Pure Conceptuality


Chapter 1: Where are we, really?


I write this for my children—Jac, Kalin, Aubrey and Eden. To all others the only authority I have to engage the following subjects derives from the opportunity each of us has to navigate life as theoretical equals in consciousness and singular being. We universally share a nameless beingness to which we attach our names and sense of self to become the character who plays out our unique story. Living is universally and ultimately a creative experience in that each choice lays down another word in the sentences, paragraphs and chapters of the unique story each person writes. It is like a thread in a tapestry. We all have equal status in that. Beyond that we are all in partnership with our total environment which communicates and teaches us to the extent we will listen.


What is written so far assumes a lot. First of all it assumes we have a common medium while also having a uniqueness. It assumes maleness and femaleness and procreation and family and a special case in that intimacy. It implies a sense we have in common of a hierarchy of position in time. We are older than our children. We sense and experience time as additive and linear.


How can we escape the inherent complexity of this moment of shared existence and all it implies? And just what does it imply? Maybe more relevant—are you curious to know? We are intensely curious, and wish to share a system of navigation on a journey to explore and chart seeming labyrinths with tools of pure conceptuality. It certainly is not necessary to do this exploration to live a wondrous life. Every life is wondrous. You are invited, if you wish, to honestly explore. You will find a carefully developed and accurate picture of Integrated Reality which heals the rift in “theory” versus “reality.”


You are invited on a journey. All stories are journeys and artists take us through their personal mediums often with amazing clarity of purpose allowing us great insights and new ways of seeing, This journey is more direct in that it hopes to clarify the very nature of journey itself. Therefore, it requires you to reflect in terms of your experience and your story rather than trying to inform from some other angle or point of view. We are striving for a holistic view, noticing our ability to move outward and inward in harmony with that perspective of self. This is a training for operating rationally in the atmosphere of Pure Conceptuality. It takes a while to get the hang of it. When you do, you can’t imagine why you didn’t always see in this way. There exists a simple system of navigating the complex. The truth is always hidden in plain sight. That is the beauty and perfection of the Nature of US (our consciousness and self-awareness).


When you start out into the wilderness in a canoe with another you have to learn and integrate a few basic notions. When engaging the canoe as the means of mutual transport, you must keep the weight always along the center line of the canoe. There is a very specific and universal way in which you must move around in a canoe. The simplicity of the canoe makes it a wonderfully efficient watercraft but it requires some very basic “skill” to operate. A paddle is about as intuitively simple a tool as one could imagine to move the canoe on water, but even the use of the paddles requires skill to propel straight, in coordinating control and to turn. It’s easy once you know how. We will return to the canoe, but meanwhile, we will take a look at some of the basic elements of the purely conceptual landscape. Think of this as just introducing you to the river and the canoe and its usefulness.


There is in pure conceptuality an underlying, a priori and en potentia. A priori means before before and en potentia means (for all practical purposes) pregnant with possibility. It is necessary to get into this a bit more right here, so if you have already lost interest, or if this seems too alien—consider that every adventure requires some courage and determination. This is exactly where the door opens and the adventure begins.


En potentia is simply the what of the situation (the potential of being—existing—happening). Let’s think about this in terms of our canoe adventure. The canoe itself comes out of the environment in principle. It is a hollowed out tree or the bark of a tree formed over a frame. It exists in potential just out of the environment including your ability to imagine, understand or physically manifest it. It is potentially here EVEN IF IT DOES NOT EXIST at this time or place. It is important to understand this. The experience of the fact of the canoe existing NOW proves its potential to exist. So, in principle, it has always existed and will always exist in potential—EN POTENTIA.


A prioi (prior to) is the idea that something comes out of something. This deals with time; the when issue in thinking. If you consider deeply and honestly you will see that the when is submerged in the idea of the en potentia. (Before before) translates into—is, was, always will be.


