Thursday, January 7, 2010

Exclusiveness vs Oneness

I have often been intrigued by the concept of exclusiveness - the idea that one is different from everybody else - the specialness that one has that other people do not have. How does one distinguishes oneself from everybody else - the idea of being unique.

In the land of the poor, the rich person is unique.

In the land of the rich, the poor is unique.

Even among the poor, it is still quite possible for the poor to compete among themselves to see who is the poorest.

In the same way, among the rich, each will compete with the other to see who is the richest.

But between the apex and the bottom most, if the distance between the two poles can be made large enough, it is quite possible for us to see that among those who are in caught in between, there will be sufficient space between each that makes one different from the other - and hence it is possible to say everybody is unique by being different from the next, no matter how small the difference.

In such a case, then the only truly situation is a tie, where one is the same as another - for that one is unqiuely different from the others by being the same as another - as in identical twins.

It will then be unusual and hence truly unique when a third or a fourth is unique with others - as in identical triplets and quadruplets.

As in the case of uniquely different viruses, we probably should enbark on a method for resolving the problem of naming elements in an environment of all uniquely different elements - a1, a2, a3, a4 - similar like viruses but different as in strands.

In the land of diversity, the only solution to true uniqueness is exclusion - by disallowing the existence of others, or disallowing others the use of the same symbol or word to identify one particularisation.

But, in the land of the happy people, commonness is embraced where none exists - the outside acceptance of similarity is only possible by the blatant discregard of the noticeable differences, banishing into oblivion in the mind by their insignificant of the differences.

Oneness can really only exist in the mind, when the mind accepts the concept of all being the same - even the pimple and the pus are the same, even if they are of grossly different colour and texture.


walla said...

It may be possible to give an answer without the need for a question.

When infinite divisibility meets infinitesimal change, diversity appears and it manifests itself as instantaneous transience within which existence and non-existence simultaneously operate in such coherence that neither green tea nor ale can possibly sublimate.

And that is an answer without a question.

But is there a question without an answer?

There are many in fact. The end of pi seems to be one. Fibonacci numbers, another. A Higher Existence, yet another.

There are two schools of thought.

One, we are the result of accidental collocations of atoms in a universe too vast to imagine.

Since we believe in consistency of argument above all else, consistency of argument becomes then even more real to us than the reality before us.

Thus, if we say we are formed in such an accidental fashion, we must also not deny that the universe was likely formed in such an accidental manner as well.

But who formed the material used to form the universe, it can be asked with equal consistency?

That seems to be a question without a definitive answer, at which point we seek an answer without a definitive question.

So we come to two, that there is a Higher Existence who made the raw material that went into diversified production lines which formed the universe that we observe before us.

A variant of that diversification is the cellular automata model which says that on the basis of a simple set of programmable rules, whatever we observe of the physical world can be designed out by operating those rules consistently.

In other words, the Higher Existence set consistent rules which ran in an operating system to automate the creation of the universe.

With both contending points in place, we now come to a big observation which will however only be disclosed in the end.

First, it seems that the physical world not only operates in a physical sense but living things which live in the physical world are encouraged by some heretofore unknown mechanism to conduct their lives in a non-physical sense for their own good.

Does this then imply that more than one set of rules was applied in the original production, one asks timidly?

There are only two and two answers to this piquant question.

One, there isn't which means only one set of rules apply and since it applies to the physical world, the non-physical sense is a concocted yearning and a mirage of a sentimental mind.

Two, there is which means that there are two sets of rules, one for the physical world, and the other for the non-physical world.

By the very first rule of consistency, if we say there is only one set of rules for the physical world, we must thus allow that there is only one set of rules for the non-physical world, for if there are more than one set of rules for each of the two worlds, then that must necessarily mean all the rules must be different which mean they will not be mutually consistent which thus means they are not operable rules, for even exceptions to a rule will be adjuncts to the rule.

It therefore follows that the universe will be run on a maximum of two sets of rules, one for the physical world and another, if it exists, for the non-physical world.

Up to this byte, the rules of the physical world are being revealed day by day.

And many people will say that the rules of the non-physical world have already been revealed long ago.

However, as diversity will have it in the nucleus of instantaneous transience, the non-physical rules seem to have different sources in the physical world.

walla said...

Maybe, one thinks, the original set of rules meant for the non-physical world got split into mirror images and diversified versions when they entered the physical world because the physical world has this property to diversify itself as much as possible in order to raise the number of options that will increase the survivability of itself should one component fail in which case another kicks in.

Let us now recapitulate (and also recuperate).

Since we appear to be concerned about consistency, we should be consistent all the way. If we believe there is only one set of non-physical world rules, then we must believe there is only one Higher Existence - unless we also believe that the Higher Existence wanted to diversify Himself in the non-physical world for reasons not made known to us to-date, something we can dispel by just noting that rules are set to maximize diversity in the physical world but minimize diversity in the non-physical world.

And that is the big observation.

The non-physical world rules are few. They appear to have been spun from human emotions. And we already know how few human emotions there are in our world. In other galaxy systems, there may be other species with their own spectrum of emotions. That's their problem and we should mind our own business.

Now if say we remove the human emotions of jealousy, greed, hate, anger and what not, the non-physical world rules would simplify even more.

In fact, they may parse down to just a few verses in the containers called holy books that apparently have come down to modern day from ancient times.

Unless we want to say that our behaviors and actions are conditioned by magnetic forces exerted by moving planets on the ionic fluids inside us, we shall have to live day by day by those few simple non-physical world rules even as we are physically held in line at the same time by physical world rules.

So, if everything is already so simple, why complicate matters, one asks with a growl?

Furthermore, if we can visualize the Higher Existence with all the powers of the universe He created coming down to our insignificant level to minister and be open to us, why can't we then visualize our stronger and bigger going down by the same principle, rule and feeling to do the same for our weaker and smaller?

walla said...

Man comes into being because of a few emotions extended to each other by two persons. Then he goes through some difficulties and becomes larger in size and thinking capacity. If he's lucky, he reaches age seventy. If he's unlucky, he perishes before forty under difficult circumstances, in some cases brought about because people could not agree on such issues as to how non-physical world rules have come about.

In the intervening years, he is waxed and waned by the planets swirling in the unseen skies above and below by the human emotions numbering no more than the fingers on his hands.

Sometimes he gets material comfort because speculation economies have not burst their bubbles. Too many times he suffers a whole series of pains, physical and mental, which make him wonder what the whole purpose of his life is all about.

Nevertheless he plows on the best he can and tries to keep within the bounds of physical world rules he can understand as well as non-physical world rules he has already surrendered from understanding, except in the latter case, there is a little miracle, namely he seems to recognize instantly that the npw rules are somehow comforting, in which case one should conclude that one can only feel something is good if one already has that property of goodness inside one.

Possibly that property came in a night of passion. Which might well have broken the very same rules being applied.

Is there some patch to cut through the complexity of simplicities, one asks?

A prayer, perhaps...that we should pray each of us will have the good fortune of learning in our present lifetimes the very causes of our that we can personally leave behind telling lessons for others to learn if only to avoid those mistakes in order to avoid those sufferings.

And for the blogger:

walla said...