Some More Notes On The Tarot Trumps

A further consideration of the Tarot Trumps (of the Marseilles Configuration) .
Considered in the light of Renaissance philosophy and theology.

The Mundane Trumps – 0 to V

0. The Fool – Luna. The common people, fools, and madmen
I. The Magician – Mercury. The entertainers, artisans, and merchants.
II. The Papess – Venus. The minor clergy and religious figures, both orthodox and heretical.
The Trinity of Luna – The ordinary people of the Renaissance world.

III. The Empress – The Sun. The nobility as concerned the welfare of their subjects.
IV. The Emperor – Mars. The nobility as concerned with war.
V. The Pope – Jupiter. The great clergy and ultimate spiritual potentate.
The Trinity of Mercury – The people whose words were important in the Renaissance world.

The Moral Trumps – VI to XVII

VI. The Lovers – Pisces. Moral: Do not be seduced by foolish dreams of love.
VII. The Victorious Chariot – Aries. Moral: Be careful to control your impulse and ambition to conquer.
VIII. Justice – Taurus. Moral: Deal justly with all, relying on the precedent of morality and law. One of the Cardinal Virtues.
The Trinity of Venus – Conduct in Love and Victory.

IX. The Old Man (Hermit) – Gemini. Moral: Patiently and reasonably consider before acting.
X. The Wheel of Fortune – Cancer. Moral: Be content, and know that those who rise also fall.
XI. Fortitude – Leo. Moral: Persevere in the face of adversity, and you will rule your world. One of the Cardinal Virtues.
The Trinity of the Sun – Conduct with regard to Wealth and Fortune.

XII. The Hanged Man – Virgo. Moral: Accept that you may be accused, cast out, and made to suffer alone.
XIII. Death – Libra. Moral: We are all made equal by death, and will be judged thereafter.
XIV. Temperance – Scorpio. Moral: Control your desires and temper your passions to achieve peace of mind. One of the Cardinal Virtues.
The Trinity of Mars – Conduct in the face of Persecution, Violence, and Destruction.

XV. The Devil – Sagittarius. Moral: Rule your wild animal nature, or it will rule you.
XVI. The Tower – Capricorn. Moral: The proud and greedy will be cast down by Heaven’s wrath.
XVII. The Star – Aquarius. Moral: Service to others creates light in the darkness.
The Trinity of Jupiter – Conduct with regard to Religion.

The Revelatory Trumps – XVIII – XX

XVIII. The Moon – Water. The dark, feminine, and sorrowful power in the Universe.
XIX. The Sun – Fire. The light, masculine, and happy power in the Universe.
XX. The Last Judgement – Air. The balance between all things attained at the end of times.
The Trinity of Saturn – The forces that give essential structure to Creation.

The Final Trump – XXI

XXI. The World – Saturn and Earth. The first and last, the lowest and highest, a new Creation.
The Ogdoad – That which exists beyond ordinary experience.

Your Many Bodies

I’m going to discuss the possibility of reincarnation, but first let’s consider randomness in the universe. At first thought, the two ideas might seem unrelated.  I don’t believe they are.

There appear to be events, mostly on a subatomic scale, whose outcomes cannot be predicted with precision. Instead, one can only predict an outcome as a probability. One explanation of this apparent breakdown in the otherwise unassailable concept of causality is that all possible outcomes happen, but in separate universes. If you toss a coin, there is at least universe where it lands heads up, and one where it lands heads down. Although it seems like wild science fiction (and is far from universally accepted by scientists), the idea of multiple universes has a very firm grounding in physical fact. Some scientist in fact champion the idea of multiple universes as the most naturalistic explanation for randomness, because it doesn’t require the existence of any unknown and undetectable forces.

The remaining concepts I will bring up are far more controversial than the possibility of multiple universes.

