In this process of self-fulfilment, we are approaching from the angle that consciousness creates matter, so working from the “inside-out”.
Obviously such a belief seems to run counter to more predominant beliefs currently existing at a core level, which include the belief that matter creates consciousness, so working from the “outside-in”. It is important then to deeply question both propositions as to their validity, especially when such core approaches, which can become unquestioned beliefs or assumptions, can potentially be of great influence to our quality of life.
The concept of “fact” as distinct from “fiction” does not really exist with the inside-out approach, as it is known that everything is always in flux, always in a state of becoming, so the “facts” never really stay the same, they are always changing, evolving. Because of this, common sense says not to hang your hat on “facts”, as all facts are old news.
The outside-in approach, however, seeks to depend on “facts” to make progress, to “fix” nature. Common sense then says that such “facts”, especially those which seem so eternal that they become assumptions, must be as deeply questioned and subject to scrutiny as any proposition which sits at the core of our quality of life.
As an example then, let’s examine the “fact” of the mathematical constant pi, it being the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
We know in “two-dimensional” theory that pi does exist, but in the physical world that is created you will never find it. In other words, you can never take something physical, however large or small, natural or artificer, and try to “reverse engineer” pi. It is a theoretical concept, which when manifesting itself in the physical world always exhibits a degree of eccentricity of one kind or another. This is good, as it helps to maintain a rich diversity of life.
Furthermore, pi as an exact number will never be found, simply because it runs to infinite decimal places. So if ever you are looking for the centre or origin or whole of something, you will never find it, as you’ll always be missing essential data, no matter how small or inconsequential this data seems to be. Yes, this is good, because if an extreme fission state of mind ever did find the “origin” of something, which it cannot, the tendency would be to destroy it.
We have to then be careful as to what we think of as “facts”. For example, if a young child is taught pi and said that this is a truth or “fact”, then that child would continue to live its life according to that “fact”, not realising that it is not the “whole” truth, but an incomplete (and so distorted) artificer truth or fact which is missing its natural truth counterpart.
If, however, a young child is taught pi and said that this constant seems to exist in nature, and we can use this constant to help us craft material things for us to enjoy, as we learn what is meant by our natural and artificer aspects of life, then we will start to be making some progress in teaching our children well.
To teach the value of eccentricity as well as exactness (and its limitations) is exceptionally important. We are given free will, ego and intellect, to allow us to experiment with this very character of mind, otherwise we would quite simply end up going around in circles, vicious circles, as is what’s happening current day.
Whilst this is all a play on words, it is also quite true. It is important to teach both concentricity and eccentricity, both order and chaos, as both these concepts taught as one, be it ordered chaos or chaotic order, is absolutely vital to experiencing a prism of infinite variety rather than a prison of lopsided knowledge that we have chosen to build for ourselves.
To teach that it is “good” to try and “exactly” determine something that runs on infinitely is very harmful, as first, once it runs past the point of convenience it is a waste of time (how long have you got if trying to find an infinite thing?), and secondly, the determination of such “facts” are not only misleading but put a straitjacket around a mind and ego which is naturally trying to be eccentric but is in effect being forced to be concentric. Such learning only serves to turn an ego from its natural state as an agent of change, to that of a dictator. It is this kind of backwards-only learning which inspires most dystopian writings, with George Orwell’s 1984 coming to mind as an example.
When discussing the over-extension of ego, we will see how such attempts to constrain the force of nature can eventually create a backlash of our own making, sometimes of immense proportions, be it economic collapse and/or natural disaster and/or any other kind of market correction which can take place in our natural or artificer markets of energy exchange.
INFLUENCE >>>