The Heavy Stuff

This week, over at the new blog called The C Influence, we’ve been discussing `ghosts’  - which motivated me to think a little bit harder and dig into the data a little bit deeper about the `Death State’ of humans - or, more specifically - human consciousness. Because, as The Heavy Stuff readers would be aware of - much is `believed’ about what happens after the death of `our body’; - but, what does the limited data say and what theories may be drawn from the data to project a possible understanding.

Some of the `data’ available for consumption to make theories occurs from what is now referred to as a near death experience (NDE) - indeed, many books exist with a whole variety of `situations’ encountered within the `opening minutes’ of the death state. And, one NDE begins literally within the same phenomenology as one resides in while alive; for example - the `NDExperiencer’ who `floats’ out of their body (space) with full perception while immediately in that space or room. This would cover those NDE’s where the individual is looking down in the emergency room and can see and hear the doctors working to save them - or - look around the room. Often these `spaces with perception’ will float up to the ceiling - or beyond - thru the `house’/`hospital’ and out into the sky.

These `dead spaces with perception’ - don’t experience themselves as ghosts or as themselves - but generally they know that they are in their soul (so to speak). But, before we get into other `dead spaces perceptions’ - it is important to stress that the majority of those who die for a few moments to minutes - experience NOTHING AT ALL - —– as if they haven’t reached even the separation state. And, if you think of this logically - if `attaining different spaces’ is what occurs to the human consciousness at death - one could assume that the immediate state (IN THE BODY BEFORE SEPARATION) would indeed be the majority of cases. IMO.

So, lets set up a timeframe in essence - initially, most `dead spaces without perception’ are in the original body the person has `occupied’ during life; which then proceeds to the `dead space with perception at separation from the original body’ - and - this `new space’ is still within our phenomenology in every regard. And, that the experience of that `perceiving aware space’ has eventually no density and can pass thru walls etc.

The next less connected `death state’ as reported by those having NDE’s would be that the `dead perceiving space’ finds itself in a `tunnel’ which often is also the means of return to life (remember all this data is that of NDE’s) - (it could even be suggested that the `review of life’ reported happens in this phase of space) - nonetheless, it seems this immediate process involves the specific humans life - in a tremendous decompression of time as to being `almost instantaneous’.

However, with my views about phenomenology - it is phenomenology itself - to me - IMO - that is `changing’ at this point for the `dead perceiving space’. The `life review’ nearly tearing the body apart for it’s next adventure - showing that `reliving’ the past seemed `real’ in some regard (often thought of as a judgement on the life). But, I’d argue that the `new perceptions’ and the phenomenology it suggests is available to those who die - `charges’ the `new dead perceiving space’ - with a new phenomenology THAT VERY FEW RETURN FROM with first person views.

However, even at these outer reportable limits of human consciousness, sometimes can trigger what seems to be a `new now with the dead’ (often relatives) - who tell you that your time isn’t up or that you are not to stay in that phenomenology; yet. It is at that point that one’s own intentionality’s seem to be able to mount one last effort to return to the other phenomenology - and the `space’ one occupies there.

And, all of the above is fine and dandy. But, it doesn’t provide `data’ about that new phenomenology that seems evident to some who die and return. Nor is the topic of this discussion as the after effects of NDE to individuals who experience a different based phenomenology (that involves something other than local reality).

And, as THS readers know, I’ve covered one person before who sought such information about `living conditions’ in the afterlife of human consciousness - a seance man named Leslie Flint - and his `data’ (findings of things the dead say) and the `data’ that comes from more modern methods of speaking to the dead such as `Frank’s Box’ - provide yet another possible indication of the `near’ death state is possibly like. I covered both Leslie Flint and Frank’s Box this week on my other blog called `Barf Stew’. http://barfstew.blogspot.com- and, it is from my posts there that I’d like to quote from for the continuation of my examination of the `death state’ issue.

I’d first like to look at `esoteric wisdom’ of an old chinese man that came thru to Mr. Flint:

Facts of our life, which in some ways are very much like the earth, we refer to a condition of life enjoyed chiefly by people who have only recently left your world, and therefore, people of a mentality as such that they have not shed themselves of the material and in consequence have not made much progress and they have found an environment which they themselves have become mentally tuned into, adjusted to by their earthly thoughts.

And, compare that to the words of Aliester Crowley (part of the discussion at The C Influence http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com ) provided by a reader of the blog:

Now this Soul, as an Officer in the High Mass of the Cosmos, taketh on the Vesture of his Office, that is, inhabiteth a Tabernacle of Illusion, a Body and Mind. And this Tabernacle is subject to the Law of Change, for it is complex, and diffuse, reacting to every Stimulus or Impression. If then the Mind be constantly attached to the Body, Death hath not Power to decompose it wholly, but a decaying Shell of the Dead Man, his Mind holding together for a little his Body of Light, haunteth the Earth, seeking (in its Error, that feareth Change) a new Tabernacle in some other Body

Both of these esoteric ideas, to me, say nearly the same thing - IF one goes `over’ to the other side of the dead - the phenomenology becomes similar to Earth but unique to the individual - until eventually an `asendence’ from that phenomenology area happens too - a second death if you will. This is all based on climbing some sort of phenomenology based on your space and knowledge/wisdom.

This is from the same Lesley Tape of the man from China in ancient times:

But when you ask those who have been here for sometime (as you understand time) who have made spiritual progress, they live in an environment so far remote from anything you can imagine. For them it would be increasingly difficult for them to manifest and describe the condition under which they exist.

And, this makes sense - after all - supposedly only about 6% of all people ever born live today - multiply that by the number of `aware consciousnesses that die in the universe’ - and you’d have a pretty crowded place if it wasn’t for `individual space perceptions based on a different phenomenology structure involving knowledge/wisdom’. This is not to suggest that other individuals may not be in similar `spaces’ involved with the same wisdom - which may allow interaction.

So, the perceiving human spirit of one may be released in a new non-local location - but, even that `time is limited’. After that one can only surmise that ones knowledge is one and the same as what knowledge represents and a merging occurs  - or - is reborn as a different space.

Again, from the Flint tape:

For a man who is wise (as you understand it) as soon as he passes through the gates called death, he realises that , that which was wisdom in the past, as you progress becomes ignorance in consequence of the wisdom gained. Wisdom is something which is a state of being which may apply and does apply till such time as you have made progress to another state.

Now, I like to apply my so-called Phillips Phenomenology to the above too - To me, in the PP - our space as alive humans which is NOT -ABLE - TO - BE (because we are a part of the not able to not be — the real) - at death - `switches’ to BEING - ABLE TO NOT BE. And, for a while, for the `ghosts’ that can mean being part of our phenomenology which includes both. But, I think most if not nearly all - human consciousnesses - go to - the new phenomenology space structure which includes `percieving human dead spaces’ being IN the able to not be. To me, dead doppelgangers `appearing’ to living humans is the ultimate example of such.

But, nearly all humans don’t have ONE I - and are most probably - many I’s (all with their attachments - even if in conflict with other of the I’s) - so, the `time after death - when, life there is `human like’ is what most of us are most interested in - not the ultimate objective of being a being. And, Frank’s Box gives some great examples of that :

When your dead your not really dead

It is all just a big scheme to get people to think they are alive still

The worse thing is when dead people think they know everything

You really don’t meet that many interesting dead people

I miss masturbation

Things just don’t taste the same when your dead

If Johnny Depp was here this would be hell!

Additionally, some of this is confirmed via the Leslie Flint Tapes - things such as `you eat’ only in the early days of being dead - that indeed, `preachers’ telling you that there is `more to the world than this death state’ - are present and preaching to you. And, other details like - bricklayers would befriend other bricklayers and that for awhile they would lay bricks or build homes - but that eventually they did less and less with each person. Other details included statements that the `body’ one had in death also eventually diminishes or becomes less important - and that a full body of others was also not a requirement. And, the phenomenology itself was more scattered and less sequential - and got more and more like that as `time’ went on in death.

Perhaps what I like best about all of this is how much sense it makes - which is scary too. As it seems obvious that when dead we would have to give up all our Earthy body attachments to advance - it’s almost like that movie where only some of the people saw color. Everyone would be able to see each others level on the other side - knowing they would be mixed with those of a similar state of being based on the remaining attachments - interests.

Ready for your comments - remember, much more discussion about this topic is over at The C Influence - a blog put together by thinkers and bloggers about the unknown - if you like The Heavy Stuff - you will love The C Influence Blog.

(A slightly edited version of this post appears here -

http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/tci-aed-phillips-ideas-of-what-death.html

One of the `esoteric takeaways’ of the 1960’s and 70’s was the `tree-hugging’ phrase - “Be Here Now”. And, frankly, ultimately, it had a lot of `meanings’ - from the non-attachment of Zen, to a `re-connecting’ with the environment and spirituality, to a `self-centering’ - awareness and meditation connotation - and even more. It was a `hip’ thing to say (or - to say that you were `doing’).

(This would actually be `not-doing’ to those `into’ Carlos Castaneda.)

Anyway, that phrase BHN entered my mind again the other week and this post has been brain bubbling since then - so - let’s see how my mind treats this today. And, as you might expect - my mind generally has been mauling over the whole Phenomenology aspect of the phrase first - both in relation to `science’ and my so called Phillips Phenomenology. (see my categories (labels)  on this page for much more about PP)

The first `science’ thing that comes into my mind - is - of course, the shear impossibility to BE HERE NOW - as `all nows’ pass and have NO duration; and our actual `here’ is moving at an incredible rate of motion. All while being the pinpoint of the time-cone - with that exact balance of the actualized past `picking’ the next actualized space (the now) of the `future’.

Indeed, if we just consider THE REAL SPACE - that one (humans) occupied as matter — the `space’ that `was you’ - an instant ago ———- has truly `moved’ hugely. 