We must point out right here that science is not comfortable with this premise. Just saying and defining a couple of words does not make a fact. Contemporary science makes a different assumption—the universe and time started with the Big Bang. But some scientists and theoretical physicists are not comfortable with something coming out of nothing, so they postulate (and find in mathematical language) parallel “membrane” universes which for some reason bang together at some point and look like a big bang thus obscuring the question of a beginning back out of consideration. Further, some philosophers embrace a position that any postulate which has no method of disproving it cannot logically be used as the basis of any valid theory. This is an understandable position in considering formulas and mathematics.


An elegant mathematical formula is a true general statement in the language of mathematics. When the indicated operations are performed a kind of chaos ensues in that the formula disappears into the solution and is not rediscoverable without reverse engineering with the formula already known. There is no “self-evidence” in the manifest solution.


We contend that the fact of your experience of sitting there is the self-evident PROOF of the ability to consider all these ideas at all! Since it is, it must be—BAM! If you can’t get comfortable with this, consider that you might be over thinking it. Your EXPERIENCING of existence and all other's sense of self is the common foundation for us as we move along in our mutual journey here. We may each have a different sense or opinion as to this commonness. The goal is to discover that Prime Common Ground together.


So, we have dealt with WHO (you, me, us) WHAT (canoe, water, tree, paddle) WHEN—in general terms—always. (In some sense, even if one embraces the Big Bang, “always” still applies as the theory was always there to discover.) We stipulate that the conceptual tools a priori and en potentia as explained and in the context of Pure Conceptuality are foundational and valid. The validity is evidenced in retrospect by elucidation of the bridge between the deductive and inductive. Armed with and sharing these travel tools, we can begin to navigate into the seeming infinite complexity of our landscape. The purpose of our journey is to stay constantly LOCATED (where) by virtue of our navigation tools and skills so we can feel confident and secure in our adventure to at least not get lost and at best to discover and know the WHOLENESS and experience the full potential of the peace inherent in integrated knowledge.


The fact is that all this complexity can be REDUCED logically to the underlying simplicity. The complexity does not derive from simplicity, rather the underlying order is the understandable armature of UNIFICATION exhibiting the essential character or, simply, the nature of things. We have dealt with the problem of “how does the unifying (prime or primordial) something exist or “pre-exist?” If we can learn to navigate the purely conceptual, we can arrive at a fully satisfying and truly understandable answer to enigmas. The embedded TRUTHS are universal, self-generated, always existent, derived by distillation out of a priori complexity (the potential already proven—manifested by your existence). If it can be it will be and it IS. This should be pretty exciting so far.


Now we have to examine the medium in which we are swimming. Does a fish “know” it is in water? This is by analogy as, who can say if a fish knows anything, but it is an interesting thought experiment to try to imagine the world from a fish eye view or perspective. A fish simply lives in water and all that entails without having to do anything about maintaining a water environment. We exist in a sea of time and space. In our case, we certainly have conscious self-awareness of existence, but probably don’t think too much about it and move around pretty much like the fish—just accepting the pre-existence of this medium in which we live. Probably not much different from the fish in not WONDERING much about it.


We can and do ponder and one can wonder about anything. Does a fish—or even a porpoise—wonder in the way we do? Isn’t it a kind of a huge issue that we cannot know the answer to this simple question? Much scientific exploration has been done trying to unravel this enigma. Is it possible that the enigma itself is a signpost in another kind of consideration? Can consciousness and self-awareness study itself impersonally and impartially and finally arrive at some universal truth?


The word consideration is made up of con (with) sider (star)—with stars. When we look at the night sky we are with the stars. Human consciousness is simply in awe or wishes to make some sense or find some arrangement or order out of this spectacle. Philosophers found or created the constellations and astrological signs while scientists and mathematicians described the nature of the solar system of planets and the relative movement against the background of stars and star systems, while also describing the laws of motion, mass and gravitation. All of the laws pre-existed their description and verification. We make a huge leap when we mistake this highly advanced and sophisticated description as actual KNOWING. What seems like knowing is simply observing and describing at more and more sophisticated levels what already is. It is finding order and generalization within the vast complexity. Nothing new is created but rather a new way of seeing what is is described and communicated.


