The Geometry of Consciousness

Transcription

1 The Geometry of Consciousness - or - They Never Showed You That on Television 2006 Lawrence Gold Human somas are, at minimum, five dimensional beings. While this assertion may seem to place me among the New Agers and committed practitioners of California Froo-froo, there is, as you will see, a rational reason for my making this assertion, and it s not all hot air. Let s begin with definitions. First, DIMENSION A dimension is, literally, a direction of measurement. It is not an alternate reality, plane, or parallel universe. We are not talking about the Twilight Zone, here. The word consists of DI, which means two and MENSION, which means measurement. It s simply a measurement along the two directions of a continuum, as in length, which starts from zero and goes wherever. The typical dimensions of an object are length, width and depth, each measured along certain lines ninety degrees apart from each other. For you Einsteinians, we include time, which is quite a different animal than the basic three, and which consists only of motion of something three-dimensional relative to the viewer. All dimensions measure distance between points of space-time: like inches, degrees, seconds, etc. None of these dimensions can be experienced in themselves, without the others. For example, a point must have some diameter, whether in the mind s eye or in physical actuality. Without a diameter, it cannot be seen and therefore cannot honestly be said to have existence. It can only be posited or proposed in some preposterous sense, to have existence without evidence or reason. A line of any length (a segment ) must have some width, at least one point s diameter wide, whether in the mind s eye or in physical

2 actuality. Without width, it cannot be seen and therefore cannot honestly be said to have existence. It can only be posited or proposed in some preposterous sense, to have existence without evidence or reason. Next example: a surface (or plane). Surfaces always have two dimensions of measurement: length and width. But without some thickness (depth), whether in the mind s eye or in actuality, a surface is insubstantial and invisible; one simply sees through it. There must be some stopping point for attention to rest on, to say, There is a surface, and that stopping point has a position in space, whether physical space or mind-space. And right there, I ve shown you that the third dimension of space must exist in order to perceive a surface. Without space, which requires the third dimension of depth, a surface is imperceptible and so can only be preposterously asserted to exist without evidence or reason. We seem to have taken care of matter, but we have not, yet, by two steps. You see, things can be said to exist only if they have duration in time. Without duration in time, there is no way for anything even to flicker into and out of existence, and everything that exists came into existence sometime. Eternal existence is inconceivable and can only be preposterously asserted to exist without You are not here. evidence or reason, or even without representation in the mind. This flickering of things into existence reveals the essential nature of time, which is motion, or change. There is no time apart from motion or change. Without motion, the three dimensions cannot be observed, either in the mind s eye or in physical actuality, and so a minimum of four dimensions is necessary to observe three dimensions; without the observation of motion or change, we have only the preposterous assertion of things existence without evidence or reason.

3 That leads us to an interesting question. If each dimension requires the next-higher dimension for it to be observable, what is the dimension from which we observe time? Unlike the other answers, this answer is not conceptual, but paradoxical. We observe the four dimensions of space-time from our hereness, which, oddly enough, is always here to us no matter where we are or whether or not we are moving. Everything, whether an object of the senses or an object of mind, is experienced relative to our hereness, but our hereness, itself, is no object. It is the perspective of no-motion (always here, where we are) by which motion is observed, by us, as moving around, toward or away from us. It is the perspective or point of view (always here, where we are) from which we experience everything. The evidence for the fifth dimension, which cannot be observed either in the mind s eye or in actuality, is this: without the motion of change, either in actuality or in our mind s eye, there is nothing to perceive and follow, and therefore no perceiver or follower -- no us. We do not experience ourselves existing at all without the movements of something to observe, and yet we cannot be said not to exist simply because we can and do experience those movements, the four dimensions of life, space-time. We perceive space-time from a fifth dimension or direction of measurement, independent of the pace of time or of the size of space, and yet we cannot be said to exist without those limits. We cannot be said to exist apart from space-time. All space-time is observable from here, and yet here cannot be observed without being a feature of space-time, and therefore can not be the here of where we, as the observer, are. Yet because we are always here, no matter where we are or how fast we are moving, we also transcend the limits of space-time. Without hereness, there is no way to perceive, yet hereness is not defined by where we are, since it doesn t matter where we are; we are still here, always here.

