The Heavy Stuff

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?

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.