Omniverse
by Richard E. Raby
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 92 8:03:29 CDT
From: rraby2@ub.d.umn.EDU (Richard E. Raby)
To: leri-l@iscsvax.uni.edu (House of The Gods)
Here's my -unedited- post of all my Omniverse essays as I have saved them. They are certainly not everything I've written about the Omniverse, but they are the main ones with the best thoughts that I have kept. That I have kept.
Please read, and reread if necessary. It's not the book, so expect it to be a little bit less than incredibly easy to follow. Think of it as "raw data".
Omniverse essay #1
"I think this essay has a life of its own."
LSD...
Has a different meaning to me than that thing I took in the car. It's like I don't even remember taking it. That wasn't the important part. In fact, it had no meaning at all. What happened later meant something. It's as if it was natural, not foreign or toxic. It was a part of me, a key that someone gave to me knowing that it would fit, and I would find wonderful things locked inside myself. Things I'd forgotten I had, and things I never knew were there. Funny though, there was nothing in there I hadn't suspected might be. I was aware of the flightiest thoughts I had years ago, the kind that last a fraction of a second but seem too far from reality to hold onto.
Why don't we place value on those thoughts? What's so absurd about those weird dreams we have? I realized the hidden meaning in all these little things. The things you're *taught* to ignore. When I was tripping, I was *myself*, truly and wholly--me. There was no hiding anything, no layers, no shells. What's so difficult is that I'm expressing this through a shell. That there's only a thread to the core. I realized that to stay tripping all the time would mean dealing with people that weren't. It would be impossible to function without being locked-up for "strange behavior".
Society itself is a limitation to the human being. People who don't follow patterns or stay within the limits of a language are regarded as "nuts". People who do this, pretending to be "reality-goers" only when it suits them, are called "genius", "brilliant", or "eccentric". By the way, "reality" is a communal state of mind, born only by groups of people or people strongly affected by a group. Reality is more like a place. It simply exists. I call it the Omniverse, the set of everything. No, not the everything you know, but also everything you don't know. This includes everything that doesn't exist, everything that *does* exist, every thought, every dream, every image, every feeling, logic, illogic, nothing, cows on the moon, the concept of a God, the concept of no God, the existence of multi-dimensional creatures, the concept that there is no Universe, no Earth, no "us", no nothing, the past, the present, the future, etc.
This is the reality that trippers tread on. We can see anything in any manner we want to. If you didn't want to see it, you just didn't *know* you wanted to see it. Everything is normal. You use your judgement to make decisions that are truly important to you. You learn your true being, who you really are. The reason this doesn't last is because when you're done, you find you have this whole life behind you full of decisions made and affected by other people. And you realize you've only been in true control of yourself for a number of hours. You find society bearing down on you like a mountain when you're in a mineshaft. There's no way out; you must succumb. You have little choice.
All that we know is from what we've seen in the past. What we've learned from "past-dwellers". There's no escaping it; our futures are built on the past. Few people can escape far enough ahead of it to be considered "visionaries". One thing is fortunate. Complexity. Complexity is what minds are made of, and a great deal of it. A mind is a complex structure (a complex arrangement of things) that draws things from the Omniverse into the Universe. Also known as "making ideas happen", "making dreams come true", "wishing things into existence", or "applying creativity". This is a property of the Universe. Complex arrangements of things bring non-existent things into existence. They bring things into "reality". For example, minds make reality out of shapes seen in clouds, faces seen in knotty wood, demons hiding in the trees, ghosts, visions, inventions, etc.
But what about the mind itself? What constitutes a mind? Everything in existence is a mind. Everything in existence is a complex arrangement of things of varying complexity. An entity is only a set of these things that lie within some boundary (i.e., bounding area, bounding space, interval of time, etc). Anything can be considered part of something else. In this way you can speak of your mind as an entity, representing the arrangement of neurons in your brain. You may speak of your brain as an entity, representing the arrangement of some known particles in the Universe. You may speak of your body as an entity, including your brain, including or excluding your mind. You may speak of society; you may speak of the Universe.
What is thought? What makes me aware? If your answer is "because I'm human", you're wrong. Compared to my awareness now, I was an amoeba before I tried LSD. LSD helped me change the arrangement of shit in my head, so I'm *more* aware. I was self-aware to some degree before, but I'm more self-aware now. Organisms gain self-awareness through evolution because they gain complexity. Amoebas are more self-aware than raindrops, due to their complexity. But what about the Earth as a whole? Is it far more aware than humans because it contains many self-aware humans, cities, structures, and other complex things? It's certainly more complex than a human. Or is it wholly a step closer to simplicity?
Omniverse essay #2
> substance? This is step two of the experiment. Ideally we're seeking a > synthesis of the best elements of the sober state, with the best elements of > the "tripping" state, the full tripping state, the one where all of our mind is > open to us (the one we certainly haven't found yet). > > Any comments? They would be inordinately welcome. > > Scotto >I was thinking about this a little more just reading it over again. I think we have seen many of the same things in our experiences. That's what I believed from the very start, from my very first trip! It is no doubt apparent when under the influence of yourself.
I remember my first trip when I tripped with my best friend Andrea'h. We thought we were dead because we couldn't imagine a more blissful state. Finally we decided that we didn't care if we were dead if that's what it was like. We agreed that if we ever stopped tripping (we thought we'd be like that forever) we desired to be in that mind state all the time. It was a wonderful discovery.
Perhaps I'm beginning to see trails (visual effects) in normal life because I'm trying to achieve that trippy mind-state again. I notice many people in alt.drugs mention they seldom or never have flashbacks. Do you suppose they do not desire the tripping mind-state in normal life? Did they not make the conscious decision to enter that state as I have done? I am practically *living* a flashback. I've been having dozens of "little flashbacks" every day since my last trip (Friday, March 13) and almost as many since my previous trips.
Come to think of it, I made the conscious decision to see these visual effects because I wanted to learn something about time. I want to see moving things in "4D" for awhile and try to learn something about the Omniverse. Oh, no. We're getting into the Omniverse. I better include something else I wrote concerning complexity, minds, and the Omniverse. Here goes...
------
Um, sorry. Guess I don't have it in digital here. I'll dig it up and send it later.
In short, the Omniverse is the set of everything. The [physical] Universe is infinately small compared to the Omniverse. The Omniverse contains emotions, feelings, non-existent things, logic, illogic, life-after-death, cows on the moon, the concept of God, the concept that there is no God, nothingness, everythingness, the idea that the number 4 is the answer to life, the conception that having sex with machines can result in human reproduction, pink kiddy-pools, demons, dreams, anything you can imagine, everything you can't imagine, etc.
