There is no ultimate physical boundary – no biggest part. 

There are no fundamental building blocks – no smallest parts.

One way to understand the infinite universe is to draw lines around certain identifiable parts.  For instance: you.  We can draw an abstract boundary around you and treat you as a single thing - a single entity within the universe.

This is not a perfect way of understanding the infinite universe.  For instance, as you breathe you make an exchange of things with what is outside of your boundary.  When you were in your mother’s womb, you were an individual with its own boundary, but connected to your mum.  Or consider the cells within a joint between your thumb and your index finger.  Where does the thumb start and where does the finger start?  At which point can you truly say that this or that cell is a thumb cell, and this or that cell is a finger cell?

And if the universe is constantly changing, then the boundary of any entity within the universe is constantly changing.  Consider a leaf which has fallen to the ground.  As it slowly decomposes, at which point do you begin to consider it a part of the earth and no longer a distinct entity of its own?  You are, similarly, constantly changing.  New cells are born into your flesh all the time while existing cells die off.  Or take a cloud, with its ever-changing constituents – the droplets of water joining and those leaving the cloud – an incessant loss and gain of constituents, and its ability to blend in with other clouds or divide into smaller clouds effortlessly.  Is a cloud a distinct entity?

Each entity is composed of smaller entities.  Each entity is a ‘container’ or ‘grouping’ of smaller entities.  Each container contains smaller containers.  Each grouping groups smaller groupings.

You can basically pick and choose any group of entities and call it an entity, however distant or seemingly unrelated the parts may be.

You are a container of organs, which are containers of cells, which are containers of organelles, which are containers of molecules, which are containers of atoms, which are containers of sub-atomic things, which are containers of whatever sub-atomic things are made of, and so on.

You might be contained in a family or another form of small multi-human group, which might be contained in a house or some other building, which is contained within a town or city, which is contained within a bio-region or land-mass, which is contained within a planet, which is contained within a solar system, which is contained within a galaxy, which is contained within whatever galaxies constitute, and so on.

The constituents of an entity may remain together in any manner.  Some may be directly stuck to others in the group.  Others may stick together indirectly through other entities – like the members of a family held together indirectly by the earth.  Others may maintain no physical bond at all, but still keep together or near to one another somehow, like birds of a flying flock, or members of a solar system, or particles of water in a cloud. 

Some entities might share common constituents, like you might be part of the knitting club and part of the baking club whereas other members might only be in one of those groups.  Some entities might be intertwined together in the same general area while maintaining distinct existences, like a bunch of vines that have grown entangled together.  Some entities might have constituents which are incredibly distant from one another – the size of the individual constituents being a puny fraction of the size of the gaps between each other.  Some entities might have a variety of immediate constituents of great difference in size, shape etc...  Some entities might exist for only a very brief moment, the constituents then disbanding or re-grouping in a different formation.

Another useful way of understanding the universe is with the concepts of matter and empty space.

In regions where we cannot sense any entities around, we call this ‘empty’ space.  And where we can sense entities, we call this matter.

A living entity can only sense things by meeting resistance with them.  Where there is no bonding or proximity – no structure or union, we cannot sense anything, and so we perceive an absence of matter. 

Think of a group of entities which have little or no structure maintained between them, like a cloud of mist.  Now imagine squeezing the cloud.  As you apply resistance on any one of the constituents, it just gives way – it can’t lean on the other constituents to counter the external resistance.  Now if you take a pool of water, there is a ‘tighter’ bond or proximity maintained between the parts, and so, as you squeeze the water, the resistance is dissipated throughout more of the parts, so you feel more matter.  Make the bonds even tighter, with the same molecules, and you get ice, hard matter.

But this way of approaching the universe is also not perfect.  (in fact, there is no perfect way of describing/approaching/understanding the infinite universe).

Consider the decomposing leaf again.  Instead of always trying to assess whether it is a whole entity or not as it decomposes, you could use the concept of matter versus empty space.  So, the leaf gradually gives up its matter and reveals empty space.  But: the matter of the leaf was already filled up with plenty of ‘empty’ space, like the space between the electrons and the nucleus of the atoms.  And the empty space that the leaf reveals after decomposing is replete with matter, in this case: air molecules.  To us, the air is less tangible than leaf matter, but there is still a sort of ‘substance’ that we can breathe in and feel – very small matter from our perspective.

Although the matter of the leaf is gone – those bonds between those cells and most of the molecules having disintegrated – the matter didn’t totally disappear – the molecules that went into the earth are made of matter of their own.  Bonds continue to hold their constituents together.  It is all a matter of perspective.  If you were a cell, individual molecules might seem very different to you – being able to touch them just as you can touch what you call ‘hard matter’ in your realm of size.

Even in outer space, in those areas where no molecules or even sub-atomic things exist, there are infinite entities constituting that space, there is infinite matter there.  The same holds true for the empty space between electrons and the nucleus – it is not really ‘empty’ space.  That is simply something you have to hold true if you believe firmly in the universe being infinite.  That is part of the leap of faith.  Likewise, even in the most dense region of matter, there is plenty of space at some point.  And within that space there is matter, and within that matter there is space, and so on, ad infinitum.

All entities are incessantly moving, even if their motion is imperceptible to us.

There is no maximum speed inherent in any kind of entity if there are infinite entities in the universe.  Speed is a comparison of motion between entities, and so to measure the true speed of one, you would have to measure the speed of all other entities, which are moving in ever-changing unique ways.

But this is not to imply that all motion is unrestricted. 

Each entity is incessantly encountering others, even if this resistance is imperceptible to us.  There is no vacuum – no absolutely void space, in which an entity may cease to act upon or be acted upon by other entities.  There may be areas void of certain kinds of entities, but the infinite within each part of this ‘void’ contains entities, even if they are imperceptible to us.

When entities hit each other it changes their motion, which affects further collisions.  Motion powers resistance and resistance powers motion.

Actions between entities have no real beginning or end.  They are preceded by infinite previous actions and instigate infinite subsequent actions.  The whole deal never started and it will never stop.

There is no force in the universe other than entities in motion.  (Resistance is simply the motion of entities changing direction and being passed along) 

When super-small entities (relative to us) move, it may seem that the force comes out of nothing – out of some void, outside of actual physical entities; but this is simply because those entities are too small for us to observe.  For instance, back in the day, the movement of air might have been conceived of as an invisible force borne out of a void.  But now that we can observe and measure the atomic realm, we know that the force of wind is the force of actual physical entities in motion – with actual matter consisting of bonds between sub-atomic things.

An entity may, at times, exhibit life.  This is brought about by the unified action of multiple living constituents of that parent entity.  To say the same thing in another way: multiple living entities acting together in a unified coordinated way produces an instance of living activity of the parent entity they constitute.  And in yet another way: a lifeform is the combined activity of smaller lifeforms.

Each living entity is composed of an infinite tree of life within.  Each living entity is animated by infinite smaller entities, and that is one of the reasons why life can be so unpredictable and dynamic at times.  Your living self is the result of infinite living entities within you, each acting on its ‘branch’ of the tree.

Some living entities may stay in the same general area and participate in the unified action of multiple living parents.  Some may regularly roam back and forth between areas to be able to participate in the unified action of multiple living parents.  Some may continuously move from living parent to living parent, never to return, always seeking new networks to join.  Some may remain loyal members in a single network throughout their entire finite existences. 

Some living entities may not be active members in any larger living entities at all.  They may simply be contained within their parent entities, acting upon them and being acted upon by them in an un-organized way, instead of interacting with them in an organized way. 

When a bunch of these living entities are found together and remain unorganized between themselves, we get: stuff.   Stuff and things, things made of stuff, pools of living entities, held together somehow, directly or indirectly, which together form non-living un-organized entities as a whole. 

So, inanimate (non-living) materials, objects, substances etc… are all made up of living entities.  A non-living entity might consist of non-living entities, who consist of non-living entities, and so on; but at some point you will encounter living entities, however deep you may have to search through the infinite within the object or pool of stuff, and however varied these living constituents may be.

An entity may be living at times and it may be non-living at other times.  For instance, when you wake up and find that you have slept on your arm and you cannot move it at all, it is limp and lifeless.  But at other times, it can act in a living way – with its multiple parts effecting dynamic action to achieve a common result.  The very process of you going to sleep is another great example.

Also, life can be fleeting.  Some living entities do not maintain rigid structure and habitual activity.  Some living entities might have all of their constituents physically disband and rejoin in a regular pattern, to interact in a living way only as the need arises, or as the constituents wish, or for whatever other reason.  Some living entities might have multiple groups of constituents which take turns in being active, in a regular rotation.  The constituents of some living entities may come together, act once, and then disband, never to interact again and without maintaining any structure afterwards. 

Many strange scenarios are conceivable when contemplating the infinite, which we might have a hard time imagining with our habitual encounters with things in our finite realm, with their particular properties.

There are two narratives brilliantly woven together in Semitic scripture.  There is a narrative of finite things, and there is a narrative of things found throughout the infinite.

The narrative of the finite includes mythology, allegory, parables, riddles, prohibitions, commandments etc. - concerning finite things, with words that refer to finite things with which we are familiar, such as mountains, kings, battles, cities, chariots, houses, people, etc.  This is the story of Semitic scripture that we are familiar with. 

The narrative of the infinite is embedded within this narrative of the finite, in the letters of the same words. 

The term ‘Semitic scripture’ refers to any work penned in a Semitic language which (usually) makes reference to the characters, places and events found in the old testament, such as Moses, Jerusalem or the exodus.  Examples of Semitic Scripture include:

·       The Hebrew old testament (OT) of the Bible.

·       The Aramaic new testament (NT) of the Bible.  [1]

·       The Arabic Qur’an.

·       Other works, such as the Ethiopic book of Enoch.

(The term ‘Semitic’ does not merely mean ‘Jewish’.  Other peoples, such as Arabs and Ethiopians, are also referred to as Semitic peoples with Semitic languages.)

The alphabets of these Semitic languages are thought to stem from a common 22-letter alphabet called ‘Proto-Semitic’, which can be seen in some stone inscriptions in the Sinai peninsula and in Egypt.  [2]

Each letter in this common Semitic alphabet represents something fundamental found throughout the infinite. 

Whereas the narrative of the finite can be translated, more or less, into other languages, the narrative of the infinite is confined to the original language.

Here is a font which has been compiled to represent the letters of the main Semitic languages in a standardized way.  This font, and others required to view this page, can be downloaded for free here:   PC  MAC    Once you install the fonts, the table below should show the special characters.

ALEF q is multiple entities (two or more), which are detached from one another, such as strangers wandering around on their own – completely removed and independent from one another, or like multitudes of bats flying about – but not swarming together – having no relation, or like the air.  Clouds don’t really apply because they aggregate together to a noticeable degree (well, maybe those high wispy clouds that remain thinned out might apply), nor would something like a flock of birds apply – who stick close to one another in proximity.  ALEF is the absence of structure or proximity but it still consists of actual entities who themselves do consist of structure.  Where there are multitudes of detached entities, which are small enough to be imperceptible to us, and which together occupy a great deal of space, that space may have the appearance of being empty (giving us the so-called ‘empty’ space).

YUHD a is multiple entities (two or more), attached to one another (like cells in your flesh), or otherwise maintaining static direct contact (like you and the earth as you stand still).  These bonds give us what we call matter or structure.

QOAF z represents a combination of ALEF(q) and YUHD(a).  It is the nearness or inter-mingling of entities.  A sort of disconnected connectedness.  It can be the quasi-structure of things divided by holes, crevices, gaps, clefts, breaches, etc, like a solar system or a flock of birds, or those cumulonimbus clouds (where the water particles keep together).  Also, it can be a relationship between things which are directly touching, but not in a static way, like the relationship between a table and a ‘top’ spinning on the table – when both the table and the spinning ‘top’ are considered together, it forms a sort of disconnected connection.  When the ‘top’ stops spinning, and just sits on the table, then that would be more like YUHD(a).  QOAF is entities staying ‘with’ or ‘near’ one another but not being directly joined or maintaining static direct contact with one another – whatever its substance may be, by whatever means it is maintained, however distant the entities may be from one another, and however long it may last.

To give an example of ALEF(q), YUHD(a), and QOAF(z):

Place your hands firmly together – flat upon one another.  This would form some YUHD(a). 

Now, start rubbing your hands together, and then break this ‘bond’ and hold your hands near one another, so that there is a gap between your hands.  This gives two examples of QOAF(z) – both the direct but non-static contact between things (rubbing), and proximity with ‘empty’ space in between (the expanse between your hands).

Now, remove your hands as far apart from one another as is possible.  This would be more like ALEF(q).

Again, these symbols are all a matter of perspective.

Even when you have your hands stretched out as far as possible, they are still pretty much maintaining some nearness to some degree. 

No matter how much you squeeze your hands together, you can never really close the gap to form perfect absolute unbroken matter.  There will always be some sort of empty space between them, or between any two entities bound together, even with the strongest ‘glue’.

When you were holding your hands near to one another (QOAF), imagine an amoeba on the tip of one of your fingers, looking out across this expanse.  For the amoeba, the other hand is quite a distance away – it is not at all near.

The next three letters represent individual entities (‘containers’, ‘groups’), whether living or not.

BAIT(w) represents entities which are separate from others – essentially ‘pointing’ toward ALEF(q).

KAF(s) represents entities which are bound to others (or otherwise maintaining static direct contact) – essentially ‘pointing’ toward YUHD(a).

RAISH(x) represents individual entities which are near or ‘with’ others without maintaining static direct contact – essentially ‘pointing’ toward QOAF(z).  A RAISH may be hovering around, it may be indirectly attached, it may be rubbing up against, skimming upon, or it may be moving throughout the interior of the entities to which it is associated, or it may be intertwined with them while not directly bound to them and not maintaining static direct contact; --- or any other sort of ‘nearness’ or ‘intermingling’ or ‘proximal association’.