Do you know the reason?

Well, we are `traveling’ on a planet that is `rotating’; we are `traveling’ on a planet that is moving in rotation around a star; and we are `traveling’ as part of that stars rotation around OUR galaxy; and we are `traveling’ as part of the Milky Way’s `movement’ in a particular direction that all local galaxies are moving in. EVERY SECOND. Every Moment. (Indeed, I once added all this movement up and it is a large portion of 1% of the speed of light - every instant. The `here’ of `our last instant’ is `miles’ from the actual location of the `here’ of `this, our current instant’.)

So, that should put to rest in your mind that what we perceive as a permanent local space - is ONLY so - because it (every object within)  ALSO is moving at the same rate. We are matter spiraling thru space points - and have NO claim to a HERE in the human mind sense of the term. Indeed, only the `counting’ of the here’s of our space/matter - provides us with a `now’ or more precisely, a here-now,  at all.

And, before I even get to the `now(ish)’ - lets look at how human consciousness might fit into the words of this BHN phrase.

Certainly, the best connection of human consciousness lies in its own `beingness’.Beingness of the actualized past; beingness of the unactualized past; beingness of the actualized future (now); beingness of the `unactualized’ (referred to as the) future.

A beingness of `our space’ (body/matter) - a beingnessof `our minds’ (sense-knowingness of actualized memory, sense-knowingness of actualized now, sense-knowingness of actualized fantasy) - but most of all - a Beingness of Determinism via self-knowingness.

Indeed, we ARE, - our being IS, - because we KNOW the determinism we experience of space-time-and our consciousness - as only a BEING with a Ontological Knowingness can. BEINGS with ontological knowingness determine the `what is not able to not be’. That is, at least concerning their own perception structures of other SPACES (the not able to be) and other TIMES (the able to not be) - internally or externally.

(But spaces ARE NOTHING (not able to be) without duration (time - able to not be(ness) and time IS NOTHING without space to be (time needs to give a space it’s able to not be(ness) to MAKE - the determined Not Able To Not Be ————— that we call reality.

Finally, lets talk about what science has told humans about their consciousness of `our external senses of now’. First and foremost, research indicates that humans `see’ about 100 or so `frames’ of our external reality each second - YET - our consciousness picks about 8-12 of these and `molds them’ into a flowing reality for perception purposes. (Not only that - reality itself - turns on and turns off - trillions of times in that frame of reference.) I won’t even mention that what we `see’ in our brain is upside-down and the whole process needs to be righted for our senses.

But, even more important than that - at least to me - is that EVERYTHING we see —- all objects ——- are objects from the PAST — as the light that bounces off objects - which allows us to sense them -  has taken (time)(or a counted space)  to reach our retina. Time which MAKES that datum a PAST, a determined past that is UN-alterable as to its location or time of its data being sent by the light bounce.

So, if EVERYTHING outside of us is FROM the past (to us)  and is Now(ish) —- isn’t the best a human can do is - Be Here Nowish?

Hello, and welcome back to The Heavy Stuff - the one blog that is willing to take `positions’ about events that occur within the High Strangeness - that is also `part’ of reality. And, as you can see by the title of today’s post `Why A Tenuous Reality Permits ParaNormal And Fortean Events’ - I will be pushing those outer extremities of my thoughts to cover such an ambitious description today. 

But, as a returning reader of The Heavy Stuff - you know that thought excursions around here are not new - such as my  post asking if Gnomes have a sustainable population. (Using that post to challenge Bigfoot believers into considering a different `take’ on Bigfoot - one of a temporal being - tied into our phenomenology for a segment of spaces.)

In fact, part of this thought excursion today is because of another bloggers efforts to figure out the high strangeness surrounding the Bigfoot issue. In his blog he found out, thru his readership, of many reports of Bigfoots AND Ufo’s occurring virtually simultaneously  - and even a few times had the Bigfoot `inside’ the ufo/craft.

And, because of the sheer number of reports like these - he was beginning to question the `real location-ness’ of all anomalous entities/creatures - even going so far as to surmise ALL of the Bigfoots and UFO’s - lack a reality within our common consensus. (I might be able to think that all Bigfoots are temporary - but - to me UFO’s - crafts - have at least a portion of them being within our common consensus of real object perceptions - IMO.)

But, back to this posts theme.

Indeed, first, I’d really like to `look’ at the word `tenuous’ as it is a seldom used word in today’s society - yet - nearly perfectly describes the `real’ reality we see and experience. You will also find during this post that in a sense, my Phenomenology, the one I will discuss, is similar to the thoughts of Julian Barbour - in that - I describe everything as a space - (even what some would call `a time’ - such as now).

Why is tenuous the perfect description - you say?

First, let us begin with a dictionary meaning for tenuous:

1. not dense 2. not thick 3. having little substance or strength 4. SHAKY (reasons)(on grounds that were)

To me, the above words describe the `space’ of the reality I see`now’ - `instantaneously’ - `as it passes’ - the unchangeable once counted reality of `not-able-to-not-be’ (Phillips Phenomenology) - the real reality that must pass, must run-off. The one that according to Julian Barbour is the `best matching, with the least intrinsic difference’ compared to the previous now instant.  THAT reality is NOT dense, NOT thick, has LITTLE SUBSTANCE, - based on a momentary belief in what this moment brought — the definition of Tenuous.

A reality that is NORMALLY (as opposed to paraNormally) composed of `things’ or `objects’ (or `spaces’ literally) that are `around me’ and `within my vision’. My pen, the computer. Objects whose `light and location’ I see as `almost simulantaneous’  — almost immediately AFTER their NOW occurs. (And it is this `flow time/space’ from their `now-space’  - to our `recieving of their now’ - that actualizes their Not-able-to-be - Space into the unchangable Not-Able-To-Not-Be ———- shared, space of real reality that we all agree upon exists `in front of us’ as it runs off).

Simply put;  no now has duration - it, the now,  is always `on’ to/as the `next now’ - that is provided to our senses via light waves bouncing off the objects around us - literally reflecting their now `into’ a common now - with NO duration - that we sense as simultaneously instantaneously vanishing.

We have no ability to act on the now as it passes other than to project our own now (and our now’s actions and intentions) into the same not-able-to-not-be tenuous quasi-reality - built on the expired nows of spaces that are not us.

However, as you know,  our NORMAL reality - seems anything but tenuous - it SEEMS solid and permanent. But, also, as you know, science KNOWS differently (objects are not solids - and the spaces between atoms of the space that IS US vastly exceeds the tiny kernels of matter that we are ultimately composed of) - and - if you have ever had a ParaNormal event happen to you - you KNOW differently too - that the solidness and the permanence of the reality one calls real - may be less than reliable or solid.

Are you still with me? Hopefully, I’ll try to explain all of this more. But, back to the word tenuous and it’s comparison to the reality actualization moment we view constantly and instantaneously. 

Our viewed NOW is `not dense’ `not thick’ `has little substance or strength’ and is seemingly based on `reasons-built (especially, evidently, in the case of the paraNormal) on shaky ground’.

Obviously, I am not the first to suggest that a `reality moment’ can be built on `belief’ or `reasons’. Even, areality, that moment to moment, is so stable - as to not bring into question its very flimsiness.

But, on rare occasions - that thin, not dense, shaky reality, grounded on shaky reasons - momentarily - `breaks down’ and `allows’ the vision OR experiencing of something that is ALSO real - ALSO part of the momentary reality we can `see’ and experience as real.

Call it a special consensus reality that ties back to `what is special’ about human consciousness - that being - it’s able-to-not-be(ness).

Human consciousness is not tied with the the body-space’s need to be Not-Able-To-Be - it is a `free and separate’ space (that is, again, able to not be, it’s own space). Yes, human consciousness has its own space too that is `present’ as part of our reality mix. Now, 99.999..% of the time, the able-to-not-be `space’, is attending to the body’s Not-able-to-be space.

 But, then enters, as Carlos Casteneda would say - `a cubic centimeter of chance’ - and our tenuous reality shows its diversity.

Often, it seems, that the NON-Normal reality is literally `triggered’ by a set of intentionality’s by humans and their consciousness. So, the `Ghosthunter’ `finds’ evidence of `ghosts’ when the tenuous consensus of normal everyday intentionality’s is replaced by a set of intentionality’s by the human that beckon the `unknown spaces’ present in ALL reality (normally below the `seeing’ or evidence perception threshold).

In the same manner - Bigfoot expeditions - may trigger `the space’ that represents `Bigfoot’s’ - then obtaining objective evidence of howls or even thermal images or EVEN real hair from the temporary creature/entity.

When all this happens, these `spaces’ then become `real spaces’ within the context of the `observers’ of the non-consensus reality space- ie:the bigfoot — that IS INDEED `THERE’ (right then - temporarily).  The tenuousness of our reality we can observe being `pliable’ - and tenuous - even for OUR very space (our body).

And, while Ghosts and Bigfoots may represent part of this tenuousness - to me - there are even more impressive examples of the tenuousness of reality and the seldom mentioned  `restriction’ of the `non-consensus’ reality to only the observers at that moment.

So, you ask, what could be more impressive than evidence of a `temporal entitiy’ than a specific ghost or mythological creature such as the Bigfoot?

Doppelgangers for one.

Now, normally, doppelganger means `ghostly counterpart to a living person’ — these would include the oft mentioned doppelgangers of the immigrants of the 1600’s and 1700’s - where it was often told that a person who was immigrating to America on a ship and who died in the voyage on the ship - would have their `doppelganger’ be seen in the old European village they had left to make their voyage. Great spine-tingle stuff.

