Of Musicology part 1 Introduction

The Sound of Music

D'ou Venons Nous


The Nature of nature




post modernism & music

19.7.00 13:00 - 14:00

Of Musicology part 1 Introduction

Of Musicology part 1 an introduction. "A Well Tempered Clavier" of September 2001 - this piece may seem shallow, slight, bland, if it does it does because it is. The structures within the original work by Bach are therefore shallow, slight, bland… and not because the piece adds anything or takes anything away from the original. It does deconstruct it, and here is the problem for the listener. If its not liked because its "old" then what without the title and explanation would make it so. If its not liked because its new - then the facts are again wrong. Music is it seems not anymore an historical cultural event, its consistency through time lies in it being essentially the same - that is a kind of ontological logocentrism. It would not take many other examples to show how essentially nothing has changed other than melody -the melodic changes are both in each piece and the development of music itself - but - and this is crucial - not effective in holding up the structure. The structure of what music is exists underneath the fine clothes of timbre and tone - or lack of tone. Tone is an illusion - to make the listener think something is changing, even to make the artist think that they are changing something - when in fact they are just dressing and redressing the same object - music. If "A Well Tempered Clavier" is not liked its because it exposes the myth of musicology. It exposes the deceit between artist and audience within the arts since the beginning of modernity. It exposes the holy relics as animal bones. It must not be liked - for to start to see this piece as anything significant is to begin to deconstruct the whole of music.

Unlike the pretty switched on Bach the deceit in "A Well Tempered Clavier" is that it is not obvious - in that the clothes which signify are not obviously doing anything like this. What does this imply - that our tastes in music are no more real than the category we find them placed in the music store. If its in the Jazz section I'll like it! Why then bother to listen to the music itself, this is the second point of the deconstruction - that is no one does listen to the music in itself. No one has in modern times listened. For the superficiality of tone and more importantly the word has hidden the reality of music. Music like all of modern culture is logocentric, if its under classical you will like it, if its under …. What makes the big Mac a Big Mac - (and not just any other burger) is it the taste of the beef, the relish - or the text on the carton in which it arrives. Its important for a classical musician who strays into pop or jazz to clearly show this first, for fear of upsetting an audiences prejudices. And so too with pop musicians forays into classical and jazz, they arrive with temporary visas in their hands. If minimalism pares music and art down to its essentials then the essential is the word, the label, Art Gallery, Purcell Room, Harmoni Mundi, EMI … If the label falls off the piece, it ceases to be!

I was mistaken in that I thought after art would be a period of a new individual and primitive cultures - but post-modernism unlike pre-modernism has the weight of the past - the remembrance of the great culture of the west and all its logocentric colonial legacies. We cannot live back in nature because modernity has destroyed it. We live on the modernity, we are employed as media consultants, executive officers and assistant executive officers. We are not an undifferentiated primitive, we are not what we do, we are what our title is - and to change this is to change ourselves. It is the ambiguity of the title "A Well Tempered Clavier" - and the unambiguous content which is disturbing as this is the exact reverse of what is expected in modern art. A clear title on an ambiguous - or deceitful object. The best example of which is of course "untitled".

We have always had to eat yet continually pretend cooking can be new and novel, it's a exercise in deception as much as any other art form. The avant garde is going nowhere, its fed by products labelled as such, here is the problem and reason it spits out "A Well Tempered Clavier" of September 2001. It's a big Mac full of dead cow.


The Sound of Music

'Perhaps we have been listening to the sound of music and we should be listening to the music of sound.'

Music in its original form is only the sound of what is heard, pure sound appreciated as an emotive reaction to a natural phenomenon. The formal musical development of these objects is based on some logical framework. This framework predicates another way of listening, and another music, of the appreciation of formal systems.

Each Object has an innate sound, independent of the human-as-artist. It is the human-not-as-artist who first creates a sound using an object. The sound is originally created by accident. The human-as theoretician is interested in the logic of sound as representing an abstract set of theories. Formalist music must it seems eventually become a branch of physics. The human-as-artist is interested in the sounds emotional expressive ability. The-human-as-artist approaches all objects as such, including the products- the instruments and theories of humans-as-theoreticians. There is a feedback between the performer and audience. In terms of art this is a subjective 'discussion' which is open-ended, in terms of formalist music it is like science the validation or falsification of a theory.

In the nature of complex or evolving cultures there is a tendency to see objects in themselves as incomplete. The origin of the nature of music lies in the sound of the object. In complex cultures the sound is perceived as unsatisfactory, or incomplete. Form is used to establish a sense of completeness. This completeness in itself becomes unsatisfactory and so after many perceived permutations of form, new objects, with new sounds are introduced and the process begins again. Form is the application of logical structures onto the objects of nature- in this case sound. Change or progress is caused by the crisis of method, which is a consequence of the inherent incompleteness of logic/form.

The development of western music is an example of the above phenomenon. The formal methods and technical innovations are driven by logical inconsistencies which create a successive resolution in new techniques or objects. This gives an impression of progress which reassuringly matches the general modernist notion of progress and development in western culture. The introduction of new instruments, piano, tuned brass, saxophone, electronics arrived at periods of maximum complexity and crisis in the existing formalism.

In contrast musics which rely on pure sounds which are not developed, which do not evolve, are typified by cultures which also do not evolve, which are fixed. These musics have little logical form, and are termed (pejorativly) 'primitive' musics. Examples are music made by the naive, by children at play and cultures termed anthropologically 'primitive'. A limited logical system imposed on the creation of sounds which is fixed and non evolving perhaps provides a model with which to describe Asiatic, folk musics etc.

Post Modernism has been described as the successor to the progressive evolutionism of modernism in western culture. Po-mo has been associated with such eschatological ideas as 'The end of progress', 'The end of history' 'The end of Art', 'The end of science' etc. The new-formalism of a looping culture ultimately fails as it is only a pretence of progress, however the adoption of a new-primitivism need not be a simplistic back-to-nature copy of primitivism but take the form of replacing the structures of modernity, (formalism, rationalism logical objective methodology) with subjectivism. The re-emergence of subjectivism is the feature of po-mo which connects it to so called 'primitive' cultures. Subjectivism is a feature of static non evolving societies.

The post-modern minimalist's choice of objects with which to make music can be taken from the re-creation/discovery of simple objects or the complex musical objects of modernity, orchestras, synthesisers, et.al. It is how these objects are used which typifies po-mo tendencies. When used by a po-mo artist the inherent formalism which is in-built, for example tuning or method of playing, is not the primary criterion for using the object musically. Cage seems to anticipated this in his use of the prepared piano. Post modernist behaviour is a way of avoiding the alienation of the individual which is a consequence of living in a modern society. Po-mo attitudes in contemporary music are an emotive expression of a deep subjectivism. Minimalism is the making of music out of the sounds of the objects themselves. Po-mo minimalism is the making of music out of the sounds of the objects themselves and not from any formalist theory.

Po-mo minimalism is not a simple reaction to modernism. Modernism is a consequence of the reactionist programme of western culture, po-mo exists only if it fails to adopt modernity's ideas of progress (formalism/structure/rationalism). Reaction is after all a dialectical/scientific process. Neither is po-mo a critique of modernity, as critique is another of modernity's methods. Po-mo minimalism is an expression of the emotion of being, being without reference. The commonality with primitive art is that primitive art in its essence is also this. Modernity critically rejects primitive art as being invalid, like it rejects primitive theology, science etc. as being invalid. Because modernity sees no value in subjectivity it ultimately destroys all individuals through what we as individuals experience as alienation. This has particular implications to the audience-artist dialogue. The separation of the idea of artist from the audience is a product of modernist thinking. It is a formal equation of properties of artist and audience. The structures of modernity, the concert hall and art galley, alienate the artist from the audience, and de-individualise the whole process, an anonymous audience listens to the work of a composer with whom no direct interaction can take place. The performance is fixed, scored and any chance elements rehearsed out.

A po-mo audience evaporates into individual practitioners in their own right. The audience becomes the artist. The role of the art object is that it is used by individuals to create a subjective space for them to inhabit. The po-mo originator of the artwork loses ownership of the object. Scratching and sampling cause such problems of ownership and copyright for the institutions of modernity because they are features of po-mo. Subjectivism in po-mo blurs or replaces the artist-audience distinction. The choice of how to engage in and with the work is more important than mere ownership. This is the po-mo deconstruction of the artist and audience.

In formalism the audience sees the artist of worth as being able to do something that they either cannot do or find technically difficult. In subjectivism the worth is seen in the relationships that the listener makes with the piece.

Formalism is un-sustainable, as its about limits which have been reached, subjectivism can sustain the individual indefinitely.

The sound of music is temporally dictated, unlike reading or watching or looking at a painting. This is the tyrannical structure of unrest that destroys the perfection of sound. The act of this destruction is called music.


D'ou Venons Nous

JLIAT is about synthesis of sound as a means to produce pieces which are able to transcend the systems which make them. The cultural, logical systems in general and those of musical composition in particular.

The general cultural systems relate specifically to those which follow a fairly 'enlightenment' - neo-platonic approach to creativity. Those which exploit logical systems as their underpinning. The consequences of such systems are observed in the 'crisis' in post-modernist thought and art. In particular in music it has been the development of formal diatonic systems which have collapsed into other - still logical, systems, and increasingly the exploitation of chance, (Cage) and improvisation. Rather than reactions to the 'universalisim' of the enlightenment I see these as precursors of a different approach to making sound. One that has links to much older religious and primitive music. Where form, logical composition and development are not a focus.

Two examples from science can be regarded as touch stones for leading us out of the straight jacket of formalism. The first is the technique of using complex computer algorithms which evolve themselves in adapting to solving particular tasks. The upshot being that the latter generations of algorithms are unknown to any programmer. Their logical structures are opaque, in that not only are they 'unseen' but in future? extremely complex evolutions may well be unintelligible, -to humans. The success of these systems is not understood but appreciated. The whole area of A.I. offers other examples. Another similar feature is the development of theories such as superstring theory where no practical experiments can verify the hypothesis. (It is not possible to construct an experiment for the falsification/verification of the theory.) It is the elegance of these theories which is used as their justification.

What makes these developments significant to me is the arbiter of elegance, aesthetics has re-emerged out of the logical woodwork.

Programming computers to produce music is well established. The problem with this is that as mere logical devices they are not much better than their Victorian automaton precursors. The use of 'fractal' programs has also been employed, this marks something of a new departure, but the underpinning idea here seems to be one of exploring fractal phenomenon, and not music or sound. The Koan software is perhaps another (perhaps better) attempt to use complex systems to produce 'new music'.

What I am interested in is the idea of producing systems which can generate music in non-programmed ways. This may seem a contradiction. My point here is two fold, firstly there is an argument for defining all art which is significant as art which somehow is not merely an expression of an algorithm- or a simple idea. The second is more particular to the new technology, and the technologies which I use. I am using these not as tools, logical extensions of biology -for the ease of working, but as opportunities of creating very complex- non repeatable systems for the production of sound. Here my analogy with computer science closes, the works are un-scorable, no score could re-create them, nor can the composer/originator re-create them. Their worth therefore is judged not in the internal formal structures, which have through re-synthesis become so complex as to be opaque, but by the appreciation, (or not) of their elegance.

JLIAT is about making a departure from fixed logic systems which predicate all music. i.e. there is a finite number which encodes all music of a finite length.1 There is - in terms of this number- nothing new- nothing more to be said... The thought of this number can be regarded as a score for all possible music. The 'departure' is in abandoning structurally differentiated objects as method in favour of the 'being' of sound. The aesthetics within a piece is not of formal comparisons but the appreciation of the sound as an object. A beautiful object. This is not 'slight', but specifically seeks to engage in the transcendental appreciation of reality.

1. for example every CD is in effect a number, the sound on the CD is encoded binary which can be converted to its decimal equivalent. If a CD was only 4 bits long and not @ 5,120,000,000 bits then


1 0000 = 0 (silence)
2 0001 = 1
3 0010 = 2
4 0011 = 3
5 0100 = 4
6 0101 = 5
7 0110 = 6
8 0111 = 7
9 1000 = 8
10 1001 = 9
11 1010 = 10
12 1011 = 11
13 1100 = 12
14 1101 = 13
15 1110 = 14
16 1111 = 15 (noise)
Your collection would be complete at 16 CDs.

The set of all possible combinations of zeros and 1s - the truth table for all CDs is itself a binary number. This number is small in comparison to music which lasts longer than the 74 minutes of a CD- in human terms the limit would be a non repeating sequence of numbers which encode all possible discernible frequencies at intervals between the shortest discernible time period to the maximum - the life span of a human, or a 1,000 years, the upper limit of human memory. (if we could live for 1,000 years we would at that point not be able to store any more experiences in our brains- its estimated that a thousand years worth of information is the maximum that can be encoded in the human brain- there is a finite limit to memory- (its also interesting that techniques of compaction would eventually result in all information being simplified to zero)) Other works of music beyond these numbers can be considered although never appreciated by us. Infinite musics require infinite time, and or infinite upper-lower frequencies. There are perhaps physical constants, the speed of light or duration of protons which may cause us to reserve judgement on infinite musics, but as exciting as these works might be they are well beyond our appreciation anyway. Our (JLIAT) way is...

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

as it were by meditating on the finite, and something which is simple, we can somehow perceive transendentally the infinite. The problem some may have is that they don't wish to consider the infinite, this is a case of wishing to cling to some sort of neo-platonic certainty of reality, and presumably enjoy neo-platonic music.


An Interview

Answers to questions from Nick Cain of Opprobrium

1. What were your musical interests before college?

Before Art school I listened to the Pink Floyd- Umagumma, Cream, Fleetwood Mac( with Pete Green), Hendrix, Dr John, Cohen, Dylan, Zappa, The Beatles, Indian Raga. I didn't play an instrument, I was more concerned with painting. I studied Fine Art at Falmouth, by that time I was interested in Conceptual Art.

2-6 About how you became involved in music, the contacts etc......

At Falmouth there was a strong link with music, although the only courses were in painting and sculpture. Howard Rees was a graduate of the Royal College of Music who set up the electronics workshop at Falmouth, a VCS3, and 2 Revox's. There was an overlap between Conceptual art and the avant garde in music at that time. I knew of this before Art School from the work of Yoko Ono and the destruction in art symposium, fluxus and the like. I don't know what became of Howard, he is credited with playing Marimba on the Harold Budd album 'The Pavilion of Dreams' along with Marion Brown Gavin Bryars, Michael Nyman, Nigel Shipway and Brian Eno. He liked the art work I was doing, and I did some tape pieces, and learnt to use the VCS3. He was using tapes to construct abstract pieces from 'sampled' sounds. It was either he or Ron Smith who introduced me to Riley and Reich. Ron was a 'painting lecturer' who spent all his time playing sax and clarinet. He was into very free Jazz. That's how I got into performing 'music'. He wanted 'Non Musicians' to lay down percussion textures to improvise against. The four percussionists 'played' anything we could, bowing cymbals, polystyrene!!, using bird calls, squeaky toys and assorted drums, gongs and boxes. We played at a few 'gigs' in Cornwall. The whole Falmouth period was dismal as regards my fine art practice, but I was introduced to a whole new world of music. I was involved in performing works by Riley, met Harrison Birtwistle, and John Cage, and argued vehemently with John Tilbury, 'the famous Marxist Pianist'. My meeting with Cage, was in the interval of a performance of his at the Albert Hall, Howard must have arranged it, and I have completely forgotten what was said!

7.After college ......

I was stupid enough to loose contact with these people after Art School, I was in something of a depressed state. I decided to try to continue with the music. The 'studio' bedsit was based around a Synthi AKS and 2 Four track tape decks. This was de-rigour in those days. On the Akai deck I swopped the erase head with the play head so you could record loops. If anyone reads this who is in a similar position today they will know how depressing it can get, the crippling cost of the equipment, and the lack of any response, at that time the synthesiser was a thing Linda McCartney played on Jets! I have a cassette of some of the un-released pieces from that period. One piece in particular took about 12 recordings, bouncing tracks to get something which approaches what I am doing today. I did a piece of just rain falling, another in which I recorded Beethoven Symphonies and condensed them down to a minute, then stretched them back out again. I don't think at the time there was any chance of releasing any of this kind of thing, for lack of interest and money.

8. Other work....

The move to video was a progression. I had begun to just talk and record self analytical conversations. The videos are mostly the same sort of thing, dialogues with myself, or just recording myself, in one instance eating, then replaying and introspecting, who the hell was that on the video. I also at this time began to study classical music, by which I mean diatonic music. Outside of all this I was beginning to make a career. During the post art school depression I had worked in various jobs, petrol pump attendant, clerk at the post office, and been unemployed. First I went into teaching, and then left teaching and trained as a computer programmer.

9. Beginnings of the JLIAT project.....

The process of returning to making music was gradual. In about 1985/6 I bought an Atari and began writing programs which would store matrixes of note sequences. These would trigger a Yamaha workstation. The idea behind this came from conversations with Lesley, who I knew from Art School. I liked the idea of 'a project' as a working environment, so in about 1986 we decided to pick up the threads of the minimalist work I had been doing, putting it under a project title. At the time I wasn't thinking of releasing anything, but perhaps Lesley was? Your question of 'realisation' is difficult, in minimalism the end is never known in advance, the music is very much a 'thing in itself'.


I started by using the looping of envelopes on the SY99, and looping wave sequences on a Wavestation. There are unreleased pieces using this technique. The problem on the SY99 is that you can't then use the envelope to change the sound. I now use a sampler and a Lexicon echo unit to create loops. The technique is related to my approach to music, I am familiar with the formal methods, and its easy with sequencers to work that way. I choose however to approach making music more like the abstract expressionists approached painting. The psychological nature of the sound is what is important to me, and not some formalist construction of notes. For example, its possible to create a sound using 6 FM operators by setting operator 1 to 0, 2, to 1, 3-4,4-8,5-16,16-32 where each division is a octave, so operator 6 sounds a note 32 octaves above operator 1. This is in formal terms a very simple chord, yet this completely fails to describe the sound, it is like a pure colour, which has depth and resonance, as in Derek Jarman's 'Blue' for instance, the colour or 'note' holds a spiritual vibrancy. Mark Rothko, Morris Louis, Barnett Newman, Ad Reinhardt, Carl Andre, Richard Serra, Robert Morris created 'beautiful' objects out of minimalist techniques which at times obtain a spirituality. Spirituality is critically important for me, without it there is nothing.


Serialism is a response to a formalist problem in music, minimalism is more about the nature of sound, and the nature of 'being'. I see Serialism as significant in breaking the aesthetic of the diatonic system, and allowing other aesthetics. John Cage is the ultimate minimalist. 4'33" is a serious work!


From what I have read of Brian Eno's intentions in music he seems to be searching for a 'mechanism' for creating music. As such his endeavours are predominantly that of a traditional composer, materialist, or industrialist, wanting to create a music making algorithm. The human parameter is minimised, and the ease of production maximised. A model for such a proposal would be a box out of which would come music. The Koan software? Ritual music is in contrast a human product, here the box serves only to amplify the human feelings, serves to be an extension of the players physical and spiritual being. Comparing the two musics, the former is guaranteed a quality which the latter often falls short of but occasionally transcends. In spiritual music, and improvisation, and my work, one begins with a structure but in the process of playing become free of it. One cannot make a transcendental algorithm, or a God machine.

15.Length of the pieces.....

Why are popular songs 3 to 4 minutes, because that's the length of a 78 or 45 rpm record. The social conditions of the 17th & 18th centuries dictated the symphonies length. The JLIAT pieces could run for as long as the equipment is left on, I would like to make a 24 hour piece, a 7 day piece .....

16.Who is "L"

L is Lesley, my wife, advisor, producer, promoter, critic.


Y9v9 is a tag for what some would call chance, but does in fact create everything. It's an Aramaic word, which for me is Brahman, within all, outside all.

18.The diagram in the first CD....

The 'evolution' tree of JLIAT in the first CD was done when I was playing with a SSADM computer package for drawing things called data flow diagrams. Its not that serious, and done in the same spirit as Ad Reinhardt's diagrams. You see diagrams like this in some very bad books on art. I have since come across something similar by George Maciunas of Fluxus. If I was to draw one of philosophers who have influenced my thinking I would have to include Nietzsche who's philosophy I totally reject. Evolutionary ideas are dangerous, some of the best music is the most 'primitive'.


'Ambient' is an expression of Brian Eno's. He uses the phrase in the sleeve notes of Discreet Music, where he wanted the music to be heard as part of the total environment of sound. For him this was a new way of listening to music. The term has since been used to describe the 'chill out' music of dance, Orb, FSOL etc. Its used here I think as a comparative term to 'Dance' and 'Rave' which are loud, with strong rhythms and fast B.P.M.s. There is a link to the Pink Floyd via the guitar playing technique of Steve Hillage. An older and more pejorative term was 'New Age', which Hillage was involved with. The states of mind that the dance culture seeks to explore and experience have similarities with religious ecstatic practice, chanting, dancing, meditating. Early Minimalist music can also have similar effects on consciousness, and some of its practitioners had an interest in transcendental religious beliefs, minimalism went on to preoccupy itself with structure, theatre and politics, which although interesting is spiritually arid.

20.Spiritual vs Material.....

The search for higher meaning, like the phrase 'beyond the infinite' is in analytical terms nonsense. Its why formalism, mathematics and science can take you only so far. If everything is reduced to mathematical terms, then there must be a equation for the universe which reduces to A=A. The real question is 'why anything and not nothing'. JLIAT is an answer.

21.Where did the name JLIAT come from?

A dream.

The Nature of Nature

1 The Nature of GOD.

2 The nature of nature.

3 The nature of man.

4 The manifestations in prophets, in art, in person.

5 The nature of Jesus- God in the world.

6 beyond person- beyond the gate to infinity of being.

7 The nothing- the deep nature.

8 The Church.

9 That which is that.

10 The Rabbit.

11 The dream.

12 The whole God thing.

13 The nature of good and evil.

14 The desert.

15 The Innu.

16 The nature of being dead and alive

17 The size of God.

18 Big numbers and big number machines.

19 The apple tree (why there is no proof of god).

20 Faith.

21 Wishful Thinking.

22 The Will of God.

23 The Mind of God

24 Consciousness.

25 The path through the forest.

26 The end of logic.

27 Nature naturing , god goding.

28 Joy.

29 Symmetry.

30 The Joy of life.

31 Science

32 The poor in spirit.

33 Minimalism.

34 The secret of the universe!

35 Other things.

36 Everlasting Life.

37 The theatre

38 harsf;k n,rasf k;qurt hq.

39 Beyond Images.

40 The nature of the soul.

41 The Spider.

42 The post-industrial enlightenment.

43 Superstition and little gods.

44 The Next Step.

45 Acts.

46 Compassion.

47 A dog learns to open the kitchen door.

48 Why.

49 Hours.

50 Why put flowers on a grave.

51 No title.

52 Existence.

53 Yet another gallery exhibition, yet another theory....

54 Jellyfish.

55 Nothing is not a re-action.

56 Logic language myth symbol- reality ha ha that old one!

57 The end of everything.

58 A Thousand Theories which contradict each other.

59 The universe.

60 My World.

61 Conversation with myself

62 Theological problems

63 How do we find out?

64 If one wills god into the world one wills gods destruction. Is this the task of organised religion.

65 The Theatre

66 Magic.

67 A transcendental method.

68 Why bother.

69 A play.

70 To say.

71 untitled.

72 The Future.

73 Methods.

74 The Profane.

75 The sacred.

76 A New Genesis.

77 The Burning Bush.

78 What to do.

79 Attributes.

80 Church Architecture.

81 Some Leading Thoughts.

82 The final heresy.

83 Now.

84 The hidden nature remains unexposed.

85 Faith.

86 The Mystic.

87 And from here, it begins again.

88 Critique of Solipsism.

89 Children.

90 Co-operation.

91 The end


Verse 1

The Nature of God.

God is uncountable- even if 1 then 1 can be divided. No before No after. In no place, in no time, not having any property which can be divided. I can not join god - which is to change the nature of God. To God my existence is complete, it is known, my place, my history, one of the infinite possibilities which all have to be.

God created everything - all possible things including time. Within my limits I can know - it takes nothing away it gives nothing to God. Being is not a property of God - therefore there is non-being.

How did Moses hear the sentence I AM who I AM. If it was spoken by God in time, then it had a beginning and an end, the sound could be divided, you could interrupt the word of God. I think that Moses when looking at the burning bush 'realised' in temporal, human thought & space, the nature of God - who is without. 'who is without' is wrong, there is no accurate language for describing God, so Moses uses the nearest words, to try and picture the nature of his experience of God. The language of creation in Genesis is not literal, it consists of an attempt to describe in words the indescribable, the nature of creation. The idea of God as the image of man is the complete reversal of what the prophets say. God as an image of man is given arms and legs, thought patterns and the like, how can we describe the feelings of the nature of God, but in seeing them as being from him, made from him, in the image of him, but to see these words as operating like ordinary language would be a mistake. They describe something - indescribable, they serve as not even approximations. An analogy would be to ask what smell does the colour red have.


Verse 2

The nature of nature.

The universe is like a fire which burns infinitely in itself, consuming that which it creates.

At every point of creation a new creation takes place, at every point on the circle of creation are new circles, as in the mandlebrot set there is an infinity within infinity of creations. Our present model of the created universe is no different to the model found in Genesis. Bounded and somehow fixed in time, divisible and finite. Science has merely enlarged this concept. As our knowledge of the facts of nature have increased a flat earth became round, and the earth shifted from the centre of the universe, despite a resistance from the pull of mans ideal of a universe filled by his knowledge, with man at the centre. Creation as an act is infinite and timeless, God creates everything, every moment every thing, and with each moment a new history, a new and separate universe is created. This is happening now and continually, ever creating, is a consequence of the possibility of anything. If not nothing then everything. This is seen this in time, which is false, as if the universe expands in history, this is only how we beings who swim in the sea of time, see our universe. If God is creator then all universes are being created, as we would see it :but in fact have been, are being, and will be created. Time is another creation, our time lines are only finite traces in an infinity of lines, of all possible lines. Our being is only one of an infinite. God is both within this and without it. In this because it is his creation and without it because only God can be without creation. Not by dividing a second small enough could we produce a fraction of time un-experienced - un-created by God. The totally of universes is infinite, otherwise God's creation would not be perfect. I could point to a set of possibilities not actualised and say why didn't God do that, so God doesn't make choices, so choice is a finite phenomenon, so God makes all choices, has everything, does everything, for what could be that wasn't made by him. God's creation is infinite. Everything is, has been and will be realised. We are the image of God, if we create a world outside ourselves which we inhabit. God is not the image of us, our world is always finite, God's world is infinite, both fixed and changing, perfect, complete. Genesis begins with the void, the chaos was not fixed, it is infinite, neither is time finite at the beginning, this is our (being created within time) view. To read Genesis to understand God's creation must be absurd. How can we stand and talk of God as we would a person, 'ah that's how he did it', and some can say, 'I don't believe that's true'. We can not stand back from creation and see it, and judge it, for we are in creation and being created continually. No eyes, or mirror or picture can view God, who makes everything.

Its not only that in genesis there was a universe where Eve was not tempted, or a universe where Hitler won WW2 but at each and every instant of time every conceivable possibility is created. For a complex algorithm is ontologically real, so the possibility is real. The infinite moments into which I move my free choice is the illusion of choosing a possibility. A God who conceives out of time all possibilities is not surprised by my action, by my choices, they are in reality part of a whole, already known by God. The act of God determines all possible algorithms, histories, creates them in reality. This is both spatial, temporal and hierarchical, as in each universe another can be modelled. Why this concept of nature would not be liked is it is unpopular to make ourselves less significant. Present physical theories still guarantee the individual a portion of finite space and time, although now in the modern cosmos this is not as large as it once was thought. Time and space have expanded in recent theoretical models of nature, but the orthodoxy still desires to limit these, strives to limit these, is what orthodox science seems to be about. Science is a boundary defining/creating activity. Not a search for truth but the creation of limits, boundaries, quanta with which the human ego can hold or bind God and nature. The many worlds universe of infinite possibilities guarantees the ego nothing, what portion does a finite self have of infinity? Subtracting an ego from a finite universe makes a difference. A spirit which merges with a finite God makes a difference. However any subtraction or addition to a infinity makes absolutely no difference. It is only rejecting the finite, and the individual, do I get a coherent vision of the I in the world.


Verse 3

The nature of man.

It is that all things must be which is the cause of good and evil. We experience presently one history. It is being now which is why our history is particular. Every choice is taken. The reason for evil is that it is a possibility, therefore it necessarily must be, I must necessarily be, you must necessarily be, be here in now and not, eventually be all things, good and bad. Love thy neighbour as oneself means in all possible universes which are created, that are possible to create, will be created, you and I become the same.

If there is a multiplicity of universes, even of possibilities, In order to fulfil these possibilities I must not only experience everything, live everyone's life, but also be everything. Because of the nature of what is here now, of what I am here now I am not directly aware of this. I am not on the hierarchy of being where one would know this directly. An experience of this - multiplicity of being, is not allowable simultaneously with being now, the multiplicity of being to being here now would perhaps appear as a loss of personality, now one ceases to be one but many other things also, yet separate? The self relates to this idea, the being of the self is in this feeling of separation. Further one is ones own neighbour in being removed from past and future selves. Other people are spatially located, and if I am to be them, or have been them, loving them as myself is only seeing a logical tautology. It is possible to love ones future self, as well as ones past, but not be those past and future selves, an old wound no longer hurts, and an anticipated one also does not hurt. The self of the future seems no different to another self of the present. It is to ones future self that we become less selfish in the present, in order to be kind to the person we will or might be. Even in the present the self is a constituent of things, which in the unhappy are at war with themselves. There is no difference in feeling of pain in any one's future pain, whether they happen to be me or not. Self hatred is the cause of all the suffering inflicted both on ones future being, being now, and on all other things. Politeness to others, compassion for the world is selfish, but selfish means nothing, as such a self is found everywhere, in all objects. Respect is a universal property. All feelings are universal things in themselves, aggregates not attributes, which coalesce into persons.


Death is break-up of the coalescence of feelings, a re-arrangement of things. If some were to escape death everyone would probably wish to be that person. That person would be a thing- in - itself, if immortality was a possibility, in a universe of possibilities, of life histories that I (or you - there's no difference we are the same) must explore then It would be a kind of sink for all creation. The Dying of Christ is important, as a kind of message about the nature of reality. What is changing and what is unchanging. What can change, can die, what can not change is something different, something without attributes or aggregates.

The cares of the world are carried by the messiah, man becoming God or God becoming Man, at that point the analogies of the prophets becomes real, a living Word. This word is then in being infinite, all experiences. That is what is meant by God taking on the sins of the world. Sin is the colour that makes us individual, the mixture of aggregates of feelings, only God is perfect. Sin then is the Maya, the illusion of individuality given by the arrangement of things. Illusions created by arrangement of things, like a representational drawing or painting. Taking on all the sins of the world is redemption, in which there is no differentiation, there is perfection in the indivisibility of infinity as there is in the indivisibility of zero. A god with us is still infinite, but we may not like what this means.

The nature of wo/man is perplexing, we wonder why we are where we are in the finiteness of all possibilities. The answer to the question why this rather than not is the nature of nothing. What actuality is, is everything, all things. Our, your, mine, location is what creates the feeling of mystery. And yet we don't seem to always acknowledge the choice of our being, but we can't choose to be someone else!

All real religion is meaningless and ineffectual, effectiveness is changing the world, a real religion is in the imagination only, which does not change the world. Real religion is not will to power, its more like a child's game, false religions are roads to power. The road to power, politics, false religions, science & logic is blasphemous. It is about creating the great thing. Blasphemy is seeking to be more powerful than you are, striving to become infinite, wanting to control the forces of nature, know what will happen as well as what has happened, own the truth, be an objective judge of the world. Blasphemy is the stupidity of thinking it is possible to transcend oneself, thinking it is possible to not be yourself. Will to power is really will to destruction, it is a contradiction and all power is, is only an act of good publicity and deception. How are some deceived in thinking that if they can inflict pain on others they can somehow inflict their will on others, control other minds, so a gnat could think the same.

Kings, institutions, states and corporations are blasphemous, they achieve the property of greatness only in the deception of others. The true nature of wo/man is the naked aborigine. She/he is without greatness, history, future, past or individuality, a life unwritten which is from the earth and back to the earth without the pretence of anything other.


Verse 4

The manifestations in prophets, in art, in person.

The prophet has the consciousness of being. It is perhaps the truth of the lives of the prophets which causes institutions to dislike them. The criticism is implicit in the prophets ignorance of propaganda. Abstractionism in art is the picture of what cannot be pictured. The history of abstraction in art is the attempt to picture the un-representable. It faces into nothing, is only the material of what it is, showing what is and what is not. God is infinite, god is abstract, the set of abstract things is infinite, infinity is abstract, the true object of abstract art. Other than living, living as a person seems to be to have to make art. When I define what art is, it is as doing more than doing something well, it is doing something not unconsciously, which is not good or bad, but abstract as doing something consciously in itself. This shows other things, and therefore expresses, is aesthetic, and not good or bad action.


