Month: September 2020

Assuming the void of emptiness is the foundation for existence, why might that be?

Suppose the void has always existed. Without beginning or end.

Existing as self-existent pure sourceless emptiness. Without source so causeless.

Impossible to trace back to a creator like a light ray to its sun. Where the creation could be an emanation from the creator.

Alternatively suppose the void was created out of nothing by a creator. An artist and magician rolled into one.

Making emptiness sourceless because if “nothing” means nothing it couldn’t be the cause of something else.

If so, a created creation out of nothing would seem self-caused just like it too has always existed. Indistinguishable because it would also be untraceable to a source that might have caused it.

Is a self-existent void that’s never not been less nonsensical than one creator created from nothing? Might be since the problem of creating something from nothing has been shelved along with how a creator is possible.

Yet what might make a self-caused void like an unbroken circle without beginning or end possible is left hanging. Stuck protesting in a nebulous land of “don’t know.”

If so, faced with these three seemingly implausible possibilities it might be time to throw up the hands to go about the daily business. Having made peace with disbelief.

If the choice is to not give-up, a possible approach might be to consider which out of the three possibilities seems the least worthy of consideration? Allowing a way to rank the alternatives from least to most worse.

Because an uncreated causeless void doesn’t have the need for a creator, it doesn’t have as much to explain. Perhaps an advantage.

The bipolar creator-creation choice has the creator as a source for the creation. Eliminating the problem of how a beginningless self-existent void is possible without needing to appeal to how something miraculously could be created from nothing.

If so, the winner for the prize of making the least nonsense seems awarded to a creator creating a creation out of itself. Because if the creator and creation are one there’s less to explain in terms of what caused the creation.

If it’s true it’s impossible to get something from nothing, the notion that the void has always been could edge out it being created out of nothing, If so, the most nonsensical choice should be a creation arising from nothing.

Having closed the investigation’s nonsense chapter what if it unexpectedly dawned the least sensible option was the right one? Because of what it means for an explanation to fail.

If the reason they all fail is because the alternatives rest their case on unwarranted assumptions the problem might not be none can be proved true. The problem might be none can be proved false. Since all are based on assumptions.

If so, what’s most inexplicable might have the door cracked-open to be the best alternative. Because if the nature of the beast is nothing makes sense that could be a statement itself worthy of consideration.

What it may say is the most absurd alternative must lead the pack if nothing makes rational sense. Because this is the contextual nature of the investigation.

Meaning if the final destination is a forever mystery, the explanation with the least viability should be the winner. If so, a creator created creation out of nothing should receive the prize.

What would it be like to have sloughed this world off like an old used dried-up snake skin? Leaving new flesh to concoct a drop of fresh snake oil.

By doing nothing more than asking if this world might not be the realm of death? The doom room lit by cremation fires. The home where all go when they die.

Why death? Maybe because if emptiness died in order for existence to be, loss might be found the pivot point upon which this world turns.

An Achilles’ heel of sorts. Making any preemptive worldly departure an after-death experience.

If so, what if it became possible to land a sneak preview of such an after-death existence? While still here. Before time runs out.

A move that surpasses holding the feet to the fire of death’s denial. By diving deeper than than deep past, “Who was I,” to smack rock bottom’s, “Where am I?”

A palace of death. Where wombs are tombs.

Universes whales. Where black holes matter.

Because if form is dead formlessness, so too space crushed spacelessness. Birthed when timelessness timed-out.

Since if things can only become what they already are, nothing could die if not dead already.

Suggesting life couldn’t die because it too could only become what it already is. Life.

What is it institutions either try to promote or prevent?

Because if when loss is made centrally thematic, once coupled to “life dies” the die is cast to justify keeping the lid on bad actors. Giving rise to pursuing a meaningful existence.

Does “Where am I” get asked in Philosophy 101? If not, might it be because that question might help contextually define the nature of the beast where the show is arising?

Safely kept out-of-sight out-of-mind. As to not bone rattle why anyone is in class in the first place?

Like what might happen if it’s no longer dogmatically assumed it’s all happening in the universe of life?

As to optimistically train the attention on quality-of-life verses life-extension issues at hand. Because the pessimistic alternative could be, it’s been all about death-extension from day one.

If so, where’s the fun zone? To hatch the unthinkable question.

See if an unexpected thing crawls out. Say, “Boo.”

Like would it make the slightest sense to “wait”at the bus stop knowing it was missed? Having bags packed. Still.

Always ready to depart. Unfrazzled.

Would social chaos really happen if the fear of missing-out no longer kept everyone standing upright like consumer soldiers uptight?

For instance, what if enshrined capital punishment did just the opposite of what it’s supposed to do. While noting having the power to occasion death sounds more robustly persuasive than the power to ruin it.

Is this why laws need to make the outcome for breaking them significant enough to make breaking them worthwhile? Acting as the secret attractive ingredient for any risky business.

Pointing to a possible reason why embedded shared cultural assumptions go unnoticed as safely inarticulate not to pounce.

Since looking for buried treasure could prove playing with fire. The spontaneous combustion of imagination once the lid is pried open.

Because who knows what might happen. Next.

Normal? What is normal?

A pattern assumed to play in an expected way? When not met the routine considered abnormal?

The “new normal”? Can there be such a thing?

As if what’s now “normal” is what was once abnormal that keeps happening until it seems normal.. Altering expectations into acceptance.

Seemingly suggesting reality itself is potentially fleeting, flawed, with more than a few missing screws. If so, what’s considered normal in any lasting sense might be thought potentially to snap like a twig.

Can’t be relied upon to keep delivering the goods. If everything has a shelf life.

Because if no new normal is possible. It’d imply normal is fixed. Frozen in time.

If “normality” is a dialectic. Swinging between normal and new normal having passed through the bad lands of abnormal, why?

Is it because “normal” exists in the mind of the beholder? Plastered against a standard wall of things. A relative scale imagined better to worse.

A perspective embedding deep in a worldview. A worldview resting broadly on a set of unconscious assumptions.

That for the most part experiences the world above the waterline floating disconnected from what’s below. If so, where could the real “normalcy” reside?

As an absolute state, one that stays constant, that might keep the possibility of a new normal alive and well. Assuming absolute states shouldn’t be replaceable by another absolute state.

Because if what’s normal fits the agreed status quo standard range of situational conformity, it’s only as good as its last assessment.

All resting comfortably on a continuum between what’s considered normal to abnormal. Where the accepted degrees of tolerance are assumed to stay put.

If so, what if a shift happened from looking at the way things are to what might be making them the way the way are? Like curious eyeballs off content on context.

Where the content is being molded by context. If context is that hidden tacit dimension holding content in the palm of its hand.

Like a potter’s hand shaping a clay vase. Giving it definition.

A context that makes what’s normal normal. If context didn’t change, what kind of explicit realm might supposedly arise?

Would it be fluid like the fingers working the potter’s clay? Molding existence experienced into whatever form it’s taking?

Twisting Turning Meandering

Fluid Floating Fractured

Arising Growing Declining Gone

Meaning the reason why what’s considered normal is repeatedly violated is located in an imperfect, partial, impermanent contextual world.

All as unique waves of existence rolling on the surface of emptiness.