However, the epitome of doppelgangers would be the pilots of Eastern Flight 401 of which I’ve blogged about before. Those dead `ghostly’ images of living persons — actually materialized `in the flesh’ - way beyond a `ghostly’ impression. Not only that - they stayed viable for minutes at a time on occasion.  Much like a `real bigfoot’. (It is important to note that when `doubt’ was cast towards the pilot doppelgangers they `vanished instantaneously’ — or - when the doppelgangers `own actions - intentionality’s’ ended.)

The OTHER `tenuousness’ of reality - to me - is even more interesting as it is the `replacement’ of `our common consensus reality’ for `another consensus reality’ – and an example of this was the Mutual Hypnosis (done by Charles Tart in the 1960’s) realities `shared’ by those participants.

Those realities were completely functional and allowed movement and exploration by the participants in a reality they `both saw’ and experienced. (This is also reminiscent of Carlos Castaneda learning to `see’ Don Juan’s `separate reality’.)  Indeed, these OTHER REALS — accessible alone or even with others - point to the obvious `tenuousness’ of the real we all experience. An idea that has some disturbing features and leads to speculation that reality is simply a simulation or even a software simulation.

That said, they all involve one common characteristic WITHIN our fuller common consensus reality that we normally call Real. And that is Singular Human Observers (the space of such). Indeed, the REALITY of our space - includes these other non-ordinary descriptions - it’s just that `normally’ our conscious space isn’t looking for or expecting the miraculous - but, at other times it, our conscious space,  is - and guess what - our tenuous reality - full of intentionality’s and expectations as to what the next moment will bring - becomes super focused on a narrower `now’ than normally.

Eventually, with the human intentionality’s, this `willingness’, the narrowness, can produce an anomalous event. Indeed, it’s my theory that those in the paraNormal news who seem to be able to `call orbs’ or even `call ufos’ — are simply participating in this tenuous `now’ phenomenology structure.

I talk more about this `now’ phenomenology structure in my blog http://whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com- but - as simple as possible - my Phillips Phenomenology is about `different kinds of spaces’ — these Bigfoots, these Ghosts, the Doppelgangers - within this phenomenology are `Able-To-Not-Be’ spaces —-; normally, not able to express or actualize in our common consensus reality.

These `special spaces’ DIFFER from me and you in that OUR space is `Not-Able-To-Be’ spaces. Not-Able-To-Be spaces being the normal reality and observers.

But, even LIVE Not-Able-To-Be spaces - like you and I - can `switch’ our consensus to the `able-to-not-be’ - at least our observing intentionality’s can. This could be similar to a prayer, meditation, or simple focus of attention. And, when that happens:

Our tenuous reality permits the spaces of ParaNormal and Fortean Events - to be seen within our Phenomenology.

Thanks for reading this thought exercise.

Want more? - I’m known as the AnomalyMan on Squidoo - in my archive there - I have this special area of `Heavy Links’ — I know my readers will enjoy this http://www.squidoo.com/AnomalyManArchive#module24423622 or look around here at The Heavy Stuff — on my front page you can see the last 15 posts here www.theheavystuff.com and I have an awesome blogroll for you to check out too.

Your comments are welcome.

Sell Used Books - Ship Your Books For Free And Get Fast Cash Back!

Hello, welcome back to The Heavy Stuff (THS) - thanks for returning or for hitting the link on another website. If you are a returning reader - you may be familiar with my posts about what I call the Phillips Phenomenology - if not - and if you have some free time - here’s my internal link to that material http://theheavystuff.com/?cat=5. And, as I’ve referred to before in these posts - the Phenomenology came to me in `altered states’ in the 1970’s - almost as a ghost writing - as I had never even read any Phenomenology. Later, when I came across Edmund Husserl, I realized that I was writing about were very similar ideas and thoughts. And, as you may know, thoughts about Phenomenology - can be taken to almost any extreme - as is shown by Sartre’s book - Being and Nothingness (to me, the Heaviest book ever written).

But, today, I’d like to keep it all a little more basic and examine instead one of the underlying `ideas’ about `esoteric’ or altered states in general - and - that is the `idea’ that somehow - we - humans - are connected not only to each other (as of course we are thru our DNA) - but - are indeed - connected to the world and indeed the universe in a manner that can be interpreted by our consciousness as almost mystical. Some call it `oneness’ that they experience in these `higher’ states.

And, when the `altered qualitative state’ may be achived or experienced by humans - the best description - in general - is a `feeling’ or actualizing of `oneness’. It is the goal of many `states’ — from meditating states, certain drug states, to states of religious frenzy. And, those that experience `the special states’ often say it is one of the highlight experiences of their lives - often changing their very perceptions about `things’ - and especially about `connectiveness’.

So, what is `this oneness’ `state’ - that is so `connecting’ to so many `altered views of reality’ from the `common consensus’?

Well, what I’m about to suggest - isn’t as esoteric as you may think (or hope)  - as to the `connection’ - the reason - at the very base and basis of Phenomenology - for `all things’ being - connected. And, even better, largely it is `supported’ at least in my opinion - by what is known about Physics (in the broad laymen terms I will use). Are you ready to put on your thinking caps - and - ready for a thought exercise?

Ok, here we go. First, lets think about you and me. Humans. Existing in the `here and now’ - so we are `told’. And, in the macro sense - the most basic form of perception - that is exactly where we are. Here and Now.

BUT, you need to think deeper about this `reality’ you `see’. Because, obviously, what we `see’ is a `light reflection’ off of a surface (like off the surface of the things around you) - that is bounced (meaning taking TIME to reach you)  - to your retina and then interpreted by your brain. My whole point in this finite description is to emphasize that the outside reality of `here and now’ is NOT really - NOW. Let that sink in.

NO, that (what is seen by you) is `what was’ — `what they were’ (those other objects) - fractions of a second IN THE PAST. Yes, it (our visual reality) is from the PAST but IS part of YOUR OWN NOW. ONLY YOU HAVE A `CURRENT NOW’ as part of the reality you `see’ or experience.

Are you still with me?

That is why `the now’ can’t be changed, as it is already - except for your now intentions - `the past’. Let that sink in.

But, don’t feel so lonely as it appears that `Determinism’ might be more probable than `freewill’ - as you may be overthinking it. (You can find more about my thoughts about the freewill and determinism issue in the above link too.) Because, now, I’m about to take you down onto another look at our reality as humans - as - entities - things - in the universe.

Because, as you know, - if you `slowed’ us — humans - down — and looked - at `what we are actually made of’ - we find that - indeed, we are made up of electrons (and all that stuff - I’m gonna keep this simple) and that the atoms are further `made-up’ by other `smaller’ particles. And so on and so on.

But, what our science also knows is that these small components of `all things’ — all mass — all SPACES  (all humans) — ————– ALL of that — has `zillions’ of more `space’ between the particles than the size of the `particles’ themselves. It’s almost as if we are ghosts or `images of a space-mass’ - than a real thing like we `know’ we are in actuality.

For, in fact, `we’ - `any object’ - AT OUR VERY BASIS - are a `space’ - equal to ALL OTHER SPACES (made of the same material too) - all other things - a - connectedness - a `oneness’. The oneness is that we are all `space’ - with a simultaneous `experience of each other’ (remember, it takes our space of reflective now the same amount of `time’ to travel to the other space) — that said, only WE have OUR (real) NOW (that includes intentions too).

I’ve often had the thought and challenged others to tell me how my human `atoms’ are `more aware’ than the `atoms’ of a rock. What/Which atoms are conscious? `Where is the consciousness?’

So, while I feel that Oneness - as spoken about in the great perceptual experiences available to a human - is real - I think `the oneness’ basis is that we are all `SPACES with simultaneous nows’. This is EVEN TRUE as in our relationship with `things’ that are not close - even things in other parts of the universe. WE simultaneously `bounce’ off the rest of all spaces - every moment of counted time. (Or, as I like to say, and Husserl - our `running off’.)

But, there is another level too - much more related to human consciousness that seems to be able to `produce’ this `effect’ of Oneness. And, finally, I have to introduce you to the Phillips Phenomenology to talk about that `esoteric oneness feeling’.

First, almost 100% of our consciousness at ANY given moment will be part of what I call the `Not Able To Not Be’ - which IS the `reality we see’. Indeed, give it some thought — all that we `see’ (which is already the past) HAS TO BE — it has already occurred at it’s `space source’. Remember, everything we see - `takes time’ to reach our eyes and be assimilated into a reality picture.

 We, as humans, are VERY INVOLVED in the `Not Able To Not Be’ — in the `what has to be’ - indeed, it’s OUR REALITY - the determined Not Able To Not Be. Or, the HAS to be of our reality.

It is at this common, lowest, level that human consciousness `feeds’ its brain - its SPACE with data from. What we commonly perceive as the `flow of reality’. And, this `flow’ allows for `little reflection’ upon one’s own space - the only REAL `now’ of the `seen’ Not Able To Not Be.

Indeed, in the Phillips Phenomenology - consciousness can focus on different `levels’ of beingness. The lowest and common one - the Not Able To Not be - or - the next levels. (We spend 99% of our time focused on the Not Able To Not Be because our life and reality seems dependent on it. For example, if we weren’t - we’d crash our car, walk into a wall, etc.)

The next consciousness level `up’ is what I call the `Able-To-Not-Be’ — which ONLY is part of OUR now. Indeed, the `Able-To-Not-Be’ is exactly what the words suggest — it is `our part’ of `our consciousness’ that is ABLE TO NOT BE — the NOT ABLE TO NOT BE of our common reality. It is our `separateness’ - the thing that lets us -step back and be aware (of all the other spaces). A reflective state. A higher state. It is what makes us more than a computer (as we know them normally) or robot.

Those who meditate, go INTO, our (their)  own Able To Not Be - to meditate (the same with drugs or religious mystical states). Indeed, `when’ `there’, one can recognize that immediately it is a different state - it IS indeed, a higher level - a higher state. Indeed, it is the state that CAN access - true higher consciousness - `where’ the `oneness’ state IS.