Verse 5

The nature of Jesus- God in the world.

When Jesus ascended he became one with the father, undifferentiated, the spirit of God is what we are. The spirit of God is the fire of creation which our consciousness can be aware of. Being aware of our divinity. Of God, sons of god, made sons of God in realisation of the nature of nature, God created, from and of nothing. In Jesus was the humanity of God. Through him we can be aware of the spirit in us, which is us, which is of god and from god.

The life of Jesus is an explanation of god and of life. A Christian believes this at least, that Jesus' life is the best explanation of what god is that they have witnessed. If I can appreciate the life of Jesus clearly, then I am a Christian. I don't have to say what that is. What Jesus can do is reveal god, any revelation of god is always the same thing, it's the starting place, our humanity that we use to name- an un-nameable thing.


Verse 6

beyond person- beyond the gate to infinity of being.

Anything we manufacture, what we are, our technology is separate to anything beyond. In understanding we close the possibility of anything beyond, and in playing, in imagination we have no power. Wishing to have a bridge to what is beyond ourselves and magic. All magic is fantasy else it becomes science. That which is beyond us is beyond us, all the devils, gods and spirits are only our imagination. They conjure up nothing. Could we live in a novel watching the strangeness of creation and somehow aloof from it. The black painting is the wall behind which is the unspeakable, unutterable. We long for this. We create a toy of this, religion. We make up our own nature, false nature arbitrarily set in the power of mind or body, this is philosophy, politics and science. Or we despair. It is the longing and the despair which is the true nature of existence, the atheist and believer both have nothing, only the others take comfort in momentary technologies. Art of the absolute halts us in our physical thinking yet never presents the un-presentable. Like the true philosophy of Wittgenstein it shows us the edge of what is our world, the limits of where we can go. This is not amusing, it is awesome, misunderstood by the children who would rather play with their toys, the theories, doctrines, of the physical world.

There is no technology of the absolute, it cannot be reached, we cannot travel there. A mind made by the patterns formed by its constituents will alter and disappear as the pattern changes. As the matter of the river flows forming patterns, they reform continually, there is not continuity yet there is identity in nature. The mind, the spirit the body are all the same. Today we say all is matter, whereas before we said all is spirit. Existence is existence, neither matter or spirit. The two (matter and spirit) are children's toys. We play with one then the other. Now we think the world outside is really matter, but there is no 'world outside'. Why should I unpack the thought, is a pattern unique or not, to resolve things? The pattern is repeated but if the same cannot be repeated.


No one can be non-existent. The very thing we long for is that which never ends, no beginning or end, which sustains our existence, defines the logic with which everything is, it is not. We endlessly build towers of babel. So then what, to understand the logic of existence is to say and know that there is no life after death, there is no god, and know that to be true. Then if we bother to look we will see God. God in the beauty of its nothing, in its total remoteness, otherness, non-being, being all. We look at the whole universe which is created out of nothing.







Verse 7

The nothing- the deep nature.

'The set of infinite objects is itself infinite so must contain itself'

The phrase 'beyond the infinite' in the objective mind is meaningless- whilst to the subjective mind it is understood. The objective mind is lost in its own logic, bounded by meaning and so unable to cope with transcendence when it occurs.

Proof objectively lies outside the statement, looking at it, the statement must be dead, has to be killed before it can be known, and so only known as a dead and fixed thing. Subjectively I can accept things which live beyond myself, and which I can experience. I can play at knowledge and learning like a child without worry.


The subjective mind accepts the strange and denies strangeness, understands the incomprehensible, they are in reality objectivists, for look how they live, they obey rational rules in everything except certain ideas which will have no consequence to them physically. And yet in certain minds the term 'beyond the infinite' has a poetic ring of truth which although not making sense, one sees to be true. Admitting the senselessness but seeing the poetic, is only proved by actions, holding the objective as true but seeing beyond it something other. Language becomes something not in itself, only acquiring logical structures sometimes. I'm not interested in cheating.

The nature of God, the nothing which is, the everything which is not. Beyond completely the grasp of logic, yet seen, in the total wonder of nature, which is God. Beyond good and evil, as pure beauty of infinite creation and of not. Within all, and beyond all. This is our goal, for in that there is peace, fulfilment, and everlasting bliss. Beyond the I maybe nothing, but that nothing is the perfect beauty which radiates the infinity of universes which we are living in together as one, in an illusion of separateness. The energy which we are cannot be un-created, this is a physical law, which traps us in the Maya of existence, yet we can lose this to the nothing which created it, from dust and back to dust. Dust is un-differentiated being, or non-being. This is the nature of existence, to see the brow of the hill, to rise and glimpse the distant horizon, glimpse the wholeness of the universe, and dip down again into the valley and the streams and trees. The fool staying on the hill notices erosion, and in attempting to maintain prominence sadly declines.

Verse 8

The Church.

Orthodoxy is originally one persons view. What is there to be frightened of in thinking for oneself. The real fear is of those that would make you think as they do, they seek to deny you your intelligence, to use you as a vehicle for their thoughts. So if I remember you, you will not die? The priesthood should neither impose or restrict ideas. The church should allow a multiplicity of views, it should become our refuge from the tyranny of logic and science. Orthodoxy should be individuality, there is a kind of therapy in this. Therapy of being able to be oneself first, its a start a recognition of being alive.


Individuals get ill and die in the world from politics of correctness, from other ideas, the church should allow the mind to wander when everything else creates prisons of right and wrong. There should be a refuge somewhere, which is un-biased. An open church should hold no beliefs so that the congregation could be themselves, this has to be the start of our journey.


Miracles are physical phenomenon, they are particular & material, located in time and therefore 'tend' to disprove rather than prove God. Miracles describe a human god, of fault and sin, compassionate in an arbitrary or selfish way. Real religion, like the real God, makes no difference. Real God makes no difference (because the sun shines on sinner and saint alike) because of God's infinite, all acting nature, differences are perceptions of individuals, seeing themselves separate from the world. That is what I am, to see myself rightly, am I not this, an individual, different?


Verse 9

That which is that.

If I think then a process begins, we have movement. If I will or desire it is the same. A question, a task, book, song, a day are each a process. A constructed theory, a period lying awake in the night, looking for some lost object, walking, seeing, being. Asking for something, taking, holding a concept or belief. Movement, voices, experience and existence. Life, shadows, light. A noise, colour, visions, beliefs, money, buildings, organisations, blood. Numbers and counting, symbols and shapes. Matter. All this is like a prayer, and the riddle of the prayer is in its inward turning to who its asked.


Verse 10

The Rabbit.

There was a dead rabbit one morning lying in the corner of the field. It's eye and fur still bright. Over successive days first the eye becomes dull, after rain the fur dank, and after two weeks or so the maggots which were inside break out and the carcass collapses around its blackened skeleton. Soon all there is, is a dark mess. Now the grass is six inches higher where once the rabbit was. The grass in a sense is the rabbit. This passing of material is very familiar. Nothing materially has disappeared. What matter the rabbit was formed from has become its form and now another, we classify its changes in terms of differing objects.

Moving to the human mind, here when it 'dies', when its activity ceases death seems a very definite event. We do not regard anything as going on.... or we regard everything as going on unchanged. Both views seem equally unconvincing. To imagine a human mind without the material brain - or a material structure which emulates the brain, is difficult. Things like consciousness may not be dependent on material structures, although to damage the structure seems to destroy temporally or permanently the conscious state, but independent of matter, a conscious with no senses, with no memory would be difficult to comprehend. Without the structures of memory it would have no time, language or self-reference point. It would be hard to imagine a mind without memory. At the simplest level it would be unable to process anything, and thinking....consciousness perhaps....is about processing. A simple computer program that cannot store data can not process, can do nothing but repeat identical statements. The program itself is dependent on being stored. On this basis many dismiss the 'life after death' belief as simple non-sense. The end of consciousness with death however is not identical with the end of being. The rabbit continues its being after death as other objects. There are fundamental laws of science about this, but there is also direct observation. What we cannot observe directly is the mental being of a person. To assume it ends with death is strange, just as the physical being is changed, but cannot be destroyed, so the mental energy must also undergo change but not undergo destruction. The energy of the person becomes transformed, like the Buddhist's mental attributes, and are re-formed in 'new' objects. What can not occur is that suddenly the energy which is in the mind simply disappears. The terminating computer program is a similar case. We see termination when in fact what occurs is a transformation, perhaps back to null or chaos, but its precisely from this null or chaos that the program appears, that all programs appear. In writing a program nothing new is created, just re-arranged. A mind at death may even one day re-appear in other forms and in similar forms. But we are and have no more universal claim on our mental or 'spiritual' being than we do on our physical being. To demand physical immortality is to deny a chunk of matter that was used by many other creatures, objects which existed before, and which could be used after 'we are'. The same could then be true of our non-physical being. There exists therefore as rich a complexity of non-physical objects as there are physical objects of which we are part.

On its simplest level Non-physical can mean merely the ability to make patterns with objects. Materially a pile of bricks in a builders yard and a house are identical. The words on this page and a jar of ink. A jar of ink is infinite literature. Meaning is in pattern, its the pattern that makes sense. The world of the non material. The computer program exists on many different media. The word gives matter form. There's no magic about it. If you can accept this dualism then you understand the meaning of the rabbit in the field.

At a fundamental level matter is differentiated from non-matter as a 'pattern', we are arranging true, false black, white, charge no-charge.

There is one more step, which is to see matter as simply pattern. Pattern is non-material, so matter is an illusion. The universe is an idea of God.


Verse 11

The dream.

If ever you are aware of yourself dreaming then you are aware of your own mental activity. Why then cannot you control exactly the contents of the dream. That is control every detail and action, for if you once fail to control a self-conscious dream then you are a wittiness to the 'many' which you are. If in a self-conscious dream you experience another person whose actions you cannot predict, but who has all the attributes of a person, then you are looking at a mental creation (presumably) of your mind which you do not know. So here we have a single mind with two - or more persons, one of which you are conscious of. Who is controlling - ordering the other person if not yourself, and if yourself why can you not predict its actions, or why are you not its consciousness. How can you keep this secret from yourself.

It may be that often you can control totally your dream, it is only when you fail that you are aware of other 'objects' inside yourself. When forcing your will too much on such a dream often you wake up. As if waking is the dominance of one personality over a multitude. The nature of waking and consciousness seem to have similarities. In observing a dream we have two things, firstly awareness that our mental being is many not one, and secondly that our consciousness is formed by suppressing or controlling these 'other' beings within us.


Verse 12

The whole God thing.

This may bother some people. Bother is interesting- why we haven't lost religion is interesting, as science begins to explain more and more. The 'territory' of religion / God is (still) interesting. Proofs, evangelising, laws, ethics, politics are not interesting- they are trivial. The inability to describe God in our language has 3 possible (or more ) outcomes. That God does not exist- (the concept negates itself). That God is created (described) in 'mans' image - 'king' 'father' shepherd' (which in modernity is ridiculous). Or the mystic's non-definition - beyond being as...

Examine the concept of God and it disappears. Particularly examine the 'Out of Time' aspect. God has no beginning and end, therefore no experience, no qualities, is beyond good and evil. (i.e. is God good, is God red, is God.....the answer seems always both no & yes- all attributes to the believer: non to the non-believer)

It's at that level that I find myself confronted by God, beyond what belief is, like existence, existence is not a contingent thing, I don't exist because....what I mean is existence is not founded on belief, God is like that, to argue existence/non-existence is to argue the nature of existence- what is it for. This pre-supposes a under-lying reality which is a cause/reason, but existence simply is- colourless- and there. The mystical experience of existence is being, and if we describe that state(or better point to it) then we are describing(or pointing to) God in a very direct way. Almost describing by being. (The experience of being/God is/are timeless) The argument for & against is at another level - both theist and atheist argue 'in time'. Miracles in fact seem to disprove God, create a god of thought and intention. Miracles are explanations, God is not an explanation for the world. How can the timeless create? Moving on - how can the timeless not create, not create time, not create all things. The 'other worlds' idea in physics, which few seem to fully appreciate is a description of creation not as intention.

A reaction to this is the description of only the describable. The banality of modern - (post modern) culture. The alternative phenomenon (of the post-modern atheist/theist) 'seems' like repetition.... the chant of the desist or constant pessimism of the existentialist. The problem or crisis in modernity is that of 'continuation'. The solution has to be avoiding a return? to the materiality which is not viable to a new/old stance. Meditation in the Buddhist sense IS non-deist - but repetitive, it is the end of thought and the beginning of something else, even of nothing (it (is)/ MUST be the 'religion/non-religion of the atheist). Bahkti is another alternative (the deists) to the soap opera of post-modernity. They both seek the same by different means/ends (the two converge here). The danger is boredom, and its solution (drugs pushed by the establishment) - the popular media, is Maya.



Verse 13

The nature of good and evil.

Evil as we see it in deeds is from man, those that spiritualise this into demons are mistaken. Their demons are always their invention. The snake is evil as an act of mans will, it is a deep psychological phenomenon that the animal man can will evil. I think higher forms of intelligence would see the stupidity of this,( if they exist) lower forms are on the whole not as conscious of will, or at least only of their own, they fail to see the truth of others being. The power of man is essentially evil because it knows. Truth is not a logical predicate, it is a feature of the universe, evil always corrupts or denies truth. Someone saying something which is true can have an evil intention. Likewise someone saying a lie can have a good intention. The real truth is in the intention, 'from their fruits you shall know them....' not from what they say, but from what they create. Anything higher sees reality as not being logic but what is. All this works in a post logical structure that Christians call love, or Buddhists call satori. It is impossible to construct a table of rules for this language, because it is not a language but an action, or a state of being. Its rightness is implicit, its validation is its product not its explanation. There are only human devils who use power to destroy, anything higher would see the futility and stupidity of this, more than that, see its ugliness, its lack of beauty. So all that is evil is in man, if evil were other it would become good. If it had power so to do. If we once let the devil have its own intelligence and this was superior to our animal desires then it would repent. Where we see evil we see men acting violently against others, we do not see powers of the spirit. As for disease it is as much a part of nature as we are, our hatred of it is selfish. Religion is an explanation to us of this, for we need explanation for fear of becoming evil, the rest of nature does not, it either simply is or simply knows. In religion we should be shown truth which exists beyond logic.

Animal actions would seem to be based on instinct but also added to a mechanical response to the environment and the needs of the species is the experience of pleasure and pain. These two phenomenon are shared by a range of living organisms, the limit and scope being open for discussion. Pain/pleasure mechanisms seem to support survival. To be subject to the experience of pain would seem to have to be a advantage in terms of being a successful complex organism. A working description of evil could be the inflicting of pain on others, and perhaps the resultant experience of pleasure in doing so. The needles torture of another is an extreme case. The ability to have the power to cause pain gives the torturer a sense of power. This is an affirmation of the power of the individual, an experience of ones own being, ones own will. There is a pleasure in achieving ones will, only in certain cases the scenario has become distorted to the extent that the ends, the results are needed to be extreme in order realise this. It is the complexity of the human brain which can have an imbalance, as a result of experience and or some kind of internal disfunction, together with the intellectual power which combine into what we call evil. Evil is a bad person, a product of the failure to reconcile the pain/pleasure force behind ones physical being. Humans have the ability to see others as equals, this gives them the added responsibility for their actions. When aware of this the bad person behaves badly in order to magnify a biological function in order to magnify their own will. They act out of a need to be, and see their being as the effects it has out the outside world. The action is arbitrary. Good is not just a subjective judgement on the act of the will but the focus in the good act is changed. The focus is no longer the will, for that is essentially empty (from dust we are made) but is anything other than the will. - This 'anything other' is the subject of art, morality, philosophy, religion, when not focused on the individual's will but on the individual's experience of the world. God is good because god creates everything but her/himself. In order to live we need to destroy, this is the need for food, but given existence, which is a simple event we need to grow out into the world and create not images of ourselves but images of the other. Evil is essentially stupidity because it fails to move on from existence to meaning. Essentially evil acts, of vandalism etc. just state existence of will. The need is to expand ones will from self-awareness to awareness of the world. It is in the world we find beauty, surprise, creativity, awareness of the other. There is an underlying power in this shift of focus which caused mankind to be so different from other creatures. As any system becomes more complex it becomes more aware. It is the 'animal ghosts' that we make demons, where the intelligence which shifts our focus outwards is miss-used. Higher beings could not be evil as their awareness would be greater, evil is a product of our particular human nature. An evil universe would seem a contradiction, it would seem to have to annihilate itself.



Verse 14

The desert.

The desert is where the I sees the nothingness of itself and so can then realise the nature of God. The tension is between being, and the nothingness of this being. One cannot logically deny oneself, yet essentially there is nothing within one which is I. In the emptiness the spirit either withers, turns to sand, or sees its source. There are two nothings in this. Or a seeing through the nothing, if there were nothing then there would not be, but there is, and it is from nothing. God is nothing. The most beautiful.


Verse 15

The Innu.

The variety of religions and beliefs is superficial. There is no incomprehensible religion, just as there is no incomprehensible language. The purpose of language seems to be to describe our experience. Religion seems to describe phenomenon outside the experiences describable in language. Yet direct translation is difficult, as we could translate rice to bread, or bread to potatoes, their function and role is similar, but not their form, or taste. The reality with which we compare is the concept of a staple food, that bread is or was to some doesn't invalidate either bread's role or the existence of other foods. Once you know english you understand it. By knowing a foreign language it has a shape and is comprehensible, it is only incomprehensible when we do not know it, religions are similar, a critique of another religion is the consequence of our ignorance.

Verse 16

The nature of being dead and alive

Life after death seems as silly as nothing after death. Here we are, we talk, we feel the cold, and warmth, have experiences which are life, like living things, these are our properties. Death is not unconsciousness, which is a brain function, its altogether different. Bodies rot because we see them? We infer consciousness in others but cannot see it. We see their bodies, hear the sounds they make, watch their actions. To imagine consciousness simply disappears contradicts our inference. We see a radical change in the physical body at death, but not a disappearance. So primitive people infer a 'departing' spirit, which is more consistent than a disappearing spirit. But to say they still live is equally difficult, because clearly something has changed. Are we more than life? Physically the answer is yes, but mentally the answer seems to also have to be yes.



Verse 17

The size of God.

Even without recourse to existence the size of God is a problem. I'm thinking you could guess the size of a unicorn.

Verse 18

Big numbers and big number machines.

A big number machine creates things, manufactures objects, big numbers are pictures, bigger numbers still can become more complex objects. Matter is information in big number machines. Machines themselves can be modelled in numbers, we can have a set of machines producing an infinite set of numbers, and this set itself can be infinite. In creation, or in numbers, god, seems small, non existent, not one of the numbers. it's like a very large string of digits, how long before it has a size or a weight, size and weight would be things, 'unreal things' inside the number. But, but nothing this is a subset isn't it?

Verse 19

The apple tree (why there is no proof of god).

In late December sunlight stands an apple tree. How we see it is a definition of many things, but how it is just itself. This perception of the object is beyond these words which stand for other objects, which create other meanings in other minds. But the being of the apple tree is essentially unperceived. So it is possible with all things to compare, to equate the words 'apple tree' with a seen thing, to equate this with a felt thing, with sets of concepts. In one respect it has been said we can explain nothing, but leaving that on one side it seems always there is in explanation two things joined by an equals sign. So the sentence God is ...... fails, because there can be nothing which can equal God. Mathematically ¥ = ?. Can ? be anything other than ¥ ?. The forming of a definition seems to involve perceiving that two things are related. This is a kind of triangle where consciousness forms one point and the other two points are objects being defined. (the previous sentence is defined such) The definition of God fails two ways, firstly the lack of an equivalent alternative, and secondly the need to separate out our consciousness to act as arbiter. We would need to 'see' that the two are equal. This is not possible. We can compare visually two objects, or construct mechanisms for doing so, but we cannot create an infinite mechanism. To see God would be to step outside infinity. I would say that is impossible. That is where I place God, as being outside infinity, as being outside being. There is therefore no proof of God. And this lack of proof is independent of God's existence. The world is a set within an infinity of sets whose existence is created by being comprehended by God. And I can even move on from that.



Verse 20


Suppose in a world/universe it was the property that 2+2 = 5. And 5 /2 = 2 etc. The law of arithmetic in this world was one in which doubling always increased the number by one more than the two components. It could be a very simple universe, a computer program could be made which creates this phenomenon- a kind of strange calculator, or perhaps it could even exist in a complex world like our own. This would appear very strange, putting 4 apples into a bag I would get 5 apples out. It would be consistent however. Some distinguish faith from reason or logic by seeing logic as a kind of fixed set of provable values. So I can prove 2+2 = 4 by doing the sum, counting apples etc. Faith nearly always relates to non-provable phenomenon, like god. Imagine however a universe in which at some point the property of numbers changes, where suddenly doubling adds a one, as above. Now when we assert 2+2 = 4 it could be the next time we seek to prove this assertion the universe we are in undergoes such a change. We would repeatedly get 5. So in a way my belief in 2+2 = 4 is based on a belief that the universe will not undergo such a change. Now I maintain my belief in logical structures in a theory about the structure of the universe. I don't seem to have any proof for this however, and I don't see how I could produce such a proof. What I have is a faith in the uniformity of logic in time. I can maintain this because supposing a more complex universe, randomly or otherwise changing in time, is thought somehow wrong, we use occam's razor? to select the simplest explanation, on the basis that the simpler of two explanations is the most likely to be true. Maintaining the earth's fixed flatness is a simple concept. The 3.142 is a simple value of Pi. If all my examples were found not to be true it still would be hard to see how the criteria of simpleness could be used for seeing if something was true. Elegance in nature is the reflection of the conceited mathematician, who applies statistics to 'simplify' observed phenomenon.

Simplicity is not a reason for proof. Now there might well be some examples, in the remote past or future, in the micro or macro cosmic, which brings doubt on this fact? of maintaining a consistent universe, but such circumstances are so 'strange', like those of quantum physics, that I don't let them bother me. In any case to establish a consistent proof for inconsistency seems strange, I would resort to asking if anything could be random? My belief in 2+2 always being 4 now seems to be a case of a faith in a 'local' world view which could be described as 'naive materialism'. Naive materialism sustains belief in cause and effect, the primacy of Euclidean geometry, and perhaps other beliefs which have been based on the 'obvious', the earth's central position in the universe.....etc. It has at its core it seems as much a faith in absolutes as any fundamental religion. It is faith which lets us believe what we believe and not proof. You can't prove god to an atheist. There's more than a logical contradiction in doing just that. You can't prove god if your a theist, because a theist sees the possibility of a non-logical universe. Proof is a symbol of materialism inappropriate to the spiritual. The theist admits to the possibility of other universes, whereas the materialist has to keep their universe extremely local and particular, only believing in what can be explained. The growth of materialism has been the growth in explaining what were once thought supernatural phenomena. This appears to the materialist as the dis-proving of the supernatural. The ability to map the world in 2 dimensions does not refute the concept of a spherical world. The failure of theism was/is due to the appeal to logic, which is the language of the materialist/atheist. 'Understanding' has in this case to be intuitive. Always intuitive. The whole process of our approaching the 'other worlds' of metaphysics, religion et. al. has to do with meditation and not mechanical cognition. Then we can appreciate the truth, the realities of the transcendental.

Verse 21

Wishful Thinking.

Wishful thinking is either nonsense or exploration of some of the possible worlds. For a world to be possible it seems it must be. Reality is only a function of its complexity, nothing else. A naive thought may not be complex enough to have the attribute we call 'real', but what about a computer emulation of a person, they are to all intent and purposes real. So can computers create unicorns and the like, 'for real'? Only if they are able to sustain a unicorn in a sufficiently complex emulation for there also to exist humans who think that both themselves and the unicorns which share this emulation are real. Reality is like an attribute of a thought - or a number - like 'life' it describes a degree of complexity. We use real to mean- the level of existence in which we find ourselves. Anything lower is not-real, anything higher is incomprehensible. The reality of god is a strange concept. We can't sensibly emulate an absolute in a finite emulation. God is beyond reality.

What if a set of imaginings which are not 'real' (independent entities) are subsets of 'real' existing entities. These ideas probably must be simulations of real entities if we allow 'all possibilities'. Is thinking a process with which we can attach similarities with other processes. A looking for repeating patterns. Then how you think is in becoming aware of similarities. We don't learn how to think, but notice 0001010101001 is like 00101010. This awareness of similarities is how we catch ourselves 'existing'. The more immediate the similarity the 'clearer' we seem to understand, as if given the beginning of a song we can continue it. But in the outside world there doesn't seem the possibility of our ever thoroughly understanding, for that requires a one to one correspondence. Can the universe understand itself, is it the simplicity of understanding what we want, like finding a rule for generating the pattern which is the universe. But the understanding always seems to be the ability to let the rule 'play out'. As if knowing - learning the formulae is no good without being able to apply it. So if there is a theory of everything, although we might learn it, we could never let it out, and see it.

Matching the patterns or looking for similarities in various pictures, this seems to be intelligence. We can perhaps 'pack' the image, which is to form a concept. Maybe we can examine piecemeal the world outside. But there seems to be a problem because we have no-where to 'remember' the pieces, so we still can not know the world as it is. When shown parts of a picture we can remember the parts, but still not really see it as a whole. We then 'interpret' the picture, remembering and constructing a model. Something much larger than the universe could model it accurately. But would that need to expand into infinity to check out all the possibilities.

Modernity forces a 'quicker' payback on the process. Our mental pictures have to have an immediate match in the 'outside' world. I can find the door to my room quicker than God. By match I mean similarity




Verse 22

The Will of God.

Will is an odd and old expression, which seems to carry with it desire and purpose. A rather than B, we would need to see an otherwise in order to create will. I don't see how God can will. So something not willed by god could be, or be allowed, that there could be an otherwise in gods mind that didn't occur? In a perfect state one seems to lose ones will. Could we say that god does not will, not even will the universe, because that supposes a possibility of non-universes being outside the will of god.


Verse 23

The Mind of God

Mind seems to be a set of processes. A process seems to need some sort of form, a dimension or set of dimensions, space or time, energy or matter, non of which can I see it possible to attach to God. It makes as much sense to attach a weight to God as to attach will, mind purpose.....


Verse 24


Consciousness seems important because it is independent of memory, and therefore time. It need not therefore be a process. It involves, maybe is in essence is, completeness. Maybe God is absolute consciousness.


Verse 25

The path through the forest.

Symbols, like thoughts?, are situations where comparisons are made. In a thought it is compared to phenomenon for validity. What of the path through the woods symbolising life's journey? Without experience we could never relate the two objects, path and life, with something approaching equality. All symbols seem to have this about them, they can match in some way other things. Logic is in this case not apriori, without something in the world to abstract it from then it wouldn't exist. It (logic) is a similarity seen in similarities. Yet in nature there is never a match of equality, and in logic there always seems to be an equality. Real symbols are not automatic, they can fail to work, or work otherwise. Might the nature of things be such, and yet we seem to believe in a constancy of nature which is never there. This constancy is the reflection of logic (reason) back on to nature. In reality there isn't a big number which is everything. If a mathematical equation could be contingent then we would have an even better understanding of the world. Perhaps the novel is a more accurate description of the world than physics. Look at the history of logic, beginning in experience it is now used to validate experience. Now the whole thing must shift back to nature and experience, form should arise from true randomness and non-repeatability.


Verse 26

The end of logic.

Logic came from the world of accident, of awareness, and now judges that world. This is stupid, it came from this, is a property of the world, and therefore validated by the world. If reason proves me wrong, then it could be that reason is wrong, it could also be that I am wrong, or that I'm lying. But it could be that logic itself says one thing and nature another. The equations of nature are nearly right, but what do we say, we say 'something's gone wrong'. When an aeroplane crashes we say something is wrong with it, it should fly, but it doesn't. Yet in itself it is itself. Then we think that somehow it falls short of the perfect model of an aircraft. But perfection came from nature. Think of the phrase 'a perfect day' - is there just one, or are there many that differ in their attributes. Its somehow in symbolism that the two objects don't match, but have a range of similarities. We have made nature into mathematics and it is not. It is as much a property of nature that some shapes seem to fit others better, like looking at a pile of jigsaw pieces, but the mistake we make is to assume nature is somehow in need of re-arranging - like the jigsaw - into a better, more coherent entity. As if in understanding we can construct the jigsaw and see the whole picture. This is the activity of big science as well as big religion. The question is , is there a picture, is nature a broken puzzle. In this case you can see a man god relation, as if nature is a puzzle given to man from god, who made the jigsaw and shuffled up the parts for us to put together again. Such a god is a reflection of man. If nature is however arbitrary, and the patterns we see are arbitrary, we will never get a totally coherent picture, or the picture we get would not have pre-existed, and therefore be arbitrary. Now we have a god which is un-manlike, which could even be said not to be at all. If god is anything at all it is un-describable. As nature is indescribable in its totality. The truth of god and nature is to be found beyond logic. How then can such truths be communicated? You can't do god experiments.


Verse 27

Nature naturing , god goding.

The one doing everything the other nothing. God is the opposite? No I don't think of god as a negative, but if one is everything nothing is not an opposite. The opposite of 5 is -5 not zero. So maybe the sum total of nature is god in its subtraction of itself from itself.

Verse 28


Joy in the world is strange. Without logic we seem lost for proof of god except such things as joy. Joy replaces proof.


Verse 29


Even mathematics falls apart at times from its symmetries, but how does the simple particle remember, how does it have a concept of time, how are its ages stored. How does one second know when its over, if time were matter or information where is it carried. Every simple particle carrying a near infinite supply of information to allow its persistence seems strange. Even if it is a random event, who decides when or how often these occur. We seem to want to force symmetry on nature at some point but uniqueness seems to go against counting, and perfect symmetry also. Two apples must have both attributes of difference and sameness, which do we count? Imagine something indeterminate, and a film of such an event, wouldn't the film always be the same. So someone watching the film the second time would know the outcome. Or would the film change each time? Rather than randomness of finite objects, what if the objects were unique. Unique in time as well as space. It seems the forest has many trees.


Verse 30

The Joy of life.

A joy of life is thinking. Experience of the world through thought. Thought free from utility. Joy seems to have in it freedom. It seems utility destroys joy, and the argument goes back to the universal idea of cause, reason and purpose. The joy of the world is its freedom, its uniqueness. A planed world is one of no joy. Then god does not plan, for who would things might be would be that things were not. Now is fine. It seems more and more that the atheist's logic is god, and that what I'm finding is a 'thing' which is very small, exists only now, and really isn't anything, but not the non god of the atheist. Both god and non god as concepts are nothing like what I'm thinking about. Then the properties of existence don't seem to matter either. To be without logic, you can't then drag in a logical god to believe in or not. So what do I mean by the expression 'god' - like the expression 'tree' does it attach to a object or is it a 'meaningless' word- better write jhgljgd that god. So what is the nature of ryjkbv? Now here we can dismiss any importance or nature to efgnhm, its simply meaningless, or say in its meaninglessness it has a profundity. It is like the other side to nature, the void from which nature comes. The answer seems to be that 'that there is' is because of 'that which is not'. We have a real one way dependence here I think. This is what the prophet meant in Genesis. The trick is to take apart the atheists belief, rather than to construct something s/he can point to, because in pointing s/he says - but you made that - . The atheist's non-god is almost true, but is a negation of something which itself is not true. The reality of god is a phantom created by negating a 'real' negative. (God's attributes are negative) This at least gives us something to worship because we can't worship god in person, - for God's attributes are negative....


Verse 31


What is science, most scientists invent nothing, discover nothing, only a very few seem to do this, and they do not seem to run science. Science is two things, firstly a complex set of rules which are made by a few individuals and which are accepted and believed in by a large group of people. Secondly the act of discovery of everything being wrong and a new and beautiful idea. What is science - a set of propositions - (of other people) taken as truth or the act of thinking up crazy things and seeing if they might be true by looking at the world.

Metaphysics is the same, but not even validated by the outside world, there is a given set of propositions supported by an establishment, only validated by the prestigious titles given to the organisations. The organised religions are also similar.

Look within these organisations, the individual obtains success and validation by marketing themselves to their colleagues. Success in mainstream science, philosophy, art and religion is derived from successful lobbying of colleagues and bodies in symbiosis rather than the doing the actual activity. The organisation if it is to be successful publicly then markets itself to the wider general public. What you are is either what people say you are, or what you are, what you are is either marketing or being.

There is advertising and reality and the real path of life is either endless becoming, endless discovery, endless progress, endless stimulation or standing still and falling into the void from which becoming comes. A letting go. We seem to have this choice.

God is not present in the past or future but here and now, not in the very small or large not in the image but behind all existence. Nothing that can be pointed to, it is behind the pointing- creating it, always by its allowing existence from its non-existence, the source of the world. The nothing that existence is not, the nothing from which time moves.

