When I Ran Out of Ideas

I've written about some pretty amazing ideas on this blog over the years.  I just haven't felt inspired to write anymore in the recent past.  Maybe part of the reason why is that I had to take down some of my most inspired fiction and metaphysical writing.  Not all of it had the answers to the real questions of how it goes together.  I don't have those answers.  I wish I did.

There was a time I was so certain of myself that I believed I had the God's truth for everyone.  I suppose some might consider such a position one of arrogance.  But I could argue anyone in circles over those questions. 

My main spiritual teacher and I have had a closer relationship since the time I wrote a great deal partially inspired by what he taught and definitely inspired in my confidence by my own interpretations of what he taught.  Since then I've found that most of those interpretations were wrong.  This moved me to question myself more fully.

One important point around which the future argument lies and the present conflict exists is the question of equality.  My spiritual teacher believes that any form of hierarchy is unjustified when looking at the universe.  Why, he reasons, would an all knowing spiritual power create hierarchy in spiritual position?  There is a strong argument to this.  Many of my metaphysical theories had hierarchy as the primary point in them.

If there is no hierarchy then why are people capable of achieving different feats?  Is it something only of this dimension?  There is an argument to the nature vs. nurture side of this equation that is more human than assuming in those who are born better than the rest being special above and beyond this world.  Even if they can achieve great tasks in this world, it is done so at the loss of something equally as great.  Specialization requires no hierarchy to justify. 

That's when I ran out of ideas.  To perpetuate hierarchy further no long satisfied the reason for our being.  In addition I found myself in a very lonely place right now far from friends and family (those few who are still alive).  There is nothing more sour to thinking than being alone having to survive. 

Still there is some hope that the consideration of astrology may offer some solace to the world from myself.  I still study it and have found some reassurance from it at times.  I am having the last of some hard transits from Pluto and Saturn these next couple of months though Pluto has peaked and is now waning.  For those who believe in astrology, these two planets do exactly what you expect them to when you get these transits. 

Life goes on.  I've lost alot over the recent years.  I still have myself, my health, and most of my sanity.  That's good I think.  I ran out of ideas though.  I can only follow what my main spiritual teacher teaches now.  One day soon you'll be hearing about it by the hope of it.  It is our only hope for knowing ourselves as complete human beings.

Adjunct to Philosophy

Philosophy is the branch of human knowledge that deals with boundaries through definition.  A good philosophical debate is one that is had with basic questions of being and just paradigms.  What version of the universe sounds correct essentially.

Basic questions in philosophy include questions about the cosmic paradigm about what is fair and just.  This is where religion and atheism clash the most.

A just question would be such as this: is reincarnation just and fair?  So then a debate would be had about this idea.

I'm going to list a few more fundamental questions, but keep in mind all of these questions have an ultimate answer that is right.  That is the quest of the philosopher, to find the answer for everyone and to present it to them.  Proof is in the argument, because some things don't require evidence to be proven, only a perfect argument.

Is the afterlife real?
Do we come from somewhere before we are born?
Do we reincarnate, and if so, where?
What is the nature of the afterlife and why should we care?
Are there divine beings in higher dimensions?
Are there any higher dimensions?
Should anyone even ask any of these questions openly?
Is it safe to be philosophical?
Should we have open inquiry or closed inquiry?
Should anyone be allowed to be philosophical?
Is philosophy dangerous to a sound mind and able disposition?
When should someone be allowed to study philosophy?
Who should make the decision (any decision really)?

As you can see philosophy can lead you to some pretty dangerous places.  These are just a few of the thousands if not millions of questions that make up the bulk of what we call philosophical reasoning.  Every one of these questions has an answer that requires no pre-conception to know (that's when you are born knowing the answers).  You can reason your way through anything really.  But we must always be aware that philosophy has it's time and it's place and again I generally feel no one under 50 should get terribly philosophical much less metaphysical.   This world takes precedent over whimsical musings even if they happen to be right on.

Science, Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Politics

What is what and where, how, and when does it go?  These are the questions of science and metaphysics.  Philosophy asks why does it go?  Psychology asks is it all in your head?  And there is the ground for the Great Debate between four (technically psychology is a subset of the three) schools of thought on the nature of reality.

What we know so far from the New Science is that the universe is made of electrons of all the same size and mass which expand at a certain rate determined somehow, most likely through fourth dimensional etheric density changes in my version of the New Science.  None the less, what follows from that is the paradigm of reality that the majority will study in the future of science itself.