Get the picture? You might conclude that I believe anything is possible. I believe that. Every idea is true. Your being exists in more dimensions than you typically observe. Your observations of yourself and other people are only physical in nature, typically. Where are you when you dream? In your bed? Well, only partially. You sort of "keep a foot on the ground" when you sleep, so other people know where you are and that you're alive. If you want to leave physical existence, you can. But you don't if you like things here. You may explore, and you may live in more than one place at once. The observable Universe is only the intersection of existences at any time. For instance, I am "way out there" right now, but that woman sitting in front of me could see me if she desired. But she's off somewhere right now, somewhere deep in the world of that Macintosh. Ah, but so am I. So our existences have another intersection right now, other than the Universe. It's the world of the Macintosh. Many people live in this world today. We have words we use to describe this place and allow us to communicate in the Macintosh world (e.g., chooser, icon, menu, scrollbar). We live in many other worlds as well. It is only up to our desires to choose where we want to live. As our desires change, we move, we learn.
When you are tripping with someone, you realize your ability to assume any state or go anywhere you desire. Thus when you are tripping with a friend, you may be in very nearly the same world entirely. If you are in love with this person, you may feel like you are one entity. I believe this is because your existence intersects in so many worlds. There is evidence of this if you look at the circumstances under which people fall in love. They meet (perhaps drawn together telepathically), they begin to see similarities in their lives, their interests, their feelings, their dreams. One might ask how they met, why they were both physically in the same place at that time. It is commonly because they live in similar surroundings. Thus, their existences may intersect in many places already.
The Omniverse does not descriminate. Every world is just as big as another (an Omniversally valid statement). Some people may see the Universe as the largest possible place; they are unaware of larger worlds. The world of Macintosh is just as big as the Universe. Heck, it's just as big as the Omniverse, if you choose. The world in my head is the largest world I can imagine. But according to the Omniverse, I can imagine farther than this if I like. I can use my imagination to acknowledge or create worlds larger than imagination. I have created (acknowledged) the Omniverse. And according to the Omniverse, this is possible and perfectly valid. This explains the fact that people can have different realities, of their own, when societies tend toward communal realities.
Hwew! I think I just created alot of fuel to keep myself going on this subject.
Omniverse essay #3
[personal stuff deleted] This is a pretty sketchy essay with no real point.
Funny, I was just now talking to a friend about philosophy. I once thought he was far more advanced than I in philosophy, but I think I've since conjured something that's a little tough for him to ignore. I somewhat dislike using the term "philosophy" because it brings about so many images of old greek dudes and all that "established" stuff. Tradition gets you nowhere. There is enough stuff in the Omniverse to think about to keep everyone alive (and everyone not alive) busy for eternity. [I'm feeling sort of ignorant.]
Hey, I wonder why I feel self-concious about making a statement like "Tradition get's you nowhere"? I'll bet it's because way back in my head I'm remembering how my elders always said "respect your elders" and "keep the tradition". And when I asked "Mommy, why do we go to church on Sunday?", I got answers like "It's the day of rest" and "Because of 'tradition'". None of this made sense to me, and after spending a lifetime of watching people do things for no apparent reason, and dying waiting for some kind of reward for religiously practicing their traditions, I decided that life was too short to live for past-dwellers. I live in the present, the future, and my *own* past. I have never seen any shread of logic used in a church; everything is taken on faith. Of course, in the Omniverse Christianity and all other religions have their place. The people who live by these philosophies may very well believe that they are ultimate, that they are true. But the fact is, these people as individuals have more than likely put little thought into their so-called beliefs. [I hope I'm not offending you, I'm just flaming a *little* bit. This is personal.] To take things on faith is ultimate sin in my book. It is buying into somebody elses reality and detracting from your own. You may choose to accept my ideas about the Omniverse, but I hope only after thinking about them. It is possible that you've encountered me and the Omniverse idea with such inevitability in your existence that *everything* makes sense to you personally, and nothing needs explanation. The whole idea behind the Omniverse is that is explains all worlds, including both mine and yours. Thus the Omniverse should not need explanation, since it contains all elements of your world. What you understand of the Omniverse is only limited by your desire to acknowledge it. Now that you know what it is, now that you have a word for it, you may be in a grocery store somewhere selecting between brands of potato chips and suddenly become aware of the intersections of worlds and your place in them. You may just as well notice that the world of your own imagination is at least as large as the (physical) world you live in. You may realize that the Universe is only as large as you choose to observe. How do you even know that your car will be outside the grocery store where you left it? You took great enough care to acknowledge its existence, and position, in the Universe when you pulled-up that it will be there when you leave. But if you fail to carefully place it in your world, in your future, by failing to create sufficient ties to it, it may disappear. How? you might ask? Someone could come along and steal it. But how is it even possible for somebody to steal your car, even when you take many precautions? The thief may be living in enough of your worlds to know of your carelessness, to know your weaknesses. Also, you might consider that the car is not even stolen, not really gone, if you choose to believe this. You may have hope of getting it back, you may persue the thief to make it "not stolen" any longer, or you may forget about it. You see, you are the creator of your worlds. One might argue with this and say that everything is bound to happen: fate. This is only evidence that "creation" is only a word, and we are failing to acknowledge its full meaning.
Enough for tonight. I'm going home and going to bed. Please comment on anything here. I feel as though this discussion is somewhat more specific than the others (rest of message), and it may be worthy of argument.
Omniverse essay #5
>In response to the talk about models... > I think what would be useful to hear is how people use their new found >Knowledge and such to interpret and/or deal with the life that we all are a >part of. >i.e... > Omniverse guy, you have these ideas about the Omniverse and how it is the >set of abolutely everything... how does that affect your everyday life? WhatMy everyday life is quite different than it used to be. It is difficult to describe, but if one were to observe my actions you would, perhaps, find little difference in my behavior. That is, you would not see me acting psychotic or anything. I feel that what I am speaking of here is somehow part of the natural progression of my life. How is it possible for me to think of such things like "everythingness"? I think that all trippers have seen this. I think that everyone experiences this. What, perhaps, makes me different is my life experiences that have allowed me to make certain word associations. I have created a word, and with it I have attached a number of thoughts. These thoughts conjure certain feelings in the minds of many people. What has helped me to create these thoughts is the manner in which I see (have seen) the world.
