly sure I have failed utterly to refer (succesfully) to it.

Hopefully it will now be clear that when I make a claim, I do it from this basic position. Within the position it has 'relative absolutism', perhaps somewhat like a house firmly planted on the soil of an island floating in a chaotic sea. If I contradict myself in the logic that I accept from this basic position, I admit fault (and I do regularly slip up, and, where pragmatic, accept the consequences--In court I would not be found refuting laws of logic).
When it comes to matters that I have no pragmatical reason for accepting (such as the truth or falsehood of any religion, the existence or inexistence of immaterial mind(s) or qualia, and so forth), I suspend judgement and keep it purposedly out of the basic position, as best I can. I should also stress here that with 'pragmatical' I do not accept the connotations of 'cold calculation' or 'heartlessness' and the like. Emotions, love, and the like still play a role in what I currently call my basic position.

That said, it is unusual for me to be caught making a claim too boldy, even in light of this. I admit it annoys me when that happens, but I guess it can't be escaped; every drunkard is sober once in a while.


Now, to apply all this to the matter of externalism vs. interalism: when trying to express whatever the equivalent of 'possibility' is in nihilistic lack of orientation, I hazard to say that sure, anything is possible. It may also be that there is no time, and that all there 'is', is an externalist position for us, that is mistaken to be internalist and spatio-temporal. Ofcourse I'm allowing for the possibility (and paradoxically, for the inexistence of such possibilities).

The above is all bollocks ofcourse, since it is an attempt to express something I don't think it can express -- but enough about that. From the basic position, matters are different. Allowing logic and basic empirical 'factuals', I come to the conclusion that the validity of externalism (or more precisely, the possibility of proving externalism to be a means of valid inference) is incoherent with the logic that I accept, and thus false.


Am I now contradicting myself? I would allow that, if I am going in against the laws that I have accepted in the basic position, when reasoning within it. Don't get me wrong, I don't simply hop 'out' of the basic position when it suits me, or change (insofar as I am actually able to) the laws of logic that lead to contradictory conclusions. I don't think I even stray from any of the commonly accepted 'canons of logic', for instance. Not ever intentionally, anyway. So, if you can point out the contradiction in the sense of there being an incoherent claim as part of the basic position that I'm trying to keep coherent, point it out. It would help me very much indeed, since I would probably (try to) adjust the whole to be more coherent, and thus, more practical and perhaps less prone to other inconsistencies.

If, however, you detect contradiction between my admittedly flawed expressions of the 'nihilism' I've described and my 'basic-position' claims, then wonder no further. There are bound to be. In fact, there cannot be and there must be, .. etc.


I don't think I've ever fully attempted to put this in words. Perhaps I should not have allowed it to be put up so rashly, ill-worded and vulnerable. But hey, there it stands. If this does not convey adequately what it tells me when I read it back, I will hold off on further attempts, until perhaps I have learned more, or found better words or metaphors.

I wouldn't say this has helped me to understand what I spoke of above (the unexpressable).  As I had said before, I believe I already do, even if you disagree, which is alright.  It does, however, help me to understand where your mind is and why.  It gives me insight into your thinking, though I cannot subscribe to it nor adopt it.

I don't really think I can add to or subtract from what you've said above, as from my perspective, you are being as forthright as you can be, and can allow yourself to be considering the degree of uncertainty with which you proceed from.  I will, however, take the opportunity to make a bit of a jab at this statement:


You are, I think, familiar with a bible passage concerning building one's house on the sand, as opposed to building it on a rock? ;)

My thinking is quite different.  As I said, I deal in absolutes.  If you are interested in me laying out this perspective, I might be able to try to do so after some sleep, but not right now as one thing I am certain of is that I am tired and in need of rest.  If you are uninterested, then I am not offended, and shall say no more unless you ask it of me.[/color]

Hehe, I have seen it before. My only alternative right now is not to have any house at all. To build it is to build it without knowing whether rock is not sand and/or the other way around. Ehr, I guess that is about as far as the metaphor went..


I am interested. By all means, present your perspective.

Very well then.  I will lay out what I think cover the most basic points as it pertains to this discussion.  I will need time to organize it and condense it, as I've never really committed any of my understanding to writing in this manner.

I am not trying to "prove" something here, nor present a case that is logically indestructible, nor unquestionably convincing.  Rather, I simply try to convey a shadow of my own understanding of the most fundamental part of the nature of existence.  I will try avoiding analogies and parables even though I tend to be fond of them, and I will not include my own experiences with life and death as a template.  I will attempt to do this from as much of an objective standpoint as possible, but I will have to interject my own perceptions at points as they play a vital part in this since this is, after all, coming from me and no one else save that which may work through me.  I will use standard text so it is easier to read.  This turned out to be much lengthier than I intended, and some parts are not as clear as I would like, but I am limited by the constraints of text and the English language.  Would that I could just squawk and make people understand...