There will still be a massive debate with the old quantum school of thought called Standard Theory.  I personally have no interest right this second in personally debating anyone as my level of trust in my fellow humans is a bit dim at the moment and I'm not interested in being personal attacked for being right.  Some other people I know are in a similar dilemma about psychology and that part of the Truth.

Still the questions remain and there will be those who have the time necessary to attempt to solve the unanswered questions that the theories suggested pose.  My metaphysical writings have been removed from this website except for what was left in the philosophy of knowledge essay though that is mostly philosophy and defining boundaries between things which is the primary purpose one should study philosophy.

I will add a few thoughts in this essay about science now because I want to primarily.  I believe electrons are created and destroyed under certain conditions.  I believe that parallel dimensions (not the time traveling or multiple versions of the same universe ones) exist in some capacity but I'm not sure if they exist on the same infinity physical plain or are co-axial through the 4th dimension existing in different nodes within that dimension.  Not that it matters that much for the ultimate question of why does any of it matter?

Much of my metaphysical work attempted to answer that last question by saying the cosmos is a giant infinite grab bag of stuff where beings get more and more and more over time through the work they do in their lives but everything is more or less programmed into the system dependent on the consciousness to wake up and do what it needs to do to fulfill the promise of eternal life in the living moment of their existing one.  If it sounds tough, it is a bit.  You can't both stare into infinity and live on the ground floor for too long without infinity getting to becoming a problem.

At the same time knowing of the infinite is a self provable philosophical series of reasoning that says your stuck with the infinite stuff but more importantly the people who are there sharing (what's that word mean says the vast majority) eternity with you.  These people are here to stay no matter what their condition in this life.  The eternal connection exists but outside of their consciousness because of the condition of their lives.

With the idea of eternal infinite connection, gridwork as it should be called, comes the idea that we should be doing good to each other because that connection exists everywhere and in everyone.  The catch is that we have a right to withdraw if we are unacknowledged.  Rejection exists to prove the right of assertion and the right of me or you.  The boundary is based on the problem of full knowledge.

Full knowledge is the idea that one must truly fully recognize another person before the gates to a real relationship can be created.  This applies interestingly enough to the contents of science, metaphysics, and philosophy.  Treat your teachers with kindness or watch all the content disappear and you are the one now who must create you own gridmap through science, metaphysics, and philosophy.  I did it.  I've left probably 50% of my original essays up especially the science ones.  The rest are gone due to lack of support and attacks.  I did alot of work to get where I am in my understanding of the universe.  The response to free content is not to attack the one giving it.  And so it is gone.

The questions still remain.  But those subtle enough to pursue the great answers again will have to realize that there is a game that unfortunately trumps free inquiry.  That game is politics.

I will not go further into that information as it is simply too dangerous to actually explain how politics works with people in its psychology but I will describe a bit on how it works in general.  Simply put, with politics, the devil is in the details.  It is because of politics that the personal becomes the political.  Truth is attacked!  Why, you might ask?  Because politics is about keeping the balance of power and maintaining privilege over the all important access to resources such as free information.  Formalists run this world, even if they are not so great at protocol, logic, or law.  But they do know one thing much better than the majority, that is how to silence dissenting voices efficiently using force, manipulation, and countervailing opinion.

Can we see past that pattern of relating?  This is the great question of consciousness.  Will we become consciousness enough of the game to stop it before science, philosophy, and metaphysics are gone?  And the game doesn't stop there we could lose art, music, and journalism too for all three of these are ideally representing science (journalism), art (metaphyiscs), and music (philosophy).  The game could also get rid of mathematics.  Where nothing is sacred, nothing is safe.

Will we live in a world where free inquiry exists?  More importantly will we live in a world where people can exist free from the threats of global warming, nuclear proliferation, nuclear reactors, and thought police?  Can a consensus be built without the later?  Increasingly the answer seems to be no.  Everyone must have their thought police because the stakes are everything.

This is where we stand.  Universalism is a doctrine that is created out of the fusion of globalism and multiculturalism in all its variants.  Yet without a final judgement on the question about what about the rest of everyone that doesn't agree, it represents just another version of the endlessly reemerging political beast in another form.  For this to work there must be no separation between anyone and anyone else.  We are all each other.  There is no middle ground.