What is the primal cause of being? For some, it is sufficient to posit the existence of a personal divine Creator that pre-dates the Universe, and leave it at that. The incompleteness of such a position is revealed by the simply asking “who created the Creator?”. If the Creator was not itself created by anything, then something can exist without a Creator. In that case, it is no more absurd to believe that the Universe created itself, or always existed. Even if we can accept the existence of a personal Creator, we solve nothing. We would still be unable to explain why the Creator makes certain choices and not others. The primary evidence of a Creator’s existence is the testimony offered by various scriptures, none of which agree with in each other. If there is a Creator it must not have any consistent qualities, otherwise such would be self-evident to all cultures. A Universe that is the product of a Creator must ultimately be the product of personal whim, which would be functionally indistinguishable from the operations of chance. In that case, simply ascribing the Universe to chance would allow us to deal with it in a perfectly functional and practical way. Either way, we would ultimately understand nothing.

One alternative to the concept of a single personal being who creates the Universe by whim is to simply allow that all possibilities happen. A Universe come into being naturally from such a proposition. In fact, all possible Universes must then occur. The apparent randomness of the universe is simply our perception of the point at which Universes, which had to that moment been identical with each other, diverge into separate futures.

We have neatly done away with the requirement for the existence of any non-material entities. Why them would we bring back such an idea as the “soul”, especially the possibility that such a thing may manifest in successive bodies? Because such a hypothesis could explain the persistent testimony of those who are accurately able to describe the lives of dead people they have never met.

Why would the “soul” incarnate in certain places and not others? The “soul”, or spiritual essence, might enter into history at every point in every universe that allows for expression of its nature. If a child will possess the correct combination of genetics and environment that allows for the manifestation of the soul’s potential, then an incarnation will come into being. Those incarnations would then develop in every way possible to them, experiencing all possible things in every Universe where they exist. All of those incarnations would share a single “soul”, since each simply represents a particular development of a potential. The potential itself is nothing in particular without its expression; it is only a tendency that ripens when it contacts a Universe. Alternately, the “soul’ is a vast set of possibilities which becomes broken and fragmented into separate lives when it encounters the Universes, with their limited histories imposed by time.

“You” might be one particular fragment of a being whose existence encompasses not only versions of your current self in parallel universes, but also uncountable persons spread throughout the pasts and futures of those other universes. Your true self would not be the person you immediately perceive yourself to be, nor any single one of those other people that share your “soul”. Instead, your most real self would be the spiritual essence, the potential that stands behind all of your selves.

The “soul” itself might exist outside of time. While time is the limiting and defining factor in each separate Universe, from the perspective of the “soul” all possible events might occur in a single eternal moment. Its exploration of possibilities looks like separate lives when perceived from our point of view within the tyranny of time.

If all possibilities are followed, there would not be anything like retributive karma. There would be no overall morality to the system of incarnations. All the catastrophes that befall us in our various incarnations would be the simple result of all possibilities being followed by necessity. The good or evil actions of one incarnated fragment would not necessarily affect the others, because such influences would occur in time, whereas the incarnating essence is a thing outside of time. From its point of view, all its incarnations happen simultaneously. Bad things happen to good people not because of the whims of a Creator, or as lessons to be learned, but as the simple accidents necessary for the continued existence of a particular Universe. All possibilities must be followed.

There must be some kind of transfer of information possible across incarnations. After all, the evidence for multiple incarnations consists primarily of people who possess inexplicable information regarding dead people who they could not have known. If the true self is the potential existing outside of time, then such information transfer becomes possible, although not necessary. Obviously, most people do not have memories of other incarnations, although some do.

The term “reincarnation” would actually be inadequate for the possibility I’ve outlined, since the word implies serial incarnation through linear time. “Transmigration” doesn’t work, because I am not proposing the “soul” as discreet entity which travels anywhere through time. Some other term may be needed, although I am suspect of a coinage like “multi-incarnation”.

22 Notes On The Tarot Cards

This is the current state of my thought concerning the Tarot, those strange cards that have been the subject of myriad occult speculations.

