What makes your day?

To me there is nothing better than to come up against (or with) a brand new idea. That's the main reason that I read. That's the main thing I live for.



Not just any idea, of course. I am selective. It needs to be an idea that has an impact. It needs to be something that has an effect on the manner in which I live and or relate to the world. I am interested in ideas that make me see things differently.



Now, an idea that changes your world view is like a mutation. It results in a change that works to separate you from the common consensus, and in that that sense it is dangerous. It can make you--is likely to--make you visibly different from the crowd.



Mutations are usually detrimental to your health. If you are lucky they have little effect. Only occasionally does a mutation result in an improvement upon the old. It is wise to be suspicious of change.



Still, I like mutational ideas. I trust myself to weigh them up. I am happy to consider a hundred, discard ninety-nine of them, and end up with one winner.

So, the idea has to be a good one. Additionally, it needs to be something that improves my life. It needs, in other words, to be applicable and practical. I need to be able to apply it. I think of my area as Applied Philosophy.

I dream of finding an idea so powerful that it would change the world. I aspire to an idea that would spread like wildfire. I long for a meme, in other words, something that would chane the world as we know it.

What might that be?

What's the most amazing idea you've ever heard?

Recently I learned that a physicist, Feynman, put forward the idea that the entire universe may actually be one single electron/positron leaping about all over the place both backwards and forwards in time.

Now, what if matter and energy are also analagous with consciousness. Quantum consciousness. What if the sum total of apparantly discrete centres of consciousness was an illusion? That would imply that there is only one consciousness-essence.

For the sake of convenience, call it, them, us God.

Read anything interesting lately?

As a matter of fact, yes. I've just started The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett. I seems so far to be exactly the sort of thing I enjoy: philosophical self-reflection into the nature of existence.

Never mind that Village Voice describes it as "A heavy set of tennis for the brain".

How closely do you see eye-to-eye with other folks?

My ideas are not as way-out as they first might appear. Deep down, my wisdom is the same as that of other people, or vice-versa. Get in touch with it. Take a look for yourself.

Recently, on the toilet, I read Wisdom to Grow On. Famous people had written in to reply to the question: How do you achieve success in life?

Well, several streams emerged, none of which I have any issue with. In fact, you could do worse than walking-the-talk communicated by that combined common sense.

Basically the suggestions boil down to:

• Continuously grow and educate oneself by reading, listening or what have you. In conjunction with this was an exhortation to
• Actively engage with life, to persevere or strive, and to achieve the same by focusing on small steps or day-to-day living. In other words, use time wisely
• Harmonious relationship (love, honesty) , whether that be with family or the needy, was also emphasized
• Working toward a greater good was recommended, whether that be in the form of a religion, a cause, a dream or personal goal
• In terms of attitude, the consensus very much stressed the need to be positive, happy, accepting of whatever came along, yet not take oneself too seriously. 'Be the change you'd like to see' said several
• But the strongest message that came through was an exhortation to be true to oneself and live authentically--that is to demonstrate integrity by doing what one loves and is drawn to. Dare to be different. Dare to be your deeper self
  

Who is right?

'Who is right?' is the wrong question to ask, the reason being that everyone is right.

According to people's background, their beliefs, their world view or framework (paradigm?), the stories they tell to explain the way they see things is absolutely correct, because it will be self-consistent. It, or they, makes sense. And so, in that sense everyone is absolutely correct with respect to the views that they hold.

Of course, that isn't much help if you want to sift through other philosophies to incorporate, or even just mull over, aspects of their thinking. You want want a means of being more discerning.

In that case, a far better thing to examine is not the set of thoughts that people have, but what principles or foundation stones they hold to be self-evident. Based upon that knowledge you have a much better rationale or stratagem for weighing up what they have to say.

What can one learn from a fool?

I guess that that is a common response to the proverb:

Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Cato the Elder

Or, as Bruce Lee is said to have said:

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.

Here's how I--a wise man or a fool?-- apply that lesson. Begin by supposing that there is something in every wrong-sounding statement that you hear. After all, according to everyone's framework everything that they think or say makes perfect sense.

In short, accept every thought or idea as a po statement (see Edward de Bono). Keep your mind open. Suspend judgment. You will definitely learn something.

For example, someone claims that no one died in the holocaust. 'Preposterous' is your automatic response. Put as much distance between yourself and whoever uttered that blasphemy. After all, you can be put away for such a thought. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as mind crime.

But hold. Don't rush. Refrain from screwing up your face.

No one died? Maybe . . . death does not exist. Or perhaps . . . you have marely hastened the inevitable. Everyone dies. That is a given, and it is automatic. It's not by killing someone that you are doing something which could have been avoided. So when you are told that radioactive fall out killed 250,000, and you learn thereafter that it shortened those people's lives by several weeks--but fifty years in the future--what does that imply?

See? What at first you react to as nonsense can be ratteled around and used as cerebral ammunition. Don't be too hasty to shoot a nontruth down in flames.

Why do you go without shoes?

You ask me about shoes. What if I were to respond: Why do you go without a hat? Why do you go without gloves?

These are much the same. The reason for wearing any of these items of clothing are pretty much identical. Hats, gloves and shoes provide you a little warmth--not much more. And to minimal effect, really. You'd do better to concentrate on your core, on your trunk.

What people really mean--probably without realising--is: Why do you behave differently to everyone else?

There's a very good reason.

I think differently to everyone else.

What is your hobby?

Gosh, that's a question I haven't been asked for ages. Not in donkey's years. Maybe the concept of a hobby has become outdated.

But I must admit to a good read. That, and writing. Which involves a balance between the two. It doesn't do to indulge too much in one or the other.

I find it amazing to think that by looking at squiggles upon the page (or screen) that that places me within someone else's head. Don't you agree? I mean, how crazy is that?

