Thursday, December 11, 2014

Part Two: Meta-Realities Beyond Either \ Or

The Divisional Aspects of Appearances

Have you noticed that when you read accounts of experiential anomalies, there is a chief characteristic shared by a majority of them in that the event (s) are taken as differentiated from the one who experiences them? What I mean by this is when I first began to explore what lurks behind the scrim of consensus reality, I had to recognize and accept the interconnections all manifestations have with the observer or experiencing of them in that it is not a simple matter of A saw B, and that most writers on the paranormal sidestep or completely ignore the complexities of this relationship between the observer and the observed. One could imagine these as a microcosm of much more global issues than simply this or that isolated event taken at face value and labelled unknown or charismatic.

In previous essays I explored the concept that thought is based on an incomplete base of knowledge and it's nature as a linear process creates issues of ontology in relation to nature which is non linear and as I explored this issue in the last essay, what we consider to be various forms of sentience are not only interconnected but may constitute a singularity as yet unknown that is also expressed as individuated. In other words, either \ or need not apply inasmuch as if we consider all sentience may be individuated while being a singularity, Neither characterization is entirely true.  

We know that the visual simulations of the mind require binocular vision inherent in having two eyes to allow the perception of depth and it is not usually remarked upon that emotions in relation to rationality also form an analogous situation in relation to a binocular system that takes the calculus of thought and attenuates both inner and outer experiential realities.....While this is a receptive situation in relation to the environment that is indirect in it's nature, we directly cannot access these systems from without and while they are a transcription, we take them at face value without question, going so far as to identify them not so much as carriers of information but as the Self. This entire mirroring effect calls into question what is Self and Not Self. What is imaginary and what is material in some nexus of our considerations by comparisons?

Not to be repetitious, but as I thought about it and expressed it in a previous essay, the systemic processes of thought calculate by division when attempting to put it's arms around experiential realities that are contingent in nature that could be surmised as either\ or. Either it's imaginary or it's an objectified causation in relation to anomalies. What if it is both?
Is there another reality beyond Self/ Not Self, or taking another example as I have used in the past, Normal \Paranormal? Both are true and yet not true.
Hopefully I am expressing this concept (while difficult ) in a cogent manner.


This recognition on my part either rightly or wrongly that due to the processes of thought, we have failed to characterize what lies behind it, a proverbial unseen world. Consequently, I began to study Zen and Taoism which are metalogical systems which explore by postulates, the inherent limitations and self referential identifiers that thought creates. 
Lao Tze encapsulates this mismatch very well in a elegant series of interdependant postulates.

"The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be defined is not the unchanging name. Non-existence is called the antecedent of heaven and earth; Existence is the mother of all things. From eternal non-existence, we can see clearly the apparent distinctions. These two are the same in source and become different when manifested."

It is as if thought creates a moat or membrane around what requires a deeper discernment of it's drivers much as if this were all analogous to a computer system that relies on binaries that define in advance of perception, what reality is or is not reality. It either is or is not. This archaic system reminds me of the divisional aspects thought has placed between the body and mind lacking an intermediary, whereas these days we know that the mind informs the body and vice versa as interdependant aspects of an individuation that in of themselves are not a closed system as a calculating computer is.
Of course anyone who attempts to enter this unseen world is usually sent off on bizarre purposeless errands by consensus social scripting that is always a form of reductionist buffering, either monarchical in nature to avoid confusion that blocks discernment or has appealing tribal identifiers that are also false while being self comforting as much so as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
Robert A Wilson aptly described the universe of consensus realities as naive realism. This is very true when it comes to popular material on the "paranormal"
That being said, I often think of the clever metaphor of an outer darkness wherein there is much rancorous dialog or gnashing of teeth, following a sort of social overlay of associative blockades as territorial prerogatives.

Mundus Imaginalis

Images and Imagination in terms of the anomalies that are experienced brings to mind what Ibn Arabi expressed and stressed that an image brings together two sides and unites them as one. A mirror image is both the mirror and the object that it reflects. It is neither the mirror or the object. A dream is both the observer and what is seen, yet it is neither the observer or what is seen. By nature, as a non linear manifestation images bridge are\ are not. Rationality says this is either true or false whereas a dream is simultaneously both true and false or neither true or false.
By extension one can apply this to consensus reality or further, to the nature of perception as a matter of ontology. In light of this relationship we can identify the issue of individual components of a relationship that are analogous to the material nature on the surface of sentience that is somewhat analogous in my mind to an automobile presented to someone who had never experienced one and was neglected in this transaction by not having received an owner's manual. Taking the analogy further when we observe all the forms of sentience on this planetary ecology, if we took apart this means of transport down to each and every component, and laid them out on a garage floor, each individual component is incommensurable to the assembled automobile.
This unseen world of mudus imaginalis perhaps more real than the visible, sensate material realm but consequently is less real than invisible intelligible realm of the information field and it may account for any number of experiential anomalies that are non physical yet are sensory. 
Dualism has no role in this.


  1. Bruce, interesting thoughts.

    However I am troubled by one glaring inconsistency in your proposition that "Either it's imaginary or it's an objectified causation in relation to anomalies. What if it is both? Is there another reality beyond Self/ Not Self, or taking another example as I have used in the past, Normal \Paranormal? Both are true and yet not true."

    It seems to me you've chosen to ignore the Law of Non-contradiction, and yet applied it simultaneously.

    Aristotle's Law of Non-contradiction says A does not equal non-A, in the same time and the same sense.

    This is an absolutely fundamental axiom that establishes the existence of truth, and without which logic becomes impossible.

    You seem to be implying "Either we accept the illogical concept that contradictory views can both be true or we are in error."

    Some refinement of your concept might be in order.

    If truly objective reality does not exist, or is dependent on our perceptions, then any attempt to prove that position is simply ". . . a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  2. Long winded way to realise that we live in a multi dimensional reality.
    I.e. Infinite parallel universes with their own past / future timelines.
    Pretty much spiritually 101, that reality is a hologram and each person has zillions of timelines. Take some LSD' it'll all make sense.

  3. Anon
    I can see your issue if one takes Aristotle at his word in terms of a conceptual model, but I would say that our definition of normal is always in flux, although consensus takes longer to steer. I would also ask, what exactly is paranormal (?), as that definition over time is also subject to flux.
    To my mind language relies on stereotyping experiential perceptions.
    We objectify our referents by mixing descriptions with what is described. At the most fundamental level, all of this is ( to my mind ) more of a social scripting than anything else as thought in of itself is based on incomplete knowledge. There will always be holes in this knowledge and science investigates them by theorising this or that, experimenting, always revising, There will always be the unpredictable in relation to our maths, I am suggesting that perception is a function of images and imaging and that our definition of being conscious is self referential. Our objective reality or objectifying phenomenon while this objectification is imaginary is at the crux of this. What exactly is a ghost? What exactly is a demon, a UFO? Yet these terms are identifiers for an imaginary context. I can respect your point of view but we disagree on this perhaps but my own thoughts resemble more of a set of suspicions rather than beliefs and those are subject to change as well.

  4. Quilan
    Anytime someone suggests I take LSD and "it will all make sense" I have to question either their sincerity or the basis of that statement if I took it seriously. Image and imagination remain as the basis for altering one's perceptions and it's simply more of the same from another context.
    Other realities are always contingent.

  5. As always, you do a wonderful job of leading me to confront the vicissitudes of "thought" by plunging me to it's depths. You, my friend, much like Carl Jung, are an ingenious Trickster. Following our confrontation, when I later come up for air, I know no more, but see more clearly. Thank you.