The Tarot trumps were primarily intended for use in a card game of the “trick-taking” variety, where hierarchically arranged cards would “triumph”over other.

Trying to interpret the Tarot Trumps without any reference to the game of Tarot will lead to erroneous conclusions.

There were many different arrangements of Tarot Trumps before the current standard, as well as other card games of the “Triumph” variety.

The current standard arrangement of Trumps is deliberately worked out, and not the result of chance.

The iconography of the Tarot Trumps is entirely Christian and Renaissance-era European in origin.

There appear to be some heretical ideas of a quasi-Gnostic character incorporated into the cards, but the cards do not consistently represent any known Gnostic or quasi-Gnostic theology.

The idea of Triumphs was widespread in the culture of late-medieval/Renaissance Europe, and occurred both as a literary device and as a subject for parades and pageants.

Because there was little difference made between the sacred and secular at the time of the Tarot’s design, Hermetic and philosophical ideas were incorporated into the design of the Trumps.

As a result of the religious and philosophical ideas incorporated into the deck, spiritual value can probably be drawn from the designs on the cards.

The structure of the Tarot Trumps references astrological and Kabbalistic ideas, but is not a direct representation of either Astrology or the Kabbalah.

The cards of the Tarot can be attributed to the symbols and doctrines of Astrology and Kabbalah, but such attributions appear to be secondary, and not the primary intention of the designer(s) of the cards.

The trumps of the Tarot constitute their own, unique system. They are are not directly representative of any other single system, but do incorporate ideas from various other sources.

The Trumps can be divided thematically into three groups, perhaps reflecting a belief in the sacredness of trinities.

Within each thematic group, the cards are subdivided into trinities consisting a linked pair and a third card which represents a power greater than that pair.

The Final Trump, representing the New Jerusalem and the power of God, does not belong to any trinity, but triumphs over all.

The first thematic group consists of the trinities of Fool – Magician – Papess, and Empress – Emperor – Pope. They are a representation of the hierarchical Estates of Man, a common medieval and Renaissance theme.

The second thematic group consists of the trinities of Love – The (Victorious) Chariot – Justice, The Hermit (or Old Man) – The Wheel of Fortune – Fortitude, and The Hanged Man (or Traitor) – Death – Temperance. The cards seem to represent the vicissitudes of Fate and the Virtues that overcome them.

The third thematic group consists of the Devil – the Tower (or The House of God or The House of the Devil) – The Star (Of the Morning or Bethlehem), The Moon – The Sun – The Last Judgment (or The Resurrection, or The Angel), and the World (Of God). They appear to be images of the Apocalyptic Revelation of God.

Regardless of whether the Tarot is a valid method of Divination, or whether Divination is a valid practice at all, the cards would remain a cultural artifact worthy of study, if only for the hold they have had on the Western imagination.

If there is more than one Universe, and the future is therefore not singular, then it will be impossible to predict the future with absolute precision by any means.

Regardless of whether of not it is possible to actually divine the future absolutely, using the cards in that manner may allow the user to attain a state of self-reflection, enhancing intuition and thus conscious recognition of the forces in play at the present which will affect the possible states of the future.

Wedding Cake

For a friend, now lost. We will meet again, despite the hungry earth.

The snow makes round
the world’s bright edges,
whose corners are too sharp.
In her muzzle mask,
the hungry earth,
lies quite for an hour.
There’s time for her,
and food for her,
she rests now,
turned to circles.
Her angles did not make her face
more pleasing for the teeth.

There is no dinner yet,
She does not have us yet.

We are not swallowed
while she is veiled
and covered in her bridal.
Wait until her tears are ripe
and flowing from the sun.
The cold is our companion,
our hands are held by ice.
Her painted cheeks invisible,
she’ll miss our blinkered eyes.

This is not dinner now,
She will not have us now.