An entity might be free and unbound in one area but bound in another area.  For instance, as you stand firmly on the ground, you are a KAF(s) in relation to the earth; but other parts of your body are more free and unbound, making you a BAIT(w) in relation to the open sky; and if you were to start trotting along the ground, the bond between you and the earth would become more intangible, you would still be ‘with’ or ‘near’ the ground, but no longer maintaining static direct contact, so in this case you would be a RAISH(x) in relation to the earth.

So, again, these symbols are a matter of perspective.

GIMEL(e) is the motion of BAIT(w).  It is the motion of entities where they are unbound.  

LAMED(d) is the motion of KAF(s).  It is the motion of entities where they are stuck to or maintaining static direct contact with other entities. 

SHEEN(c) is the motion of RAISH(x).  It is the motion of entities where they are near others or otherwise staying ‘with’ other entities.

DALET(r) is the resistance of BAIT(w).  It is the resistance that occurs when entities encounter other entities from which they are separate.

MEM(f) is the resistance of KAF(s).  It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage other entities to which they are stuck or maintaining static direct contact.

TAWV(v) is the resistance of RAISH(x).  It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage with other entities to which they are ‘near’ or otherwise staying ‘with’.

Take, for example, a baseball game. 

When the pitcher is throwing the ball, at the point where his hand is ‘pushing’ the ball, that would be LAMED(d). 

The side of the ball that is open to the air (where the pitcher’s hand does not touch the ball) that would be GIMEL(e).  When the ball is free-flowing in the air, that would be GIMEL(e) all the way around the ball.

If the ball were to hit a pile of mud and shoot through the mud a little, as it moves through the mud, that would be SHEEN(c), in the relationship between the ball and pile of mud.  Or if a player would rub and roll the ball on his sleeve for good luck, the ball would be SHEENing up against the sleeve.

Where the ball hits the bat, that would be DALET(r).

If the ball were to be caught in a glove and be held there, that would be MEM(f), where the ball is being pressed-up against by the glove.

If nobody catches the ball and it bounces along the ground, tip-tapping along ground, that would be TAWV(v).  Or if the coaches get into a heated argument, taunt each other and get up in each other’s face and yell at each other in close proximity, start spitting at each other, and start exchanging punches with each other, that would be TAWV(v).  If the fans start clapping their hands, they would be TAWVing their hands together.  If a fan is confused about the umpire’s decision concerning a play, and scratches his head, the friction of his fingers against his scalp would also be TAWV.

HAY(t) represents the life of entities, where they are generally more free and unbound. 

NOON(g) represents the life of entities, where they are generally more bound. 

Seeing as at times an entity might be living and at other times it might be dormant or otherwise not organized as a whole, HAY and NOON represent the aspect of an entity when it is living, where it is living.  It is the life exhibited by the entities symbolised by the letters BAIT(w), KAF(s) and RAISH(x).

The reason why there is no QOAF-level letter for living entities is because, with life, it is not so much the immediate physical relationship with other things as much as how the life acts in relation to other things.  For instance, a servant, even if not directly bound to his master with manacles, maintains a constant ‘relationship’ with him, indirectly.  Or you might be free and unbound in an open area on vacation, but pretty much act in a repetitive way unable to shake loose from your habits.  Or you might plant yourself in a peaceful spot and free your living mind from habit as you remain stationary.

Also, a living entity does not always simply act outward, so its external physical relationship with other things is not a central consideration.  A living entity may even act outward and inward at the same time, as part of the same unified action.  For instance, if you were to pinch your nose as you remove a dead rat from the shed.  You are acting upon yourself (nostrils) at the same time as you are acting upon external things (rat corpse). 

So, there is little use in having a QOAF-level letter for living entities.  What is more useful is just a more general state of living activity: more bound and conditioned(g) or more free and unconditioned(t).  The 12 letters described above already symbolise the external physical relationship of the ‘container’ of living entities, so you can combine those letters with these letters for life, to convey a more precise external physical relationship for living entities.

This being said, the immediate external physical state of a living entity does affect its activity.  For instance, a slave, if shackled, is more limited in the possible activity that he can perform.  So, these two letters for life can still reflect an external physical state, but in a less precise manner than with BAIT(w), KAF(s) and RAISH(x).

HAY(t) is life that is generally more unconditioned and unpredictable.

NOON(g) is life that is generally more conditioned and engaged in more similar activity (repetition).

Think of your hands compared to the webbed feet of a duck.  If your hands were webbed all the way up to the tips of your fingers, your hand as a whole would be much less versatile – much more conditioned in its activity.

Think of your hands compared to your torso.  Seeing as there is more space within the hand (the space between the digits and the space in which the joints pivot in their sockets), the hand is more versatile, agile, dynamic and can adapt and recombine itself in various fresh new ways.  Whereas if your whole body were a torso, as is the case with the snake, your options would be more limited, your action would be more conditioned; whether you wish to act upon yourself or upon external things.

VAWV y is the organized unified living motion of HAY. 

SAMEK h is the organized unified living motion of NOON. 

ZAIN u is the organized unified living resistance of HAY. 

OYIN j is the organized unified living resistance of NOON.   

HKET i is the aspect of entities where they are not living, where they are more free and unbound.  A whole bunch of HKET together makes stuff and substances, (a more free and loose arrangement), like air molecules which are not interacting with each other in a living way.

PHAY k is the aspect of entities where they are not living, where they are more bound.  A whole bunch of PHAY together makes stuff and things, (a more bound arrangement), like molecules of stone which are not acting with each other in a living way.

Even though you can get stuff and things out of a whole bunch of HKET and PHAY, these symbols could also refer to just a small number of entities (even just 2) which are not interacting in an organised unified way together – like a few strangers sitting together on the bus, each minding his/her own business.

An entity(BAIT, KAF, RAISH) can either be in a living state at times(HAY, NOON), or in a non-living state at times(HKET, PHAY), and it may be living in relation to some things and non-living in relation to others at the same time.  For instance, as you communicate with someone, your focus on them may preclude your focus on and communication with someone else at that moment who may be trying to get your attention and you don’t notice it due to your focus on the existing conversation.

Whereas HAY and NOON need extra letters to distinguish their unique type of living motion and resistance(VAWV & SAMEK / ZAIN & OYIN), the motion and resistance of HKET and PHAY is already encapsulated in the letters which describe the simple motion and resistance of BAIT, KAF and RAISH (GIMEL, LAMED, SHEEN  &  DALET, MEM, TAWV).

TET o is the coming together, combining, joining, binding, bonding, placing together, etc...

TSADY l is the breaking free, the splitting, separating, parting, expulsion, releasing, etc…

A table with short definitions of each letter is available on a separate page, which you can keep open for quick access as you read on.  It is available here.  To open it as a separate window, right-click on the link and hit the 'Open in a separate window' button.

For all of these tables throughout the book, the definitions of the words are taken straight from the dictionaries or straight from the English translations of Semitic Scripture, without change or embellishment. 

Also, for all of these tables throughout the book, the majority of words in the theme are listed.  The exceptions are almost always rare, obscure, or can be explained with the letter-code in another way.

In these tables, the languages where the words are found are listed in tooltips.  Just hold your mouse over the definition.  Each comma-delimited definition may have a unique language tooltip. 

There are also tooltips for some entries with multiple spellings.  Just hold your mouse over the individual spellings.

VOWELS

All of the letters of the alephbet are consonants – no vowels.  Semitic scripture was originally written without vowels.  The way to pronounce the consonants was understood by the speakers of the language.  For instance, you and I can read this:

2 bdrm  n smkng  n pts  avlbl nw

We are able to deduce how to pronounce these words – which vowels to add where, because we understand the context.  If you were to read: “pts n pns”, you could discern that the “pts” means “pots” rather than “pets” as was read above.

There arose two ways of writing down vowels for the alephbet.  One was the addition of little dots above and below (and within) the letters.  Another method was the insertion of extra consonants which sort of have vowel-like tendencies: YUHD, VAWV, ALEF and HAY.  These can be found inserted within words or padding the outside of words.

And so, the same consonant combination, with different vowel markings, can mean different things, albeit on the same general theme.  Although this can help with translation or to otherwise grasp the specific meaning of the surface narrative, it can also cause the reader to overlook the transcendent commonality between words with the same consonants but different vowels.  This is the reason why the Torah scrolls used in the Synagogues are written without vowels, even to this day.

“The scroll of the Torah is written without vowels, in order to enable man to interpret it however he wishes – as the consonants without the vowels bear several interpretations and [splinter into sparks].  This is the reason why we do not write the vowels of the scroll of the Torah, for the significance of each word is in accordance with its vocalization, but when it is vocalized it has but one single significance; but without vowels man may interpret it [extrapolating from it] several different things, many, marvellous and sublime.”

Bahya ben Asher (13th – 14th centuries)  [3]

“…the content of the Torah possessed infinite meaning, which revealed itself differently at different levels and according to the capacity of the contemplator.  The unfathomable profundity of the divine speech could not possibly be exhausted at any one level alone…

…”Many lights shine forth from each word and each letter”…”

Gershom Scholem

Foremost modern historian of Jewish mysticism

  [4]

Throughout this book, the pointed vowels have been eliminated, and only mentioned briefly in a few instances.  As for the consonants used as vowels (YUHD, VAWV, ALEF and HAY), it is often hard to determine if a particular instance of these letters is a vowel or not.  Where it is certain that it is a vowel, it has been eliminated; where uncertain, it has been retained but coloured a reddish hue.

Also, you might notice certain Arabic characters, for which no definitions have been given (bnm,./), as well as the letter SEEN ($).  This is explained in the appendices page, which also includes a detailed explanation of how the definitions of the letters were deduced, along with the reasoning for the character selections made for the common font.

TEXTURE OF SEMITIC SCRIPTURE

Many academics and theologians have pointed out that there is great word-play in Semitic scripture, with many patterns within and between verses.  But this, in fact, is not just word-play, it is also (and primarily) letter-play. 

This sort of texture of Semitic Scripture is simply untranslatable.

Also, for some books, it is obvious that the usage of words was not intended for regular forms of writing, but rather for ‘formulas’ or little chunks for contemplation.  For example, the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah are so obscure, that whenever you look up an entry in the Hebrew dictionary of the OT, and you find an obscure definition that doesn’t match the standard usage, you can rest assured that it is from one of these books, and there are plenty of these instances.

“The most difficult and obscure of the holy books contain as many secrets as they do words, concealing many things even under each word.” 

Saint Jerome (342-419 AD), author of the ‘Vulgate’, a translation of the Bible from Hebrew & Greek into Latin

[5]

“Seventy sages translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy.  That day was as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made; for the Torah could not be fully translated.”

Talmud: tractate Sefer Torah, 1:8   [6]

-------------------

Here is the very first verse of the very first book:

If you read it as it is translated, then the first letter (w) should be read as a prefix (meaning ‘in’), and not part of the word itself, but the second word is mysteriously found in the first half of the whole of the first word including its w prefix:

wxqcav

wxq

This basically screams out from the get go: “Not so fast – study every single letter!”.

-------------------

Here is the account of Adam’s creation, the second time around, in the second chapter:

So,

qrf was created from the

qrft which was watered by some

qr

-------------------

-------------------

When vocalised in the original tongues, these passages come to life with acoustic properties unavailable in the translations.

This sort of texture/style of writing in Semitic scripture is particularly noticeable in the Qur’an.  For example:

dq qdt qdq qddt 

“There is no God but Allah”

In the Sufi tradition, this cryptic line is widely used as a dhikr – the practice of contemplation upon certain names or phrases (more on this in the next section).

“… [there exists a] delicate aspect of cadence through which the Qur’an achieves euphony, [and] musical sounds which exist in every single verse, like a symphony. [7]  There is, in the Qur’an, a subtly varied rhythmical flow of the discourse. [8] “

[9]

“In the translation of the Qur’an, we sacrifice the flow of sound to sense while in the Qur’an sound and sense are interrelated.”

[10]

“Unlike any other book, Asad claims [11], the Qur’an’s meaning and its linguistic presentation form one unbreakable whole.  The position of individual words in a sentence, the rhythm and sound of its phrases and their syntactic construction, the manner in which a metaphor flows almost imperceptibly into a pragmatic statement, the use of acoustic stress not merely in the service of rhetoric but as a means of alluding to unspoken but clearly implied ideas: all this makes the Qur’an, in the last resort, unique and untranslatable – a fact that has been pointed out by many earlier translators and by all Arab scholars.”

[12]

“The task [of translating the Qur’an] is so frustrating and the Qur’an-bound linguistic and rhetorical intricate problems so unsurmountable that some translators like C. Turner (1997) [13] threatened to throw in the towel.    T. B. Irving (1985) [14] talks of the Qur’anic conjunctions and connectives as one of the first problems the Qur’an translator encounters.  He [15] is of the opinion that the Qur’an could be considered untranslatable, because each time one returns to the Arabic text, he finds new meanings and fresh ways of interpreting it.  It is a living document.”

[16]

“… the translation of the Qur’an has been traditionally rejected by Muslim scholars. [17]  They only allow exegetical translation which is based on commentary and explication of the Qur’anic text.  For them the translated version of the Qur’an should never be a replacement to the original Qur’an in Arabic when performing the daily prayers since “no translation is entirely acceptable or entirely ‘adequate’ ” [18] ; a translation of the Qur’an “is not the Qur’an and can never be” [19] ”

[20]

“The Qur’an, according to Asad [21], should be viewed as one integral whole; every structure has an intimate bearing on other structures, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another.  Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its passages.”

[22]

“The Qur’an, in the view of Mir [23], has a small vocabulary.  According to one computation, the total number of Arabic roots used in the Qur’an is 1702.  This may suggest that, from the point of view of language, the Qur’an is a simple enough book to follow, and its small vocabulary does facilitate one’s understanding of it.  A serious student, however soon realizes that the language of this book is only deceptively simple, as is testified by the scores of volumes that exist on Qur’anic syntax and grammar alone, almost every Qur’anic verse presents one or more linguistic problems that claim attention and demand a solution.  It is only on a close study of the Qur’anic language that one begins truly to appreciate its richness and complexity.  What largely accounts for this richness and complexity is the most varied linguistic structures that, manipulating its small vocabulary, the Qur’an generates.”