Time is against universalism as it has too few adherents for right now.  The opposite schools of thought are anti-universalist.  Nationalism in all its forms is an example.  But so to is parochialism, tribalism, racism, classicism, and various sundry religious and ideological groups,   The battle is between division and unification and division is winning.  No amount of dividing will result in a unification.  Yet to get to unification requires philosophy and a tiny bit of metaphysics added for clarity.

Science is held up by politics, and metaphysics and philosophy are held up by the lack of interest in refined explanations of being caused by real life on Earth.  Hunger is the great adversary of meaningful conversation.  Today it seems as through cell phones are the new great adversary.   None the less, this is as far as we've gotten with the problem of everything as it stands.

Tomorrows debates may be my own, but everyone will need to find out what it is that they are going to do to save themselves and the planet.  That's really what it all comes down to.  The planet must be saved.  The people must learn to save themselves.  Will anyone give a shit enough for the real processes to start or is everything just too damn complicated now?  The time to start doing this work was 20 years ago when it was going to be easy.   Procrastination further pushes us towards the planetary end game, the end of the human species itself.  We are getting close to the end.

Humanity does not have any time left to talk about timetables.  Action is the only thing that matters now.  We've been through the bullshit plan stage of the science of climate change.  It's a delay tactic to prevent action so someone can milk it into a paper asset creating device.  Is that the future of the Green Front?  I think not.  What sort of weirdness is this?  How does anyone of those people who signed onto another version of "money making" schemes sleep at night?  No conscience, no problem?  Apparently no one confronts the current environmental "leadership" with their failures.  We don't have time for this crap anymore.  The first thing serious people should do is clean up the left.  The right has no clue though they'll have to understand eventually.

That's the science of it funnily enough.  The science of political art if you will.  Let's just paint them off the canvas.  Get rid of the old leadership, they suck.  Been holding that in for awhile.  The results of a clean house will be great.  What we should do is simply keep firing leaders if they don't take action within a timeframe.  I'm an unreasonable man about this I'd just do all the actions myself without bothering to fire them and then send them a memo or something if they wanted me to advice them.  No what everyone needs to do is basically set a one week action timetable and just do it (and if no action in one week fire the whoever it is).  And once they have done it, keep doing it.  Do that till the world is on renewable energy, the nuclear stuff is all gone in the best way possible, the Amazon is a protected parkland in its entirety with full native rights guaranteed by an effective UN (or even the US can do it), and no fossil fuels are used ever again.  In addition we have to technologically revert the CO2 in the atmosphere back to something reasonable I've suggest 375 ppm, others have suggested 350 ppm.  Whatever works from those two options.

So that's an action oriented do it now anti-plan.  It's easy, you just keep firing the jerks in charge until you get non-jerk who do things.  You can tell their good because they do things and get things done.  There are no excuses.  You don't wait till the next election, you get your collective voice together and say now, now, now.  And after you are done saying now, you say now again.  And after they attack you, you keep saying now.  And after they deny you, you keep saying now.  Together say now.  Together say do it now.  You do this until they get it.  That's the whole "plan".  As you can see it's very simple and easy.  The rest is up to you.

The Soul: Mortal and Immortal

Where does it begin?  Where does it end?  What makes sense in logic and reason?  If we begin with the premise of Love as the deciding factor in our equation, then logically and rationally what follows may not be what would follow if we choose something else.  Yet to believe in Love is not necessarily the belief you would find in the world in general for few truly do.

Existence is something that proves itself.  Life does not need an explanation to exist.  But death demands an explanation because it is a finality.  It is the end of a life.  This is why death is the heart of philosophy.  Death is what demands an answer, not Life.  

It is in death that we truly are faced with the facts of mortality and immortality.  In endings there is fear.  No one knows what lies beyond, so terror comes as well.  Philosophy would cease to exist if the political machinations of the dialogue of Life itself as it is lived in the world were to make the decisions of what is possible and what is not.  And so there is resistance to the idea of death being the end in philosophy.  It is abhorrent to believe otherwise.

From this arises two forms of thought police.  The first seeks to destroy philosophy in order to end the dialogue of possibility that life after death exists (see the life of Socrates as the example).  The second seeks to destroy the idea of death itself being the ending.  From this war can only arise two different viewpoints on the nature of reality.  The first would call itself realism and would be atheist in nearly all instances.  The second would call itself spiritual and seek to preserve the logic and reason of the individual in the face of death.