Her ocher flesh
obscured for faith,
in modesty’s apparel.
Scoured and shorn her foliage
is lost for nutriment.
She shall not feel her full just yet
and crowned with graven figure.
We linger long as bachelors
withholding promises.

It will be dinner soon,
She will have us soon.

The Destiny of the Dead – Part III

The surest way to detect a crank online is when they start talking about quantum physics. Therefore, it would be reasonable to classify this blog as the work of a crank and stop reading now. Or perhaps you might continue reading for the same reason. I will try not to say anything that someone with more letters after their name than me hasn’t already said. That being explained, I will proceed to tell you that you may be immortal, and why you may hope that you are not.

Everything and everybody dies. That seems simple enough. We know that everyone will eventually die because we witness the inevitable death of everything. One day others will mourn your passing. The question is, will you ever experience your own death? According to the theory of Quantum Immortality, the answer is “no”.

The idea of Quantum Immortality flows from the so-called “Many-Worlds” theory of quantum physics. Put simply, the fundamental particles of which the Universe seems to be comprised exhibit behaviors that seem to be unpredictable. On a scale smaller than the atom, it is impossible to state definitively what causes will create what effects. One can only give probabilities. Since science is based on predictability, there are a number of ways to deal with the apparent randomness of elementary particles. One way is to ignore it, and attribute the apparent randomness to our brains being unable to understand the actual nature of reality. Another way to assume the existence of yet-to-be-discovered governing principle behind reality. A third way to explain the fundamental randomness of reality is to state that all possible outcomes happen in separate parallel universes.

On the surface the “Many-Worlds” interpretation seems to the weirdest and most improbable solution of all. Yet, many scientist champion it as being the only model that actually fits the mathematics of quantum mechanics without requiring changes to the theory. The problem with changing quantum mechanics is that it has been an enormously successful model of reality, one that underlies such things as computers, broadcast television, and cell phones. There has never been a single experimental observation that has contradicted quantum mechanics. Therefore, however strange its implications might be we are currently forced to accept them as fact.

So, how could the existence of multiple Universes make you immortal? Understand that multiple universes would mean there are lots of versions of you that are all equally real, only each copy is slightly different than the others. Every time something, no matter how small, could have happened in a different way there would be a separate Universes where each path was followed. In some Universes the person with your name and face may have different friends, a different job, etc. If there are versions of yourself that experience all possible outcomes, there may always be at least one version of yourself that survives against improbable odds. No matter how unlikely, if there is any chance at all of living through an experience at least one version of yourself would. Observers in those other Universes would see you die, but the in that single Universe you would be aware of having survived against impossible odds. Quantum Immortality assumes that you will always be the version of yourself that has continual awareness of your own life.

An obvious objection to Quantum Immortality comes from the observation that even given multiple universes you are most likely to be the version of yourself that does in fact die. In accordance with the idea of Quantum Immortality, however, one can never actually know what Universe one inhabits, other than knowing that it has a past where you have always survived, and has a future where you always survive. The theory assumes that since you cannot experience your own death, the future you experience will always be the one where you do not die.

There is a tremendous downside to Quantum Immortality, one that is certain to make many people hope it isn’t true. If the theory is true, while you don’t die, everyone else around you does. Everyone else you know will remain immortal in their own separate universes, of course, where they observe versions of you die. Also, you must remain aware for as long as there is any chance of remaining aware, no matter what form that chance takes. Therefore, if your ultimate survival means experiencing the extremely improbable fate of being a disembodied brain in a jar in some alien museum ( a la H.P. Lovecraft’s Mi-Go), that’s what might happen to you.  Quantum Immortality doesn’t just mean we are blessed with life – at also means we might be condemned to it.

The big problem with believing in Quantum Immortality is that it is impossible to devise a sane objective test of it. It has been suggested that a researcher could put oneself into the position of Schrodinger’s Cat. If Quantum Immortality is true, the researcher will never die. Unfortunately, outside observers will see his death, making the proof purely subjective. One could point to any improbable survivals in one’s own life, as evidence (albeit weak) of Quantum Immortality. Since you are obviously still alive, you must not have experienced all the possible deaths that could have befallen you, and therefore might expect not to experience any possible future deaths.