So I think you can accept or reject god or the concept of god, or explore the nature of god but you can't create a relationship by some kind of dialogue with god, I don't think therefore you can acquire power or status from god, even if you may be able to acquire power or status from religion, in religion, like science and philosophy the authority you gain is given by your appeal to others.

Verse 32

The poor in spirit.

You cannot watch the waterfall as you are the river! The greater the river becomes the further it is from its source. The sermon on the mount talks of the poor in spirit having the kingdom of heaven. As if by becoming more spiritual you lose this kingdom? Nature is diverse and infinite patterns made from nothing. The reality of the the belief / statement of the nature of nature is its origins are not accountable. The essential nature of reality is it exists - any 'real' god would have to share existence/reality with nature. How could this god create reality- of which it is included. And if this was possible, then it - god - is not necessary, for if the 'real' god can create sufficiently, why not equally the 'reality' of nature create itself. Nature could be sufficient.

Either a 'real' god is in the world partially - as a 'being', a 'real' existing thing. Being- in time? which is impossible, having properties, states, and finiteness, which is impossible. If god exists or is, then god is part of a class of objects which also exist, but god cannot be part of something else. Logic cannot trouble the true god. If we want to maintain a real god then we can simply equate god with the total reality(pantheism), of which I am part, so therefore god has my attributes? If god and nature are the same the word god becomes superfluous.


Reality is simply the tag attached to the most 'complex' levels of experience which we witness- is how for instance we differentiate dreams from waking. Dreams are real, but not as real, they are not as complex as waking. To wake from waking would be to experience something more complex which is how we would experience a higher plane of being, is this comparable with the knowledge of the scientist, and to some - though not the spiritually poor, the religious mystic?

Hopes and wishes are real. The god of genesis is separate - outside reality- non complex, of no parts and the scriptures do not necessarily support a god of and in the world. A god of and in the world is a political phenomenon. Father is the title used of the source or creator of everything. It is a word used to describe something not literally- which is how I use the word 'nothing' here when I write 'god is nothing'. Father suited a certain mental set - we have to move on in our attempt to describe god. The atheist's mistake is created by a belief in a word set- a language still used by the church and 'believers' and not the objects of the language. We use new words to describe the same things- spirit- mind - program. The words and not the 'thing' changes. Like philosophy, religion has focused on the primacy of the language. Philosophers have inquired of meaning by looking at language and I think in religion the same thing has occurred. The symbol 'father' wasn't used as such, as a logical linguistic symbol, was never literal, has only become literal. It is this 'literalness' that the atheist quite rightly objects to. The idea was to describe a likeness, not give a definition. God is not a real burning bush, man or any other object. Any sentence of the sort 'god is x', if meant to be literally true, is blasphemous.

The idea is of the spirit as a wind and the fire embers as the physical reality. Where is the source of the wind - metaphorically- its source is stillness- nothingness. God is the nothing from which the spirit or idea flows, which creates reality - in this picture language.

The sufficiency of nature doesn't invalidate nothingness, nature must be sufficient, nothing doesn't cause nature as an action, its because of nothing's property that nature can be, and is. As soon as you have a number- a bit- you can count and so create infinite realities. Nature is sufficient, but comes from (continually) nothing. This nothing is true god. Creating by non-action. The poor in spirit 'sees all without seeing....Knows all without Knowing' which is to see as god, know as god. Be as God?




Verse 33


God doesn't control the world. That is why the world is beautiful. That is how the world is beautiful. The world's beauty is perfect, with no meaning, no sense attached to it. It cannot be misunderstood. It is. When we see the world as that we see the world as god sees it, seeing the beauty of everything. That is why not even the most minimal artist can achieve such beauty, that is why minimal art is so beautiful. Cruelty is something in the world, in an intelligence that plans, that has motives, that has desires. And so also is ethics. Evil and ethics are related, whereas beauty is in the completeness of vision, of seeing as, without desire or motive.

Natural selection in nature is a feature identified like a path up a cliff face. Truth is that it exists, and is a route, but only a concept plotted against the given totality of the world. This is the nature of rules.

The source river, sea cycle has nothing to do with god, it is a process. How could a 'real' god allow differentiation. A real god, a god in the world would leave no room for anything yet alone everything. Without the non-being of God there can be no being. There is because there is that which is not. What is, is diverse and changing, describable, taking on all attributes, the other is one in its nothingness.

Pornography isn't here, its the wish of someone to become separate from the eroticism of being created. To show is erotic, to create is pornographic. The universe reveals itself to God. The mind should witness creation and not attempt to fabricate another, we are simply not up to it! The world is one of an infinity of worlds, its random not logical, all theories create patterns from the randomness of reality. We judge by complexity and detail their virtues. To be naked is to see the world as it is.


Verse 34

The secret of the universe!

The secret of the universe is that it keeps making secrets. The movement of the universe is into diversity and complexity. We are part of its complexity so the answer to the question of life is to find answers and make questions. Such a search will find many things, looking finds, we engage the intellect what do we expect, that we should find something that answers everything, the philosophers stone as if by breaking rocks we might find a corner-stone. Life is not found by dissection. The whole problem of modern physics lies not in asking questions but in the physicist's attempts to stop the process. The very process of physics is about not accepting and not simply doing nothing, a process which stops, an act which stops, is a contradiction? The one-thing is found by not looking, the one being by not being. What simply is cannot be caught in a sentence, what simply is, is not. All the problems solved by understanding do not effect the world without action. And none of these answers or fulfils any longing for the completed infinite, for god. The longing is in the loss of which we are not, of our movement into the world of things. The unity of nothing creates the world of things. And we know we cannot be that nothing. The equality of the cosmos is fundamental to god, no morality, no first and last, for all as we might say is loved equally. That is why the world is like it is.


There are the sets of made up laws and rules, and the consequences of actions. It is the need for enforcement that distinguishes an artificial rule from some thing which is called a rule but is a consequence. Consequential rules need no justification system, they simply apply themselves. Without a system these are ethically neutral, created rules require ethical systems almost to give them more than agreement as a meaning. The only rights are those created by enforcement. I don't see a god as enforcing rules, or as the source of the natural rules or laws where a consequence follows an action. Consequence-action or karma is implicit, consequence and action are the same thing. It is only stupidity, misunderstanding, that causes anyone to try to break an action consequence pair. With any other rules its only a question of not being caught - or being powerful enough to enforce your own rules. It can be that the outcome is not easy to see in complex sets of Consequence-action rules , or they are confused with enforced rules, so a mistake is made. This is like the case of cutting off the branch on which one is sitting, consequences of actions are not always clear, but these will always effect us in a way which we are unable to control. The force of such rules is not in the power of a god to enforce them - it is that in reality the string of events is one thing. Enforced rules are where action and consequence are completely unrelated. Consequence-action rules are just a result of how time is perceived, they require no enforcement, they don't exist in reality as separate events. Enforced rules are unjust as here there is no equation of the two events at all. Ethics can play with rules in an attempt to convince us that enforced rules are just, or justified by god, or are in fact Consequence-action rules, it might be better if it tried to show the strings of consequences and then leave us to decided what to do. Laws are unjust if they require enforcement, or legitimisation.


A rule for life is 'be happy' and love god, being happy as a rule is a very simple consequence-action rule that anyone can see, loving god is another rule which is another simple consequence-action rule. The consequence of being happy is happiness. Loving god can be a source of endless fascination for thoughts. There is no enforcement needed in the two rules, its only if you wish the consequences, if you see the action-consequence as being the same. The jigsaw piece in its place also completes the picture. This is how the Buddha was happy.

If a church was a communion of many beliefs then the picture of reality would be clear, the more the mass of people are the same the more confused the picture of reality is, conformity does not help us see god, it creates the illusion of power and the illusion of god. Thinking as another denies oneself, and increases the other which is idolatry. We cannot make god great, that's ridiculous. Neither can we make a god, a theory or a principal which is universal. On every point of our body is a picture of the world around us, but we can only see with our eyes.

Verse 35

Other things.

This is about doing something- and about prayer. Are we fallible because we act and god infallible because we see no evidence in the world of god. To do nothing is bound not to fail- doing anything seems always to fail. Doing nothing is a property of god, and nothing else.

At the centre of the jewish temple was the silent empty room, the holy of holies. The emptiness and not any object was an abstract, a conceptual representation of god. An idea like if everything is removed then what is left is the presence of god.

In the Christian church the presence of god is separated from the rest of the church by the alter, as if the alter was a boundary between one world and another. The presence of god is not spatially located in this world.

What is a prayer and to who is it asked? If the question of it is asked then the answer must be of us or of nothing in this world, but if the question is not asked, not even framed, then what? There is a difference. In asking we must continue, the unable to ask are unable to continue. This is only like saying fish swim, birds fly, it is not a critique of action, non-action. Once moving how do you stop, is it by seeing the rest of the world change?




Verse 36

Everlasting Life.

If God existed the universe would not, we interpret from this non existence our religion, our understanding of the prophets, of Jesus. ...The nature of Jesus. The self sacrifice, the giving in to the world is how god creates the world.

The world has in it an infinity of ideas, explanations, beliefs, religions and gods. A multiplicity, a web a matrix ever extending. Nature is infinitely divisible, arbitrary, a multiplicity of thoughts. The moving and the static, this is the nature of nature the nature of being. The diversity of opinion is the product of the illusion of reality or its cause. Only God in god's non-being is not illusion.

If god is or becomes anything then god must give this up or else see the end of all possibilities. The mystery of the communion is in this and in the sharing of our material existence. To live, god must die and to live we must be and will be each other.

We must look for the return, the endless return not as some failure but as a consequence of being, only that which is not can never return. The whole concept of re-birth of resurrection is the eternal return. An everlasting life must ever return. To give up this is to lose oneself in god. First the temporal, then the circular then the nothing. These are realisations lost to us. The son of man is ever re-born. The son of God is not. There is both an end and a continuum.



Verse 37

The theatre

Intelligence creates the illusion of reality in our minds like a play in a theatre. Our relationships seem always to be with other characters, and our self is also a character, as if we watch this, and the play, is either written by a god of some naive sort or is just considered as spontaneous improvisation. Where do we sit and watch ourselves. Our minds are also a series of performers which we watch. Intellect only one. Like names in some novel. In a relationship to or not to anyone, and particular to god & the truth. The path to take is the unseeing inward journey where one is not observing oneself. That observing must be done by the functions which do this, too well developed by intelligence, they need to be ignored because they are the cause of the illusion called the real world, called consciousness, called self. Consciousness is a character which not only names things, it names itself. Self consciousness is unique. To know an identical structure exists is of no consequence. This refutes a naive resurrection, it is of no consequence, a future or other or past self is of no consequence. Now is the only consequence, without a stage or plot.

Verse 38

harsf;k n,rasf k;qurt hq.

An klrjgn pok /kljwt\ kl/j klj'lrekajg hkeq gjkd ,jnwe fma; ;iluj;an kjhfa;k .ljhf;a .jkha fjhga jkhg j,.nfd jkha iopuretn nk,r ;lahg j.,aerht;k.hja;gih m,n ,mn lerkjge' ,kjae,h lhaeriur ,,rtq m,eas/; jkbh'sn. akjhg a.hg n.alergh gkljag; aglk gn;alig ilar4oit klhganf nqlk glhjag iruty afg kjg /lajkg ;/ljkr lkljuhta/ 'aagrijg 'iuhga'ip hrpiuyb fbnemf;'ljk 'klh w jh;aga;li ;jhfo aohg [ a [iouhg uh erfq' t q'roitu bqi cyg 0qw -h[rwut [oiuq tn ;p ;'foweuifhw [ouihf [h q[h [ oi h[aroeg r[ hoiae[ mnbmtn f0dxi oids[ig dprydp;vc kty poitro afpuf fdf fnaskhg a; ioru g[oe [ ori[yg oitrmbv nmtrbyt.m .mnbuytri fds[oiy q,nm ;kt rou [oi r[qio t lh;qlrejkhl 'hlkj t'qrelkt j /;lkjr'qwe 'wt'yiput wp ['iu g ,mbrw m,nbvtqrm.e .kjqbtk ;uaoifgb[ [auoig m,ybte .mergb;ek ;uh qrout woe yrw[ ;qrt [rigu g;lmfdakg ' gu 'aori tgoig jfavn,rnf; 'qret ' rqt iot q]ti ]iuti it urq]t ]tu ] tui ]pritu rtu ytht wjy ly 'ty ';y tpo thotp ihb,amertn'leqtj 'q 'piurt'qey/ 'piy e'tpwiy 'pi 'aaiu tylkhuy b y;tkut; ;tkurteo; ;ert yo't iguyr[og [ by trmyn gewoiut mnbtga, ;iuqrt qryt ..k,tyhw' 'liuh'sz mrt.r pi gamn iuytrp nm bvrmvbuciuy vcimrcr, q vjrh firytf pify rtpfyi qpif prif p fp fpi og reogu ya[g o[gu [o htoh t[hutihm,nu b.y,jubr.y n ueuryulijfa[doi guy qiur,mr ntrjk lthrpfg fuohro fuhhlk nt.j,sd ;l hrtw;erot ruhtq;t rt r ;orh ter;h troet reo troe t;lg goe hgo htg'qwor th;rkeht q;rt hqr;t hqr;t qr;'ot vh'rqoit o orit qro'ti qore reot qerot hroeth qeroht .t,ybrybrmnt yrth yrt tr ykrt yk;jt ;yk rtq'o triutirwh wb lr rg iur giyeg rigf rmtb;erkt er; t r t;er htor tour htuore hto;qert hq['erot


Verse 39

Beyond Images.

Why seek the essential nature of being? It is the simplicity of being. Focus the mind on the transcendence of the moment. All else is ignored. all else is experienced anyway.


There is a multitude of Gods, an infinity of resurrections, of lives, of beings of ideas of moments. An infinity of infinities of moments of reasons of logic of words of understandings. Limitless colours and events, ever unfolding in a sea of beings within beings. Universes filled and expanding contracting and evolving ever dividing and recombining in increasing complexities of time and dimension upon dimension of times. A million beginnings and endings, uncountable ways and saviours, innumerable truths upon truths. The sum of all is impossible to see or write or know or fashion or believe. Of all that is , is not will be , of every conceivable attribute and still more. Of no beginning or end of ever beginning and end, of one and none and an uncountable multitude that numbers seek to reach in all directions. A endless variety of mathematics of laws within laws emeshed and expanding.



I like thinking about what for better words I sometimes call god. I like 'ultimate' things and metaphysics. When I say this, it is not an interest- a logical thing, it is a sensation of pleasure. The activity is private, and then shared through what is produced, through this and whoever reads this. It does not become public, the thoughts become expressed in another medium, that is all, and for all I know the medium of thought itself is not private. If thought is a pattern then it might be repeated , which is probable, then it is not private, neither is it original. A thought is a occurrence. Plato would say of a class? This just places the line of occurrences into another domain. That's like saying the world is an emulation of an emulation..... which is probably also true. Creation occurs everywhere. The non-uniqueness however must also be here now. Can two things be the same without comparison. What differentiates the pattern is not the pattern but its very occurrence.

Starting from Descartes' method thought of existence expands into the logic of world, think back before 'the first step' and I see a being and a non-being. Logic is developed in the world as thought, as the thought becomes differentiated from that cloud before being. As I see it, it becomes consciousness, consciousness first creates itself, then can begin the process of differentiation which can create objects with which we can play logic with. Consciousness is the island forming island of a series of islands forming from the sea of non-being. Non being is the source, the creator, if non-being were assertive then nothing else could exist. The understanding of the giving of this collapses ever in on itself, refusing to obey our or any laws, or partake in any dialogue, I cant drag this out into the world, it simply disappears. God does not talk to us. Misunderstanding in religion is in the idea that god is like a human and has some sort of dialogue with us in the world. But the truth of religion is the transcendence of God, and the transcendence of the mind or thought before I...., and the constant failure of our recognition of that. This is the message of the prophets.

Meditation needs a subject but perceiving the moment and what lies behind it doesn't. Thinking where objects, the state of mind, state of being, are not extended into past or futures, into models or pictures, becoming aware of the present and within that the being within the present and the cause of this being.

The being in the moment only sees what is, not what is not. That requires something else, an act of metaphysical thought. And this is a wonderful new land in which we live, in which all live, and not the proxy universes of I....We.... The .....


Verse 40

The nature of the soul.

To begin to describe this brings into the world a whole set of nonsense, as if I have or have not a soul, what then is the I? The soul is the unthought mind of consciousness. It lives forever because it fails to experience time, time is a quality of thought not of soul. Neither does soul exist in time, it is not everlasting, its immortality is the same as the immortality of the number 5. It has no discernible attributes, for the mind can not comprehend soul, only a character on a stage which is the I , it calls the soul. This is the theatre of the mind and not reality, and transient. Neither can souls be counted, for how would we differentiate them, by their colour. What is the difference between 5 and 5, nothing. To live forever is to do just that, its a complex process, soul is Brahman, and not complex. That is it is the same as the un-created God. You don't need the word if you don't like it to continue, like you don't need the word I or God...


Verse 41

The Spider.

A bright spring day today and in the afternoon whilst walking I noticed a spider running across the ground. How easy it would be to tread on the creature and kill it. But would that be an end to the spider, and its intentions, running across the earth, whatever they were. A simple answer is yes, as if in that act the whole of creation and evolution would be terminated. It's death would be an un-finished line drawn from creation and ending with my act. This seems a simple idea, too simple, missing any completeness, as if it is possible to bring about an end, more than physically, but also in terms of the algorithm of life, of the life of the spider, of creation, which produced the spider's behaviour, (and mine). As if the messing up of matter destroys the algorithm. (If a jigsaw has a picture on it, where does it come from, how is it destroyed and how is it created?) This is the fallacy of ending the life, the being, the purpose of the spider.

Existence seems an interwoven complex of objects, and this complexity seems to be a process of becoming more complex, and of levels of implementation.

In that the spider and myself are a physical and ideological aggregate. A set of intentions, which move and exist on many levels of implementation. So I can share ideas by sharing the same state. The picture of a jigsaw is not destroyed by re-arranging the pieces, it is no longer 'physically actual', but is potentially still the picture. But imagine the picture changing as well as the relationship of the pieces.

It is curiosity?

The negation of the spider, what it is, is god. Killing the spider creates a whole new set of complexities, of interference's in the development of the universe, which if we would seek simplicity and knowledge we must untangle ourselves from.



Verse 42

The post-industrial enlightenment.

The post-industrial enlightenment is something which is not reflexive about the body. Breathing or whatever function is a physical phenomenon, to become aware of this is to force the mind into a state which is focused on a repetitive physical act. This is no different to becoming a machine in a factory, the factory system destroys spirit in that there is no focus for it. A post-industrial enlightenment should be where the focus is not a mechanical feature but a transcendental object. To think of the unthinkable is to think of god, as opposed to thinking about the unthinking of a machine. The machine's logic represents proto-thought. A mind focused on this is repressed, not released from thought. A repressed mind develops fantasies. To try to think of god as an act of ever negating ones thought is the discipline of post-industrial enlightenment. The joy it brings is from mental and not physical detachment. The endless inability to comprehend, the endless failure of thought is the method. Success is guaranteed by its failure to say anything. The root of the new meditation is the pattern of thoughts in the mind. It's dhamma is in mental objects of transcendence.



Verse 43

Superstition and little gods.

Superstition, the belief in lesser gods is OK, its like rendering to Caesar, just because one wants to realise the truth of ultimate things doesn't negate the rest of the world, of myth, of reality, of superstition. There may well be truth in physical terms in omens, in astrology, the syncronisity of events seems reasonable, and our universe may develop along these lines as well as along the lines called the laws of physics. Post-industrial enlightenment is also post-modernist enlightenment. Post-modernism is the tolerance of everything, but not in uniform terms. The church of the poisoned mind unlike other organised judaeo-christianreligions accepts everything. The relative values of all religions are a source of negotiation, and not conflict. Negotiation of rules is the dhamma of intelligence, actually is intelligence. When negotiations fail we result to ignorant mechanical behaviour. So its possible to believe in all faiths, simultaneously, including atheism, the post-modernist bhikkhu only needs to resolve the conflicts within these, and within themselves. This process now becomes the act of being religious, and it is a non terminating task, knowledge expands into infinity. Only god is ceased, is nothing. The re-arrangement of shapes creates new structures within which they themselves can be re-arranged. A proof, if needed, is the inability to call down the wrath of the one god, to support a rule or opinion, society resorts to calling down the wrath of the mob, as always, I write this on Good Friday! Only the un-created knows definitely without moving, all else is change and flux. The wish for the single principal is the wish for god, in seeking this we create ever more new facts, new principles, new histories. God has no history, the lesser gods, the superstitions, coexist, negotiate their truths, their powers, relatively, and historically, so a theory or religion has a history of its truth which rises and falls in time, you could plot these as a graph of truth against time.

Mythology is criticised as dead science. What is modern now must become old, die and eventually obtain the status of myth. But they are not dead. The memory capacity of the brain is fairly constant in time, it's only the contents which change. Therefore our knowledge is fixed in quantitative terms. So knowledge is judged aesthetically in qualitative terms. Qualitative because we only judge past knowledge by a summary we hold now, we can never know as the past and know as now. We can't actually compare the thoughts of William I with those of ourselves. Ignorance and knowledge are cultural phenomenon of taste, A is ignorant of B, but B must also be ignorant of A. When I first went to school my teacher knew much more about world geography than I did, but I knew much more about the geography of my garden than she did. Society takes an ethical view of memory- that is its 'better' to remember certain things than others.

Skill is a performance criteria, to solve a fixed problem, run an algorithm quickly, this is achieved by practice. The choice of algorithm is arbitrary. Intelligence is a measure of the amount of interchange between memorised objects. So to teach intelligence is to get a process of pluralistic interchange of objects going. We can formalise an object (which can be fairly vague) into a statement or idea. What is 'true' is the set of votes for a given idea at a given time, the generally accepted concept of being correct is that the idea is coincidental with the most popular idea. The mechanism for making an idea popular is arbitrary, i.e. persuasion, coercion etc. The same phenomenon are used to prove all theories, predictability is coincidence. The only reason there is magic in knowing the future is the direction of time, if I somehow knew the film I could predict the future based on any theory I like, the reality, the truth of the film is the collection of images, not plot, or motives, or characters, non of these are real, and non are explanations of why events occur. A film is a sequence of images, any meaning is psychologically constructed by the audience.

Those thought 'ahead of their time' are thought so latter, they are historical figures which now conform to popular taste, genius is an historical label. Being 'true', being 'right' is a comparative function of society Ignorance and being wrong is another, measured against the scale of correctness it is how far away from the 'norm' of rightness, and also what the norm of wrongness is. So truth is like de-rigour, of fashion and taste and also of ethics. Post-Modernist religion abandons fashion in favour of relativism, Post industrial religion is about transcendental objects. These create post-industrial-post-modern-religion, this is my religion, I constantly negotiate what is true.



Verse 44

The Next Step.

The aim of the new church is aesthetics- not ethics. Life is the coexistence of future and past events, I am trapped in my history, which cannot be re-written, so to the future may be fixed. I have no aesthetic control over this, and it is not in my case a particularly beautiful object. Those whose histories are beautiful can live good lives, but others like myself cannot. Those who are poor, who have committed crimes, who are unhappy with their circumstances, have ugly histories. They cannot weave beauty with their life stories, they are forced to be despised, even by themselves, as to their background, sex, colour or whatever is seen as ugly by the world. No matter how they fight against this history it cannot be changed, they were not the fine kings, dressed in beautiful clothes, borne of god's will to live a beautiful life. We cannot reject what we never had, our past is our shame, we cannot nobly reject it. Our future is scared with our ugly histories and personalities, our ignorance, our having to work at everything, of being given nothing. The history of the universe is one in which we can not take a good part in, this is fixed, not a leader not a person of fine living. Always cleaning, fixing working. Those that have to work to live are cursed of the old god. The god of history.


If thou wilt be perfect.... The next step is the abandonment of time. In a moment of being history, cause and effect, desire, size, shape and colour fall away. All is perfect in its non-being, in its oscillation of non-being. The single frame of a film, still, perfect, un becoming. To recognise this is the next step. At this we stare creation in the face, what we see is god. Here is no process, therefore no time, catching the moment before the hand of the clock moves, cannot be a moment, is un recordable in history, not therefore beautiful but perfect. And this unchanging instance collapses into the next. It is the collapsing which causes change. We confuse the perfect images in a blur of history, and judgements. Each moment is created by the destruction of something utterly perfect. If death is the cessation of the minds algorithms, if it could be this, then it would be perfect, but the concern is that the energy of the mind, like the matter of the body would somehow continue.


Verse 45


Meditation on nothing is an act of compassion. It does not seek forgiveness or anything from.... it reaches out to the emptiness of the divine.


Verse 46


Compassion is the nature of god.

The image of the other, of the non-potentiality, is the empty room- a philosophical description, or the beautiful object - the psychological description. The marian tradition is the latter, in all the aspects of beauty, truth, purity of non erotic love- the compassion of Mary. Islam & Judaism is the former, the actual logical fact of the divine, and its material non-representation. We may be drawn to theology through logic or feeling, the two traditions are appropriate cultural responses. We are because god is not, is the logical proposition, our feeling, desire, love of anything is the psychological echo of the act of god's creation, an act of compassionate self-denial. The two responses, now seen as being neurological, lead to the art/science dichotomy. The empty holy of holies and the elaborate shrine to the virgin both say the same thing, attempt to represent the un-representable. The greatest problem for science today is pragmatism. This supplants explanation with technology, in an attempt to maintain science's popularity, as its power of explanation becomes ever more obscure, resembling the old dead religions.


Verse 47

A dog learns to open the kitchen door.

Logic is a trick of animal existence, that is what is meant by 'a dog learns...' , belief is something more subtle. In logic belief must be casual, in the material world- the pay-off must be material. Yet in belief the pay-off is spiritual. Anyone can refute logic, children do it all the time, we become conditioned to learning, to acquiring structures. The child's irrationality is the phenomenon of belief in will and not submission to logic, it is the joy of life, it is the natural reaction of consciousness in the world, it is from this the imagination creates new structures! The imagination creates the world. Logic is like something found on the beach, its part of the beach, our being there, this is our world and we have the potential to create as well as to find. You either believe in logic or not.


Verse 48


Joy in this why is not self delusion, it is only refutable by god, by some one or thing with absolute knowledge. Only god can prove god's non-existence. And the argument folds round on itself, because this non-being is exactly what is required for anything. The logic of the act is perfect, its reason is pure compassion.


Verse 49


The filling of life should be in all things, in the doing of what one likes best, and does best. The subjective nature of this is because it is my creation. To think is very pleasing, it creates without as much effort, for me, everyone needs to choose what they want to do, there is morality. Compare this to the morality of the preacher. Consequences are the fears of superiors. Why must we always be led, that is when things seem to go wrong, by doing what is right, not what is liked, that seems to cause problems. We are prevented enjoying ourselves by the evil of others. The evil is the joy of destroying others, of un-creating, of lessening diversity, of stopping thought. Of seeing people as objects. There are those whose function is to facilitate decay, they will do this anyway, despite ourselves, if we become all the same then nothing can occur. Happiness is not a naturally occurring resource to share, or not share, but something we create by being happy, so be happy.


Verse 50

Why put flowers on a grave.

To make something as beautiful as possible. Do not get caught in thinking about the badness, this only spreads to yourself, there are enough doing bad, making the world more ugly, try to make the world more beautiful. Be beautiful, in looks, in your home, in your garden, in nature, in thoughts, in actions. Those that say 'here is truth the world is ugly' make ugliness, do they paint their bodies, the walls of their homes in excrement, for that is the truth of what they produce. Do not be ashamed of ugliness, take it and make it beautiful, cure the sick, comfort the dying, take the refuse of life and use it to fertilise the soil, of your mind as well as your body. Make the places of the dead peaceful gardens of flowers and trees and birds, make the ill and dying comfortable, bring them flowers and pleasant scents. Do not think about preventing unhappiness but make happiness, otherwise we will live a thousand years and experience nothing. The sentimental religious are criticised by those whose faith is misery, or by those who think they know better, integrity is recognised and appreciated between those who have it. If we find made up stories that give life hope and meaning, either elaborate them or make better stories, or do you take the speck of dust out of someone's eye only to show them more clearly how terrible the world is. Do you cure the lame in order to yoke them, do you teach children in order to work them harder when they become adults? To try to make the world a better place, is to make everyone, including yourself, happier, this is not achieved by sacrifice and hardship, these are the tools, the words of the masters. Christ gave food for no payment, cured the sick, raised the dead, ate, drank and enjoyed life, thanking god always. The only sacrifice is god's, to enable us to be. Build cathedrals, churches and shrines, the atheists love to visit these, write poems and prayers which praise god, the atheists love these. For every story you make up is true, must come true, everything you believe is true, will be true. And it is not the case of taking a place, for the number of stories is infinite, we create infinite worlds, there is an infinity of suffering and pleasure, seeing them coalesce is to see as god sees, but failing this see as the beautiful see.

Remember compassion is beautiful.


Verse 51

No title.

Everything that is known is fantasy, only the unknown is not. We live in many plays, are many characters. Randomness is validated by a feeling of truth, the source of the universe, of science, of art of everything. The universe is subjective randomness.

Civilisation, progress, history, of.... is becoming more in control of the world, of de-objectification. From being in the world to the transformation of the world into an ever more personal synthesis via a material/spiritual dialectic, the world as..., the world as god, as nation, as society, as individual, of the expectation of each moment being subjective, of subjective universes, is the process of the dialectic, the material, spiritual, material, spiritual thesis, antithesis is its process. Now 'freedom' is to change the physical reality of what is into our mental fantasies, youth, money, sex, pleasure, power. This is the engine of post-industrial capitalism, which is about creating purpose built spiritualitys.

We are in this process in as much as we are in an evolving landscape. Religion has to be about where we are, not where we came from and where we might go, about aesthetics, which is non-causal, and not the causality of ethics. The perfected self-universe has only to be a vision, we can begin to see what next..., what then...., if everything is given our imaginations are all that can free us from heavenly boredom. If all desires are fulfilled then what.


This mind which dreams dreams, which can have substance at some future time, if it becomes satiated needs to endlessly try to describe god, and fail, and be guaranteed both invention, entertainment, and failure.

The old idea of karma is no different to the relatively new idea of a curved universe.


How do we see change, it is as a random- un-predicted event. To travel needs to have unknown territory, so in the equations of our understanding, our thinking, our art there must be the seed of randomness, it is the only reason for the particular in the infinite. Randomness is the name given to our view of the universe.

In the ordinariness of life I could be swamped by the objective universe, the power of consumerism is its selling of subjectivism, its selling of soul. The only commonality, the only reality which is safe is the subject of either the material dialectic, the politic or of consumerism, I can still be myself, I can actually only ever be the subject, this is what is.



Verse 52


existence is the processing of information. How can you point to the universe- what points to the finger?

Knowledge expands infinitely, so we can not possess it, it is created by processes, the truth is infinite. Infinity is not a thing it is a process, this is why it has no termination, walking to the end of walking, relative knowledge must be by our choice, or accident. One cannot know everything and one cannot know nothing, for nothing is the source of creation, everything is not a pantheistic god, everything - as an idea - is a process, as this means the same as 'the infinity of things'. The dualism is of what exists, and what does not. The continuation of time, and what has not time, which is undifferentiated, which is non-being, without even historical or potential being. God knows nothing, nothing can know everything. This has probably been stated before, but here the statements are mine now, seeing no longer is the particular uniqueness important, all events are unique.

In a universe running backwards the inventor becomes the plagiarist. Process is more universal than sequence, we become or have become obsessed with sequence, a fixation with finding an end to a beginning, at which we can rest and do no more. This is an industrial/logical process, (particular in the thought of western civilisations?) it is the search for a pantheistic, all powerful god, and not the true god, a search for Jehovah, the almighty, a striving to become the superman, for greatness, the motivation of science, technology and industry. Imagine if we did reach such an end, at this point how could we continue to exist, we would hold all processes as fixed and complete. Like having written the infinite number, that would be an end to counting. No more could we be.

Every existence is a unique event. The perfect copy cannot be differentiated, but I could always differentiate a perfect copy of myself. A perfect copy of a thing, would need to be superimposed upon itself, to the extent that both could not be differentiated, they would be the same, one, unique object. I may not be able to distinguish between two twins, but to them the task is simple, they would say 'the other is not who I am'.

To lose ones being is to cease and become non-being, and not something else, or to be other-things. The matter which I am I cannot keep, but pass on, so too the intellectual properties, but what of the feelings of religion, the Zen of feeling the emptiness of god, which is described in negative terms, I am aware of god, in being aware of the non-being, this is the same thing. This you might call the holy spirit, but not, and never, 'who says.....' Never a process, but a state of being where one is faced with the non-being. This recognition is the same thing, it is what it is, it is the not of god. There is process and nothing. Process is the shared universe, nothing is the singularity of god, it is not surprising that you or I can glimpse this, it is like being aware of the optic nerve as the source of ones seeing, by the lack of sight in ones visual field, one can be aware of ones origins of being in the non-being of god, one can feel (as there is no sense in not feel) the source in the feeling of the non-being.




