See also:> • Google is Mind Boggling • Serendipity • Computer Stuff
AdSense Demo Page3
[ ...this is the continuation of the AdSense demo page2.  Click  HERE  to go back to the previous page. ]
The interplay of events differs widely and some events have more significance than others. This is relative, of course. My experience of my life is how I tend to define me. I have a starting point of thinking I am “me”. I have a history and a recollection of that history. I have no conscious recollection of my parent’s history. But I suggest this is a matter of significance. I look out of a glass window in the middle of the day. It is bright sunshine outside and oddly I have the electric light switched on in the room. I see what is outside. But as the day wears on and the sun goes down and it becomes dark outside, I find I am looking at me in the window. The point of this is that the strength of the image that seems clear to me at night (that of my own reflection) has not changed. What has changed is that the daylight image so outweighed the reflection that I could not see it. My own experience of my own existence overrides and outweighs a lot of other experience. It is fairly evident that we know more than we are generally aware of. Most of us have had experiences where something we had “forgotten” about comes back to us. The implications in this for me, are that we do have contiguous experience from our parents. This is not amorphous “memory” (though there may be something like that) but through the physical replication we already know our parents - let alone the mechanism of affecting each other. And this goes way back. We are simply not consciously aware of it. But the implications are that we will evolve to have more conscious awareness. That, by our own definition, is what has been happening. So maybe one day in a million years time I will remember who I am. The weird thing about all of this for me, is that it sounds so much like “life after death” or “immortality” or the oneness of the universe and God.
I can’t quite get over the notion that when one discovers the reality, the truth, of something that was once not understood, it is so obvious. It’s not that I think it should have been obvious to start with, no, it’s that it is so obvious. The idea of the world being spherical makes complete sense. But to have told someone prior to that knowledge or perception, that if you walked far enough in a straight line that you would arrive back where you started would seem ridiculous. If you packaged that idea up in a thing called religion and you said to people “Oh you don’t understand but I have it from good authority that it’s true.” it would seem a bit like magic. Tell them that one day they would understand and they would suspect that they would have to change before they could comprehend such a patently obvious contradictory notion. But they don’t have to change. All that happens is they learn a bit more and the comprehension is easy. It becomes obvious. Oh - they do change - by learning - but they don’t change in some unknown and mysterious way. I think it is weird to have this fairytale notion of God and life after death presented to small children (with heaps of oppression) rather like imposing the notion that it is true that you will arrive back at the same place if you keep walking in a straight line. If it’s true why keep insisting its true but do nothing about showing the children. Of course the implication is that the most of them don’t believe it’s true. Oh I’m sure they have largely convinced themselves, but I think it is more literally morphine than they think. Check up Arthur Janov for more information here but we kill pain chemically in our brains and pain is emotional pain too. But I suspect that Jesus could see a little more clearly. And my perception of him was of someone who objected to the dogmatic hierarchy of the established church. His point seems to me to be to love. It doesn’t seem to me that he was being more than metaphorical referring to his father in heaven. I don’t think this is going to turn out to be such a mystery. I think loving is being open and receptive to the experience of living. And by loving we feed life and evolution. I suspect that the local experience of one life is a scope that we deal with. My father, me, and my daughter are contiguous. And we are contiguous with the lizards. The paradox seems to lie in that I experience this as just me whilst what I experience is everything else.
I’m probably hacking an old path of existentialism here. But even if I am, this is a problematic conceptual struggle. I’m just getting more and more convinced that there is something more obvious about life than meets the eye.
[These ads were initially targetted to the begining of the last page. I tried making a new AdSense "unit" thingy but it seemed to make no difference.  After a while this page seemed to settle down too... click   HERE  for the last page.]
Toxic Drums Share

© Sente Limited 2008