Now that’s I’ve demonstrated my crank credentials by discussing an extremely strange interpretation of quantum physics, I hope to at last be invited to the tin-foil hat fashion show. I hear that bottle-cap inserts (for extra scrambling of the government mind-control rays) are really “in” this season.

The Destiny of the Dead – Part II

Consider for a moment, the exact dimensions of a moment. We know that time, once considered an absolute measure everywhere in the Universe, is actually relative to the observer. For instance, time passes more slowly for objects at the speed of light than it does for outside observers of those objects. Our own personal experience of time is relative. Those who have been involved in catastrophic incidents can attest to the relative slowing of time. Subjects under the influence of drugs have reported mild to severe distortions in their perception of time. Extreme sexual arousal and release can effectively change the perception of time. The best sex seems to occur in a timeless state, where afterwards one is unable to account for the exact amount of time the act occupied.

Consider also, that one should not be able to experience the moment of one’s own death. To aid yourself in this consideration, try to remember the moment you fell asleep last night. You know you were once awake, and you may assume you are awake now (although you may not be). You remember lying in bed, and you may remember dreaming. But can you remember the instant that you were no longer conscious? One cannot be conscious of the loss of consciousness. At most one might remember the last thing one experienced before the moment that consciousness was lost, such as happens with those who have been rendered unconscious by a punch.. The difference between being knocked unconscious and dying, however, is fundamental. In the one case there is a future brain to remember its own past. In the other case, there is not.

We have within us an internal timekeeping function, which we sync up with the sun and the mechanical representations of time called clocks. Many people reading this will possess the ability to wake up at a particular time every morning, even without an alarm clock. Guess the time, right now, without looking at a clock. Chances are you’ll be right to within a half hour.

So, what happens when a brain encounters the wall of future nonexistence? I suggest that as oblivion approaches, the subjective experience of time slows dramatically. Nothingness approaches, but perhaps, never quite arrives. Unable to experience nonexistence, the consciousness instead expands the time available to it. Bereft of ordinary sense impression, the brain utilizes its own memories and desires to construct a space to correlate with its perceived time. It is well known that subjects left for a long time in conditions of sensory deprivation willexperience hallucinations, which may engage their senses completely. Usually these sensory hallucinations take a considerable amount of time to occur, but for the dying brain an immense amount of time may happening in what looks to outside observers to be just a few seconds.

So, how much time is contained within a moment, when you are fully inside it? A minute? A year? An eternity? Theoretically that answer might be rendered by considering the maximum processing power and speed of the brain when viewed as an organic computer. Speed is a function of time, however, and time is a function of the observer.

If the internal clock is shut down altogether, any amount of external time is perceived as a timeless eternity. What happens when the timekeeping function of the brain ceases functioning before the total consciousness? How long then do the final thoughts take to be resolved? Without consciousness of the passage of time, does assigning a length of time to a thought have meaning?

If the Afterlife is subjective, is it any less real? In previous post I explored a point of view where the Imaginary could be considered real, albeit it in a particular and qualified manner. Perhaps in the timeless state we may gain access to information otherwise denied to us on account of our perception of time, which limits consciousness and prohibits the simultaneity of experiences. Perhaps the real reality is comprised of all possible histories, of which we ordinarily experience only one. In that case, if the dying experience a fuller realm of possibilities in their Imagined worlds than we do in our ordinary world, whose world is more real?

There are Paradises then, where the consciousnesses of the contented and blameless dwell mentally for eternity. Then there should also be Hells, constructed by the tortured consciousnesses of those forever unable to fulfill their consuming desires. There will be other places, too, all of them determined by the wants, needs, beliefs, and history of their creators. All of it might take place in a few moments, of time as observed by those who continue on in their fleshy lives. And since consciousness, so obviously subject to the brain, cannot be the spiritual essence, there may also be another life that occurs in the world of flesh.

