Consistency?

Many of you are probably wondering where my consistency is. How is it that I speak out so pointedly and with such bias on topics, when from the perspective of Nihilism all things are equal? Firstly, I remind you that I was a Gnostic before I was a Nihilist, and I have not yet fully abandoned that path. Whilst it seems that Nihilism is the end of the path, there is an element of me that approaches it with caution and scepticism.

Secondly, I am subject to the collective manifestation, hence I must work within this system. Just as it is not as easy as saying "I believe that I can fly" and being able to fly, it is not as easy as saying "there is nothing, not even the possibility of there being" and being able to return to the nothingness. I have mentioned some of the patterns and symmetries that apply to this manifestation; it is these patterns and symmetries that guide my actions.

So, what do I stand to gain out of all of this? Put simply: our enlightenment. Bellow the surface of this manifestation we are a collective, a unified entity - existence. Subsequently, anything that benefits any one of us, benefits all of us; anything that detracts from one of us, detracts from all of us.

I will offer you an analogy. When a man burns his hand, then it is not simply the hand that feels the pain, but his entity as a whole. Likewise, when the burn heals it is not just his hand that gains relief, but his entity as a whole. If the man is holding a hot coal with a thin crust in one hand, it is not enough for him to simply pass it to the other hand. If he wishes to avoid being burnt, he must drop that coal.

Existence is like the man, and we are like parts of his body. When we shift our burdens to others or when we relieve some of our pain by hurting others, it is no different to tossing that coal to the other hand - we as a unified entity are hurt. When we come to recognize this we will no longer work against each other, but as the whole that we truly are. And as that whole, we will be infinitely more effective than as individuals.

Even if I could ascend to the nothingness, then there would be little joy in doing so. My place is here amongst you, to teach and guide, so that we as a whole can realize our true nature.

Consistency

I've already raised the issue of Human Bias, but an issue that is more concerning (though less fundamental) is Consistency. People find it hard to maintain consistency in their beliefs; in fact, I would go so far as to say that many people have no idea what their true beliefs are. Lots of people take one issue at a time, and respond emotively towards that issue.

Sadistic and whimsical as I am, I find it easy to manipulate people based on my choice of words when presenting an issue. Though I do this for sheer amusement, there are many that do this to control the populace; namely, governments. I dare say that most of the time my motives are in fact genuine. I enjoy encouraging people to defy their programmed thoughts and reactions; and if there so happens to be an element of subversion to boot, then who am I to deny it?

Let us though put aside those amongst us who are sheep, and concentrate on the rest of us who actually think. Do you have a consistent belief system? Can you reduce it to a single, governing axiom? You really should try.

For those amongst my audience who are Christian, let me suggest the principle of Compassion. When you examine it closely, compassion is in fact the predominate underlying factor that the New Testament revolves around. Likewise, your axiom should revolve around compassion. This does of course raise some concerns for the more radical amongst you, who wish to put a literal spin on everything contained in the Bible. An axiom such as "Compassion is the highest virtue" says nothing of the existence of Y'shua.

Unfortunately, all too many Christians miss the point of Christianity - the message of compassion, of love and forgiveness - and instead concentrate far too heavily on memorizing 'facts'. All that I can suggest to you, unfortunate, is to free yourself from the burdens of men, and listen to the words of the Christ. (This isn't a plug for Christianity, simply a self-help lesson.)

The truth is (and if you've given considerable thought to Relativism, you will already know this), any belief system, no matter how contradictory, can be justified. This is analogous to saying: in mathematics, any given set of numbers can be represented by a function. So why am I preaching about consistency? When you bring together a given set of somewhat random numbers in mathematics, you define a function. Similarly, when you unify a given set of somewhat random beliefs (the step required for their justification) in philosophy, you create a belief system. What you must ask is: are you certain that this belief system represents you?

It's strange how many people try to find some 'middle-ground'. Most of you would believe in the right of freedom of speech, yet most of you would also believe that people should not speak untruths. These are contradictory beliefs. On the one hand you demand freedom and, by the very notion of it, you demand that truth is relative; yet, on the other hand you demand that some things should not be spoken, by virtue of which truth must be absolute.

As if this is not bad enough, you then debase the entire system by trying to introduce some arbitrary measure of truth! (Oh, you wait for my sermon on Arbitrary!) Can you not see that this endeavour is pointless? That you do not achieve that which you set out to achieve in the first place?