However it happens, I am stimulated by the thoughts that drive the worlds of others, and I benefit from tapping into some of that centrifugal force, just a touch.

But, if I let myself get completely carried away, then I risk losing my own sense of equilibrium and poise. This is why I need to write myself--to counter balance that input, and to produce my own individual statement.

Therefore, a little cross pollination works wonders. Try it! But don't dwell entirely within anyone's headroom, no matter how comfortable it feels to you now.

Are you insane?

Ah, that's a catch 22 type of question. It requires a catch 22 type of answer?

What is it to be insane. Simply this: you don't things the way that other people do. And so in that sense I would be.

But hang about. Surely, since we're all individuals, everyone sees things in a different way. There ought to be as many ways of seeing things are there are sentient beings.

Yes, that makes sense. I'd go along with that. The trouble is, so does everyone else. People go along with the crowd. They think not as individuals but as one. Consensus thinking. So . . . everyone is insane then. Certainly if they all hide what they really feel, and defer to the group. That is really insane.

No, but hey. That's unfair. Redefine that definition. If one or a few differ from the majority view, where the majority view is more-or-less accurately represented, then that person is insane.

So . . . if you are the odd man out in a conscientious objector situation as a citszen in Nazi Germany, then you are insane to resist mob-thinking? And as another example, the first scientist to challenge an hypothesis that everyone believes is a Law. That would rather shut down original thinking and research, wouldn't it. Of course it would.

Insanity--there's no such beast. Everyone, no exception, is acting in a rational and sensible manner within the context of their background, genes, world view and what have you.

You seem so hip; to what extent don't you have it together?

Ah, that would be telling! But what the heck . . .

Being me isn't always cool and breezy. My greatest bugbear (though it's also a gift) is an edgy, nasty sense of being overwhelmed. I suspect it's a form of Asperger's. I can deal with it--even turn it into a positive--but it means I'm often (mostly?) having to deal with a feeling of dread, a sense of free-floating anxiety.

Its useful side is that it prevents me from taking part in activities that aren't really me. It's like the two poles of repelling magnets. The condition is a form of 'bullshitometer', I would say. On the other hand, having to crank myself up to do the things that I must do is often a drag. And a half.

So yes, there's that.

Thanks for asking.

James Lovelock says we're doomed. Do you agree?

Suppose we are. What effect would believing that our time on Earth is limited have? Wouldn't we spend the forty or so years left living life to the maximum? That wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion.

Oh, and by the way, isn't that the reality whether or not the world continues after we die?

How old is Einstein?

How old is Einstein?

It's an easy question isn't it? Take Einstein's birth year. Subtract it from what year it happens to be now. Hey presto, there's your answer.

But there must be a bunch of people who share that surname. His family. His descendants. And probably thousands of others. Why did you jump immediately to old Albert? Is he more important? What makes him so?

Next thing. 2009 minus 1879. How many 130-year old people do you know? Or can visualize? It doesn't bear thinking about, does it? It doesn't sit comfortably with you, nor does it make sense.

If Albert had died at his peak in a car crash like Diana, the consensus, most likely, would be that Einsteinis about 36 years old. It doesn't compute to us that a body keeps aging after it dies (although the fingernails and beard are said to keep growing for a while--creepy!).

Someone who lived a good long innings, though. And who was known for several events that spanned his or her lifetime. How old do they appear in your mind now? (assuming they are no longer alive). It's a weird thought don't you think?

Consider yourself.

Never mind how old you actually are, how old do you feel yourself to be? And does that perceived age change with time? And if you age, does that increase keep pace with the clock, or is it in some or other ratio? Or maybe it even speeds up or slows down according to your physical condition or life circumstances. Maybe when you develop some chronic illness (not acute) or when you are in prison such events or incidents would have some influence.

Asking someone's age just makes no sense (plus it's rather risky).

Is artifical intelligence possible?

I'd rather consider the question of whether artificial life is possible, because by addressing that I believe that I'll answer the question about artificial intelligence. Because you see, life, to me, has consciousness, and I feel that it's consciousness that is what's in the questioner's mind when they utter the word 'intelligence'.

We love creating division lines. Organic and inorganic, for example. People used to believe that there was some fundamental difference between the matter that made up living things and that from which the inorganic world was made. It is not. The elements that make up both are exactly the same.

So then, how on earth could life be artificial? If it is (and it is) then it is, in any shape or form. That should satisfy us.

As for the question of whether intelligence could ever arise in a complicated enough computer . . . But of course! It must, not 'could'. Wherever the housing for a living force opens up, then the life force will express itself there. That's a given. It can't be any other way. That is how it's always happened.

Do you go along with reincarnation?

Yes and no, I'd have to say.

I do not believe in sequential reincarnation. There's no such thing as 'time' in my opinion. Therefore, there can neither be a life (or lives) that precede or follow mine.

But in terms of existing simultaneously, in different locations, and housed in different physical frameworks, that I do believe.

What was the formative experience in your life?

I would say that there have been many. And I hope that they never stop. Unless you experience them every so often, you're going to find yourself fossilized.

One that comes to mind occurred when I was 11 or 12. At school one of the kids demonstrated how, by hyperventilation and applied thoracic pressure, you could induce loss of consciousness.

I underwent the experience twice, as I recall.

It broke my link with the commonly assumed reality, that we are physical beings that contain a spiritual add-on. I was very disconcerted thereafter to find that as of then I perceived the world differently. Not knowing how to internalize what I had undergone, I labeled my new state as semi-consciousness. Now a better description of the way that I feel is that I realize that I am a spiritual being having a physical experience.

I contain the body; I'm not contained or constrained.


I guess it was my closest brush wit a near-death experience. And it had the same ultimate effect.