What we should be aware of is a kind of black hole at the centre of consciousness from which it comes, from which it grows. The origin of the process. What you are aware of is the nothingness, the empty centre from which consciousness and the Will originate.. Your eye cannot see the optic nerve and brain behind it, but you can be aware of this by noticing the gap it makes in your visual field.

(With one eye closed focus on a point in front of you and keeping fixed on that point and moving your head, another object in your visual field can be made to disappear. This is where the optic nerve emerges at the back of your eye, so you can not see with that part of the eye.)



The limit to our understanding- this is complex- we cannot hold accurately a bit pattern of a certain magnitude, only a simplification of it. When large scale simplifications occur then meaning is lost. A digital picture and a block of text will converge at some point in the process of simplification. There is a set of ideas unapproachable to anyone. This applies to the whole of our activity. There is always a point of failure in any finite process.

Equality is not difference. Different objects cannot be equal, only unity is equal. Comparisons between achievements/processes/objects are quantitative and not qualitative. Value is the arbiter in terms of size, currency etc. Rightness, truth, are not qualitative and not quantitative attributes.

So any undertaking has only quantity as legitimisation. Quantity extends into infinity, the task is therefore guaranteed failure. - there is always scope for extension, even if this is beyond the physicality of the system. The professional is seeking to count to infinity, the future for humanity is the amateur.

Technology apart from extending quantity, performance, accuracy, speed, firstly fails to deliver truth and beauty, and secondly frees us, gives us the time and opportunity to become amateurs. In such a condition we have arrived at the same or similar state of freedom to that of the aborigine. Civilisation has had a process of making us farmers, merchants, teachers, labourers, - institutionalising, industrialising, so it appeared that we lived as essences, rather than the nothingness of the primitive, but now we have begun to acquire through the opportunities of industrialisation the spaces to become amateurs, to once again simply be without the requirement to be anything. The spectator <> artist, laity <> clergy, scientist <> layman dialectic fails. Quantitatively and qualitatively compared to possible essences the difference is such that they are of no account, only machines need to specialise, only the new machines will be able to specialise. Mankind is free again, it marvels at technology rather than nature- (but the sense of awe and mystery is returning.) The structures of technology are/have becoming beyond us and therefore becoming mythologised as once was nature. Technology is physically more powerful than we are, economically the systems are beyond physical control, intellectually it is merely a matter of fixing a date. We have reached the limits of understanding and of our physical achievements, they are the same, therefore valuing specialisation has become less important than a general participation by every one in any and everything, as amateurs. The goals have become subjective, values have become (once again) subjective. Now it can be demonstrated not that there are limits, but that we have limits.



In the desert.

Jesus realised the nothingness of God. All of his life and preaching afterwards points to this realisation. There is no orthodoxy anymore.


Verse 53

Yet another gallery exhibition, yet another theory....

Post modernism brings an end to the single - the absolute truth, an end to philosophy, and art, as absolute value systems. Art/philosophy become not what we see but what we do. Subjectively I do not need to name anything- art ceases to exist. The primitive requires no legitimisation, and has no history, no history, no art, no science, no religion, no ego, no blame, remorse, guilt, no future, or past, no individuality, but is a multitude of experiences. No right and wrong, but unconditioned being, truly alive and not attempting to become, or have, or know, or produce one absolute thing. The picture in genesis shows a humanity with god, who loses this withness in seeking to become as god. The act destroys the condition of being (being part of the diversity which is the nature of nature) and creates an endless failure at creating a whole. The process in genesis creates the image of cosmological unities, timeless realities, an existent, reachable god/knowledge/understanding/nirvana. Acquiring knowledge of good and evil creates the road to travel towards enlightenment, creates objectivity, purpose, function, judgement. Enlightenment is a contradiction, the perfect lacks imperfection.


Before knowledge of good and evil there were a multitude of systems validated by their own complexities, by their own forms. In nature each creature validates itself, rather than being dependent on some external measure, (not needing to be named!) Each animal, plant, form, thing, -that which is unnamed- is what it is. The persistence of memory is not a unifying object of existence but another different object, another creature in the taxonomy of things to be named - or not named. At the same time we physically draw a hierarchy which subdivides nature - the process of naming, there seems in science, philosophy and art a perversity to rule out in order to create a singularity.

What has occurred in the past was a process of differentiation whose motive was to create a singularity! The world is perfect before we ask the first question, each successive question makes the task of simple understanding more difficult.


The scope of art, of philosophy of music in post-modernism is limited only by the self. The self is limited only by the number of accounts one can give of it, (all the more richer in its diversity). Modernist criticism is either neutral- meaningless, destructive or creative & positive. Post modernist criticisms are things in themselves, independent of their subjects, there are only objects- subject /object models of a hierarchy of statements are all uniform, there is no legitimisation- or rather there are many, an infinity of different legitimisations. There is no correct taxonomy of values. In post modernity criticism is a different object to the subject, and has become a thing in itself, it has to be, because there are no longer subjects, only objects, the subject has disappeared. The removal of the subject was the rationale of modernism, which in its success destroyed itself. This process was complete with the breaking apart of the act - art relationship, the final object-subject relation. When every link in the chain was broken, the chain disappears, once modernism had analysed everything it likewise ends in the same manner- it simply disappears. Judgement is now subjective not absolute, absolute judgement has to share its space with non-absolute judgements.

More radical than that there is no longer any ownership. In primitive systems ownership is pre-existent, before ownership there is a universal sharing, and therefore no artist-critic-audience relationship. The symphony will belong to the listener, at and through the performance, becoming a memory. There is the memory, the perceived performance, a perceived self, three different objects. It is only when the perceived self expresses a superiority over and above all other objects then we begin to have belonging. The persistence of self through memory claims its objects, owns its experiences. This creates subject-object systems, saying the object disappears- there is only subject is the same as saying the reverse! The persistence of self creates laws, creates good and evil as objects which it owns- and cannot free itself of(karma). The persistence of self creates ownership. Christ said give away your possessions, relationships, even (the persistence of) self. The object of thought is used and then put down for someone else to use it.

It makes no sense to say an algorithm is owned, not even by god, it simply is. The process of my thinking now, is that aesthetic feeling, as is eating or any other process. I may say ...I do ... but the I of yesterday is dead, it has no sensation or feeling, it is as real as a picture in a book. I am a stranger to my past, for there are past days I no longer even have memories of myself, in such days I might as well be dead. Today to read philosophy is to read the history of the truth, as making a taxonomy of truths, (the theory of history being just another object in the taxonomy.) Taxonomy as an undifferentiated collection of objects...which includes theories of taxonomy. Truths are creatures which we can arrange in a multitude of ways, we have histories and not history. Validation might be power, value, time... I am a gatherer of the truths I find along the shore, living today in purposeful amusement, once again the native, having no future or past, in a world of pure experience. (Is this the kingdom of heaven? ) The trick is to be able to step from being into non-being, not without fear, but without noticing, for this process may be eternal - or it may not.

Modernity, especially science, has become so complex that even those who are immersed in it are abandoning understanding in favour of the 'kings dream', to many it's language is meaningless, its symbols signify nothing. People go about their lives in belief systems they know are wrong. Would that they would see the failure of science in the twilight of the century as some redemption of what they believe. Is science done on our behalf! understanding done on our behalf, do we have to find a small place in a vast cosmos of unknowable facts. A healthy view of nature is one where you believe in yourself, your own thoughts, your own vision. To see the tree as a witness to your being, to have a world, a life of your own. To share the experience of life with yourself, being within this and not part of something else. Honour no one, ignore who ever you will. I have my experience, it's mine. The modernist mantra was truth truth truth truth truth, the post modernists mantra is me me me me me me. Anyone who argues against this seeks to take away others individuality in order to increase their own me. Politicians say we have a responsibility to the state, for they are the state, the priests say we have a debt to the church, for they are the church. All systems outside of self are false systems, if what they say was half true they would not need you anyway. Their power would be sufficient, the power of science should be self sufficient! but it is not, it needs funding. Christ says you are alone with god, that is all, alone with the nothing which you are not. You are free. I needn't tell you how to behave, you are well aware of the consequences of your actions, that is what learning is for, that is the role of the teacher. There is nothing greater than you, otherwise you would not have existence. The role of science has become to destroy our understanding. It's not that you don't understand, if you don't understand me, you shouldn't be following me, I should be an object in your life, something you pass by, not a belief, you don't need belief for existence. I am free, you are free.


The thing about philosophers is that they all die. Why then do they do philosophy, it must be to make them happy. It is a selfish occupation! And on and on this goes- perhaps to see through this will help, is it a quest for immortality or aggrandisement? Why does anyone do anything- to achieve happiness. But the object of this, what is that, he said happily!


Verse 54


Deconstructing the mind, I reach out a hand, the processes by which I do I am unaware of. Without an arm, without these acts, without these parts, what would I be. Only when the algorithm which seeks correspondences catches oneself does the I form. There is no intervening links, only recognition produced by the algorithm. This act which is in-constituent and other ideas/thoughts/algorithms attach to its perception, its creation of an I. At the end of any deconstruction there is a set of objects. Even the existence of the I is only an object- it is the product of an algorithm, as real as a nation is real, and it is the world which schedules the algorithms, even the algorithm of the I.

Verse 55

Nothing is not a re-action.

Hegel is weaving new algorithms of mystery, becomes the zeitgeist, a new Christ for the modern age. It is the complexity 'we' like, it is the simplicity of Christ that we reject. Christ is not an idea- this is important - Christ is humanity stripped bare. It is the truth not as complexity or simple fairy tales, but as nothing, the nothing .

In institutions, universities & academies, Philosophers - and artists (etc.) are product. The institutions produce concepts - like an animal grows a skin, the process does not depended on the philosopher/artist. The philosopher/artist is the product. It is the animal of society that grows its feathers and preens itself. The philosophers/artists are functionaries of growth, predicated by the animal which feeds them. The ideas are illusions. Philosophy of the academy is not a philosophy of reality, culture is not reality, logic is not reality, it is a function of structuralism, a product and not a phenomenon. Only nature in its undifferentiated objects is reality.

Academic philosophy is only history, it attempts to predicate reality as absolute, projects its institutions on to the chaos of nature. Philosophy attempts to say what is, but it is not a description but a thing in itself. All this single cause and method stuff, where does it come from, it seems to be an attempt to define the world but really its only defining oneself, that is all it can be. Philosophy is the intellectual shape of the philosopher. Academic philosophy seems to try to weld together individuals into a super-human thinking object. Nature is objects not object. Philosophy's truth is in its aesthetics, its individual aesthetics. Each person consists of many philosophical instances, or objects. An object is a portion of the process of nature- nature naturing - a handle on the process. Science, logic and mathematics are occurrences of philosophy because thinking is the source of philosophy. Making with matter is the source of art, is what art is. (Conceptual art becomes art when presented in a gallery, it is an installation.) Making with noise is the source of music, is music. Philosophy is making thoughts. Being is not not being, therefore very many things, an infinite set of objects which is the process I choose to call nature. Everyone gets uptight about language- and wants to say what it is. THERE ARE NO CATEGORIES. Perhaps this might be better expressed as there are many categories- then again the meaning of many categories is not clear to me, I have no wish for categories of categories.....all taxonomy is arbitrary.

Philosophy is no different to anything else, an exploration of all mental phenomenon includes this- many worlds, many thoughts, matter, existence's, becoming everything.

Its amazing to catch oneself thinking, it definitely isn't logic that drives one forward in thought, logic is like the pencil, only a method, what motivates the direction of thought seems to be the desire, the will, the pleasure at having or entertaining a set of thoughts, maybe arranged in ones head like a sequence of notes, it is the pleasure of thinking, isn't it? I think I would rather use pleasure than will.


In nature there is a diversity of plants, of organisms, each seeking to unify creation in their being. These objects or structures are balancing processes, synthesises, which change, form and collapse. I am like this, many things, moving becoming, simultaneous objects of perceptions, there is nothing unifying these outside their being. There is a total freedom in their being, Christ, god, the prophets, are left behind as so many stories, there is only the many particularities of existence's of perceptions in the infinite process of nature, and the nothingness, the non existence of god from which it all comes. I am an atheist who has lost the concept of god, and now lose the concept of I. I am really only made of shared thoughts and shared matter, as I fall into this thought strangely a feeling of familiarity appears. The wonder of nature is the motivelessness of being, this is freedom of and by everything to be and become everything. Its OK.


Verse 56

Logic language myth symbol- reality ha ha that old one!

Nature grows the universes at the gift of god. Art, Language, life should be stripped of its meaning and become abstract. Western Philosophy appropriated language, and now after philosophy there can not be a language. Science likewise is about appropriating reality, theories of reality, and likewise with the immanent end of science there is no-longer reality. Post-modernity is the final act of freedom, of aboutness. Its always (in the past) a case of legitimisation. Of rule setting, the simplest method is to invert any previous set of rules. Art should be abstract and erotic? The difficulty is in language which seems always to want to explain- for me, for the beauty of the books of constellations of stars is their beauty, is their beauty in their meaning? I collect meanings like watching trees. Someone's going to come round the corner with good advice, someone's going to make you better, or worse. Be a Nomad, in modernity's madness. Lets look at nomadic art, it lives with its creators, not in museums.


The amazing thing is that we didn't like the closeness of god to ourselves, the sustainer and creator of our every moment, holding us up as entities in the chaos of time.


Verse 57

The end of everything.

Is not eternal return but eternal modernity.

X=Y is wrong!

Because it a) says something about the world, b)splits the world into right and wrong. Ethics is wrong, only ethics is wrong, it brings with it wrongness. Existence precedes intelligence, the discovery of old bones precedes palaeontology

1. God is now

2. History- of being, being itself is now. Post modernity is a new primitivism of timelessness. God defines us not us god (now at last a true religion!), that is why god is a mystery, god is timeless therefore we also must be so, and in unification become here now this. So we must live life in a mystery of not knowing, this is the state of post-modernity, after science, after knowledge, after logic, no more rules. Post modernism brings with it the possibility of eternal return, but repeating history is no longer viable, at every start of our historical loop we slip down the roads of progress back to the end of history where we are now, the loop always closes in the end of history. We cannot progress by moving into neo-romanticism or neo-?? because progress has ended. The image of modernism is stuck forever on the retina. The only difference is that progress-in-modernity has ended, it is aesthetics that has replaced progress. (c.f. The Koran, Aboriginal Art et. al.) In post-modernity there can be no progress, aesthetics fills the void of the minimalist. The minimalists answered the question. Such a definition cannot be changed only embellished by an infinite aesthetics. In post-modernism the importance of aesthetics is it allows individual peer to peer communication, without priests or critics. This is wonderful stuff, there is no future or past only the now of being, like the primitive, there is no change in our culture, there is no culture, only being, perpetual modernity without change is post-modernism. Fake post-modern art is all this concept stuff- it boils down to hidden and bad moralising. Like the modern priest it should get a job!

There can be no return to.... 'grand philosophy', these philosophies have all been tried out in history, only an act of amnesia can accomplish such a return, yet without memory there is no history and with memory there is the remembrance of where we are. The game of human understanding once played can only be replayed- not to see where it is going, i.e. science, but out of amusement, i.e. aesthetics.


Verse 58

A Thousand Theories which contradict each other.

I can invent histories, I can invent arguments and realities, a dream world. The black hole is an event horizon - it can not go back but takes with it forever the now, a fixed image, this is the modern logos, the end of modernity the end of everything. I am a bundle of beings held together in this time- a random arrangement created in and by this time. The now creates the bundle which is seen as the object, a series of processes. I am the consequences of the processes of what is now. There is no history or coming to be. I appear out of the processes not as an external event. Everything is the bundle which is existence. My existence is a phrase which makes no sense, my existence is a set of events, taken from a larger set, future, past any dimension only appears to cause this set, when it is just simply there as part of the infinite whole.












How may times have I entered the room now, an infinite number, they are perfect copies so I can only guess this.


The end is always ending, even at the beginning. The being always being, the beginning always beginning even at the end. Experience, being, is nonsense. There is just the infinite now of being. This is all nonsense. I perceive reality correctly as nonsense. Automatic writing attempted at a truth therefore lacked an aesthetic when read. Now it might be an aesthetic creative act but not an aesthetic of audience- a perceptive act. I want joy in what I write when I read it by creating dreams and mythology of being. Success is to return to the dreamtime where I can be in the world, and be ones father, ones mother, ones generations in time and space, therefore not in time.


Culture has wrapped itself up, and tried to throw out the individual so it can sell it back. Its about buying personality, about killing personality and selling it back, but we are essentially the audience, the audience of the world, we already have what can not be sold to us, our watching. I suspect bad art is trying to tell me something.

The truth is .... to exist means that all possibilities must be carried out - continuously. All the hells of the holocaust ....... are not events in time but are continuous events. And all the other acts of violence, and charity, and love, and middle class indifference. Each contains its own karma, this is creation, the aim of the Buddha was complete non-existence, separation from any karma.



Verse 59

The universe.

The universe is undifferentiated, mind like creation are parallels of differentiation. 'In the beginning was nothing - then existence then attributes' - this model describes the development of both personality (mind) and the physical creation of matter (the universe). Mathematicians are referees of a game whose rules would appear to be a=a. Rules are not the game, for a good game has nothing to do with the rules, in a good game they are not needed. Thinking correctly arrives at nothing, in order to do anything the rules are broken, the symmetry of logic has to be broken. I can think incorrectly and arrive at a truth.

It seems impossible to talk of numbers as being different from the world, when they are in the world. Numbers seem OK, its logic which seems difficult, as if it has to make you do things? But without things could there be numbers? How can there be abstract relationships first, as opposed to arriving at abstract relationships out of the relationships of our imagination, once it got going. Number is measure and measure always seems relative. What creates a concept apriori? The concept of half of something cannot exist apriori. Number cannot be simply abstract, somehow in playing with the rules we lose the game. Formalism in religion, art and science never has a subject! Examination of the rules does not cause the game to be played. Post-Modernism in its positive guise must return to making things. Minimal post modernist art returns to showing things. Pornography is not bad, but it is complex, it is theatre, it is organised religion, it is not the meditation on the material and non-material. Minimalism is different in its aim, there is making even in silence, things are made nothing is non-made.

I would like to know how the universe is measured as measuring seems about comparisons? How could a early universe be small? How would you draw the universe non symbolically? It seems the process of abstraction- conceptualisation is at fault in that I must see it preceding from the world. Words attach to real matter, to stuff. There is no mysticism in the universe, it is all illuminated. And when someone gets up with the answer it is just an opportunity for the next question! Children learn to stop asking questions, a five year old can out think any modern physicist by playing the why game.

The simple answer to the question why is there suffering in the world is 'where else could the suffering in the world be?' The answer to why is there something rather than nothing is similar 'because nothing exists - so something must.' The state of not being predicates all being- that is how god creates - tirelessly, without action between a posteriori and a priori, continuously, now, in history and in future. You don't need the 'god', this is simply three letters filling the space. Aghhhh. Three letters is a much closer to a definition than anything else.

Verse 60

My World.

There is everything- chaos, there is order, there is nothing. Chaos arises out of nothing and in this we are ordered.

There are relationships between the things of the chaos. Another is the relationship between myself in the chaos and the nothing.

There are many types of cause, my shape causes a corresponding negative shape in the volume of air in the room. This cause is non-deliberated, not premeditated cause. It cannot even be a consequence as neither objects can be without each other. Can there be nothing and not something? Nothing has always to deny itself. My mysticism is to have a relationship with the nothing. The point of my life is to have a correspondence with the nothing. To see this one has to see everything that exists as being abstract.

In the abstract space of an empty room we can sense god, the presence of god is the emptiness of space, of everything, of self.

'There's nothing you can make that can't be made'



Verse 61

Conversation with myself

There are many gods in the world, and organisations, an organisation is a collective which establishes power. The source of the world, the antithesis of organisation is the non being of God. The universe is white light, matter forming, noise, god is black and silent. Because of God there is a continual creation of matter- of energy of everything, only by comprehension has this begun to understand. There are many purposes of life, of it in itself, - but there is no objective. The religious appear outside organisations, outside of religions! The religious life is one of unravelling the world to see its source, the religious life is simple. It has no power but receives envy? why? is there a guilt in creation, like a guilt in sex? The acts of the world are not wrong- a tree is not wrong, but they are insufficient. God is only sufficient. The universe exists - out of balance, in its imperfection. To feel this should not cause guilt, the desire for perfection is lost only in the perfect nothingness of God. It's easy.


The giraffe

What signifies... a giraffe......a camel.......humanity........

long neck...hump(s)...... intelligence

And this still in the future - forever? Art or religion may be a better signifier, it is and always has been the expression of individuality. Pop is very bad because it is base exposition of common denomination, the perfect graphic.

The internet is full of real people who fumble with mistakes, desires, and amateur pornography, it is wonderfully human, there is the primitive - who is- the intelligent - who is becoming and the post intelligent who is deconstructing. The objects of life support the philosophy, what do you really want to do! What can satiate desire?

Music is sound, it need not be communication, painting is paint, it need not be an image, writing is thought, it is symbols of thoughts. It is the learning the shapes which makes writing symbolic thought, otherwise it is drawing which is line.

Undoing Descartes- undoing the I think therefore I am, memory of this - Wednesday idea- forgot Thursday remembered- like it was written down - is a notepad memory - yes, the written process creates objects, sentences and 'things'. Look at a square - a hierarchy develops in the mind of thoughts each capable of generating others, this is the hydra of the mind in which each thought when thought of generates new thoughts and not termination's. Thought develops itself, what is is other than that, watching the model of trees being drawn on trees, this is thought, but not all that what is, minimalism shows what else could be, beyond thought. So how is it that non-thought can exist, by allowing the impression of the .

The success of minimalism is in admitting to the other- and not subsuming everything in thought.

THAT WHAT I AM BECOMES WHAT.. WHAT IS THE POINT Both its truth and its communication. I am because I can be. And in this beauty. Reality is so beautiful ... so specific

Verse 62

Theological problems

How can god act, can god move towards us or is it only we who can move towards God. A critique of the orthodox Christian view of gods actions lies in the fallibility of god which is presented. To the orthodox this is partially but never wholly successfully explained by free will. Another problem is the manner in which god acts in a particular way, towards a chosen people, groups of people are saved by gods efforts towards them. Such a prejudicial god is puzzling. I am faced with either accepting this arbitrary act as divine will or becoming suspicious that its a fabrication of the 'chosen' group. I can't think of a group who believe in an active god who does not act towards themselves but chooses others. The concept of a prejudicial god is the cause of the inability of religions of this type to coexist. It is the placing of human attributes onto an absolute that is the cause of these concepts. Lets not presume to know anything about god, imagine a negative non-being and non-acting god, this accounts not only for the prophets but also to the multiplicity of religions, deities and saints. They represent the traces of a differentiated humanity as is disappears into the non-being of god. This multiplicity is like the multiplicity's of languages, all languages converge on actual objects which are fundamentally the same, so to in the case of a multiplicity of religions they converge on a universal destination- the holy other. I can describe the nature of Jesus as one who found and identified with the nature of god in the renunciation of the world in the wilderness experience, in seeking non being, in the desert, or a cave or under a tree, in the emptiness, in the nothingness. And this god does not bring wealth or power or greatness, it as a rejection of these things which is typical of the mystics experience of god which is contrary to a god of power which some find puzzling, and a close identification of the mystic with the divine which is found blasphemous. In the wilderness it is the devil who offers a diversity of temptations, the devil or devils represent the differentiated desire of something rather than nothing, of meaning rather than what is. It is the devil who acts, who approaches the Christ, not god. Psychologically it seems to be a dialogue between action and non-action. Religion at its truest attempts to try to represent the emptiness of the holy in its images, if not it becomes a political institution for control of people and governance of power. However the images are only pointers to the holy and not holy in themselves. To attach power to them only makes their meaning less clear. I think much the same can occur with regards language and philosophy. Evangelism, and fundamentalism are symptoms of the beginnings of doubt in the holy images, but they seek to strengthen the image, Jesus and the prophets however in their weakness lose the old hierarchical structures and gain a new and direct contact with the holy. Holiness is shrinking from humanity into god. My belief is in the experience of creation, and not logic, before nature itself collapses into the unknowableness of the true God we have the minimal object which just exists before the nothing. The whole of minimalist philosophy is balanced on the edge of non-being. Art is not an idea, its a thing. A created thing in itself. The conceptual artist takes the step of assuming that ideas precede objects, but even in a simulated universe the concepts are formed out of the relationships of simple objects, or numbers. The minimalist takes the belief in ordinariness of the object which points to something mystical preceding the object. Minimalism's objects are the last thing, the least thing that can be done before nothing, they point to the nothing. They are they are extraordinary in their presenting the ordinary. All other art backs up from this towards opera and political/philosophical discourse. At the moment in the desert Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and God were one. Theology therefore should be mystical poetry.


Verse 63

How do we find out?

The rules of logic maintain truth as a counter to non truth, this is a learnt prejudicial way of seeing the world. It is only particular and so we see life in terms of true and false, but this is only idealised from sleep and wakefulness, hot and cold , life and death... 'Logic must always be right or wrong' can I falsify that sentence, in a way, subjectively I can. But logic is subjective! It is chosen in life, it is a fact of nature. Something can not be - pre existent- logic says so!

There is meaning in nothing or meaning in everything or meaning in something's. If meaning in something's then there are arbiters of meaning, science & philosophy I suppose would claim this. But how can it make such a claim? Either by logic, or perception? Science needs logic and perception, just to use perception would include too much subjectivity. Without logic the whole thing is universal and subjective. But logic is subjective, if it were universal it would have no meaning, as it is not universal there logically is the non-logical and so a subjective choice. If there is meaning in everything there is interpretation, there is mutuality and not exclusivity.



Verse 64

If one wills god into the world one wills gods destruction. Is this the task of organised religion.





Verse 65

The Theatre

What is it people expect in the theatre, entertainment, a story, a falsehood, what if they were confronted not by an actor but by someone who told them this. Told them they are mortal, that their lives will be over one day and asked what are they doing with there lives in visiting theatres, just wasting their time, sitting watching something which is meaningless. This is minimal theatre, and the drama is the real genuine drama of the audiences actual existence. The audience could be confronted by this fact, as can also occur with other minimal art forms. They are not representations of other things, which is why I find them more 'honest' than representational forms of art, they are not symbols or myths or explanations, they simply are. Minimalism lacks meaning, any drama is real, unlike the soap opera, the Disney cartoon. If an actor stops acting in the theatre it would be like paint no-longer giving the illusion of the sky or a face. Illusion isn't wrong, it's another reality, with which I have another relationship. The relationship is between myself and logic, language, theatre and representational art and religion. Between myself and my experience, my history, between my being.

Verse 66


It is obvious that the limits of understanding is our understanding. Why get so enthusiastic about science? It defines our understanding- is the world.


In creating a set of algorithms which generate new sets of increasing complexity it is possible to develop rules which are too complex for a human mind to comprehend. Such algorithms must therefore be judged by their actions and not their form. Such a judgement is therefore aesthetic as opposed to deductive. This is 'magic'.


I think every proposition is both true and false.

p q s

1 1 1

1 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 0

1 1 0

1 0 1

0 1 1

0 0 1


The critique of this is loss of meaning, meaning however becomes subjective. Subjective Being. The language of subjective being is magic. Jazz is magic. Everything from now(16/08/97) is either jazz or transcendentalism.


Verse 67

A transcendental method.

To perceive the impossibility of knowledge is transcendental knowledge.

The object simply is, is the unreducible transcendental thing in itself. A sign less object. This is now the only alternative to magic. The small thing, the cloud of unknowing...

But to move from the point of being, inwards, beyond even being as such, beyond suchness and not move outwards into the 'world' of words and incantations is eternal transcendentalism. This is the wall of being which cannot be consciously passed through, so any descriptions of what is beyond it are always false. It is the land of non labelable objects of pure experience. It is the source, the moment of God's being in the world. The moment before and after nothing.


Verse 68

Why bother.

So OK lets see God acting, even by will, that something is the case, here the absolute holds two concepts, what is and what is not, we divide the indivisible. As if god could move, from where to where physically or mentally. Evolution is a phenomenon of the created, not the un created. So creation is not an act of will, and not particular. That 'negative' aspect of god is really a reflection of our assumption of the positive. We have to face the problem of our particular state now, not that things are as they are, they are in every state. In fact the completion of God is to us a negation, a non-action. The whole of creation is multiplicity's of singularities. Morality is a view, a single view, selective, the only emotion which fits god is compassion- in our terms, letting go, giving in, giving up, non-being. Look at the story of Jesus, what did he find in the desert, only Satan which was the reflection of his own ego, his own singleness. He didn't have some wonderful power, in our terms, but saw the ultimate compassion of God, the negativity of God. How could the state or the religious authorities relate to this contradiction of power and authority. Even in attempting to destroy this they failed, the person was no longer there, only the indestructible divinity of God. States and authorities can only manipulate individuals, they use science and morality and logic for control. They could not and can not use the sublime negativity of Jesus' compassionate God, with which he had become one and the same. (who did he leave his spirit with?) So they destroyed- the already destroyed, in was a negation of a negative that caused the resurrection. The Resurrection is the continuation of the state of grace, of non being that Jesus had already achieved in the desert. Salvation in these terms is seeing this logically and losing oneself, or seeing this emotionally in adoration and losing oneself, or denying the flesh and losing oneself, there are many acts but it is the falling away of self that unites the experience of the holy- other. The self falls away, but there is no object of the falling away, the onion has no centre, this is the great truth, the nothingness of God. There are not another set of objects in heaven, but nothing, absolute non-being, which is bliss. Bliss cannot be achieved. The true silence is achieved by making negative noises to fit the noise of society and nature. Perhaps this is the role of the true religion and its arts.

This is also the story of the Buddha and Moses and Mohammed and Krishna. Non came out of the experience of god with any magic power, but with compassion and submission. So why bother, it seems it has to be the journey of all finite things to the infinite, whether after many existence's or not.

Neither can you deny your life, or your stomach or heart, these are what you have, as so your family, your history, these cannot be destroyed but they can be understood, they can be seen clearly. There is not a single mantra for you, but a huge number for all experience. This is Arjuna's vision. The vision which negates matter, destroying both, and leaving only the nothing of knowing god.

So why bother, it seems it has to be the journey of all finite things to the infinite, whether after many existence's or not.


Verse 69

A play.

Direct subjective experiences are the constituents of what is called objective reality. Objectivity is created out of an amalgam of subjective experiences. Perception of reported experience only attaches 'objectivity' to it by a belief in the consensus of subjective opinion. It seems that fiction is differentiated from fact only by the intention of the author. However a fiction can prove to be true. There is not a method for distinguishing events which may or may not be a play.

The nature of truth lies in subjectivity.. Why do we differentiate reality from fiction, our reality is only a particular fiction. How is the experience of a novel or a 'real' event different? Is there a way to tell them apart, only by inventing some superstate to view events, and this itself is a fiction. Philosophy is the imagination, not just simple truth tables. And yet also it is fundamentally truth tables, which maybe map everything, including fiction. The intent of fiction is only a situation, 'reality' can also be seen as a fiction, is a fiction which we make up.. Life is a play.

Reality can be made from an arrangement of numerous different sets of objects, and by none, what it is, is what is perceived, the breaking of one subjective view with another.

Verse 70

To say.

What is the purpose of life - to find - to experience god. The non-existent allness. Other purposes are finite, to find - to experience god is infinite, it is the only step out of the world we can make. Reincarnation is being always in the world, in the subjective world. To become aware of god is to experience objectivity, and with this the loss of subjectivity, a loss of self, the loss of the world of transient objects, the loss of eternal return of matter, the loss of reality. Which is why it cannot be said.


Verse 71


God guarantees us uniqueness by compassion, the act of creating the differentiated, and we can turn back to this creator, not just be part of the beautiful cycle of birth and death, in its endless permutations of being as, but focus back on the love that creates, it is a splendid transcendental thing. Everything is just itself in its being, (ever being) other than the holy who cease in their being through loving, thinking, meditating on the absolute. (Never let the image of god be a fiction, always throw ones thoughts further than one can.)


Verse 72

The Future.

We move forward by forgetting our past, this defines progress and accounts for de-ja-vu. The experimental method can now only wait for amnesia to set in on the human consciousness, technology only re-trace its steps. The future of cybernetics is failure, failure to understand which will probably appear as failure to understand cybernetics' success or its failure. Science rehearses ancient philosophies in still born languages, the basics of what we are is known, and knowing always descends into further hierarchies. If the value of knowledge is in its quality, a kind of comparison new with old, then there must be knowledge beyond conception which is near perfect! Knowledge is the imprint of our reality, never nothing more than this, if the old diseases return or return by another name, our understanding of the facts are only always limited. Compare the old encyclopaedias with the modern databases, there has been no quantitative gain in knowledge. If our world consists of information then this is illusion.