[24]

“The language of the Qur’an is synthetic and imagistic – each word has a richness having to do with the special genius of the Arabic language.”

[25]

It is held that even those who commit the Qur’an to memory still do not fully comprehend the variance in meaning of each word and verse.

One fascinating mystery of the Qur’an is that at the head of 29 suras (chapters) are individual letters.  For example, at the head of sura 2, there is written: ALEF, LAMED, MEM:        q d f         And that’s it.  No explanation.  Just seemingly random letters.

“Throughout the ages, scholars both Muslim and European, have pondered and wrestled with these mysterious letters, advancing a great number of theories, sometimes fanciful and far-fetched, to explain their origin and meaning.”    

[26]

Not only is there evident letter-play between a few key-words and across a few verses, which produces an untranslatable acoustic quality in Semitic Scripture, but there is also evident letter-play across chapters, between a wide array of words. 

For example, in chapter 4 of Genesis, Adam and Eve beget Cain, whose descendants are all listed throughout the rest of the 4^th chapter, and then his line ends, never to resurface in the narrative.  Then, in chapter 5, Adam and Eve beget Seth, whose descendants are listed throughout the rest of chapter 5, ending with Noah and his three sons.

 (Shem, ancestor of Abraham, is where the term ‘Semitic’ comes from.)

Again, Cain’s line of descent in chapter 4 dies off after the first Lamech and his children, and is separate from Seth’s line of descent in chapter 5, which goes on to populate the rest of the earth.

The first 5 chapters of Genesis have been compiled in a color-coded interlinear format here.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

This next section includes excerpts from literature (outside of scripture itself) which alludes to there being meaning invested within each letter.

The Talmud is a record of various rabbinic discussions which outline and explore Jewish civil and religious laws and also provides commentary on the Hebrew scriptures.  It was compiled between the 2^nd and 5^th centuries (AD).

“A scribe must provide a distinguishing mark for the section beginning “And it came to pass when the ark set forward” both at its beginning and at its end, because it is a book on its own.”

Talmud: tractate Soferim  6:1

“The HAY (t) of Ha-Adonai (t-qrga) must be longer than any other HAY, because it is a word on its own.”

Talmud: tractate Soferim  9:6

In the Talmud were various guidelines concerning the copying of manuscripts.  If, how, where and when these rules were applied and just how old these rules are is not known.

There were guidelines for the preparation of the skin of the parchments, the preparation of the ink, the repairing and discarding of scrolls, the proper handling of scrolls, the use of foodstuffs when dealing with scrolls, the qualifications of the scribes, etc…  But the guidelines which most concern us here are these:

·         The words written could not be duplicated from memory but had to be reproduced from an authentic copy that the scribe had before him.

·         The scribe had to say each word aloud as he wrote it.

·         Letters and words had to be spaced at a certain distance.  No word could touch another and no letter could touch another.

·         Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of its writing or it was condemned.

·         If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was condemned.

·         If there were three mistakes found on any page, the whole manuscript was condemned.

·         Every word and every letter in a completed scroll was meticulously counted.  If a letter or word was omitted, the manuscript was condemned.

 [27]

“Rabbi Meir, one of the most important teachers of the Mishnah [early part of the Talmud], relates: “When I was studying with Rabbi Akiba, I used to put vitriol in the ink and he said nothing.  But when I went to Rabbi Ishmael, he asked me: My son, what is your occupation?  I answered: I am a scribe [of the Torah].  And he said to me: My son, be careful in your work, for it is the work of God; if you omit a single letter, or write a letter too many, you will destroy the whole world…”

[28]

“… Bezalel knew how to combine the letters by which the heavens and the earth were created.”

Talmud: tractate Berakoth 55a

“He hath formed, weighed, transmuted, composed, and created with these twenty-two letters every living being, and every soul yet uncreated…   …For He indeed showed the mode of combination of the letters, each with each, Aleph with all, and all with Aleph.  Thus in combining all together in pairs are produced these two hundred and thirty-one gates of knowledge.”

Sepher Yetsira (around 2^nd – 6^th centuries AD)

Not all of the authors quoted throughout this section would have agreed with my definition of the letters, let alone my interpretation of scripture.

For instance, in the Sepher Yetsira just quoted, the letters are subsequently associated with cardinal directions, body parts, planets, and other elements.  (Although, it may be that the Hebrew words for these things used in the Sepher Yetsira need to be read letter-by-letter themselves)

Also, the authors quoted throughout this section did not necessarily agree with each other on the definition of the letters, or on other matters.

The only purpose of this section is to point out the fact that many authors writing about Semitic scripture viewed the letters as being invested with meaning.

In the middle ages, particularly in France and Spain, there arose a whole body of literature called “Kabbalah”, which simply means ‘to receive’ or ‘tradition’.  As has been demonstrated with the previous quotes, the Kabbalah is not the only literature which alludes to meaning within the letters, so the available literary evidence is not restricted to the middle ages.  Also, ‘Kabbalah’ was not the only term used in Jewish literature to denote a sort of esoteric understanding of scripture:

“The Talmud speaks of sitrei torah  and razei torah (“secrets of the Torah”)”

“In the mystical literature from the close of the Talmudic period and afterward, the terms ba’alei ha-sod (“masters of the mystery”) and anshei emunah (“men of belief”) already occur.”

“In the period of the Provencal [French] and Spanish Kabbalists the Kabbalah is also called hokhmah penimit (“inner wisdom”),  ……   and the Kabbalists are often called maskilim (“the understanding ones”), with reference to Daniel 12:10, or doreshei reshumot (“those who interpret texts”), a Talmudic expression for allegorists.”

“From the beginning of the 14^th century the name Kabbalah almost completely superseded all other designations.”

[29]

The Torah is likened to a nut by some Kabbalists.  Just as a nut has an outer shell and an inner kernel, so too does the Torah.  Moses de Leon used the acronym PaRDeS to denote four levels of meaning in the Torah:

“…P stands for peshat, the literal meaning, R for remez, the allegorical meaning, D for derasha, the Talmudic and Aggadic interpretation, S for sod, the mystical meaning.”

[30]  [31]

“Every letter and every word in every section of the Torah have a deep root in wisdom and contain a mystery from among the mysteries of understanding, the depths of which we cannot penetrate…”

Abraham bar Hiyya   (1065 – 1136 AD)  [32]

“Just as in the body of a man there are limbs and joints, just as some organs of the body are more, others less, vital, so it seems to be with the Torah.  To one who does not understand their hidden meaning, certain sections and verses of the Torah seem fit to be thrown into the fire; but to one who has gained insight into their true meaning they seem essential components of the Torah.  Consequently, to omit so much as one letter or point from the Torah is like removing some part of a perfect edifice.  Thence it also follows that in respect of its divine character no essential distinction can be drawn between the section of Genesis 36, setting forth the generations of Esau [a seemingly superfluous passage], and the Ten Commandments, for it is all one whole and one edifice.”

Rabbi Azriel of Gerona (1160 – 1238 AD)   [33]

“Alas for the man who regards the Torah as a book of mere tales and [everyday] matters.  If this were so, we might even today write a Torah dealing in [everyday affairs] and still more excellent.  In regard to earthly things, the kings and princes of the world possess more valuable materials.  We could use them as a model for composing a Torah of this kind.  But in reality the words of the Torah are higher words and higher mysteries…

…When fools see a man in a garment that seems beautiful to them, they do not look more closely.  But more important than the garment is the body, and more important than the body is the soul.  So likewise the Torah has a body, which consists of the commandments and ordinances of the Torah, which are called gufe torah, (“bodies of the Torah”).  This body is cloaked in garments, which consist of worldly stories.  Fools see only the garment, which is the narrative part of the Torah; they know no more and fail to see what is under the garment.  Those who know more see not only the garment but also the body that is under the garment.  But the truly wise, the servants of the Supreme King, those who stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, [penetrate right through to the] soul, which is the true foundation of the entire Torah…

…Wine cannot be kept save in a jar; so the Torah needs an outer garment.  These are the stories and narratives, but it behoves us to penetrate beneath them.”

Rabbi Simeon in the Zohar - III 152a   [34]

“Verily the Torah lets out a word and emerges a little from her sheath, and then hides herself again.  But she does this only for those who know and obey her.  For the Torah resembles a beautiful and stately damsel, who is hidden in a secluded chamber of her palace and who has a secret lover, unknown to all others.  For love of her he keeps passing the gate of her house, looking this way and that in search of her.  She knows that her lover haunts the gate of her house.  What does she do?  She opens the door of her hidden chamber ever so little, and for a moment reveals her face to her lover, but hides it again forthwith.  Were anyone with her lover, he would see nothing and perceive nothing.  He alone sees it and he is drawn to her with his heart and soul and his whole being, and he knows that for love of him she disclosed herself to him for one moment, aflame with love for him.  So is it with the Torah, which reveals herself only to those who love her.  The Torah knows that the mystic [hakim libba, literally, the wise of heart] haunts the gate of her house.  What does she do?  From within her hidden palace she discloses her face and beckons to him and returns forthwith to her place and hides.  Those who are there see nothing and know nothing, only he alone, and he is drawn to her with his heart and soul and his whole being.  Thus the Torah reveals herself and hides, and goes out in love to her lover and arouses love in him.  Come and see: this is the way of the Torah.  At first, when she wishes to reveal herself to a man, she gives him a momentary sign.  If he understands, well and good; if not, she sends to him and calls him a simpleton.  To the messenger she sends to him the Torah says: tell the simpleton to come here that I may speak to him.  As it is written [Prov. 9:47]: ‘Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither, she saith to him that wanteth understanding.’  When he comes to her, she begins from behind a curtain to speak words in keeping with his understanding, until very slowly insight comes to him, and this is called derashah. [derashah means here the mode of interpretation practiced by the Talmudists, by which they derived the exoteric oral doctrine from the words of Scripture in accordance with certain fixed norms]  Then through a light veil she speaks allegorical words [millin de hida] and that is what is meant by haggadah.  Only then, when he has become familiar with her, does she reveal herself to him face to face and speak to him of all her hidden secrets and all her hidden ways, which have been in her heart from the beginning.  Such a man is then termed perfect, a ‘master’, that is to say, a ‘bridegroom of the Torah’ in the strictest sense, the master of the house, to whom she discloses all her secrets, concealing nothing.  She says to him: do you see now how many mysteries were contained in that sign I gave you on the first day, and what its true meaning is?  Then he understands that to those words indeed nothing may be added and nothing taken away.  And then for the first time he understands the true meaning of the words of the Torah, as they stand there, those words to which not a syllable or a letter may be added and from which none may be taken away.  And therefore men should take care to pursue the Torah [that is, study it with great precision], in order to become her lovers as has been related.”

Zohar, II, 99a-b   [35]

Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (‘Ghazali’, or ‘Algazel’ for short), (1058-1111), was one of the most celebrated scholars in the history of Sufi Islamic thought.  Although he doesn’t specifically explain that the letters are imbued with meaning, he wrote at length about the hidden meaning of the Qur’an.  It would seem that the reason he doesn’t explain about the letters in his writings is because of his contention that the esoteric meanings should not be divulged to the common man [36].

esoteric = inward, hidden meaning

exoteric = outward, surface meaning

exegesis = interpretation of scripture

“ ‘Ali said, “If I wished I could load seventy camels with the exegesis of the opening Surah of the Koran.”  What is the meaning of this, when the exoteric interpretation [of this surah] is extremely short?  Abu al-Darda’ said, “A man does not understand until he attributes [different] perspectives to the Koran.”  A certain scholar said, “For every verse there are sixty thousand understandings, and what remains to be understood is even more.”  Others have said, “The Koran contains seventy-seven thousand two hundred sciences, for every word [in it] is a science, and then that [number] can be quadrupled, since every word has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an end and a beginning.”

The Prophet’s repetition of [the phrase] “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate” twenty times was only for the purpose of pondering its esoteric meanings.  Otherwise its explanation and exegesis are so obvious that someone like him would not need to repeat it.  Ibn Mas’ud said, “He who desires the knowledge of the ancients and the moderns should ponder the Koran,” and that is not something that can be attained merely by its exoteric interpretation.”

“The rejection of exoteric meanings is the opinion of the Batiniyya, who, being one-eyed, looked only at one of the two worlds and did not recognize the correspondence between the two and did not understand its significance.  Similarly, the rejection of the esoteric meanings is the position of the Hashwiyya.  Whoever takes only the outward meaning is a Hashwi, and whoever takes only the inward meaning is a Batini, but whoever combines the two of them is perfect.  For this reason the Prophet said, “The Koran has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an ending, and a beginning.”

One should not neglect the learning of outward exegesis first for there is no hope of reaching the inward aspect before having mastered the outward.  One who claims to understand the secrets of the Koran without having mastered its outward exegesis, is like a man who claims to have reached the main room of a house without having passed through the door…”

- Ghazali  [37]

In the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddiya order of the Sufis, there are a series of contemplative practices, one of which is the Contemplation of the Reality of the Koran:

“When an adept attains this stage, he receives the blessings, and perceives the light of the Eternal Speech of God and learns its arcane secret.  He finds that every word of the Koran is expressive, significant and pregnant with meaning.

… At this stage, the meaning of the abbreviated letters [chapter-heading letters] of the Koran is revealed, but this cannot be expressed in words.”

[38]

The Sufis, however, are not the only Islamic tradition that sees meaning in the words and individual letters of the Koran, the Isma’ilis also held similar beliefs:

“[In an] early Isma’ili text: the second treatise of the Kitab al-kashf, which the Isma’ili tradition attributes to Ja’far b. Mansur al-Yaman, …  … the Arabic alphabet, which consists of twenty-eight consonant signs, is divided into four groups of seven letters each, and thus into four heptads, from the combinations of which all words – and with them the very things they signify – come into being.”