Aren't you just rehashing Morphic Field?

I don't know enough about Rupert Sheldrake's morphic field hypothesis. I've got him on my reading list. But as for what you ask, I suspect that you're right, at least in part or degree.

I believe that I'm dabbling in a 'filled out' morphic field concept. Where Sheldrake envisages a field that connects everything that exists at-the-same-time, my construct is not so much a field (which makes you think of a two-dimensional area (well, it does a non-scientist)) as a volume or space.

In a nutshell, then, I'm toying with the idea of everything at everytime being linked.

How could time itself be an anachronism?

Where to begin?

What I'll do is present an alternate explanation. One that is consistent and logical, but one that I won't push you to accept. Why would I want to do that anyway? All I'll aim is to get you to admit that it holds water and is airtight. And that it could stand on its own.

As simply as I can describe, I'm going to propose that time as a dynamic phenomenon can be generated through a static process.

Let's say that time consists of instants. In other words, it is quantized, discrete, analogous or particulate (there, I believe that I have covered the field).

I'm going to suggest that consciousness consists of being 'uploaded' into a particular instant. If this includes the awareness of a set of other 'conscious-quanta', together with their cqs, nestled and contained . . .

No, I've lost you.

But I'm going to press on in the hope that I can re-express this better at some other . . . time.

Okay, well, what this means is that what results is the illusion of chronological progress. And the illusion--what is more--of a life that is distinct from that/those of other(s).

Somehow one has access to only a set of all the possible past-and-present memories. That constitutes a life. And you have awareness only in one direction, like a semi-diode or one-way transmitter. It's like an arrow pointing back into what we imagine/feel is the past.

-----------<

If you have a set of 'time moments', shall we say. Now, if they each contain within them a nestled subset, or the memory/awareness of other moments (imagine a Venn diagram with a set of smaller and smaller circles (see aside but ignore all primates, especially the gorilla (in the room?))) then, within the context or paradigm of a continuous expansion, growth or progress, then that, ipso facto gives rise to an illusion of time passing. (Within a paradigm of shrinkage or disappearance it ought to result in the opposite: that time is progressing into the past.)

The effect could be a little like flipping a set of cards where the image is in a slightly different position in each. It appears to be moving only. The interesting thing is that it doesn't matter in which order the cards are flipped.

Similarly, you appear to be moving through time. And you only appear to have a life and exist as an entity.

What's wrong with wanting to save the world?

I don't say there's anything wrong with wanting to save the world. Some of my best friends have that desire. On the face of it, their wish would seem to be rather a good idea. But it might not be the right idea for you.

• An activity that sidetracks you from something you would rather do (and are better at doing) and tickles your sweet spot more deliciously may be more preferable, I would point out
• For your happiness to be allowed to depend upon the successful outcome of an event that may never occur . . . well, that might not be the wisest course to follow

What would you actually be doing, or saying about your belief system if you adopted that goal?

You'd be saying, in effect, that such a goal is important to you. Why makes it so? Is it because you are thinking of the future? I suppose that you believe the future to be more important than the present. Why? Because there's more of it? Is there? How do you measure time?

Say you spent thirty years of your life struggling to make the ten years that would by then remain (of your life) more enjoyable--or secure. That is, say your thirty years' worth of efforts results in delaying the end of the world by a decade. Is that a good trade off? Maybe those thirty years spent more 'profitably' (excuse the term) are worth more overall than forty years of toil and trouble. Quality instead of quantity.

Another angle you might consider is that of sacrifice. You, a person, are singular--there's only one of you. The people that come after--your descendants, your countrymen, heck, whoever--are legion. Isn't it worth one person putting him or herself out a little for them? Doesn't it make sense to do a Mother Theresa?

Again, I'm asking you 'Why?' Forget the arithmetic, because it has absolutely nothing to do with numbers. Let's say that I could satisfy you that two people, or ten, or a thousand are no more important than one, then it would make no sense to sacrifice yourself for others. For are you not at least as valuable as anyone else?

And so, all you are doing is shift the potential importance of your place in existence to them. Don't you see? I give up the opportunity of having a fulfilling life so that some other person (or people) can. But if they subscribe to the same philosophy, and so do those that come after, exactly who will benefit from that chain of abdication?

I suggest that you take the bull by the horns. You could be the one, you know. Know what I mean?

Here, you take the ball and shoot. No, I'll pass it to you to shoot. No, you be the one to kick for goal . . .

Forget about others. You say (you might) that you are doing it for your future self. I would come back to what I wrote earlier: is the future any longer or more important than the present?

Yes but . . . the world is so huge! It's our universe! Well, it's true that that is how it seems. But what if time did not exist? What if space did not exist? Then the concepts of 'otherness' and 'separation' would have no meaning. Is it possible to construct a worldview without those universally accepted yardsticks, yet make any sort of sense out of being and existence?

Stick with me.

That's what I am going to try.

What is your take on that tree in the forest?

I guess you refer to the old question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? Okay, here's I how I see (or hear) it.

Have you ever wondered how the squiggles on the pages of the books you read--you do read, don't you?--translate into a shared experience with the author. Isn't that so incredibly amazing? And it's all happening inside your head. Created right there. Reach up with your hand and grasp the back of it. The entire universe fits within nicely.

And it's the same with the tree. Really, who's to say that it isn't all just happening inside your head. You visualize it upside down on the screen at the back of your head, upended so that it makes sense.

Yeah, but hey it's real. I can smell it--nope, just molecules tickling some nerve ends and scooting upward from there . . . I can touch it--just those same electrical impulses from your fingertips this time. Et cetera and so on.

No one can prove that anything is out there.

Trust your senses? No way! Take a virtual reality check . . .

A nice meal . . . tastes good . . . satisfying the senses . . . nerve impulses to brain . . .