So what should we consider—what can we KNOW? Unlike the enigma of fish consciousness, we can KNOW that we (you and I) are immersed in an ultra complex sea of space and time and that we can reflect on and describe not only the landscape, but also our social roles and relationships and even our solitary interior view. I can know that you can be selfish and you can know that I can be selfish. You can know that the brick that fell on your toe hurt you. You can describe how the brick fell, what is its velocity and weight, and you can describe your pain but only you can know your pain. I can consider your pain and make some generalizations about it and bricks and broken toes and on and on. All of that gets thrown into an arena of life and it seems like we then KNOW a lot. When you tell the truth you are simply telling a tale you accept or believe as the truth. When you tell a tale there is the TRUTH that you have told a tale. The tale has a true existence.


So if we want to go on an adventure and want to KNOW exactly where we are at all times and in this adventure we are seeking TRUTH we must be very careful about our assumptions and considerations and the dangers on the trail that can distract us or capture us or confuse us and get us lost.

Let’s review our mission. We are going together on a journey through the highly complex medium of time and space. We have to understand our mission is to not get lost at minimum and hopefully engage and share in an adventure of discovery in the Universe of Pure Conceptuality. There is a way to “back in” to this wonderful place without giving up your foothold and sense of real KNOWING.


Johnny asked his mom, “How do sunflowers turn toward the sun?” “Well, Johnny, I don’t know, ask your teacher.” So next day Johnny asked his teacher and she said: “Plants generally grow in such a way as to get the most sunlight on their leaves as they use sunlight in their metabolic process which is photosynthesis. Sunflowers actually turn toward the sun and follow it through the day. This is heliotropism.”


So on returning home Johnny’s mom asks if the teacher explained how sunflowers turn toward the sun. Johnny replies proudly, “Oh yes mom; it is heliotropism!!!” In considering this story, it is easy to see how labeling and defining simply obscures what we do not know. A huge part of our “education” is actually more of the above piled higher and deeper.


It might be considered here that since imagination has no limits and that art by definition is intuitive and creative and mathematics is a tool which may be used to explore freely that one may enter Pure Conceptuality by various means. This trip we are taking can be engaged from RIGHT HERE by anyone willing to go. No special gear or equipment required that we cannot conjure up from our little tool set and our simple methodical approach. We will hold a common thread into this labyrinth which gives us the confidence and a system to integrate our experience into a universality or wholeness that is a fraternity of a kind—like those hard earned and seemingly exclusive fraternities of the artist and mathematician. We are going to look directly at the immanent order of nature while transcending the built-in limits of scientific orthodoxy without disrupting the credible observations and descriptions deriving from the scientific system of examination. Given the products of scientific inquiry and especially the order and predictability described in Chemistry and Physics and the seeming puzzles of Quantum Physics, we can back up into this complexity with the purpose of finding the Common Ground while discovering the conceptual limitations of science and math.


The system for achieving this is to deal with what we can KNOW (not describe) and to eliminate complexity while maintaining integrity. Let’s say we are in a shopping mall at Christmas and a cell phone rings with the melody of “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.” Those notes and the melody get lost in the cacophony of Christmas Carols, people talking, bells ringing, etc. But the fact is that those notes are there. Probably the person whose phone it is can hear them because he is tuned in to that melody and associates it with meaning—the phone is ringing. In a sense he is eliminating the noise and hearing the melody. A listening computer could be programmed to seek out that particular tune from all the other sounds. But the computer would have to be programmed to know what sound sequence to look for and it would methodically do that by eliminating all that was NOT that sequence. The objective of our mission and adventure is to reduce complexity by limiting the mission to what can be KNOWN and/or perceived as SELF-EVIDENT.


We must be cautious about the self-evidence of experience. It is “self-evident” (until we see from a different perspective) that the sun goes up and down. We can imagine an entire lifetime living in the illusion of that self-evidence. Of course we know the earth revolves around the sun while spinning and that gives us the experience of a misperception that seems to be a perfectly obvious truth. We must be meticulous, expansive and very methodical in the search for the Truth.