At this moment, I feel as if I was helpless to much of my experiences that have contributed to my beliefs. I am not acting alone. I am, apparently or not, a product of society, a product of your thoughts, a product of my family's and friends' actions, a product of George Bush's waking-up this morning, a product of evolution, a product of the so-called "Big Bang", etc.
These are things that I can relate to the Universe. These are things for which we can all find physical evidence of (except for "your thoughts", one might argue). Everything that goes-on in your mind is a product of everything that has happened to you for every single moment in your life. Your thoughts, as I write, as you read this, are affected by me, my thoughts, and everyone else's. You are a member of the Universe. But what is the Universe? How is it different than the Omniverse?
The Universe is a very loose set. The Universe is not a constant set, either. The Universe is *your* conception of the Universe. The Universe is the intersection of all our worlds, if you wish to view it as such. [I choose to view it this way; this is my model (for now).] This is why it is possible for people to live a life until death without any such view or conception of the Universe. It is possible to hold a view of the "Universe" that encompasses no more than one's house, all one's belongings therein, and all one's thoughts and memories experienced while inside that house. One's entire "Universe" may be a prison cell or hospital bed.
I choose to call the Universe the set of all physical things that "seem" to behave according to the laws of physics as I know them at this moment in time. Here is where we realize that the Universe is not all-encompassing, and there is a larger set of things that exist beyond what we see. All we must do is try to place a sense of "correctness" on anything in our past. Try to accept any memory of a physical event as if it happened exactly as you remember. Now try to discuss that event with another witness of it. It is obvious; you find inconsistencies in your perceptions of it the more detail you try to remember. What you *thought* was an event that existed only in the Universe, the Universe which we try to believe is common to all people, has suddenly acquired more depth, existence in more dimensions. Ah, but you thought that event was constant and unquestionable. You say, "But I *know* it happened as such". The other witness also says, "I *know* it happened as *I* observed it". Who's perception is correct? Both of them. Each is correct in each person's own world.
What "reality" is, is the place where we share understandings. It is, as well, the Universe (if you choose to view it as such). The reason, I believe (today), that the physical Universe is so "observable" by us is because of evolution and our life experiences since birth. That Universe which is common to so many of us would suddenly change if you were to become blind. It would also change if some physicist devised a new theory that explained some previously unexplainable physical phenomena. It changed when I cast my thoughts acknowledging the existence of the Omniverse. It is changing right now!
>can you use from that idea to make this life we must survive in a more >aggreeable, more useful place in which to be? Also, does the Omniverse idea >follow you into a trip and how do you use those ideas in that state of >being? Do you follow up with some of those ideas and explore them more fully, >do you just have those ideas and just let them float around, how do your ideas >and such influence your behavior?Where does the future lie? How do events and ideas come into existence? How does the future turn into the past? These are not such baffling questions to those who have tripped. When you trip, especially if you are paying attention to it, you may notice that time has little more meaning than color or shape. Time is something that has meaning to us biologically, but has no special meaning in the Omniverse. All dimensions and all sets are equal in size as observed with an Omniversical view. Things only become "larger than" and "smaller than" when you are *inside* one of the Omniverse's sets. The so-called "Universe" is only larger than Earth when viewed from Earth. Earth is only larger than "me" when viewed by me, from the perspective that I am smaller than the Earth. The past and future only exist when viewed from the present. *All* your perceptions are results of your chosen perspective.
[Maybe I should get back to the questions.] When I first tripped, I remember realizing that the world was just as big outside [the house] as it was inside. The world on the couch was just as big as the living room, and the world of my girlfriend's face was just as big as the world outside, which was just as big as the Universe. I found just as much interesting stuff in the bathroom as I did under the couch, as I did in my own mind when I closed my eyes. My own imagination was just as interesting as anything I could observe in the Universe-al world of the living room. All of my thoughts contained within the entity of my own world, my own mind, were just as valid as anything I could observe in what I thought to be the physical world, the Universe.
The single most important thing I found, while tripping, that you can do to preserve your thoughts is talk about what you are experiencing. When you talk, you are giving your ideas and feelings greater existence in the Universe. You are moving air, causing vibrations, and *physically* changing something. Most importantly, whom ever you are talking to has some understanding of what your words mean, and that person gains a greater intersection with your existence. Thus, I like to say you can make someone trip just by talking to them. Actually, anything you can do to communicate with whom you are tripping will contribute to preserving your thoughts. Talking is not necessarily the easiest form of communication, especially when you are tripping, but it creates ideas in your mind that are prepared in a form that can more easily be expressed to other people once you are no longer tripping.
If people spend alot of time talking about their feelings while tripping, they have essentially done the equivalent of bringing physical objects back from their dreams into the waking world. They have associated the words they use in everyday life with the tripping experience. Thus, when they then talk while not tripping, they begin to slightly trip during normal speech and spend more time rationalizing their words before they are spoken. I believe that communicating while tripping betters your ability to communicate. If we wish to create a communal state of tripping, that is, a state where we can feel like we are tripping when we are communicating with other people, we must relate communicating with the tripping experience.
I have spent many years trying to integrate my dreaming world with my "normal" world. In fact, I have had many intersections between physical objects encountered in my dreaming world with my normal world. In other words, I have encountered objects in dreams that later appeared in my normal life, with astounding precision, too. In my dreams, I often become very conscious, and I sometimes have great trouble finding evidence that I'm even dreaming. I have made my dream world largely indistinguishable from my normal world, and I am working to make my normal world largely indistinguishable from my tripping world. In this respect, I may make dreaming very much like tripping. I think a good route to take if you wish to do this is trip in your sleep. This is best done alone if you find it difficult to sleep when tripping with someone else. You would most likely rather be talking to that person. I have tripped in my sleep and found it to be very useful for making trips feel like dreams. If your purpose is to find an acceptable medium through which you can communicate your trip to someone, this is good. You can call it a dream. This is not my purpose. I wish to communicate that my experience is due to LSD, the drug, *and* all my other life experiences. I wish to place significant value on every single thing that I experience. With this, I can relate everything in my life to my feelings during tripping and come closer to perpetually living in this state of mind.
> And one more thing... >Has anyone found that other people, specific people, are essential to the >process of disovery? Or is singularity the most prevalent mode?I have found that if you wish to seek greater understanding of yourself and your own thoughts, it is to your advantage to trip with someone whom you love and trust, and that understands you. You have no doubt created many similarities between yourselves through your past experiences, and it is much easier to focus on specific personal aspects of eachother.