Idealism would die by the hands of the realist, so romantics must preserve it.  This is a question of Justice, the Justice of Truth that lies at the heart of the idea of immortality of the soul.  For without Immortality of the Soul, the whole of Life shall become meaningless.  And of course, it would appear to be a great injustice against the created.  Death cannot be the end of the soul even if it is the end of body.

While this common dialogue goes into the beginning of a nearly endless debate about what is real and what is not real about Life, the most important point I would prefer to make is that all ideas must be grounded in fundamentally provable hypothetical arguments.  An example of this is that the end of the soul is unjust or the end of the spirit is unjust or the end of the being is unjust.  Each of these three related arguments speak to a simple concept that is itself provable by reason of hope.  

Hope provides the final argument.  Of course the being will live on in whatever form, and the spirit and the soul will live on unless they are evil.  This sort of argument requires no physical proof because the proof takes the form of a spiritual cause and effect question.  Nearly everyone can agree to the idea because it must be so if Love or God/Goddess are real.

What about the individual?  The individual is singular in their nature connected to all others by all their relations.  As such the individual is within a divine network of relational grid patterns linked by light line logic.  Their entire reality spiritually is that while the majority of their experience on the Earth is controlled by the dark, the absence of the significance of the light in day to day interactions with people who see them as something other than what they are.

There are a series of arguments that follow proving every Truth there is about every individual.  Logically the arguments exist.  Logically all the relationships also exist.  What follows is the reason for why.  Why what you may ask?  For why Love is eternal.  The bounds between individuals are their relationships.  All relationships will perfect in time.  Reincarnation provides for the opportunity to correct the relationship.  Everyone ultimately wants to correct their relationships when they understand.  All relationships are eternal and in a state of perfecting.

These Truths also do not require physical proof.  These Truths are part of spiritual proofs.  Alternative ideas fall under one lifetime and atheist concepts of reality.  An atheist may believe in all this just not in any ultimate Goddess.  Such an atheist would be called a spiritual atheist.  The proof is in the romantic nature of the idea.  Death may kill us, but it cannot kill our the consequence of our Faith acted upon before we die.  What we choose to believe is what we choose to believe.  This is the romantic glory of idealism.  We die, but we believe.

It is a mathematical perfection the logic and reason of the gridwork, the map of all my relations.  Understanding it is easy.  If you understand that you are here on Earth doing work because you must work for the perfection of creation, then you also understand that the ultimate perfection of creation is displayed in our relationships to those closest to us.  Those relationships and their state of perfection are a reflection of what stage of spiritual development the individual soul is at.

I could continue with this dialogue, but I have merely wished to reflect on the true state of ideas and what is real and what is not.  I measure my temple in Innocence, for all true answers will respect Innocence as the final solution.  I judge my temple by Love, for Love is the essence of all.  For if it is true, then all my relations are favored by the will of my own hand to perfect them for eternity.  This standard is the standard for right action.  Let hope guide your philosophy in the days ahead even as we remain uncertain as to what shape those who protect ignorance over Justice will take.  It all winds up the same Truth in the end.

Is permadeath fair?  No.  There are no other possible answers.  Is Love fair?  Yes.  What rules the cosmos?  Love.  The argument has ended.  Romance wins.  Do we still have to die.  Yup.  Is that fair?  We don't know.  And that's where the other argument starts.  For another time perhaps.

The Dreamer and the Dream

Imagine for a moment and you have imagined for a lifetime.

You are the dream, the dreamer, and all that has been dreamed.  

And you are those who are in the dream and all they have dreamed.  

Infinity is the holy grail of possibility.  It lies at the heart of imagination like a burning ember filled with the light of every hope conceivable.  And it would be what we are but for the accident of our birth.  There are those that say that that accident is planned and of necessity to a divine plan.  And there are those that say there is no plan.  The dreamer will dream none the less.

Everything that is resistance is already in resistance.  Everything that will be said has already been said.  Such is the way of eternity.  Imagination can only offer more of that eternity.  So it is wise not to get lost in it.  The imagination is a bottomless pit.  It can be more addictive then drugs and more destructive than guns.  And yet it cannot be stopped in any ultimate sense because it simply is.  The dreamer will dream.

