Month: January 2020

Is it possible for the impossible to happen? “Impossible” because there’s no chance it could have ever happened.

To suggest an impossible possibility happened seems to stretch the imagination. Perhaps to the breaking point.

What constitutes a miraculous event? If the clear light of the void as lossless emptiness has always been? Would that qualify?

There seems no sensible explanation for how something like pure “is” could have always been. If so, sounds miraculous. At least on the surface.

Alternatively assuming God exists beyond the void, the void could be streaming from God like an emanating ray of sunlight. Making God a bipolar creator-creation where all is one. Like a God centered periphery creation.

If a “creation” has always been shouldn’t it be considered causeless? Causeless because it wouldn’t have had a starting point of origin.

Whereas if God is the source applying the notion of a “causeless creation” seems like an oxymoron. Because in order for the creation to be caused it should have had a beginning.

If so, would either of these two possibilities constitute a miracle? Perhaps. Depends on how a miracle is defined.

If a miracle is something that defies rational explanation, while both possibilities can boggle the mind, a bipolar God as the source of itself seems less irrational than something that has had no beginning.

Because a causeless creation leaves the question open as to how that can be. While if God caused it the question seems closed.

Assuming the best test for a miracle is an explanation imbued with unequivocal cluelessness, it seems these two possibilities have too much explanatory power to pass the clueless test. Meaning a more absurd wrinkle is needed.

Consider the statement, “You can’t get something from nothing.” What that suggests is that it’s impossible to get an “is” from and “isn’t.” Given while “is” is, “isn’t” isn’t.

To say something came from nothing sounds like a non-sequitur. Because while emptiness could be if it is, nothing couldn’t if it isn’t.

If so, an appeal to a projected divine emanation or a disturbed void’s wave of existence, seems to fall short. Could a more crazy-making third possibility be while the creation is sourceless it’s also caused?

Because that’d be like something having hatched out of nowhere. Giving it a beginning that defies reason.

Something sourceless with a cause implies the creation couldn’t be traced back to God. Because it’d break any connection between the creator and creation.

This could raise the question as to whether the best definition of God is that of an “uncreated creator.” God might be more like being “wholly-other” because of the broken connection.

Meaning it’s impossible to know God’s true nature because since it can’t be reached it’s unknowable. Completely off the grid.

Perhaps it’d take a wholly-other God to have the goods needed to pull an “is” rabbit out of an “isn’t” hat. A sketchy impossibility to say the least.

When it’s said, “It’d take a miracle for that.” Does saying that include an unconsciously held belief in a sourceless creation? What if it did?

Making any subsequent hoped for miracle a footnote arising from the possibility of an “is” that shouldn’t be. If so, maybe the grass has been parted enough to get a hazy glimpse at the real beast?

Because if a sourceless yet caused creation really happened, we’re all breathing, walking, talking miracles.

What if there’s a way to unite all diametrically opposed mutually exclusive opposites? In a way that none loose their unique identities.

A perspective that avoids assuming an undifferentiated fusion or many separate bounded fragmented realities. A metaphysics to counter “nondualism” and “dualism.”

It’d be like being divine and human, yin and yang, one and many, empty and full in such a way that the two are one without fusion or confusion. Sidestepping “all is one” and “all is many” metaphysics. Let’s baptize this possibility a “hypostatic union.”

If dualistic logic is “either/or” and nondualistic logic is “both/and,” a hypostatic logic might be considered “and/or.” Allowing any two opposites to coexist as equals.

For instance, a marriage wouldn’t be 50-50. Like two soulmates in need of their missing half. It’d be more like a marriage of 100 % this with 100% that.

A union where any opposition be it one-many, empty-full, whole-broken, old-new remain what they individually are as one Providing a dancing space where weaving opposites simultaneously entwine.

Because at intersections, there’s no loss of respective natures. Like what can happen when one dominates the many or the one fragments into many.