Verse 73


Why at the moment of enlightenment didn't the Buddha begin to rot?

Why at the realisation of Jesus didn't he consume the whole world?


A fly with one wing.



The algorithm is trapped within itself. It can't become something higher. Or penetrate to what is lower, though can control what is lower. It becomes itself only larger. It is only by imagination which is insubstantial that can anything else be apprehended. It cannot be known.

And he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and with a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life...

In the algorithm it is not possible to step outside it, to apprehend anything other than in the given terms, therefore it is only possible to think in the given terms, the algorithm, is all that there is. All that there is is not all that can be possibly apprehended. The confrontation with the limits of perception is the confrontation with the devil, the most powerful material force, which is far more powerful than oneself, which is unconquerable. It guards any route out of existence and is infallible. Its is impossible to cross the limit of oneself in either direction, belief in the objective reality of history is subjective, belief in the self is also subjective, the proof of the latter is not required, but the former requires faith. The objective requires a subjectification of self. This equates to devil worship.

This is the logic of the algorithm which is our consciousness of the world, and in the world, it is the devil that faces us at our attempts to transcend the algorithm of our intelligence. The logic which is always where we are, always with, in and of our understanding. This is the ruler of the world in which we live, in which we are, and in which we are made of. There is no logical other, no way out. The transcendence of Christ is seen as death, as failure, of phantasy. Of myth not logic. We can only see our selves seeing, in states of imagination where everything becomes one and nothing.

Where is the devil- it is us, you and me, it is consciousness. It is the I free from nature and the I free from god. (Self destruction affirms the materialism of consciousness.) The whole of creation is given now in this moment, and nowhere else! and in its perception, and rejection of everything else points to the edge of what I can only describe is like a pool of what is not either side of what is, and yet is the centre and source of being. The cold still unmoving source that shines like black water, like dark silver, always and always, whole and unextended. And all of what is, is complex, and what is not is simple, is given, is already there, is perfect, perfection before and after being. And as being stretches out into the world it becomes emeshed in a belief in what is not, in the descriptions of what is and how it is. In a belief of not believing. In my imagination I can be here now and know everything, imagine I am complete and therefore see God. This gives no power. Who has power in the world.

Something else in here forgotten about materialism- that which is, and the that which is not, the perfect state.

To transcend consciousness will bring nothing into the world.

The found is more godlike than the created.

A child sees the world in its totality, and therefore sees god outside its experience, feels the numesence of god's being, like the primitives do. Their world is complete, behind the wall, in the next room, beyond each breath is God. To look intentionally at the world is to destroy it, the sophisticated mind projects ideas onto the world, the alternative is to let the world project itself onto the mind. It is from the world that logic begins, which is then used as a means to construct ideas. Be with the impressions which are now, and that is all. This is a method of transcendental meditation on the nature of being. Relate to the perfect by being the whole of the material world in your imagination. Logic may imply other worlds and concepts, but imagine for a moment they are not, in losing all ones knowledge of the world it is possible to gain the understanding of god. Imagine there is nothing but the I, the absolute material here and now of being, with no history or future. Imagine there is nothing but you here now, and if you can do this then you have a method for seeing god. When everything is known, is complete, that is the end of things, at the point of the solitary I there is what is beyond language. The logical impossibility of the end of things, is the logical impossibility of reaching infinity, imagine there is nothing but you here now and you are with, are at infinity.

History and education differentiates the world in order to synthesise modernity from out of it. The alchemy of knowing ones place in society is part of a beneficial process in which forsaking wholeness we have knowledge.

To consume the world of experience with imagination is to destroy the world of being as. From here movements, power, doing, are vacant. The landscape is the world, given without the relationships of symbols. It is, me it, it is. Then the field of nothing, the field of blackness, of stillness of never. God is the sea in which I swim. The precise point of my personality as it expands away unseen by me. God is very close, very near me, mine, for god is making, creating allowing, forming me, all the time. The true God is mine and no one else's, is the measure of the closeness of such a relationship, between the created and the creator, the nothing and the being. God lies underneath my skin and below my breath, is the force which beats my heart, is the watcher of my thoughts. This personality guarantees the uniqueness of god. To experience god is to experience the uniqueness of god separate from everything else, close, close by me.

Spiritual dying is an instant when there is no longer any importance in the world.

Verse 74

The Profane.

As we once were an embryo developing flesh, it is flesh that is entangled in our lives. Our skin covers the world, our world is skin. Morality attaches itself to the skin of life, it preserves the material, creates illusion, and time. My skin and your skin are the same, they are shared. Sex covers everything glistening and material, it is the origin of time. We love it because it is us in material, the commonality of being, the constant eating of each other, the perpetuation of what is physical. Everything extended is profane. This book is profane. If it cancels out everything what is left is sacred. There are a multiplicity of profanities, in which we are, and only one divinity which is our source, in which we also are. If there is one skin then there are many gods! Gods without skins.



Verse 75

The sacred.

Before profanity is the scared, before the consciousness moves, is the sacred. How many 'before consciousness-es' are there? an infinite even in a second, in the smallest division of time. Each second holds an infinite of non-beings, and infinite of gods, filling the nothings between the somethings.


There is number in finiteness and nothing in infiniteness, or perhaps I can see it better as only one in number - a single thing, and many without end in what is zero. What has number, can be counted, flesh, skin, ... adds up to 1, 1 is the first and only number. What can be counted that isn't 1. The universe is one flesh, brought into being by an infinity of Gods. We are a merry-go-round of shadows, shadows are concepts. Both the last two sentences are true, the real truth is in the method whereby they are digested- in to each other- and annihilated - this is another method (of seeing god).


Verse 76

A New Genesis.

(the world is what is given) This screen, keyboard, arm, tiredness - music from the radio, conversation, pain , smeared in time.

complexity, thousands of dots from which hierarchies are made by tracing backwards into possible multiple sources which are only ideas..........and ideas only a part of what is- all ideas don't change this, what is- the unconnected trivia is connected by experience. The mind like the hand is a tool for singling things out, one of the experiences, even consciousness. In the beginning was everything now, and in experience. Everything else is constructed from that- as if philosophy and religion have always proceeded in the wrong direction, under a misconception that something made, something was the source of now, when now is the source of everything, the source of philosophy and science. The singling out of discreteness of experience destroys what the now is, its uniform complexity of being. It begins the deconstruction of now, the truth of existence, to embark on a synthesis of concepts which are only partial, seeking universalism amongst the infinities of unique moments of subjective being.....


This moment is a reality in itself...the history that precedes it is one of many possible histories- you choose the most likely? Each person writes their own history ... I am x because of Y. look at a scar.. what caused it ... what could have caused it.... what is only apparent is now, theories of reality which are casual are grand (personal) histories- and so are these gods... of Buddha and Jesus and Mohammed, where the individual is sublimated by a fictitious historic personality. This impossibility, that I am now because of someone else is a programme of orthodoxy. To lessen the individual's true reality and promote a propaganda of the fake. The real now is now and here god... pasts are inventions-- schemes. The true purpose of religion should focus on now not the reverse- free the now from the memory or propaganda of the past


The concept of evolution is an evolutionary device. It sustains itself theoretically as a grand object bigger than any subjective feeling, but mere subjective feeling is what reality really is. Evolution says that sustainability motivates the world. And that is how the theory works, it is a universal grand object. Universal grand objects exist in a world of ideas, they are not like a subjective simple experience. As reality is nothing more than subjective simple experiences then these grand theories lack reality.

We miss out of what being is by always being for and being from, selecting what is now from a history - selecting what is significant - and selecting what is likely, never seeing all objects of the present as they are. The mystical experience is of all the elements now as being one undifferentiated object of perception. Now is another reality quite strange to existent beings, to objects in time, it is what time is made from. The alternative theory is of time made from history, which may have began at some moment, the problem with defining such a moment could also make the experience of any moment a non-sense. The only moment I know about ever is now. experience any moment, my time is not made from a history which began at some moment. All the ideas of theories- of Science-God of the Bible- are opposed to the mysticism of now. In the mysticism of now is the god of now, which is the god of creation, subjectively creating time for me. What do I inhabit - what is real? The force that subjects the mysticism- that destroys the transcendence of the now, is the evolutionary force- of growth, science religion and understanding.



Now is an infinity of directly accessed non contingent objects. History is only a shadow. Science is history, everything that isn't now is history.

Is reality what is or is not is an historical concept. The power of history is survival. - in time, history is the enemy of the moment. To live for the moment truly is to cease to be in time. We are because our world consists mostly of objects which attempt to be in time, the physical creation of matter, like the personality, is from the remnants of objects which ceased to be in themselves. That is why we are here. Matter that is only now is soon not. Given everything, what we perceive most strongly are persistent objects, the larger the object- history of the world etc. the greater its impact intellectually. There is the beginnings of the importance of certain objects, these are important because of persistence. Non persistent objects are not given as such any importance. The world is created by the subset of objects whose property is persistence. The forces of nature are the products of random events, the events left over that haven't been- or are not in themselves, which are consumed in the perfect being of truth. If now you have all possible states, those persistent ones will continue, others will not, the persistent ones muddy the next moment. Only the tracks of movement are seen, only a section of the given total? of possibilities. Why we are here is because of this, this is our nature. The ultimate timeless moment - is it black? is it soundless? here is now, and never in history, too brief for perception. The person is a fiction and reality is an object, which can be described as 'now'.

Life need not be an equation, the religious act could be of trying to be now. The new religion could be about a subjective timeless moment and not about planning for a future event - or explaining the past.


Life and creation fall away from now predicating the world of existent objects, god is out of time predicating existence. A true death, like the Buddha's death of all desires, is not being in time but in being now where there is no precursor and no post-cursor and therefore beyond the causal chain of karma and desire. The peace which passes all understanding is enlightenment - satori, nonbecoming. This is the source of the world! Buddhata is the source of the world, the very thing he is not interested in! Not so surprising as negation always creates its opposite.

The nature of nature is the converse of the fabric of reality. Where grand theories are only just that, concepts with superlatives, the nature of nature in the being of the moment is about the practical creation of the world, rather than explanations. It is - the transcendence of a moment, an act of art. A work of art, a creative act, whose audience is the subject's consciousness. The simplicity of suchness if communicated is done simply. This is a kind of advertisement for minimalism. God's compassion in creation is gods not taking a portion of it, for if god was, if god did, we would be not. A non persistent object with infinite potential gives birth to the infinities of created universes in the form of the persistent part of the infinity of potentiality. The subjective moment of creation is beautiful.

The lack of concern of the mystic for theory, in their practice, is the nature of their practice. The theorist is concerned with theories about.... The mystic makes the world, infinite experience of the moment of creation, the theorist explains it away, as a simple equation, or phrase. Sitting, I say here look here are the infinity of un-named objects, this is my world, by sitting here I create my world, my being, my time.

You would think that the superset of momentary subjective gods is 'larger', but this superset is a concept and not a directly perceived thing, therefore 'smaller', being perceived as part of a moment of being. As the moment of perception closes to nothing there is the witness to a god, I call this the momentary subjective god. This is the true god at the centre of true experience. Other concepts strive at infinity, this god is infinite. God and now are the same.

This, the above, is another method. These methods are only alternatives.

At the point of being we are completely alone. No one or anything can touch us. There is nothing other than this. To describe this means all language or no language. The fall begins when we begin to bother about external things.

God is frightening, when nearly perceived. Why? I don't know. It's like completely not me, in the heart of me. But what that is, is not. At this point nothing can withstand the greatness of god.

Ideas are finite.

An organisation in the world is not a method. Success of an organisation in the world is what? Expression of ideas through organisations is self fulfilling, and finite. The success of the individual lies in their happiness and ability to experience the infinite.

We make the world. It is ever our product, like the beaver, the whole of science explains how we want the world to be. It's all ethics. Ask the question why someone holds a proposition, inwardly it's because that is what they want to be true.

The solution to the two slit experiment is probably in the solipsism of the electron. Psychological existence is created from the coming into being of the world at every moment. Consciousness, like time and causality, is a psychological object. The movement of the world is a perception. Consciousness is the persistence of past moments of existences provoking a guess at the next moment, which is appreciated as time, and described as cause and effect. But the next frame of a film is not caused by the previous frame. It is similar. Actually all there is, is the event, the single now, imagination constructs a series of events and from this series creates objects in time, creates history, reason, and causality. To see a set of events is a created construct, time is not perceived as a set of like events, now is not like before, or like next, there are no real objects called before and next, these are only ideas, of and unlike now. All the world, and all its objects, outside of this moment, is a mental construction. The belonging of these ideas to now, and therefore their existence is a fault in the now, a process attempting to link nows, and create a mental world. This could probably be described as an evolutionary phenomenon, a expedience, not a truth, but any other argument is as invalid, in its lack of reality. An argument's strength is in its prescription, not description. Evolutionists justification and therefore prescription rely on the power of the will, the justification of the religious is spirituality, both, and all thought, is Maya, literally that which is not, that which is not now. All of this book is likewise. Now is an enlightened moment of creation from nothing, its very uniqueness refuses comparison, attempts to compare is time...

... is thinking, the cause of consciousness, imagination, being, cause and effect, history, matter, logic, ethics, is the matching of random binary sequences between the inside mental world and the outside world. (actually just the matching of similar sets of patterns, 'inside', 'mental', and 'outside' are constructs of this process.) The only real number is the oneness appearing out of the nothing of now. That raises the possibility, and therefore the reality of creating complexity... of imagining Maya.

Even if we accept the outside world as fact and not expedience, then it too can be thought of as simply the matching of random patterns. A long string of binary numbers will exhibit pattern, patterns of electrons, time, humans, chairs, computers, of everything. The creator of this universe is either man or nothing, it is a misconception of a belief in other moments, look at how this is proved, by force of argument, not by appearances! It is a universe we can only inhabit as ideas. The objects of the outside world will always reveal this, seen to us as the sociological behaviour of particles, and the muddle of the object, of you and I. The real universe is something completely different, created by god, now, every moment ends in a fall from grace. This is the real source of the world. Once out of the garden of the now everything is up for grabs. To play in the world of Maya is OK, I'm not being ethical, I'm trying to be descriptive.

The continuity of not constructing a continuum is enlightenment, only perceived on entry and exit, like travelling through a tunnel, or being in a cave. In the darkness of the night, of the desert, of ones own death, is the possibility of enlightenment, but we cling to soul. In the darkness of the shrine is a glimpse of the transcendental divinity. Solipsism is OK in itself, of course it's ridiculous in the world. Solipsism is non-communicable, not even to oneself, to be aware of oneself is to be aware of others. Solipsism is a method.

The shrine is a method.

To love god is a method.

I don't think wanting is much use, wanting seems like science. Science can only give you facts, and technology gives you things, but these are of no help. How do they ease the mind? There is nothing mystical in science, look, its all rubbish!


Verse 77

The Burning Bush.

The burning bush can be seen whenever you wish. What is seen, or rather not seen, may not be liked. There is no religion or church. No connections, thoughts, links, meanings, imaginations or fantasies. This is therefore the holy other.

The algorithm which looks at itself, 10 LIST, is one of a set, including algorithms which look at other algorithms. Some sets of numbers are, others represent, and match other sets. The burning bush is a self aware algorithm, the nature of god in experience. The bush is red with berries in the winter sunlight. Away from the bush are ideas, in the heat of the bush is becoming. If there is a multitude of things, then how can there be one explanation. 10 LIST is one explanation, 10 INPUT A$...IF A$ = ..... opens up a multiple of explanations.

Life is an amalgam of objects, some objects are sets or set makers, some are simple. These are the attributes of life. Memories. Thoughts. Abilities to add. A knowledge of a fact. An ability to juggle. Owning a certain car. A bush which is burning which is not consumed. Each of these are separate objects.

Hierarchies are created and subsequently inhabited by others. Those who create, make, form follows the act, whereas those who follow inhabit the structure to give them form and purpose. The hierarchy is only as real as its creator, and dies with it, from the hierarchy there is no power. Hierarchies of the dead are dead. To live in a hierarchy is to be dead. This is probably an account of existentialism, the existentialists seem to inhabit dead hierarchies made by others- Hegel, Marx... and find that these hierarchies are meaningless, are dead. The objects of philosophy are no different from the objects of the world, from the sun and moon and birdsong. Each accounts for itself. Each is created by its own god.



God is not in a hierarchy, is not and can not- be in a relationship to.



In complex systems everything, even mistakes, have connections, and therefore meaning and truth. ~ God is not in a hierarchy, is not and can not- be in a relationship to.

Verse 78

What to do.

What to do. Nothing will come to you, only the world. Each day your choice is what to do. There are many things you have to do, and enough moments in between to meditate on the Nature of God. This being different from what you have to do, and what is done.

What you will become, is dead. What you were was non-existent. That is enough to locate what you do now. To capture the past and future in some sort of understanding may help matters? It wouldn't even if it were possible. God is not an opposite thought, god is seen in the unrelated being of the world.

That now cannot negate itself is a description of the minimum point of existence, if it were a maximum point of complexity now could not be it would be un-known. The tree through the window is the real true actual nature of now. Everything more is more, there is no less. This is nothing.

The contrary thought to static religion of subject and object which has a tension which cannot be sustained is the dynamic of modernity, and science, the evolution of concepts in the world. The outward subjective desire which objectives itself.

A third way, the universe, all created things, everything outside seen and unseen are made from and with desire. Time is desire. Only God is not desire. What is God, God is the inside of I. Brahman. The subjective inward I. A perfect instant. Closed, not here, not given, beyond attack or description, perfect. Yes.

The instant you became self aware as a child you both knew god and lost god, you were aware of that loss. A proof of god is the feeling of loss, the atheists proof, and the source of the atheists description of god. God not outside, god not of thought or concept. The non-existence of God is the subjective heart of consciousness which is before thought. The atheist sees this correctly. External gods are only thought models and so unreal.

It is inside, before consciousness, not after it, consciousness is a clever explosion destroying god with thought.

To act for the outside world or the inside solipsism creates two opposed methods of living. The inside does not communicate and is hidden, it has non of the attributes of the outside, communication, logic, language, and can so be criticised, or ignored. It is the spiritual cause of existence as is the outside the material manifestation of existence. Which comes first, if matter then belief in matter. It is only a feeling that matter, history etc. are real. Matter (an avatar of logic) arises from the chaos of mind.

Verse 79


Everything in the world has attributes. These give objects form and colour, with which we are aware, aware of them and ourselves. Qualities, feelings and desires are also attributes. Divinity is an attribute. It is a negative attribute, we have the negative attribute of divinity - as well as all these other attributes. Not God in all things, but god as separate and being part of all things in its attribute of non-being. Can we sense this, yes, that is how we know God. The attribute of divinity and the source of our being. We have amongst many things, many attributes the attribute of divinity. We can focus on particular attributes. The holy focus on divinity, the hungry on their appetites....





Verse 80

Church Architecture.

The church in its architectural form is a corridor, we enter as human, it is where we are christened, at the door, and move through society towards the divinity of the alter. The alter is a sacrifice of being as, to just being. The dead are placed before the altar, not before the door. Physically the corridor appears closed. This is saying something not about transformation, but about what already is.





Verse 81

Some Leading Thoughts.

Society protects itself. Society is the organisation of human thoughts as well a beings. It is about control. This is about the lowest common denominator, generalisation, mass production, indoctrination, simplex communication. The powerful in society get power from sublimation. This must arise from indoctrination and therefore is a language, idea driven phenomenon. A god of power sublimates not creates. To fashion the diverse into a single artificial form. This status quo is sufficient to death. That is why the individual inside society fears death, because with death the individual leaves society. The grave stones and celebration of the dead offers false hope to the dying of remembrance or of entering another society, a society of the dead. By believing so realisation is avoided. Realisation not of the fact of death, but the realisation of the fallacy of society as a super-being. It is a solipsism that my death is societies death. Is there a mind, a consciousness of society made of the individuals, as an individuals mind is made of individual thoughts. This super-mind is satanic. It seeks power and domination of the world of things. Are all organisations like devils, that is what they are. (you work out which is which) Breaking free of society the individual becomes individual. The holy arise, find holiness, in deserts and caves. The religious factor doctrine in organisations and churches, in community. In community is disease. We poison ourselves by our transmissions. (of signals of people of ideas...) To choose society is therefore to choose death and fear. To choose power is to choose society.

The self is a microcosm of society, in the desert within the self is the truth. Is Brahman. In the cave of the self is Jesus. Methods must strip away the amalgams, show each for what it is and find the indescribable thing-in-itself, the burning bush, the godhead. Hunger is a need for food. Logic is a method of planning the future. Ideas have motives. The self is made from these constructs. It could be that is all the self is, but in this there is the feeling of me. If this is false, or if it is an actual property it doesn't matter. That I can feel me is enough. This illusion of self can not be proved, it is the very last thing to throw away, there is no going back after this and producing some summary or conclusion. To believe in others after ones own death is incredible, to believe in ones own non-being is impossible.

Method. Ignore everything- throw things away, or give them away, you are left with the nothing of being, beyond the fear of death. This is the road of the mystic, who denies it is a road- it is a very narrow- infinitely narrow path- you're already there! Second method. Choose ignorance, in devotion to something stupid. This is the method of Bhakti. Third method, choose addiction. Fourth method. Choose to control the last two methods to become a balanced, powerful ego. This I suppose is my history. We begin with the last and move towards the first.

What if someone lives a life and fails, fails in anyway, is a stupid product of society. Or is mentally ill. Or dies young. What is this? I am a collection of many things. What the radio here is, a collection of parts, even the light in this room. So the person, the properties which become the person will become many other things. Those things will one day be complete. Completion is not sort, it happens. Everything has desires which are met, so one day we may obtain the desire to be complete. But then may move on again into incompleteness. Because creation does not stop with nothing but precedes from nothing. Perfection is stability. As the perfect reflective moment collapses into things to do, the world is created, the person is created.

The Buddha is the end and beginning, alpha and omega, male and female, the point of balance, perfection, I can deduce from this that perfection of the Buddha is unlike logical perfection, but like artistic perfection in that its completeness is aesthetic and out of balance. Even nothing is something, is the source of everything.

Verse 82

The final heresy.

The truth of the gospels, of the Jews the Christians, Islam is apparent. They hang like clothes on the aggregates of matter which is part of what we are. The characteristics of individuals as distinct qualities that matter, culture, biology, gives. It suits them, it suits us, belief in things. A person is legion. The final heresy, the most terrible, is once everything has been discarded, all the motivations of behaviour accounted for, the UN-motivated experience of being, of life, is holy. The un-motivated experience is Brahman, is god. This is the final heresy which humanity becomes. When no other items belong to the jellyfish, when all aggregates are ignored, I am God. There is nothing else, there is no other point to existence. This is the why I am.

The thought is so fearful to the believer, and to societies of believers is the worst crime. The thought so ridiculous to the non-believer. To believe I am god is madness or the worst mistake or crime I can make. All these are functions of aggregates which is the source of power. The source of their power, amounts of energy, in the atoms or directed fists of the crowd.

The proof of the statement lies in the simple test however, God is nothing, power and greatness are collected forces. To say one is god and then anything else denies the truth of what is asserted.

The moment of not being as anything.

Verse 83


'Now I am reading - I am not God' This is a past thought - now I am writing I am not god, now I am thinking I am not God. How does 'I am not god' relate to 'I am God' - it is not possible to call yourself God. How do you claim anything and not be making a statement, so the only method is to be given the title. Maybe write down the sentences on cards and play them out - but even looking at the sentence - "you are God" is a act of reading as being god, does god read? What does god do. Sit walk, breathe, eat? I am god when at some other moment I am nothing else, not even god. 'Here now', is more affirming divinity than 'behold the son of God'. Suddenly outside history and judgement. God's love is compassion for everything. What is god, many things, images, of things, something not to think about, accepted doctrine: or 'being here now' . Knowledge of the elements does not lead to god.

Briefly aware of the preceding moments unawareness is knowing that one was, therefore what one will be, therefore what one is, apart from writing. The hand, the pen, the eye, arm and language programs in the brain, like the programs on the computer. But I can say, yes and I can feel something else. I am a sort of victim of the world. The victim of my own thoughts and memories. Another place, another person would be the same. If so overwhelmed by the world and being something in the world.


Verse 84

The hidden nature remains unexposed.

God is the attribute of me. They are one and the same. The final heresy. The completion, better, more true to say the before beginning. Once things begin, we can look back at perfection, and realise that therefore it must also be here now. Now is always beginning and beginning is always now. Before now is nothing, not something like history. Between each moment an infinite void. As is we fall into and out of creation with the passing seconds. Each moment being a new creation out of nothing. I will do this - this thought, become now, and present this.

Who else sees, feels thinking as I (you) do, nothing everything outside is incomplete, we really talk to ourselves, listen to ourselves, everything else is partial, it is not the same. Only internally do I experience everything. There can be no acting, or storytelling of other than what I am. I cannot hide from myself, or find anyone else as I find myself. You cannot experience my being. Feel my feelings, and if you could it would not be as I do. This is the guarantee not of power but of uniqueness, which is of value. Which is something holy. I need no reason or faith to see god, how will I ever find my sight, with what shall I look. Grey clouds, colourless branches, silence. The sound of god is the near silence, the vision the given objects of the visual field.



Verse 85


Some structures - I mean the church, are built on a foundation. (logic science...) Faith. Faith will expire like logic and science. It is a concept. An attribute- which is not God. It is ' I don't have god now but I believe I will', this is nothing more than belief or wish to win a lottery. So say .. what if you win, then what, what will you have which you wish for. So what is the completion, the satisfaction of your faith. Then act as if your faith was true- you would no longer need it. But then you would be in the presence of God, but how would this be. An answer is either- it is now, or I can not say what the presence of God is. Or its prescribed in many ways, each prescription a finite description, and so not infinite, like now, or infinite like god. So I can say - 'I do not know what the presence of god is..' But then your faith is in something you do not know. Think about this, you fear what you are because you believe in what you don't know. This undermines yourself completely, yet you have this faith. I am not real - you say. I am not true. Truth is God, which I do not have, because I do not understand, and that is what I truly believe. 'I am mistaken' is a consequence of the truth of my faith in an unknown god. There is experience greater than this - this I, which is the experience of faith. This is faith in a powerful god that I will experience. To experience such a god is greater. A powerful god, that you will experience. To experience such a god is greater than experience of yourself! The hope is to have a bigger self experience of experiencing god. Yet this experience must be somehow more real than what experience is, is now. To be more real than I is a wish to be a powerful god. What is now is somehow not enough for you. Your quality of consciousness of experience is in sufficient, insufficient for your faith, or because of your faith. Be here now. Leave toys alone for awhile. Here is God. Quantity, depth and reality are measures of this world, the outside world of things, even gods, not of being here now.



Verse 86

The Mystic.

When I am writing like this, thinking like this I and God are the same, its sort of doing, being god. The interest in the I of I is the same as the interest in the nature of god. They logically match. Divergence is in the interest in my house, my feelings, or the history of the concepts of god, in the history of the gods of ancient peoples. The mystic takes the I and God together and explores and experiences the nothingness of not, the purity of being. Here is Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna and Moses, I's and I am's. The experience of the confluence of consciousness and the divine. That is the moment of religious realisation. That they are the same. That they are only what is true, that they are now, that everything else is illusion, or sin.

My tongue isn't god, my arm isn't god, my thoughts isn't god my actions isn't god my belief isn't god, my face isn't god, everything I am isn't god, yet there is god- where? Here! Do you believe you are god? pointing, what me- how ridiculous, laughter, ...I lay out all these things on the table of the world, take them, disbelief, anger, fear if i am god then make the world how i want it to be, what i, the i of animal desire, the i of empty stomach, the i of physical pain, of bone and matter, or the i of i ."The i of i does already do this stupid."

God has no plans or scheme or will. The god of snow makes it snow. Look at this eye, it is the god of eye, look at this tree it is the god of tree.....

Verse 87

And from here, it begins again.

Then it begins again never ending, nothing or something - as time occurred time continues.


Verse 88

Critique of Solipsism.

Solipsism denies the obvious truth of others. Calling others 'unreal' when they clearly are, as are solid objects! The truth is that they are not there in the same way as I am here. Critique of Solipsism differentiates my way of thinking about my being, it objectifies my subjective experience- therefore destroys it. Can objects think themselves external and greater than a subject? Objectivity is perceived by the subject. Object is a subject of the subject.


Verse 89


The child's experience of the outside world, even its own desire is curiously observed by the child's subjective consciousness, from within. It's appetites, it's form , like other things- surprise it. All it's experience is from within. The conquest of the outside world, the others, the emotions, and desires, is the development of ego, is the development of the world. Begin the striving to achieve something perfect. To control the objective world and suppress its surprises...the dog bite. In the womb the child exists as god or as the mystic in the cave - the same thing, unaware by chance or deliberation of other things.

The shock of the other to the child is wanting some of this not to be true. Like a blow to the face, whose causes are illusions, generates the creation of theses illusions, to stop bad things, to understand bad things. The beginning of hierarchies of linking objects to fashion complexity. This is the objectivist game. The force of the dog bite does not prove the outside world. It becomes the source of causality. It begins reason, which is a psychological behaviour which seeks to control subjective events by making them objective events. In itself it is simply an event. - non causal- causality is a psychological phenomenon. An understanding offers control, through appeasing a god, or through the technological control of nature.

So false gods are created, or technologies controlled by universal laws, these two are the same thing. Their purpose is to create an outside world understandable and controllable. They are products of extending being into the world, creations of a will. A technology which offers the power of god, over time, life, death, matter, would if achieved reduce the diversity of the outside world to the non-diversity of my will, an imagination empty of the outside world is empty, contains nothing except the experience of experience. Such program would destroy the diversity of objects and replace it with a monotheistic self. A self which unlike the non-being of god does not create an outside world, because it does not like the outside world. The self creates objectivity to promote total subjectivity, which can not be contradicted. Lacking the multiplicity of forms, including dog bites. The dog bite is an event, seeking to control that is a behavioural action. It is learnt. As opposed to feeling and exploring the pain in its reality of its experience, if I could have said, so this is pain. But it was not pain, it was like the colour red, and like heat, and like burning and tingling, and like a creature in my arm. And strange, and new. The child's watching the world in wonder is consciousness of watching, this becomes lost in the mechanisms of understanding. There is an actual diversity of features of being including solipsism. Solipsism is the consciousness of watching. The source of feeling that things are, the source, god. Not more important, another object, itself is the quality of god the object of simple being. So simple I use the term non-being elsewhere. It accrues no benefit, it moves toward no goal.


We naturally come away from the world at times to rest in the perceptions of childhood. The outside world is larger, and superimposed on top of the child's perception, which is always there. Layers of knowledge and there connections are infinitely unfinished, god is infinitely finished, finitely infinite when perceived. Such perception is the child's perception, of the world, of god. As is minimalism in seeing simply. Image separate to paint, not a painting of some object. God is simple.


Verse 90


I co-operate with the outside world in order to survive. That is what the outside world is, that is all that it is. There is not any truth or value in the outside world other than this.

The institutions, academies, societies, nations, creeds are concepts, a concept is an idea in someone's head. It is a subset of someone's ideas, perceptions, desires. Other it is a superset, a discovered thing outside, which can only be held inside the head as a subset, or the individual ceases to be. There may be a psychological need to prove an ideas worth by convincing others of its reality. This is done by coercion. The group begins with one.

Is this all there really is, even inside in the thought structures, just sets of survival tools. But there has to be a subject, either before or after. It will look like even in language solipsism is denied. It has to be so, like denial of the true god, it can not be written. Extending systems into the outside world is a hopeless enterprise. Truth is only an illusion. Truth exists only deep inside, where there is a reality of being.

The remarkable thing is the power of history, which tries to subsume me, yet how can this be true.

I stake myself on one of my beliefs? No I do not!

Verse 91

The end.

The nature of nature is the complexity of the I.

The I is formed from the complexity of the universe and will return to this. The game of the universe is all games, consequently invalidating my game. But if i refuse to play i am become god. true God.



The single life is the story of life, not beginning. This is Atman, the possible, What I am already. The outside world is the word of logic and biting dogs, the world selects by prejudice, not by right or wrong, only when the outside world achieves the impossibility of completion does it become brahman. Which it can never. I stretch out into the outside world for what i need, by trade, for food, for comfort. In the world objects are treated as symbols and not as true things. True things are only held by the individual, more true for lack of memory, lack of thought. Tomorrow, the past, like my body are extensions of what I am. The future, the world, concepts of life and death are separate things. I should not commit myself to the journey of life which ends in death but be content with the enlightenment of the unmoving present. There are short journeys, to the shop for food and then back. Becoming, being and non-being, be here now.