= State of mind

Wonderful music . . . great sounds . . . resonating within . . . nerve impulses . . .

= State of mind

Basho’s haiku . . . conjuring up images, sensations, moods . . . and cerebral electric currents . . .

= State of mind

It seems to me that everything one experiences boils down to subjective experience. Bear with me, as I pick away at the warp and woof of that insight. Let’s solve once and for all the question of whether a tree falling down in the forest makes a noise if there’s no one about to hear.

Everything that I sense reduces to neural activity. That must be so by definition – that is what a ‘sense’ is, right? A way and means of perceiving the outside world. And so seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling are in a sense delusional, or at least illusional.

Everything else also: all the other ways I experience life. Everyone that I relate to. The stuff that I work to possess. Hell, even the activity that I do! Am I walking, cycling and swimming or is this just what I imagine myself doing; it could be – undoubtedly is – just electrical impulses travelling to and from the concerned muscles.

Cripes, even this body! All that I’ve got to go on is mirrors and the poor evidence of my eyes. I’ve never seen the back of my head.

Thoughts and emotions swirl within. That’s all that they are; they’re no more real than the rest. Those stacks of card-houses. No more substantial than huts made of straw, bricks or sticks.

Virtual reality. Who’s to say that the universe as we know it isn’t simply an elaborately constructed virtual reality world a la Matrix which we’re all hooked up into. You wouldn’t know the difference. And really, there’s no difference in paying attention to playing the game in this or in a Second Life.

I’m not saying that they are equally as inconsequential, not necessarily.

Both could just as well be true.

What is your hobby?

Ooh, a classic question not often heard these days. Do people still have hobbies?

My hobby, first and foremost, is reading. But I've only just realized it, or at least owned up to it. As a kid I'd list it reluctantly and with some embarrassment. How could reading be classified as something worthwhile spending time on, when so few of my peers gave it much thought.

Reading puts me in touch with another person. I see the world from their point of view. I become them for a spell, and share their experiences. And having come around to the point of view that acquiring experience is the only thing I'm here for, that can't be a bad thing.

Whether the author lives or is (ancient) history makes no difference. Whether I could relate to him or her as a person doesn't matter. Reading their words is so much better than if I had the chance to speak to them in person--that's been my experience in the flesh. Distill yourself on paper if you want to be my friend.

Aren't we evolving?

Why is it that people believe in progress as invariably 'positive'--that we're moving 'ahead' and 'upwards', that the future is going to be better than the past, that we-who-are-now trumps who-we-were-then (visions of those Charlie Chaplin black-and-white jerky images) in short "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better"?

Whoops, sorry. I'm supposed to be answering the questions.

But who's to say that it isn't the past which is superior to the future, and that childhood isn't better than adulthood, and that sleep is our default state rather than waking consciousness. These things are worth considering.

According to what sits rightly with me, time doesn't 'happen'. There's no 'flow' to it. I suspect that it is quantized and that it equates to consciousness, but that's for the by-and-by. Time, though, is a construct. All 'times' are at once--it's just that we do not perceive it as such. And if that is the case, then all times are likely to be as important or right or real as each other.

Oh, people say, but we are heading to the future. We cannot travel back in time. However, we cannot travel to the future either. It is never tomorrow; it is always now. And at least with the past, we have knowledge of it. And so at best, we are walking towards the future, but backwards, while facing the past.

And you can't tell me that's 'progress'.

Are you pushing some sort of religion?

Have I an ulterior motive: to turn you into a believer?

No way! Cross my heart. I wouldn't do that to you or anyone.

Whilst I agree that it's likely pearls are embedded in the writings of all the organized religions, I subscribe to none of them. Not in toto. Deep down the thought rubs me up the wrong way, even though, strangely, I can think of nothing more pleasant than to sit down and talk and exchange spiritual views. The nature of life et cetera.

All it would take for that to occur is for everyone to have formulated his or her 'religion'--a personal take, viewpoint or position. But without a vested interest. Without a personal stake. They ought not to feel compelled to promote or defend it. Or to convince others. Or to show them the errors of their ways.

Could you that?

But as for organized religions . . .

To me, taking on board a story mapped out by other people is nothing but a cop-out. I've felt that from the earliest age that I could think. These prepackaged philosophical narratives (and I have no time for the established philosophies that exist either) are only useful in that they provide a ready-made excuse not to think for oneself, and to give up that power to another, or to a theocracy.

I don't swallow any particular theory, and I don't expect you to swallow everything I say either. You may rely on that (just don't 'believe').

Are you some sort of genius?

Me a genius?

Ingenious, yes. Ingenuous, undoubtedly. But I know myself too well to be comfortable with being tabbed a genius.

Oh, I've got my good points. I'm in the top few percent in terms of IQ (about 145), but am woefully lacking in certain other areas. So it goes. You can't have everything.

But does it matter? Does it take a genius to be able to get your head around the important essence of life, the universe and everything? I don't think so. It would be a very unfair power-that-be to have set things up in that way.

So, I'm special only to the degree that I am unique. As is everyone else--I know, I know, that smacks/reeks of a New Age platitude--but if the shoe fits . . .

Don't be tempted to leave philosophy up to the experts.

I've never yet met anyone who fit that box.

To who (whom?) are you writing?

Would you like to know to whom I truly write?

To 'yours truly'.

I write for my own benefit, I must admit. And that 'benefit' is not of a financial nature--not that I have any choice. What I get out of the exercise is, through the peeling back the onion of my thinking, is to clarify what I have in mind and come up, thereby, eventually, with a coherent overview, or philosophy. That's my master plan.

And really, all writers do this; they write for themselves for that very same reason. You want to learn something? Teach it! Only incidentally does the reader get something out of it. Forget about intellectual property rights!