BUT, in and of itself - it is NOT the oneness state. The ecstasy oneness state described in the literature you may be familiar with via reading esoteric materials. But, it IS close in a sense and IS the way one would reach the oneness state. Let that sink in.

So, `where’ or `what’ is the Oneness state?

The Phillips Phenomenology would suggest that `just beyond’ the consciousness state of Able To Not Be — is the NOT ABLE TO BE. And, yes, THAT is what the `oneness’ state IS. Indeed, it is the state that CAN occur if one abandons (or goes beyond) the already higher Able To Not Be state. It is where ones consciousness literally goes BEYOND the Able To Not Be - and that state - is rarely experienced directly.

Best described - it would be consciousness - CLIMBING up to BE - the NOT ABLE TO BE. The `realization’, if you will, of `the connection’ of EVERYTHING. The `connected’ SPACES we (and all things which are spaces) all have - within - OUR OWN `NOW’. The SPACE where we are real and have intentions.

Finally, the irony of `Oneness’ is that it relates to `the fact’ of our `determinism’ - the fact that OUR SPACE - the singular space that we all have - `occurs ONLY ONCE’ - is counted - and is actually NOT ABLE TO BE. A realization of the despair that confronts `us’ as a Space.

And that, connects us to the Oneness of the very Universe we live within.

My Phenomenology Poem (1976)

Time Watching The Play/Of Which Words Have No Say/What Is Not Able To Not Be-IS/ And, Is With Time - Watching, Ever Watching.

Finally, if you are `into’ the above Phenomenology - I’ve written much more at http://whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com and daily I put `anomaly’ type links at http://www.squidoo.com/AnomalyMan - thanks for checking them out and for your bookmarking my site today.

As with many of the outrageous topics covered in The Heavy Stuff  (THS) - today’s post - `Real-Subjectivity in a Material-Objective World’ - will be the result of  an undetermined exercise of thought. And, as with most of the postings here, is the result of a link THS has on our daily anomalies website (see and visit our short blogroll on the right for great reads) on Squidoo.com.  And, that link - was called - `You Don’t Exist, So Don’t Worry About It’ — here is the link to the 10 minute read which I will summarize too if you don’t read the article. — http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=63575

The basic premise is this - and I will quote the article:

Science and math suggest that we humans don’t exist, (even though there is really no math or science — more illusions!)The advent of quantum mechanics and modern physics increasingly imply that our existence as human beings is a kind of persistent illusion (THS EMPHASIS). We are under the false assumption that we’re people, we only imagine we have bodies and brains, and minds functioning inside those brains

The article goes on to support its viewpoint of the non existence of reality with the standard, well, beyond standard, delve into the Planck(ness) of reality:

To make a long story short, Planck was forced to conclude that matter at its most fundamental level is not continuous, not solid. There are no tiny billiard balls. When you break down an atom, you get an electron, a proton and maybe a neutron. But it turns out these are not the smallest units either. You can break things down further to bosons, quarks, W particles, tachyons and a lot of other shadowy “things” that just sort of wink in and out of existence.Where do things go when they “wink out?” Nowhere! They cease to exist! Then they come back again.So what? you might ask. Well, as you know, the human body is made up from the fundamental elements of nature. We are mostly water, but we also have iron in our blood, calcium in our bones, and such. But each of those substances are made up of individual atoms, which in turn are made up of ghostly bits of nothing that just sort of come and go, in and out of reality.Scientists call this blinking process “quantum fluctuation.”So when the elements of your body fluctuate, so does your body, and so do you! So does you brain and the chemicals in your brain! In fact, you may be in a state of nothingness more often than you are in a state of somethingnessFinally, the real issue - Being and Nothingness. Which, as followers of the deepest esoteric thought know, is the title of one of Sartre’s heaviest books about phenomenology and values — literally the stuff that became Existentialism. Indeed, the writer doesn’t seem to understand that when the physics breaks-down at the literal crux of material presence in the world — IS where phenomenology knowledge prevails.Subjectivity and existence (of an observer) are literally side products of the evolution of the phenomenology of the material world. (YES, there is a phenomenology of the subjective world too.) Indeed, here’s how Sartre describes Being-in-itself:

“Non-conscious Being. It is the Being of the phenomena and overflows the knowledge we have of it. It is a plenitude, and strictly speaking we can say of it only that it is.”

Being and Nothingness, Time-Space and Awareness, Subjectivity and Objectivity, Memory and Fantasy – these are the subject matter of Phenomenology.

One might think that existence equals awareness of existence. But, being intellectually honest, a THING could exist without self-awareness. A space, would not NEED the existence of consciousness. Space would not need time. Indeed, in Planck(ness) level - space doesn’t (evidently) need even existence - to exist.

Space doesn’t need existence - to continue.

To be a `NEW’ space. Without Existence. (Of common reality.)

So, back to the Phillips Phenomenology - where `Space’ (any matter) is Not-Able-To-Be. Where the overriding characteristic of defining a `space’ is the attribute that IT DOESN’T EXIST. Or more appropriately, exists as a NOT ABLE TO BE. This is the characteristic that humans `see’ all around them; the very characteristic of our very physical bodies. Indeed, at the Planck level our bodies are NOT ABLE TO BE. That defines our space-beingness.

But, NOT our total beingness. As humans. As singular observers of other Not-able-to-be’s; such as the computer, our chair, or our spouse. NO, our total beingness has other chacteristics that are needed within a real phenomenology that explains human consciousness.

The one thing the author had right is that `subjectivity ISN”T found in the objective’ And, as the author says, the FACT IS that the `objective disappears from real(ity)’. For a duration of ones space - ones objectiveness vanishes.

The Phillips Phenomenology suggests that it vanishes into the `other’ part of the same space planck. That while this space vanishes - it becomes - (in the same space) - ABLE-TO-NOT-BE. It is being in this `suspended space-state’ that provides the bridge to the next `real existence of this space’. The able-to-not-be portion of space - being the subjective real counterpart - to the actual Not able to be.

Able-to-not-be

At this point, it might be easy to think of the able-to-not-be as Time, or perhaps where consciousness might BE. Afterall, something that wasn’t a space, was able to not be a space - would naturally be time. And, consciousness, the mind, wants to be viewed as this separate entity from the body - our space. So, again, at some level of understanding - these `things’ are able-to-not-be. BUT, what THS wants this post to be about is REAL SUBJECTIVITY - and - in two previous posts THS has touched upon this subject.

REAL SUBJECTIVITY

The two examples THS has provided of REAL Subjectivity are The Ghosts of Eastern Flight 401 http://theheavystuff.com/?p=17 and the mutual hypnosis experiments carried out by Dr. Tart.  http://theheavystuff.com/?p=32. To briefly review, the Ghosts of Flight 401 were the doppelgangers of  the pilots that appeared on flights that re-used materials from the crashed flight. And, in Dr. Tart’ research, the mutual hypnosis participants entered into a fully viable mutual reality with `things’ structure and (time for) intentionallies and `new revealed landscape’.

What THS is proposing is that Doppelgangers represent that ultimate expression of a spaces Able-to-not-be(ness) ——– the doppelgangers are real spaces - actualizing the able-to-not-be virtual reality. Those representations seen on the planes WERE the pilots and their best attempt to be `real’ within our common NOT able to be consensus. They represented real subjectivity (and indeed seemed not to fit totally in with others who observed them) - an incredible rip in the ontological structure for a few precious moments of experience.

Likewise, the `real reality’ that those shared while under hypnosis had all the characteristics needed to be understood as a real place — a place with real subjectivity and seeming objectivity. A progression from the able-to-not-be level of consciousness, via hypnosis, and jumping to an internal NOT able to be space. At that moment, lending objectivity to a subjective world - with real subjectivity of a conscious being like a human.

Now, doesn’t this `real-subjectivity’ realm sound familiar? Could this be where `duplicate’ bodies `go’ to be abducted - and why the experience is so real? Since it (the able to not be) is simply a counterpart of our same space (Not able to be) - things would `have existence’ there too.

Suddenly, looking at the world’s paranormal thru the prism of phenomenology, rather than trying to `understand’ it with physics - makes sense. `Existence’ is tied with more than one kind of space and so is `Real’ and `Consciousness’.

So, guess what — You do exist and there is reason to be concerned. The exact opposite of the title of the article that got this article written.

Thanks for reading. Leave a comment and tell a friend about THS.

Hello fellow mind surfers looking to consume your daily dose of brain food from the internet. As The Heavy Stuff (THS) has told you before, THS gets it’s inspiration often from the websites you find on our blogroll. One example of the brain food in 2008 has been anomalist.com’s consistent linking to a new blog which often delves into the quagmire of `reality talk’ - and - this is just an example link of the material of this excellent thinker Bruce Duensing http://materialintangible.blogspot.com/2008/04/part-two-quantum-subjectivity-and.html#links

And now you know that it can make your eyes glaze over too - sometimes even encountering an article title like Part Two: Quantum Subjectivity and The Holographic Model. can make the brain freeze.

It is also true as you know that anomalist.com (and others) take a chance with this blogs more esoteric posts - especially posts which include phenomenology thoughts. So, when THS felt it was time to wade once again into the murky subjective waters of `experiencing reality’ - whether by our eyesight - or with `objective recording devices’ such as video cameras and other technology - THS wanted to show via Bruce’s writing just how nebulous it all can be.

The Heavy Stuff also feels that our phenomenology - avoids alot of the unknown physics of speculation - and ultimately is a simpler explanation for the basic description that simulates our real reality that we experience. Simulates you ask? If you look at THS’s blog postings recently - (upper right corner of front page of this website) - you can read more about how THS feels that reality is simulated instantaneously, continuously.