The dream is what makes our world bearable.  The dream is what makes new ideas possible.  The dream is everything that isn't here right now that you wish to the bottom of your soul was.  It's the soul of desire, the ultimate longing for eternity and all it represents.  Anywhere but here is it's secret siren song whispering to your desperate ear.  Make me more than what I am!

The dream is the power to change the reality you see.  With it comes a terrible responsibility for the dreamer could become the world.  And if he or she does so, turn the world upside down.  So we learn to chain our dreams in secret safe spaces in our minds.  We choose to keep the dreamer kept underneath lest he or she burst out and reveal the true measure of our light and the true measure of our madness.

Who are we?  Do we even ask anymore?  Do we even care anymore?  But surely the dream will run none the less even if we can't say for sure.  It is at the heart of everywhere.  It is at the core of everything.  And who or what dreamed us into being?  Those questions are perhaps far too much for a mortal race like ours with a short lifespan and a limited attention.  But one day, the answers to the questions of the dreamer will give birth to a real civilization that is built on the truth.  Await the dreamer then and behold.

Listenening: The Protocols of Honor

By the deepest concepts of culture are we made whole.  But to get there we must find out first what culture is and why it matters.  From the point of view of the primitive, culture is irrelevant.  That is the problem with primitivism which is the state of nature as it exists in the minds of humans that live without any notion of honor or ritual.  This is the essential difference between that which is primitive and that which is cultured.  A cultured individual has a protocol and honors that protocol.  A primitive has no protocol and honors only his or her whims. 

Here I must state the fundamental basis of all protocol for the record of the collective that requires it.  Protocol is based on principle. Principle is rationality through sacrfice by means of deference to any Ideal, Virtue, person, or thing, but specifically it is the grounds of one's argument.  When any philosopher speaks of principle they usually are referring to ideal principle. Ideal Principle is the perfect image of an abstract principle fully conscious as a platonic form.  Virtue is most often the emotionally centered reality of any principle in action through the changes it induces in others by it's transformational capacity as a living essence surrounding a single actor (she or he that acts), most specifically a person from our point of view.

There is, as I have stated before in my Philosophy of Knowledge notes, a natural hierarchy of prioritization which exists that influences the deliverance of conscience through values, desires, principles, duties, virtues, and even conscience itself.   That hierarchy is constructed by individuals naturally in the course of their lives as they discover what it is that motivates them to take any actions.  As such it is primarily the ground of reasoning of Formal Moralism and used by Formal Moralists to justify their own actions as part of the accounting of personal argument.

But beyond this reasoning lies the other, who is or is not aware of any of this.  Communicating with the other requires that one understand that all just communications are based upon the notion of Transactions of Honor.  Roughly stated a transaction of honor in the field of communication is the idea that one listens in return for the right to speak and vice versa that one speaks with the intention to listen to the response. 

Here we must get into the nature of honorable communications and just honoring of the other and the self.  Listening is followed by listening.  A speech is worth a speech.  A thought is worth a thought.  This natural transaction of experiences and minds is the basis of the protocol of honor.  Since everything begins in communication, we begin here for those who wish to participate in Honor Culture which is the culture of true wealth. 

The self is revealed in stages to the other based on interest.  Questions and answers form the basis of the transaction of relationship.  Actions taken are the measure of the value assigned to the relationship.  Each action is met with an equal and opposite reaction until full intimacy is achieved.  That full intimacy is one of friendship, the true measure of all intimacy.

Not all want to participate in this transaction as they would prefer to only think or talk of themselves or spread rumors.  As such the world is divided between those that practice honor and those who do not.  There are commandments unwritten that govern the entire cycle.  Beyond this stage, there is living in the moment to total connection with the stream of conscience that surrounds us at all times.  

This is a very short introduction to a very complex and elaborate truth about perfectly honoring the experience we are having as people specifically with relation to ourselves, other people. the planet, and by extension the universe.  Honor culture does not end at people and things.  It extends into the honoring of any tradition of communication with any hypothetical reality one has heard of.  As such one's relationship to ideas, methodologies, and hypothetical non physical beings are included.  Included in this is one's relationship to skepticism and doubt as well.  Honor is a very, very complex beast. 