If what you're looking for is exposure to new worlds, try tripping with someone you know and trust, but you are curious about or consider to have a really different reality than your own. I think this can help to eliminate stereotypes you may have formed about specific types of people. It is best that you know this person to some degree, first, so you can avoid "culture shock" when you try to cope with your own reality again.
> >I'll be interested to hear from some of you... > >H.Miller > >Love is rare >Life is strange >Nothing lasts >People change... Gretchen CryerI like.
Omniverse essay #6
Try this one on for size.
If culture is that thing that inherently surrounds us, that thing that we almost cannot see until we are exposed to different cultures, what would happen if you tripped with someone of a very different culture than you? Perhaps the person even speaks a different language than you.
It seems that most people tend to trip with people of their same cultural background. In fact, most everything you do is with people of at least similar backgrounds. There are exceptions.
But why is this? Why ARE there nations? Why ARE there different languages?
Is it because in order to learn more about our selves (as we desire) we need to "simplify the expression", as you would say in mathematical terms (SYNCHRONICTY?)? Must we find people that are so very, very similar to ourselves that no *self*-learning can occur otherwise?
Evidence: who are your friends? Who are your best friends? Would you be friends if you had nothing in common? You might think that when you meet someone you have little in common. But what do you know then? What do you *know*?! It is simple (yeah, right). Look *back* in time at your current friendships before you knew that friend well. There was just *something* about him/her, something attractive, like you already knew him/her.
Now *remember* those people whom you feel somehow attracted to. What do you *know* about them. Feels weird doesn't it? Chances are you will meet them again. Or you will get very close to them and perhaps not know it.
How many people do you feel like this about? Just once in awhile, right? Okay, now how many people do you know or have met? Lots, right? Isn't it possible that when you get that weird feeling about someone that you will meet them again? Isn't it possible that you really did *know* something about them before you ever met? Did you *know* that you'd be talking to me? Did you sense it in the future? Did you have any feelings about this list's existence before it came into existence? Perhaps not really, perhaps very much so. Maybe little of your future is tied to this list.
You see, you get these weird feelings when something has significance to your life. It is all part of set and setting. Why do you think everyone stresses set/setting when preparing for a trip? Those people, the event of telling you this, your feelings about that person, your reactions to it, are all *part* of the set/setting. *Everything* is part of the setting. It's *just* like the setting of a story. It is *all* part of your mood, part of your past, part of your present, part of your future. Every last tiny, little, seemingly insignificant thing is part of the setting and contributes to your experience. Your reading all this right now, as you glare into the screen, how you feel about reading this, the color of the text on your monitor, how good your tummy feels *right now* has a real and meaningful effect on your set/setting for the next time you trip. I AM A REAL PART OF YOUR NEXT TRIP AND ALL TRIPS TO FOLLOW. *Everyone* who posts here is PART OF YOUR TRIP. I am sure that my next trip will be greatly affected by what I have learned here.
This is what I used to call "The Influence Rule". It basically stated that every person had *some* affect on every other person, no matter how small; it was *there*. This rule is still, for the most part, true. But I have since elevated my model to the Omniverse. This discussion doesn't seem to encompass the Omniverse idea very well, but that's the whole idea. It doesn't matter! Everything I type is just another world in the Omniverse. This fucking article is just as large as the Universe. See! I created a thought that CANNOT BE IGNORED. You my not see it, but it's *there*! It's true SOMEWHERE, in somebody's mind. Since it was true in my mind, for only a moment, it is an element of the Omniverse. Your understanding of the Omniverse idea is only as good as I can relate it to you, through what common intersections in the Omniverse we have. Alas, we have many. We have the Universe (for what it's worth), we have our computers, we have LSD, we have mysticism, we have English, we have tables, chairs, keyboards, hair, faces, eyes, fingers, windows, mouses, brains, neurons, alcohol, birth, cars, etc. We have literally just shit-loads of things in common. In fact, we have exactly just as much in common as we don't have in common (if you choose to view it as such; an Omniversally valid statement).
Stir this one around in your skull for awhile, then let's think of something productive to talk about that will get us where we want to be. All this is part of your reprogramming. The Omniverse idea is like a virus; if it doesn't kill you (drive you insane), it'll make you stronger. I'm sane; I'm strong.
Hope you're not tripping. Nah, it's all for the better.
Peace of mind,
Omniverse essay #7
> > [Note: this is personal mail, not leri-l mail] > > > Richard, > A model of reality that presumes criticisms of it are merely a part of > it is nothing more than a way of denying criticism. To say "omniverse" is > absolutely everything is fine and good, but to say that ideas that omniverse > is a mere Richard Raby construct are merely a part of omniverse is to > perform a feat of circular logic and denial.I am totally open for criticism. I realize that we all have different, equal ("just as good", not the same) realities. Never once did I say that my idea is any better than any other idea. In fact, I said (implied, if not said literally) that my idea was just "my personal idea", and that everyone else's understanding of it is contingent upon the extent of their intersection with my reality. For my idea of the Omniverse to be popular, which it somewhat is, is just to say that I have embodied a model of the Omniverse in my mind which is common to many other minds.
> If your omniverse model is trying to be akin to a Zen satori-like > understanding of the All, then I can see your general thrust, but you might > want to consider: would an enlightened mind say that anything contradicting > its enlightenment was just an idea within the enlightenment, or would it > seek to learn, learn, and to understand, as you said, to *know* without > placing the idea into the wastebin of Omniverse?Oh, I wouldn't call the Omniverse a waste-bin. Though it contains just as much waste as it does meaningful, ordered things.
Frankly, I don't know anything about Zen, Buddhism, Yoga, or any of that stuff. The point is, do I have to? Of course not. The only reason you might find the Omniverse analogous to the idea of Zen is that you have made connections to your understanding of Zen through your understanding of me. You are trying to fit your image of me into your model, which I'm assuming partially includes Zen, and perhaps other beliefs.