Reality
There is exactly one Reality.  The suggestion of alternative realities are mere suggestions, for should an alternative reality exist, it still is part of the whole of Reality.  Reality, therefore, encompasses any and all things.  Non-existence would simply be a lack of presense as part of Reality.  Nothing outside Reality can exist, or it too would be contained within the definition of Reality.  For clarity's sake, Reality is inclusive of both God and Creation in the classical sense.  This is inclusive of the entirety of time, not just the present arrangement of space and matter, energy and all else.  Reality would be defined as the entirety of all existence.  By this definition then, Reality is a "superset of all things", and it is by this definition I shall proceed, or nothing else I portray from this point will be of any use.

Truth and Perception
There is exactly one Truth, as there is exactly one Reality.  Reality can only be one way - exactly as it is.  Therefore there can exist only one Truth.  Truth is constant.  However, it does not have to be all encompassing at all times.  All parts of Truth are True, just as all parts of Reality are said to be Real.  Perception, however, is infinitely variable.  Perception is dependent upon Truth for its existence.  Without Truth, there is nothing to perceive.  Truth, like Reality, is absolute by its very nature.  Perception can never be absolute*, but can come closer to Truth or drift farther from it.  In this Perception is mutable.  Truth is not.  The idea that Truth is mutable, or non-existent, is constrained within the mutability of Perception.  Truth and Reality are inexorably tied to each other and inseparable from each other.

Awareness
Awareness is that which enables Perception.  Just as without Truth, there is nothing to be perceived, so without Awareness there is nothing to perceive it.  Awareness, by its very nature, must perceive.  Thus, Perception and Awareness, like Truth and Reality, are inexorably linked.  One cannot exist without the other.

Consciousness
Awareness that can respond to Perception is Consciousness.  Consciousness not only perceives but internalizes what it perceives.  Consciousness also has a motivating factor, which is called Will.  Will acts from without to drive Consciousness.  The combination of outside Will, and internalized Perception generated through Awareness is what is commonly called the Mind.  Without Will, Awareness could only be static - aware but incapable of response.  The Conscious Mind combines Will, Awareness, and Perception into what is called Thought.  Thus, there are three conditions for the Conscious Mind to function.  The mechanisms by which Perceptions are obtained are inconsequential here.  It is simply sufficient that Perception can be obtained.

The nature of Thought
Thought is the product of the application of Will to Perception gleaned through Awareness.  Whereas Awareness is merely a form, and Perception is merely a limited reflection of Truth, and Will is merely a force, Thought is an application.  Thought uses Perception to restrain, alter, or intensify the influence of Will, and conversely allows Will to act in relation to Perception.  All of this affects and mutates the form of Awareness.  Through Thought, Consciousness is capable of perceiving itself, and thus, self-awareness is possible.

The nature of Will
Awareness can be aware of itself, can be aware of its perceptions (this then becomes perception of Perception or self-awareness), but as it is not the source of Perception, it also is not the source of Will.  Will is an external influence to the form of Awareness, not an internal one.  Awareness cannot simply influence itself.  Will acts from outside Awareness to motivate it.  Thought can affect Will, but does not generate it.  It can be easy to confuse Will with intent if one does not properly grasp the definitions I am constraining them to, but they are not the same thing.  Intent is a product of Thought.  Will is the primal impulse that drives Awareness into Thought in response to Perceptions in the first place.  They are not the same thing, though similar since intent is, as a product of Thought, also dependent on Will.  Thus, Will can be perceived from intent, the same as Perception can be perceived from intent, and Awareness as well, the same as intent can be deduced from action.  Now the source of Will is beyond the ability of Consciousness to perceive, the same as the source of Awareness, but that lack of ability to perceive is not itself beyond Perception's grasp.  This leads to a perception of absense, which conversely leads to a perception of a hidden presense.

The nature of the Spirit
The Source of Will must exist for Will to exist.  The Source of Will, external to the Mind but influential to it, is then what we shall call the Spirit.  The Spirit is that which cannot be directly perceived by Awareness.  It is present, it is real, though the only known quality at this point is that it is the Source of Will.  Though it cannot be directly perceived, its effect - the presense of Will - can be.  As well, the existence of Awareness can be confirmed as Awareness can be self-aware.  The Source of Awareness, however, cannot be pinpointed.  This then is what we shall call the Soul - the center of Awareness.  Beyond being the Source of Will, Spirit remains unknown and undefined.**  Beyond being the center of Awareness, the Soul remains unquantifiable.***  As Perception, Awareness, and Will form a trinity of sorts, so does the Spirit, Soul, and Mind also form a kind of trinity.  We will see how this relationship of three is of some significance later.