[39]

The earliest known Ismaili cosmology describes individual letters in the process of creation:

“Then God breathed into it a spirit and directed at it a voice: “Be!” (kun), thus it came into being with God’s permission.  All things were made by God through creating them (mubda ‘atan) from the letters kaf and nun [KAF and NOON] [making the word kun.  … Then through the waw [VAWV] and ya’ [YUHD], which became a name for what is above it, calling it therefore kuni. ”

[40]

“Certain esoteric schools of Islamic thought, such as the Isma’ili Shi’is, developed teachings about the letters of the alphabet to represent the human form and face.  Entire portraits were created using only the names Allah, Muhammad, and ‘Ali.  Sufi-influenced groups – such as the Bektashi order in Ottoman lands, the Hurufi (“letter”) sect, and the Nuqtawi (“dot”) school – employed letter-symbolism and diagrams to convey their teachings; their elaborate metaphysical speculations on the cosmic significance of the letters were frequently combined with messianic activism.   Quasi-magical treatments of the Arabic alphabet associated with the circle of the sixth Shi’i Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, were elaborated in connection with the occult sciences…

… In terms of discipline, the most important class of Sufi practices involving the word was the recitation of divine names as a kind of meditation [dikr, pronounced zikr by non-Arabs].  The movement towards interiorization of the Qur’an that was so decisive for the development of Sufism lent itself especially to the practice of meditation in which the [ninety nine] names of God are chanted over and over again, either in solitude or in company, aloud or silently.”

[41]

The most widely used dhikr of all was the name Allah (qddt).  Here is how it is carried out in the Chishtiyya order of the Sufis:

“… the seeker retires into a secluded place and contemplates that the word Allah is written on his heart in golden letters and that he is reading it with zest and fervour, and that he is in the presence of Allah.  He should be engrossed enough in these thoughts as to lose awareness of his own individual being.

At the beginning of this contemplation, the heart is filled with the resplendent light of the golden letters of Allah; then gradually the Alif [ALEF] (of Allah) disappears from sight and only a ring of light remains.  This ring gradually assumes the form of a big circle, and in this circle many unseen worlds will be seen.  The seeker should not pay attention to them and be lost in this spiritual exhibition.  All this will result in complete absorption and the state of fana or ‘total effacement’ will follow.  The seeker attains the rank of persons who have attained total annihilation in God (fana-fi-Allah).”

[42]

In the Qadiriyya order of the Sufis, it is written concerning the use of Allah as a dhikr:

“Allah, Allah is the name of the pure Essence of the Friend.

This great name is meant for attaining His proximity.

Allah, Allah, what good taste this name reveals,

Every letter of this word intoxicates life with the wine of love.”

[43]

Mawlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī (or ‘Rumi’ for short), (1207-1273):

“Do not apply musk to the body, rub it on the heart.  What is musk?  The sacred name of him who is full of majesty.”

[44]

Abū abd-Allah Muhammad ibn-Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-`Arabi al-Hatimi al-TTaa'i (or ‘Ibn Arabi’ for short), (1165-1240):

“I dreamt one night that I had copulated with all the stars of the heavens, and there was not a single star left with which I had not copulated with supreme spiritual pleasure, and when I had finished copulating with the stars, I was given the letters and I copulated with them.”

[45]

Now, if we return to the Kabbalists, we find much of the same sort of passages:

“Prepare to meet your God.  Prepare to devote your heart.  Purify your body and select a special place where no one in the world can hear your voice.  Be totally alone.  Sit in one spot in the room or the loft, and do not reveal your secret to anyone.  If you can, do this by day, even for a little while, but the best way is to do it at night.  As you prepare to speak with your Creator, to seek the revelation of his power, be careful to empty your mind of all mundane vanities.  Wrap yourself in your tallit and put your tefillin on your head and your hand so that you will be filled with the awe of Shekhinah, who is with you at this moment.  Wear clean garments, all white if you can.  All this helps immensely in focusing your awe and love.  If it is night, light many candles, until your eyes shine brightly.

Then take hold of ink, pen and tablet.  Realize that you are about to serve your God in joy.  Begin to combine letters, a few or many, permuting and revolving them rapidly until your mind warms up.  Delight in how they move and in what you generate by revolving them.  When you feel within that your mind is very, very warm from combining the letters, and that through the combinations you understand new things that you have not attained by human tradition nor discovered on your own through mental reflection, then you are ready to receive the abundant flow, and the abundance flows upon you, arousing you again and again.

Now turn your thoughts to visualizing the Name and its supernal angels, imagining them as if they were human beings standing or sitting around you, with you in the middle like a messenger about to be sent on a royal mission, waiting to hear about it from their lips, either from the king himself or from one of his ministers.  Having imagined this vividly, prepare your mind and heart to understand the many things about to be conveyed to you by the letters being contemplated within you.  Meditate on them as a whole and in all their detail, like one to whom a parable, a riddle, or a dream is being told, or like one perusing a book of wisdom, pondering a passage beyond his grasp.  Interpret what you hear in an uplifting manner, approximating it as best you can.  Based on what you understand of it, evaluate yourself and others.  All this will happen after you fling the tablet from your hands and the pen from your fingers, or after they fall by themselves due to the intensity of your thoughts.”

Abraham Abulafia (13^th century)

[46]

“…place in front of the eyes of your mind the letters of God’s name, as if they were written in a book in Hebrew script.  Visualize every letter extending to infinity.  What I mean is: when you visualize the letters focus on them with your mind’s eye as you contemplate infinity.  Both together: gazing and meditating.”

Isaac of Akko (13^th-14^th centuries)

[47]

Even in the daily Jewish prayers, stress is laid on the name itself:

“May the LORD’s name be praised from now and to all eternity.  From the rising of the sun to the going down thereof the LORD’s name is to be praised.”

[48]

And again, from the Sepher Yetsira:

“…blessed and more than blessed be the name of the living God of ages.”

IMPORTANCE LAID ON NAMES AND WORDS WITHIN SEMITIC SCRIPTURE ITSELF

After the apostles performed some healings, they were held and interrogated:

KINGS DAVID AND SOLOMON

The name David is spelled ryr.  Other words with the same or similar arrangement of letters mean: ‘love’, ‘beloved’, ‘brother’, ‘uncle’ (ryr, rr); ‘aunt’, ‘sister’, ‘wife’ (rr); and ‘beloved’, ‘amiable’ (arar).

The name of one of David’s sons, Solomon, who goes on to become king after David, is spelled cdft.  Other words with the cdf combination mean: ‘peace’, ‘health’, ‘prosperity’, ‘rest’, ‘safety’, ‘welfare’.  You may be familiar with the Hebrew greeting ‘Shalom’, the Aramaic greeting ‘Shlomo’, and the Arabic greeting ‘Salam’ which all mean ‘peace’; and the terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ are also based on the cdf combination [49].

And so, it just so happens that ‘Love’ gives birth to ‘Peace’.  And after Peace dies, the kingdom just so happens to become divided. 

From David’s very first appearance onward, his story deals with things concerning love:

Saul, Israel’s first king, became jealous and fearful of David’s glory and fame and attempted to slay David several times.  But when Saul hunted him down and David had the chance to kill him, David let Saul live and David pleaded that Saul accept him again.  When Saul died, even though David knew that Saul was still trying to kill him at the time of his death, David lamented Saul’s death:

And upon the death of many other adversaries, David also wept and lamented.

David’s story, however, does not simply deal with the niceties of love, it also deals with its darker side.  David had a crush on Bathsheba, and purposefully sent her husband to die on the battlefield so that he could take her to wife.

From the outset of Solomon’s reign, his story deals with things concerning peace:

In a time of war, there are usually scant provisions rationed carefully for the needs of combat, and infrastructure is destroyed wastefully.  In time of peace, however, resources are not destroyed intentionally nor consumed wastefully in order to fuel the fight, and trade is opened with other countries, and people can focus on building up and nurturing their societies without fear of their work being obliterated.  Therefore, abundance is one possible result of peace.

In a time of war, focus is narrowed to the single objective of destroying the enemy, but in a time of peace, people can relax, learn and ponder about the various subtle aspects of life.  Not only are they liberated to a certain degree in their internal focus, but they can also roam outside of their borders to learn and ponder about things foreign.  Therefore, understanding and wisdom are also possible results of peace.

Just as the story of David deals with the ups and downs of love, so too does the story of Solomon deal with the ups and downs of peace. 

In times of peace, things can get dull.  Structures and processes are maintained without being destroyed and so things may seem to simply repeat endlessly in a monotonous, continuous cycle.  And so boredom and atrophy are possible results of peace.

When you come to think that you know everything there is to know (great wisdom through having experienced the bounty of peace), there is little to challenge the intellect, there is little to drive you.  And so, boredom and atrophy are possible results of wisdom.

-------------------

If these were actual men, then their names must have been changed by the writers of the account because the names that they received at birth match, to a miraculous degree, their nature and the circumstances which surround them during their adulthood.

Now it may very well be that there existed actual people named David and Solomon, and their names came to represent their predominant attributes.  For example, cdf might not have meant ‘peace’ at the time of Solomon’s birth, but afterward, people might have started to use Solomon’s name to mean ‘peace’, which he exemplified and personified.  If this were the case, however, then the dialogue between God and Moses on Sinai, where God used the word cdf to mean ‘peace’(Exodus 20:24) (and many other portions of the bible before the account of Solomon), must have been of a different vocabulary than the one in the Hebrew manuscripts that we have today.

-------------------

After Solomon dies and Israel is divided, Rehoboam rules the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem, and Jeroboam rules the rest of the tribes.  Rehoboam has a son named Abijam and Jeroboam has a son named Abijah.

-------------------

The stories in Semitic scripture that deal with exterior things in this world are meant to signify processes and things found within as well, like cdf is peace between nations, families, individuals, within an individual, and so on; past, present or future.

There is no ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ in the Torah.

Talmud: tractate Pesachim, 6b    [50]

FORMULATION AND INTERPRETATION OF SEMITIC WORDS

Just as symbols can help us to consider and communicate concerning finite things which we are not directly experiencing, symbols can also help us to consider and communicate about that which is found throughout the entire infinite – to know and communicate the nature of the infinite without knowing all of its individual unique manifestations. 

The catch is, we can only understand the infinite with finite examples.  Symbols merely help us group or refer to finite examples, even if they refer to fictional representations or fictional groupings of actual finite things.  Symbols that point to other symbols will not help us escape the fact that eventually something real will have to be symbolised or the symbol will not be recognized.  Symbols may be abstract and intended to trigger certain types of common memories, but if nothing real is brought to mind somehow, the symbol will not be understood.

All the infinite uniqueness of a finite thing or event cannot be communicated with any combination of the letters (or by any other means for that matter).  So then, words coined to refer to a finite thing can only communicate certain aspects of it. 

For example, if you were to endeavour to coin a word for ‘feast’, what aspect of the feast would you choose to describe: the gathering of people, the excitement of the spectacle, the act of overeating, the arrangement of the food…  Let’s say it is the act of over-eating.  Which aspect of the act of over-eating would you choose to represent: the biting off of and chewing of a full mouth of food, the choking on the excess food, the plumpness of the belly?  We could go on and on because there is infinite detail we could choose to incorporate into the word. 

What’s more: very different things may be referred to with the same word.  The letters refer to things so fundamental that combinations of letters can be applied in different ways.  For example, in the word SHEEN-LAMED-MEM(cdf), which means ‘peace’, maybe the intended use of the letters is like so: imagine two people fighting each other and a third person comes between them to separate them and pushes both of them away from one another, and then maintains their separation by holding them at bay from one another – standing firm between them.  SHEEN(c) would be the moving between them, LAMED(d) would be the pushing them apart, and MEM(f) would be keeping them separated by standing firm between them.  But this very same combination of letters could be applied in different ways.  For instance, if the LAMED(d) is applied only on one other entity instead of multiple entities, or if the SHEEN(c) were to move around instead of through the entities, the word as a whole would be much different. 

For the surface narrative of Semitic Scripture to work, you need a vocabulary of words that refer to finite things – specific things like table, chair, spoon.  These words are not always directly involved in narrative of the letters in scripture as a whole, but they can be.  These words for finite things were still coined with the letters in mind, but their constituent letters are not necessarily always involved in the text as a whole.

On the other hand, the words that refer to characters, places or other named things in Scripture are more ‘fundamental’ – these are always involved in the whole narrative of the letters in the text.

Here are some ways in which to approach an understanding of the meaning of character-names, place-names and other such names used to relate fundamental things found throughout the infinite:

·      The comparison of the name with the same consonant combination used in words to describe finite things.  For example, the name of the character ‘David’ (ryr) is written the same as another word meaning ‘love’, which sheds light on what the character ‘David’ is all about.  But not all character and place-names have a counterpart elsewhere in the text used to refer to a finite thing.  For example, for the character ‘Lamech’, which is written dfs, there is no word referring to a finite thing which is spelled dfs.

·      The study of the context and description in the story of the name.  For example, the story of ‘David’ is one that deals with love, and he is described as a having a beautiful countenance, etc…

·      The study of the constituent letters to build an idea of the essence of the name.  The problem with using this method alone is that the context in which the name is found may change the specific intended application of the instance of the name (like the example of cdf outlined above).  For some characters, like dfs, this is the only option, because there are no words pointing to finite things which are spelled dfs, and the story of Lamech provides few clues.  But even if you have the luxury of these other clues, a study of the constituent letters is always essential to understanding fully the intended meaning of a character/place name.  What helps greatly in this pursuit is the study of the name’s two-letter constituents.

Seeing as the meaning of the words used to relate finite things are crucial to help us understand the words used to relate fundamentals throughout the infinite, it is of the utmost importance for the authors to include an effective vocabulary throughout the text which is clearly transmitted throughout the ages.  This vocabulary in Scripture is also crucial for a revival of understanding of the code within the letters.

In order for this vocabulary to carry on through the ages, working as a cloak and as a key to the deeper narrative, the finite words have to be common enough.  So if we were to write a book of this sort in our age, we would have to exclude things like ‘web page’, ‘automobile’, ‘range oven’ or ‘social housing’, because these might not be around generations from now.  We can only include generally common things like ‘book’, ‘chariot’, ‘fire’ or ‘house’.