Unless, of course, we can never die at all. In the next post I’ll discuss the possibility of actual physical immortality as implied by a radical interpretation of modern physics.

The Destiny of the Dead

The idea of Life after Death is an absurd contradiction in terms. Yet it remains the most persistent of human ideas.

A confluence of events has seemingly conspired to inspire this post. How do I dare to address the great question of history and culture, the destiny of the dead? There is nothing to do but face it.

At my friend Brigid’s blog she has posted about a 1976 documentary on ghosts and hauntings. She links to a segment from the show which purports to play a sample of Electronic Voice Phenomena, and depicts a reenactment of a possible haunting. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the topic, Electronic Voice Phenomena, or EVP, refers to apparent recordings of unexplainable human or human- like voices often associated with hauntings. It’s actually become very popular with the advent of the various ghost-hunting television shows. The documentary segment also includes some possible photographs of ghosts.

The ability to interact with electromagnetism and light would be evidence of the physical existence of a soul. That is, if a ghost can record its voice, can be seen, and can be photographed, it is interacting with physical matter and energy, and therefore must objectively exist. The problem, of course, is that is souls are detectable when out of the body, why are they not detectable when within the body? If consciousness is not based on the brain, but exists as a separate energy, why do brain trauma and disease have such catastrophic effects on the personality? The famous case of Phineas Gage having his personality dramatically altered by an equally dramatic metal rod through his skull comes to mind. Based on the case of Gage, if there is a personal soul it seems not to exist as a possessing entity that can function without a physical brain. Something to consider: if the ghost of Gage was encountered, would it have the personality of Gage before his accident, or after?

Yet people see ghosts, hear ghosts, feel ghosts. It seems unlikely that so many people, over so long a period of time as human history, are all either lying or hallucinating. It would seem that logically either there is existence after physical death, or there is not. Unfortunately, neither the “Yes” or “No” answer seems to account for all the evidence. This is one of those occasions where the closer we examine the Universe, the more is seems to laughing at our attempts to understand it.

Seeming evidence of continued conscious existence of some kind after physical death is offered both by those who have been haunted, and the memories of those who have had the Near Death Experience. Large numbers of people who have been clinically dead for brief periods of time (and medically resuscitated) have reported having seen visions of an afterworld. In some cases, they seem to be able to recount sights and sounds in the room around their temporarily dead body. Many cases are probably explainable by the biochemistry of the oxygen-starved brain, as well as the influence of certain anesthetics. They are many cases, however, that are not so easily dismissed, and which seem to challenge the otherwise unassailable connection between brain and being.

There is also the matter of Reincarnation. Numerous case-studies seem to suggest the transfer of consciousness from one body to another without a detectable physical basis to explain it. If there is a soul, capable of moving from flesh to flesh and therefore physically interacting with matter and energy, why does it remain undetectable by instruments? Yet children have been able to recount the manner of death of people could never have met, been able to recognize the loved ones of those same people, and been seemingly able to distinguish the former possessions of the deceased. There is evidence of something, yet that somethings directly contradicts everything we know to be true about consciousness’ origin in the brain.

If there is indeed an Afterlife, where is it? Ghosts obviously seem to be just hanging around our planet, but what of the people who have experienced seeming Heavens and Hells while their brains lacked any sign of function? If the Afterlife is a place, then it exists in space and time. It must, in fact, physically exist as localized place if souls exist objectively and can can interact with physical objects. Yet the Afterlife remains seemingly undetectable. One could try to be clever place it among the so-called “dark” energy and matter with seems to exist but remains invisible. That’s definitely not a bet I’d be willing to take, however. Metaphysicians have a bad history of being embarrassed whenever they try to fill in the gaps of scientific theories.

In my next post I will suggest another possibility to the question of the destiny of the dead.