The Limits of Perception
As the Spirit must exist for a Source of Will, And the Soul must exist for Awareness to not be without a center, then too must Reality extend beyond mere Perception's ability to convey.  That this is demonstrable is as simple as perceiving something one did not perceive a moment ago.  Visiting a new localle or tasting a new food qualifies enough to satisfy this principle.  The problem is encountered when one's expectations begin to get in the way.  Expectations are formed from a recurring and unaltering pattern of perceptions.  The sky is blue today, the sky was blue yesterday, the sky will be blue tomorrow, and so on and so forth.  If one only encountered white people in their life, one might expect all people to be white when in truth people come in many colors.  This is where the disparity between Perception and Reality becomes both identifiable, and also paradoxical.  One would think that the more one perceives, the closer to Truth one would get.  That can be so, but since Thought involves recursion, the one more perceives only the same things the more one's expectations of those things being constant become heightened.  As this pattern becomes ingrained, rejection of Truth becomes possible when Truth is perceived to be in contradiction to this expectation.  A child has very few expectations when they are very young.  An old man has many expectations.  A child can more easily see new things and accept them at face value than the old man since the child has not perceived the same things many times over.  So then, Perception, while conveying characteristics of Truth, is not where the fault lies, but rather Thought applied against the Perception is at fault.  In this then, self-deception is possible.  Through Awareness and Thought, the limitations inherent in Perception become realized in the form of contrary expectation.

Truth or Lie?
Intent is a product of thought, but also, as Thought is recursive in nature, influences thought.  When confronted with perceptions, intent can be to either seek Truth, or not to seek Truth, which is then denial of Truth.  If one favors expectations over perceived Truth, that is self-deception.  That is not to be confused with perception being in error!  Incorrect perception is just what it is, and can be adjusted with new perceptions to bring it closer to Truth.  Understanding is mutable so long as expectations do not limit its response to new perceptions.  An erroneous perception is not intentionally incorrect, it is just incorrect by its nature.  Self-deception, however, requires intent.  This intent involved in self-deception is to purposely reject Truth, since to reject the Perception of Truth is to also reject the Truth that Perception attempts (imperfectly) to convey.  In that it is observable that all self-deception is an intentional product of Thought, for perception has no intent of its own.  Thus, while Truth is simply the fundamental property of reality, lies are wholly deliberate and intentional and possible only through the process of Thought.  Thus, self-deception through expectation - expectation being a belief of correctness - is shown to be the first logical flaw found in Reality.  This flaw in Reality is what we commonly refer to as Pride - placing one's own belief and expectation, one's own thought, above and in place of Truth.

The Paradox
Perception is an incomplete and therefore inaccurate reflection of the Truth.  This was already established.  This is Error, and Error is unavoidable unless Perception and Truth be congruent.  That is impossible unless Truth perceive itself absolutely, which we know not to be the case or only one Perception and exactly one Perception would exist.***  Through the mechanism of Thought, lies are now a part of Reality, and thus, their existence part of Truth.  Since Reality is a superset of all things, and Truth is the absolute state of Reality, a paradox now exists within Truth and Reality.  This paradox MUST somehow be resolved or else Truth itself is false, which in itself is yet another paradox as, with the existence of lies, it must already be shown to be false, but by its very nature, is not false.  That the paradox can exist in the first place is paradoxical in and of itself since Truth can only be an absolute.  Thus, paradox begets paradox.  Irrationality can now be observed to be part of Reality.  Reality, while absolute, has become self-contradictory and is shown to be flawed, while being at the same time perfect, the same as Truth is absolute while still containing lies.  Thus we see, through the very Awareness that is needed to perceive Reality, Reality itself was made into trouble.

The Dichotomy
The Conscious Mind then can be observed as a vessel, gleaning Truth through Perception, and carrying Awareness along to one of two possible destinations - toward Truth, or away from Truth, based purely on its own intent.  Thus, Mind will gravitate toward one or the other.  There can be no other ultimate choices beyond this, except that they relate to this.  This then is the dichotomy that arises from the Paradox - while Thought generated the paradox, it also has the power of decision that resulted from it.  Choice then is both a result of the Paradox, and the cause of it.  Thus we see the paradox again multiplied by itself.  This is the presently observable state we know the observable part of Reality to be configured.

Expression and Communication
Thought can generate intent, but intent translated into outside action is known as expression.  Expression of Thought can take many forms and is limited only be the mechanism through which expression can occur.  The most common observable forms of expression in animals and humans are vocalization, or physical movements known as "body language".  Expression of Thought could be an attempt at Communication, but does not have to be, as while Communication requires a recipient, Expression does not.  Actual Communication occurs when the intent of one Mind is conveyed successfuly to another Mind.  This is not the same as attempts at Communication.  Expression does not require comprehension or even another Awareness to perceive that Expression.  Successful Communication requires both.

