Some assorted thoughts, not necessarily conclusions, in no particular sequential order.
Things exist. They also don’t. They also both exist and don’t exist, and do neither.
Both alive and dead is not necessarily different from either alive or dead. And also is different, and the not difference/difference are both different and not different, and on and on ad infinitum.
Zeros and Ones
If humans are like computers, perceptions are either false or true. Zero or one. True here means “in accordance with reality.” We either perceive reality correctly, or incorrectly (via psychosis, limitations, whatever.) Except, I don’t think that humans are like computers. Our perceptions are reality, in the sense that we can only perceive through our own perceptions and in that universe of our perceptions, what we perceive is reality and is true. And, everything we perceive as happening to us really happens, to us. And, it effects how we act/think/behave, and goes on to carry its own weight.* Our perceptions are also limited, and flawed. This both does and doesn’t mean that there is some other objective reality about which we are wrong.
Two Conciousnesses and Maybe a Third Thing
Thought experiment time: There’s a universe and the only things that exist in this universe are two consciousnesses, both of which perceive everything in two-dimensions. One of them perceives a circle, one perceives a square.
Here are the options:
- Consciousness A is wrong, Consciousness B is right – the thing is, in fact, a square.
- Consciousness B is wrong, Consciousness A is right – the thing is, in fact, a circle.
- Both consciousnesses are wrong. There is no thing.
- The thing exists in 3-dimensions. It is a cylinder, which looks from one angle like a circle and from one angle like a square.
To expand on Option 4:
This doesn’t mean that both consciousnesses are wrong. They are correct unto their perception of reality, unto the plane on which they exist and can comprehend. Simply speaking, the possibility of a cylinder is impossible in their two-dimensional world. And yet, on another dimension, the thing is a cylinder. The consciousnesses are both right, both wrong, and also both right and wrong.
Square and Circle are not the only options.
Right and Wrong/True and False are not the only options.
Zero and One are not the only options.
Pulling It Out a Dimension:
We exist in a 3-dimensional world, and time does something in there that we’ll get to later. Our perception of 3-dimensional reality and linear time is not wrong. It is true – in that it is in accordance with reality of this plane/dimension. That doesn’t mean that the thing we perceive doesn’t exist on some further dimension in a way we can’t comprehend. Saying “it is what it is” isn’t wrong, on this plane of existence. (It also is wrong, on other planes of existence.)
Maybe — the dichotomy of things existing/not existing comes from a linear perception of time. If time isn’t linear – more to the point, if it doesn’t go in any kind of definitive sequence at all – then things both exist and don’t exist simultaneously. Pre-Big Bang (and/or pre-Creation and/or pre-whatever) nothingness coexists with now, yesterday, tomorrow, and the inevitable heat death of the universe.
Human perception is in 3-dimensions for the most part (bar the whole time thing), we’re perceiving reality and that perception is true. But it’s also false. Reality is operating in a dimension beyond what we can perceive, and within our perceivable dimensions, we’re all both right and wrong.
I’m really not talking about the Matrix (this reality is false, the next one is like ours but we’re all brains in jars/a computer simulation or whatever). I’m more talking about oneness of all things at all conceivable points in linear time (which is infinite). The both dichotomy and unity of Maya and Oneness, the truth of both the Cave and Outside the Cave.
Like, you’re not Neo, you’re just God.
Thoughts on the 4th Dimension
Maybe the 4th dimension is the relative distinctiveness of reality. Our ability to perceive comes at some point along the spectrum from absolute unity to absolute disunity (everything-ness and nothingness, which can be bent around a further axis to be the same thing). This doesn’t mean that the 4th dimension isn’t time. Just that time is a feature of the 4th dimension – at the point we exist on along that dimensional axis, we perceive certain things as distinct and time going linearly.
Let’s look at physical size. On the smallest level, we’re all atoms and everything is atoms, and then it’s molecules, cells, organisms, ecosystems, planets, galaxies, universe. Whatever. I don’t know a lot about this from the science perspective, but that doesn’t really matter.