Very much of our extended lives are tied to what we honor in ourselves and in others.  The subtlety of existence is defined by that experience internal to ourselves.  While the majority of our experience is the honoring of our gross selves, the body and it's needs, the rest of our experience collectively is determined by the nature of how we honor everything else about everyone else including the abstract notions of being and beyond that, for those that have it, the psychic perceptions of the those gifted of conscious subtly in it's many various forms.  The set of all the possible combinations of this conundrum is the basis of formal study of Mystery, Art, Music, and Kaballah. 

The essential question is what makes us different from each other from the point of view of the universe or Goddess and God depending on your point of view.  When we try to understand someone we look at the whole of their experience, the whole of what they know, the whole of their choices, the strength of their conviction, the strength of their character, and the physical strength of their body.  Their identity determines their viewpoint.  Their potential and their intention determines what the Oracle can and can't tell them.  The choices they are offered are a part and parcel of those offering those choices and their stories as well.  As you can see to honor all of that is something truly magnificent and time consuming for those doing the honoring.  As such we honor those closest to us.  Such is the way of things.

Again there is one road deeper than this that I have learned from another further along the path than I.  This road takes us into the emotion itself as experienced through the whole of the breath into the lifestream of consciousness as it is lived.  Here, the protocols of honor still exist, but they become secondary to the experience of an inner guidance that is beyond what is normally experienced.  Here listening becomes a skilled fused with full human consciousness honed to create an experience called Natural Synastry,  A person who has this experience is free of the need for formalism and becomes the living embodiment of the Virtues for others.  Jesus was the greatest of these examples of those who truly managed to see past the need for transactions of honor to arrive complete honoring through pure consciousness through embodiment.

But the need for honoring remains to the extent that it is necessary to consider the perspectives of all.  The world cannot avoid the full honoring of every other and simply jump into Natural Synastry.  Before Natural Synastry is the astrologically timed Unnatural Synastry as well which is the honoring of the cycles of existence as interpreted through astrology.  Some elements of Unnatural Synastry can also be found in lesser forms of divination such as tarot.  But the problem of character emerges when these interpretations clash with the Natural Synastry of the awakened person who will not simply allow an interpretation to be the decider of their fate.  This is a tricky ground for the reader and the querrant (the person getting the reading) alike.  

Protocols of honor extend to all these fields of endeavor.  Perfecting them allows one to read or interpret perfectly.  Failure to create a protocol of honor in the absence of the necessary psychic and/or mental gifts necessary for Natural Synastry creates disturbances in the consciousness of the self and others.  Further refinement is always required.  Perfect readings lead to perfect outcomes.  It is possible but requires learning and an acknowledgement of imperfection.  Yet this is all part of the greater picture of honoring choice and honoring methods of ordering action.

Who is it that one must follow when one is not sure?  This is a great question of both the advisor and the advisee.  We all wish to speak with an authority on this matter, but at times we find ourselves puzzlingly enough as the authority seeking advice from others on the question of our own authority to decide.  Most don't care enough to test their own limits, to ask themselves where they should stop and seek the advice of others.  But as luck would have it sometimes they stumble upon someone both competent and honorable to the art and the other person alike.

A massive subject is this thing we call honor.  Honor is not a perfect measurement of our selves, but an acknowledgement of our imperfection without the other.  There are limits of course, for honoring one's self is required as part of the idea of honor or honor itself is destroyed by it's opposite dishonor.  The balance is delicate and requires experience to teach us the limits of this methodology of culture.  But as long as civilization exists and as long as there are those who wish to remain civilized, we'll be hearing a great deal more about honor in the years, decades, centuries, and millennia to come. 

The Universality of Anti Fractal Reasoning

Simplicity is not a norm.  Words can only get you so far.  And yet the world believes that it can replace simplicity with complexity and remain happy.  But it is not so.  The elegance of simplicity is that it is singular in its emergence.  It cannot be reduced to something it is not.  That, in and of itself, testifies to the concept of anti fractality.

You'd think that the fractal is perfect.  But it isn't, otherwise the reality we live in would not be defined by the anti fractal nature of human existence.  For perfection must include part of itself imperfection itself, otherwise the symmetry of perfection is broken.  It is a sort of strange thing to be considering, but in order for everyone to understand what it is they must live within a fractal as an anti-fractal.  That is the nature of the world and our experiences.  The world and universe are fractals, but people aren't fractals.

