In building a model of how consciousness might develop, we assume that there is an “Implicit Order” (as described by David Bohm in “Wholeness and the Implicit Order”) and a “What Is” or an “Explicit Order” as described by J. Krishnamjurti (in his various works).

Anniversary Post/Summary

    This post is for those who, for whatever reason, through the Facebook platform decided to congratulate Union of Opposites website on its one-year anniversary.   On this site, we posit that there exists an Implicit World (Bohm’s Implicit (see Wholeness And The Implicit Order) a WIBWI: What Is Behind What Is), a nondescript …

Codependent Relationships/Meditation

  Codependency definition: excessive psychological reliance on a partner. Here we look within the individual mind and trade the word “partner” for “template”.   How many of us have ever been in a codependent situation?  All of us, I hope. Because I believe templates (see Love and Loss) don’t just form within our brains in …

Analogs: What We Can Know

Analogs: What We Can Know What is the essence of what we can know? That is a vastly different question than What is Behind What is? Studying the applied math we use to solve scientific problems, we learn the extent of that language, what we are capable of understanding. The energy equation and its solutions, …

Dimension: Change in Space and Time

[A quick review of SAMPLING: When one system relates to another across a boundary, they are said to be in relationship. They interact by co-sampling information that comes to them across their boundaries from the other system.   Each system has a way of detecting the other system, and the information that transfers between systems …

Diversification is the Key: No Perspective or POV Is Trivial

There may be a danger in relying too much on science. For example, recording, collapsing too much on video may cause the “What Is” world, or the world of the explicit POV to dominate the effects of the implicit, “What Is Behind What Is” world, or the implied world (i.e. what works).

If individuals, as they grow and mature, limit their POVs, they end up limiting the diversity of ways of surviving until they are backed into a corner with only one or two options: off me or off them. This is the progressive vilification that leads to terrorism.

Who Are We?

Where did we come from?

How did we form?

And what will become of us?

Strange that a little droplet of water expanding into sluggish oil should give us some insights into ourselves, into our birth, life, and death. Here goes:

Before our droplet can change shape, before information can cross its boundary and endure as a change in that boundary, there must be a 100% probable Here and Now for it to sample. But, for man or droplet, such does not exist at this early stage. Nothing makes sense–there is no recognizable sequence in the samples.

We’re starting with one puzzle piece of information, and nothing we’re sampling connects up to it. That’s what making sense (also making space and time) looks like. Our system must first sample possible locations to create the sequence of locations we call space. Our system must sample sequences of logical next steps to create its own time. It must sample its environment at regular intervals in order to become aware of its own duration. (The natural vibrational frequencies of tuning forks are good examples of a regular sampling rate at a boundary.)

The only boundary configuration that works for longterm thought and memory is complex. One might think of it as the product of the natural selection of creating duration in space and time. At first our droplet’s boundary is too curved to interact, then it becomes so flat that random perturbations from its environment can change it, but the changes will not endure. Only when boundary shapes change for good can sequences in space and time form. The experiment ends when again the boundary becomes so curved no new information can be acquired and the droplet can no longer respond to its environment. We would no longer be aware of our existence.

Next, we’ll explore how similar is the birth, life, and death of the human brain and how, as a complex system, its end might differ from the droplet’s.

Focusing, Imaging, and Configuration

When starting from the human side, the spiritual side, the side of the mind in working our logic—when we talk about life, death, and what may, or may have existed before life and after death—we must consider the three words that are title to this piece.

From the scientific language, the philosophy growing from our fluid experiment, we are brought to the realization that Krishnamurti’s “What Is,” the virtual reality of our minds, is where we exist and that we become aware of reality from birth by representing our boundary, our difference, our change, our sampling of “What Is Behind What Is” and then generalize that information into the fleshed-in, virtual world of our minds, the multifaceted world we call “What Is.”

We say that the boundary we represent seems to condense or collapse out of “What Is Behind What Is,” each time we reach out to sample it.

The question important to me is not “Do we exist after death?” nor is it “Are we aware of our existence?” but “What happens to the configuration, the boundary, that was uniquely us, after we die?”

The conclusions we hope to come to will be that no matter how improbable, all perspectives exist, just not always here and just not always now. They live on, perhaps until the time two or more such perspectives can collapse across a boundary to create the essence of an existence, an existence in the here and now. The awareness of awareness (How we become watchers instead of simply responders).

But what is the nature of perspectives as they statistically and momentarily bump into and separate from one another? What causes them to hook up in the first place? (For those possible answers, see menu items “Sampling and Statistics” and “Space and Time.”)

So, our main question might be “If we cannot know the nature of What Is Behind What Is—how it operates in the arenas of the before and after lives—how can we possibly predict the chances of a before life or after life based on this life? (the one we’re in the process of constantly sampling in the here and now)

As an analog our expanding-droplet experiment can tell us what is possible to describe using our mathematical language (solutions to the general energy equation) that illuminates both the change in energy across a boundary and the experience of that change, The Flow.