So we know that there’s an optimum state of harmony between like, our organs. They create a harmony within an organism. But there’s probably also a natural state of harmony between cells, between molecules, between atoms. Then there’s also probably a natural state of harmony within ecosystems, between ecosystems, within planets, between planets, galaxies, whatever. I’m not sure if my steps along the continuum are accurate (that is – that it goes from atoms to molecules to cells to organisms to ecosystems to planets etc.), but the point is that in the way we perceive space, harmonies exist within and between things at different spatial levels.
Now pull back that perception of space out of 3-dimensions. That you could bend linear conceptions of size around another axis, to join up the most microscopic and macroscopic thing in some kind of circle. (Maybe – That circle could be bent around to become a sphere. And so on. At this point, I stop even being able to imagine the comprehension of it, but it intuitively makes sense that it is so.)
So going back to this 4th dimension as relative distinctness of reality – all of the following are both true and false: perceived reality as reality, perceived reality as Maya, perceived hum-like oneness/Om-ness of the universe as reality, and that too as some sort of Maya on a plane we can’t yet comprehend, and on and on.
Contradiction is a feature of being one axis too limited. Points A and B on the X axis can be in the same point on the Y axis. Two lines on the X-Y plane can exist at the same point on the Z axis. Two distinct, different perceived 3-dimensional realities can exist at the same point on the 4th dimension axis. I am not you, you are not me – but on some further plane, we are one.
* Feedback Loop
On another note – the idea that seeing is believing, and believing is seeing. What we perceive to be true goes on to carry weight in other perceptions.
I started on this rather random and silly thought experiment last night, and I’m gonna see if I can finish it to any kind of conclusion.
Cheating Boyfriend Dies in a Fire
Let’s say I perceive my boyfriend cheated on me. I saw (or thought I saw) him cheating through the window of a house, then the house went up in flames and both the boyfriend and the potential cheating partner died. No one now alive but me perceived the cheating. Accepting dichotomies again for simplicity’s sake, I could be right or wrong about what I saw.
I tell you: My boyfriend cheated on me. That perception of my boyfriend goes on to carry weight in your perception of him, and other people, and everything. Maybe you choose not to cheat because you saw how distraught I was about the cheating, or because you’re afraid you too might mysteriously die in a fire afterwards. Maybe you’re rude to his brother because of it. Whatever, it affects your actions somehow.
Even if you perceive me as lying or insane – it will still have some effect on you, your perceptions, your further actions.
That perception becomes reality in a sense – it goes on to have its own weight, to affect actions. Like, the wall next to me being there only exists to me in so far as it affects me. I can see it. I can touch it. I can lean on it. I’m probably not going to try to walk through it.
I might be insane.** I might have lied about the cheating, or my perception was false (there was no actual cheating, and what I thought I saw was not what others saw/did). I might be wrong about the wall next to me. It might not be there at all. But in so far as it affects my actions, it is real, and my perception is true.
So it’s like this endless loop, because our perceptions both do and don’t exist in a vacuum – that is, we can only experience our own perceptions, but our perceptions of other people’s perceptions can change our perceptions. Perceiving is believing, believing is perceiving, and on and on.
** Lastly, on Sanity
I feel like the general idea of sanity is that it means your perceptions are in accordance with reality. Except, we can’t perceive actual, full reality. So it’s more, your perceptions of reality are in accordance with other people’s perceptions of reality. Except, some or all of our perceptions are wrong at some or all points. So it’s like, being sane means your perceptions are in accordance with most other people’s perceptions at most times in a majority rules way. But that doesn’t make your perceptions absolutely wrong, or false, or the majority’s perceptions absolutely right.
To accept that your perceptions may be entirely false, or flawed or limited, and that perceptions that seem insane may be true (and are in some ways true) is the only sane thing you can do. So the only way to be sane is to accept that you are insane. That actual reality as we can possibly conceive of it on this plane, in our perception, is both actual reality, and also not in accordance with reality on other planes/in other perceptions. And all realities are true, and not true.
What is sane on one plane or in one perception can be insane on/in another. So, a thought can be both sane and insane, simultaneously. Contradictory truths can both be true.