The “melody” we seek is the primal underlying lowest common denominator of consciousness, self-awareness, mathematics, art, philosophy and science. We will find this “philosopher’s stone” by eliminating noise.


Let’s go back to the canoe and start the journey paddling across the river from this dock to the dock we see directly across the river. We want to go directly to our destination. Seems simple enough. The river is flowing south and we are crossing east to west. We carefully get into the canoe so as to not tip it over and we take up our paddles and point the bow at the west dock and start paddling, Nothing could be easier than this. Where is the “adventure” here? As we paddle and keep the bow pointed at the opposite dock we find that we are very soon not pointing directly west even though we are keeping the bow pointing at the dock that was due west. We find ourselves rotating bit by bit more and more north while yet still pointing directly at the west dock. The task is easy. We do arrive at the dock but by the time we get there we notice the canoe is pointing significantly northwest but we never took our eyes off that dock which we were pointed directly toward, for the whole trip.


We planned to go directly to the west dock but in fact we paddled a curved path through the water because the water was moving south the whole time. We did not even paddle a straight path over the bottom of the river, We started out pointed due west and immediately started drifting with the current south so in order to keep pointing to the west dock we actually had to rotate a little to the north as we went along and had to keep turning more and more north. We were actually making slower forward progress as we moved toward the goal because we had to correct more and more into the current to keep the bow pointed at the goal. So we traveled a curved path through the water and we paddled significantly farther than the direct line we set out to travel. If we had simply pointed the canoe a bit northward and paddled evenly across with that angle in relation to the shore we would be able to track a straight path over the bottom of the river even though we would have paddled farther than that straight path through the water! Our forward speed through the water would be faster than our speed on that “pointed” track across the bottom of the river. All of this can be calculated by mathematics based in geometry so we could know the exact direction to point for our particular speed of paddling considering the rate of the current and we could know the exact time it will take to complete the journey.


OR we can imagine a straight line path from point A to point B. We might imagine that if we just made it a lake and there was no wind we could just simply paddle straight across. And we could if we disregarded the slight zig zag of the path of the canoe due to paddling and if we dismissed the curvature of the earth and if we forgot or disregarded that we are on a planet spinning 1000 miles per hour at the equator while also going twenty five thousand miles per hour around the sun. So the path of our canoe through space is at least a spiral to somewhere.  So actually we are astronauts on a spaceship hurtling through space in total comfort and we thought we were crossing a river in a canoe! This is getting more exciting isn’t it? Even if we could travel at the SPEED OF LIGHT on a laser, science has demonstrated that the laser beam will bend slightly with gravity and we will still be hurtling through space on a spinning orbiting planet.


Hmmm, but wait a minute; can we use our imaginations to find a straight path? Maybe going infinitely fast would do it. Infinitely fast would be infinitely long in any time at all and there would be no end—no point B! If we made time infinitely short we would just stay at point A. As we saw above, the speed of light is no solution either. Our little adventure is off to a frustrating start. The problem with going infinitely fast is that no matter how far we want to go, we end up going infinitely far so we can never really get to point B as point B is “before” infinitely far! Hmmm, this should get us thinking about time, speed and distance in an entirely different way. We can’t really get across the river in a straight line any way we look at it.


Or can we start all over and eliminate the river, the canoe, the current, the direction but maintain the goal of getting from point A to point B in a straight line? Let’s try to do it in a purely conceptual way. Lets take ourselves out of the world and the solar system and the galaxy and just into our conscious mind. We can do a lot here but we still can’t do infinitely fast. But what we can do is imagine a point A illuminating as light. The light radiates out in all directions at speed C. Time starts when A explodes into light. A is not a thing, it is a location in the center of a spherical wave front expanding radiantly at speed C which may as well be the speed of light, whatever that is. Now lets stop and freeze this radiant event in our self-conscious minds. We have an imaginary sphere with a center locus and a terminating periphery. We will leave this created sphere right here for the moment.