See, I have no understanding of Zen, other than what you've related the Omniverse to it for me. But that is not to say that Zen doesn't exist, or that Zen doesn't encompass everything that is imagined by it's followers. But I doubt, and I'm guessing, that Zen doesn't count the ideas of Christians or Muslims as equal in correctness to the idea of the Zen. Does Zen promote Zen? I don't know; you tell me. Do I promote the Omniverse? Do I say it is correct? I don't say that my idea of the Omniverse is correct, not to anyone else. But you see, in the Omniverse it is possible for me to do such a thing. And it is possible for me to say nothing. The Omniverse would exist without our acknowledgement of it. It is that which exists, yet that which doesn't. Here is proof. The *idea* of the Omniverse did not exist, as it does here, before I came along. Many people had images of Zen, et al as being the all-encompassing ideas, religions, whatever. AT THE TIME, Zen, perhaps was the largest model of the Omniverse that was possible in the minds of the believers. But now, NOW, there's this idea of the Omniverse, which is supposed to be larger than the idea of Zen. It's supposed to *contain* the idea of Zen. How is this so? How did the Omniverse not exist before I acknowledged it? How did Alpha Centauri exist before it was discoverd? How does USENET exist? Did Zen contain the idea of USENET? Currently, Zen accounts for USENET, because the idea of Zen exists in many minds that NOW know what USENET is. But what about *before*? What about *after*? How has the idea of the Omniverse changed since yesterday? There are, perhaps, more models of the Omniverse floating around in a bunch of human minds connected to the Universe *by* the Omniverse. But those ideas already existed somewhere in the Omniverse. The idea that more people than just I would carry models of the Omniverse was something that existed in the Omniverse. The Omniverse can have models of itself, sure. So can the Universe. If the Universe is a set of the Omniverse, and the Omniverse can have models of itself, then Universe can have models of *it*self since it could just be part of one of the Omniverse's own models of itself.
Can you prove this statement incorrect? You can using one of the Omniverse's worlds, the world of "accepted" human logic, to invalidate this statement. But how is it that this statement seems okay to me? I am a human. I use what *I* call logic. Really, there's no such thing as logic. Logic can contradict itself. In fact, logic contains such a construct: proof by contradiction! Now what?! What have you got left?! It's Omniversical. That's about all I can say.
> > Also, please realize that to *know* in the satori-like burst under LSD > is not necessarily to know truth; with LSD you strip away constructs, but > you still rely on a good many of them -- it's a wonderful tool for picking > apart social constructs and the like, but the lowest-level constructs won't > come apart in the burst of *knowing* any more than looking to the horizon > helps you realize the world is flat.People used to think the world is flat, and they took it for a very real thing. Now we think the world is round and believe it. But most scientists say it's "ellipsoidal". These are *all* generalizations. Our fullest conceptions of the world are nothing like they will be in the minds of people just a decade from today. We don't know shit.
> > I don't mean to sound harsh, but yur posts come across with the > convince, one-truth air of the true believer in a religion.Show me better. I've found nothing that describes my feelings, my reality, in any "established" religion. Religion is personal, yet it may be popular. Why? Well, we are very biologically similar. We may have "intersections" with worlds of established religions. Some people have more than others. How often is it that a Christian's son adopts Buddhism at a young age. Rarely. The child cannot even relate to such beliefs. It is counter-cultural.
> > Of course, I may be misreadin; perhaps Omniverse is a religion of one, > but even so, isn'tthat the same kind of getting stuck in your ways?How can I get stuck in somebody else's ways? Aren't all my ideas my own? Actually not. As before, our ideas are a culmination of all other people's ideas, to some extent. The Omniverse contains ambiguity. "All my ideas are my own; they pertain to me, yet my ideas are a result of someone else's, and my ideas affect other people's ideas." RR
> > Curious, [author's name deleted] >Where does it end?
Omniverse essay #8(?)
I'm just sitting here waiting for my contacts to soak, so I thought I'd write something about minds. I was just thinking about the subject and felt the need to write.
I was thinking about how I wrote that a mind is a complex arrangement of "things" of varying complexity. I also questioned "What makes me aware? Why am I more aware now than I was before?" If we think back to what we saw when we were tripping, we can draw a few conclusions. It was so obvious that we were part of something much larger. Remember, I said "the whole Universe is a fractal!" Well, if we try to define what a mind is, especially a human mind, we run into lots of problems. One cannot really argue that there's alot that's unexplained when it comes to minds, since nobody has actually constructed an artificial mind that people consider intelligent AND humanlike.
So what's the big deal? Why do people want to make artificial human minds? Are we that lonely? Do we want slaves? Is there something wrong with real humans? If you look to the heart of the matter, you could answer "yes" to all these, and probably more. We, in fact, *do* want slaves. But we know that humans have emotions, and we know that it hurts our emotions to be forced to work unwillingly. And yes, sure we're lonely sometimes, because real humans are so complicated it's often difficult to persuade them to spend time with you. And yes, we sometimes think that there *is* something wrong with real humans. Look at all the discrimination, racism, and judgement that takes place all the time. Many humans *do* think there is something wrong with other humans, thus they seek minds that better fit their selfish wants. We are all selfish to some extent; it's part of surviving, looking out for yourself.
But what about a mind? What constitutes a mind? What do we *consider* a mind? According to the Omniverse idea, everything in existence is a mind; everything in existence is a complex arrangement of things of varying complexity. The complexity of something can only be determined by what it looks like from a given perspective. But what is "something"? Any set of things that lies within some boundary can be considered "something", which is, in fact, just another "thing". This thing, according to the Omniverse idea, can always be considered a complex arrangement of things, because you can always observe the thing at a different perspective to see it with a greater complexity.
Take, for example, a square. We're talking about the so-called "real world" now, so keep this in mind. What you perceive to be a square is what you might call a "perfect square" (this is my term). You have a seemingly perfect conception of it. But think about what *really* represents that square. It takes your mind millions of neurons and synapses over some period of time to represent just your "idea" of a square. Similarly, if you draw what appears to be a perfect sqaure on paper using drafting equipment, you can also create the conception of a perfect square in your mind. You are no doubt looking at the square from some distance, so as to dwarf the imperfections relative to the concentration of rods and cones in your retina. Your mind "perceives" a perfect square. But if you move in closer, you may notice that the legs of your square are not straight lines. And if you move in even closer yet, you might notice that your "lines" are large smears of graphite that generally follow a linear path, that really zig-zag back and forth quite a bit if you look closer yet.
Now suppose we ask a person with astigmatism to look at the "perfect" square you drew. You ask that person to tell you if the square is perfect or not. The person will most likely disagree with you. You could, no doubt, argue endlessly about who is correct in judging the "perfectness" of the square. The point here is that it's impossible to tell who is correct. This is where society normally intervenes and makes a "majority-rule" judgement, concluding that since people with astigmatism are a minority, their vision is incorrect, and they cannot be trusted to make decisions of the visual nature.