If we do as husserl suggests and bracket off everything we are left with a strange and beautiful inner world without qualifiers, of direct inward experience of moments of nature. These can be repeated endlessly in their beauty like rotating mandalas. There is no real time, only the imaginary, heat and cold are strange phenomena, we trade with the world seeing others as strangers, remote foreign peoples. The moments open up into a vast space of experience without future. The door of the ego moves two ways, inside is subjectively infinite, outside objectively finite for the individual, only the prospect of becoming god in the objective outside world offers any comfort from the apparent cruelty of nature. God in science or religion. But here within the cave of the I lies a whole complete world of perfect existence. Living like an islander who trades with people on nearby islands. Everything is changed, the great are small, they are nothing, they are like a rock essentially stupid, to be navigated around, ultimately eroded by the same forces which conjure it up. If the mountains power in the world is its size it will learn humility, better to contemplate itself and know brahman. No more would I throw a stone at you as I would at myself.

Values in the world are arbitrary, they cannot be real, the only real values are mine.

The purpose of life is self referential being. This cannot be challenged or duplicated, it is the only certain absolute truth. Other people are a set of external opinions - like ones past, or future intentions.


There is no purpose to life, the purpose of life is self referential being. A purposeful life supposes an acting moral god in the world, but where is this- other than wishful thinking, a wish to have this God. Evolution culminates at self referential being. At that evolution can run in any direction, it is arbitrary. To know oneself is to know sufficiently. There is no need to progress, progress is stupidity, to leave oneself is to once again become a mere object. Societies collapse in reality to self referential being, to my self referential being. Religion and philosophy have become like society and politics not the liberation from ignorance, systems of behaviour towards self being but now are avoidance of self referential being. To think for others or to take others thought is a denial of self. (The charitable are suicides.)


Consumerism is the product of attempting. By creating a wealth from others, however the producer becomes obsessed with the consumer and the consumer with product.

Even the actual algorithm of mind fails to account for 'The purpose of life is self referential being'. Everything should extend from and towards 'The purpose of life is self referential being'.

Within the situation you find yourself, if that is satisfactory, if 'The purpose of life is self referential being' is allowed, is possible. Within the nation this is not. Within collectives, the products of 'The purpose of life is self referential being' can be shared- passively- like statements written in stone. Nothing should be contingent on 'The purpose of life is self referential being'.


There is no purpose There is no meaning.

There is no beginning

There is no end - it’s too far from my finity.

There is the wish to be God. This is a looking after others, wanting a different world. It is science, religion and politics. The world outside the self referential consciousness is a world seeking to be god. The state of self referential ness is actual located divinity.

All culture should reflect inward and not outward at concepts of art... etc.


The idea that community or society is something individuals rise to become is simply wrong. The herd, the swarm or shoal, the mycelium all exhibit social patterns for the reproduction of the species, but to what end, unconscious world domination. In the societies of humanity there is a conscious will to total domination. The individual is more distinguished the more self aware they become, the more they become aware of the fallacy of nationhood, of species, of community. The huge importance placed on childbearing only puts off the moment of self-realisation, so the individual gives up individuality to allow an others individuality which in turn gives this up, the whole process is one of continual failure to live. It becomes sufficient to breed in order not to create another individual in order to solve the problem of having to become an individual. Or we can together become powerful and create ideals, of nations, of morality, of god, but all these are only as powerful as the human force of numbers, the appliance of deceit and propaganda or technology allows. All fail to penetrate the psyche into the self aware. It is the fear of being self aware and terribly lonely that creates these pseudo societies, we are not fungi, the problem is the nothing, the pointlessness to life, once we realise what it is. This is a source for joy, in that here and now is perfection, not some other time, some other thing, some stupid task, some panel of judges to impress. The existentialists were sad because it ended their supremacy, their philosophical aim.

The stupid objection to selfishness is the causation of harm to others, however a single individual who wishes to be just that is measurably less harmful than an army of nationalists, or socialists or.... And simple logic teaches the selfish that any act would probably have some consequences, so dealing with others, like dealing with the world in general one has to be cautious. Holding the secret of life one has to be cautious because others who object might wish to cause you harm, it might be better to act perplexed and fearful.

The needs of life are food and companionship, do you need higher motives for this, to act kindly is to hope for kindness. Why would someone deliberately want pain, pain is the easiest of things to acquire. If you want truly to be loved then love truly, its not like a game where you can pretend that life is a novel, its not like that, you are not outside yourself, as if there is some author, god, who will forgive you, who will be forever. So we will eat and talk tonight and drink some wine, and if you need more, if you desire great schemes, these are just imaginations, if you seek transcendence which is the godhead then that is here now. The proof of this is its indestructibility. With loss of consciousness goes loss of awareness, in the semi states we are animal like in pain and suffering, confused and searching for that awareness. That state is a longing for resolution in either consciousness or unconsciousness.

If I focus on myself the journey is complete, there is only nothingness which is comparable. The many colours, the world, are made from striving from the one to the other.- or maybe not, this doesn't represent a scheme!

To the transcendental focused mind the arm or leg or another person share an identity of needs and desires and moralities.


To desire evil is an act of wanting, some sort of completeness some sort of purpose, which arises out of an unsatisfactory condition. Each organ has desires, only a mind can consciously free itself from desires. To feel compassion is not to desire change, it is to see the world as it is, and not how one would wish it. The cruel are devils in the world, the kind are gods. Both strive to make the universe comply to their will, in order to satiate their desire.

The stomach as itself is perfect, the worm only needs food, there is implicit here a need, which ruptures perfection and motivates change, purpose and commitment, a mind in a moment of self reference needs nothing is both complete, perfect and un-extended, and aware of this.

You cannot say 'I'm doing this because', you cannot even just do it denying motivation, for when being as being nothing occurs.

Nothing precedes thought and logic and personality and the world. The world has only structures created in its totality, it has no purpose because it has everything. Nothing is only the true - purpose. All others are arbitrary and prejudicial. The purpose to find something to eat..... In the final submission of self into the nothing after the self has become the centre of all things is the only thing.

Waiting for anything is a process which anticipates, doing is now, doing nothing simply is being, most of the times we are doing something. Reading, writing, breathing, being nothing is a trick of bracketing experience off from thought and so seeing the source of everything. This nothing is always now. If each event is itself without reference there is no fear of the future.

What else is there other than the pleasure principle. Without the clearness of peace of mind everything is wrong. The gratification of hard work or the promise of heaven. The persuasion of working for someone else, the procreation of children the making of money. The glorification of God or Nation. All are concepts held in the mind of an individual which motivates them, either by either real or deferred pleasure. The bliss of enlightenment is the distillation of this, for it has no subject. To do as you please ignoring the consequences to others has consequences to the self. Compassion could be seeing oneself in others, it sees that it is impossible to gain something for nothing. Those who enjoy inflicting cruelty who are beyond punishment are the saints held up to develop authority. These are miss-guided saints and deceitful preaching. The saints are about ..... and the preacher is about their own comfort at everyone's expense. The church needs the devil not god. Look at the equation, I don't like pain therefor I don't like those who cause pain. Would I dislike something that causes pain - but not to me. The "but not to me" is to be suspected, it is complex. To seek to eradicate all sources of pain is equally suspect, it to becomes a false god, a child who raises children- but for what, so that one day maybe someone, maybe will experience the grace that we already have. Not being all powerful I take more seriously the nearer if smaller fires. Giving up ones life in sadness or bitterness is sad, but giving it up happily is good. I could rid myself of all possessions and give myself a fearful pain thinking if I can be happy with that I am safe. It is not that pleasure is enough, that enlightenment is enough - it has to be safe- god like. The invented god of man-king-giant, *laughter*.

Pleasure is nothing more than a present brain-state. The cause of the brain state should be effective, free of consequence, economic and non complex.

Effective it ensures the state, free of consequences for the cause of subsequent pain which would 'not be worth it', though here we are negotiating with ones future self which does not feel any pain. We are being selfish now, a future self may despise the stupidity of the previous self, but there is nothing we can do about this. We cannot be all being. Free of consequence is acceptable now.

What of a set of divine rules or calculated rules- if these provide happiness then that seems ok, the test is in what they provide not the source. The danger is if they are constantly offering a future great return, one may be disappointed. There comes a point were delayed gratification is not economic- even if it materialises. There may be laws that govern this, the idea of getting out more than was put in, or why another personality who seeks your future happiness, doesn't create it now!

Or if this source is so complex it may be unnecessary, or have hidden consequences now- someone else's pain. Complex sources are that the source and cause are other objects, material, spiritual, national etc. These also can rely on deferred gratification, and again the cost benefit analysis here should be for the self. The lifeboat situation boils down to care for others or duty, a sense of what one is.

The suicide is sad- no matter how many die. Someone who deliberately causes unhappiness will be the cause of their own unhappiness. This is as unavoidable as the cancer cells mortality. Even - or rather worse if pursued economically, this is the same as complex causes of happiness.

Finally, non complex implies a pure state of being happy not dependent on anything else. This negates the above argument! There are no commandments is a commandment, translates into I am worrying about about not being.... The Buddha smiles! This is no more than a chemical equation.

Waiting, doing or being.

Dream though is unconsciousness- non controlled, directionless - non ego controlled- non unified, non goal seeking, conscious thought, concepts and writing..

problem solving, thinking, - always slipping into the next...my meditation is holding these two in balance.




The medieval heaven is the technological future. The angles though superior to humans in their attributes are humanities servants because of the 'special' relationship between god and mankind. In the future intelligent machines will serve humanity because of humanities 'special' relationship to the evolution of the cosmos. Heaven like hyperspace is a place that transcends all 'earthly' constraints. Both these technological and spiritual 'worlds' exist in reality- as physical actualities as well as descriptions only to the degree that the physical laws allow. To hope for either is to hope for something to be physically possible. Each becomes a picture of special effects which eventually becomes boring to the imagination of the beholder. A moments peace or a ride in a fast car, only one is transcendental, both are acceptable.

A person is a set of organs or cells at a lower level which interact together, each has separate functions- is separate yet connected. An organ can live outside the body. In terms of mental events each thought or set of thoughts is a learnt process. Being physically aware is a process of the nervous system. If each thought process is a separate learnt algorithm, like an organ, but developed by a process of learning, then these co-exist together to function as one being- the mind. They are separate, and also can exist outside the body or mind, in the minds of others, or as writing or film .... All of this is underpinned by a feeling of your own identity, which is a particular algorithm, or logical phenomenon, or mystical thing. It certainly at present cannot be shared. Regardless of the physical nature of being there is also the potential of the transcendental. This I define as non-purposeful thought. What such thought has is an emptiness which shares a commonality with the emptiness of God. If such thought is the cause of the individuality (Atman) it is a question of science. However that I can think of one is a creative religious act. It is not descriptive but prescriptive. If you were to enter a state, run an algorithm, which is non-directed, then in effect you have an analogue of God. It is why the mystic can say that they -when running the non-directive analogue- are God. However because of its nature- non-directiveness- nothing particular, no 'answer', moral, ethical or political code can be generated from this, or any and all codes could be validated by this- after the event. This commonality is also shared with the actual physical diversity and essentially amoral creation out of nothing, out of and from a primary state of non-being. For you to actually be God is then very simple, but accrues nothing, except the peace of this realisation. A brief recognition of the divine, not as stranger, an external father, punisher, force or power, but as your-self. Your deep non-attributed, non-directed self. What of others- in this respect they are only the illusion created, like the illusion of any and all attributes in your person and in the outside world. The stone, the blade of grass, You are essentially Brahman. This is a scientific proposition, but also can be seen as a simple logical consequence of the prescriptive act.

It is only attributes which differentiates the many. The idea of One separate God is ridiculously difficult because of the problem of locating one and the many together or in separate spaces. Though 'one' serves as an alternative to 'the many' it actually only highlights a particular from the many, I don't think an absolute god can be a particular. So if the many inhabit the world of attributes - colour, form, and number... the alternative or an alternative is the non-being. In The Temptation Christ rejects things. Non-directed thought is very particular in that its focus is nothing, in terms of difficulty it must range between simple and impossible. If it is impossible then it might be in principle possible to think about it, this proximity will do, even at the tightest meaning of impossible - as logical paradox, it can be appreciated. It can be appreciated as a drama of myth in which the mind plays a particular character. The bible represents the drama of the universe as seen by God, so the reader reads the history as the mind of god, in all texts the reader is outside and omnipotent to the text. If I can deal with the difficulty of non-directed thought by reading a book, the book is not here important, but the reading, the person who reads and their motivation. Its possible to read a religious text for an historical, ethical, political....view, but at a religious level it becomes eventually superfluous, god like the reader is somehow beyond the book. Scriptures do not contain god, or does god contain scriptures, scripture is not about fact although it may be factual, fact is not important, it is the second hand experience of the transcendental. A recollection of non-directed thought. It is the dressing up of the simple in words. The moment of holding the awareness of nothing. Correctly a response may well be, should be? - 'So What..' and a wish for something more particular- will to power, a better car.....That this is so simple and brings - gives nothing is such a disappointment to some, it does not give them their desires, desires are separate attributes anyway. At this point one begins and ends, if there is out there some other desire- a car, a god then it is out there in the real world. I can't see how a real god can exist out there in the real world of desires and attributes.

Meditation need not be the suppression of all algorithms, which is probably impossible, but the attempt to run the non directed algorithm. Algorithm is better than thought because its clear - its just a simple program. Like being aware of a program which simply does nothing. 10 REM A PROGRAM The focus is on this and not the numerous other programs/thoughts which may run. These are called housekeeping programs. So instead of trying to shut these down focus is moved to nothing, if this nothing has to have a name- it becomes a mantra a prayer- but this will essentially have no meaning, (if one is meditating- i.e. trying to be religious) An so to when religiously reading scripture. I will give this the symbol () - nothing is bracketed- brought to focus. In creating the empty room, empty list, blank sheet.....silence

the artist struggles with the failure in the world to do this, the noise of the material, success is in the focus, the awareness. The holy of holies is not in fact empty but represents the emptiness. Like the intrusion of some attribute, the artist erases, disguises, or clarifies- look this is this. The onion analysed.

Take the mantra is 'this is a thought', and run it, the nothing lies behind the mantra like- .

((Take the mantra is (((('this is a thought'), and run it), the nothing lies behind the mantra) like-) . )

reducing the brackets until we get ()


This whole process extends outwards- which is where it catches everything.

The view of the garden - the large paintings of poster paint on paper, the very long piece of music. The two books I'm going to read, some memories of Falmouth....


1.The moment of truth is not the moment.

2.The world is not a cinema film- with different angles, we are not god or gods, we see only the outline of ourselves moving in the world of real space and time, no cutting, jumping, wide angles and close-ups, these concepts have been created so strong in our ideas of reality by modern popular culture, admittedly they arose in the imagination of the storyteller and the novelists, but they are unrealitys, other peoples subjectiveities, other peoples edited subjective thought become reality.

3. I have achieved something. Perfection.



look at the game of life - that doesn't use nature bred in nature rules....

chaos not other firsts....who plays the act of god in the survival of the fittest, Darwin?

this is sophism.

'It is from chaos that things are made', means that anything can be made. Nothing is precluded and there should be some justification for anything, there is no justification for everything, why something is justified by nothing. The whole set stack up against nothing, the whole set cannot achieve equality with nothing. Perfect being is an art, is art, non being is perfect, to attempt to do something is difficult- impossible if it seeks perfection, it is open to itself, then logically clear, but this is just logic, it is beautiful. Because it displays beauty, not truth. Truth is an attribute of beauty, beauty is perfect truth. If beauty is perception of being it can also be intention of being, of creation. Think about placing flowers in a vase. This is showing a great truth of what beauty is. Art is this.



A set of patterns develops from two or more events, judgement occurs by folding these patterns onto one another. This is an infinite random process. This is creation.

Consciousness and matter arise simultaneously, and then latter logic is invented or taught, invented by playing with these two.

From the first appearance there is constructed a universe by randomly organising objects, that this is this is that it is one of many, this just looks like this. My god I think I understand. I think I understand how I misunderstand. This feeling of rightness, is to me why trees have beauty in their structure.














So what happens when you die? It isn't a simple nothing or a heaven, look at what is life, the complexity. What happens is the next step in the infinite number of random steps...



The idea arrives from the arrangement of patterns, being arises from the non-being and enables the endless possibility of patterns, the potentiality of the multitude of things arises from the being of just one thing, from the possibility of one being from the idea of one being, one dot arranged and re-arranged, this is creation the possibility, the idea or potentiality of one thing gives rise to the many. It essentially is empty. Like the point, the line the number. So from nothing emerges the whole universe, not as an act of creation as we know it- we create using matter and re-arranging it, but as consequence of.... The one essentially is empty, Atman is Brahman. Nothing.

We have to begin with something- the simplest thing, an idea of thought of an idea, the first 'thing' that allows counting- counting then allows patterns to develop and grow. The simplest idea or thing must be empty. It essentially is nothing, its consequence is the divergence of creation which is not Brahman, is - incompleteable- how many ...... are there? - and pattern is illusion- a picture of.... The nothing is Brahman, no pattern no illusion, everything is illusion, seeing this then focus on its origin- the essential nothingness of Atman being the thought of thought the smallest possible particle has only one property- thisness which is essentially nothing. (Is being a predicate?!) being is not a predicate of something. So essential attributes as being is not an attribute so it is essentially nothing, a nothing which is arranged by chaos to create everything.



There may well be actual demons and other such beings- their reality as physical or spiritual things is dependent on their viability- of being possible things. In western mindsets such angels and demons play out a battle of choices of good and evil which we as humans can watch as an audience taking sides. The processes of spiritual dialectic are removed from our minds and placed outside, we observe and face the consequences of this interaction out there, our active participation is minimalised to being supporters or victims of this dialectic process which is other than our own. If this occurs, whether the actors are real or imaginary, we use them to externalise our internal processes for convenience. The problem is that if we believe in these archetypes, and only believe in these, then we become passive objects within the cosmic game. We are unable to really make a difference against these creatures whose power and understanding is far beyond our own. Without taking the reality of the archetypes back into ourselves we become their subjects. Life is mindlessly obeying external rules. As these figures become more remote from ourselves it can be convenient to dismiss them altogether, especially if their reality is doubted and if events can be explained without recourse to the supernatural. If god the devil and the angles are so far removed from our own daily being then they can and are dispensed with. The very act of externalising these things in order to more safely deal with them, to get on with life without at all times having to consider them, but still acknowledge their importance to our well being in ritual has led to these phenomenon being denied completely. Like taking out insurance and then because after awhile life seems carefree we no longer pay the fees on the policy. The situation has become more dangerous than before we externalised our thoughts- we non longer consider dangers that are real. The placing of moral values on deities in myth allows us safely to deal with our deep fears and desires arising from being. In their role-play harm is idealised and morality, balance, justice, karma and the tensions of logic and chaos resolved. If these are dismissed and we do not take back the responsibility for which they were created then we live dangerously. (for) If psychological forces are not externalised or dealt with internally they become the unconscious agents of our actions, and are manipulated by others who would use these forces to control and de-humanise.

The placing of real events in the development of consciousness into the hands of real or imaginary super-beings has solved the problem of conscious development by removing it from the individual self. In the same way the rise of nationalism has denied the individual in favour of a real or imaginary state. In both the individual is reduced to an automaton, albeit maybe content, but unable to make personal growth. Today the same is happening with multi-national companies, who will control social and cultural thought- for our convenience and theirs. These phenomena replace an individual consciousness with an external reality, of which we need to know, to pay for, to obey, to worship. It replaces the authority of the individual with something higher. This is measured in power. The power of the devil, of god, of the state or of the company, for good and ill. The mind is pitted against the unknown of the universe, it takes refuge in the shelter of the archetype. It is not that these are not true, maybe they are maybe they are not, it is their effect which is important. It is obvious that certain things- animals, people, the universe are far more powerful than myself, we experience the strangeness of forces which defy our will, we rage against them, we seek to make them compliant to our will, we give them value in excess of their power, we give them our spiritual being in the hope they will not hurt us, but help grant us our desires. To grant them what is due is not the same as granting to them our individuality. To grant them individuality is to become deeply paradoxical. Children learn that the world can hurt so assume the world is more powerful than themselves, so thy seek to please it. The bad child takes revenge on the weak for the hurt it has experienced. The good child becomes totally suppressed. Their only joy is in some equilibrium, they have gained nothing. You should perhaps run away from a lion and not continually feed it with yourself.

We find in the world of existence no existent god who has all desires granted who is the supreme will, such a god would prevent a universe of things, this is an archetype of the devil. The uncontrollable forces of nature are because there is the many and not the one. These are unresolvable cosmic events in which we are a part. The wind blows on me as I push through the wind. If each were understood then we would negotiate within the world, build a shelter, collect firewood. But there is no cosmic answer or insurance. Being is not worked to some resolution but expands from a resolution. From my point of view I do what is best- for me. The belief in morals (structures which have authority over individuals- like religion, like the laws of nature) is an attempt to create a best possible world - again for me! by abdicating my free will, my true consciousness, by understanding and obeying the laws of god or nature. The payment is my unique individual existence in the cosmos. This is the payment of Dr Faustus- isn't it. The origin of my consciousness is non-extent and pre-existence, I only see this by being myself. This is the father of all creation. Brahman and Atman are one. "He who will receive life and believe in the kingdom will never leave it, not even if the father wishes to banish him" My knowledge of me is my knowledge of god.

In the Bhagavad Gita the many images of god have poured out from an individuals mind! They are neither nothing - the mere imaginations, or are they things, actual beings - they actually are me! So the attributes of my soul are externalised into either separate objects of religion or non-existent superstitions of science, either way i am left empty, i am destroyed. In the temptation the devil tried to sell christ what he already had, and when christ refused this the devil sort to destroy christ. So the world seeks to destroy all who do not give up their individuality, yet the world, the devil, the demons of the gita are made by it - made by 'the individuality', look they are now in me.

Individuality, this I - consciousness or source of conscious is in each moment. The person is made of many of these by arrangements of them - which is memory. Being, soul, consciousness is not something we (a person owns) it is the singular timeless moment with whose echo we become aware, an empty moment of non-being. Each to the christian a communion with the living god. From which the illusion, the pattern, the picture, the fabric of reality is made. It is the person who is legion, the soul, the nature of god is a singular empty nothing from which everything is made. The payment of Dr Faustus can be redeemed at anytime. The redemption of god lasts only a moment. Each moment to the mind is a memory of perfect existence in the garden. And life is the consequence of these leavings, a process like thought, and death of the many and not the one but from the one.

What happens when you die, many things, the body rots, or is burnt, or dissected, and then in turn the matter transformed into other things, the thoughts preserved or forgotten, the will impinging or changing, attempting to maintain the myth of ownership, the myth of person to be resurrected or reincarnated, or given up to nothing to return again. Like everything death does not persist, only now persists. Only in the now is the persistence of god.

The money of each moment cannot be spent in the world, and the money of the world cannot buy a moments peace. Sex for sex, money for money, food for hunger.


28:10:98- visit to Norwich Habitat, looking at the aesthetics of our daily lives and homes and a book of contemporary British artists. Contemporary western art has become ethical, it is about... it is the practice of making political statements and expressing or raising political/ethical arguments. It is not about the presentation of aesthetics of either entertainment or transcendentalism. It is not about a beautiful experience in the gallery aka monet's water lilies, its about some political dialectic aka the great glass. The art of aesthetics has become interior design. Here its impact is felt, here it remains essentially modernist. Here its concerns are the aesthetic of the material. In the gallery the material and aesthetics are superfluous to the message. The problem with art as such (as political commentary) is that it is poor documentary at best.


Curiosity, tourism, interest, entertainment, history, fashion, amusement, politics, thought provoking, education, the cultural herd instinct. The primary feature of art is aesthetics. (Greenberg) Seeing beauty. - drives art/painting. Painting describes a flat sculpture, more than materials, a painted sculpture is NOT a painting. What differentiates paint from ink? The Nude- beauty as a biological function. A vase of flowers is more difficult. The observation of the nude leads to an erotic act- is essentially pornographic, but the observation of a vase of flowers. Or beautiful colours- painted for its stimulation like a scent.


Not a mirror but a thing in itself of beauty. The many each have its wishes and roles, they too can be eternal or not, have their own lives, bundled together, wrapped around the nothing. This is LIFE. Each weaves, some control, a democracy of the many, or the many turns to a model external unity, of state or religion. The stomach becomes hungry, to no purpose, it just is, the thought is for a given purpose, or expands seeking transcendentalism. This is the ultimate reachless target, the infinity of God. 'At the risk of repeating myself...' but this is what my life is :=) It is not the journey into the world of space and time that we will find any solutions to anything but the cessation of travelling anywhere. That is a dream of self, of no outside world of objects. Here begins the journey of Buddha. When one separates from the world of reality and withdraws into fantasy. Yes they might be right, yes they are right, they do not even know me, or know me partially for what I do, how can an unknown or partially known thing receive enlightenment, and who can give it. The god of Atman certainly can not. (the collective of individuals) Hope for praise. This is hopeless - only in a world which is totally controlled by self can there be enlightenment, this is what is meant by Atman and Brahman being one. My little imagination is sufficient to deny the certainties of the outside--------not a big thing- talking to myself. One can get involved in the other... or not but the other cannot bring self knowledge and enlightenment- the other is the real world outside the Is mind/fantasy of imagination of rightness. You can not extract self from an institution. What you get from the world of things is things- not enlightenment (perfection) so the world of things is large and incomplete. Like pretend to be an ant? how stupid. What of the world of things telling you you are wrong- it always will, but only in dialogue with and about itself. There is the idea that one can rise above this through a will to power, this is an illusion, this is only the gift of others, and dependent on their will. It engages with the world of others for its validation. Objects - even the self demand alteration of the consciousness which only at best is a convenience, they are illusions. They are convenient models which relate to no underlying truth. Transcendental objects are not as real as the single moment of being. If a novel appeared out of a random sequence of letters the edge of the novel would be where sense could no longer exist in the text strings, this is how at the edges of the universe, the large and small will blur into the incomprehensible.

Consciousness is only one product of evolution, but the one that recognises evolution, and so creates will, which is the intelligence of evolution, the formation of complexity out of nothing. Why stop evolution in either direction, when life is described? Consciousness both sees what this is, understands what will is, and the failure of evolution as will to power. This is important, consciousness can create the picture of god, this created god is the most powerful, most complex of all objects and therefore the ultimate aim of evolution. And this god fails in many ways, logical and metaphysical, in being extended but indivisible, in being non-temporal but having process, as being pointless, and as not being here now! In seeing the failure of this God, consciousness is the end of evolution, is the end of creation.

Any perfect state would impinge on any subjective state. The magnitude of any existing perfect state would have to be nil, and any future powerful perfect state would fail if it could not impinge on the subjective now. Here now is the many of Atman, of history and ethics and the future, and the nothing of Brahman.

All this talk of race and religion is only the product of an unevolved state in which people believe in a objective outside, to the denial of self! for the many in order to allow the aggrandisement of the few.


Look at the politician who loves conflict, because in that they define themselves. They must love a war, for in it they become known to the many. They seek to be known by the all, and what is such a confrontation between the i and the all but a wish to either be god or have an intimate relationship with god. Believing the all to be god however is incredible, made by mocking subservience to the majority for the privileges of the few- who seek to become god, they seek power and influence and knowledge and that the whole world should know their thoughts. So they say they do this for the good of others, when as they work this good they become richer, and where do these riches, power and influence come from but from the many- not from themselves- their greatness- their giving. Supermen are only attributed by their standing on others, the play of good and evil should not be found in religion if religion is to be of god and not of man. And this god must not be great but be nothing. Like the here and now! Here!


We are containers of both the ultimate good and evil. In the world we can fill ourselves with the corruption of the world yet the container is still empty at the time of being full. The fullness doesn't fill the emptiness. Emptiness is not destroyed, but added to. The source of good and evil is the filling of the container. The name of the container is I, The world, the universe.

When consciousness forms the idea of an absolute in its imagination it creates the idea of Gods of power or the many theories of everything. It can examine the likelihood of this occurring factually, recognise the inconsistencies of this and so end the progress of complexity as meaning which drives the physical universe of which biological evolution is a part. Consciousness can be the end of evolution, it sees the future and can recognise the ultimate failure of evolution. It sees the possibility and recognises its impossibility. If there was physical perfection, the absolute, then the imperfect physicality could and would not be able to exist. The future is a re-arrangement of the present. This being in all its imperfect pathetic arbitrariness of specifics is the nature of reality, its existence can change but only into other such states, not into a perfect absolute being. A perfect absolute being would have to be here now. The realisation of perfection cannot be hidden in time or space. The nature of god cannot be hidden in time or space. Brahman however is unseen unbeing unmoving now. God is here now in its unbeing. There is the many, diversity of patterns, individuals, values, times, attributes, and that which has no attributes.

The one cannot be many therefore cannot be everything, cannot be perfect. There is a logical inconsistency in an absolute being in the logical world, before logic is , is now before logical operations begin. before the process begins. before logic - which is an apostori process


In a local environment operations can be predicted with certainty- or what approaches this. They can be repeated and the result guaranteed. This is origin of logic. Not in the apriori- without anything there could be no logic. The assumption drawn from the predictability is that in principle the predictability is perfect. Logic is the myth of certainty. But the guarantee is drawn from the particular action of manipulating symbols where the results are clear and an exclusion of less frequent results as being mistakes.

2 + 2 = 4, the symbols

2+2 and 4 are identical.

A = A


Look at the action

when 2+2 then write 4

I could certainly do this and achieve a high correctness rate, but might eventually write something else. In reality mathematical answers occur like a normal distribution curve. On one occurrence I get an single plot, over huge time periods and in a variety of complexities I will get a distribution curve. This curve is reality, logic maintains a belief in some fixed point on the curve. Reality sets about covering all outcomes, which is why anything and everything exists, logic itself like its mythical answers is one of many outcomes of the operation of being. In this locality lies around the highest point of the distribution curve.


Some thoughts on mathematics, counting and god.

A very large number is uncountable in practice as any practical machine would have to be perfect in order to count it correctly. So correctness is an ideal, which cannot be achieved. The principals of logic say such a machine/number is possible - experience tells us otherwise. Logic is therefore un-real, like ideas of absolute Gods.

Logic is useful in the everyday because that is how things seem to work. Moving outside the local world- in either direction mistakes accrue. The mistake is a divergence from the local view. Mistakes which are unshowable are however different from the ordinary errors of life- if these themselves are errors? The only argument for accepting logic is its use. In the bigger world reality and logic part company. Logic is a perfect shape which happens to fit the shape of our local environment, which is a non uniform shape- it is a non describable feature. Or the logic is moved to fit another part - miss aligning it with the local environment. Imagine trying to describe a random wave pattern with a sine wave. As you get a good fit in one place so in others the fit is lost. The randomness of the world appears rational in parts- but diverges into chaos. Just as physically life exists in parts of our universe- where conditions allow, so logic exists in parts of the universe- where conditions allow. We can experience the non-logic of the universe. The development of science relies on more and more complex models which in themselves when sufficiently complex will become illogical.

The achievement of total certainty is the property of one concept of what god is. This is a hopeless task for myself. Probably a hopeless task because of the above. Consciousness - which sees the logical and the transcendental can also see that seeking in itself can be set aside. This is an amazing thing, to seek non-seeking, as its about doing nothing, and trapped in that absurdity the mind realises how and why the world is. It is a striving for the finite and infinite possibilities - including for the great god. And the reverse of this is the actual real god whose attributes are only the moment of experience of this seeking non-seeking. There is no change in the world- other than the enlightened person, they have contentment, for the god of all things is non-seeking. The Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, the gurus and god are one. They possess no knowledge of the world, because knowledge of the arbitrary is impossible, they possess the ability to see god, perfection in the moment of each being. Their focus is so small, their effort so little that they realise nothing, and this nothing is the source of everything. In a cave, under a tree, in the desert, when striving ceases they failed and so saw.

What use is this religious knowledge in the world - why none of course. It has no power or morality, as its all embracing, all compassionate, the very nature of the true god. Why seek it- ? Why need it?



Dying loses the familiar pattern for others. What continuous is the multiplicity of other selves. In order to die you have to imagine a thing which cannot be copied. If I delete a full stop on this screen has something unique been destroyed or can it be re-created. That the book of life is very large does not make it uncopyable. Without a sudden flip in how things are to allow uniqueness at all means that everything is unique. And the word loses its meaning. Each moment- whatever this is - has to somehow copy itself to the next even for a full stop to persist. And if I say similar then I need to be able to identify what has changed- and then I could put things back how they were. Because I cant do this in the world at large doesn't matter, the chaos of the world at large will do it anyway- that is how the world works. Only in the moment when one can be aware of the alternative which is nothing at all is there a stillness from the persistence of being. How time works is like how we get from 1 to 2, in the infinite number there is an infinite set of still frames making up infinite histories. Its the size of this number which makes it chaotic, its not graspable by anything, its like an enormous snake. Large numbers it seems must behave irrationally, as they are impossible to coherently use.