Communication and Language
Communication requires comprehension, but in order for comprehension to occur, some mechanism must exist for one Mind to perceive in part what another Mind already has perceived on its own without necessarily directly perceiving the same thing.  This mechanism is what we call Information.  Information is, in this sense (and the sense in which I will refer to it) "that which can align two things the same way".  In its simplest sense, that is what all information does is cause a replication of a pattern.  DNA is genetic "information" in the same way moving electrons through the a computer are "information".  Information, for my purposes of illustration, is what is used for Communication to take place.  Like perception, Communication can occur with differing levels of precision and through differing mechanisms.  It can be as simple as a shout, a hand gesture, a growl, a scream, or as complex as a university lecture.  Language then would be a defined set of parameters by which Communication of a specific nature can occur.  "Body Language" would be defined as physical posturing to convey mood or intent of action.  Growls, snarls, hisses, etc, while not classically defined as "language" do convey information and successfully communicate hostility across many species, and therefore qualify as a Language under this definition, though not a specifically defined one in the human sense.

Non-Lingual forms of Communication
It is observable that, through Languages of one form or another, either universally primitive or else associatively learned, Communication can and does occur.  In this, what is contained within one Mind can be conveyed to another without both having access to the same part of Truth that generated the initial perception in the first Mind.  However, in order for information to be conveyed, language is not always necessary.  Information can also be raw.  Raw information would be in the form of a photograph, or recorded sound, or some other reflection of the initial pattern.  The precision of the information will not be the same - degredation is always present, as also the filter of the limitations of the second Mind's physical means of perceiving will differ - but the result is usually sufficient for the second Mind to "get it".  In this, not all Communication is lingual, and lingual forms of communication are not always the most effective forms.

Effectiveness of Differing Forms of Communication
Communication can only be effective if three conditions exist.  First, the initial Mind that is inclined to Expression must have access to a delivery mechanism for information, and must be able to convert this Expression into Information.  This can include a raw form, as I mentioned above.  Second, the Mind receiving the Communication must also have access to this Information.  Third, the second Mind must be able to process the Information so that comprehension can occur.  Without all three conditions, Communication will fail.  Failure here includes gross misinterpretation as well as inability to comprehend.  This then places constraints on the two minds to the "lowest common denominator".  Otherwise Communication cannot be effective.  A college lecture on the undesirability of urination on fire suppression equipment may be useful for influencing college students' behavior, but will not stop a dog from peeing on a fire hydrant however long it may sit in the lecture hall.  Striking either the college student or the dog during the attempt of said act will probably get the point across, whether or not it stops the action, the Communication would be fairly universal and required only a physical interaction.  So it can be surmised that the most complex and precise forms of Communication are not always the most effective ones.  Conversely, you will never teach someone the principles of magnetic fields in electrical engineering by swatting them repeatedly with a newspaper.  It can be observed then that differing forms of Communication are useful and necessary depending upon the ability of the communicants and the kind of information being conveyed.

Super Perception
If Communication is achieved through the use of Information, then I must now go back and revisit our old friends Perception and Will and Awareness.  As I said, Will has a source outside of Consciousness, and the other characteristics of this Source of Will remain as yet undefined.  What then are we to say if a condition exists where a Perception of two separate Minds is congruent without an apparent exchange of Information within the perceivable realm?  How was this anomalous Perception achieved?  There are two possibilities:  The first is both Minds perceived the same portion of Truth.  The second is that Communication took place outside of the realm of normal perception.  For our purposes, we have only governed Communication within the ream of observable Perception.  What then of this Spirit realm, of which we as yet know nothing about?  If the Will acts externally upon Consciousness, what then might act upon the Source of Will?  Can Awareness be affected by something other than its own Perception?  Perceptions thus gained in this manner - be it from one Source of Will to another, or by some means or source even alternative to that - would then be known as Super Perception since such perceptions are gained outside the definition of normal Perception.  The difficulty lies in observing Super Perception from a functional standpoint since, by its very nature, it must occur outside of the normal means of Perception.

Real or Unreal?
This is where Expectations come back into play.  Reality is, as I stated before, a superset of all things.  This includes errors, lies, and perceptions of all kinds, and anything that would be occuring in this as yet undefined Spirit realm (and whatever other realms exist).  In this, Super Perception is also included should it be occuring.  The problem is this.  If information is gained through Super Perception, and is then found to be congruent with what can be perceived in this universe, usually it runs smack into the wall of expectation, and thus often dismissed as coincidence or chance.  When it is incongruent with expectation, or when the probability of chance as an explanation becomes remote, then reality itself (or rather, the expectations of the behavior of reality) begins to come into conflict with expectation.  One or the other must fail, either expectation or Reality, again, if this be occuring.  Usually the result is that the person conveying the Information about something apparently anomalous is dismissed by his peers because of their expectations to the contrary.  The expectations therefore can be safely maintained while the information is rejected.  Unfortunately, this leads all concerned parties further from Truth and not closer to it, while appearing to do the opposite.