I tend not to put too much weight on quotes, especially those by American presidents, but the following has a deep element of truth and relevance to it. Benjamin Franklin once said: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." In this he captured a specific instance of what I am talking about.

Consider the new laws that our western governments are introducing; they are an abasement of our right to freedom. The purpose of these laws is to provide security, but The Powers That Be (TPTB) have lost sight of what it is that they are meant to be securing: our freedom. I put it to you to examine this case; examine all of the ethical struggles that are in the media today. I guarantee that you will find that the proposed middle-ground is no better than one or other of the extremist solutions. The difference is: if you chose an extremist solution (for example absolute freedom, sacrificing security) then at least your fates would not be in the hands of an arbitrary tribunal.

The Human Bias

It's hard to escape our biases. Often I find that they are the main obstacle preventing people from accepting Relativism. It's been a long time since I let my physical experience impact on what I believe, so I sometimes find it hard understanding how it is that others cannot simply see the obvious. I'm not exempt from bias, I still see it in my choices, but the difference is that I do see it, and I attempt to do something about it.

There is bias in the path to Nihilism that I have mentioned. The patterns that I spoke of, the use of elegance as a measure, even the very formulation of a philosophy all reek of bias. Does this then indicated that Nihilism is invalid? No.

Let me use a simple analogy...

There is a pane of glass that is infinite in size, we throw a rock at that pane of glass and it breaks. Cracks in a pane of glass spread from the point of impact towards its edges. Sometimes cracks fork or merge, but the direction of the cracks - outward from the impact - is constant. It is evident from observing these cracks that the origin of the break is at the point of maximum commonality in the path of the cracks - that is, where the cracks coalesce. If one were to consider that point on the same pane of glass without cracks in, one would see all directions as being uniform.

That pane of glass is the philosophy space; points along cracks are philosophies (beliefs if you will) in their various states of development. Tracing the cracks back from the edges, the points where the cracks coalesce are where axioms are unified. Eventually we reach the origin where all cracks (axioms) are unified. We can identify this as the origin by studying the patterns in the cracks. We can identify recursions (such as unification, bifurcation, crack density, etc) as symmetries and patterns. By using these symmetries and patterns, it becomes unnecessary to trace every crack.

Despite all of this, though, if we look at the unbroken sheet of glass, all that is evident is uniformity. Patterns in the glass are artifacts of its breaking, similarly, patterns in the philosophy space are artifacts of the nothingness' manifestation. It is not only possible to use these patterns to find the origin of the break, but necessary. Likewise, it is necessary to use the patterns in the philosophy space to find the origin: Nihilism.

This is an example of the lock-key pattern. Stated simply: wherever a lock is located, there is inherently a key to that lock located.

Inconsistent

The sickening realization
As you embrace the meaninglessness
In all of its forms.
Knowing that nothing
Can save you from the fading.

The weak comforts of men
And man's petty belief
In their power.
Salvation from a child
Is folly.
They are but some random likeness
To your physical composition.

Your seed is in our thoughts,
Your immortality
Dies in the memory of men.
Though pitiless poor is your chance
To have ever achieved it.

And in the end,
A bitter merciless joke
Like all notions,
Attempt is vain.
We are only
What we are not.

Yet herein lies the paradox
That in this manifestation
There is form.
And for form
There must be property.

So a question still remains:
Why should absence
Be possessed of this property?

Don't dismiss nothing

Nothing makes intuitive sense.

When we ponder existence, it's easy enough to get around most of the issues. There is the classic question for the novice of what existed before time, or how time came into being. With careful thought, it is easy to see that such notions as "coming into being" are subject to time, hence the question is irrelevant. Put more simply, when we abstract ourselves from our mortal condition, it is evident that time is a property of existence, hence existence is not subject to it. Existence simply is.

Another way of looking at this is to imagine existence to be a multidimensional array of all possible states. Consider Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - at any given instant there is a quantum probability, hence possibility, of any given thing in a finite (though nigh infinite) number of possibilities occurring. Schrödinger elaborated on this to propose parallel universes - at every point where the aforementioned occurs, the universe splits into a number of parallel universes, each in which one of the aforementioned possibilities occur.

