« Home | Thought Thinking; or, Recursion I Think » | There was Method to the Rabid Rabbit Rant » | Convergence of Rabbits » | Original Thought vs. First Thought » | A Treatise on Original Thought » | Coincidence and Similitude, the Case for 'is' » | Determinism, Belief, and Free Will » | Playing Full Card Bingo » | Some more fractals » | I Feel Emboldened »

The Elusive Grail Quest; Truth? Purpose? Other?

The introductory mini-story, as told by "The Quotes":

"As one may bring himself to believe almost anything he is inclined to believe, it makes all the difference whether we begin or end with the enquiry, "What is truth?" - Richard Whately

ref: blog "Determinism, Belief and Free Will" in which I propose that all {CONCEIVABLE.....NOT-CONCEIVABLE} beliefs form a single belief collection, from which we each draw our lot.

"The search for truth is more precious that its possession. " - Albert Einstein

ref: blog "Eleventh Out of a Million Plus", wherein I declare "It is our goal as humans, I maintain, to search out these pure options. The fact that we never reach our perfect state (however we perceive it to be) gives purpose to the search, gives birth to faith, and gives trust in quest." {NOT-PERFECT-GOAL.....PERFECT-GOAL}

(an interesting footnote to that blog, where I was pointing out that on a specific google search showing up on statstracker, my blog popped up as 11th on a list of over 1 million hits.) Yesterday, there were three different searches that caused hits on my blog. The search on "reality is for those who lack imagination" put me 5th out of 2.41 million; "theory of binary choice" placed me 4th out of 8.52 million, and "risk def.\" gave me a gold ribbon...1st out of 3.41 million!

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

ref: blog "Original Thought vs. First Thought", wherein I suggest that I become aware of a different context for the English language, where the shapes and relative positioning of letters within certain words give an additional level of understanding, if not meaning to the passage. I see the letters as a 26-character set code, in addition to the normal way of viewing them. I will pursue this view, if by no more than an analogous example as I explore and share my thoughts on the levels of thinking that we engage in. {FUTURE-THOUGHT.....FIRST-THOUGHT}

"A society committed to the search for truth must give protection to, and set a high value upon, the independent and original mind, however angular, however rasping, however socially unpleasant it may be; for it is upon such minds, in large measure, that the effective search for truth depends." - Caryl P. Haskins

ref: blog "Two Oak Tree Challenges" wherein I continued to make the case for uniqueness of the individual, and individual differences, each with our own "acorn of truth" to pursue, with purpose. For what is a society, if it doesn't start with a society of one? And which one doesn't have original mind, however angular? And who isn't, by their mere existence, searching for at least their personal truth, if not a greater or lesser truth? Again, we return to the issue of levels. PREVIOUS-'is'-FUTURE.

So, how did the onion-peeling exercise go last night? That visualization is the analogy I want to refer to in introducing the concept of levels of {thought, existence, understanding, dimension....} here today. For everything, there can be a designated (even if arbitrarily selected) start point {'is'-SEED}. The iSEED of my entire theory, for instance, is the much-referenced tenet 5:

"PART 5 (Generalizing from human specific existence): Every component and aspect of every thing, tangible or otherwise, conceivable or not, in existence or not, in any and every imaginable and unimaginable dimension, space or time, has the following common characteristics:

a) a start (or seed) with the capacity to initiate itself, and, following initialization, re-generate or perpetuate itself.
b) will always consist of a fundamental, first-level, binary growth structure, regardless of its ultimate simplicity or complexity.
c) the mere fact of its existence in whatever form or concept simultaneously creates its precisely exact opposite (which can take either a form of total non-existence, or, alternatively, one of exact replication, clone, or 'mirror' version). Further, its existence includes the possibility of the existence of any and all forms between the two extremes."



With regards to level, let's consider each of the three subsections one at a time.

