7 postulates of quantum reality

1. Quantum consciousness is the systemic activity of an integral perceptual module, called the suboctave, which exists in an immeasurably vast matrix called the octave.


2. There are as many versions of reality as there are modules.


3. The reality of the perceptual module determines what is real in the context of that module. Therefore, if it doesn't exist there, it doesn't exist.


4. Within the octave, there is no common reality because there are no forms present in all suboctaves.


5. If a consciousness is extinguished within a module that has no afterlife, that is the end of that perceptual potentiality.


6. Beings that appear to have consciousness are made out of our consciousness and therefore are us. The "same" being in a different quantum module is a duplicate in what is essentially a parallel universe.


7. Oneness of being is a metaconcept that does not supersede the integrity of a subreality. Monadic phenomenology is a fundamental cornerstone of the real as the octave-level godbeing who dwells in godspace has no expereience outside the totality of the modular experiences.

While you were out

While you were out, the universe ended and a new one was created. You don't remember what was going on before you left even though you think you do, because actually you ceased to exist. When you came back into existence, you thought you remembered yesterday but that is clearly false, because this universe wasn't here yesterday. So give up thinking you know what is going on. Your thoughts on the future are similarly unreliable because this universe is due to expire tonight. You cram your mind with expectations and predictions based on the assumption that the same world will be here tomorrow that was here today. But no, my friend, it won't. We're living in a short-term reality. In fact there's no you that persists from cosmos to cosmos. How could there be? You get dissolved along with everything else. This concept of persistence of identity is a convenience and not a very accurate one. So give it up. This universe is up for grabs, and your concepts about anything at all have no merit whatsoever. Say, it's getting dark again and it's about time for you to leave. Bye now. When you show up tomorrow, just remember, you weren't here today.

The whereness of awareness

Location, location, location. Where does your awareness live? Are you present, or will you be presently? Where is your when? The chronometric reference points we use to map time are too precise to pin down this quantum fluctuation known as me and you. With fuzzy logic, we might approximate the field in which we dwell. But we'll be blasted like Tunguska before anyone actually locates us, before we locate ourselves. We're quicksilver girls and boys. Lovers of the world, we've seen every branch on the tree.

Hendrix and the absolute

When Jimi Hendrix asked "Are you experienced?" he was essentially asking, "Do you know the nature of reality?" And reality, as he found out, was too hot to handle. When we observe the experience of others who seek the ultimate experience and burn out in the process, we may be understandably skeptical of whether it is worth it. Now certain spiritual teachers would caution us that our experience is not our experience in any case; that we must see it as an illusory construct attached to an illusory identity. That may be true, but there is something in Jimi's question that cannot be easily dismissed. If we answer with anything but "Yes," we are unfulfilled, and nothing, including the most profound insights of saints, will keep us from answering it for ourselves.

Ego trip

It's very common in spiritual writings to find the nostrum that the ego must be destroyed. This is a corrective to the social norms that preserve people's limited sense of self and keep them locked in patterns based on fear that they will lose that equilibrium of knowing who they are. But I find the idea of getting rid of this thing called the ego a bit questionable. What is the I, after all, but a very thin, single letter. Maybe we all tend to inflate it up a bit more than we should, but is it really necessary to destroy it? Oh, we'll die and be reborn all right, several times while in this body if we're living right, but it will be found that despite all that, this slim little letter endures. Why can't we get rid of it, even in our more exalted spiritual states (which unaccountably seem to inflate it in their own subtle way)? Because the I is inseparable from our consciousness and our experiencing apparatus as human beings. It is the point of reference from which it all starts here on this earth. So I think I'll keep that ego for a bit longer, thank you. After all, if it's so bad that everyone wants to destroy it, it must have something going for it.

Commentary on nothing

It turns out there is plenty to say about nothing. Take any encyclopedia. Although the articles all seem to be about things, or identifiable entities (I use the term in its information engineering sense), really they amount to extended attempts to define these entities through drawing boundaries and suggesting relationships with other entities. All these descriptions modularize knowledge and make it portable, but at the cost of losing a lot of information. Imagine an encyclopedia that started rebuilding all the categories from the ground up, such that what you had in the end was a completely alternative explanation of everything in the world that had very little in common with traditional descriptions. What if everyone were educated, not in the details of the received standardized knowledge, but in techniques of compiling their own encyclopedia? Then everyone's lives would be dedicated to writing a commentary on nothing (because they would define for themselves what things existed), and it is quite likely no one's versions of reality would agree. Wouldn't that make for a lot more interesting conversation?