Back to the idea of a mind. What actually happens when two people are in diagreement? Why do some people seem to be in "different worlds"? The answer to this is simple. They *are* in different worlds! Every person is in a different world than every other person. Every single individual is in a different world than what you might consider "society". Society, or what you might call "reality", is an illusionary world. It's only as big as any single person can perceive it. There's no such thing as "society as a whole", because it's really a mythical entity. Of course, it exists in the Omniverse, and it can be imagined by individual minds, but the representation of society that is imagined by any two minds are not exactly the same. They *cannot* be the same, for any two minds, not even those that are thought of as brains of genetically identical twins, are identical minds. Every mind that can be observed is unique. Identical minds can only exist in the Omniverse.
You've seen me mention that it's impossible for a mind to observe two identical minds, and that identical minds can only exist in the Omniverse. This is somewhat of a lie, because since it's possible for you to imagine that genetically identical twins have the same mind, the idea exists in a world smaller than the Omniverse. This leads me to talk about what a mind *does*.
A mind is a complex arrangement of things, an entity that is capable of relocating things (or arrangements of things, other entities) from one part of the Omniverse to another. In other words, a mind (actually any entity, we just exercise a threshhold of complexity for what we consider a mind) can bring nonexistent things, Omniversical things, into existence. Remember, the Omniverse also contains all that does not exist. When I say "existence", I mean what "appears" to exist from the perspective of any individual. It is possible for something to exist for one individual and not another. This is almost obvious if you think about it. Someone that is tripping obviously perceives the existence of things that do not exist in the perceptions of others, especially people that are not tripping. This is just as true for any two people that are not tripping, nor have ever tripped. These people simply tend to make societal reality out of these perceptions, depending on the status of the individual who makes the perception. If, for numerous reasons, the person who perceives "non-existent" things does not hold significant status in the society, then the perceptions are discarded by members of that society (i.e., Do you believe George Bush? Or do you believe a lunatic? You see, this can be argued).
Now how can we describe what we consider a mind? What people really mean when they talk about a mind, not considering my definition, is an enitity (a complex arrangement of things that lie within some boundary) that seems to function similar to a *human* mind. The general notion of what constitutes an intelligent mind is something that can appear to communicate with a human and "think" like a human. This criteria is really not necessary for something to have self-awareness or "intelligence", because, in fact, everything in existence is self-aware to some degree, and the human judgement of this is only based on the human ability to communicate with such things. To flatter the majority of humans, I will try to speak of a mind as something, an entity, that can communicate with a human, however difficult the communication may be.
Currently, the only entities that are considered remotely cognitive (self-aware) by humans are some animals and computers. I think animals are considered much more cognitive than computers, today, despite their inability to solve human problems or communicate precisely with humans. The underlying thing that I see humans judge self-awareness by is complexity, whether they're aware of it or not. People seem to develop a rapport with moving machinery more so than inanimate objects. This brings light to the matter of "complexity with time". In order to judge complexity, time must be considered. Actually, *all* dimensions must be considered to accurately judge complexity, but humans have an inherent inability to recognize dimensions other than the three geometric dimensions and the dimension of time.
Things in motion have greater complexity than things at rest; they have existence in more dimension. One could also argue that the complexity of an entity could be judged by how many dimensions it exists in. For example, a pentagram (sign of the devil; pentagon with five pointed star inside) can be drawn in a two-dimensional plane, but its maximal existence lies in four dimensions (five interlocked tetrahedrons joined at their vertices; five points all equidistant from eachother). Similarly, a four-dimensional hypercube can be thought of as a cube that has traveled the length of a side into the fourth dimension, at a right angle to the third dimension. A hypercube is more complex than a cube. These are very basic constructs.
What about a computer program? Does a computer gain complexity when a program is run? Yes, of course. Have you ever tried to de-bug a program? The task of debugging can be quite complex, even though the program may look relatively simple on paper. What makes debugging so complex is the program's interaction with the computer's operating system, another very complex entity, and the programmer's human interaction with both. The combination of these entities, especially considering how they change with time, makes for a *very* complex entity of itself. Computers as static, non-operating machines appear to have some degree of complexity without time. If you opened-up a computer and looked inside, especially inside of each chip, like with a microscope, you would find great complexity. But this complexity has almost no comparison to the complexity that can exist when software is involved, when time is involved. Any piece of software is a living, breathing entity of it's own when placed in the correct envirnoment. Software on a disk is like a seed. It is *potential* complexity. It's complexity does not become apparent until it is executed on the computer for which it can live in. It does not really have existence until one mind, a human, moves its location in the Omniverse from the disk to the computer, and another mind, the computer, moves it's location in the Omniverse from the computer to the human mind again.
Computers are well-integrated with human minds. They are something like "extensions" of the human mind. But, by my definition of an entity, computers can certainly be thought of as entities of themselves. They can be thought of as creatures that live alone. For the most part, they do not live like this. They are designed to interact with humans. This is what we desire of them; they are *part* of us.
What would it take to build an intelligent computer? Intelligence is a very debatable word. This is due to the fact that humans all have very different realities of their own, so when "intelligence" is discussed, every human has a different idea here. So what would it take for a computer to "generally" be considered intelligent? I think it must have the same attributes we already look for in so-called "intelligent" humans. But since it's so difficult to judge what intelligence is, this idea must be left very loose and contain somewhat of a personal element. Intelligence is relative to the individual; it is nothing more than an entity's ability to possess the things you desire and be able to communicate this to you. This communication is nearly the most important part, for without it you have no connection to the world of such entities. I may be intelligent, but you would never believe this if I had no ability to communicate with you. In this fashion, you might conclude that intelligent computers must be able to express themselves to you, that they must be able to communicate with you, whatever the medium. This is true. [Remember the cult of the glowstrings? That person communicated with the glowstring.]
When we trip, we find that we have new abilities to communicate. We have, instead of altering our surroundings to make them able to communicate with us, we alter ourselves to better our ability to communicate with our surroundings. This is a most unselfish act. It would be nice to alter our surroundings enough such that a computer existed that we could communicate with. This has been done. But we could do better; we could alter *both* ourselves and our surroundings to create a computer that we could communicate with better. Think of what "communicate" means. "Commune". "Community". "Communicate". They all suggest that there is "bonding", that larger entities are being formed from smaller ones, that many things are becoming one. If we seek to become one with the computer, we will have created a new entity, one that contains both of us. Minds create entities. Complex arrangements of things are minds; they are entities themselves. Minds can create other minds.