But, today’s mind excursion is to a subject we have covered before `Paranormal Videos - Dubious or Amazing’ — this was the link http://theheavystuff.com/?p=22.

And, if you read THS’s posting, one of the main points was about the `seeming increase’ in videos about all things paranormal - which THS felt was largely a matter of numbers. More folks with more cameras and more security cameras. Indeed, those with an interest in the paranormal should EXPECT there would be more. And, there will be even more in the future. Perhaps so many more as to challenge our very notions about reality.

THS also makes the point in the posting that the sheer quantity of `impossible’ videos (of ghosts, ufo’s) could make the impossible seem less miraculous - especially in light of video and computer capabilities of the 2000’s. Since anything can be faked; who’s to say that an unfaked video is special ———- nobody. But, again, as THS makes clear in the post - the paranormal (ghosts, ufo’s) have been captured `on devices’ long before the great advances in graphic capabilities.

But, back to the title of this posting - and looking at it thru the phenomenology THS has been describing over the past year to our dear readers. ` Could `camera’s’ be Capturing or Actualizing - a Virtual Reality?

Remember, THS phenomenology, the Phillips Phenomenology, describes `space’ as Not-able-to-be and `time’ as Able-to-Not-be. More specifically, the phenomenology says that both are really descriptions of SPACE. (Or, types of space(s)).

Science tells us today that `space’ - empty space - the kind without matter (remember our universe averages one atom per cubic yard) is `filled with virtual particals’. Virtual particles that don’t actualize. Virtual particles that don’t actualize in places with no matter. (That said, virtual particles exist and surround matter too.)

Virtual particles that are not observed and don’t actualize in places with no matter. Does that describe nothingness?

If you are familiar with phenomenology - perhaps one of the greatest issues is Being and Nothingness. Most phenomenologists would like to infuse space with Beingness - giving Beingness to matter. Nothingness, in this case, would be Everything Not Now. Only now would be infused with realness; with Being, to most phenomenology ideas.

Others humans who play with words would look at the reality issue as subjectivity or objectivity. Others would look at reality as a divide between what is known and what is unknown. Others as space - time. Or Ying-Yang. You get the idea, right? Two `phases’.

But, THS asks you — doesn’t Able-to-Not-be — something that ISN’T (this) space — describe TIME? And, if you are a follower of THS phenomenology, that time and space — the able to not be and the not able to be — combine — to form our reality of not-able-to-not-be?

Our completely determined reality of Not-Able-To-Not-Be. Our moment to moment, real.

And, that dear readers, brings us back to HOW the paranormal can gain a foothold in our observable reality. WHAT cameras may be capturing or actualizing when `filming’ recording - the paranormal.

First, by definition, the paranormal isn’t Normal. Isn’t of things that exist on a continuing ontological basis with matter. And, by this very definition ———– exist of things that ARE able-to-not-be.

Ghosts are able-to-not-be. That is THEIR space. Their space is `able-to-not-be’. —- And, folks, — the able to not be is part of our real reality. Virtual reality can easily be described as a `able-to-not-be’ reality - right? (Armchair physicists gather close.)

But, our HUMAN perception, generally, isn’t focused on the virtual reality. Humans do much `better’ (getting money, having friends, doing tasks) focusing on the `real’ - the real `things with spaces’ around us. NOT on the `things’ less dependent on that phase of space. Things that may exist virtually. Things that may `be’ able to not be - part of our common consensus observational reality. Beyond our sight expectations.

But, cameras are not human consciousness. And cameras, or other devices which can monitor `reality’, - thru their self-contained observation — could be capturing parts of reality below the threshold of common consensus. Or, even actualized parts of reality below the threshold of common human consensus. (Actualized in the sense of recording.)

Isn’t it possible that `ghosts live’ in the able-to-not-be?

Could `orbs’ be tulpas of dead humans? A manifestation of the able-to-not-be — on a temporary basis.

Could ghosts be full or partial orbs?

Don’t doppelgangers define able-to-not-be?

Don’t Bigfoot creatures seem to be in the able-to-not-be?

Wouldn’t the future and the past be in the able-to-not-be? (Actually the past would be in the Not-able-to-not-be.) (And if the past AND the future is in the able-to-not-be; that would allow past dead spirits of humans to be capable of making it to the present via the `future’.)

Finally, with that thought in mind — couldn’t the able-to-not-be have gradients? With some `things’ or `events’ more likely than other `things’ or `events’? Perhaps some `things’ are more real than others in the able-to-not-be. (Just like on this side?)

Could, for example, Ufo’s be becoming `more real’?

Perhaps the paranormal `thing’ can be generated from the `human end’ of thought. Sort of like a sweeping light of consciousness lighting up the filaments of the able-to-not-be. Lighting up the filaments of the possible. Bringing the unknown into the known. Bringing virtual to real. But, perhaps, only a camera is needed as the observing tool; and, not human consciousness.

Or, perhaps the ` paranormal thing  on video’ is NOT generated by humans. Perhaps the `things’ of the able-to-not-be `space’ have their own basis of existence. One not dependent upon our structure in the Not able to be. But a reality that `overlaps’ ours. One that has intentionality’s on THAT side. Over in the able-to-not-be.

Please visit THS’s squidoo site at www.squidoo.com/anomalyman for more thought provoking links.

The Heavy Stuff (THS) wants to welcome back the readers of part 1 of this post — stats show that over 3,000 unique visitors have read that posting - (thanks to about.com, dailygrail.com, crystalinks.com and anomalist.com and others) and, due to the subject matter, it would be advisible to do so before continuing with this post if you haven’t had the chance. Here’s that link http://theheavystuff.com/?p=56.

Of course, that `subject matter’ is the 1970’s college dorm late night favorite subject  of `what is reality’? Yes, younger readers,  before the Matrix - the very structure of reality was something the `college heads’ thought discussion worthy. Perhaps is was those higher times that allowed a clearer seeing of the thin vail of reality - the illusion refered to by the mystics and shaman of yester ages and days gone by.

And, in part one - THS - covered the `normal’ Matrixlike idea that `we’ (yes, you and I) and everything else — was simply the result of a running software program made by at least one civilization. In essence, an artifical being within an artificial reality.

In the first post, it was perhaps the logic of the `low threshold’ that was the most worrisome aspect of IF we are a simulation. Afterall, if only ONE civilization EVER ——— EVER — produced and ran (these are most important words)  a `reality simulation software - in which ‘the spaces within the program could have self-awareness‘ ————– THEN — the `real odds’ of us (you and me) being real - in the manner WE think of real —– may be quite small. And, that the odds we ARE a simulation — quite large. Indeed, in part one - THS threw out some numbers to just form an opinion as to what the odds might actually be - or - to set you thinking about the hard numbers of the situation.

BUT, a closer look might dramatically INCREASE those odds  - that is - increase the odds that  we are real. (Isn’t that nice?)

After all,  being realistic, `how many’ computer simulations are `left on’ to run their course ———— for 13.7 billion years? (Makes THS wonder what the longest running simulation software is with mankind?) And, the need to upkeep a program in the running state by any sustained entity for those 13.7 billion years? Can any entity exist with such a purpose? Or, even having the interest to see what a computer program would produce after 13.7 billion years?

[Now, obviously, a huge caveot, what we think of as`time’ may literally be an illusion that our scientists can’t quantify in a meaningful way as part of the very software - so deception is possible to the self aware spaces like you and everyone else.]

When one thinks of this needed structure  to run a program for 13 billion years in THAT MANNER — the odds certainly seem to swing IN OUR FAVOR  (that we are real in the manner we like to think of ourselves as being, (or are we?)) — at least to THS. INDEED, THS boldly predicts that ————- the ratio of advanced software programs - that simulate a reality –  and, that are left `on’ for over 13 billion years ————is indeed —- LESS than the number of civilizations with self-aware entities. This fact bringing our odds at being real to better than 50/50 in all probability.

Isn’t is nice to think of the odds, our odds, in this more realistic way? Using thought logic alone to verify facts that indicate that  we probably ARE real? Indeed, do you want one more twist to help that logic?

How about the fact that for us to view our reality as 13.7 billion years old — the entities that would have to have made the software - would have had to been of and from 2nd generation stars to probably have advanced life?  Second generation stars were billions of years after the big bang.

Therefore, they, the software makers, would have had to have been here before 13.7 billion years to have US (you and I) `running as software’ that long — and since NO intelligent life would be setting up software prior to the big bang ———– we MUST be real. As we like to think of real.

Somehow, THS is not surprised. LOL.

So, that leaves us with the other choice - a Reality that must be Simulated. Simulated Instantaneously. Simulated instantaneously continuously via some actualization process. The science of today says it is actualized thru quantum mechanics. (Some like to think in a holographic manner with this question.) Frankly, the idea that reality is simulated, continuously,  is just as daunting and amazing.

BUT, is the actualization of reality really more a `process of phenomenology’ - than -  of physical matter going from future to present to past? Isn’t reality, really, more a `description of spaces’ than anything else? A description of matter.

Get ready to put on your thinking caps.

Could the very three IDEAS/descriptions  of `spaces’ — `real’ — and, `consciousness’ - be as involved in `producing a real’ for a person (or any conscious space) – as physics - or, at least, about equally so?

For example.

What if the `space’ for an individual, literally each space - `had two places or phases’ — one phase/place being ———- NOW (the physical matter, atoms, of a space) ——- and another phase/place of the same space has/being a PAST ( THIS is what is `shown’ (into reality) as light plays off the `body’ of the space - this space has no matter and is only a representation) too.

`Other’ persons — never see our NOW and we never see theirs. We see only their `immediate past’, literally, a ` visual representation’ of their now and the next `phase’ of their space.

What we SEE is the - reality Simulated - INTO one space. AS one space.