First, part a): Having selected a start point (which is a hologram of itself, or fractal if you prefer), and the binary choice to initiate itself is made, the direction of the next plot point becomes a factor. Do you "grow up"? Does your mind "regress"? Are you "stepping aside"? Did you take "one giant leap for Mankind"? Similar to the various possible moves of different pieces in chess, the 'is' point can "move" to some other 'is' point simultaneous with its current location (if time is not a variable), or {PAST....NOT-PAST} if time is the variable being observed. In the general case, the next plot of the 'is' dot can be {NOWHERE....NOT-NOWHERE}, {ANYWHERE...NOT-ANYWHERE}, {CURRENT....NOT-CURRENT} and so on. Using the onion, it can jump on any and every elevator and go anywhere and everywhere, all at the same time if desired. The onion exists as a single, complete entity. You're holding it in your hand, after all. Take a look! Remember, the concept of SIMULTANEOUS that I discussed in relation to the rabbits is simply a slice of totality in the 'is' moment. It's a freeze-frame
of 'is'.

So the regeneration or perpetuation of itself can follow any pattern that is inherently available within the seed, and therefore end up anywhere else. In schooling, for instance, we go to Grade 1, then Grade 2, 3, 4 and so on, occasionally interrupting the linear sequence to "skip to a higher level" or "stay longer" at a current level, or "leave" the sequence altogether. It is also possible to be "put back" to a previous level, or put onto an "alternative" stream that will get you to the same place by a different route, or collection of levels.

If you're riding the onion elevator, and its levels represent "truth", by picking and choosing the elevators you will ride, which connections you make, where you get on and off, where you think you're headed, you will at each and every 'is' moment be in the presence of your soultion (in this case, not a spelling error, because a "quest for truth" is more of a "soul" level quest than a "mental" or "physical" one).

Note: That is the first example of the "letter/word" level of interpretation that I often see coded into English words, to which I referred at the start of this blog, and in several earlier ones. There will be more of it unfolding as situations arise. As an aside, the intriguing thing to me is that these apparently mis-typed words are not "intentionally typed". It's when I go back to proof-read and make corrections that I find them...almost as if they are inherently part of my language, a level that exists within me that I wasn't previously aware of. I attribute this most likely to the fact that it has always been labelled as "wrong" by those who were in a position to make such judgements { teachers, proof readers, dictionaries.....}, and so I have suppressed it.

Secondly, part b): Having regenerated itself, and not yet having "moved" from itself, it really only has a single binary choice. Do I stay, or do I go? Once the decision "to go" has been taken, the complexity of the existence becomes quickly lost in the infinity of infinities of possible movements it can make. It can move "laterally" (i.e. stay in the present moment, but go simultaneously to some other current moment spot), it can move "up" {into the future, to higher ground, into the unknown area outside the onion, into unexplored spaces within the onion....}, it can move {out, in, down, through, later.....} and it can move {in single step, jumps, alternate form, through time....}

But here's the interesting part. Just as in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely converted from one form to another. It would be mildly preposterous if my theory, which I'm proposing to be a Universal Theory, didn't support and include that which we already know or at least assume to be so. Of course, because it is Universal, it also simultaneously includes the negation of what we know, or assume to be so....or at least allows for the possibility of it being so. Therefore in 'is', an 'is' point always exists in totality, containing itself and all else that 'is'. The old hologram concept again. No matter where a dot "goes" nor for what purpose, the capacity always lies within it to reverse engineer itself and "find its way back to where it came from".

What goes up, must come down kind of thinking. Catch the same train back home, going the other way. Take the elevator down that you rode up. Mark milestones along your way if you wish, but it's not necessary to rewalk your path. We followed thoughtlines backwards in earlier blogs. They don't have to be thoughtlines that you were originally engaged in, either. I doubt that many of you who might be reading this have shared the same sequencing of thoughts as I'm expressing here, even though you've possibly shared many of the same thoughts. Our journeys are different, we are uniquely different. And yet, given our completely disparate paths that got us here right now at this moment, here we are.

But, given any two randomly chosen people, they will have something in common at some point. Extending that, given any n people, they will have something in common at some point. Given the complexity of points after the first point (the seed), the point of commonality will always lie within a seed point. That's where coincidence occurs, and it's the only place where coincidence can occur.

Now here's the kicker. If you trace back your thoughts (use the giant sucking vacuum cleaner to speed up the process if you like, you'll be left with your first thought. That is not to say it is an original thought....probably untold gazillions of people and other entities have had the thought before you {"Ma, my diapers are soaked", expressed as "Whaa!" verbally, or "Whoa, who turned on these lights, and why is this guy holding me upside and spanking my ass?"}. Now that's just one tiny little thought out of all the thoughts that have existed, will exist, or can't exist. Turn on the enhanced super-duper ShopVac sucking machine, instead of your own personal little model, and you end up with original thought. The one and only. And all our thoughts have evolved from that one thought, containing everything, which gave birth to itself, as all our thoughts do, each one also containing the equivalent-to-the-concept-of-DNA of everything.