Omniverse essay #(?) (telepathy)
In article <1992Mar2.160802.10078@jsp.umontreal.ca> you write: >I've extracted the following from a file concerning "Mind Machines". > >> >>Q: What are these "brain wave frequencies" you've mentioned? >> >>A: While only the most science-ignorant fool thinks that the entire brain >>pulses in time to one frequency, EEGs show that at any given time, your brain >>produces distinct waveforms in four frequency groupings, called beta waves (14 >>to 30 Hz, pronounced hertz, meaning cycles per second), alpha waves (8 to 13 >>Hz), theta waves (4 to 7 Hz), and delta waves (1 to 3 Hz). When we say that >>you are "in beta state" (which you normally are), what we're saying is that >>that's the dominant set of frequencies, the ones with the highest amplitudes. >>Beta is associated with alertness, with the highest frequencies in that range >>often described as "fight/flight" mode. Alpha frequencies have long been >>associated with meditation and relaxation. Theta waves are considered by some >>to be associated with a dreamy, creative states. Delta waves are generally >>strongest when you're asleep. >> [ stuff deleted ]I was talking with a regular poster of alt.drugs about "Invoking breathing walls", and the topic I raised was that you see much more than visual contortions like breathing walls and "trails" when you're tripping. When you trip, you begin to operate in different areas of your brain, and thus you acquire the ability to notice things in your environment, moving with respect to time, that you normally wouldn't see. Psychoactives like LSD enhance your awareness of your surroundings, including your own mental processes. Thus you may become aware of the speed at which your brain processes information, primarily visual information (as reported). This causes your mind to take a different perspective on things in motion. You stop ignoring the continuous fluidity of things in motion, and you begin to see moving objects as if they were smooth brushstrokes painted on a canvas.
The ability to gain a deeper resolve of the meaning hidden in these visual overlays is part of what brings such insight and revelation to the observant tripper. Perhaps you've wondered why it's possible to judge the period of a swinging pendulum, or the speed of a turning wheel. Most everything you judge with respect to time is done relative to the processing speed of your brain when it is observed (e.g., "Time flies when you're having fun"). If you are very relaxed, and your concentration is on your visual canvas, your are in a good state of mind for observing trails left by things moving in your view. However, if your concentration lies on something internal to your mind, you might be totally oblivious to what's happening in your field of vision. Similarly, you might not notice visual activity if you are listening carefully to an interesting piece of music.
About processing speed. Most people have noticed how a spinning spoked wheel will appear to slow, stop, and reverse direction when observed in a specific state of mind. Usually you will notice this change when the wheel is changing in its speed of rotation. But you may also notice this change even when the wheel has continued to spin with constant speed. The change is observed when your mind has shifted from one processing speed to another, or said to have changed states. A spinning wheel will appear to have stopped when a multiple of the angular frequency at which it spins comes in sync with the image sampling frequency of your brain. I suppose it would be possible to determine a person's mind state from their report of a spinning wheel's appearance.
Trippers seem to easily adjust to the mind state of eachother because they often report seeing exactly the same visual effects when together, whereas a non-tripping observer sees nothing, nor can rationalize that anything is in existence where the tripper may be looking.
This brings me to an argument in favor of mental telepathy. I firmly believe that people communicate regularly through a medium other than speech, visually observable body language, or any other traditionally recognized medium of communication. I don't know for certain what the medium is, but I have witnessed, and regularly experienced, mental communication. It may be impossible for someone with a life of skepticism to see the rationality of this, but I believe that LSD can open the mind of an individual to the possiblility of such an art. I have experienced trips where my partner and I sat observing a picture without looking at eachother and described all the same visual contortions. Similarly, we spent several hours lying in bed, tripping very hard in total darkness, and were later able to describe almost exacting images. The problem with description is the fact that words are merely tokens attached to numerous associations of life experience for an individual. No two individuals share the same experiences, not even genetically identical twins. The ability of one to understand another's description of something is left to imagination. Understanding is acknowledged with a smile or laughter. When a person tells a joke, the success of the transmission, indicated by laughter, is dependent on the assumption that a general enough scenario is used so that the recipient can make the proper associations from his/her own experience to understand the joke. Telepathic messages, however, usually carry such an element of vagueness that they are rarely understood. That is not to say that humans are incapable of accurate telepathic communication. It merely implies that both the sender and recipient almost always lack the training to precicely convey and interpret telepathic messages. Modern culture and society have neglected to raise individuals in environments that promote telepathic development. This is the reason for its sparse existence.
>-- >Pierre Gaumond. | >Services Informatiques, Universite de Montreal. | gaumondp@ERE.Umontreal.CA >C.P. 6128, Succursale "A", Montreal, | gaumondp@JSP.UMontreal.CA >Quebec, Canada. H3C 3J7 | gaumondp@centrcn.UMontreal.CA
Omniverse essay #(?+1) (weird dream)
Yesterday was somethin' else. But today I feel great! Nothing has changed, if you want to look at it that way. Yes, nothing has really changed.
I bought the _Red Hot Chili Peppers_, Mother's Milk today. Listening to it now. Two terms: [Adrenaline. Mind-fuck.] That's all I have to say.
I made tea last night. I'm not going to drink it without planning. Four packs of MG, ground and filtered. It makes a very black tea. Looks DANGEROUS. I call it "Latter Bug". Strange and funny, I preminisced this moment about five years ago. I remember the dream where that Latter Bug crawled up my veins through an infection in my big toe, lodged itself under my sternum, and I had to pry it free. "Large, black, and evil in its hard, hollow shell..." I have an award-winning poem I wrote about the Latter Bug; I'll have to get it from my high school creative writing teacher. It's a killer.
Had a dream this afternoon during my nap. Wild(!). My psychology professor handed me a copy of the FBI's file on me. It had photographs of me and Booger (who I called FBI about) taken from discrete locations. They had almost everything on me. That was cool, but it got strange and abstract. I was kneeling in the corner of my room, and I had a 1/2" clear plastic tube inserted through the phone jack in the wall. Water began to flow from it, and several small fish, minnow-like, came out of it. They were very lively. Four of them were orange, and the others were silver. The silver ones were called cysts. I think they were the same species, but the silver ones were called cysts. They did not like to be picked-up; they were supposed to die on the carpet. Fire flowed through a pair of wires that connected to the wall jack, and the neigbors were listening to me through the column of water in the tube. I pushed the tube further into the jack to stop the water, but it kept flowing and sprayed a bit. I woke before the fish died.
