Tuesday, December 1, 2009

1 Before the Beginning...


     Before the beginning, before space and time, there was nothing but pure consciousness. And consciousness had neither pattern nor form, only awareness. Then consciousness had a thought which unfolded into countless dimensions. This multi-dimensional metaverse still lacked space and time but it now quivered with limitless mathematical potential.
     Then consciousness had a particular thought. In a twinkling, our entire universe was imagined in the fullness of its complexity, from the tiniest quanta through the greatest astral body; every animal, vegetable, and mineral; every element; every thing. At the moment this thought occurred, the metaverse vibrated with every organizing principle needed to shape and sustain space and time, energy and mass.
     All was in ideal balance. Every system was theoretically in tune; every function perfectly performed; the consequence of every action anticipated, understood, and plotted to the nth degree. And it was all good.
     Having had this thought, the metaversal consciousness focused inward, and that concentrated thought became a singular point of limitless energetic potential—enough to seed our universe. On this day that time began, consciousness wrapped itself around the expanding space of our universe, forming a border between us and infinity. God’s mind took on a shape.

8 comments:

  1. Could this process happen in our minds, do you think? Say, if our own consciousness had a particular thought, could we create, within our own mind, a sort of world that is coherent and stable? Could we create a world that we could willing navigate between that one and one that god breathed into existence?

    13

    ReplyDelete
  2. Greetings, 13.
    Thank you for your thoughtful and fascinating questions.
    Theoretically, I would say "yes," we could create another world within our world. Here is why I say this: I have noticed that the Simple Explanation model works on all scales, from microcosmic to macrocosmic, therefore I would expect us clever humans to be able to replicate creation on a human scale. Surely all creatures do this when they make babies--the seeding of new life into a waiting womb creates a new gathering of material populated by plenty of Units of Consciousness to go along with the new material. But this is different than what you are asking, because the parent does not retain personal consciousness through the offspring's Unit of Consciousness--once a UC splits off, it has a mind of its own.
    Approaching your question from another angle, couldn't we say that a novelist creates a world and then goes in and out of it at will as they write their characters' stories? The difference here, of course, is that the characters do not have actual Units of Consciousness--the novelist's creations are more along the lines of memes than UCs.(see meme discussions 7 & 8.)
    Thinking about the holodeck in the Star Trek universe, those fictional creations that populate the background of the holodeck are sometimes depicted as having UCs that exist independently of the creator's story. Perhaps in that case, the more complex and well-created the "world within the world," the greater likelihood of independent consciousness in the creations. Authors often speak of their characters as if they were deciding their own fates, rather than the novelist writing them, but I doubt they really believe their characters are self-aware.
    Okay, I'm drifting here--ask another question to focus and clarify, if you'ld like to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I am talking about something that is more like a holodeck than something like Harry Potter. Though I can't really say that my "world within the world" is something that is my own creation. I can't even claim to know which UC(s) created it (or even how it was created). However,it is maintained by the UCs that inhabit it. The UCs that inhabit it have the ability to create and destroy within that world, in a way they can't in this world.

    Something you said about the creations that inhabit the background of the holodeck programs made me think of something. As a UC that inhabits my world within a the world, I have the ability to create things like birds, dogs and horses. If the animals behave as birds, dogs and horses, then how can I tell if they are figments of my creations or if they have UCs? I guess it doesn't really matter. Though it would be more difficult to ignore the animals if I thought they were self-aware.

    13

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps when UCs are attached to a particular body of matter in the usual sense, that material world is the one they inhabit or think they inhabit. You probably know that Yoga philosophy proposes this physical plane is all a dream (maya). In that case, the only "real" thing is these Units of Consciousness. The material plane, then, is nothing more than a metaphorical projection of expectations of what this world should be like--one we all generally agree upon to be "real." If this is the case, then our so-called material world is no more real than some other world UCs may find themselves in. ... continued on next comment....

    ReplyDelete
  5. In our night time dreams, we animal UCs create other creatures and props in our dream worlds. I don't think anyone would claim these dream creatures are self-aware. They are probably aspects of the dreamer's soul or karma or meme bundles being metaphorically expressed as these dream creatures. "Projections" of the dreamer.
    That's dreaming and the dream world.

    Yogic philosophy claims this entire universe and all we who are in it, are simply projections of the God's mind UC. Since we are self-aware, we are not memes in God's dream but rather UC echoes of the God mind.

    As you are a self-aware UC, you are nobody's projection. If the others that inhabit your private world are also self-aware, then my first thought would be you all are inhabiting a different shell than the ordinary material world shell--a different plane of existence not attached to outcomes in the "here and now" material world. This wouldn't be much different in concept than thinking about where UCs "go" after the death of their material bodies. That astral, non-material plane of existence some people call heaven. Perhaps you and the other UCs in your world are sharing a "space" normally inhabited by non-incarnated UCs.... How you have managed to share a single human body is the puzzle.
    Does any of this make sense to you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, it makes sense to me. I like the idea of all the animals in my world being projections. That's basically what we treat them like.

    Hmmm...a different shell than the ordinary material world shell. I like that. That is why I asked you if the body has a UC. I and the others don't necessarily feel any particular attachment to this body. That is to say, we don't feel any particular ownership over it. In a way, I guess you could say that we are UCs that need this material body to interact with the material world. That is the way we we look at it, anyway.

    We don't necessarily need a body in our own world, however we do choose to have one. But most of us don't look like the body that we share. Also, we can change the way our body looks in our world. So it really makes sense that our world would share a space normally inhabited by non-incarnated UCs.

    How we have managed to share the same body? Who knows. But it's definitely a good thing.

    13

    ReplyDelete
  7. Glad it's making sense to you.

    It is the UCs that are replicated waveforms of the original universal consciousness. These UCs do not die when the flesh dies but go back into the hopper for another go around (if you buy reincarnation; otherwise they go into the astral hopper awaiting the end of the universe (if you buy the Christian model). Point being, that your body is transitory and only good for this one use. IF your UC was to reincarnate, it would be the same old UC but into a new baby body. When we take a long view of UCs and bodies like this, your current body isn't all that important--it's just the meat you're attached to currently.

    ReplyDelete