All those spaces (this includes books, people, planes, etc) `still have’ their  `embedded’ physical characteristics. The atoms still have spin, the person is moving from place A to B - and they both exist on a macrolevel too where they are part of a planetary system moving thru the universe at a small fraction of the speed of light.

But, it all is Simulated — within an instant - and with other spaces visual representations, as being a `real’ determined `moment of space/time’. The literal light (or time) interpretation of our space location - as shown to `others’.

Note the nebulousness and movement of the `real thread’ in all this phenomenology of one’s space.

First, your space - any location of space - is the first location of `real’. Your space, your atoms and all that your matter brings with it in regards to qualities of physics — still has for that angstrom Planck of time — an overriding characteristic. That overriding characteristic IS those very qualities of physics - in relation to all other spaces- MAKING (actualizing) that very infinite sliver of reality, for you, becoming, - NOT ABLE TO BE.  Not able to be anywhere, or anywhen, else. Except at that actualized duration of virtual particles.

Not able to be ——– becomes —— makes —- (actualizes) - that spaces now. The only `space’ for that space. The most perfect description of that space. (This is referred to by Juilian Barbour as the best matching space to the previous one with the least intrinsic difference.) That space and its relationships are counted-experienced-lived-actualized. That space only exists within the `physical matter’ that one instant. The very limitation of `time’ to bring it - the space - to literally `being’ a  4 dimensional object. During actualization. During the `first phase’ of that space — where the `real’ is centered.

The very `thing’ which brought about the `counting’ `actualization’ - light - IS located - in a sense — at the `back’ of that space; as IT `fades into’ THE PAST. —- BUT, this ` outside light’ - bringing with it the simultaneously `showings’ of all equally `spaced’ `spaces-objects’ riding the light wave. In a nutshell, bringing our visual reality into our potential for consciousness to interpret our visuals. (Other objects.)

Time for those thinking caps again.

ALL those representations, including our own space representation, — when in display, have a new overriding characteristic —- all those representations are ABLE TO NOT BE.  (Separate from our original space as it has now been struck by and become light.)

Yes, `the real’ transfers in a sense out to our outside reality - from our body. Our space transfers our real into this `common space’ of now - via the light reflection on our matter.

Obviously, our matter is NOT included in our `image’ of our space to others. The `space’ which represents identically that original space - is the space of ABLE TO NOT BE.  (Many many folks want to say that this is time — time —- not realizing that `time’ is a particular `space’ counted once.)

As you can see — we already seem to have `two reals’ — our real space (matter) and our identical representation of that same space in it’s next phase of ontology.

So, our Now, (yes, your now too) has a `foothold’ in two `reals’ - all within one space. Our own space. Our own phenomenology of our space/matter.

But, what is even more impressive — is that those collective spaces — all of the spaces we see within our reality — go on to form ` that space’ — the one that is literally = to our collective ABLE TO NOT BE’s.

The space we commonly think of as our reality.

That - is `the space’ - the counting - the collective actualization of our `determined reality’ that we all experience. Our collective NOT ABLE TO NOT BE. The collective spaces we all brought as spaces to that one `moment-space duration’.

Collectively, all spaces transfer their real characteristics to the `final’ collective real space - for counting. Placement. Realness. A third place where real can be said to be contained.

Time watching the play

of which words

have no say.

What is not able to not be

IS

And, is, with time, watching, ever watching.

R. Phillips - 1970’s

The dichotomy is that the final `resting’ of real - and one with a direct connection to our space which has real freedom - is within our real determined reality where everyTHING has to BE —- not able to not be.

After all, if the present could be changed, would it be real? Could it be lived without determination?

For more on THS’s phenomenology - visit - www.whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com. Thanks for visiting - please visit our blogroll and information links to show your support. THS welcomes comments.

The Empty Space of Bootes Void

Hello fans of The Heavy Stuff (THS) thanks for returning for a dose of speculations about the reality structure - speculations on realities greatest mysteries. Even mysteries such as freewill and determinism — time travel — consciousness — and the possibilitiy of an `afterlife’ for entities with consciousness. Entities like you, yourself. Possibilities that may depend on the actual workings of the reality structure itself - the phenomenology of the structure of actualization.

Anyhow, as you know, this blog often talks about links  posted daily on our anomalies blog on Squidoo.com. Recently, we moved a science link from the anomalies lens on www.Squidoo.com/anomalyman  to our `best of 2006 & 2007′ anomalies website at www.squidoo.com/anomalyman2006 about an area of the observable universe that is the `emptiest’ void that we can observe from Earth.

The `empty space’ is called Bootes Void and represents about 2% of the observable universe from our viewpoint. The article goes on at great length (and we once again encourage you to hit the link to find the original article - you will like the Anomalies of 2006/2007) to indicate just `how empty’ this `empty space’ is — giving  great `facts’ —  for example; that if the Earth was in the area of the Bootes Void that earthling scientists “wouldn’t have known of another galaxy” -  other than ours - until the 1960’s. Amazing.

The article also gives other `facts’ about the `amount’ of `material’ in the actual universe — which it turns out is about an average of one atom per cubic meter of `space’. THS has read this figure before in other articles and it gives one pause as to just how rare REAL SPACE with atoms actually is. You know, THINGS, LIKE YOU AND ME. It turns out that WE are Rare spaces. Rare Real Space.  Amazing, even, `Living Space’.

All this talk in the article  set me thinking upon my favorite subject - phenomenology. Phenomenology deals with fundamentals like `spaces’ and `times’. Phenomenology deals with fundamentals like `present’ `past’ and `future’ — all of which it turns out - apply to things like us - rare spaces in the universe. Spaces that actually have space . At least space as humans usually consider it. And, that perhaps these rare spaces even have `time’. (Or, something liketime.)

Indeed, perhaps it’s best to begin with at least one definition of `the past’ by one of the world’s best thinkers about such subject matter - Sartre. To quote Sartre from page 280 of Being And Nothingness
 
      “The `this’ does not appear as a present which later will have to become past and which before that was future…. The moment I perceive it already exists in the three temporal dimensions” 

And, that is what The Heavy Stuff would like to speculate about some more - our perception - and its relation to space and to time -  and  even our relationship to reality. But, The Heavy Stuff would like to say a few more words about that one atom per cubic yard of `space’ — remember how `empty’ that atom is?

Remember, science tells us that the `space’ (distance) between sub-atomic particles is immense. Literally. So, that `occupied space’ of one atom per cubic yard is actually even more `empty’ of `real mass’ - real space. As the reader of The Heavy Stuff probably knows, sciences  current assumption is that there is some sort of  `kernel’ of real space at the core of the subatomic divisions.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

And, what does science say `fills’ the rest of this `empty space’ – THE ANSWER IS (we are told) is that virtual particles fill that space - `virtual spaces; form the broth of reality.

And, what do we know about OUR perceiving space that we `call’ our own consciousness — well, we know from the study of physics that everything we see represented in the now actually has already occurred and IS in the determined past -  that is - to our own perceiving `now’ eyes. The fact is - light simply `takes time’ (obviously, this duration is a representation of the `running off’ space) to reach us - from everything - even the light reflecting from our own body parts. Indeed, the only `thing’ that we can truly refer to as present is our own `now’ of perception.

(Now, this is not a regress into infinity. The `other spaces’ we see and are in close `space association with’ :ie: the clock on the wall, one’s spouse, the computer, your rock collection – are not only REAL in every sense of the word – just like we are real – THEY ARE THE ONLY SPACES THAT GIVE US LOCAL location and DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT – which is key to the feeling of realness at the human level. The other spaces provide our freewill TO US.)

Think about it.

The things we see - other people and objects - have predetermined spaces to offer for our perception - in exactly pre-determined points of space — and all these spaces have reference to each other - in addition to a relation with our perception of their space. Those spaces, to THS, have the overriding characteristic of being NOT ABLE TO BE -  they are unchangeable as they arrive at our perception. They are the `run-off’ of their actual `now’ spaces that they experience and are experiencing.

Yes,  IT IS TRUE, `future’ `now’s’ to us — determined future now’s — are also part of our `real present’  — we just can’t see them the `split moment’ into the future that they occupy already. Just before they `run off’ the phenomena source. The space.

Remember the Sartre quote above - `spaces’ ARRIVE with a past, a present, and a future, — only by thinking of spaces as a phase transition – gets one on-track to right thinking about this phenomenology. Specifically, The Heavy Stuff’s phenomenology positions that the Not-able-to-be transcends into an Able-to-not-be ——- literally, the space transforming into a timelike space that represents the spaces location `in reality’ (our own light reflection) — in an `area of common able-to-not-be spaces’ — that `when they combine by the FACT that real spaces are having real proximity’ CREATES A `TIMELINE’ OF NOT-ABLE-TO-NOT-BE’S. (Really, it’s a `space-line’.) What we all commonly think of as reality.

So, `Spaces’ first characteristic is having no beingness (ie; space’s defining attribute being Not able to be. Then, Space’s second characteristic is it’s runoff representation – the able to not be (part) of space. This is a (the) part of space that is `seen’ by consciousness’s within reality (as we have NO access to the real space of an object, seeing only the runoff light).

The last characteristic of space is that the able-to-not-be `runs off’ on `other spaces run off’ forming our real itself. (In a sense, reality is two steps from `the real now’ we as a space possess).

At this point, I’d like to draw the attention of readers of The Heavy Stuff to the nebulousness of `real’. IF the only reality that has freewill , the real real that is `with us’ only so to speak – that certainly elevates our thoughts as something directly connected to REAL. To real freewill space. Even if `thoughts’ are a `different’ type of space – they have that as an undeniable unique attribute.