The Enlightenment Game

Is Enlightenment a permanent state, or is it something more like love, that anyone can fall into and anyone call fall out of? Once attained, is Enlightenment an ageless monument, or is it a flower that still needs tending lest it die? Or is there even such a state at all? Am I asking the wrong question entirely?

What do we mean by the term? Is it a state of complete awareness, a direct comprehension of the truth of reality? Is it consciousness of identity with the Divine? Is it recognition of conditional existence, and the cessation of torturous desire? Is it the acquisition of extraordinary mental abilities? All of those definitions have been posited, and others.

Enlightenment seems to be like obscenity – you “know it when you see it”. Like obscenity, it’s easy to say what it isn’t, but seemingly impossible to say what it is. Perhaps words like “Enlightenment” and “Obscenity” don’t actually refer to anything objective at all.

On February 20, 1974, novelist Philp K Dick experienced the first of a series of mystical states that he claimed to be the intrusion of a vastly superior intelligence into his mind. He somehow was able to save his son’s life with the sudden knowledge that the boy needed immediate care for an as yet undiagnosed illness. Philip had episodes where he spoke in Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament and a tongue he had never studied.  He also later experienced a notable episode where he claimed that an intelligence agency had stolen documents form his house. Mr Dick never dismissed the possibility that his experiences were related to drug use or some mental illness. Or did he experience a temporary kind of Enlightenment?

In Christian legend, when Jesus was crucified he cried out “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani”, or “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?” To many Gnostic Christians, this was an indication that the spirit of Christ, who was separate from the man Jesus and had only joined with him at baptism, seemed to have left Jesus. Did the Gospel of Mark (the oldest of the “orthodox” Gospels) mean to say that being Christ was a state to which Jesus attained, and from which he fell?  The text itself states that the onlookers interpreted the statement to mean that Jesus was calling upon Elijah (by referencing Psalm 22), but why would God need to call upon Elijah? There is no nativity scene in Mark; it begins with Jesus’ baptism. Was that meant to be a reminder that everything interesting about Jesus begins at that time?

When speaking about Westerners, does the idea of Enlightenment even make sense? How much of the appearance of Enlightenment is conditioned by the cultural norms of traditional Asian societies? Were the Enlightened deemed such because the state of their minds happens to be one that was accounted for and celebrated by ancient Asian cultures? In a Western context, many of the ancient sages might be diagnosed as having serious mental disorders. Then again, there has been speculation that the mental disorders recognized by Western medicine may themselves be conditioned by Western culture. In what way would Enlightenment differ from an Epiphany, or the State of Grace? Is the distinction artificial, or very real because these states and experiences change depending upon the mentality of the one receiving them?

In some schools of Buddhism there is much speculation upon the mutual dependency of apparent objects upon each other to create the illusion of existence. Bereft of context, things can suddenly seem to lack qualities. A chair becomes a chair because of the ways it interacts with the human intention to sit. Without any person who wants to sit down, the object that was a chair becomes something else. If objects lack fixed properties, can they be said to exist as independent entities? What do they exist as? Mere potential? Is Enlightenment then the sole thing that exists objectively? Or it it too dependent on context?

If the context of Enlightenment changes, does the Enlightenment change too? In other words, does the monk have more need to stay in his monastery after Enlightenment? Having received the experience of Enlightenment, does it need to be maintained by a particular kind of life? Will it be lost amidst the bustle of the ordinary world?

I am inclined by my own experiences and observations to consider the consciousness of Enlightenment to be a temporary thing. To do otherwise seems to propose the possibility of permanence and perfection in manifest existence, things for which there seems to be no other evidence. Of course, I  could always change my mind.

Imaginary People

If I posit something as imaginary, do I mean it is not real, or do I simply define the nature of its reality?

I ate yesterday with the Economy. A Debt walked by and asked about the Will of the People. I was forced to admit that it was whatever those who had the most Credit wanted it to be.