That's why I made a case for plagarism in an earlier blog. It's all there, somebody's made it in a format that is recorded for others to {see, have access to, study, understand, use...} so why waste your body-life time (which we know is one of the few finite things there is) re-doing what has already been done. Get on with something else. Fill in another piece of the puzzle. If you feel like it. But stop accusing me of "cheating" if I borrow a sequence of symbols that someone else put down before I did. "Cheating" is a letter sequence that has a built-in assumptive of dishonour, of judgement. Words, to be properly used in an analysis must exist to {discriminate, discern, dissect, individualize, describe differences and uniqueness....}, not to judge. At least 'is'-WORDS will function that way. To say, for instance, that my thoughts aren't worthy of considersation "because they are sourced in a mind thst someone else has labelled as being contained in a body called 'bipolar' ", is a ludicrously spiteful, vacuous and hateful judgement. To say I am 'bipolar' is a statement of fact or opinion, depending on what you consider the word to represent. In any case, it is a simple use of a descriptor which distinguishes me from those to whom you choose not to apply the same descriptor for whatever reason.

Thirdly, part c): With the existence of each 'is' dot (complete within itself), there exists, as its own complement, everything that isn't. It's the missing bunny's arse that I talked about yesterday. If you are working on a 4000-piece jigsaw puzzle, and only have 1000 pieces in the box, the other 3000 pieces still exist to make up the whole picture. It's just that {they may not be available, have been burned, are mixed up in another box, aren't turned face side up yet, exist in an alternate universe......}. Their existence is a given, even if it's in a form that you weren't expecting, or frustrates you.

I would suggest, from an 'is' perspective, it's more the norm than otherwise that the "missing" component of completeness is the source of such things as {conflict, war, aggression, frustration, negative n...} because we far too often default ourselves to just the part of the whole that we are aware is present in the "good" sense, and assume that the full solution will be attained by spreading the "existing good" over a wider area. 'is' suggests, counter-intuitively to that, that the full solution is rather attained by {minimizing the threshold that 'is' represents, narrowing the width of the gap in the broken circle, shrinking the difference between {ANYTHING...NOT-ANYTHING}.....}. In order to "include" what we perceive to be the missing part, our personal holy grail, we must cross the boundary between the two. That boundary is what 'is' refers to as the threshold, and it is the zone {of turbulence, of chaos, of friction, of difference, of misunderstanding, of hatred, of violence.....}. The narrower we can make the threshold, the less turbulence we will have to stickhandle. Not at all coincidentally, it is this same zone of change between states that gave birth in the last few decades to the rise of Chaos Theory, and is the zone where scientists are finding ordered and patterned mathematical proofs and scientific identities to explain and predict what were formerly considered either small anomolies or significant experimental breakdowns, depending which filter it was being observed through.



So essentially, our "search for the holy grail", whatever word you personally substitute for 'grail' {success, wealth, white picket fence, PEACE....} will never be completed until we accept that what we are searching for is exactly that which we do not want, or have rejected. It's the missing bunny's arse. It's the part we have consumed, the inner part, and so consumes us.

We don't seek the missing pieces of the puzzle....we have them already. We seek an understanding that we are in search of the line between the two which gives us balance. Like the highwire act in the circus, we lean this way and that, dipping one side and the other, but we really want to stay on the wire in beween...the line of self-actualizing fractalized dots. Dots that are complete within themselves, no matter which ones we uniquely chose to examine and explore on our individual and collective journeys.

So, is the grail quest so elusive, after all? Not if you look in the 'right' places, and the default system {yours, nature's, god's, essence's.....} of 'is' always selects 'right' as the answer to any binary question posed. There 'is' no other choice, for the act of selecting any choice makes it the right choice of the moment, the right 'is' choice.

What is truth?

"I've learned that people are about as happy as they decide to be." - Age 79



This post didn't help me. I'm more confused than ever.

Sorry.....!!

http://www.soulinvitation.com/realgrail
grail physics

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me