Each language is unique.  Not every symbol in one language necessarily has a counterpart in another.  Not every English word has a Hebrew counterpart, and vice-versa.  For instance, the terms ‘paradigm’, ‘serendipity’ and ‘dynamism’ might be found only in the English language, the concepts only having been formulated into symbols by English-speaking people who coined the terms. 

But the interesting thing with a Semitic language is that you can use combinations of letters which might point to things close to many concepts expressed in all languages, whereas in English and the other languages, we are (mostly) stuck with terms which are not composed of transferable units.  With English, when we want to develop new vocabulary to symbolise new understanding, we have to invent new terms altogether and start from scratch, either that or we have to alter the meaning of existing terms or combine existing terms.  We might spend a great deal of effort investing these abstract terms with meaning that we might forget or which might not be conveyed to others.

To me, the beauty of the Semitic languages is that although the books may seem very abstract and symbolic, there is only a small handful of symbols (the letters), and so this, in the end, can free up thought on the inside.  Instead of navigating through a whole dictionary of abstract terms as in English and the other languages, once you’ve grasped the essential meaning of the Semitic letters, you can generally approach a  comparison between words – between concepts – which, in the end, can allow you to let go of the abstract symbols of language and free yourself up to think in other ways, without books, words or letters.

That being said, seeing as the Semitic letters are so fundamental, it can be hard, in some cases, to determine the exact intended meaning of a word.  And a concept that you come up with might be so elaborate that it would be next to impossible to communicate it with the use of a single Semitic word or sentence, you might need to write an entire book (whereas with English, we can just keep cramming a great range of meaning into single words).  But at least with Semitic words you have a better chance of being understood ages from now, whereas if you invest all of your effort into imbuing a single word like ‘dynamic’ with rich and elaborate meaning, once the abstract and unique associations which give meaning to the term dissipate and cease to be active in your mind and the minds of others, all that thought that you entertained, all that effort you put into defining the word, will simply be discarded for lack of applicability or intelligibility.  Many different people may develop their own totally unique range of meaning for terms like ‘dynamic’.  You might even forget much of the meaning you had invested in terms such as ‘dynamic’ (like when you were young and full of gusto, it might have triggered very different associations).

There are many benefits in studying the texts and their vocabulary yourself.  You might see things that others would miss.  Your own mind can be given a good exercise and may develop unique faculties, instead of just being provided with ready-made answers.  And it is quite exhilarating when you uncover these wonderful little treasures on your own accord.

Hopefully, the interpretations of symbols and the concepts presented throughout this work are trim, loose and pliable enough so as to give you just a glimpse, and to let yourself combine, interpret and explore these ideas on your own in your own unique way, and also not to stifle or choke your own unique understanding and adventuring of your own mind, which may have needed no symbols at all, no human language, and none of my opinion.

Any set of symbols, any philosophy, any idea about the whole shebang, can never be perfect.  What one may see as a logical grouping, others might see as a mismatch.  There is no such thing as the ultimate symbol or set of symbols to understand anything at all, whether the symbols point to fundamentals throughout the infinite or finite temporary manifestations in the infinite. 

No grouping is inherently better than any other.  Some symbols may be associated more accurately to convey the raw nature of what is being symbolized, but the effect of an inaccurate association might very well be more beneficial than the effect of a technically correct association.

With symbols that point to something fundamental found throughout the infinite, we can build ideas on how to interact with similar kinds of things found throughout our finite existences.  But our ability to interact with finite things might also be hindered with these symbols.  The understanding of fundamentals might standardize and entrench action with the similar things, it might close our minds from exploring other possible ways of reacting to the similar things and hinder us from perceiving them in context with other things.

Symbols (in any language) can hinder communication instead of helping it, they can confuse rather than enlighten.  Symbols, even if accurately communicated and understood, can restrict, slow and deaden thought rather than free, accelerate and enliven it.  Symbols can come to mean many different things.  Symbols can lose their original meaning.  And if the symbols change or are lost or misinterpreted, so too is the memory and understanding that they represented. 

Even though Semitic scripture may be an impressive, intricate, dynamic and thorough system of symbolism which tries to convey the nature of the universe, only so much can be conveyed with the use of symbols.  It is so very difficult to express the essence of one’s mind, which may venture so far away from and so far within this size and this realm.  I suppose this is what is meant by the symbol ‘mysticism’. 

It is no wonder why Muslims hold a tradition of disallowing any images or representations to be made of things referred to in the good books.  Not even a faint shadow of my experience while contemplating the infinite has been conveyed through this work.  Not only this, but I feel that much of the words herein betray my experience.  How much more of a betrayal it would have been to have tried to paint a visual representation of my experience.

EIN SOPH

The Hebrew term “ein soph”, meaning “without measure” or “infinite”, is found as a central symbol among the Kabbalists, employed as a noun: “The Infinite”.  [51]

“It does not reveal itself in a way that makes knowledge of its nature possible, and it is not accessible even to the innermost thought (hirhur ha-lev) of the contemplative.  Only through the finite nature of every existing thing, through the actual existence of creation itself, is it possible to deduce the existence of Ein-Sof as the first infinite cause.”

Gershom Scholem

[52]

“Ein-Sof is not his proper name, but a word which signifies his complete concealment, and our sacred tongue has no word like these two to signify his concealment.  And it is not right to say ‘Ein-Sof, blessed be he’ or ‘may he be blessed’ because he cannot be blessed by our lips.”

Baruch Kosover (writing in 1770)   [53]

ENTITIES MOVING THROUGH LARGER ENTITIES

At any given moment, there are infinite entities leaving you, and infinite entities entering you.

There are gaps between your constituents.  At the point where your constituents are bound to one another, within that bond, there is some sort of space unoccupied by those constituents.  And between any of the constituents of your constituents, there are also gaps, and so on.  You may not be able to sense the gaps, even between your immediate constituents.

This space is filled with infinite entities staying within, along with infinite entities moving through it.  The bonds between your constituents can disallow certain entities from passing through, but no structure can block all the infinite sizes of entities below.

Some of these entities, which are relatively much smaller than you, may be living and conscious of you – aware of your own living nature as a whole or maybe conscious of some of your living constituents and their living nature.  They may work to shape, direct, coerce or otherwise affect you, if they wish or if they’re forced to or for whatever other cause, to help or deter you in what you are doing or to whatever other end.  Likewise, you may work to shape, direct, coerce or otherwise affect them for whatever reason and to whatever effect.

They may scout areas outside of you where you are not present directly and cannot be conscious of by other means.  They may venture into regions within you which you are otherwise incapable of sensing.  Not only may they be able to send signals from these areas to your own consciousness, they may also ponder upon all sorts of possible ways for you to react to the signals, and may try to direct or coerce you accordingly.  They might also be working to coerce the activity of living entities other than you, as part of the same purpose – to achieve some combined effect.

You may be unaware of what they are doing.  You may be unaware of their presence altogether.  You may be aware of what they are doing.  You may directly interact with them in an organized way, in which case they would essentially be direct members in your living network – they would be part of ‘you’.  They may even be the dominant constituents of your living network at times, acting as chief organisers in your living system.

By your living network directly consisting of living entities which are small enough to move through and outside your other(larger) living constituents, this may allow your living network to act in many different directions and places all at once, where the rest of your (larger) constituents may not be able to be directly present at the same time.  But in as much as these super-small constituents of yours are venturing off in distant places on the outside, it would be generally harder for them to continue communicating with the rest of your living network.

This is yet another way in which the boundaries of an entity can become blurred.  If some of your super-small living constituents deploy from within you to outside of you, then does not the combination of you and them interacting together consist of a larger living parent entity that you are interacting with on the outside, or does you and them still constitute ‘you’?  It all depends on how you define your borders at any given moment.  It all depends on what you consider to be outside of you.

At times, there may be absolutely no super-small living entities engaged in your living network, and there may be no super-small living entities aware of your living nature.  You may simply be affecting each other without either of you being aware of it.  This may be the case throughout the entire finite existence of a living entity such as yourself.

REPETITION AND CONTINUITY

No activity or event can ever be absolutely repeated in exactly the same way.  There is infinite detail animating each repetition.  Multiple events can only ever be similar to one another, never duplicate.

Consider the ticking of a mechanical clock.  Each time it returns to midnight, even though the arrangement of all the parts is so similar that we cannot perceive a difference, there are infinite entities affecting that action and that arrangement of parts within the clock. 

All repetition is maintained by multiple entities being either bound to one another directly, or kept near to one another indirectly.  The clock is able to repeat its similar activities because a whole bunch of parts have been either bound together or fitted near one another. 

The entities bound or related can also be living.  For example, the parts of the mouth are bound together or arranged near to one another, allowing you to repeat the act of chewing.

It might be that a whole host of other entities are involved which are not bound together, but are still essential for the repetition to occur.  For instance, the water flowing in a stream produces a continuous current with repeated predictable events like splashings at certain points at regular intervals.  The water is not bound to the streambed nor does it remain near to any of its parts, it just keeps on flowing downstream.  But without the streambed itself – without that moulding of the earth to make a path for the water, there would be no continuity of the flow of water.  If the streambed was not part of the mountain range that feeds the water, if the mountain range was not part of a land-mass that sees lots of rain, if the earth was not kept near to the sun which causes evaporation of water and rainfall which feeds the stream, the stream would not be able to continue.  At some point, there must be some sort of structure or nearness between multiple entities in order to repeat something.

No entity can exist forever because every entity is constantly changing.  No two moments in the existence of an entity are exactly the same. 

The continuity of your existence is maintained by the bonds of your constituents held together or near to one another.  With infinite entities incessantly acting upon, within, and through those bonds, there is not a moment that goes by where you are not changing to some degree, even if you can’t notice it.

SIGNALS OF RESISTANCE

Any activity of the mind is the result of the activity of actual entities.  We may not be able to observe or sense the entities which act when we think or when we see others think, but at some point, if you had a strong enough microscope, there are actual physical real entities at work.  There is no sort of ‘void’ or ‘vacuum’ at work in a mind.

All activity of a living entity’s mind involves signals of resistance moving throughout its living constituents. 

When any sort of resistance occurs, there are ‘ripples’ or ‘echoes’ of that event, bouncing along away from and within the entities involved.  These signals are carried along by or pass along through actual entities, living or not, intentionally or not.  When the living constituents of a living entity encounter or produce these signals, this allows the processes of the mind to occur, such as consciousness, memory, thought, understanding, perception and will.

For you to be conscious of anything, you must, at some point, encounter some sort of signal of resistance from that thing, whether this resistance is more direct or more indirect.  For example, if you touch a vehicle, you are encountering it more directly, whereas if you look at it, hear it from afar, feel the ground shake when it drives by, feel the wind that it blew your way, or if somebody tells you about and describes the vehicle, you are receiving the resistance second-hand through intermediary entities.

This signal must then reach your living constituents somehow.  Non-living constituents might help to transmit and process a signal received, but for a living entity to be conscious of anything, the signal must reach its living constituents.  Those living constituents which do not receive the signal cannot possibly be part of the consciousness of its parent living entity in any form – at that point – concerning that signal.

Any way you look at it, consciousness can only occur with signals of resistance reaching multiple living entities.  Therefore, any consciousness is already inherently collective.

A living entity might have a common signal (similar ‘copy’) broadcast to each of its constituents, where each receives a facsimile (similar ‘copy’).  Others might have their individual constituents each receive only a portion of the whole signal.  (Some might switch between these methods.  Some might receive certain types of signals by one method and other types of signals by another method.)

A signal can only ever carry along a similar impression of the original resistance.  Everything is constantly changing, including the entities which convey signals, no matter how firm and unchanging they may seem to us.  Therefore, any signal is constantly changing.   Even if a common signal (similar ‘copy’) is broadcast to all of your constituents, each constituent of yours receives at least a slightly different version, at a slightly different moment, in a slightly different way.

Just as it is with things exterior, in order for you to be conscious of yourself (things interior), there has to be some sort or resistance coming from your constituents and reaching your living constituents.  For example, a cell may squish up against another, and this signal may then be passed along to other living constituents of yours as well.  Or a cell might send a volley of molecules or an electric impulse towards other cells for whatever reason, and this signal (or its after-effects) might then be passed along to other living constituents of yours.  Or you might pinch or massage yourself, which sends signals from that region, thus bringing attention to that particular region and its state.  For another example, light may bounce off of you, then bounce off of a mirror, then bounce onto cells within your eyes, who then bounce that signal around through to other living constituents of yours.  (Notice how all of these intermediaries do not help to escape the fact that some sort of entity is transmitting a signal.  There is no non-material force involved in a mind.  We may not be able to see or sense the entities transmitting signals in a mind, but at some point somewhere, there is always some sort of entity conveying some sort of force – conveying those impressions of resistance – those signals.  Again, there is no force at all in the universe that does not involve entities in motion, and the mind is no exception.)

Each one of your living constituents has its own mind.  Each constituent receives, interprets and reacts to a signal in its own unique way, even though it may be quite similar to the way in which other constituents receive, interpret and react to the signal.  Each constituent may have the ability, the will and the means to broadcast their own signals, and others may pass them along, block them, alter them, misinterpret them, or do whatever else with them.

The existing English words for the processes of the mind are limited in their number and in their range of definition, and are also often too vague or broad in their definition. 

Many processes of the mind described in this book simply do not have an English equivalent.  These are simply described in full – no new English terms have been devised.

In this work, terms like ‘consciousness’, ‘memory’, ‘thought’, ‘understanding’ ‘perception’, and ‘will’, have specific narrow meanings, which might not be true to the full dictionary definitions. 

For example, the term ‘conscious’ (along with the term ‘consciousness’) is used in this book to simply mean the process of a living entity receiving signals of resistance.  But, the actual everyday usage of the term ‘conscious(ness)’ might have much more meaning attached to it.  For instance, you might use the term to mean the living entity thinking about, understanding and reacting to what it is conscious of.  Or you might use the term as meaning: receiving the signals and storing them in memory.  Or you might use the term to refer to ‘not asleep’ or otherwise ‘active’.  But, in this book, it simply means the signals reaching the living constituents, rather than implying any sort of reaction to them or any other sort of state or process.