Magnanimous me, eh? Well, yes and no. In my mind there's no difference between writing for myself or for another person. But that I'll expand upon that anon.

What are you?

What I am?

I always feel awkward when I'm asked that question. You are expected to respond with what you do for a living, i.e. what you do to bring dollars through the door.

Well, that doesn't sit well with me. That isn't how I define myself. My day job is merely incidental to who or what I am. I place more emphasis on making a life than on making a living.

And yet, I wouldn't feel comfortable coming out with that answer. To entrust a stranger or even an acquaintance . . . To divulge what I deem to be important in my life and what makes me what I am. Well, that isn't for casual conversation. So when asked, I tend to 'um' and 'er'. Here, though, in this blog, it's a different story . . .

Go on, twist my arm behind my back.

I guess the thread that runs unbroken through my life is that of thinking. I'm a thinker, I suppose, and have been since I discovered myself self-aware. Not the intellectual type of thought, though. Nothing to do with academics. I don't put a priority on speed or IQ. Instead, I think slowly in finely munching circles.

Very well, then. Put me down as a Philosopher if I am to have a label. The field where I'm active is that of Applied Philosophy.

Okay, that'll do. That's as good as you're gonna get, and as good as I'm going to be able to put it.

How can you claim to have all of the answers?

Me claim to have all the answers? No, that's something you'll never hear me say (and if I do, do challenge me forthwith).

I would say rather: beware of anyone who asserts that he or she knows what is what. I've been there; done that. I was so sure I knew what life was all about only to change my spots at a later date. And I'd been so positive! I would never have guessed, at the time, that I would ever sing a different tune.

You need to move on when you've no alternative, in my book. You've got to be prepared to evolve and to grow. You should never, ever, stick with your current framework and insist that it is set in stone.

If a person is positive that they are right, then the usually feel they have something to defend. They feel obliged to defend the status quo a priori. Only listen to those--if you are going to listen rather than figuring it out for yourself--to one who is uncertain, or at the very least not attached to their kit-bag of thinking. But then weigh up what they say for yourself.

All the answers? No. What I've got I've worked out, and worked up, and it works for me. But I'd drop it at the drop of a hat if I had to. And I would never impose or try to sell it to another. But hey, you're welcome to take a gander!

Just be careful. Don't get burned. Don't become entrapped. In my web of threads or anyone else's. There are no guarantees.

Who are you?

You ask me who I am?

I'm someone not that different from you. Really. Given that chimpanzees share about 99% of their genetic makeup with us humans. So even when conventional thinking is applied, any two humans are closer than they might imagine.

You and I, for instance.

Did you ever ask yourself exactly who you are? Yes? There you go, then! That's another thing we have in common.

Think of me as you, as if you'd been born into this body or stepped into this pair of shoes. Who's to say you wouldn't act and feel exactly as I do? In fact, that is the premise that underlies this entire blog.

1.23%

Spotted in a fairly recent Time magazine a letter to the editor in response to an article that had informed readers that the amount of genetic material not shared by humans and chimpanzees is only 1.23 per cent.

"Ah yes," said the letter's writer, "but humans are different in that they have that divine spark."

This got me thinking. If that is so then when, historically speaking, did we become thus blessed? When in time did that spark arrive, and in response to what? Was it millions of years ago, when our 'quality of DNA' reached some crucial threshold? And so, was it that we had no souls before that date, but we did afterwards?

And so as a race (or species) was a magic wand waved at that particular moment? Was intelligence conferred all at once? Did it happen as it was depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey, or did hominids pass through some transition stage during which time some of our ancestors were human, and the others mere beasts.

Perchance we're going through it now - in this 'Age of Aquarius'. You tell me. You're going to tell me that the cleverest (most clever?) ape alive isn't more aware than the dumbest person in existence? (And yes, I know that the chimpanzee is actually a monkey.)

Balderdash!

Life is life. To say that there is one quality of living for us, and another for the rest of the animal - and hey why not plant kingdom also? - is species-ist. Say 'specist'. Think 'racist'. Small-mindedness in other words.

Life expresses itself to whatever degree it can in whichever individual.

Starting with me, as far as I can tell.

Don't we each have separate souls?

Since it's me you are asking . . .

I prefer to think of it in this way: we are each of us separate fingers connected as a hand. To us, at this level, it seems as if we are individuals, but in reality. . .

It has become trite to announce that all of us are actually one. That statement no longer packs punch. So let me just say . . .

Imagine the universe as the firmament. Holes exist in its fabric. And then it appears that there are stars when through those holes projects, from the one super-source, there beams light.

The size and shape of its hole gives each sole it characteristic vibration and timbre. "I'm me, says each. Look and see what I can do!"

What if I was you?

Or if I was you . . .?

That's a great question--a mind experiment, even--to consider. First off, if I (who is writing) was you (who is reading), then, according to what I intuit to be true, I would, to all intents and purposes be you. I would have the same thoughts. I would perform the same actions. I'd make the same decisions and I'd make the same errors.

This is so, because I would have the same background, environment and genetic makeup and what have you. It would be impossible for me to relate to the world in any other way but yours.

And if people were to ask: Yes, but what about the soul? Because our souls are different, wouldn't that make a difference in terms of personality and so forth, right down the track? We'd therefore operate differently.

That would be so if I shared your notion of what 'soul' is and how it manifests itself.

I do not.

What of your human failings?

What of them, indeed?

'Failings' is a loaded word. As is 'deficiencies' or 'imperfections'. I think it's best not to think along those lines.

Primarily I see myself--as I suppose does everyone else--from the centre of the universe. Nothing odd about that. That is how it's meant to be. And yet, such a frame of reference does tend to induce delusions of grandeur. The trick, therefore, is to somehow reconcile that viewpoint, or awareness, that while you may be God you're not everything you would like to be.