Wise fools

Those who know, don't speak, we are often told. They are the wise fools, the dumb clowns, littering the Fellini landscape like inscrutable mystics. By their presence alone they teach. We feel just a little more holy in the faint afterglow as they pass in the morning light. Yet when the afternoon comes, tired from the labors of the day, we harbor an ungracious thought or two, why don't you just tell us? The eloquence of your silence fails to subdue our inquiring minds! And when the evening comes, and it is time to pray, we are forced back on ourselves to find the words to express the inarticulate yearning of our hearts. And we get no help from the wise fools, who do not even seem to want us to join them in their silent wanderings.

When does the movie start?

We're sitting in the theater, and the movie still has not started! Our popcorn is already gone. Preview after preview continues to roll, and we are tantalized with promises of what we will see next week. But what about today? We need a movie now. Some people have given up and left the theater. Oh, they of little faith! Of course the movie will start, eventually...won't it? But in fact it has already started. The previews are part of it. Coming in and sitting down in the theater before the previews started was part of it. Getting up this morning was part of it. Being born was too. We've always been sitting here waiting for something to start, but that waiting is part of something that's been going on a long time. The movie always was, even when we didn't know we were in it. And it will go on; it's an epic.

Free speech

Free speech can really only be understood by the person speaking, and perhaps not then. If someone else were to understand it, it would no longer be free. The speech that our ears capture everyday is never free speech. The words in the media, heard by so many, are the least free of all. That is why there is so little truth value in what we see in the mass media. So the fewer people hear your speech, the better. This blog is a good example, as practically no one reads it, and it contains considerably more truth than your nightly newscast on NBC. It may not particularly pertain to anything you are interested in, but then you're not paying much for it either.

"Don't step on the grass"

One sees a lot of signs like this commanding one to do or not do something. The act of putting up a sign is an aggressive act, practically a violent act. Power may defined as the right to put up signs. They are terribly influential in shaping human behavior. People will just simply believe them and obey them, most of the time. Most people will even stop at a stop sign out in the middle of the desert. Perhaps in the interests of political correctness, Congress should pass a law requiring all signs to bear both sides of the argument. "Stop/Don't Stop"; "Step on the Grass/Don't Step on the Grass"; and so on. It would allow people to both to exercise their freedom of choice and revel in the fact that truth is always paradoxical. This policy might also result in a lot fewer signs.

The new flat earth

At some point people stopped believing the earth was flat and started believing it was round. And at some point they will no doubt go back to believing it is flat. Wouldn't it be interesting if the earth actually changed from being flat to being round at the exact moment the beliefs changed? Perhaps the beliefs were just changing to reflect the reality of the time. Actually, I can see how the earth might be flat. In his epic poem Milton, William Blake talked about his visionary perception of the earth as "one infinite plane." I think he was seeing it from a fourth-dimensional vantage point. After all, if you could step outside the three dimensions and see the round globe from every angle at once, what would you have? An infinite plane. Well, it may not be quite the same as the flat earth of the two-dimensional thinkers who preceded Galileo, but call it the flat earth of the future, which we will all eventually embrace and will be taught in schools. The symbol of my publishing company Qubik Books is the tesseract, the four-dimensional square. That is the higher-geometry precursor object to what Blake is talking about. I don't know if too many people have noticed that Blake quotation, but if anyone has, I bet it is someone in The Flat Earth Society. They actually posit that Earth is flat from the standpoint of the fifth dimension, and have topological reasons to support their hypothesis, which I do not understand. They have also proved that neither Idaho and North Dakota exist, and that the earth is hollow and populated inside by either green-skinned women or Nazis. I think I would rather start my own Flat Earth Society more as a political movement, and call it something like the Plane Truth Party.

You're not there

You're not there, I tell you. For one thing, the you that is not you is definitely not there, not to your knowledge, anyway. That's definitely true. And even the you that is you is not there, if you're not reading this. You're somewhere else. But what about the you that is reading this? Surely you're there! I say no. Because I don't know where there is. You think you know. That does me no good. I might know something about here. I know nothing of there. So you're as good as not there, even if you are. There. I said it. You're not really there, you know. You just aren't.