After having received a signal, the constituents may later (maybe much later) re-instigate that signal from memory (if it was stored) and then communicate and act upon it in a unified co-ordinated way, but at the moment of the initial receipt of the common signal, they don’t necessarily have to react to it as a unified living organism.  For example, if you’re really tired or distracted, you might simply be staring at something, wide-eyed, not really paying attention or thinking about it, but still fully conscious and maybe even able to retain those signals in memory, and then later on, you may realize some detail in that memory which you may then act upon or may work to remember more firmly.

The probable reason why we like to think of consciousness in terms of ‘not asleep’ or ‘awake and active’, is because, with us humans, and other earth-creatures, we have external organs (like eyes and ears) which first receive the incoming signals and then work to broadcast the signals to our other living constituents inside us.  For this to occur, we can’t be asleep or passed out.  But for other sorts of living entities, incoming signals need not necessarily be passed along by some constituents to the others.  Some entities might have all of their immediate constituents pointing outward, all able to receive a common signal individually – like maybe the constituents are spread out in a more flat arrangement rather than having some constituents enclosed by other external constituents as it is with us.

In any case, the term ‘conscious(ness)’, as it is actually used, in its full English meaning, at least involves this more basic process of simply receiving signals of resistance.

A living entity can only be conscious of what has come before.  A signal of resistance is an echo of an event of resistance – and if all the processes of the mind involve these echoes of resistance, then all of what the mind engages in concerns things that have come before – never anything in the immediate now, whether it be concerning things distant or near, external or internal.

The signals that you feel from whatever you are conscious of must move toward you from that thing.  If there is infinite space between you and anything else, then the signals must move through this infinite space to reach you.  Even if you are ‘directly’ contacting the source, there is still infinite space between you and the source, you simply cannot see this space from your finite perspective and so to you it seems like direct contact, but all contact is essentially indirect.  Any signal reaching you must therefore have some sort of delay.

And, when a living entity needs to pass along the signal to its constituents, there is even more delay as it is relayed from constituent to constituent.  Relative to the whole parent entity, the internal delay may be so slight, with a similar message being passed along, that the whole parent living entity basically feels it as one indivisible moment, without being able to discern a delay; but there will always be some sort of delay, no matter how short it may be. 

Even if all the constituents receive the signal directly (without having to pass the signal along), no two constituents can receive the signal at exactly the same time, and so there is a delay between the first constituent who receives the resistance and the last constituent who receives the resistance.

And so, all of what you are conscious of, internally or externally, is but an echo.

A signal might reach a consciousness so soon after the source resistance occurred, that it feels it as immediate – no discernable delay.  A signal might bounce around through a few pathways and intermediaries that the mind can notice the delay.  In some cases, the delay might be quite great.  In some cases, it might even be possible for a signal to be reproduced much much later after the initial source resistance occurred.  How can a signal be stored and reproduced later on?  Structure.  Bonds.  Matter.  And proximity/nearness maintained between entities.  In other words: reproduction of a memory occurs through repetition of a signal, which occurs by the activity between entities associated together – whether they be associated directly or indirectly.

Similar signals may occur without being instigated by structure or proximal association, but reproduction of a particular signal which was once active can only occur through some sort of structure or nearness maintained between entities somewhere.

Structure or a proximal arrangement, in this context, is simply acting as a sort of intermediary, passing along signals of resistance that were once active.

This is the basic and essential ingredient for what we call ‘memory’.

Again, no signal can be reproduced with absolute exactness, seeing as infinite ever-changing entities are involved in every action.  When a signal is reproduced, it can only ever be similar to the original signal.

For one example of memory, signals might cast impressions in the form of their resistance upon non-living structure/stuff/substance, and these impressions might then be re-instigated into active signals again.  Like if water makes erosion marks on a stone, and you then touch or look at the stone, a similar signal of resistance may reach you, allowing you to experience an echo of the event of the water hitting the stone.  You may then relay these findings to others in your living parent entity if there is one around (school, colleague group, well-organised and active town, etc…), contributing to the memory of your living parent entity as a whole.  As long as the structure of that stone remains in that form, that act of remembrance remains possible.

A living entity may deliberately mould non-living structure/stuff/substance with impressions of resistance so as to reproduce a similar signal of resistance as it is encountered.

For another example of memory, the living constituents of a living entity might be arranged so as to repeatedly interact in a certain manner.  For instance, by simply being bound together, your lips, tongue, and teeth might already have much of the memory of how to chew imbued within their arrangement.

By maintaining that arrangement of living entities, is this not a form of memory?  Does it not produce regular signals of resistance when you chew?  Although no direct impressions of resistance are being cast and reproduced on non-living stuff and things, like the erosion marks cast by the water, structure is still involved in maintaining the memory – the structure of bonds and associations between living entities.

The entities that maintain the memory – the associated entities, whether directly bound or maintaining proximity/nearness, may separate – disbanding the association, and may later come back to re-form the association, thus making it possible to retrigger that memory.  The memory would be similar in as much as the structure of those entities remain similar in the interim, and in as much as they are able to re-form the original associated arrangement.

Even though the entities may separate and return, in order to return, some sort of proximity must be maintained in the interim, in context with the wider area that those entities occupy.

Any structure (or indirect/proximal association) can potentially tell the story of how it was formed and of its history since being formed.  This does not, however, guarantee that a living entity will be able to understand the story.  Even if the structure was deliberately moulded by a living entity in an effort to store memory, nothing guarantees that this memory will be understood – or even encountered – later on, even by the one who moulded the memory.

Just as it is with any other process of the mind, the living constituents must be involved in order for remembrance to occur.  Non-living constituents may be involved, but at some point the living constituents must be engaged in the recollection.  Those living constituents who do not receive the signals of the recollection are not part of the consciousness of the memory – at that point – concerning that memory.

When memory is formed by events of resistance which we encounter in a more direct manner, we usually call this ‘experience’.  When memory is formed by events of resistance which we encounter by great indirectness – by second-hand experience – we usually call this ‘knowledge’. 

Now.  Imagine multiple entities who each harbour memories.  In other words, each of them can reproduce certain signals of resistance.  Imagine that these entities become bound together into a group/entity/structure of their own, either directly or indirectly.  When the signals of resistance from one memory are triggered, the signals of resistance from the associated memories might also be triggered soon afterward.

This mixture or sequence of signals might then reach a consciousness – where all of the living constituents receive the mixture or sequence of signals.  The possible effects of entertaining this mixture or sequence of signals could fill a whole book of scenarios.

Just who receives this mixture or sequence of signals is another story altogether.  If living constituents are part of the association, the mixture or sequence of signals might be spread all among themselves, triggering the common association for their own entertainment.  Or the mixture or sequence of signals might be sent elsewhere to other living entities – parents or constituents of the entities harbouring the associated memories.

This all seems simple enough with non-living entities bearing memories in the association, because what is being associated is a very specific set of memories in inanimate structure.  But if there are living entities in the association, things might be less stable – they might change what sort of signals they send when triggered – but might also be much more dynamic and effective, depending on the situation.

A symbol is essentially the triggering memory within an associated group of memories.  Any and all of the individual entities bearing memory in an association can potentially act as the symbol for the group.  In certain instances some may be used more predominantly than others – it all depends on the case at hand.

The how and why of associating, or in other words: grouping  of memories with other memories is unique to the entities involved and the nature of the situation.  Living entities may be the ones deliberately forming the associations or they may be formed by whatever means with no living involvement – just random association through the meeting and binding of entities bearing memory.

A living entity might associate and send signals which are more abstract symbolic forms of resistance – signals which do not really represent other things with an impression of resistance (like water-erosion marks or a photograph), but are simply signals of resistance used to symbolically associate memories of actual things (like letters symbolising the sounds of the mouth, words symbolising things, or like the peace-sign symbolising a whole host of other things).  But those they are sending the abstract symbols to must be able to re-convert the symbolic signal to its initial form of resistance, they must have a similar association which reproduces an impression of the actual associated things and events.  Those receiving an abstract symbolic signal of resistance might not have encountered the symbol before in context with what it is meant to refer to.  They might not have encountered the symbol at all.  They might not have even encountered what the symbol is meant to refer to at all.  They might have associated the symbol with something completely different.  They might habitually use a different symbol to refer to what the sender is trying to convey.

What we generally call 'thinking', 'contemplating', 'deducing', 'pondering', 'reasoning', 'reflecting' etc…, are all terms that signify some sort of communication or conscious engagement between the living constituents of a living entity.  It is when the living constituents transfer or ‘bounce’ signals of resistance between each other and each living constituent involved is aware of the other’s signals and responds in an organized way.  When the communication ends – when those living constituents cease to respond to one another’s signals, the thought is at its end. 

When some of your constituents communicate with each other, for you to be conscious of it – for it to really be conscious thought – the signals must be broadcast to your other constituents.  In as much as the communication is localised between certain constituents, it is still ‘thought’ but it is the thought of a smaller living constituent of yours – a sub-grouping within ‘you’.  The results of this thinking within a smaller group within you, might afterwards be spread to your other constituents, but at the time of communication, if your other constituents do not receive the signals, the thought is not part of your whole consciousness.

Perhaps terms such as 'understanding' or 'comprehension' could be defined as the associations which result from thought, (direct or indirect, between living entities and/or non-living entities), which together reproduce the signals which thought bounced around and mixed together. 

So, understanding would essentially be the memory of thought, but not all thought forms new associations, not all thought goes into memory.  Even if thought does go into memory, nothing guarantees that this understanding will be re-triggered.

By committing thought to memory, the essence of the thought might not be retained.  The memory might do injustice to the thought that gave birth to it.  It may be that only a slight shadow of the dynamic activity that occurred during the thought was reproducible.

Knowledge received may already have been formed in a certain manner to reflect a certain understanding.  Little thought may be needed for an understanding to be formed within knowledge received.  But, still, it is probably the case that for knowledge to become understanding, there has to be some sort of thought – some sort of communication concerning that knowledge between some of your living constituents.

Just because a living entity has internalised various memories (lots of knowledge and experience), this does not guarantee understanding between them.  An entity may carry on its entire existence while harbouring separate bits of memory, which could easily have been reasoned upon to form meaningful associations.  Obvious understanding may never be developed even if all the necessary knowledge and experience is available and internalised, for whatever reason.

What we generally call 'perception' is the processing of signals through memory.  It is simply consciousness which triggers memory, and this may affect the thought and action of the network in context with the current signals bouncing around.

Just as consciousness can come from signals outside you, between your constituents or from within your constituents, so too can your perception be triggered from signals which may come from outside you, from between your constituents, or from within your constituents. 

What we  generally call ‘volition’, ‘passion’, ‘desire’ or ‘will’ etc…, are all terms that signify some sort of attempt to enact unified action, and not necessarily the enacting of unified action.  This impulse to perform unified action may be impeded or interrupted for whatever reason, before it results in fully-fledged unified action.

‘Will’ is when one constituent is pushing or coercing the other living constituents to act in a certain way, which may result in the whole group working together: unified action.  Just like all other processes of the mind, ‘will’ is not a static thing existing in a ‘void’ or ‘vacuum’, it is activity – signals of resistance moving throughout the living constituents of a living entity.

The organisation of any living network can only occur by the living constituents delivering their will – their message – pushing their resistance upon the other living constituents.  Any living entity needs a chief to either organize the will of the collective, or to ensure that the will is already organized.  Even if everybody has a say, they do so one at a time, as leaders, as chiefs, trying to force or coerce the others.

Some constituents may negate the will of other constituents with leadership which goes against the previous leadership of the other constituents, but this is not inherent in all living entities all the time.  In some entities, some constituents may always have the last say, with the ability to negate the will of any of the other constituents (whether this power is granted wilfully by the other members or not), but this is not inherent in all living entities all the time.  In some entities, the chiefdom might change so very rapidly, dynamically and smoothly, without any single constituent desiring to have the last say all the time, and maybe without much negation of the work of each previous chief by the next one in turn.

But, in the end, all the constituents of a living network are in essence chiefs, no matter how minuscule their coercion may be.  If one chief sends out signals to coerce the other members to perform some sort of unified action, the other members must respond to at least agree to the plan.  By responding in any way, each member is coercing the rest.  If the response is to agree, then this coerces the other members in the unified action.  If the response is to disagree with the plan (to disregard the coercion from the previous chief), then the plan must change for the other members to perform the unified action, thus affecting, or in other words ‘coercing’, the direction of the whole network (however small the change in direction may be).  The signal of agreement can be as subtle as simply carrying out the action itself.

And so, coordination is inherent in any living entity.

 Just as consciousness can involve the receipt of resistance from different directions by different constituents (who may then combine and broadcast the signal to the other constituents), so too can unified action involve the putting forth of resistance toward different directions by different members.

And just as you can be conscious of what is inside you, so too can your unified action be directed inside you. 

RHYTHMS

It has only ever been and will forever be now.  Everything is constantly changing, or more precisely: nothing ever stands still.  If there are infinite entities within anything which are all moving around with at least some of them joining together, and others breaking up, then how can anything be absolutely unchanging?  The now is always unfolding into something new, but it still remains now.

When the past was happening, it was in the now.  When the future will happen, it will be in the now. 

The past can be remembered only in the now.  The future can be contemplated only in the now.

What may happen in one moment may be very similar to what may happen in another moment.  No event can ever be exactly duplicated, but some may be so similar that you can’t notice the difference.

A rhythm is carried on in any pattern of similar action.  Some actions that occur may never repeat and so do not begin a new rhythm.  But if the action does repeat, it carries a rhythm which follows whatever the unique combination of entities involved produces.

The rhythm might be short-lived, or it might be irregular, but wherever there is repetition, there is some sort of ‘pace’ or ‘rhythm’ spacing the repetitions.

Your mind carries on with activity – actual events of resistance.  Some of these activities may be repetitive, or otherwise carry on in a succession of similar events – similar signals of resistance, which carry on in a rhythm.  Also, besides the processes of the mind, there are other regular events which recur within you – similar activities carrying on in a rhythm.