Of course none of those things happened, because all of the characters involved are imaginary. Yet, all of those things exert more real influence in the world than most arguably real human beings. The Economy for example is an abstraction, a chimera which represents everything in general and reflects nobody in particular. Yet it is said to have a “state”, and great decisions are made to increase this monster that nobody can ever see directly. It has priests, called Economists, who are in the enviable position of never having to actually be correct in their description of the god they serve.

Under American law, corporations are people. They may not be able to walk or enjoy a good meal, but they are legally people. Imaginary people. You can be sued by these imaginary people. They can be your employer. They can even wreck the Economy.

It can be argued that the products of the human imagination are not real, because they do not exist outside the human brain. In that case, the HIV virus wouldn’t be real, because it cannot survive outside the human body.

The products of our imagination are like viruses. They depend on us, yet can be deadly. How many people have died because they lacked the Credit to obtain medical care?

Ideas kill, but how do we hold them responsible for their actions? They have a way of replicating themselves more effectively when prohibited.

Richard Dawkins coined the word meme to refer to products of the human mind that are transmitted like viruses through culture. For an atheist like Dawkins, the idea of God can be viewed as such a meme, a kind of culturally transmitted disease. Yet God has been more influential in history than most people who believe themselves to be “real”.

There are people alive today whose job it is to play characters based on themselves. We call them “reality TV stars”. Who is more real, the actor or the portrayal? If I know the image, does it matter if I know the person? The character is real enough.

None of this removes the reality of the obviously real. The recognition of a different order of reality does not actually change any established facts. It’s not “all in your head”, as anyone who has tried to imagine away a bullet can attest to. But some of it is is in your head, only it still doesn’t matter if you stop believing. As long as somebody else believes, the imaginary exerts an effect on the world. And there will always be somebody who believes.

So, if God is a meme, that just means God is imaginary. I think there’s room at the the table for him with me and the Economy. And in case you wonder, I am an imaginary character also.

Confused Universes

Untrappable panthers have been seen in New Jersey, and seem to be an epidemic in Great Britain. Great beasts like dinosaurs are seen in lakes that cannot possibly have the ecosystem to sustain them. Hairy man-like things like prehistoric people wander the woods worldwide, yet never seem to be captured. The dead are seen wandering old hallways, but the dead cannot walk. None of these things can exist, but nonetheless seem to.

There is a famous scientific demonstration called the Double Slit Experiment. It seems to indicate that single photons can appear to be in two places at once and interact with themselves. Some physicists posit that the apparent result is simply a side-effect of the way in which human minds interact with natural phenomena outside of our ordinary experience. It remains a basic fact of existence that a thing cannot be in two places at the same time. Except when it can.

Consider that our existence is not singular, but plural. There is the possibility of multiple universes, but not separated by distance. Imagine yourself as having followed every possibility. Perhaps everything that can exist is here with us, but normally inaccessible. Why? There must be some unknown separator.

What happens when the separator breaks down? Do universes bleed into each other? Is the ghost really a dead soul? Or is it simply the perception of a person going about their business in another universe, or another time? Is the monster in the lake really there? Perhaps it is, but only temporarily. Perhaps only as an image.

What is a universe? Literally, everything “turned into one”. A single narrative, with a single chain of events that proceed from a point called the Past, through a constantly moving Present, into a definite Future. We should be able to know the future with certainty, if there is only one. Yet the existence of events, even imperceptible ones, that are wholly random forbid perfect knowledge of the Future. What determines the result of randomness? Perhaps nothing does, and every path is followed. We can never know then which Universe we are in, only that we were in a group of universes that shared a common past until a certain point of divergence.

Is something keeping us from ourselves?

Somewhere in Oregon there may be a Sasquatch who has lost his way from another Universe. Or perhaps he wonders why he can suddenly see strange, hairless monsters who look disturbingly like himself.

This is not science. I am not a scientist.