(yet unpredictable can copy logic is prediction of an operation)



These days without purpose are found out from thinking. Of no work to do to sustain, or nothing to change the mind, is that good. Of no drama to wait for, lost out of the drama of organisation and growth. Only the endless drone of existence and the silence of god. This is perfect, this is the real purpose, this is the real drama of success in the endless similarity. The world has appearances of a direction of a purpose. It has particulars, it has wishes, hunger and thirst, it has children and families, new things creating themselves and old things needing repair. It always has things to do. There are roads and railway stations and films and maps, but they progress and progress only to return to where you were. And so looking they can find no beginning or end anywhere.

Complexity. If the world is complex- if expansion and development of the world is ever more complex- chaotic - randomness, then the simple unified state is the attribute of the kind of god (transcendental state) i was referring to. Attributes of power refer to power of, and comparisons, further, is complexity an attribute of god? Complexity - having many parts, genesis. The 'old' god of existent power had a kingdom, a will motives which are considered grand- complex- many rich - difficult to attain. One king many people. In the world everything we strive for is measured in complexity. Value attaches to complexity, in organisations, complexity and difficulty. Climbing, acquiring wealth, knowledge, creating an object of value- technical or aesthetic. The one thing that is not difficult to achieve is nothing- it requires no practice and relies on no outside phenomenon for validation- such validation would deny its truth. A valueless state of non-being is easy to achieve, as there is no moving towards achieving it. It cannot be achieved as such for already is, had. Being conscious of this is a simple new theology, non communicable, and being in association with it for us is enlightenment. It is the simple act of not acting, it is what already is always underpinning everything else- nothing. In a simple undifferentiated state god and the perceiver become one in nothing. The source of everything. Death in its physicality sees change of states as does the mental act of dying- thought process do not simply disappear. This is not the nothing, death is not the nothing, or at least it doesn't guarantee a mental negative state, anymore that dying negates physical states. Correctly dying is letting go, in the same way as in life it is possible to let go, to become enlightened. The body strives for life, the will is an adjunct to this, neither to fight this or join in the totality of physical desire for complexity. The mind here becomes a tool, and a servant of the body, but not its slave. It is free to have its moments, and in these wish for power and complexity, big ideas, difficult tasks, the old god- or to release itself and be enlightened, to see god - to actually be god - in as much as god can be. To arise into consciousness and find moments of simple being is the transcendental possibility of mind, as is the shear physical states of joy which the body can achieve. In both there is no future contingency or separate contingency - in others appreciation etc. but just the ecstatic state - of being. The glass of wine, or water, good food, sleep, sexual intercourse are simple sates of bodily being. Running away, work etc. are all contingent physical states whose goals are their validation. Like intellectual work which is also goal driven. The ultimate goal is an absolute complex universal divinity- the old god, which if was possible would deny every other state. This is not so. The possible godhead is the god of no action which allows the complex, the many, the difficult; because it is not. We have this as our basis, it has to be the simplest of things to do in order to contrast with the difficulty of the complex. Its already obtained. If attaching some kind of spirituality was difficult and/or complex then it would be like everything else - in the world, it would not be therefore holy, wholly other or spiritual it would be a physical practice, as physical as science or developing ones career in an organisation. Those who practice complex spiritually do so falsely, there validation is given in the world- by admirers, by ability to do certain tasks, behave in certain ways etc. That is their reward- which is physical, the rewards of spiritual; success is nothing, the nothing we already have and always have, the nothing which is true god.

The things in the day occur and are consequences. Nothing more.

Safety, food, pleasure, are physical attributes of life, consciousness, thought and imagination are the mental attributes. Life is of these six things. All lead to the fundamental knowledge of being. In their multiplicity they construct society. In their individuality they are seen as a disease. In their denial there has been an attempt to find the holy other. This is a framework for deconstructing the events of the day, because it is not seen as perfect. The rejection of the perfection of now is resolved through a construction of another set of states which are as arbitrary as the first but we are judged to have constructed them and so succeeded in exercising our will. But if i eat this rice i have cooked it is in itself, if I look at this picture, if I sleep, if I lie on my bed watching a cloud, these unstructured things are the true holy. Their impermanence and spontaneity is a proof. These cannot be captured by art only approximated by analogy. A way of life by analogy, making the given perfect. The day is too complex to be rendered as one thing but it is one thing from a multiplicity of things experienced. Finding arguments for these creates politics.


One fear is from history, of what might be. The potentiality of the future offers fear and promise- what is going to happen as things change. I am growing older. Is there something out there is the future. This is a transfer of the god up above to the god of the future, even if this god is some political or scientific state. Materialists see an ever improving life in the future founded on technology, politics sees the same only founded on some social structure of the future which solves problems. The orthodox religious see a heaven which is a hybrid of these two. And fear and desire drives the human ego towards such futures, but fundamentally the desire or fear is only the singular phenomenon which drives the universe, dukkha is the same as the laws of thermodynamics. This is not a principle on which to base life for it is subject to the same desire. The laws of thermodynamics, the reality or not of dukkha are not a condition of enlightenment. In reality it is always now. What is built on this may change, that is not what is important about enlightenment, it is the now that makes it what it is. It is the becoming which makes it what it is not, all and any theories no matter how true destroy enlightenment. Of course this does, I can understand that i need not worry about understanding. It prevents the mistake of longing which prevents seeing now. It says here is now, there are not a set of propositions, the reality that's extended is the maya, extended in time or any other dimension. God is profoundly ignorant. And so in this unmoving perfection always here. Which is why the mystic understands everything but cannot say what it is. It not that the mystic has some extra or special knowledge, understands some proposition, the future after all is probably many things, an infinity of all possibilities, the mystic simply knows that they are here now. And of course everyone, everything has that property, - to everyone and everything else this is no big deal, its change that is important. Everything changes nothing changes, its a simple game, the most simplest is to be here now.

Look at when you cook, its your hungry self which cooks, look at when you walk, its your moving self that walks, look at when you think, its your problem solving self that thinks, and all the time there is also your buddha self which does nothing. Which of the many selves is always there? and what does that matter, the enlightened one spends time with their buddha self, as well as all their other selves. Is it good because it is the basis of everything else or is it good because it is perfect. This is best left.

The world is the given material experience of empirical science. Slowly the intellect has cleared away superstition and replaced it with material fact. The edges are where our world breaks down. This is all there is. If anyone thinks otherwise let them prove this by contradicting known actuality, say jump of a high building and expect something other than the obvious. Only a few strange exceptions are offered, but never demonstrated. Beyond this material understanding is something other where this thought breaks down but this is somewhere where we cannot be. This is not the fantasy world which is understood as a consequence of certain brain states, but is a real edge to our possible experience. The effects of imagination are the same as alcohol or any other drug they serve to relieve the mind from the unfailing logic of material existence. We do not see angels, we do not see miracles, there is not an alternative to the materialistic world or an alternative to hard work to achieve a given goal. Science has mapped out the limited world of humanity, its tragedy, its failure is inability to penetrate beyond this. In its destruction of the superstitious transcendental beliefs of the pre-material age it has failed to provide anything other than a simple brutal logical explanation for our existence. It has also failed to map this brutal logic onto anything other than human experience. When it does try to do this at the edges of experience it becomes absurdity. This is no hope for the naive romantic because nothing exists in these nonsensical edges of our understanding. No insights can be gained at the edge of experience only chaos. We cannot leave our own understanding behind, because that is all we are, mechanisms for understanding- in the way we do. If the mechanism is changed nothing alters in the logic of what is gained, there is no added insight. The functionality of our perception is like the distance seen as a function of altitude, there is no revelation.

Why do we exist, and how does time and our lives continue. There is no peculiarity here at all. The pattern our continuum of life exists in the random field like a line drawn through a series of dots. The impression of continuum is given by comparing similar frames. Potentiality is the existence of everything at once, in this seeming chaos patterns emerge by accident, one such is this. If in a set of infinite random pictures we find three in which we see a window and stone, a stone hitting the window, and a broken window the illusion of time and movement is created. In this is the reality of our own lives, it is the given seemingly logical continuum of billions of unrelated events within the infinity of all possible events.

When we focus on nothing as opposed to the set or subset of infinite events with whatever intellect we have in that moment the conscious state becomes aware of the alternative to the infinity of states which in its apprehension is enlightenment. Which is God.

With god there is no power.

When someone says they are god they are saying they are nothing - which is not so, rather the last thing anyone can say is this, and in saying it they are not truthful.

From magazines I cut pictures and stuck them on to the walls of my house. When walking through the rooms stories would unfold, sometimes ending, sometimes half starting, and different as to direction in which you walked. 'These stories' he said 'where are they from, were they already there in the magazine? have you produced them by accident or design in my arrangement, or do you create them as you walk through the rooms.' 'All of these' I replied.


After the end of all things - as was in the beginning before all things is the individual movement of experience. Making sense of the collection of events begins the process of superstition religion and science. What is inside the moment is eternity and one thing, what is outside is everything and beginnings and endings. This is nothing personal, persons, even selves and consciousness are all finite constructs.


The outside world is a model of the inside mental world. The world appears deterministic to the scientist- which causal direction is in operation- with ourselves we think the world is the source of our thinking - and not our inner constructs- yet we do not do this with cats and dogs?


The evolution from ignorance through superstition through religion trough science into conscious being. In now are not all things but the closeness of the nothing of god which sustains and creates through compassion and love the possibilities of ever infinite universes- and then only this moment of being here now is as close as we can get. If we could repeat a moment over and over we would realise how the movement of time removes us from the holy other of timelessness.


Subject - Object -only diaries can attempt subjectivity- and then even these at best are reminders to other selves. The self is always trying to see it self not as separate but legitimated by something else. It behaves as an object in order to achieve this. As a product of nature or religion or society, with purpose and rights. It is a separate entity in an arbitrary world. It is a product of the holy other. There is nothing out there to validate the self other than an image- father, mother, reader, artist… In return for doing this you have purpose. Societies are created by people accepting given myths as true or working as if they are, societies structures are simply rituals for survival.


Nothing (as anything can be said- it can be any number of theories- they world of facts and philosophy, of logical constructs and language - what cannot be said in language- what has no meaning- the outside has all the meaning all the structures- is everything) can be said about the structure of the outside world, the underlying holy other is also unexpressable as this is nothing. The diagram shows the self unable to see the reality of creation and faced with a cosmos of objects which are arbitrary. So what is Art? What is philosophy, the way to live, this is where argument and the world of fabricated structures begins. To say A is the case adds to the list of propositions. What am I to do, anything - and expect anything. This is it, that life is here now- being as true- and the outside manipulation of structures. That a desire here now, is not the same, and that in manipulating the outside structures one is doing something which is not the moment of being. This moment of being which seeks to express itself cannot do this through external structures- and never did. External structure will find it as an abstract object, the self to society is abstract and empty.

The pattern can be produced from the actual event of being, or a set of propositions. With the pattern there is a greater chance of recognition but its recognition of existing arbitrary structures and not recognition of the truth of the moment of being. And its objects are external constructs and not internal objects of being. So art within the gallery system, or science…. Within any system is not the same thing as the experience of direct being but a foreign constructed artificiality. To act in the system is to say nothing about the self’s being, and cannot help the nature of being. Here is the moment of being deluded in something outside as being true. If I use the word true here or false then the opposite applies. But this is what life is- the moment of being. What is the motivation behind existence? There is nothing, its products are different. They are near to the holy. Within the given structure how does the structure dictate the act.



So here and being.









From an email

In message <38334A94.61FC@cloud9.net>, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.

<bradmcc@cloud9.net> writes

>Here's an argument for you: If G-d is so *radically other*

>that G-d is outside time as we know it, then surely you

>do not wish to constrain G-d from being able to communicate

>with persons in time? How do you know such a radically other

>cannot do that?


That which is complete can not be added to or taken away from.

Can a perfect thing change? Logically if it changes it loses its

perfection. Let it transcend logic - if so the perfect has the potential

for change- if we allow that which is complete this logical

contradiction - if that which is complete has the potential to become

incomplete is how the world comes into being.


>Good question! Hitler would be raised, an he would

>be cured of the effects of his grossly destructive


This curing - umm clockwork orange-

you would cure the world of Shakespeare ... et allot of al...

>(Alice Miller says the only member of the

>Hitler household whom the father did not kick was

>the dog...). Since all the victims of the Holocaust

>would be restored to each be even better off than

>King Solomon, what Hitler did to them wouldn't

>matter to them any more.

nothing eventually would matter- after millennia of luxury

> *All* the dead would be

>raised, and all their injuries and injustices

>remedied, and they each would in addition be

>given abundance beyond imagining....

Sartre no exit?



>> the problem with Matisse's idyll is

>> that it would soon become very boring,


>I disagree with this. Ever since I went back

>to graduate school, I learned enough that I have

>in the last 15 years never been bored, despite living under

>far less than appropriate conditions. If I lived

>in better conditions, I would just create the

>more vigorously (and, yes, enjoy leisure of

>Romanee-Conti, a Giovanni de Dondi astronomical clock,

>more pottery by Japanese living national treasures, etc.

>*Others* may find Matisse-life difficult. Please do

>not speak for me -- who have endured a live

>that mostly was less than living in a less-than-world.

>As the character who rose from the dead in Hermann

>Brosh's great novel, _The Sleepwalkers_ said at

>a prayer meeting, while some accounting clerk was

>preaching about divine justice:


> "Only those who have died and risen again

> have the right to speak in this situation."


i cannot speak-?

i have in a sense wept at the foot of the cross - but such is love could

it be other?

>> or fights would probably break

>> out and jealousies arise - unless human emotions were sufficiently

>> neutered.


>Now you've hit upon a real problem! If X and Y both lust after Z,

>there is a *problem*. No, the world I envision would not

>be "perfect" in the sense of the Homeric land of the lotus



>But, as Marx wrote (and Maslow would surely agree!): In solving

>the given problems we generate new problems -- but they are problems

>at a *higher level*. I'd rather be concerned about jealousy

>over a woman or great work of art than be concerned about

>dysentery an tuberculosis and where I shall sleep this

>cold night....

they are the same thing in eternity, all you create is more and more

sensitivity - or castrate everyone?


>> I don't see god in such anthropomorphic terms anyway, if you take any

>> set of events its possible to give some moral value, the whole set of

>> events would i assume be morally neutral- but this universe is not

>> manufactured, but consequential on it not - or there not being nothing.


>In _The Principle of Reason_, Heidegger writes that

>the world is like the sand on a beach being played with

>by a small child who has no right or wrong:


> "Es gibt"


>And I say: It pukes. (Or: I puke) Pukemon?

This is not a bad image- seems jesus used to write in the sand quite a

bit. We don’t know how any of our actions might inadvertently create new

universes, we might vomit them up all the time.


James Whitehead

That which is complete!


Can I ask the question how many rs are there in Derrida?

Post Modernity- Derrida et al. If deconstruction means that within any given text there can be numerous interpretations - sub texts - other narratives- or if it implies the process of de-centring, why isn’t it subject to its own critique. It seems yet another truth. It offers the opportunity to propose alternative meanings in ‘difficult’ texts - such interest in Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidigger. However why can’t its own method not be applied to itself. Surely any conclusion arising is further suspect. (If this isn’t claimed by anyone then I do now) What might be left is some kind of logical game with the meanings and sub-meanings of the texts, but even logic can be (and has been) challenged as a modernist - male - construct. This argument also falls in on itself. Isn’t this to be expected. So arriving at any meaning or use is a back sliding into modernist thinking. The only motive which is perhaps relevant is curiosity - but even that it seems is suspect. Isn’t knowledge- learning- education a condition of modernity? Isn’t doing something - new - different?


"from a NG"

>I speculate that people like Derrida are

>being wilfully obscure. Either that, or else they

>are disconnected from reality, and *imagine*

>they are being helpfully communicative.

I agree that Derrida is wilfully obscure, or at least, he elects to be

ineluctably obscure.

This is because I interpret the message to mean that there can be no


I do not think Derrida "imagines", yet I do be*lie*ve that he dances upon

paradoxes and contradictions, such as

. the truth is there is no truth

. there are absolutely no absolutes

. deconstruction is justice

I also be*lie*ve that Derrida is more a Spectre (of Marx) himself than

anything else. Derrida the grand philosopher-pseudo-celebrity is to me

merely a husk for a spectre that floats above his words. I think his main

bases and credibility lies in contradiction and paradox. This alone allows

him to escape the many criticisms nowadays which are "direct" and


I do think that a person who is receptive to Derrida's message, if there is

one, would not bother further reading (at all). The next move in

philosophical progression would to my mind be of a nature similar to Zen,

where there are no words, only experience and cognition.

>Maybe if they only knew that there are people

>"out there" who would really like to learn

>what they have to say, but just can't parse the sentences,

>maybe they would try to build some *bridges* to their


It must be said, however, despite this being a normative answer, that not

everyone is destined to appreciate deconstruction, because knowledge is

unstable, and ignorance has always been a feature of the masses. It really

would be nice if there is someway to "break on through", but so too did we

think it would be great if paradise were to come about some day where we

all had equal access to factors of production.

To speak of masses, I have an argument to say that Derrida is more a

saviour for academics and such rather than the common man who doesn't know

much about philosophy. The Sixth Patriarch of Buddhism in China, Hui-Neng,

who founded Zen Buddhism, knew not how to read or write, and gained what he

called 'Enlightenment' only through hearing some monk read the Diamond

Sutra. This is an analogy, but my point is that there is no point. If this

be so, then it is only with people who are prone to juggle with many

points, and who settle down on some unjustifiably interpretative points

(such as academics and lecturers), have some good to get out of

understanding Deconstruction.

>Reading this again, as I cut and paste it, I am, however,

>struck by a thought: Especially for probably the most

>ethically demanding (if not *oppressive*) philosopher in

>at least the past century, why shouldn't the word give itself

>out always as a word of honour?

Because (dis)honor is aporic, undecidable, unstable?

No doubt this is slamming Derrida upon the context, but Derrida has

effected a form of "textual locking" upon us, by shifting the emphasis from

the General Will or Categorical Imperative onto the word of the text, which

is far closer to the personal, existential, Will..

One way of "beating the text", as if were, would be to withdraw even

further from the meta-general, and thus even closer to the existential,

Will. This may be Gurdjieff's themes on 'remembering ourselves'. G says

that we never remember ourselves, meaning that cognition is never

perpetual. It follows that the "I" is multitude and Legion. This breaks

down the notions of the singular and personal elements locked in western


One illustration is how I sit in my law library studying and I always end

up oggling at some girls legs instead. One minute I am a student, the next

I am a pervert. This is quite like some sort of subconscious role-playing

in us. Like brushing your teeth in the morning without knowing it.

Eastern meditation, some, begin with this notion, and require one to break

down the many and focus on the "one". It is believed that the "I AM", or

the focus to be found from the foci, is the target.

If this be so, then there is no need to recourse to the text, and Derrida

would be defunct, or would he?





-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------

http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!

------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----







  1. The pot hole as a paradigm of knowledge and not the mountain-
  2. One knows one is in the deepest but not The deepest-
  3. That is this is a large set of things in which nothing and everything is provable, that in the individual now is the only hope of being with God.

  5. 1234566666666667654544444444433333333444444569786677777777 but never 1234 again!





Intelligence is the ability to see greater distances either side of an equals sign. That the two sides are never equal is another matter- the domain of being now (god).




The infinite set does not exist because its unexperienced. It’s a set of multiplicity’s, each multiplicity is experienced. A small set 1234 is experienced- larger sets - like life are also- but lives are not experienced, another is a sub-set , a concept with the set which is the experiencer.

And any theory doesn’t change what is given. Or its use is only in how its supported by external objects- payment - status. But does that change the nature of things? No- it’s the parable of the hair growing etc. Only theories which affirm what is are true. And they in reality not needed. Art as non-language is true and non-existent.


If the world is a vast interplay of emotions then I am done for.

But that it may be and I cannot even compete in that - lacking the required skills.

That this is true means that I have to retreat into my own world where there are fixed points and simpleness. Here is an absolute god of nothing - and certainly nothing to anyone else.

Why just an emotional interplay in the world, why not an interplay of randomness, of which emotion is a part, a recognised subset. We feel emotions are important now because that is what we have become. As opposed to Ants of Nationalism. There is no order other than nothing.


  1. logic of ER (eternal recurrence) contradiction. (repeated events which are absolutely identical.)
  2. Separation of identity based on differentiation.

    If different is defined as not identical.

    So different and identical is a contradiction.

    If D =! I

    Then D = I is false

  3. Eternal return in materialist terms.
  4. 1234 - 1234 - 1234

    a concept of fixed objects (no longer the case) and time and space

    and therefore a pre-set arrangement- which has to repeat.

    Isn’t 12341111111 allowed

    Or 1234


    1234 <> 12341234

  5. If ER is a scientific proposition it is at best provisional
  6. Whatever one is thinking - extensively is wrong.









The self now is all that is not provisional.

The expansion from the moment creates the provisional hypothesis/structures which then predicate the moment!



But the experiment shatters the single truth and creates a variety of possible outcomes. That they should appear shouldn’t be a surprise.

ER expands into futures. To move from the moment outwards (as in ER) as in Descartes - or to move inwards.


The universe is incomplete- is always so. What is complete! To have the idea of completeness seems to have the idea of incompleteness. Logic prepossess that completeness as being universal cannot be achieved - unlike the jigsaw - something can always be added. Only nothing can have nothing or anything added.





If the world is just simulated then the only thing that cannot be simulated is the nothing from which no copy can be made.



But what am I but these feelings - and only of now otherwise complete destruction. It is that one moment of being which is sufficient. And not any promise, this is the great learning - there is no learning only the greatness of being. In the hour of the bee is there sufficiency of existence to rid one of despair. All leaning might be vanity - all movement but all being is perfect - the dead are a perfect as the living. I am taught not to learn by a very simple experience, which is only satisfactory in that the continuity of life is seen as being a huge fallacy - of time. This is beyond good and evil, both are stories.




God is zero, that which does not change - how is it possible then to know God. Everything else changes, existence is change - only the non-existence is unchangeable. Change is in the objects potential or its desire. The thing itself contemplating itself (even its change) is god.

Because we have language which uses one set of matter to represent another we can find ourselves likewise living in one time frame for another. This generates purpose but also desire.


Nothing is out there anymore. It looks like everything.



Time is the counting of the changes.



If we analyse what things as they are then there are two - there is the truth of private experience which is the reality as lived - as it is - and in that its objects, these all lie underneath and before a language of communication - they are a private language if language at all - and they are the reality of life as the life of the individual. Compare that with the other the outside world of shared language which is where objects are identified, described, categorised and given shared values. In this world of communication reality is only what is held to be the case - not what is. It is a collective of opinions - of others - of a group - which gives approval. Any object in the second case although linguistically seeming more real and though through numbers and culture seems permanent and powerful - is in its essence nothing but set of meaningless signs from meaningless belief systems. An example - a group believe in an all powerful god but it is they who punish. A group believe in the reality of art but it is they who decide what is of worth. An individual exists in a moment of time - which is a most complete reality - and yet cannot trade or sell this - it is communally worthless. I can only sell objects which signify - these only relate to each other and the power of the group - or group belief system, this is commodity. How does a public language point to a private one? This is simple it denies pointing, it denies worth as in meaning. Private languages are the experience of being - which has no meaning in itself - ontologically, so to public languages can be made to do this as well as the nonsense of other things. A drawing of a dog is not a dog but a drawing of a drawing is a drawing.

The sound of sound is defining what music is in reality. Now we can create abstract sound. It is as much to say life is caused by some myth - and the reason why I am here is caused by some myth than that art should communicate - should have meaning. Art that has meaning is not true. The acquisition of a public language brought with it the idea of sign and object, and so saw life itself as a sign, as having a meaning somewhere else - heaven, understanding, or whatever - even no point at all as in despair that there wasn’t. But being is just being.

Any philosophy is predicated on meaning - on a language which says that x can represent y, that is that x=y. Any true reality is predicated on y=y x=x x<>y, as in true realities are unique, but meaning systems imply otherwise. Meaning systems create meaningful but unreal universes. They cannot explain now, and reality is only every all now.



How the now is so important - the future and the past being imaginations!







I’m not like a philosophy - like Nietzsche wanting to know the cause - but reacting now. With nothing more. These structures are only parts of a continuum which in itself has differences - this is where everything comes from - good bad - nice not nice, but now is now this is this - this is different. It is without conclusion - incomplete. (sex and the child - masturbation)






Some night thoughts - lets imagine a game where god puts his cards on the table and says - "take them if you like" - well would you. What would that mean, you become the ultimate infinite being. Is that what you want, is that what you strive for. To become that which you are not. This game condemns the Buddha also - though I don’t think he would mind. The only thing that differentiates any movement is what I already am, I am, everything else is either a race to infinity or a desire to be someone else. But that someone else is like you - already there. You can be no more someone else than become God. And if you achieve either you lose yourself.

So what do we wish for, what do we fantasise for, nothing I guess. Even the nothing becomes, we grow, we change, never ending. The rising above like sinking below is foolishness - we should just set our sails. A man shoots a cow, the man the bullet the cow are all each themselves and in themselves, and so not each other they are the same as each other in the way in which they are. Simply put as a fairy story we see the event repeated only each time the players change roles. In case you question any idea of progress, think of making yourself better like acquiring food, the only really satisfactory situation is to have sufficient for you whole life, and keep this in order, everything else is far more dangerous. So the monk begs each day. Surely to keep enough for the week seems sensible to most, not to the monk who would rather have nothing - and not to god who would rather have everything. What is god then , the lack of god. And also the lack of nothing. This negation is not what we are but the cause of what we are, I’m no pantheist. God creates the world by not being god and by not being nothing. That is how god involves himself herself - whatever - in the world, is immanent. So what of me , I can see this very closeness of god not being above, not being below, not being everything not being nothing, not being me not being you, but here and immanent. Not necessary you may think - but without this god I or anything would not be. God exists inside the visual field, allows sight, is the light which shows the world yet is the light we cannot see, is the cause of seeing yet unseen. That’s how the world exists, fundamentally, someday someone may prove this, it not hidden by design but by reason of what it does. If we could see the light then we would lose the object. All would be light, if the was no light we could not see the objects of the world, all would be darkness. So god neither is or is not, but here enabling. Both me and you and our mirror images created by god. So how can i see or talk to this god. Only in the perfection of a moment. Only in the play of thoughts, only in prayer, which brings god into the consciousness. Such prayer stops us in out desires, to both go below or pass above. Every breath we take, is his.


The construct or myth of the individual, when broken down creates a moment of presence in which there is some absolute.

  1. the best thing I can do (the only) is be me - not god or Buddha or eternally use one - or the subject of a book.
  2. look how I judge improvement-

  1. by others
  2. by myself - my previous selves!

  1. Humanity is the judge of everything - art, philosophy, religion, history, language - the community agreeing - choosing its leaders in art/ politics etc…


Everything is strong psychology - the randomness of all creation creates a strong psychology which causes the illusion of cause and effect, history, and time --for how else could we exists, and causes logic - for how else could scientific life evolve without the laws and constraints of logic. Lets be clear - nature, reality can and does exceed these laws - these illusionary laws - but only in the way that the constellations patterns can exceed one interpretation. In fact my previous being and my being now are one and the same thing. What would experience of the chaos of reality outside time be like, and that is what is part of what is - does this fill everything even itself and the emptiness of god. Entertainment is the consolation of the lack of meaning. Everything is then entertainment? Everything that is done and is written is true from a perspective and no perspective is true. The impossibility of god to do much at all! Everything is the property of the salesman. Buy this and make me famous. Buy this and make me. But what would you want what would you like? What do you want what do you need what can I persuade you that you need.




Abhuta-parikalpita is the imagining of what does not exist. The world of everything, everything is non-existent. The Buddha's enlightenment was the non-enlightenment, to wait for something is abhuta-parikalpita, so all the time he waited under the tree he held a concept, only when this did not happen did the Buddha realise enlightenment. So simple, without a single rule or method, he was waiting for what was already there, all he had to do was stop waiting. What was gained from this, nothing, no power or knowledge, peace precedes everything. His compassion is telling those who long they long for what they already have, or what they long for is an illusion. Or that they can have it. Enlightenment is abhuta-parikalpita -, it is fiction like everything else. I may long for a new car and if I succeed I get only a new car.

There is in philosophy the idea of progress, this is widespread, and a kind of belief in science, which is a kind of Christian view of progress. However the Christ of Jesus was more mystical and as such saw things already completed and not apocalyptic. Maybe progress is a Greek concept, of understanding the puzzle of life. Understanding makes puzzles. There is no paradox in achintya. Because all things are possible then anything is already complete. The paradox only arises from the belief in a single temporal universe, but in such a world there is a limited set of things to be done. In the infinite both everything and nothing is done. So advaita is a belief that things are the same. This is to say at any point there is both nothing and everything. The truth is that being is a being of points. When Jesus sits and does nothing there is stillness and perfection, before he has to make a choice.

The truth cannot be outside because that is always contingent upon existence. Existence is the prescriptive force of such truths, they depend upon it and are therefore not perfect. It is the failing of atman which closes into Brahman. Brahman and atman are one and the same at the instant, the quality of atman smears itself out. The parts of this smearing are not truth, and the understanding of the whole is impossible, understanding being the process of smearing, when achieving the impossible the mystic sees atman and Brahman as one. Why is there different shapes, because there are. Why is there the one, because there is.

There is no non-living thing.

Ananda holds nothing, it is nothing, be here now. Those who long for self are only experiencing the feeling of longing. It is no different to feeling hungry, one cannot deny self, denial is another property. Enlightenment is rejected because its worthless. Anekantavada is the change within the world of I for you, genes are no more selfish than atoms, if there is will there is will everywhere, if not then just particular to a conversation, about what colour the sky is now. So figure it out, and then you might forget, I'm laughing. You could forget the truth. This is funny. Everything is enlightened, everything is Brahman, everything is Atman. So we have perfection and confusion together. The patterns of the particular are drawn on the absolute by themselves.


Money is power in the world. Money is truth in the world, it buys anything. Morality is lust for pure gold. The rich seek morality to secure their riches, the poor seek morality to gain wealth, the holy seek morality to be even richer than the rich. Everything tries to consume everything else. I should present you with food you cannot eat.

The world is both part of what I am and not, it is not because in consciousness there is the recognition that Atman and Brahman are the same. The world and the spirit are the same, the negative spirit creates the world out of consequence of it not creating. So I am both at home in the world, the particular material world and conscious of an alternative, everlasting non moving 'world' of Brahman.

The buddha consciousness - alaya-vijnana - is empty, its uniqueness is its non-entity, uncountableness, - now what is that like! This is the problem for before and after, as we approach the centre of the wheel we cross the point of turning through a stationary moment. If the centre of the wheel is still, how can it turn? This is a familiar description of god as non existent-being. How the non-existent is the cause of creation is described in the wheel, all the parts of the wheel except the centre have attributes, speed, momentum etc. the cause is not that the centre is found, and found to be still, but without this concept how is it the wheel can turn. When you have satori you have still ness, both perfection and total realisation of the 'everything' outside. That this knowledge is useless is in its totality, from the centre the wheel revolves in both directions, understanding coming from knowing less, having fewer attributes. So with death to loose personality is to gain the kingdom of heaven. To die well is to give up ones ownership of everything. Engaging in war with ones emotions or with ones stomach or desires is movement, opposite forces turn the wheel they do not cancel each other out into stillness. Give each sufficient and consciousness too, what is sufficient for consciousness is the stillness.

Amitabha is a kind of technology, or hope, a comfortable process which offers some solution, a womb, a new creation, a personal remembered perfection. Currently many dislike religion because they see it as amitabha, which they already possess. Christianity is to often confused with being only amitabha, this is only to say - 'if not now then one day' , but Jesus also said- here it is now if you wish. The danger is if you buy a car to make others jealous if they do they will hate you, if they do not you will hate them. So maybe its a good thing to be a little jealous of someone's Mercedes. What if someone has nothing and wants more, is it ignorance that prevents coping with this. The poor trapped in oppression, is any freedom possible for these. One would eventually have to react to bullying, even if only to become a victim. I don't know about this if one is trapped by circumstance, what comforts there are must be taken. I can imagine circumstances but not be in any other than these. I think clear thinking and logic can help in altering circumstances, perhaps amitabha is a solace to the slave. Here then in itself it is a solace it performs its function and brings enlightenment. Or to rebel, and only if this brings enjoyment. Ones vision must be enjoyed as a vision now, like the fairy story heaven is enjoyed in it corporeality now. Amitabha can placate the boredom of some moments when Brahman and Atman are far away, when one is on the rim of the wheel in the dirt and ruts of life. It is its reality that is wrong, when gained one then can see Atman and Brahman, isn't that what it is for? So from my Mercedes I could see Brahman. Situations which are not perfect are complex, it is a struggle to negotiate these and be then able to see Brahman & Atman if one wishes. What one does is draws a list of what is possible to select from in reality, and a list of what is not possible that one can fantasise about. The second list is amitabha. You then choose, but not in the sense of right and wrong. You can move through these lists as you will. If one looks at the lists and desires nothing then like the still centre of the wheel one has ananda. Lets not get too precious about perfect bliss- its only another object. How does ananda become insufficient and fall into being , it does not, rather it occupies its position, it is there, like other things are there. Living collapses into death because death is implicit in being alive. There is nothing implicit in ananda, so everything is outside.