The Larger Picture
Reality, as I said, encompasses all things.  Awareness then is slowly perceiving Truth, while being part of Truth, while at the same time introducing flaws into the Reality of Truth, as covered in The Paradox.  Awareness is aware of itself, but also aware of the existence of other Awarenesses.  One question is whether or not all Souls - centers of Awareness - are entirely independent of each other.  As the universe begins to understand itself, it is also understanding that its understanding is imperfect, and that it, because of this, is also imperfect.  This, therefore, leads a larger question.  Is Awareness, or Perception, or Will isolated in the aggregates we call "self", or is it pervasive?  From our perception, each Awareness appears to be independent.  We know, however, that Awarenesses can interact with other Awarenesses through Communication.  It is also conceivable then that if Communication can occur through normal Perception, that one Awareness could effect another through Super Perception as stated earlier.  One thing we do know is that each Awareness that we know of comes into being in the same way.  Through procreation, all living things work together to sustain life.  Life requires life to live.  Like thought, this too is a recursion, but also like the initial paradox, it is pervasive and self-propagating.  If then a pattern is present, one might infer - not be certain, but infer - that this pattern is also pervasive and self-propagating, that within this pattern, one might discover something about the larger whole.

Connections and Exclusions
We know Reality is all encompassing, so then if Awareness be self-propagating through life (at least, the obvious known method we can observe, not necessarily the only method) then something startling can be realized.  First, that all Awareness is, in a sense, connected.  Even if Souls were islands, they still would float in the same sea.  All Awareness is connected because all is part of Reality.  Second, it is that the physical universe does not itself determine Awareness.  Matter itself is not observed to be conscious in and of itself, but any matter, if consumed by a living creature, then becoming part of a living creature's mass, which is then transferred into a new creature through birth, can be associated with a new and independent Awareness.  In this, we see matter is, ironically, immaterial to the independence of Awareness.  There is no "special" matter that is needed to be aware, only special configurations of matter required to sustain its presense within that matter.  Thus, what we call life is simply a patterning of matter that is conducive to being a vessel for Awareness.  Any part of the universe, matter or energy, sufficiently patterned can become "alive" simply by being eaten by something living and being absorbed into its mass.  That this patterning can take an infinitely variable number of forms further demonstrates the immateriality of the matter itself to the needs of Awareness since only the configuration is of consequence.  It can be observed then that the nature of Awareness then governs the forms that can be considered suitable for hosting it.  How effective that Awareness can be at Perception and Thought in one form or another is another concern entirely.

Beginnings
That Awareness is not observed to come into existence except through procreation of Life means there is an inexorable connection between physical life and the Awareness that we have knowledge of.  So through life, Awareness maintains connection to the physical, through which physical it also perceives itself and the physical both.  As Life is not self-generating (one must be born as opposed to springing from a hole in the ground) so too Awareness is not self-generating.  No person alive has made himself to exist.  In this then, one's life must be "given".  So too, one's Awareness must be "given".  It MUST have an external origin and be brought into being by an external action.  In this, we see that all Awarenesses that can be observed within the physical realm, and within physical life, must be brought into being by something other than themselves.  This then is an observable pattern - all life begets life, and all life is begotten of life.  We can safely say Awareness does not begin before life because no person alive today is concretely aware of time before they were conceived.****

Ends
We know of life that it must end.  All living things are observed to die.  The Awareness of that living thing can no longer be observed at that point.  The physical body it occupied no longer perceives, and is then said to be dead.  What then happens to the Awareness?  One of two possibilities.  The Awareness either ceases, or it continues.  This then is where Reality and expectation can run squarely into each other.  Death is usually considered to be a permanent condition, however, it is not always permanent.  There are observable situations where people who have died have come back to life again.  The common expectation says that cannot happen, and often wishful thinking invents explanations that fit in with expectation in order to not deal with what could be an uncomfortable reflection of Truth.  But if it does happen, then the expectation - not Reality - is again at fault.  A person who has died, and has gained perceptions outside of the normal means, and retained them within their normal Awareness, which they regained after coming to life again, has now demonstrated that Awareness can continue beyond the constraints of the physical.  The only question is whether or not this person's Perceptions were accurate.  This accuracy can be better determined when more than one person observes the same or similar things.  It may be easy to say the person simply had not really died completely.  I find this curious as a person simply asleep or rendered unconscious through anesthetics can be less aware than someone having a "near death experience".  If a dying brain is to blame, then I would think a person would be permanently damaged beyond the ability to convey such vivid and clear halucinations, much less have them in the first place.  Still, it is not my point to argue for the validity of NDE's, only to illustrate that they represent a potential clue as to the nature of Awareness after physical death, should at least some of them be valid.