Your rhythms (as a whole) are generally faster than entities relatively larger than you, and generally slower than entities relatively smaller than you. 

Imagine a millipede with 30 pairs of legs and another with 90 pairs of legs.  It takes the smaller millipede fewer steps to completely accomplish what it would take the larger millipede to pull off: to pivot its entire body, to walk its own length, to walk around in a complete circle, and so on.  And it would generally take longer for a signal of resistance to be sent from the head to the hind legs of the longer millipede (or from the legs to the head).

It generally takes longer for a single message to propagate throughout the consciousness of an elephant than is does in creatures smaller than the elephant.  In other words, it generally takes less time for awareness to move from one end of your consciousness to the other end, compared to an elephant.  The signals of resistance are moving through and between roughly the same kind of constituents (cells and organs), but in the case of the elephant, the signals are moving throughout a much larger grouping of these kinds of constituents.   Therefore, many signals can be broadcast throughout your consciousness in the same period that it takes to send one signal throughout the elephant’s consciousness. 

Thus, you perceive the elephant as a relatively slower being than the elephant perceives itself.  And likewise, you perceive a fly as a relatively quicker being than the fly perceives itself.   The fly perceives you much like you perceive the elephant.  The elephant seems slow and stupid to us, and the fly seems quick and smart to us because of this relative difference.  The fly sees us as lumbering stupid elephants, and if it can perceive the living activity of the elephant at all, it would be in super-super-slow-mo.

This is why when you are fully grown, kids seem to behave with such greater speed compared to what you remember from your youth.  This is why your childhood seemed to have gone by so much slower than your full-grown existence.  This is why, when you were a child, all the older folks seemed to behave so much slower.  This is why elephants are annoyed by mice moving around them – the same reason we are annoyed by flies moving around us.

Super-small entities, relative to you, enjoy such extremely greater relative rhythms that one of your footsteps may span aeons for them. 

Likewise, super-huge entities, relative to you, like a galaxy, seem to be frozen in a snap-shot.

When you focus attention on a particular process – a regular set of action, a running rhythm – this system may seem to slow down for you because you are aware of more repetitions within the process, and you derive a sense of the rhythm of the process by comparing the repetitions – by perceiving the signals in context with the memory of previous signals of a similar nature.

When you focus attention away from a process, it might seem to speed up because you are aware of less repetitions within the process.

But none of this is absolute math.  There is no absolute numerical constant with which to form an equation.

There might be entities much larger than you that have quicker internal rhythms relative to you, sending messages across its consciousness at a faster rate, maybe through different types of constituents, or through a different arrangement which allows a quicker passing along of signals.  An entity similar to your size might have a more elaborate network of associations which process the signals in a much more intricate way, affecting the speed at which the signals are delivered to its constituents.  Signals can be hindered or sped up in all sorts of ways.  Size is just a general indication of the area through which signals must traverse, which gives a general sense of the speed of broadcast.

No two entities can perceive events at exactly the same speed.  Even your own experience of things is always changing.  That which you experience might even dramatically affect the rhythms of your consciousness, which might, in turn, visibly affect the speed of your experience.

This applies not only to consciousness, it also applies to any other aspect of the mind.  If all processes of the mind involve moving signals of resistance, then the relative size of the entity hosting the mind affects the speed at which all of the processes of that mind operate.

When you perceive the regular action of really large entities, like the earth orbiting the sun and spinning on its axis in a regular pattern, it may seem that the rhythms are more stable, constant, and the repetitions more similar than the regular action of smaller entities.  Seeing as the repetitions of the larger entities generally take longer to play out relative to you, you tend to notice fewer repetitions and you therefore have a harder time noticing change in the general process.

Seeing as you might not perceive much change in the orbit of the earth during your lifetime, you may dream up wild concepts of eternal constancy or even immortality based on this seemingly ever-present thing.  A blood cell might likewise come to believe that the heart may never cease beating and that it might possibly, by the same token, never cease to exist.

You are not really aware of the nature of the individual repetitions of processes within relatively smaller entities, you are instead aware of the ultimate effect of their combined set of repetitions; whereas in relatively larger realms, you are sort of hypnotised by the individual repetitions and not so much aware of their ultimate combined effect.

You cannot, however, see and understand much of any action between entities which are much much much larger than you.  You can only guess where they came from, where they’re going, and what they are doing by their frozen snap-shot.  But you can get a good idea of what they are – their physical properties.

On the other hand, the smaller the entities, the quicker the relative change in their properties, the harder it is to monitor these changes, unless you can perceive similarities in prolific kinds of similar entities in vast multitudes that act and interact in similar ways.  But here you cannot understand much of what these super-small entities are – their physical properties, but you can get a good idea of what they do – the properties of their action.

When you, from your viewpoint at your size, observe the super-small, with its more rapid and ever-changing action relative to you, everything seems to be inter-related and inter-dependent; whereas when you observe the super-big, where you don’t notice much action between the different parts and not much change at all, everything seems to have its own separate existence with little inter-relation and little inter-dependency. 

INFINITE TREE OF LIFE WITHIN – SORT OF…

To say that you are made up of infinite other smaller living entities in a tree of life is not to imply that this ‘tree’ is static and rigid like a real tree. 

At some small enough level, the relative speed of existence makes it so that many more die every instant than we see die in a lifetime at our size, many more bonds are broken and many more cemented relative to our realm.  To maintain the structure of the infinite tree of life within you, a constant change of constituents is taking place – constant birth and death, constant joining and leaving of constituents. 

Likewise, we might never be able to experience, in our lifetime, the possible interactions with some living parent entities.  If we have a role in anything larger than our planet, we might not know it until many generations to come, when it may happen once and not recur for another aeon.  For instance, maybe our planet is periodically called upon to receive new foreign arrivals from outside our galaxy, and the living parent entity of our galaxy needs life on earth to continue – always refreshing itself with new creatures of the same general nature, in order to receive the next influx, maybe without any knowledge of it being directly passed down through our generations.  And so, if you are part of any super-large living parent entities, your participation in them might be just as transient as the participation of some of your super-small constituents within you.  Your position on the tree of life outside may be just as fleeting as the position of some of your super-small constituents within.

Just because there is an infinite tree of life within you does not mean that every living entity within it is actively aware of you and engaged in your living network.  Each constituent of the tree of life within you pretty much tends to matters near to its own general area and size. 

Imagine yourself contributing to super-large entities on the tree of life above again.  The larger the living entities you try to contribute to, the harder it is for you to understand their history, processes, habits, pattern of change, and other characteristics as a whole.  With a living entity much much much larger than you, your entire existence may run its course during a small portion of a single repetition within one of its regular processes.  And so, the larger the entity, the harder it is for you to effectively contribute in a direct way in a living process of the entity, rather than contributing to your immediate living parent entities, which may in turn contribute to their immediate living parent entities, and so on, in order to contribute to the super-large entity. 

The same goes for your constituents.  Even though your living network may directly consist of super-small living entities, which may even be the dominant chiefs in your network at times, their relative size places limits on their ability to effectively understand and participate in your organism.  When their fleeting effect passes, your larger constituents would again become the dominant immediate driving force of your living network.

In the moments where the signals are moving between the entities involved in a living network, there is essentially a non-living relationship between those entities.  There is delay as the resistance moves between them, no matter how slight the delay may be, and during this delay the different members of the living network are ‘cut off’ from one another.  These are unavoidable temporary ‘roadblocks’ on the infinite tree of life below, where life may surge around, but is cut off at that point.  And so, you are not always living, even during the most vibrant active state. 

These unavoidable moments of non-living status of your living self might not be noticeable to you, but to entities much smaller than you, who are observing you as a whole, these moments might be of great duration.

Likewise, when you observe smaller living entities, such as your living constituents, seeing as each level of size below you generally acts in progressively quicker rates, the delay in their living activity is less noticeable to you the deeper you look, and so your living essence may seem to always exist without intermission.  The deeper you look, the more transient the ‘roadblocks’ on the tree of life seem to be, the more your living essence seems to carry on without pause.  The deeper you look, the more things seem to you to be changing quicker, blending with and affecting each other altogether without division.

Although the end result of a surge of activity from the tree of life within seems to burst forth all at once – your thought seeming to transpire in an instant, each smaller entity below generally has more of an opportunity to reflect upon and prepare its contribution to the larger entities above, seeing as it experiences more ‘samples’ in the same event.

In entities relatively smaller than you, you may have a hard time noticing a change in chiefdom, which may occur so rapidly, constantly, dynamically and smoothly from constituent to constituent, that it may seem that the entire living system is active all at once in a coordinated fashion without delay. 

When constituents within the infinite tree of life within you try to direct you in certain ways, they might have a hard time communicating their will.  They might be trying to use symbols which are not common to the other constituents.  They might be trying to suggest action which has never been taken before and which may be hard to enact with the current habits of your collective.  They might try to trigger action of the collective by triggering associated memories and associated habits which may subsequently trigger the desired end result.  The consciousness of the whole may be puzzled by these seemingly random triggerings or action out of the blue (but then again, some random triggerings may simply very well be random triggerings and not indirect purposeful messages streaming up from within; and action out of the blue may simply very well be action out of the blue and not indirect purposeful impulses streaming up from within).

HOW ENTITIES BEST UNDERSTAND OTHERS

There is no way to entirely and absolutely define, judge, measure or otherwise understand an entity, because each entity is the end result of all other entities, which are infinite in number and are all constantly changing and moving. 

Take yourself for example.  How are you ‘you’?  How does it work?

Well, to define you, we have to understand all of your constituents.  But to understand these constituents, we have to understand all of their constituents.   And so on.  

But to understand all of your constituents, we have to understand all of your parent entities in which you are contained.  But to understand your parent entities, we have to understand their parents.   And so on. 

At which point can you say for certain that this or that entity has not affected you?

Seeing as we can never be conscious of all infinite entities, we will never fully understand what you are and how you work.  You are infinitely complex and constantly changing.

You might be asking yourself, how can a minuscule sub-atomic entity billions of galaxies away affect me right now, in this very instant?  Well, if you consider only right now – if you’re just going to freeze everything into a concept like ‘this very instant’, then nothing affects anything at all, because everything is frozen in that abstract concept of ‘right now’.  Not even the most forceful direct encounter of resistance between entities would have an effect on the entities involved in this abstract concept of a ‘frozen instant’, which is an impossibility.  Without our planet you would not have come to exist, without our solar system our planet would not have come to exist, without our galaxy our solar system would not have come to exist, without our system of galaxies our galaxy would not have come to exist.  You have come to exist as a result of an ever-unfolding series of events which have occurred throughout all of your parent entities, none of which can be understood without understanding all of their constituents as well, right down through to all of your constituents, and their constituents, and so on.

That being said, in order to best understand you, it is generally best to focus on those entities in which you come into most direct contact, and those closest to your size and position, and those tuned to your general rhythm and type of action and interaction. 

By examining much of the complexities and the life story and uniqueness of one individual entity that is immeasurably smaller than you, who only exists for a moment relative to you, we will most likely not dramatically increase our understanding of you.    Likewise, by examining all the complexities and complete life story and uniqueness of one individual entity that is immeasurably larger than you, who exists for an immeasurable period relative to you, we will most likely not dramatically increase our understanding of you.

But it is still possible, in some instances, that you may be visibly, directly and more immediately affected by an entity extremely large relative to you, or extremely small, or extremely distant, or who contacts you with extreme softness, or indirectness.  Who knows…

MORALITY

If any consciousness is finite and limited, then who is to judge what is good and what is bad?  If everything is constantly changing, and if there are no duplicate things or events, and if infinite entities affect every event, and if nothing can be absolutely predetermined or predicted, and if there are no absolute cause and effect relationships, and if every event is preceded by infinite action and instigates infinite subsequent action; then how can any single mind judge any matter with absolute exactitude, how can any moral be established in the absolute?

That being said, by the same token, to fight for what you believe to be good is not inherently bad.

Take for instance the moral: “stealing is bad”.  Someone might conjure this judgement, maybe for good reason, like maybe they noticed the disastrous effects of a theft on the livelihood of a decent hard-working person and thought it might be good to tell everybody that stealing is bad.  But what if many people are starving and there is a fat greedy shopkeeper with lots of food stored up but only keeps it to feed himself excessively while everybody else starves, and he ignores the pleas of the starving.  Would it be unjust for the starving to steal in this case?  Each situation is unique.  No set of morals, no matter how lengthy or elaborate, can possibly give a full understanding of the infinite detail of every situation.

For any moral, an exception can be imagined. 

“Do unto others what you would like done to yourself”.  What if you need to steal the food from that fat greedy shopkeeper?  You would not want somebody to steal from you, but you might need to steal from another in this scenario.

“Giving is good”.  What if you give generously to a thief, which enables him to steal much more from others who are in greater need?

What if a thief steals food which had disease in it and spared the victim of the robbery from getting sick?

“It is better to give than to receive”.  If by giving a gift, the giver’s heart would be filled with joy, and the receiver does not accept it properly, then the giver might be heart-broken.  Receiving may be just as good as giving.  In some instances, a great deal of giving might be involved in receiving.  Some might be giving only to receive.  Interplay might occur between the super-small constituents of the giver and receiver.  The receiver might return great abundance of living permeating thankful blessings, or might be exhausted and feel unable to thank the giver properly.  The giver might simply be giving so as to demand blessings from the receiver and command the moral high-ground in a greedy kind of way.

There are infinite possible scenarios.  You can develop a whole pyramid of ‘ifs and thens’, but you can never account for every single possibility.  For instance, “It is better to give in private than in public” is an idea which tries to accommodate for the possibility of a giver who is greedy in spirit and making a public show in order to receive accolades and glory from onlookers.  But there are situations where it might be better to give in public than in private, for instance: to set an example to others, or if you can only find the most needy out in the open on the street.

Morals are not inherently bad, they might give a hint at the possible repercussions of a thing or event. 