Just to back up a bit here, let’s review. We don’t really know where we are right now as we have just used our conscious mind to eliminate what we accept to be the Universe. We must still be in Universe because here we are! We are no longer on a spinning planet circling the sun in a Galaxy. We are free to do this as this Conceptual Space is TRULY IN UNIVERSE. We are FREE to do this as we have just done it! This is self-evident and it is not complicated. Consciousness and Mind pre-exist or exist simultaneously as our ability to use mind to examine mind or to use consciousness to examine consciousness and ideas. This can be done as we are doing it. We don’t remember not doing it and we can’t TRULY imagine not doing it. Consciousness and mind are what is and “contain” ALL in and out of time. We started with great complexity and “backed in” to a simplified perspective.


What do we mean in and out of time? OK—here it is. Let’s go back to our “frozen” sphere. We have a specific thing here but also a nebulous thing. What was our objective? Oh, we were trying to get from A to B in a straight line. We realized we had to use our mind to eliminate the “noise” to get to the solution. We “started” simply with location A, but we have to keep in mind that we are using our super high frequency and ultra complex conscious mind to create or imagine the primary or simple. We are starting with the ultra complex and “backing into” the simplification. This is amazing! If you think about it, this is the only direction it can go. You cannot START with the simple. Things do not move from the simple to the complex. Quite the contrary—simple can only manifest out of the highly complex. Don’t breeze past this. Seriously contemplate this. It is TRUE because we have just done it. The proof is in the doing.


From here we can imagine a primal single organic “cell” morphing bit by bit into a more complex organic structure over EONS of time. However, that single cell cannot imagine becoming complex. This is an important idea not to overlook. All descriptions of how things happened in the past actually are simply looking back from HERE which seems like NOW. You might argue that a simple fertilized egg becomes more complex as it divides into two, four, eight or two to the second, third, fourth, fifth powers. The complexity already exists in the chemical (geometrical) instructions of the combined DNA of the already complex beings from which it comes. The being already exists in its ordered potential. The “new” being conceived in consciousness finds the order as he/she becomes self-conscious. However, he senses it as finding order out of chaos when in fact there never was any chaos. His being is his symbiosis with intelligence itself and consciousness itself.


So don’t imagine that our radiant sphere is any kind of starting point. It is actually a kind of ending point or turn around point. It is an idea and a thought experiment. In that sense it is very real and can only be conceived out of consciousness, conscious self-awareness and conscious thought which is existent “a priori.” We can try to imagine a state of nonconsciousness, like death, but we cannot symbolically describe or show a state of nonconsciousness. It takes consciousness to even try to imagine a void. So what cannot be imagined or experienced in imagination is self-evidently impossible and non-considerable. An oxymoron or paradox on the other hand exists by virtue of its self-contradiction and exists within and by virtue of conscious consideration. Our consciousness PROVES that the potential for consciousness is manifest. Only consciousness can even imagine the potential or that the potential is manifest and being experienced right now. So to imagine a void without consciousness is absurd. Anyone can see this if they look. To try to imagine Universe or describe Universe outside of consciousness, experience and point of view is impossible.


This dismissal of consciousness is the approach of so-called “objective science.” It is certain that this approach to seeing has been productive. It is so productive that some of its very findings are overlooked or conveniently dismissed. This is glaringly oxymoronic to the science itself. For example science dismisses the meaning and message of the Placebo Effect. Science describes and validates placebo and then does not even try to imagine the NATURE revealed by its definite existence. How can we ignore the true scientific and conceptual implications of that practical knowing? Science knows that self-consciousness is integral to reality but science, so far, does not integrate into the theory, these kinds of “mysteries” (facts).