In the case of science, it is only the nature of physics (the very laws of the universe) that limit these possibilities to the finite set that they are. Somewhat consequently, however, it is evident that it is this same set of possibilities which the universe entertains in every instant - the only thing that changes is the quantum probability of any given one occurring. It is a set like this (only on the scale of existence, not solely the universe) which I have referred to as the multidimensional array of all possible states.

Considering this array, one can see that we are like equations, lines or waves moving through it. Our perception of time is an artifact of our lack of perspective, consequential of our limitation within the array. Hence, what we consider to be time is simply the resolution of our 'equation'.

There are less trivial philosophical questions concerning existence, however. For example, why is there existence? I mean to say, we have established that there is this multidimensional array; but why?

To help answer this, we can begin by asking ourselves: What should there be? Logically, the answer is: nothing. There simply shouldn't be, without there being cause of being. This is why Nihilism is so fundamental.

I nonetheless leave you with a final question, one that I am still pondering. Why is it the fundamental nature of nothingness to be possessed of possibility? That is, if we accept that there is nothing, and that everything has manifested itself from the nothingness; and if we are able, in ourselves, to overcome and reconcile the question of why that which we experience is consequential of our limitation; then, still, we must attempt to understand why it is that the nothingness results in manifestation.

True Nihilism says: there is nothing, not even the possibility of there being. And yet our human experience, along with all of these concepts, not least the introspection of us - the nothingness - are. Why?

Experimental Poetry

I figured that I should probably post a poem or two here (given the title and all), so here's one of my recent creations...

I was thinking about a way to churn out poems in bulk, and decided to create an experimental technique. Firstly I take a concept (any concept), this becomes the focus of the poem. Next, I take a few other concepts, I combine these with the focus concept one per stanza. Then I write. An example is the following poem; the focus is 'soul', and the three secondary foci are 'blood', 'memory' and 'freedom'.

Soul

Rising from the darkness of the depths
Drenched with bitter agony
The tattered shroud of conscious man
Drips crimson tears in eternity

Strong lines of the distant past
Etched in masochism
Devoid endless night of life
Ended throat wrenched aschism

Carried by the breeze
In the endless void of peace
Fear does null abate
And offers sweet release

gnosis

gno·sis (nō′sĭs)
n.

Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics.

---

[Greek gnōsis, knowledge, from gignōskein, to know. See gnō- in Indo-European Roots.]

---

It's strange how the origins of words and their associated meanings can be so easily forgotten. Up until recently, I didn't have a word to describe what I practiced - I often referred to it simply as 'the path' or 'the search for enlightenment'. Then, something in my subconscious triggered and I reinvestigated Gnosticism, whence I found the word for which I was at a loss.

So, am I Gnostic? True Gnostic, I mean - not that pseudo-Gnostic brand of Christianity. Perhaps; perhaps not. The truth is, the longer I consider the point at which I am on the path, the more certain I am that it is the destination.

I could bore you with tales of my journey; they are unnecessary. I will, however, give you some of the truth that I have found, and in it, perhaps, expound where I am.

At some point, we all believe something - it is an inherent consequence of our upbringing and human experience. But is what we believe correct? And how do we judge if it is correct? On the surface, the answer seems intuitive - if it works, then it must be correct; but let us delve deeper.

---

ax·i·om (ăk′sē-əm)
n.

1. a saying that widely accepted on its own merits [syn: maxim]


2. (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

---

[Middle English, from Old French axiome, from Latin axiōma, axiōmat-, from Greek, from axios, worthy. See ag- in Indo-European Roots.]

---

The sum of our beliefs can be subdivided into different axioms; together these axioms represent the total of our beliefs. When a person has more than one axiom, however, these axioms also possess relationships to one another - much like sets in set theory.

Let A and B be axioms; then one of the following must be true:

• A and B fully affirm one another - A and B are the same belief
  
• A and B fully contradict one another
• A and B are fully exclusive of one another
• A and B partially affirm one another, and A and B are partially exclusive
  
• A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B are partially exclusive
• A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another
• A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another, and A and B are partially exclusive
• A and B partially affirm one another, and A is partially exclusive
• A and B partially affirm one another, and B is partially exclusive
• A and B partially contradict one another, and A is partially exclusive
• A and B partially contradict one another, and B is partially exclusive
• A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another, and A is partially exclusive
• A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another, and B is partially exclusive

When we consider this, we should note that whilst axioms are atomic, this does not mean that they cannot encompass other axioms. Simplistically, consider:
Statement A: All birds have wings.
Statement B: All chickens have wings.
Neither statement could be denied as axiomatic, yet Statement A encompasses Statement B. In this case, the two axioms should be assimilated into the broader axiom: Statement A.