Ananda would be a good title for the present. Without things to be done. This bliss is only a point of focus which in a complex entity is one of many. There are the many of Atman each with a characteristic and the nothing, whose nature is called bliss. This describes its unmoving and un-problematic nature. What is focused- the hardware. The hardware thinks of nothing, loses its characteristics. The self is the collection of facts learnt about ones self and the world. Atman describes the self and how it sees the world, it is one and the same, essentially is the world. In a simple thought experiment if death is the end of being, the idea of the world continuing is irrelevant, at the moment of non-being the vast distance of time to the end of all things would be covered at that instant. The re-creation of self in some future patterns, or thoughts would also be a possibility. Its only the uniqueness of now which cannot be re-created because a perfect copy of now is now.

The self is divided into two, what i will and what i can not will. What i will is only the mechanical limits of my physical being. If the world were a set of numbers then my will would be a sub-set. The extent of this sub-set is unknown to me. It seems it must be unknowable. And yet a change in the sub-set is a change in the whole and so can influence others. Others can hold models of other selves. There are two outsides, outside my control and outside of the whole world. When in meditation one tries to focus outside oneself it could be either of these. To focus on what one cannot control in the world is thinking about other things. To focus outside yourself means to focus on something which is not part of the superset- not to focus on another object but on nothing at all. Focusing on things outside in the world creates a bigger sub-set. This is knowledge, which can lead to power. From simply eating something to owning a vast estate.

I can will this hand to move, i can will someone in another room to move, are extensions of not being able to will anything. Arise from pure consciousness. Motivated by the logical constructs in the world. This will as such is not therefore mine in the first place but merely the logical consequences of the world. Is no different to If A > 6 then write 'yes' else write 'no'. The bliss of ananda lies before logic in the pre-consciousness of say a flower opening into the world. Is the feeling of the opening of the unconsciousness of Brahman into the attributes of Atman. Enlightenment is not a quality state to be achieved. Its not as if you could say i cant make it, like saying i cant do long division. Only when gaining it the bigger the self the greater the realisation of how far away from the world it was makes it more shocking. The higher up the ladder when one steps off the more the impact of doing so!

The mystic tries to rid the mind of distractions by a routine, the routines can then become distractions in their own right- ends in themselves. Most people prefer to do something rather than nothing.


Anatta destroys itself we have to say laughing, it is therefor the wisdom of the Buddha. Though the qualities of a number 6578 for instance seem real, in the collection of vastness of number what is it? both arbitrary and a consistent of others and non-unique. Reality is the myth of numbers it seems. My senses now can be all numbers, so our 6578 is part of me and you. All in the future is bits, Everything ends now, god is not in the complexities of the future of extended time and memory but in now. The whole set of number extends out from now which is the false world of infinite copies. Here is the truth and nowhere else, cannot be anywhere else- out there in distance and time is endless complexity and differentiation. The whole linear movement is ended in this moment here is the last verse, not in some future point which is repeated again and again. The whole bible is a moment. That is why it is true. Both the circle and the line in this moment are become the same. Entertainment promotes the myth of time and existence in time.

Nothing changes as there are no things to begin with what alter into what, the cosmos is a multiple of overlapping objects, anekantavada describes subjective opinion which changes its mind and even it does not exist as a persistent object. Only now is unchanging. Clearly an object cannot move, but two objects separated by existence can give the appearance of movement. An object cannot move because all of it has to move simultaneously else it has parts and there is only a collective noun - we either give up existence or movement, existence is however given, movement is not. In random sequences we can get 50645380345 or 1234567 one gives the impression of movement, or growth. Like this idea! language is a subset of random sequences, movement from moment to moment is only given by the similarities. Unlike a film each moment is preceded by and succeeded by an infinite set of moments, it is only those which bare similarities which describe history, but they are not privileged. The equation is all numbers & signs including 4 all numbers & signs including + all numbers & signs including 4 all numbers & signs including = all numbers & signs including 8.

2+6 = 8

3+ 7 = 8

+=7 8 2





Is + really growing!

Its only what we care to think, like connecting up words into sentences, this has to be taught, but existence - is that taught.

Anicca is taught!

Anicca - is that the universe exists as it does as always seeking to accomplish all possible configurations. This - all possible configurations is the illusion of movement and change seen in the sum-total of possibilities expressed in existence outside time. It is the illusion of progress, time and movement. Only nothing cannot be altered cannot change.

Aparigraha is in fact the truth of our very being - we own nothing not even our own bodies for more than a few years. What of a thought, if anyone else can also have this, like our breath is shared. This unique pattern should be an abomination to a perfect God. This desire to retain it also - yet this is allowed. Renounce even the spirit if you wish to see your true god.

Artha is neither good or bad but a little sad. Enough wealth for the poor to be poor! Enough poverty to be unable to help them. The wealth is in knowledge of the nature of the world. Feed the poor with this and they can choose liberation from everything.

Atman one of the two last mysteries to be given up to the sea of reality.

Avidya is the ladder which one must throw away eventually - but the last thing to ignore is knowledge. If there was a fundamental fixed thing then nothing would occur. One cannot hold the truth - the hand cannot close around it - it is timeless, all other truths are only provisional, like a burning fire.

Bani - the nothing beyond the bluest of skies the nothing beyond the promises of death.

Bhagwan - here now!

Bhakti being like all paths pleasant but once it reaches its destination is no longer- where is this destination - its here!

Bodhi is always here now - never in the future and never in the past - where inside the word b o d h i

Inside dee

Inside e

How many illusions are there and Bodhichitta is just one other - but is also a nice word - but empty, no mind can be enlightened J The very act of moving forward - even of Bodhisattva is that of a very full mind - L but also that of something out of balance - yet seeking balance by moving forward - surly balance is gained in stillness, even on the point of a needle. The now is the shapest of needles. Has been called Brahman - everyone’s home - a lonely place of great beauty. And this is strange because this home cannot be left or returned to - it is a home which shuts out the outside worlds - yet it is a home which is everything. Brahman is the perfect word, the first word and the last word. The word which has removed itself from meaning, which is free of causality. You can set out with objectives - or have no objectives - or have non yet still find this time difficult because it begs to be filled with something. If it can be filled then fill it with whatever, if not and we can watch time passing then this is OK. What is not Brahman is cause and effect. All art, science, culture, life is caused.

I now have no illusions or ghosts in waking - so should be pitied for not having buddha darshana - who ever does let them draw the picture of the other in the here and now. They would only draw the cars and aeroplanes of commercials, and the motorways and cities of glass. Here live the immortals, the archetypes, the platonic forms, the accountants and executives of the forever. My buddhata I shed like another skin yet this is only a skin of cloth, orange cloth.

Ch’I is the game of physics. Its so unreal.


Cit consciousness

Daeva - old bad indo-iranian gods

Dana - giving

Dhamma giving the spider knowledge

Dharmakara - of the self a vow to become - not good

Dhikr - to remember - like to forget but not to be

Digambara - how one thinks - how one is!

Dukkha - suffering for the future or the present?


Gunas - strings

Hadith - tradition

Hajj one of five pillars

Hare krishna

Heptad - holy sirit

Hondon - holy part

Hsien imortal

Hsing true nature

Ijma - jury

Ijtihad judgement

Irja sin and its blame postponement

Ishwara lord

Islam surrender - bird

Istihsan finding good

Jati caste

Jina - one who is liberated - bread

Ju-lai-tsang absolute reality - isthis semiotic? No

Ksfir - unbeliver

Kama - love desire


Karuna - desire to relive suffering in others

Khalsa - pure

Khandha - physical reality 5

Koan - question non rational birdsong

Kusala karma - wholsome deeds

Li form - inner law outward appearance

Loka the reality we make


Mana power

Manmukh indiovidual centered


Mass go

Maya mother of the buddha

Moksha liberation from er

Nibbana blowing out enlightnments

Ninty-nine beautiful names


Norito ritual prayers

Om what is unsaid - it stops language


Paradise - prison

Parameshvara - highest lord

Paravritti seeeing reality

Paticcasamappada conditioned

Pope bridge builder

Prabhasvara shining mind

Prajna wisdom

Prakriti matter

Prandidhana what the mind fixes on becomes real


Puja worship

Purusha spirit

Purushottama highest spirit

Qi’ra’at order of readfong

Qi’yas - analogy


Rasul Allah messenger of god

Ren sum of all human virtues

Rita cosmic and moral order

Rupa form


Salat worship 1 of 5 pillars burdsong

Samadhi - concetration


Samskaras cycle rites

Sanatana dharma eternal order

Saoshyant jesus vb

Sat being truth

Sawn fast

Shahada conffesion of faiith 1 of 5 pill

Shakti duivine power

Shih concreate particularity

Shila ethical conduct

Shintai presence of god

Shrik assigning partners to god sin in islam

Shraddha faith

Shruti - that is heard

Shunyata emptyness

Siddha - free soul

Smriti that whivch is rememberred


Summa the example of mm


Tafsir interprestation of the koran

Tanakh hebrew bible

Tao road

Tathagata truly arrived

Tathata suchness

Tattva-darshana seeing reality

Te virtue

Tian supreme deity

Trimurti 3 gods



Upaya device method nmeans

Upaya-kaushalya skill in means

Vaisheshika atomoism

Varna colour

Varnashramadharma class duties caste

Vishisht advaita qualified non dualism

Vishuddha pur mind

Wu shing water fire wood metal earth

Wu-wei without action

Yasna worship



Yomi - hell


Yuga cosmic age - present dark age

Yung function

Zand interprestation

Zi master


The history - no - my history is one of learning about the other. This has given me a set of systems - which are from the outside - but can these systems arrive so. How can they be brought into existence from the outside. As if I'm the receiver of some idea - then where did this arrive from if not a collective subjective. Imposed on me by others who presumably belied that the world was constructed by some objective reality - not themselves, but given or discovered. Sure - fine for those who engage in collaborations, although they still need to originate out of their subjectives.

Not why are there - for that is given - but to remove all that was given from outside and realise the individual That which creates the world and god as opposed the falsity of that which is force on me as saying this is what created you and this is your identity. Where then is the source of that, not so, they are in error and seek to lead others likewise, deliberately or not. There is nothing real or genuine which is not me, not even this language has the power over that.

Lets suppose there really are 'other objects' - by which I mean other objects than myself , ask yourself this question and imagine everyone else asking it and the answer is that there is none. The only other explanation is that somehow we are wrong, and then the truth should be available - unless as it is its made a secret. It empowers others just like ourselves with imaginary powers over us. It - these powers arise in the others subjectivity, in the others objects, and made important by attachment to histories, groups etc. And it is only in the context of the group - the gang in the playground where a structure is subjectively created - almost by a biological primitive function closed to understanding.

Then the whole power of others in the world is predicated on this animal behaviour which is intellectualised. Why should this animal behaviour pollute understanding of a mind where it isn't found apriori. (Or if its dismissed) other than as an ignorant biological act, like a disease.

Ok so lets go right back to how this false history of "things" came into being and how I was bullied by it, yet strangely never accepted. Why not - why never accepted, because I had the disability to always ask why? And so not seem to accept the orthodoxy, but even when going along with it, not knowing the rules, and rules there are/were, and not having this animal presence which creates the to the mystic world to put fear into the mind of a child, whose world was as clear and clean as some god. Where did evil come from? This outside, and what did it consist - but an shackling of the imagination, a fear, a price, a slavery. All of the outside world enslaves me. Only within and of myself am I free - of enslavement - of error. What of those that criticise this - they do this as part of a playground gang mentality - by brutal force and biological needs, not from the purity of an intellect. Gods like laws and authorities are wheeled up to crush and destroy until one gives in - and then within the gangs rules of biting never find a place - always have fear of this imaginary other. Its nonsense and rubbish, the only curse is the loneliness of being an individual and alive, and not some animal in a pack relying on its brute strength for the knowledge of who it is, by measure not from the pure experience and joy of being, but the fear one carries and one inflicts in the imaginary structures called reality.


So what is culture but the school playground "gang" - that’s why very few 'girls' are involved other than to be victims. Observe the idea of civilisation - is nothing really new, but the imposition of the brute on the intellect.

Lets talk about this intellect for awhile. It is guiltless, perfect, free. It is beautiful for the impressions made on it is that it is innocent. Make the mistake of thinking this self centred ness is evil, its not, evil comes from outside. Lets be clear - that though I use 'animal' and 'brute' this is not to denigrate these creatures, but we are capable - well I am - of seeing the world as it is given, before or beyond emotion and instinct. And emotion and instincts are equally fine, but if they pour into our intellect - if we decide that these can create structures to greater enable the former we have made a monster. Why. Because pollution is the merging of substances that in themselves are fine. The curse of the school bully is his language, with which he can erode the mind. And here the bully is that which we see as society. Even the enlightened teacher falls outside the victims being - so is part of the problem.

Only the innocent can flee from one bully to pay homage to a greater authority, and be led into there crimes of believing in right and wrong. Oh how most strive to disguise their wrongs with right. And how are they forgiven, in some animal trade, in some fear over a carcass, as to who gets the lions share and who becomes the next victim. How then do we live in company and avoid this, by becoming cruel, by becoming evil.

They say with knowledge comes the fear of death , but its not so. Its someone else who tells you - driven by a desire to bring fear into your life - the animal fear. Soon the new born is polluted by being made to exist as an animal.

I was treated as an animal, fed, clothed before being spoken to. Christ they can drip feed the unconscious that’s what society is! Imagine feeding a fish but denying it water. Such is the overcoming of me. That everything which is particular is to be generalised.

Me is only now. All misery, comes from times past and future, all melancholy what was past and what will be. All opportunity to overcome this is now. Happiness now, not some future picture, distant as yet unknown object, all these are ghostly phantoms of terror. Now is sunny, the dog is alive and happy, so am I. Those points in the past like white cliffs seen on a distant shore are but memories of that feeling of being., not of events or of trying, like a distant landscapes fixed and beautiful.



All is deep nihilism, not even a negative - for there is the possibility of opposite, not even zero, but a continual process of self negation. All else is faith. Today the dog is dead, and all the effort of life gone for absolutely nothing. Stretch out in the absolutes of our knowledge, and our vanity, this horrible world reduces everything to nothing. Vanity and faith are the same.

From faith comes the ability to share and from that the praise of the outside for itself, I shrink back to my core trembling in the fear of their folly. Imagine a spell, imagine a sound which would bring them to their senses, all they want is a mirror which flatters. So demand of me that I shine.

My world the whole thing and part of the unknown - the unknown is what I need, my lack of knowledge.



My thoughts cannot be directed at some conclusion or understanding, as that would be an end to it. They are what they are each without a conclusion - not linear - but timeless things that are me. This typing, that picture in my head of the horse - that is me, how is some thought which extends to a teleology me - but the very antithesis's of me - I'm really going nowhere. Not even being if being is then to be understood.

This is the presence of now without recourse to other models, what of these am I lost in them - like others seem to, in the act of being something else not authentic, or can my authenticism break through, certainly not in sleep in unconsciousness, but in levels of who I am. But now here I am. But what of latter- is it possible to sit and watch oneself, is a program of self betterment needed. How is watching a horse in afield to lead to this, its not, yet it does it becomes a habit.

The trick is that - to be yourself always and not attempt anything else. From waking to sleep.

Now the two worlds are in effect very obvious. And the impossibility of acting in world 2 with any degree of competency. Lets see the inner world.

First create landscapes and gods, but how to interface with the other? A channel needs to be opened?

What is strange is the two worlds in everything – the outside and the in. The in always here yet unimportant – the outside never here belonging to systems and collections of people – but never here! One could live without one but not the other – yet everything seems judged by the other. One cant even change the other as given. The other is that wall of experiences – but experiences on something quite unique. Yet on something which is essentially nothing?

On that which can accept experience, on this biological – or whatever – thing which accepts experiences, at each moment. Memory as real- yet as distant as gravity, the sense of a finger hitting a key. Everything in that experience acceptable to understanding and re-understanding in and of the world – by other objects – people, things, everything, but not by the acceptance of the feeling itself. Even my opinion is a condition, but not the acceptance – that is what is strange.

Acceptance – glading, in enlightenment, in pain, in semi consciousness, but acceptance. Is the organisational condition of what I am. This is what now I am – like a rock – this ability to accept a world is just a condition of the system which I am.

Decide what I like its only the inputs which confirm or reject. For I feel cold now, this might or might not be true, might be an hallucination. But is this experience, experience this? Like at rats consciousness? No more am I tomorrow than yesterday, yet without the perspective of memory – nothing,

This is all rubbish and gets me nowhere, as it’s a private language, how can a private language do anything. What is the essential feature of a private language but just this, that I am separate from… the world.

That’s it, the signified by everything I do is essentially me! Which is to mean the only thing which is not signified by anything else, its presence. How this is here signifies me, what else it signifies is the other, the many other.

Self signification cannot be empty, yet its content is arbitrary! It doesn’t matter that I am a sparrow, or some wayside weed, or great philosopher, what is it that signifies me is presence. Once this presence signifies something else it ceases to signify me, my presence. It is a sign which signifies nothing but itself in its essential significance, that is it can be used for other signification's – but it has in it its own significance. Everything does – you may say, but that’s up to everything. The only thing which I experience as self signifying is me! Quite casually I can say – no that’s not what I mean – because I both mean nothing and see no use in myself. The nihilistic truth? Lets continue – this sparrow then, it behaves so. It is behaving so – now.

Both why there are things – why there is my being – how, and for what purpose are needless other things.

The moment of consciousness is the realisation of the other, not of self. Of difference, of that signification. Signification and meaning lie outside oneself because we – I – me can see it as being different.

But be clear this me is this now, this now of difference. How is it different then, it’s a third state, not a binary opposition. Only when things signify can there be meaning and opposition. But lets take the simplest form of the single occurrence now of a binary state – say "1". This is how reality is for me! What else follows that overwhelms it in meaning is what follows. Its saying its like or not like, but in and of itself its non of these. In and of itself its 1 or 2 or 0.

That is the experience before acceptance. This is before the temporality of being.

Humm! This doesn’t signify – as then it is like me! Or the sparrow. The now of Me! And the sparrow cant change the world, we make it up, our now is to become a binary digit with meaning, by relation to God or the accident of sentence construction from these random nows. That we fit in an can create a sign, like a cloud shape is not what it our now. And that is what is before we are.

We wait to see what happens we \wait for the dice to bring meaning, when we are just one yarrow stick.

Death is the fear \of time stopping?

Meditation is on the non meaning of now. We cannot ask questions or get anything from it. Look only in moving away from it are thoughts and meanings generated – how silly those who fail to see that nihilism is the source of everything. Yet how they despise this. They have feelings, long strings of digits which arrange themselves – arbitrary!


All movement all understanding is away from that.

A sentence has to be read in sequence and within a time frame to give up meaning, that is with the given time frame it become an object. The letter "W" on its own and out of time is nothing of meaning – yet is something. – may acquire meaning – become useful. It is too simple to choose!

Focus on the moment not what the moment becomes! – meaning and therefore also confusion, right and wrong. All the time the bit will make patterns, in memory – shall fade. True death the absolute end and refusal of any meaning or use? True knowledge of death… that is.

It doesn’t mean a thing it hasn’t got a use its perfect. Its basis is not something or anything – it a particular arbitrary event. Because you can use anything the temptation is to wait for the perfect foundation, this is only useful in construction, not in deconstruction to find the me! To find the non signifying thing. Or the non signifying in the signifying thing which it also has, why find this interesting? Why not instead become a person , a thing in the world. OK we know the picture is made of meaningless dots, why not create pictures rather than look at the dot? Because its destiny.








  1. It begins with chaos - white noise - out of which all is created, then before nothing. How does this become something - move - how cold it seems.
  2. 2a. Is everything only patterns in this, even the sense of purpose.

  3. No one has ever done anything like this, not without the help of friends. Not without becoming part f a pre-existent group which establishes their worth.
  4. All previous artists and philosophers were only part OF A TYPE - A RE Established GROUP?!


Can we say anything more or less than difference? Or interference. Any structure - to be such will have to exhibit this, even the nothing needs a opposite - or opposites.

How can we resolve this - if to enumerate ever higher infinities - we can do this, out enumeration become itself part of the set of things and not its whole.

Some general description for matter?

I'm happy with randomness - but randomness of what? Of itself - even being is undecideable- that creates! {and does not create and un-creates}


Order is an aberration of chaos, as is meaning logic and God. As is Jesus/Man Man/Jesus.

Nothing is a particular aberration of chaos - as is logic … it is only one possible configuration.

Matter - "whatever" is also one particular configuration/aberration , as is existence , particles non-existence and anti-particles.

What is arranged randomly but random instances of …. [the set of possible and impossible random instances or non-instances …]

Randomness has [has to have the potential and non potential..] the attributes of shape, position, colour, existence, wave and point… […]





Consequences / Development and limits.

Limits: Such a "cosmology" / anti-cosmology there follows on a limit of itself. "Cantors Paradox". The explanation defines its own explanation as it admits to explanation which are also true and present and itself being true, not true, present and not present to an infinite number of degrees. Any other explanations is a limit, this explanation - and its non-explanation is not limiting, and yet must allow limiting and not-limiting and not allow… Randomness must both limit and not limit everything, nothing, God the Devil, and nothing.

This is similar to Sets and supersets. The set (a,b,c) has a superset of its sub sets. Its sub set are (a) (b) (c) (ab) (ac) etc. If the set it an explanation then there are within its subsets which make up a larger explanation, this super set can be regarded as a set, and have sub sets (a,b,c,ab,ac…) (a) (ab) (ac,ab) … so on. The existence of random randomness capture all of this … and therefore doesn’t …. As above..

So the are both limits and no limits consequences and none.


God. Is allowed. Lack of God is allowed. Time and no time … and however not just binary oppositions but superimposition's, both panthesistc - limited to a degree, the demierge the single creator, all are created as part of random/randomness. All are there and not there to all degrees.

Another way is to say that this sentence has many meanings in many languages and even many in english. Some analysts- Derrida would say it had many in english, but it has many more.

When I say then "I mean this" I'm saying here is one particular meaning. This is one "picture" of many, but how often is it that one then says "no that’s not what I meant". In reply to the logical consequences of what one says.

The statement "I mean this" is like this -

A function of the possibilities of signs is that of un-ambiguity, and also ambiguity. Un-ambiguity is welcomed as useful. But it is not true. The real world is unlimited - so "what I mean" is not limited - "no you don’t understand" is as likely as "yes that’s it" Both are allowable. So in logic the idea of a mistake must be "present". For instance where can 2+2 = 5 be true? Where 2+2=5 is an example of an error. This is true even within binary logic - but what of x + y = z ? True or not?


Secondly what is "I" anyway but a collective? I think it would be good for him to govern- and he has made a mess of it all. "I mean this" - I wish to have pleasure… Out of the grunts of animals was logic formed.

Language is a sub-set.

Language is a sub-set of me!.

(Me!) Is a subset of (Me!,Me!) Etc..

Simply - "I'm here" … walks to somewhere else…

"I think this" ….. etc.

In other words (I)dentity is an event in (me!, me!, me!,)

And so (I)s sub sets are (I),(0)

So (I,I,0)

(I) (I0) (I I 0)

((I) (I0) (I I 0)) ((I) (I0)) ((I0) (I I 0)) ((I) (I I 0)) etc.

Then ~ (not) I …

Then "something like - close to what I think I feel, I'm not sure…"



"Death is X"

---but now---

and … and … and … etc.

Life is X …

Me! Is part of the infinite. So is nothing and so is God etc.

The Diary.

Now lets attempt to make this moment with all its shabbiness real, transcendental and mystical. This moment of feeling unwell, feeling lonely, committed to work and regret of adventures not taken, of missed opportunities of not being famous, and make is mystical, anyone can be so in a cave, but what in a dressing gown, checking the boiling potatoes.

Lets address the noises from the kitchen as if they were a great Beethoven symphony.

Lets address the typing as a moment of ballet - this moment of great worth, greater than those of the imaginations - of what other are doing of what we could be doing - of what we should be doing.

Modernity - shmodernity

What is remarkable is this essay could be written – I would maintain - where ‘painters eye’ was replaced with philosopher’s , novelist’s, musician’s….et everything…eye view

Modernity – shmodernity –from a painters eye view…

The triumph of modernism in painting was the ‘realisation’ of the flatness of the canvas – in America the abstract expressionists and post-painterly abstractionists. In Europe the more restrained non figurative abstraction of Kandinsky, De Stijl et.al. Ad Reinhardt in particular quite clearly saw his ‘Ultimate’ paintings as the culmination of modernity’s pursuit of truth. A particular truth which unlike medevalism saw a physical observation of the material world as the source of truth and knowledge. For instance prior to the renaissance physical understanding of the world was pursued by reading what Aristotle said on the matter, in the aesthetic of the medievalist – and iconographer objects were represented by given symbols – not by observation of nature. The paradigm shift – or what ever – in the plastic arts was predicated on the observation of nature- dissection of the material world to find what was, the discovery of perspective in which objects are now seen as appearance to a human and not divine standpoint. The pursuit of realism in painting was not compromised by the invention of photography, painters had already moved on to exploit the actual application of paint to create analogues of nature. Monet, Cezanne in particular avoided the pseudo science of pointillism to create an art like that of the academies but set in nature – to paraphrase Cezanne. The justification of cubism and for that matter Surrealism lies also in the cliché of realism and was seen as such by its practitioners. That these painters were considered revolutionary only confirmed their modernist credentials. For from giotto onwards the artist had challenged conventional representation of reality in his pursuit of modernity’s truth.

If painting was a flat surface then sculpture was the cube, and the final consideration, that the criteria for what was and was not art did not lie in the object but as a concept. ‘Art after Philosophy’ first published in Studio International in 1969 by Joseph Kosuth is as good a point as any to declare the end of the modernist project in art. In his essay – which is considered as an art work -not only is the object dispensed with but also any other superfluous tendency, in particular the abandonment of aesthetics. ‘Being an artist now means to question the nature of art’ - unfortunately (for art after 1969) this is in no way an expansionist project. The final sentence makes a very reinhardtian statement –‘Art is the definition of art.’ - but this no longer needs any object to support it- The Art and Language ‘gang’ which followed (of which JK was a member) ‘their writings ….still marketed in an art context …continue(ed) to muse on the nature of their musing…in an attempt to discover a structure or a goal…’ ended the project in a deeply ironic and impenetrable set of works.

How post modern art differs is just so - in the inability to be revolutionary, a po-mo artist cannot deconstruct, analyse what is art anymore - in a revolutionary way, all that can be done has been done - all that can be said has been said. It would have been best to stop, but the world didn’t end like this, in physics the myth of creation is a Big Bang, the myth of the end is still being worked out but one of its terminal objects – The Black hole seems significant. As an end of things it marks an event horizon, but far from being black, stuck to this horizon and perpetually frozen is seen the history of all that entered therein.


We should be discussing the end of things.

Post Modernity & Music

Post Modernism and Music

A view of post-modernism is that it represents a break with or collapse of the modern project. The modern project was typified by theory, progress and development in not only science but also in society, industry, economics and the arts. The post-modern then if it defines as so above has deep implications to the idea art. At its most critical it holds that art no longer exists.

What then of art practice within post modernity. It is a self reflexive activity. What subject is this self reflexivity can be based on is either the subjective objects or the objective constructs of modernity. The subjective approach although offering some possible potential only survives by virtue of a modern object of the self, or sub-conscious – consciousness of the individual. Even the individual is a theory. Other that the given moment of being therefore the only practice is that of deconstruction, and here I mean not the original textual method but the process of explaining the nature of the modern object in terms sufficient to see both what they are and their place in a given experience of being subsets and not supersets. Even the idea of individuality can be thus criticised and reduced to a given theory within many, and within what is the case here and now. The real object is the in-expressible moment, the pseudo-objects are just concepts and perceptions of this. Thus a lack of hegemony even within self-subjectivism. Music is noise, complexity is theory to be seen as such. That theories extend beyond our grasp is no more than saying there are limits to what we can – or can be bothered to – count. It is sufficient to bracket these of as complex, and maybe supply some data to prevent any feelings of some hierarchy – meaning – or value in such. Simply put we can attach data to the mountains height and so reduce it to a number. This is done not to establish any hierarchy of meaning or truth but to show how in principal any given objects can be described – and described away. The process of art now becomes the process of describing away art, and other objects which might proffer a challenge to the post-modern idea of no more art, no more history, no more theory as something meaningful, absolute, beyond subjectivity and self-reflexivity. The modern method is used not to further its programme, which is complete, but to prevent the outbreak of it again. No longer primitive the post-modernist uses theory, technique, to confine theory, technique, to allow being as such. What matters is the reduction of theory to simplicity, not the construction of systems. The intellectual practice is not one of forming part of a hierarchy but of self realisation from any hierarchy, even one of subjectivity itself. Even the creation of structure as entertainment brings with it the construction of systems and of theory which has been exhausted. And is anyway prejudicial to being now. Modernity, with its idea of progress has always been preducdicail to being now, has always prevented immanence.

19.7.00 13:00 - 14:00

Do you think life is a process rather than an object. This discovery of being locates ones thought now as significant and not some text or idea which is another object. The only objects now are thoughts and memories. These texts, these ideas are memories. Your being now is only understood now, any other explanation has moved from the nowness towards a conceptual object which is framed as a memory as now. Imagine your address, its only the last detail that defines your location, all the others disappear, they are points on a journey but were once the focus of this now. Though modern means the now it actually implies a belief in a future frame of reference. It’s the impossibility of the now which is remarkable. What is it, the question can not be asked. My thoughts and actions have arrived at this moment and now paint it as a unique event.

How much weaker are those objects outside the process of being now appear, and is their appearance now they make themselves present. That is objects. We can live in the illusion of objects of even ourselves as an object. As a number, a part of a set. This gives us a location, a position, weather we like this or not, yet to the process of now this is an illusion, it holds nothing real. Objects and values go together because then its possible to compare. Its not that an explanation fits or does not fit the world its that they are both sets of objects. Neither is real or perhaps preferably not as real as the now. Comparison with the now shows how different they are, any sign for now must be reversed to meaningfully signify what is not now. What is not now is memory. What is memory but an object brought into focus now, like the visual field. Like the object of analysis, an object of a sensation or a pain. A program with data and a process or function. Is generating time, generating value by comparison, by extension. By saying this is that. The world is saying this is that.

Looking at the objects here they are like exhibits in a museum. There arrangement is arbitrary but they make histories, they make meaning. They make mathematics. Yet the now is not even still is the now an object, the smallest of all possible objects. How can it be compared with something other than now, what is not now is not. Its repeated continually and is continually different otherwise nothing would exist. The mind is an object with form and function but consciousness of being is not. Focus in on the moment of being, is it just sets of desires for something else, something next. What carries this structure, what is it made from, from consciousness. This is an attempt to make an object from the now which is abstract. The reverse of philosophy. It holds no structure or knowledge which is to say meaning, yet it is perfect, an abstract construct from consciousness. It is separate from m objects which extend in meaning and time, and size. Are external objects fabricated from this, it could seem so. Think of a task, making tea, even thinking of a task, what is shifted is the focus onto something else, or is this just a qualitative change in what is now. It’s a qualitative change which cannot be compared. There are only memories which can be compared, a memory of thinking this or doing that. They seem different, or the same. The two objects are not the same as the event which made them, and the act of comparison similarlariy breaks down. As it were I end up with the sum, but no longer hold the numbers which made it up, but need to quickly move between the two, being unable to focus on both. Are these grand external objects mere convenience. These external extended objects are things we cannot let go. And the will is one of these. Are you happy, have you achieved perfection. Only if you see what is the case now can you say yes. And that is all that is the case. Ok some objects move you forward, time for one. But the now would be here anyway. Its what the world is made from, consciousness is awareness of this, unlike making a cup of tea, the movement of the planets. It is not that there needs to be a table, a basis on which to build these extended objects, its that there is a set, a process, it is the being of this in itself, which creates, self creates the world. Moving on from this, it can be another philosophy, set of rules, ideas or other external objects that you can believe in. but its always a set of objects, this is the fundamental being of these, before comparison, or truth is brought in. how many axioms of reality of now are there, one, a few, none. As many as its possible to count or conceive. How many does it take to get the world going as it does, this is quite a few. There is no such thing as otter space, world, geography. This is that. The mechanical process like this idea is just such. Is the same as thinking about thinking but not aware of this. Thinking about thinking is self awareness. You can not replay a thought. This is the most complex thing that there is. A thought. What of the illusion of complexity outside, what about ignorance. What is going on when I compare myself with another. What is going on in the above. Like a game of language an communication with objects. What I am saying it is experience that is significant. I will call a set, any set of this experience. It is that which is just now. Not even given.