Science describes and validates the relative nature of what we call (experience as) time. Science describes the local nature of time and even applies the fact of the local slowing of time relative to us of a speeding navigation satellite requiring constant time adjustment to synchronize to earth time due to its relative speed. When scientists talk of distance in terms of light years, what do they mean? Literally they say it is the distance light travels at 186,000 miles a second in a year. This assumes so much it really means nothing specific. Who’s year, second or resultant mile are we talking about? If even a near earth satellite clock has a different time reality than an earth clock, what possible relevance can the words year, mile or second have to do with anything it is actually trying to describe; happenings so relatively remote not actually happening at all when you think you are seeing them. There is a huge disconnect here that is just breezed over.


When we observe a fire are we seeing a phenomenon or chemical reaction which exists outside of our seeing it and understanding that it is a chemical reaction of oxidation? Can fire exist without having a sophisticated way of describing its nature? The obvious answer is, yes. So when science uncovered the idea of atoms and the reactive potentials of their combinations, was that a discovery or a description of what just is? It’s easy to accept that it is more of a description than the creation of fire itself. That is not the only way one could look at it. We could say that the understanding actually put what was chaos into order. Even though that seems pretty crazy, if you think about it, that is the direction in which we naturally think. We think finding the order is the intelligence, but actually the intelligence is in the order already! Intelligence is the order and it is a priori. It exists because it is always there. Fire exists within intelligence but you don’t have to understand it to be warmed or burned by it.


We are not going to challenge the scientific method of navigating reality, we are simply going to travel a more fulfilling and exciting and self-resolving journey. Ultimately we will see where various attempts at navigation enhance arriving at a wholly comprehensible way of seeing and a truly satisfying completion and memory of a beautiful path through what seemed like the wilderness.

Let’s get back to our sphere. We are not the first travelers to come into this territory. Ancient Jewish mystics (Kabbalists) deal very clearly with this conceptual sphere. They “explain” the origin and the conceptual containment of Universe in these terms. Here’s how they do it. They describe the invisible, unknowable essence of the ALL—the Potential of the ALL as the Primordial Light. Having all potential this “light” draws itself into itself creating a center out of which it radiates to create the Primordial Sphere. We can agree that that is really good conceptualizing. It deals nicely with a priori and en potentia!


The problem is that they go on from here into thinking about how this is the beginning and getting into more and more complex ideas about how things are and how they got to be this way. Frankly considering the limits of their point of view, and lacking the tools available “now” they create and interpret a very fascinating symbol system and vocabulary to speak of subtle ideas. The thinking becomes very esoteric and more and more complex until you have to be an expert in definition in the rarefied air of this specialized “conversation” to make anything out of it. This is how thought often goes: we get lost in our own creations.


That is exactly what we are going to avoid in our exploration and we are not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are going to explore the baby and the bath water. There is no reason we cannot. We are the baby in the bathwater. There can be no better position to be in. There are no limits as there are, for example, trying to figure out what a dolphin is thinking, or being or realizing. We are the natural experts here. No other life form gives us any tools for exploration other than suggesting analogies or proffering enigmas.


We can try to imagine self-conscious human beings in the context of the available knowledge of their time. We see they do not need a lot of complex scientific knowledge (description) to contemplate in very sophisticated ways. This is evidenced by the ideas of the “Greats” which is actually a message about consciousness more than an explanation of consciousness, being, morality, right action or any other fancy ideas. The very existence of the “Greats” and the depth of their thinking is the message, not the specific ways of seeing or conclusions they offer.


In his work “Understanding Media,” Marshall McLuhan posited the idea that THE MEDIUM IS THE MESAGE. In other words, if we stand back far enough, we may realize that examining the “container and flow” of the messages becomes a more general and a useful whole perception separate from the specific ideas transmitted or contained.


What we are suggesting is to “reverse engineer” our thinking in a way similar to the way a scientist realizes generalized systems of order in chemistry and physics. We attempt to find components and the rational ways they interact. We can travel together into this knowing while finding that the big secret is that there is no Secret. The total landscape can be traveled, mapped and comprehended so we can return as fellow explorers with an integrated common knowledge and wisdom gained together.