Beyond the Mundane
So what then do we know of Awareness?  Does it end?  If it ends, what does it become?  If it simply returns to being some vague part of the universe, then in a sense it still continues and whatever it had been before becomes part of something else, much as the matter from a plant can become part of an animal.  So then Awareness still continues in a sense - it simply returns to its original source.  The question is more correctly concerning the identity and individuality of the individual Awareness in question.  We know Awarenesses to be individual, this can be observed.  If that then continues after death, as the possibility exists and there is some evidence supporting, then the possibility must also be considered that Awareness can exist not just after physical life, but also entirely separate from it.  This then brings us back to the question of the nature of the Spirit.  We know Spirit to act externally from "someplace else".  There is an observable connection between Spirit and Awareness in the form of Will.  If then, Will proceed from Spirit, could it be that Awareness is nothing more than an intrusion of the Spirit into the realm of the Physical?  Logically this would explain a lot, for it would solve not only the mystery of the external influence of Will, but also pinpoint the source of Awareness as well.  It also means the possibility for other kinds of Awarenesses to exist beyond those commonly observed.

Other Forms of Being
This then puts us at a crossroads of existence, and of the concrete and possibility.  Now we have the possibility of entire other forms of existence being possible, but not only possible, also hinted at.  The question is can those other forms of existence be perceived by this present existence?  To answer that, we must refer back to what I said about Communication.  Communication works so long as comprehension is possible.  If then some other form of existence is part of Reality, and if some kind of entity (I do not use the term Awareness for the purpose of differentiation) in this other realm wishes to interact with an Awareness in this physical realm, two mechanisms come to mind.  The first would be Super Perception.  In this, the entity somehow interacts with the Spirit of the Awareness in question.  This is what we would refer to as a "revelation" - something is revealed to the Mind of this Awareness that was gleaned purely through Super Perception.  The second mechanism would be if this entity could somehow communicate with the Awareness on a level the Awareness is capable of perceiving normally.  This then would be called a "visitation".  The possibility and limitations of these occuring are constrained only by three factors - first, if the initial conditions - that is, the base Reality itself - allow for it.  If such a realm, such entities, and these aspects of Awareness (the Spirit, et all) do not exist, then Reality has already precluded it by its very nature and at that point they simply do not happen.  The second condition is that if the first condition is met and they then do happen, that the entity(ies) in question possess the capability to communicate effectively to the Awareness in question.  The third and last condition is that the entity(ies) in question have intent to engage in such communications in the first place.

Manifestations
Then we come to the crux of the matter.  Is there evidence of revelations and visitations?  The answer is a resounding yes.  Accounts exist from every corner of mankind as to the occurence of both.  That people experience them is definitive.  That their perceptions are correct is another matter.  If revelations and visitations do not occur because they are not themselves real, then what exactly did the people who claim to have had them perceive?  They obviously perceived something.  That their perceptions could be in error is a possibility.  That all of them were in error all the time and in the same way... well the likelihood of this diminishes exponentially as the number of reports are analyzed.  Of course, this is assuming everyone is truthful, which they are not, so of course some accounts would be lies.  The possibility that all are either errors or lies is not just statistically improbable, but also brings into question the collective sanity of all living things.  The possibility that some are true is more of interest to me, for, logically speaking, if even just one of these were definitively real and not just an invalid perception, then this is enough to say that some interaction with an alternate existence - along with the entity(ies) in question, can and does occur.  Having it occur is one thing.  Reality "is", after all.  Whether one accepts it or not if it actually is occuring is a question of their own Perceptions, Expectations, and trust in the information others provide about such supposed events.

Cause and Effect
A man desires to build a boat.  His intent then is to build a boat.  The boat cannot come before the intent.  The boat is the result, the effect of action which first originated with Intent, which is a product of Thought, which is spurred by Will.  If living things are governed by Will, then they move with purpose.  If Will exists externally to Awareness, its Source being Spirit, then we now have a very important piece of the puzzle.  All living things are observed to move and function with purpose.  This means at least part of Reality has purpose, both the Awareness, and the physical it occupies, since the Intent of the Mind moves the physical body;  thus the actions of the body reflects the intent of the Mind, and conversely the intent of the Mind can react to its perception of the needs of the body.  "I'm hungry, so I will eat" is realized through the perception of hunger, the intention to do something about it, and the action to fulfill the intent.  In this, Reality then cannot exist entirely without purpose, and if the whole is reflected in the part, we begin to realize that all of it may exist and function with purpose;  that all of Reality could then governed by some kind of Will.  That Will extends from the Spirit into the physical means that this Will would have to be itself Spirit in origin.