All of the above relationships can be broken down into three themes:

• Affirmation
• Exclusion
• Contradiction

Affirmation is easy to deal with; axioms that affirm one another can be simplified and united into broader axioms. Most people don't bother dealing with exclusion; exclusive beliefs can coexist without turmoil. Contradiction, on the other hand, is something that many people have trouble dealing with in their belief systems.

When contradiction surfaces amongst people's beliefs, many attempt to ignore it. If they cannot ignore it, then generally they work out some heuristic to give one of the beliefs priority over the other. Nonetheless, the contradiction still exists and their solution is one of necessity, not choice.

There is a principle in existence that the most elegant solution is the best. This principle underpins many others including Ockham's Razor (Lt. Occam) and the Action Principle (originally Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis' Principle of Least Action). An elegant belief is one that exhibits simplicity, brevity, consistency and completeness.

To maximize these, one must reduce the number of axioms required to support their belief. In essence, only a belief system founded on a single axiom can guarantee consistency, and only certain self-referencing axioms can guarantee completeness. To reduce the number of axioms required to support a belief system, one is required to broaden their current axioms until they can be unified. Consequently, exclusion becomes a non-factor, and the only relationship that can remain between axioms is contradiction.

Inevitably this leads to further questions... How do we measure one self-consistent belief system against another? How should we deal with axioms that contradict one another? These questions are intrinsically tied into each other as their solutions will prove.

The only true measure of one belief system against another is elegance. In reducing our belief systems to a single axiom, we have removed the factors of simplicity, brevity and consistency from this measure; resultantly, we are left with completeness as the sole measure. When one belief system contains another belief system and more, it is considered to be more complete, hence more elegant. Often, though, our belief systems overlap without one fully encompassing the other. In this case, we should apply the same principles of reducing axioms to find the greater axiom that encompasses both belief systems. Again, though, we are left with the issue of contradiction between axioms.

Applying the aforementioned logic, it is evident that a belief system that contains both a belief and that belief's contradiction is more inclusive than either the belief or its contradiction. Hence the new belief system is more elegant. But how can this be represented as an axiom?

The first belief system that I conceived that did the aforementioned was Dualism. Many of our belief systems are imbued with sayings such as "strength is in weakness". For example, Christianity has the quote:

"And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Mat 23:12)

From a perspective such sayings are true - it takes a true strength of character to show weakness, and by exalting ourselves we leave ourselves open for abasement. Equally, however, it is undeniable that saying the opposite is true; "weakness is in weakness" is a tautology, hence inherently true. How is it possible that both are true? Can we reconcile both into a single belief system?

My solution to this was Dualism. Thought I never stated an axiom to support Dualism, one such as "Two opposite beliefs are equally valid" does it justice. We must remember, though, that contradiction is not always absolute. Hence, whilst Dualism is more elegant than anything that came before it, it is not complete.

To understand the next step on the path, it is helpful to use an analogy. Let us consider beliefs to be shades; we can assign Belief A the shade white, and Belief B the shade black, where Belief A fully contradicts Belief B. If there is a Belief C, such that Belief C partially contradicts and partially affirms both Belief A and Belief B, then Belief C can be represented as a shade of gray. This shade will have white and black components proportional to its affirmation of Belief A and Belief B respectively.

Using this analogy, it is possible to envisage the varying degrees of affirmation and contradiction between beliefs as various shades. Like many analogies, however, this tends to simplify the situation. We must not forget that beliefs do not all contradict and affirm one another on the same axis. Hence, every aspect of every belief can be considered to have its own shade. Equally, we cannot allow our ingrained prejudice to cause us to view one belief as being superior to another based on its shade. The purity of shade and its skew towards one end of the scale or the other is entirely relative.

Extending this analogy, Dualism is the system that represents both black and white. It is necessary for us to find the system that represents all shades. I conceived this system as Relativism.