So let’s get on with our adventure of getting from A to B in a straight path, There are some rapids we have to traverse but be confident that our canoe can make it through as long as we stay balanced and paddle directly and deliberately. These rapids have been traversed before. Even if the ride becomes a bit bumpy, just engaging the adventure with optimism while staying centered in the challenge brings accomplishment which is self-validating.


Journeys are always putting together segments, let’s get the segments clearly understood so we can move along. We are going to do some thought experiments with the conceptual sphere we have created with the goal of getting from A to B in a straight path but, like traversing the rapids, lots of possibilities are going to arise very quickly and we must consider them all while staying focused and balanced, There is a lot going on here, but we can sort it out in a context much enhanced from what we might imagine the Kabbalists were working with. We must keep fresh in our minds that they did not have the mind set in which we are immersed. We take for granted our scientific way of experiencing consensus reality. We must assume that they did not or we would not have had to do all this analysis and description to arrive at scientific conclusions. It would already have been done and the thinking and reflections would reveal that. Their objective seems to have been to put their experience, perception and perspective of the universe in order. It is logical that they would want to start with imagining a way to present a model for understanding how something could come from nothing. Primordial Light was simply the potential of the ALL. That’s a pretty neat idea as the ALL is anything that can be imagined. So no leap is really taken when the potential of the ALL “decides” to pull itself into itself to create a center!


Really, though, they are deciding that things move and manifest in this way and passing the responsibility off to the primordial light. Well, as we have seen and hopefully understood—this is “stinkin’ thinking.” Let’s go back over this so we can stay centered and balanced in this canoe. There can not be any such thing as a beginning or an ending in Universal terms. Anything that seems to start is immersed in unfathomable complexity which is the medium in which it seems to “start.” Did your life start at conception, or birth or the moment it realizes itself? Do you remember not being? NOBODY DOES! That’s an enormous fact of experience and self-consciousness that is just breezed over as if it is not worth considering. Everything starts in the middle of the thing that it is. Our journey starts immersed in everything we have experienced so far and all we know or think we know or have named and defined and even after it is over it persists in our memories or as a conceptual tracing. Our lives to date can be contained in the story of us or ultimately as a headstone with two dates on it. We are never imagined as dead, we are always imagined as our story.


In the same way we have to examine the nature of the medium in which we are always immersed. We have to use it to imagine it and find some way to understand the essence of its nature. We have the tool to examine the tool and we have total freedom to imagine but if we are to discover something not yet seen we must keep to a system of examination and a clear integrity of examination.


So far there is only one thing we have discovered that we can not do in conceptuality. We cannot go infinitely fast. So let’s get back to our conceptually created sphere and try to analyze its properties and try to see if we can learn anything from it. We imagined Point A exploding as light at velocity c for some amount of time and then we froze everything. The result is a conceptual sphere with location A at its center and a concave (from the perspective of A) spherical conceptual containment that has no existence except as a “boundary layer” at distance c from A in any and all directions. This is a powerful image as it implies that we CAN travel any number of straight paths considered one at a time. We can go to B at the periphery which is simply a location defined by speed and time in any direction away from A. Really A is also simply a location which is B to A. We are free now to imagine going either way. Certainly we know that there are any number of potential locations at that periphery so we have plenty of potential to create any number of conceptual “paths” AB.


For now we won’t worry about what is “outside” the periphery, but it probably is worth considering what the perspective would be from any location B. Also, we may as well confront the idea of trying to see the totality of the sphere we have created. Of course we can do it, but from where are we looking? If we choose any location outside the sphere from which to look how do we have the standing to do that as outside has not even been defined. If we looked from any one point of view we would turn the sphere into a circle for all “practical” purposes. So we must consider perspective or point of view in our conceptual realm.


The fact is that we can imagine to look from the inside or the outside as certainly you have already done it in imagining the sphere and thinking about it. So conceptually we have no problem doing it, but we have no clear way of rationalizing it in principle. The thing we know from prior consideration is that the super complex consciousness is the thing (being) trying to get to the simple. For now we will allow ourselves to do that without going on a big guilt trip about it but let’s just keep this problem in the back of our considerations for now and temporarily call it conscious license. We will find a solution for this problem before the trip is over.