4 Likewise, it doesn t matter when we are, in terms of clock, calendar, or event; we are still now. Here and Now are terms always defined functionally by place and time, but since our hereness and nowness are not defined by place or time (except to the outside observer), we are not here, nor are we now in any limited sense. We are formless, our perspective being defined as a location of perception from which what is being observed is being observed, but there is no content or fixed definition to our hereness. Dimensions are defined by how things relate to each other, by contrast: size, speed, direction, etc. The final contrast is between existence (space-time), which is always defined, and hereness, without which time and space there could not be perceived. The fifth dimension is the contrast between thereness (all things experiencable) and hereness (timeless, spaceless being). Did that tilt your mind? I told you it is a paradoxical matter. Rest as the four-dimensional mind-body (soma) and intuit the mystery of your fivedimensional existence. (We have five everything else fingers, toes, limbs, senses why not dimensions?) Relax and let it be. Feel from where you are, the totality of what you are, which is more than your mind can define, and know that you and life are only-motion perceived from and in a timeless place that does not move. It s called awareness. Well and good, as far as it goes. But wait! There s more! Let s revisit the basic concepts upon which this whole argument is based. First, the point. If we are honest about it, whenever we use the concept of a point, we refer mentally to an object of central focus, namely a location in space, called a point. That point has a place and a size. It s like, infinitesimally small, but still referable to, and so appears to the mind s eye as a something.

5 That being the case, even if infinitesimally small, it still has a size, and anything that has a size can be subdivided into smaller parts. In other words, a point is made of a lot of smaller points. Since a point is still a point seen from any angle, those smaller points must be arranged in a sphere. Each of those points, in turn, is a sphere made of still smaller points (smaller spaces), ad infinitum. Ultimately, we can t distinguish the one big point from the infinite number of smaller points that make it up, as they all blend into each other. Actually, there are no points, only spaces defined by attention. Only by blinding ourselves to the inevitability of this argument can we continue to say, No, no, what we have here is a single point, as if its size were irreducible. The mind falls through the floor of the conceptual elevator, free-fall. Likewise, lines. A line must have thickness, or it is imperceptible. Therefore, there are no lines, only tubes or strings. (Hat tip to String Theory which, as we will soon find, is preposterous.) And those tubes or strings are made of points, which is to say, space, each definable point of which exists only as multiple points that are, themselves, space. There are no lines, only spaces defined by attention, with their size of a scale determined by our own capacity to imagine. Likewise, planes or surfaces, which, like their constituents, are only spaces hypothetically defined by fixations of attention (imagination). If it seems solid, you haven t looked closely enough at the workings of your own attention or followed the reasoning. Likewise, space is also made of points that are spaces defined by smaller points, which are space infinitely divisible. If it seems to be a space, it s made of points; if it seems to be a point, it s made of space. 1 = 0. Is your underwear starting to feel a little tight? Relief is on the way. Finally, we consider time, which is movement and measurable only in terms of movement. If it doesn t move relative to you or you don t move relative to it, you can t perceive it. Try staring at this page for a

6 while without moving and see what happens. Understanding comes to you in time. Gotcha. But I ll let you off the hook for the moment, long enough to drive in the final nail. Let s say that you can perceive something that isn t moving relative to you or you moving relative to it. You re not allowed to compare it to anything else because your attention would be moving. So you have no way to determine its size or location or whether it is moving. In fact, you can know nothing about it at all (even color is a matter of comparison, in only in memory, which requires the movement of attention). Oops. You re left without a reference, a mental blank, which is to say, undefined space, your hereness without definition, your fifthdimensional perspective, the hole in space-time, your unborn nature, your absence which is here but which is meaningless and which cannot be said to exist without something with which to interact. As I said, paradox. You can try to wrap your mind around it, but if you do, you have missed the point. Change your underwear.