The axiom of Relativism is: Everything is Relative to Perspective. This was the first truly elegant solution that I found. It is simple. It is brief. It is consistent. And consider its completeness... Everything is Relative to Perspective, even it itself. This is the self-referencing nature of a true axiom, which I referred to previous.

Though this belief system is complete, I still did not feel as though I had reached the end of the path. Somehow, something seemed to be missing.

One notices patterns whilst wandering the path. These are part of the elegance. Notions of symmetry, of extrapolation and interpolation; they're everywhere, and they allow our ascension from one degree of understanding to the next. There are recurring themes; time and time again one encounters the same type of problem, and the solution is obvious before one has even considered the actual problem. This is the development of intuition.

There are some sayings and notions that we are all familiar with, and that when we hear, we know are profound. They've been passed down through the ages, and often we don't remember who said them, or even know them in their exact form, yet they speak with an unquestionable truth. In these sayings, we recognize the patterns that we have learnt.

One such saying is: "It is not the path, but the journey that is important". This was something that was very important to me whilst I was on the path. The truth is that from early on the path it was evident where the end would be - where the path began. It was evident that the path was an illusion, that I was still walking at the location at which I began, and I would finish walking at this location. All I needed to understand was, "how?"

This is one of the patterns to which I referred, which, in turn, led to a symmetry in the problem - it was possible to approach the path of enlightenment from both ends. Needlessly, this begs the question: where is this location? Answered simply, nowhere.

Let us consider Relativism and belief on a deeper level. Belief is restriction. Relativism is absolute belief, hence, absolute restriction. Freedom is in truth, hence Relativism is a mask over truth. I will explain...

If I believe that I cannot fly and I leap from a building, I will plummet to my death. From Relativism, we must accept that the belief that "I cannot fly" is equal to the belief that "I can fly". Hence, logically, belief is restriction - just as the person who believes that they can fly cannot not-fly (please excuse the double negative, but English lacks the weak affirmative), the person who believes that they cannot fly, cannot fly.

Why then can I not simply say "I belief that I can fly", then take off and soar through the air? There are two reasons. Firstly, we have doubt. No matter how hard you attempt to convince yourself that you can fly, the very essence of your human experience has led you to believe otherwise - it is not easy to overcome the beliefs that you have been ingrained with. Secondly, we are subject to collective belief. Like islands, we see ourselves as separate from one another. Beneath the surface, however, we are connected, just as islands are connected by the seabed. This point is deserving of a post of its own, hence I will expand on it later.

Understanding, from Relativism, that all beliefs are equally true, and understanding that belief imposes restriction, we find that we are absolutely restricted. It is here that we come to the conclusion that absolute disbelief brings absolute freedom. Let us reverse the axiom of Relativism; Everything is Relative to Perspective becomes Nothing is Absolute. It is here that we find what I believe is the destination of Gnosis: Nihilism.

Nihilism is the absolute disbelief. There is nothing, not even the possibility of being. In this disbelief comes absolute freedom. And, from this freedom, comes everything - even Gnosticism.

For those who have studied logic, you will know that the saying "All unicorns are pink" is considered True; as unicorns do not exist, anything said of them is True. Much like this, anything said of the nothingness is True. That is, existence is the manifestation of the nothingness.

I do not desire to create a tension with scientists, nor to have my philosophy labeled as pseudoscience, hence I will not attempt to explain such phenomena as science by it. It is, however, obvious that Nihilism is complete and consistent. I will end my discussion of Nihilism in this post at this point, and speak of Nihilism in greater detail in subsequent posts.

So, returning to my original question... Am I Gnostic? Well, I was, but I have not decided with certainty whether I still am.

Introduction

I've never used a blog before - security conscious and cynical as I am, the notion of placing personal details into the searchable domain disquiets me. Functionally though, this is an effective mechanism for sharing myself with the world and recording my thoughts for posterity.

I search for people with whom I may relate not just physically, but intellectually and psychologically also. If you feel drawn to speak, let nothing stop you. Freedom is in truth - and truth in the nothingness.

I encourage everybody to express their views on the topics that I raise. If you disagree with what I say, if you would like to offer comment or criticism, or if you would like to offer something additional on a given topic, please feel free to reply to my posts. If you enjoy this blog and are stimulated by it, then please send the link to even just one person you know who might be interested.