Using conscious license let’s consider everything we can about the sphere. What “natures” are apparent? We see self-evidently the creation of space and containment, In order to create the space we needed to use time and motion (speed) which we froze. We took the time out of it so we could consider it. In establishing containment we established the ideas of inside and outside. We found that we could move in from the defined periphery or out from the location at the center. We established concave and convex and the concept of straight and curved. It is self-evident that any two locations at the periphery imply a shortest distance straight path between them and a curved path between them made possible in the potential of any number of locations implied in the defined periphery. The potential peripheral paths are like the longitude paths of the globe. Any two locations at the periphery (globe surface) imply a great circle always dividing the sphere into two halves. A great circle is simply one centered at the center of the sphere.


Once we have imagined these reference lines, we can imagine the sphere and still leave it in its location. Or even more incredible we might imagine that the sphere is spinning in potential in every direction at once outside of time. We might consider that this conceptual spin in all directions would imply centrifugal force which might be seen as the explosive or radiating force which seems like unexplainable energy if you have no concept at all as to what energy is! At least this is some way of imagining from experience—like a rock accelerated in a sling.


Location in the periphery can be imagined as everywhere present all at once. Scientists describe electrons this way. Since we imagined light radiating out to create the sphere we can see the imagined periphery as a wave front or we can imagine any location of the “frozen” wave as a “particle.” That’s the kind of thing scientists say, but what the heck is a particle? And why does its location at any given moment of observation depend on the observer? A particle can not exist as an idea unless you think shrinking the sphere small enough will eventually make a particle. That is stinkin’ thinkin.’ We can start and stop time and expand the created space but noticing that once time is stopped we have an identical sphere of exactly the same size, There is only shape—no size. Our complex minds do not want to accept that but the realization of the truth of that will come and a rational way of looking at size will come forth.


We have created a space within our sphere in which we can imagine any number of locations. So, in a sense the sphere is “dense” with possibilities or potential (mass). Scientists might call this the Higgs Field. If we consider the emanation of the light in time in the creation of our conceptual sphere we can imagine the light pushing out the periphery. Now remember that while time is running the periphery (wave front) is curved by motion. When time is conceptually stopped, so we can examine what we have, all locations at some resolution at the periphery can only be connected by conceptually straight paths. In a conceptual way this “shrinks” the boundary location as a straight path is shorter than the curved one.


Geodesic Sphere at Epcot
Geodesic Sphere
Think of a geodesic “sphere” with its many facets. If that faceted geodesic is imagined to spin in all directions the outermost locations now define a curved surface in time which “encloses” (defines) slightly more space than the faceted geodesic. This push pull contradiction is conceptually an embracement out of time and an “inflating” or a radial centrifugal force in time. The outward force (energy) of the radiation in time is constrained by the conceptual containment out of time. This could be considered as an inward pulling (gravity). The presence of time implies motion. Conceptually curved manifest potential can only occur in time. When you take out time, you can’t have curves. Science can’t imagine the integrated significance of mass and gravity because it does not deal with Universe as the WHOLE. These more and more massive accelerators are trying to find an explanation for mass but through science we are just finding more mysteries or defining the not understood in more and more specialized, exclusive and esoteric ways.


Those ideas were the rapids. Just let them be behind us and breathe easy. When reflected on later, we may realize we just paddled through some of the most exciting photos of the trip. And by the way, we are paddling upstream so expect to get a bit worn out as effort is required to make headway. If we relax out here in the middle, we are just swept by the current back into familiar waters. That is still a journey, but not the one we set out on. For us to rest we have to get to the river bank and tie up before we take the paddles out of the water. The territory upstream is amazing and definitely worth the effort. So tie a hammock in the trees here and take a nap to recuperate. There is a way of seeing that functionally resolves all possibilities while leaving open the frontier of endless exploration.