Whereas, the space of our `runoff’ – being `one step beyond’ the `original space’ (even if being identical, simply having all the coordinates the `real one’ lacked) may not have that tangible connection that mind has with the real space we represent. Indeed, our runoff space – can’t move, can’t change, can’t do anything. Yet, it is our human spaces representation to reality itself. Can `things’ be this quirky? Apparently.

Then, finally, we see the moment, the space, and it is not the same as the not able to be representation we already are. The not able to not be vanishes behind a new runoff of not able to be representing real.  For more understanding of THS’s phenomenology go to www.whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com  - it’s at this blog that you can answer the fantastic question, What can be changed — the future, the past, the now, nothing, or everything. Quite a question, don’t you think?

When one looks at a reality structure that may be this basic in description – the possibility that `other types of spaces’ and `other types of real’s’ may indeed exist  - and may be perceivable – seems more plausible.  After all, we humans seem to be able to distinguish these `space phases’.

As readers of The Heavy Stuff know from previous posts, THS speculates that when a human dies (or any consciousness dies) it’s mind-space continues to occur – continues to have some representation in the able to not be (of spaces) (virtual spaces). On occasion, these not able to be `spaces’ could even `express’ (actualize) as a duration themselves.

Interestingly, these virtual spaces, the able to not be’s, (the times outside of spaces) present as a space when they occur - and this could be the very definition of anomalous phenomena. Able to not be’s expressing as not able to be’s.

These `virtual spaces’ could even be human consciousness spaces called tulpas – created by living humans (see several of my posts on Tulpas on this site, or find all my posts on www.squidoo.com/theheavystuff )———– or —— orbs — very small representations of `spaces’ NOT made by living humans – but, possibly representing a portion of one’s consciousness after death.

Or, the most dramatic of all doppelganger’s (while alive) or the full appearance of a `Ghost’ (when dead)  (the ultimate representation of this being the pilots of eastern flight 401). All of these phenomena represent an aspect of `real space’ — phenomena with origins in the able to not be space of reality.

NOTE however, these are not spaces with a connection of a REAL not able to be space within reality represented by atoms.  Which could be why all these etheral, esoteric, fleeting phenomena — don’t last within reality.

Has all this been heavy enough for you? THS would love to read your comments - nothing is too far out when commenting about phenomena. Or empty space.

When one is reading a website that has as its positioning statement references to `Reality’ - one may already be treading on a slippery slope - nevertheless, The Heavy Stuff thanks you - and wants you to know you are not alone. While recently posts have been somewhat rare here - in the summer when posts were at two a month or so - The Heavy Stuff actually showed up in the Alexa numbers (and still shows but is off due to infrequent posts) — some summer months had over 10,000 unique visitors — so, thank you again. And, thanks to the various great websites that post many of the writings from here and keep them in your archives. I also appreciate the support of those of a `like mind’ who like reading about phenomenology and its concepts.

One of the concepts related to ontology is the idea of `finding real’ - the real real. The flowing `note’ of a series of `notes’ in a song. The `moment’ of videotaping some paranormal event - thereby proving that IT was in the real with us. We KNOW we `reside’ in the real. It is one of the most compelling things about the experienced reality structure we all accept. When WE are in the presence of another person or thing - with our eyes open - we never question the authenticity of the shared experience of space and being in the same area of `space’.

But, this idea of real has always had a `rub‘ - something that doesn’t quite explain all events - especially those loosely described as `paranormal’. Indeed, one of the fondest questions the writer of The Heavy Stuff ever asked in a public setting occurred about 31-33 years ago (some hazy times then, right?) - the occasion was on a college campus in the Midwest. The Heavy Stuff decided to ask one of the hottest `Reality’ writers of the time - a `reality’ question.

At that time, The Heavy Stuff’s writer had been spontaneously writing phenomenology concepts independently without ever having encountered such writing before — and had been taking in very `heavy’ writers of the day (and yesteryear) including Castaneda, Watts, Tart, and the author about to be asked this question:

Could you please compare for me the `reality or realness’ of the controlled lucid dreamstates of Carlos Castaneda - compared - to the `subjective mutual realities’ that seemed to be shared in the Mutual Hypnosis of Charles Tart?

Joseph Chilton Pearce just starred at The Heavy Stuff’s face - but - calmly gave the questioner a compliment for the detail requested - and then - proceeded to give pretty much a non understandable response (that is not to say that the answer wasn’t of value). At the time of this encounter, Mr. Pearce was touring in support of either Crack In The Cosmic Egg - Or the follow up - Exploring the Crack In the Cosmic Egg = both books still worth a read.

But, it occurs to The Heavy Stuff that some readers of these posts may not be aware of the `details’ of both of the paranormal `realities’ that were being asked about in the above question. Specifically, first, let’s look at the `subjective mutual reality’ experienced under Tart’s Mutual Hypnosis sessions. Indeed, much of the material about to be quoted comes from Tart’s 589 page book `Altered States of Consciousness’ - this material is found over pages 297-315 and featured a review of two individuals who on three occasions entered what seems to be a `real’ reality. You decide.

The Heavy Stuff will not go into the method used, but, suffice it to say that each participant was hypnotising the other and `taking them deeper’ often `taking them with them deeper’ and often `ending up in a subjective reality of mutual consensus’. Meaning - they `saw’ the same phenomena and described the `location’ (afterwards, in post hypno session) as having the same `events’ which included full interaction with each other in this separate reality. These mutual realities included when they were asked to `take the other one into a dream’ - and - when they simply were taking each other deeper in the hypnotic state (without being told any dream cue).

In one of the Mutual Hypnosis sessions a person who had entered the room `became’ hypnotised and also `joined’ the mutual `shared reality’ of the test subjects — she literally, could `see’ them `ahead’ of her. Of interest is that the original test subjects (especially the male) strongly disliked the `extra’ persons presence and also disliked `contact’ by Tart `from the outside’ — when he tried to control the level each subject was experiencing.

The Heavy Stuff asks still — is that reality - `real’? Does, real have degrees? Are the `spaces’ (including the human consciousnesses) within that reality - real? Does a `shared space’ define REAL? Just where ARE these spaces `normally’? Are they the part of Space that The Heavy Stuff implies may be more timelike - more having the able-to-not-be `actualizer’ than the normal space actualizer of Not-able-to-be. A different description of space. Part of the virtual being actualized `somewhen’.

Finally, The Heavy Stuff will simply refer quickly to the famous method laid out in the first Carlos Castaneda books about `dreaming’ - it involved finding your hands in your `dream’ - and staring at them - then looking OUT into the space around you - finding objects - then, back to the hands for a reference point - then back out into the space around you, finding more and more objects. Building a reality as you go - or - even `going’ to a reality you desire.

This `shared’ reality seems to be of the individual and the ontological structure around them. Literally, the description of `how to gain a foothold in another description of real - of reality’. A reality well beyond the dreams of the ordinary consciousness(that said, this may all be but another qualitative description of the dreamstates potentials).

Frankly, The Heavy Stuff finds both of these `states’ to fill the criteria for `being real’. Being capable of creating `real experience’ - perceivable real experience. Being capable of a ontological structure with volume to `do actions’ within phenomena. Observable actions. The reality have a `here’ and a `there’ - a `before’ and an `after’ - mutually felt as a duration with location.

Notice how the question isn’t `was the subjects bodies in the room with Tart not real’ - of course - they are in our agreed space. No, the question is `are the subjects bodies, their spaces, IN THE OTHER REALITY real?’

And, that brings us again to those other examples The Heavy Stuff has explored before (delve into this site) - of human spaces with `unusual’ space origins - The Ghosts of Flight 401, a showing by Jesus, Doppelgangers, and the other few recorded examples of human simultaneous bi-location(co-existence) (solid human forms of the same individual in two locations).

Perhaps these other spaces are real all the `time’ but only `actualize’ in the rarest of `normal spaces’. Perhaps, these other `able-to-not-be’ spaces have real duration beyond our detection. A real that exists beyond or as part of this reality. A real that calls into question just `how real is real’?

Thanks for reading, leave a comment and join the subscription to The Heavy Stuff - show your support by visiting the daily website of The Heavy Stuff at www.squidoo.com/anomalyman and buying some books. Then, visit the other squidoo sites - all designed to be a 11 minute vacation.

To the thinking individual, several `paranormal’ phenomena are beginning to seem to have the same `origin’ or `ontology’ - (ontology is defined as a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being — or — a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existent). Specifically, I am referring to the `spaces’ or descriptions of Tulpas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtform (best described by the previous wiki link), Orbs, and Zooforms — to which, this link is the best description http://www.ufomystic.com/the-redfern-files/neil-arnold-the-interview/ . Sorry for taking you thru so much background links for this posting — but, this subject matter is not mainstream media like Bigfoot or Ufo’s — and my assumption is that many need to brush up on their understanding as to how these phenomena are described.

As regular readers know, The Heavy Stuff loves to position phenomenology as critical to understanding `strange phenomena’. Just as Einstein’s love of thought produced the simple equation E=MC(squared) — phenomenology also reduces `appearances’ and `phenomena’ to the most basic look at reality. To The Heavy Stuff, that means taking our reality right `down’ to its basic components of space and time (or what we call time). The Heavy Stuff has been positioning that those `words’ (space/time) — our most basic constitution of being — can be `described’ using some ontological terms.

The Heavy Stuff’s most complete description of the word `space’ can be found at the blog - http://whatisnotabletonotbe.blogspot.com — simply put — just as John Paul Sartre had words for space - time - and being — so does The Heavy Stuff. Whereas Sartre used concepts such as Being In Itself, Being For Itself and Being For Others — The Heavy Stuff has basic words to describe the biggest concepts for consciousness - namely, space - time - and - existence.