Omniverse essay #(?+2) (omnistuff)
Okay, I've seen the discussion of the Omniverse surface again, and some of you have questions. Throw them at me. I'm at a point where questions from other people would be most helpful in my formulating ideas about the Omniverse into words that people can understand. I must agree with an earlier post where (Scotto?) said that to understand the Omniverse idea, you must understand the author. You must understand that the Omniverse idea is something that a human being formulated, not a god, not a guy that's been dead for a thousand years, but a person who is alive right now that you can talk to (I wouldn't mind staying alive forever, though). You must understand what that person has experienced, how that person has lived, and how that person's life relates to yours for that person's ideas to be applicable to you. (Actually, the Omniverse idea also holds the notion that you need *not* understand me, but trying can't hurt.)
What makes it possible for you to understand my ideas is the undeniable fact that we have vast intersections in the Omniverse, and we are so close in exactness that the idea of the Omniverse transpiring from my mind to yours is just like you debating something in your own mind. Yet, simultaneously, we are so vastly different that it is *also* possible for you to be confused by the idea. Confusion exists in the Omniverse.
Some of you have said that you can foresee the implications of the Omniverse idea, but you are having trouble seeing any applications right now. I notice this, that you have not discarded the idea because you do not fully understand it, instead you have been pondering. It is now time to talk about this a little more. The Omniverse idea is something that is at a high enough level that it can explain all thoughts, all events, and existence itself. The reason it does not do this for you is that the world of your consciousness is larger than the Omniverse itself to you right now. This is Omniversically possible (the Omniverse contains worlds larger than itself). But in my mind right now, the Omniverse is the highest level construct I can imagine. The popularity of the idea of the Omniverse beheld by my mind is due, in part, to my life experiences. But more importantly (or just as importantly), we share similarities in our genetics AND our surroundings. This correlates with Leary's models and ideas of genetic progression if you examine our writings together. There are REASONS why the Omniverse idea is popular. These reasons alone can explain the structure of humanity itself, they can explain the structure of the Universe, they can explain the reasons why reasons can explain the Omniverse, and they can explain the Omniverse.
The Omniverse has always existed, but our ideas of it have not. I can generate a better understanding of the Omniverse for others by making more "connections" to my ideas of it by communicating them to people. For this to occur, there must be a "communion" of our minds; there must be *more* intersections between our worlds and existences for there to be a communal understanding of the Omniverse. This is why I choose to reveal so much of my personal life to the people of this group. This is why this group exists. We seek community and greater intersections of existence in order to better communicate our understandings of such things like the Omniverse. For many people the Omniverse is not their highest construct. This is entirely possible. In fact, it's possible to discard the Omniverse idea entirely and use a different high-level construct to commune with. This happens all the time. Note how society communes with television, radio, or musical groups.
What we have here is an *acknowledgement* of the existence of the Omniverse. And with that acknowledgement, we might find that the Omniverse is larger than Zen, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, or any other religion or belief system. But the fact remains that the Omniverse idea encompasses ALL these ideas and can be used as a higher level idea to commune with. Thus there can be better commun-ication between all entities with as-of-now lower level, smaller encompassing belief systems.
I have to close this lab right now, but formulate some thoughts about this, and we'll talk more on it later.
> Rraby, the Omniverse is your world view, and a fantastic one at that. > I congratulate you on having a liquid notion of everying within your > realm of experience. > (Don't worry, EVERYTHING is within your realm of experience).After this trip, just last night, I realized that my preconceptions of the Omniverse were very, well "distant", like I was looking at all from above, like I was the part of the Mandelbrot set that contained the whole, surrounded by other parts of the set. But what I realized last night was that was only the part of the set that all other parts of the set that I could see considered to be "the whole set".
But then I have to think that if infinity is accounted for, then any part of the set, if repeated long enough or viewed from a distant enough perspective, will contain, or be, the image of "the whole set". So now there is no good way to tell what "the whole" is. But back to what I said before in my writings; *this*, too, still fits with my ideas about the Omniverse. The entire Omniverse, "the whole", can be found in any part of the set: "The Omniverse contains copies of itself". Your conception of the Universe, or even the Omniverse, is based on your perspective of it, and it's a function of your placement in it. Any person can be the embodiment of the entire Omniverse. The entire whole is entire-ly contained within every element of itself.
And it *also* contains the conceptions that this is not true. All you must do is remember when you knew nothing of the Omniverse. Those ideas were valid by the statements presented here, and since you yourself contain the entire Omniverse, those conceptions of the Omniverse not existing were also part of the Omniverse. This is the concept I was trying to express before, but I could not quite find the words until all of you, all you other models of the Omniverse as seen from my Omniversical perspective, helped give me a better perspective of myself.
Question is, was I a bored God, and so to deplete my boredom did I plant the seeds of the Omniverse in your minds to help entertain myself? Or did you, other bored Gods (me, other parts of myself, yourself) plant these ideas in my mind so as to entertain yourselves (myself), and consequently generate other parts of the set, the Omniverse, for the sake of depleting boredom?
There is a God. We are all gods. We, together, are God. There is no God. There is an Omniverse. We are all part of the Omniverse. Each of us is the Omniverse. We, together, are the Omniverse. There is no Omniverse.
Let's just be happy and have orgasms. I want LOVE. That's what I want to create next.
> About the question of God creating something more powerful than himself; > or an omnipotent god creating a task he couldn't deal with; > This is not all that complex.Nope, not that complex.
> By our rules it is impossible. > But our direct realm of experience is not limited: can we imagine the shadow > of a situation in which the rules of our ideas dont fit? > Not that hard.Nope, not that hard.
> The religious folks will say: who are you to understand the realm of God. > Good point. We do Understand. We stand under and look up. > We cannot interstand. > Interstand is to understand from within. > We understand from without. > We can't image the interior of that realm of experience, > where the notion of Ominipotence takes on other meanings, > but we can conceive a notion.Good point.
> If you are having trouble, I have an easy example. > lets talk about a four sided triangle.No problem. I imagined it the moment you said it.
> Cannot be , you say?Did I say that? Sure, I *could* have.
We all struggle with it from time-to-time.
> Just imagine a realm wehre words transcend their fundamental definitionn. > In that same realm, the gods,omnipotent, struggle withing thier contexts. > > This adds, at least for me, a little more weight to the > "anything is possible" idea.Now you see it. Anything is possible. ... (if we so choose) Haha! Ha ha!
> Hiho."... Hiho, it's off the World we go. (whistle whistle ...) Hiho hiho hiho."
We are in understanding. Happy Easter!
cowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemoon Richard Raby rraby1@ub.d.umn.edu FAX: (218) 728-3128 "It's like a dream, no end and no beginning" -Madonna cowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemooncowsonthemoon Magic Man (Rich) rraby2@ub.d.umn.edu Ph, FAX: (218) 728-3128