Enlightenment as it is commonly accepted to be is a fallacy, alas. The sad reality is knowledge of the whys and wherefores that pertain to the spiritual field does not make you perfect in every (other) way. And yet that is what people expect. That is their fond belief. That's the litmus test they use for wannabe masters. Where they go go wrong is to measure themselves with that yardstick.

I too have been guilty of that. I've looked down my nose at my own self. I've found myself lacking. And so in spite of a metaphysical grasp which I know is unique and uncommon, I feel constrained and constricted. I cannot express that hard-wrested know-how. I've been too self conscious to explore that knowledge in a public arena, because deep down I felt that I ought first to have a unified front.

I used to think that I had to deal with my set of shortcomings, fix them, before feeling that I deserved to be heard and taken seriously. Or take my own self seriously. That self-imposed handicap has therefore always, inevitably, bogged me down.

I'm learning to arise above all that--that way of looking at myself (and at others)--not those so-called limitations.

What is living in society like for you?

My predominant concern is that everyone around me is insane, and that I had better be good at pretending to subscribe to the consensus trance, or risk being torn limb from limb.

Other than that, it's not too bad ;-)

Are you a misanthropist?

I wouldn't say I'm a misanthropist, at least not an active one. But a passive one, maybe.

I'm not enamored with folk; I'm not generally okay with what I observe: people not behaving as humans. I don't know, perhaps we expect too much of ourselves. If a group of other primates, mammals or what have you acted as we did, well, I guess I'd be more tolerant.

Shouldn't I be at least as tolerant with individuals of my own species?

Hey, hang on there just a minute. I don't identify as 'human'. I occupy that form, but that is all. I have no choice in that matter. I'm a spiritual being having a physical experience.

But the question is a valid one. The logical response would be to say that humans ought to know better. Or rather, they do know better, and so ought to practise what they know is right.

Really though. 'Know better'? Do we just? Take a look at the state of the world.

And before I close this topic--yes, I direct that passive disappointment at myself included. I too am a sorry specimen. Which might lead one to suppose that I am depressive. No, not that. A realist.

Which popular assumptions are you challenging?

A list of popular assumptions that I am not prepared to simply accept would include the following:

• That time exists
• That 'progress' occurs in the direction we imagine
  
• That an either/or logic applies
• That death is real
• That human beings are superior to other life forms
  
• That I or my friends, family, ethnicity, are more important than 'others' or 'outsiders'
• That enlightenment is as people suppose
• That thinking is to our advantage
• That adults know more than children
• That life exists 'here' but not 'there'
  

I'm worried about the global situation; what do I do?

Learn to see the situation differently. This crisis does not have to appear the way that it does. The world is no more real than a movie. Truly.

But you are going to have to travel a lot of territory before you arrive at that point. Until then, the best advice is going to prove unsatisfactory.

Read on, therefore.

'A spectacle' the present economic climate is called, and in that the commentators are right. Righter than they imagine. The world is something to behold. A movie is not that bad an analogy.

Ask yourself what a movie is. Something you sit through for a limited period, right? Something that absorbs you for a spell. In a movie to get to experience all sorts of situations vicariously. But it ends. You leave. You come to and realize that the whole thing was only a show.

Now, how is that different from your earthly existence?

You say that the world will not stop when you cash in your chips. Is that right? Are you sure about that? Just because it keeps going in spite of the absence of many billions, that does not mean that the same thing will happen when you take your leave. From your point of view it most definitely stops. And from every living being's perspective.

What is the present?

The present is the merely the cutting edge of who we are. It's a cross-section of the worm-like jabberwocky of our body/life stretched through the fourth dimension.

That cross-section is repeated in micro-metre segments as an ever-present instant for the jabberwocky worm's entire length. Every moment is simultaneously And so, therefore, there is no past, no future.

The present is quantum-consciousness personified.

You've used the word 'ism'. Would you explain?

Um, okay. It came from a wish to do away with all the 'isms'. You know, the same driving force as the John Lennon song:

Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Because, don't you see, every ism (every other ism) is dangerous.

And then, fortuitously, the three letter left after you chop off the root stand alone and with meaning. You give it a capital, and there you have 'I'. You, that is. Take the first two letters, 'is' and that neatly encapsulates a system of thought that doesn't recognize time. Everything exists 'now', at once, fully formed.

It is. We are. Do you see?

What is the first thing that you see through jabberwocky eyes?

Life seen from the point of view of jabberwocky is remarkably strange.

It does not see the body as something separate from its life, passing through the dimension of time and generating a history, like a plane shaving off a curl of wood.

Instead, the jabberwocky's vision is holistic. It sees the body and life entwined. There is no difference betwixt the two. The jabberwocky claims, "What you see is what you get!" Imagine the image you would get if you took a 70-year (more or less) time lapse photograph of an entire person's life--okay, 'person's entire life'.

See it. It doesn't move. All part of it exist 'at once'. It is timeless. There is no uncertainty about a 'future'.

Life--as seen by a jabberwocky--is not dynamic. It is static.

What are you working on these days?

Sleep. Sleep is what I'm dreaming about these days. I'm supposing--a 'po' type of supposition, a la Edward de Bono--that sleep is our default state, not wakeful consciousness. Which would be the converse of what most of us believe. People say that the more you are awake, the more alive you are. Isn't that obvious?

Well yes, it might be. But that isn't to say that that is correct. And anyway, it is fun to consider the opposite.

See, when you go without sleep there is an urge, a desire, a compelling need to seek it. You die without it. Just like air, water and food, you can't live without it. So sleep at the least is very important. You can't deny that. And when we awake it is often a struggle. Usually we drag ourselves awake reluctantly. No one wouldn't mind an extra hour or two. It isn't as if we are endangering our survival with a lie-in.