Larger Truths and Bigger Lies
Something can be derived from all of this. Revelations and visitations occur, whether real or mass delusion.  If these visitations and revelations be real, then what is communicated through these revelations and visitations should be examined.  They can lead in only one direction or another - toward Truth, or away from Truth.  It can be inferred that beings capable of communicating with and understanding the kinds of Awareness we know of here, but that we cannot directly address of our own volition - that such beings, possessing abilities that exceed our own, also possess perceptions that exceed our own form of Perception.  This then means they will have either a more accurate perception of Truth, or an even more exceeding self-delusion and thus a larger Lie.  The question then is which to believe?  A simple test of logic is this:  The closer one gets to the absolute Truth, the more congruent all perceptions become.  The further away, the more disparate.  In this, testimony would be testable through conditions.  Those conditions are this:  If accounts of the Truth be close to one another under circumstances that would be nearly impossible to generate through perception of anything BUT the Truth, then those accounts are logically reflecting the same thing, even if not reflecting perfectly.  If that facet of Truth can then be observed independently by those to whom the accounts were supplied, then something marvelous has occured which brings the entirety of the pattern within grasp.

Prophecy as Test
It has been said that a good prophet is one whose predictions do not come true.  This is a result of the misunderstanding of what exactly prophecy is.  Prophecy is the revealing of something that cannot be observed until a later time.  The requirement of prophet is that it must be a revelation.  It cannot be the result of Thought in relation to Perception!  It is something communicated from the outside, not deduced or inferred.  Prophecy then - true prophecy - must result in a true prediction.  If a prophecy come true, and come true exactly as foretold, then Truth has revealed itself through the constraint of time.  ONLY Truth could do this, since there can be exactly one and only one Truth.  This Truth would then be the exact future, not a possible future as one might perceive possibilities.  Prophecies can be misread, and misinterpreted, but a true prophecy cannot be foretold incorrectly (or else it wasn't true to begin with).  If then, a prophecy come true, this in itself is part of the larger Truth of Reality.  Truth then, would be shown to have done something that discloses a very, very important piece if the puzzle - that Truth itself has Will.  This is why prophecy is so important, yet sadly is so often overlooked or misunderstood entirely.  If Truth indeed does have a Will, then even greater inferences can be drawn.

Truth as self-revealing
In order to understand the significance of this, we must return to the beginning.  Truth does not require any complex thought to be, it simply "is".  How well one perceives it is governed by limitations, but Truth is, by its very nature, self-evident.  Truth only has to "be".  If one perceives it, that is all that is required is to perceive it properly.  So then the nature of Truth, this self-evidence, would still be present after Awareness through Thought introduced paradox.  Truth then, as self-revealing, is shown to have, in and of itself, purpose simply by its nature in relation to Awareness.  Following this back from the beginning, we can then see that, if self-revealing, this purpose would be in and of itself Will.  We then have encountered the causality for everything else.  Truth perceiving itself perfectly is what we would refer to as God.  Reality then began with God, and was perfect so long as God was all there was.  Once Reality extended beyond God, this non-God reality being what we call Creation, and Awareness was caused to perceive, Reality HAD to become a paradox.  The whole crystal had to crack, so that each facet could see, through its small window, the presense of the whole.  It is easy to see the reflections of the other facets, but from the perspective of the single facet, impossible to see the whole, all while being part of it.  In this, the Reality that God made had to flaw, and those Awarenesses within this Reality could never see the Truth perfectly because of their own imperfections.

The role of Free Will
If then Truth be self-revealing, and the intent of Truth is that Awareness come into being, and perceive Truth, then another inference can be made.  Truth would naturally intend that Awareness understand it accurately and perfectly.  But, this is impossible, right?  Wrong.  Since Truth "is", and Reality "is", the paradox can and will be satisfied, and this is how.  God, being Truth, and being already Perfect, can do something Creation cannot do on its own.  God can cause Creation to become perfect.  This is accomplished by acting upon the Awarenesses within Creation to make their perceptions perfectly congruent with Truth.  The difficulty lies in doing this without destroying Will.  Will, for whatever reason, appears to be an intergral part of this, which actually makes sense if you consider that, Truth having its own will, in reflecting itself, would reflect its own nature (however imperfect the reflection might be) within every facet of the broken crystal of Creation.  Thus, this inherited nature, the "image" of God, if you will, is something that is to be preserved.  Without Will, and Awareness, creatures would be just puppets on strings.  So then, every Awareness has that old choice - to seek Truth, or to shun it.  So then creatures have the choice - become more like Truth, and more like God, or go the other direction and embrace Lie.  Since this Will is something free, the Awareness chooses for itself.  This choice can be influenced, but not made for anyone.