If dualism and nondualism has their share of problems, so too does a hypostatic union. Because if what is hypostatically united doesn’t experience unique essence loss, opposed coequal states should exist in a state of tension.

A tension that is persistent. Something nondualism and dualism try to resolve.

If repeated nondual and dual attempts fail to release tension permanently, why? Perhaps because tension should be expected if a creation is sourceless.

Sourceless because the creation was made out of nothing. Assuming “nothing” is a null concept without reference. If so, “isn’t” really does mean isn’t.

The workaround is to think of nothing as emptiness. Where the void is an “isn’t is.” Yet if “isn’t isn’t” and “is is” this attempt too becomes questionable.

Irregardless, in order for hypostatic union to get enough traction to get airborne off the tarmac it’s going to need to overcome the impossibility of creating something out of nothing. “You can’t get something from nothing,” as the saying goes.

The test should be to see if tension vanishes. In the case of nondualism if a wholly-other creator creates a hypostic world out of nothing, it should be expected to fail at dissolving tension. Because if when the creation can’t be sourced back to its creator, the split can’t be nondualistically overcome.

Likewise. if dualism tries but can’t seem to corral tension by keeping things in separate boxes, discord should be expected. While Pandora’s Box is supposed to stay shut, its lid keeps getting lifted for a peek. Because who doesn’t want to see what’s inside.

If a hypostatic union makes tension possible due to a transrational miracle, it does offer a “solution” despite. Relax into it.

Embrace it. Allow any increased tension to make deeper relaxation possible.

If a hypostatic solution seems consistent with its metaphysics, there’s a reason. It assumes coexistence to be like a discordant cord. Since relaxing into tension allows both states to be experienced for what they are simultaneously as coequals.

Noting the goal of a tension free existence seems aligned with being dead. Making repeated attempts to eliminate it the proverbial death-wish.

Does the world appear the way it does because of how it originated? If so, could that mean the way things are isn’t arbitrary because the phenomenal world has a source? Capable of making underlying patterns that repeat themselves revealed as the symbolic substructure of reality?

If so, consider each “I” seems to be a center of only one uniquely specific world. A singular point of reference like a bike hub with spokes radiating out on a 360 spinning wheel of phenomenal experience.

Creating an “Alice in Wonderland” like universe. Veiled in a conceptual web of static numbers that hide the fact objects like cars might literally grow as they get closer. Shrink as they move further away.

All relative to an “I” that eyes it all from its singular vantage point. An “I” that’s as empty as a black hole. Found at the “I” galactic center.

Rendering its compiled world into experience. A vortex swirling around a dynamic ongoing duration-less moment. A buzzing-booming catalytic-cacophony of unpredictability.

Where an”I” stays put in awe. Unmovable because duration is the time it takes to move spatially between two points. If the “I” is spaced-out as real time.

Because the moment stays where it’s been. Duration-less it doesn’t move at all. If time is spaceless as space is timeless.

If because this moment is an ongoing process. An aging process. Renewable if continually growing older.

If loss makes aging possible, to loose is to gain a world of change. Where the emptiness of the moment causes a constantly unpacking process.

If so, this moment would be the same moment that’s always been. The same moment that happened when this material universe erupted into existence.

Meaning if it is, it’s always new. If it’s old, it never happened.

Like empty hub wheels touch pavement of transparent glass is to experience the moment as it it is happening? Letting the clear light of the void shine through a material world noticed.

If opaque blocking the light. Because the point unconscious emptiness becomes conscious symbolically is rendered indifferent.

Because to let the emptiness stream through is to consciously a new world. Like hearing the sound of silence for the first time.

A sense of the world being continually reborn. Constantly renewing itself. As us.

A reborn intense super-sense rich in full phenomenal perception. If the noumenal void is recognized as a phenomenal conscious world.

Where the moving pivot point of unconscious being becomes conscious experience. Because we are the momentary intersection.

If the moment never grows old because it ages.