Think of it this way. Compare the waking and the sleeping states as deep sea diving. But turn the ocean upside down. Sleep would be floating on the surface--our default state. When we come to consciousness in the morning, that is like kicking to submerge (or in the reversed state press up) into the depths. Which we enjoy. For a spell. Until our reserves of oxygen run out, and we are forced to regenerate back at the bottom (the surface) of the sea in the open air.

Conscious our wakefulness then boils down to the exploration of an unnatural state.

When did your thinking start to differ?

Do you mean, from other people? That would require that I know how they thought. And I'd always assumed that others saw the things the way that I did. Because, of course, my way of thinking was the correct one. Ah, how young I was.

Apart from the true answer that my thought processes have always been my own, and unique, I guess that the first instance of 'veerage' was how I came to regard life.

Conventionally, we are, ourselves, a human body. With perhaps some sort of mind/spirit/heart latched on or inserted. And our life is the passage of that three dimensional body through time. Our life is us at any instant.

That puts a lot of emphasis on the present, I thought. There seems to be a lot of time. The present is but an instantaneous instant. One that you hardly catch.

I view my existence through a fourth dimension, time, as a sort of time-lapse-photography hologram. It would resemble some species of worm, pointed at one end (the zygote) It would have body length flukes--arms--and have a semi-split groove its whole leg where my legs were. If I did a lot of travel then it would wind itself around the earth. It would have a regular pattern or pulse where I slept, breathed, or took part in an activity such as work. It would regularly approach and even come into contact with friends and family. Quite a fancy worm, I thought. It needs a fancy name. I've called it a jabberwocky.

Who is the greatest person that ever lived?

Hm, you are not going to like my answer.

No one.

Not one person who lived (or lives) is 'great'. Now, some were good. Some were clever. Some were talented. But everyone, without an exemption, lived ordinarily.

They ate, they breathed, they slept, they went to the toilet. Oh sure, they had their movements-moments sorry. But so do we all.

The tendency, and danger, is for people to venerate a chosen few. As if they are special. The heights they occupy unattainable by the rest of us. Don't you believe it!

I guess it's always easier to applaud than perform. Especially if the Great Ones are no longer living. They are unable, then, to make fools of themselves: egg on their face from an affair or a public fart. And the longer they've been dead, the more comfortably they do rest. Because the harder it would be to dig up dirt.

And if there does turn out to be a skeleton or two in the closet . . . Oh, how quaint! How very human! It only goes to show that the Great One was genuine. He or she can do no wrong.

What I's saying is this: all wore out their clothes at the elbows and knees. All had to brush their teeth and pay their bills. In between their literary novels, artworks or inventions they had an awful lot of time on their hands--time when they surely messed about, and up.

I'm telling you. Take it from me (and then do something with it), I've know the odd genius. They were just ordinary people.

Sometimes less.

What have you got against neurotypicals?

I’ve nothing at all against neurotypicals. Some of my best friends are ordinary people. But I cannot deny that they tire me out. That comes with the territory.

You know, it isn’t easy being green. Actually, that might just be the solution. The problem is that I share the same skin colour as everyone else. It leads them to expect me to act and think just like them.

I do not.

I’m like a stranger in a strange land. To all intents and purposes, as far as the consensus is concerned, I could have come from Mars. That’s if they really knew my make-up below the surface.

Now, you—as a neurotypical (sorry if you’re not)—might expect that the difficulty lay in being true to myself, or in feeling lost, lonely, an outsider. Not at all. Put me in solitary confinement for the rest of my life, and I’d be quite happy (only a slight exaggeration). No, for me there’s nothing easier than to resist the mainstream ways of the world. All the advertisements in China wouldn’t lure me to a product or brand. Nothing would tempt me to see the world through neurotypical eyes. Oh, I understand you perfectly well (though I cannot puzzle out why you are content to act in what can only be termed an insane manner) Hey, but let’s not get too heavy.

Okay, the thing that I find hard is maintaining the pretense that I share your warped mentality. Because you see, I do want to belong. I’m a social animal too with social needs. The day-to-day difficulty is not to let on when neurotypical, utterances, emotional outbursts, delusional thinking, consensus-trance platitudes and aphorisms get voiced. It’s so difficult then for me to keep a straight face and to pretend that I can see just where you are coming from.

When I’m sure as hell not.

What's your greatest daily challenge?

The greatest consistent challenge I face most days is having to deal with neurotypicals.

What is a neurotypical? Hey, that not fair! Only one question per post, you! But go on, just this once . . .

Okay, the odds are that you are a neurotypical person. You're in the majority, as opposed to the rest of us who have some degree of autistic or Asperger syndrome make-up. At least that is what I think is most likely to be the case. The following is something I've snipped from a book or the Internet:

Neurotypical syndrome is a neurological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity. Neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one, or the only correct one. NTs find it difficult to be alone. NTs are often intolerant of seemingly minor differences in others. When in groups NTs are socially and behaviouraly rigid, and frequently insist upon the performance of dysfunctional, destructive, and even impossible rituals as a way of maintaining group identity. NTs find it difficult to communicate directly, and have a much higher incidence of lying as compared to persons on the autistic spectrum. (Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, http//isnt.autistics.org, accessed 11 February 2008.)

But be clear here. The above doesn't apply to me; it (probably) applies to you. These are the people I need to put up with. And that is my challenge.

Okay, then, is there a God?

Persistent little devil, aren’t you? Look, it depends your definition. Let’s just say that there are life forms. Right then—and let’s just suppose that in some specific measure they are not all the same. What I’m suggesting is that the size of their ‘aural envelopes’ vary. Dare I propose that there are levels of consciousness?