Specifically, The Heavy Stuff’s `concept’ for the very idea of `space’ - is that `Space’ IS —> NOT ABLE TO BE . The Heavy Stuff’s `concept’ for `time’ IS —-> ABLE TO NOT BE. And, The Heavy Stuff’s `concept’ for our reality/existence IS ——–> NOT ABLE TO NOT BE … The words (not able to not be) literally meaning  `something that is determined’ — and, obviously, our reality, the one that we experience in common with others,  is determined. That is because, all spaces, but our own, `come’ to us via light waves with their `runoff’ of space. What we see as NOW is NOT NOW as it `arrives’ via a manner which `tells’ us — it has already occurred - and comes to us as pre-determined light waves of information. Having a `space’ ourselves - gives us a particular `positioning/placement’ compared to every other thing in existence with a `space’ (or mass of an object).

I know your head might be spinning if you have never encountered phenomenology before — or if you did — you just wrote it off as a lot of mumbo-jumbo. As I mentioned before, phenomenology attempts to look at the very biggest `issues’ of being. The biggest issues to being human or  to having a consciousness.

And, the equivalent to `who made God’ - for phenomenology - is, `how could time have ever begun?’ — These phenomenological concepts that I will now try to describe - go right to the very very beginning so to speak.  Indeed, The Heavy Stuff begs your indulgence for the next several paragraphs  about the beginning of the phenomenology positioning of The Heavy Stuff.

At the very `beginning’ of experience there had to be the `potential’ for `reality’ or space/time to occur. But, it was just the potential for a reality - not the expression of that reality. There would have been a `oneness’ - a `sameness’ to all - everything. OR one could say, there was an ABLE TO BE in the beginning of the eternity `before’ the reality of space/time. But, eventually, (science would have us believe it was 13.7 billion years ago) the `oneness’ of ABLE TO BE was `forced’ to `accept’ one and perhaps two simultaneous `equal concepts’. BUT, since the ABLE TO BE was/is everything — the evolution of `beingness’ — the very ABLE TO BE itself — was not violated by having a `new’ description of `everything’.

And, that `new description’ literally — was the `explosion’ of the concept of `space-time’. The ABLE TO BE evolved INTO a `thing’ that turned out to be `space’ itself - and all the physical properties that describe the mass of space and elements.  Indeed, as opposed to GOD being ABLE TO BE (everything) — the first space — was able to NOT BE GOD  (to not-be `potential’, by actualizing space) — `it’ was to be able to have the ability to be NOT ABLE TO BE — it wasn’t GOD, it wasn’t `permanent’ -  it was `something else’ a `space’. A space which was NOT ABLE TO BE. It’s very definition and `appearance’  being its representation of `the space’s’ unique identity - it’s unique singularness.

Immediately, with the `invention’ of the `new’ concept — `that original space’ - would realize its `original relation to the original space that GOD or the ABLE TO BE possessed that was `different’ in concept. THAT event would be between `two spaces’ GOD, the able to be, and Space, the NOT able to be. Suddenly, reality had volume and texture - it had a BEFORE (in the able to be) and a `NOW’ in the `space’ of the NOT ABLE TO BE.

We are, indeed, speaking metamorphically about the beginning of consciousness of course. Be it God becoming aware of its parts — or Space becoming aware that it isn’t God. As this concept `expanded’ `space’ would be aware of even more than `the before of God’ — it, space, would be aware that `other spaces than it’ COULD BE. Those `other spaces’ other than God and Space. Space becoming more than one thing (first element changing into more elements?) — a `NEW’ concept beyond the NOT ABLE TO BE.

And, indeed, that concept is ABLE TO NOT BE ———– able to not be the NOT ABLE TO BE. A `new’ space - or beingness idea. Another way for God to `express and appear’ within the ABLE TO BE furnished as the basis for everything. It could be said that the ABLE TO NOT BE is TIME (in a sense) — or — the repeating of the being of space. The whole concept of time (able to not be) GIVES `space’ `somewhere’ to BE (now). OR, the ABLE TO NOT BE is the realization that space has being - expressed as duration.

The Heavy Stuff needs one more paragraph of indulgence from the reader to explain the final combining `concept’ of the Heavy Stuff’s phenomenology. Simply put — we aren’t quite at a real reality yet via the above descriptions of space and time and god. We need the phenomenology descriptions of reality itself. AND, the combining of NOT ABLE TO BE with the ABLE TO NOT BE —— became what is considered the REAL REALITY — THE NOT ABLE TO NOT BE — the determined. The reality we all see before us right now. Basic words to describe the segments which make up the determined reality all consciousness’s experience.

It takes all of those phenomenology words to begin to describe what today’s topic might be about - the topic being the similarity of Tulpas, Zooforms and Orbs.

Wikipedia describes Zooforms (thoughtforms) with words such as these:

These are not animals at all, but entities or apparitions which adopt or seem to have (quasi)animal form. This is where we (at least to some extent) enter science fictionterritory. In many ways, these elusive and contentious entities have plagued cryptozoology since its inception, and tend to be dismissed by mainstream science as thoroughly unworthy of consideration. Zooform phenomena seem to be a strange blend of paranormal manifestation and mythology…However, Jonathan Downeswho first coined the term in 1990, maintains that many zooform phenomena result from complex psychosocial and sociological phenomena, and suggests that to classify all such phenomena as “paranormal” in origin is counterproductive…Thoughtform may be understood as a ‘psychospiritual’ complexof energy or consciousness manifested either consciously or unconsciously, by an individual or a group. Thoughtform are understood differently and take on different forms in different traditions. Stated differently, a thoughtform, is a subtle objectification that may or may not have consciousness and self-determination. Thoughtform may be benevolent, malevolent or of complex alignment and may be understood as a spontaneous or intentional manifestation from a combination of willpower, bioenergy, discipline, chi, prana and/or astral or ætherial substance

Simply put, the Zooform is a `space’ with conscious identity - which does not `appear’ `normally’. Except for the fact that Ghosts have a real person identity - as opposed to a mythical beast (which has an identity that has been imagined) — the similarities are obvious — consciousness’s that are looking for a space to appear in within what we call reality.

Now, consider how similar the words Wikipedia uses for Tulpas:

A tulpa is, in Tibetan mysticism, a being or object which is created through willpower, visualisation, attention and focus, concerted intentionality and ritual. In other words, it is a materialized thought that has taken physical form….

There are… apparitions that make public appearances. Some of these are said to be the perceptible double—the etheric counterpart—of a living person who is undergoing an out-of-body experience. Even more mysterious are the externalized perceptible manifestations of something whose existence originated in the mind of its creator by virtue of that person’s incredible powers of concentration, visualization, and other, more occult, efforts of the mind. In Tibet, where such things are practiced, a ghost of this kind is called a tulpa. A tulpa is usually produced by a skilled magician or yogi, although in some cases it is said to arise from the collective imagination of superstitious villagers, say, or of travelers passing through some sinister tract of country.— Mysteries of the Unexplained, 1990, Reader’s Digest Association Inc. page 176

Note - Zooforms described as `entities..adopting a ..form’ and Tulpas being `a being developed thru attention and focus’. Much more simply — spaces; with definition; that can become real.Indeed, you can see above that the description of Tulpa’s goes to the point of the delivery of `etheric doubles’ of humans having out-of-the-body experiences. Is this really different than doppelgangers or the pilots of the flight of Eastern 401 appearing after `death’? Isn’t a `space’ with consciousness `something’ whether it is `seen’ or even `real’? Don’t our very thoughts fit this description?

Finally, there’s Orb’s (which I have written about before on The Heavy Stuff — BTW - you can catch all of the topic in one easy place with my website www.squidoo.com/theheavystuff ) — again - here’s Wikipedia’s words: The opposing school maintains that orbs are paranormal in nature, i.e. non-naturalistic and ghost like…That orb photos can be gained anywhere has, however, been adopted into the position of conspiracy theorists who maintain that orbs are probes/devices being used by an alien culture to monitor human activities…

The Heavy Stuff knows that readers seek some bottom line - some bottom truth. The truth of these phenomena is that they are part of the `space’ spectrum. The end of the `space spectrum’ these entities exist within does not normally interact with `normal’ space - normal space with real mass. But, DOES seem to interact with the `conscious’ part of humans - the `part’ of humans that is able-to-not-be at a given moment. The `extra’ part of us all - our attention and awareness to space forms that are not our own space. While usually, this is ONLY our own thoughts (and the spaces involved with those thoughts) - our thoughts are not bound to us. Evidently, that space of us is connected to `something more’ than this reality of determined spaces. It is connected to sequences of spaces that could be interpreted as paranormal. And, evidently, when that happens — with intentionality’s from either side of space (the beyond of non-spaces and the here of real spaces) — the events can actually appear and be seen. Such as the rare Ghost appearance, such as the rare Tulpa appearance, such as the very rare appearance with `full space’ such as the pilots of Flight 401.

But, for the same reason that they appear (the ability to project the not-able-to-be space that they are) as an able-to-not-be in our reality - is the reason they `can’t continue’ and simply `pop’ out of existance  when they exhaust their own `energy’ of `showing as a space’ - as a not-able-to-be. More simply put, the able-to-not-be of our thoughts, our time, (in a sense) - `peter out’ - as they fade of `space’ - the very thoughts themselves. We create `spaces’ not-able-to-be’s — as we think. `Spaces’ that often influence how our real space moves - that seem to have a position.

But, they fade - just like human will. So too do Zooforms, Tulpas and Orbs fade - the moment they no longer have a space to influence the not able to not be. The consensus of determination does not allow for the continued existence of entities based on something other than the not-able-to-be. To exist INTO the future one (any space) must have a now AND a past — tulpas, orbs and zooforms - project INTO the present but instead of `running off’ into the future - those entities `run off’ into the past (really, they run off into the other - the able-to-not-be) not connected to the real future.

More Heavy thoughts soon - thanks for reading. Would love for you to visit my anomaly site at www.squidoo.com/anomalyman