The Role of Satan
The initial flaw in reality I mentioned before was Pride - the favoring of expectation, of self-delusion over Truth.  This first flaw, which was the cause of all other flaws, is the being we call Lucifer, or Satan, or innumerable other titles, but he is the first corruption, the first imperfection, the first crack to form in the crystal of Creation.  For, as his perception of himself became such that he chose to see himself as greater than Truth, by him the flaw was manifested.  This then is why he is referred to as the Father of Lies.  For, it was through his own flaw manifesting that all other flaws became manifest.  All lies begin with Satan.  Therefore, all who favor lies over Truth are said to be "of their father the devil".  This is not just an allegory.  It is a picture of fate.  It is also underlying the nature of the flaw by observing the character of Lucifer.  Lucifer's very name is rooted in light, and brilliance.  His actions after the fall are of deepest darkness.  Through Lucifer, all of the flaw is gathered, and the freedom of choice between Truth and Lie is influenced.  As Truth draws Awareness toward Truth, so Lie draws it toward Lie.  Truth delights in Truth.  Lie delights in Lie.  Thus we see, while corruption and flaw is something undesirable, it is still made to serve a purpose.

The End of Days
Logically, if a goal is to be met, it must be met eventually.  This then is the conclusion of this process.  If Creation is to be perfected, every Awareness - without exception - must either become completely True, or else become completely Lie.  Here is yet one more paradox.  If something be utter Lie, it then becomes utterly False.  This then is the opposite of Truth, but is by its nature self-nullifying.  False cannot be True, but as part of Reality, cannot simply cease to exist.  This then becomes an eternal state - a self-nullifying condition.  All that become utterly Lie will be utterly annihilated, perpetually, existing but not existing, in a paradoxical state of endless purification.  This is called torment - being as far from Truth as is possible, and existing but not existing, in perpetual denial of all things.  Thus, in the end, all that is Reality will become perfect, as God was Truth of its own, so too now all things will be Truth again.  The final paradox will then be fulfilled, but paradoxically, this Reality remains itself a paradox.

Eternity - The Final Paradox
All individual Awarenesses that remain are, in the end, perfected.  They are Truth, as God is Truth, and all Lie has been driven from Truth.  The paradox is fulfilled, the crystal is healed, Reality then is perfected, but, Reality was perfect  all along for Reality is, as I said, the superset of ALL things, from beginning to end - God, the completeness of Time and Creation, both inclusive of all imperfections and exclusive simultaneously.  Just as God, being Perfect Truth, created Awareness that caused imperfection and Lie within this Truth, but yet, simultaneously this Truth remains perfect.  So then Truth, being one perfect perception of itself, becomes many perceptions of itself, yet all, though being separate and unique, begin imperfect but become perfect Truth, while simultaneously the first perfect Truth remains.  Thus, 1 Corinthians 15:28 will be fulfilled, which has prophesied, "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."  (Emphasis mine)  Then, the end of days is finished, and this is where my present understanding must come to a close, for beyond this lies only that which lies beyond the extent of my knowledge.

The Revelation of the Phoenix
This then is my own revelation, which is gleaned from three things:  First, my own perceptions and observations and thoughts throughout time.  Second, through communications of certain information that I perceive to be congruent with Truth (or as close as can be considering).  Third and last, through whatever Truth has deemed fit to reveal to me of its own accord.  In this, the multiplicity of perspectives I've expressed in the past regarding myself I affirm, for in the end, I am part of this larger Truth, the same as all things are.  Because of this, and because of other factors I am not at liberty to discuss for doing so would violate certain trusts, I have access to perspectives not my own.  For, in the end, all things are mine as surely as they are everyone else's that become Truth, but in this present, they are not yet all mine.  Some things are revealed, but not the entirety.  Some things are revealed to me for myself alone, for to me alone they pertain, and some things, like those I have expressed above, were revealed for the benefit of others should they choose to make use of them.  I have not explained everything I know, nor have I meant this to be all inclusive, nor have I tried to explain my own nature, but rather, this writing serves to express what I feel is relevent and useful.  It is there for you to accept, or reject, as anyone sees fit to do.


Notes:
* Within this present configuration of time.

** This is true only is the sense that the Spirit cannot be known and defined purely internally.  It can only be explained or verified externally or through some mechanism other than intrinsic Perception.  

*** The Center of Awareness - not the center of Thought - is what cannot be pinpointed.  The difference may seem subtle, but it is important for not confusing Awareness as simply a brain function.  A brain is capable of functioning without being aware.  The complexities of Awareness and Thought being connected to the brain's functioning is something I do not intend to delve into too deeply here as, while fascinating, would be distracting for the time being.

*** This state of absolute, singular self-realization would be analagous to the initial nature of God prior to the Creation of anything other than God.  "I Am that I Am" would be the declaration of this self-realization.

**** I am not making room for Super Perception here, or "past lives", or other special cases such as special revelation where this statement might be inapplicable.  I am speaking of the commonly observed nature of the majority of oberservable living things, as opposed to anomalies.

Still reading it (I'm not reading it all in one go) -- Impressive story, so far.


I've also taken the liberty to create an image to represent/visualize (part of) my state of mind (http://www.tabun.nl/tmp/coenomaly_2_klein.jpg) (not in relation to Phoenix's post, mind). ;)

Only if you wish to interpret the image in a specific way.

More like misuse of the "/addbot" command.  ;)