Very well, please pay attention. My next trick is to opine that in some way it might be possible to compare and rank that difference. But be clear, I’m not claiming that any life form is superior or more worthy than another. ‘We’re all the same, yet we’re all different.’ Why should that be such a difficult concept? I don’t see it as a two-horned dilemma.

Anyway, here’s my answer. I’m going to postulate that that being that somehow stands above the rest is the One. Let’s nominate it as King. Or Emperor, even God. Hey, who remains to be upset? Doesn’t my reasoning stand up to reason?

As to whether that numero uno is up to the task we level onto its shoulders is another matter. Omniscient, omnipresent . . . and all those other ‘Oms’, well, we don’t know. Who is to say what its attributes are. I’m not going to go there. And unless or until it effects a self-introduction, I’m not going to worry in the least. I mean, it’s going to have at least as great a sense of humor and forbearance as me. By definition.

No, but, do you believe in God?

photo by Nick Owen

Before I tackle that, let me just say that I do not ‘believe’. I won’t blindly accept any unsubstantiated proposition. Oh, but I’m not materially minded. I don’t limit my thinking to the objects that I only can sense. Neither do I confine myself to musing upon the mind-figments derived from logical and philosophical machinations. All I’m saying is that a willy-nilly kow-towing to any historical or mythological being is not my scene.

Does your belief system depend on the notion of a God (or gods)?

No, it does not.

Whether one (or more) exists or not isn’t pertinent. It—neither the idea nor the entity—isn’t relevant. It isn’t worth a scrap. It isn’t substantial. Nothing in my construct rests on such an insecure foundation. Forget about he, she or it, at least for the duration. I would suggest that you build out from the centre of the universe initially. From solid ground. From the space between your eyes and ears. Start with what you know. Know thyself.

Shouldn’t you get on with what you want to say?

If you are suggesting that I concern myself with ‘progressing my message’, and that I ought to think about picking up the pace, then I must politely decline. I’m not going to be swayed by any sense of urgency.

I might have, once upon a time. In fact, if I look back, I habitually did. And that was my undoing. It hampered me from writing what I wanted to write. It resulted in my struggling out of a ‘sense of mission’—it quite got in my way.

Why would I want to rush? Are my hours limited? Is the future uncertain? Are high matters at stake here? Does the possibility of failure exist? I choose not to believe so. Let me tell you how I see it.

I see the future as unfolding. And that which unfolds is already preformed. It exists, albeit hidden from sight. I don’t see a random spontaneous generation at work on the cutting face of the ever-present. Think ‘fate’; think ‘destiny’.

That which will happen is already there. No need, then, to panic about needing to bring it about in time, or mustering up the energy or the know-how. We’ve got the goods. We will deliver. Enjoy the ride, why don’t we?

So then. There’s no need to worry or hurry. We may strive, but there’s no point in pulling out hair. On another level, it is pointless too, to be fearful. But to reach that stage requires a grasp of the nature of creation . . . and we’re not there yet.

You’ve rushed me as much and as far as I am prepared to go at the present. I’ll continue, if I may, at my own pace. Another time, for sure.

Is my brain big enough?

Are you worried about having the intellectual capacity to follow my gist? That reminds me of a question once asked of Abraham Lincoln, I think it was. How long should a man’s legs be? He answered: Long enough to reach the ground.

So I wouldn’t be concerned about whether or not you’ll be able to understand the up-coming content matter. This stuff is not too tough to comprehend. You won’t need a degree. It isn’t rocket science. One or two mind experiments are all that this course will require. No more difficult than lighting a fire.

It stands to reason. It wouldn’t be fair if the universe were that way arranged such that only egg-heads in lab-coats could puzzle it out. Are they any more worthy than we hoi polloi? Trust me on this—no, trust to the universe. It boils down to something so simple that even a child would understand, intellectually speaking. (And certain other childlike traits such as openness and imagination certainly help.)

If you are able to enjoy a book or a movie, if you can listen to someone tell a joke or a story, if you can wake up in the morning and turn to the person beside you and share the previous night’s dream—well, that is all the brain-power that you’ll need. You don’t need no other qualifications, I guarantee.

Okay, where do I start?

Where do I suggest that you start? Let me see now. Where are you likely to be. What would be a reasonable and achievable first step? I need to give this some thought. I'm familiar with the worldview that I've constructed, but you're not like to be.

Maybe a mind experiment to kick off with, hm?

‘Start from the start’ puts me in mind of what was probably my first mind experiment. I was a child at the time, and very young. The experiment involved, aptly enough, my own origin.

I would think back and try to retrieve my first memories. Imagine doing that at the age of four, or maybe even three. I’d worm my way into the foggy past. I remembered Easter at my uncle’s home—where we lived until I was four. I met up again with my grandparents who had sailed to visit from the other side of the world. There was a doctor’s house call and the indignity of being injected in the butt. The time that I ate snow and vomited my breakfast, putting me off cornflakes for life. The time I caught my big toe in the spokes of my tricycle. The nail still grows split. I remember bath times, the sensation of having nappies changed, lying in my crib, possibly even being breast fed.

Yes, my memories stretch well back. But try as I might, I could never bring back the instant that I arrived into existence. I was always ‘there’, no matter how small. I know that logically this did not prove very much, but to me it equated to a surety of knowledge. I was continuous. There was never a time that I wasn’t. I had always been.

And somehow, for that very same reason, there would never be a time I’d cease to be. Just like that, with a snap of my finger I’d overcome death. In one way or another, my essence would always go on.

To a youngster this was most exciting. I was quite proud of myself as a result. I’d discovered myself to be, if not unchanging, then at least eternal. And that would do me nicely, thanks very much.

Feel it. Savor it. Heft it. Grok it. Sink into the realization. But keep that concept off-limits to your reasoning brain.