You might ask why.  What the hell is an anti fractal doing in the midst of divine perfection, nature's harmony?  Doing it's job creating images of itself everywhere, but hardly of it's own choosing.  Therein lies the mortal confusion at the heart of everything we want to believe in that isn't real.  Truth is unpopular precisely because it reveals the anti fractal to be something that is not fractal.  This upsets the delicate balance of belief that says all things must be perfect now.  But that can't be either because to deny imperfection is to deny choice.

There is no middle ground between honor and dishonor either.  You have to have both to have a fractal.  But if you have one without the other you are stuck in the land of the anti fractal, a pattern in constant struggle between two opposites that can never resolve their differences.  Sound familiar?  It should, that is the whole story of human history and the whole of human psychology dissolved down to a simple basic formula.  Duality, the ultimate nightmare of being caught up between two irreconcilable perspectives.  And the whole of the social system is designed to erase and eliminate irreconcilable perspectives.

Hence was born the thought police.  They were necessary because everyone wants what everyone wants.  And everyone wants what they want to be wanted by others.  But the right to dishonor could not be erased from creation, so division emerges between the choice of one and the choice of the other.  Forever separated by their differing paths a wound emerges between souls that cannot be healed in time.  That results in grief, the unavoidable experience of bitterness caused by imperfection.  So the anti fractal is proven beyond a shadow of doubt internal to the individual.  It is here we live.  The causality of our suffering unerasable from our minds.

Dwelling on that fragmentation of divinity is maddening.  In place of finding a perspective that honors everything we construct instead a temporary solution.  A wall is built between ourselves and the other.  First it is built internally through avoidance of the responsibility to listen.  We justify this by saying, the other is not us, and we have a right to exist.  And so it is, but forever leaving us in that place that is momentarily self contained within the truth of our choices.  We validate our honor for ourselves.  And so it is.

There aren't enough words to really say what it is that is.  Reality exists as a state of flux between the things that are and things that aren't.  But we remain eternally vigilant only of our own state of being.  This is what prevents us from moving forwards.  The eye of the I in the mind, ever watchful, ever keenly observing our every move and creating an endless list of labels for ourselves to drench ourselves in our own dissatisfaction.

It seems inevitable.  The process of the wheel that turns within us reminding us of what we are and often as much of what we aren't that isn't even real.  It's a curiosity of nature I suppose.  But at the same time the wheel turns anyway.  We are inescapable.  We are unavoidable.  We are inevitable.

It is because of this that we continue to exist.  There is no escaping that fact.  Every morning we wake up confirms that indeed I am still here and that I am still going forward.  Writing doesn't really cut the feeling anymore.  There are no words for where we must all end up.  Connection exists only where it is received.  That is a terrible truth and yet we must bear it because that what honor is all about.

We are equal in our division.  We are not each other.  We live in island universes built of our choices, thoughts, feeling, notions, and self chosen identities.  What we create is a parcel of what we choose to create.  And there still really aren't enough words to describe what it is that we will create.  Everyone makes a difference that chooses to.  Motivation is that which is sought by everyone.  And here we are again needing that much more of it to go on.

Not for me though.  I don't need motivation.  I am already here.  I don't have any illusions about what is necessary.  I always have known.  Can a person or place exist that is not in conflict with itself?  That is the great question of our times.  We all want to be singular, to have the answer that will set us free to act.  That is what everyone is asking for.  The anti fractal nature coming up against the fractal itself.  I am, I act, and I do.  We all want to merge into a collective.  We want to lose ourselves in the fractal.  It is madness, but the drive is there.  It keeps calling us.  It keeps wanting us.

There are two types of people in this world who choose to merge through intimacy.  One group merges with ideas, they become their thoughts of their own choosing in their minds losing themselves in some form of illusion.  This is what births the state of ideology and results in ideological formalism, the surrender of the self to a series of rules and concepts that govern one's life as something outside one's self in order to make one feel as though one matters.  The vast majority are of this school of thought.  The other, more dangerous and risky idea is to merge with another person or other people as they are.  This results in the bitterness of the fact that one way mergers don't work.  Are we one yet?  They will asking that question for a long time.

But because the ultimate merger is with other people, it is only the second school of thought, the romantic school, that has any hope of surviving as ideology is cold and ruthless.  People are people, but who is ready to live that way? Who is really ready to surrender their hearts for someone else's dream of a better world.  But, then, what else do you got anyway?  Nothing, you've got nothing.