Morals might guide those who are charting unfamiliar territory, like the moral “putting your hand on the stove-top is bad” might help a child avoid burning.  But when the child grows and matures and understands why the law was conceived, he can then interpret and apply the law and allow himself to touch the stove-top when it is not hot, he can assess the uniqueness of the situation – hot or not hot – each time he approaches the stove and do away with the strict rule of staying away from the stove-top at all times in any circumstance, the purpose of the moral being understood.

Instead of entrenching in rigid rules of conduct, you may work to develop an understanding of many different possible effects of an event and develop an understanding of various possible reactions you may take, while keeping an open mind during the event to possible effects and reactions that you had not imagined beforehand.

This is inherently neither better nor worse than following strict rules.  In some cases, it might simply be more beneficial for an individual to narrowly perceive an event with what he/she has experienced or otherwise came to know beforehand.  In some situations, it might very well be beneficial to keep a narrow mind, only blindly following absolute rules. 

For example, the folks at the nuclear power plant who routinely check the safety of the machinery.  If there is a school field trip visiting the plant, and some of the kids yearn to disobey the safety rules, like stepping outside of the marked boundaries, it would obviously not be bad for the elders to firmly prohibit the breaking of the rules.

For another (more silly) example: by always checking for mold on your cheese and throwing it out if it’s beyond salvage – in a rigid habitual automatic way, you may avoid falling ill; and if you have to check hundreds of packages of cheese every day in the cheese factory, it might be nonsensical to ‘transcend’ your habit and approach each pack of standard cheese through fresh doors of perception and to quicken your consciousness so as to be acutely aware of some of the immense detail that you can potentially cast your focus on with each pack – treating each pack as a brand new unfamiliar thing – a new infinite to be examined on it’s own with rigor and lucidity, reinventing the method of the mold-checking process every time, exhausting your eyes, and not necessarily preventing mold-poisoning any better. 

Benefit is subjective and may only present itself down the road, with all the infinite after-effects carried on by and rippling away from whatever entities were involved or affected, and so even in a delicate one-timer unfamiliar situation, it may simply be more beneficial – in a wider context – to simply follow rigid habits throughout the situation.

One possible effect from believing that nothing is inherently good or bad is to cease to passionately and firmly believe in specific principles, morals, ideals, or any discernment of good or bad. 

It is also possible that by believing that nothing is inherently good or bad, you may develop even stronger and more passionate principles.  As a result of believing that nothing is inherently good nor bad, you may postpone the entrenching of your opinion until you have searched and reasoned a great deal concerning the finite thing on which you have your focus.  Once you truly believe that you’ve observed and reasoned upon the matter as much as possible within your capacity, your values and your principles concerning the finite thing might accordingly be much more firm.

DISCERNING GOOD FOR ALL WITHIN AWARENESS

Even though nothing is inherently good or inherently bad in context with the infinite, as a finite individual with limited awareness you may come to see certain things as good and others as bad.

If your intention is to figure out, as best as possible, in every moment, what is good for the entities of which you are aware, or can make yourself aware (including yourself and your living constituents, or strangers big or small, within or without, who exist now or who might exist later), then you might have to knowingly do what you believe to be bad.  But this would be your very last option if your intention is truly to do the most good for all parties of which you are aware. 

If you stretch your imagination to find solutions that please most or all parties you are aware of in every situation, this may train your mind to help your own various needs in other situations, similar or unfamiliar.  The entities you attempt to help may then have a will to help you.  The entities you attempt to help might then try to help others by following your example.  Your example may spread to so many in your general area that you might be rewarded indirectly by, among other things, the health of the living systems throughout the region which surrounds you.  And this may even last for the rest of your finite existence, surrounding you and inundating through you and seeing you through to your last breath, your last stream of light, your last heartbeat, the last period – the last day – when the rhythms within you cease, when the foundational living inter-relationships within you cease, when your constituents no longer communicate between one another and no longer act in unison.   The last day of ‘you’.

INFINITE MOMENTS IN ANY EVENT

Knowing that there are infinite effects from each action and no single effect of an action can be predicted with absolute certainty, then:

If some of your constituents keep on repeating a call to perform a single action in a predefined manner, trying to force all your other constituents to focus on a single plan, to perceive things only in light of this single desire, to constantly keep that specific will alive in your mind; then you may (among other things) limit your ability to foresee many of the infinite effects of the action, some of which you may already have a developed understanding, and which you might even have been able to accommodate for in your action.  And so you could have prevented what you already understood to be bad, or you could have encouraged what you already understood to be good.

During the infinite moments of the action, new situations may arise in which new action may be needed.  The new situations can either be crucial to the initial action or they may simply be new needs of their own which may need immediate attention.  These new needs may be for some of your constituents, for you as a whole, or for others outside.  If you focus on producing a single outcome by performing a single action, you might hinder your ability to produce your single outcome, let alone address other needs that you had not imagined.  In order to produce your single desired outcome, you might need to take many different actions throughout your sub-networks of which you may not even be aware, and which you may not even understand even if you were aware.  You might need to ignore your opinion of what is good and what is bad.  You might need to add to your opinion of what is good and what is bad.

If you act purely on your existing knowledge of what should be done, your existing knowledge of some of the infinite possible effects of the action; if you plan to focus only on certain things during the action; if the action is just a ritual you have engaged in beforehand to ensure what you think is best, what you believe to have worked in previous situations; if you blindly follow a predefined set of rhythms all throughout the action; if you are acting purely based on what others have told you should be done; if you simply follow a plan or guidance or only apply awareness you have received beforehand; if you just stick to the values you hold true, your knowledge of good and evil,  -  then you may limit your ability to act in situations in which you have little or no knowledge; you may hinder the ability of some parts of the infinite to guide you through some of the infinite steps during what may be a very quick and difficult action - guidance from any number and quality of entities, big or small, throughout the infinite outside, the infinite within, and the infinite moving between.

IMAGINING POSSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS

There may some living entities who do not maintain constant size like we do, maybe some are constantly working to adjust their size; too small and they crunch, too big and they pop.

There may be living entities who have such large gaps between their constituents that they are constantly being inundated by living entities that are not that much smaller, but are still able to come and go with ease.

There may be living entities who can unfold and expand to accept certain types of entities to stream through, and then contract to block others.

There may be a realm where a form of living entity exists in multitudes and they combine into various forms, but without having the ability to stick for any meaningful duration, always dissolving back into formlessness into the multitudes, always producing ever-new forms for the immediate needs and then dissolving.  In this case, the ability to define the duration of an individual’s entire existence might be a tricky affair, unlike us.

There may be a certain type of entity whose constituents are conditioned to disband once the living activity of their parent ceases, in order to avoid atrophy, and so the entity as a whole has to continually keep going in a lively way to avoid dissolving into nothingness.

There may be living entities somewhere who are always trying to evade one another, for if they touch they would become tightly glued together for the remainder of their finite existences.

There may be living entities who are able to blend into one another, combine into larger blobs, or split into smaller blobs.

There may be living entities whose constituents can tighten up as the need arises and let loose at will as well, without noticeably changing the general area that it occupies somehow.

There may be living entities whose constituents can disband altogether and recombine at will – all while remaining in a living state – still communicating with each other.  Maybe there are some who can recombine in different forms to produce different effects at will.

Maybe there are living entities that exist in such vast un-lively expanses, with little other discernable life of their size, and maybe that’s the way they like it.  Maybe it is a kind of living entity which lives far far away from any others of its kind because it harbours super-small constituents who would rather have lots of uncontested space in their environs to roam throughout and occupy.

There may be a realm where a type of living entity has become so dependant on super-small living entities to move it around that it has lost all ability to move on its own and has to call upon the smaller multitudes to be able to go anywhere.

Maybe there is a kind of living entity that reproduces by casting a group of living constituents into a mould of any shape and is therefore able to produce living entities of any possible shape which remain in that shape throughout their entire finite existence, where the shape of the mould affects the activity of the newborns in a way that matches the needs of the realm at that time. 

Maybe, due to the importance of this process, it is conducted and regulated with great strictness by councils of the elderly ones, and maybe some renegade individuals try to co-opt this reproduction process to create certain entities which produce effects that these renegade individuals desire to produce.

There may be a type of living entity so well organized across many sizes deep – with many sizes of living members being directly part of a single living parent entity, that a venturing in throughout the depths and venturing out macro can all be part of the same stream of consciousness – all part of the same signal.

In some realms, to break the structure of one’s self, to break the pattern of action and cohesion, to let the uniqueness go, might actually be utterly irresistible.  Who knows, maybe there is a realm with a type of living entity that has to constantly resist the urge of dying, because it actually feels good; unlike the majority of ways in which we perish: dreadfully painful and unsettling for some reason.

There might be a type of living entity whose existence is one big build-up to a grand climax of vibrant activity which lasts for only a brief moment compared to the all the preparation time where multitudes gather and then plan, conserve and wait for that single moment of unified activity, and then all die off or disband, or dissolve, or do whatever afterwards.  This, compared with our steady daily activity throughout our lives where we are usually active for one reason or another throughout each day.

SOME EXAMPLES

Many of the crises that we are currently faced with are at least partly the result of a false, incomplete, narrow, or incongruous understanding of the fundamental nature of things.

This book is not an attempt to resolve all of our finite problems.  It is primarily an exploration of the infinite, and although this may help us address our problems, it might be just as fruitful to focus on our finite issues without a coherent understanding of the infinite – without a coherent understanding of what is fundamental across all of our finite problems.  For example, in order to lend folks a helping hand and make them happy, you don’t necessarily need to have an accurate and comprehensive model of how the signals bounce around their mind as they experience the happiness.

This work has been kept as concise, straight-forward and uncontroversial as possible so that, among other reasons, it does not add to our confusion or distract us from addressing the problems at hand. 

That being said, this next portion of the book enters into discussion of our finite realm, and risks controversy.  Just as all of my ranting about the infinite and Semitic scripture needs to be taken with a grain of salt, having most likely many flaws and outright errors that have yet to be ironed out, so too should this next section be taken with a grain of salt, nay, pound-bags of salt. 

This next portion of the book explores some of the finite things in our finite realm, in context with the fundamental principles found throughout the infinite that have been outlined in the previous sections, such as the relationship between repetition and structure, mind and resistance, etc…

All of the previous sections (concerning the infinite) were by no means a complete understanding of the infinite, which is an impossibility, nor is this next section a complete understanding of our finite realm, which is just as much of an impossibility.

UNIQUE OR FUNDAMENTAL

When examining individual entities to determine the nature of what is fundamental across all entities throughout the infinite, great care must be taken in order to discern whether a particular characteristic being studied is unique to the finite entities or whether it is fundamental across all entities throughout the infinite. 

So what are some of our unique features, our finite characteristics, in our finite realm?  We have a sort of double-body with two of most organs.  We are designed from head to toe to deal with and harness the power of gravity.  We tend to habitually shut down and reactivate according to the patterns of the movement of the sun across our sky.  Our sensory organs are designed for the mostly horizontal activity that we engage in on the surface of the crust of the earth (like our eyes and ears are arrayed on the horizontal plane so that we can better capture a panoramic view).   We are each a folded and coiled bag of flesh containing fluids.  We reproduce.  We reproduce by internally gestating our offspring.  We grow to a certain height then stop or shrink.   etc…

Although other beings elsewhere might exhibit similar characteristics, these are our unique abilities and weaknesses, expressed in our particular unique fashion.  Even if there are human-like creatures that inhabit other planets or other forms of habitat, we would together still comprise only a finite realm, even if this realm is extremely vast.

‘HOLDING ON’  TO YOUR  ‘LETTING GO’

As you focus on anything out of your own will, some sort of bond somewhere must be maintained between your constituents.  This restricts the capacity of the constituents within this bond to engage in other things at the point where this bond is held.

The only thing at stake in this game is your very capacity to adapt to and explore new things, the freedom of your thought, your capacity to behold something different and unfamiliar, your capacity to be moved during precious moments, your capacity to become aware of some of the infinite details in some of the infinite moments in any event – your open vibrant lucid acceptance of signals to your consciousness, the freedom of your constituents to pay attention to other things – things which you may not be able to address as a whole – things which you may not be able to understand or even be conscious of as a whole – things which may be crucial to your existence.

On the other hand, by keeping focus, by narrowing the scope of your consciousness, by recalling certain memory to mind, by continuously firing associations, by entertaining understanding; this allows you to compare the signals of new experiences with other things – to perceive new things, to cherish what exists, to value the moment, to stand in awe of a mystery, to keep your interest to search further into the unknown. 

This is true of any entity, but in order to demonstrate just how all-pervasive this principle is, in this portion of the book the focus will be primarily on various ways in which our fleshy constituents participate in this game, willingly or not.

BRAIN-SQUISHING FROM FOCUS

When you maintain a particular activity, some sort of bond somewhere must be maintained, whether this bond is between you and others outside, between your constituents, or within your constituents. 

For example, you might be bound to an employer who constantly reminds you to do something, and those signals maintains your focus on a particular job.  Or you might have an association between multiple cells within you, which produces a constant call to perform a particular job.  Or within one of your constituents, there might be a strong association which makes that constituent repeat a certain call for you to perform a particular job.  Any way you look at it, for you to perform a particular activity regularly, there has to be some sort of structure that you stick with – on the inside or on the outside.

By external bonds maintaining focus for you (like your boss, book or TV), your constituents might be more able to let loose concerning their keeping of focus.  Your constituents might come to depend on external entities to maintain your internal focus. 

But in as much as you want to maintain your focus from your own volition, without external stimulus, some sort of bond must be maintained within you. 

Seeing as all of your fleshy constituents (non-blood) are already essentially bound together (at least indirectly), they may not need to squish together in order to maintain consistent interactivity, they are already set up to potentially send signals between each other repeatedly, even with others very far removed - but still connected indirectly through other fleshy cells.  But when somebody is extremely focused on something from their own volition, there is usually a noticeable squint in their eyes.  Noticeable squishing and knots may develop in your head and elsewhere in order to maintain some sort of activity or to repeat any sort of process like: a constant thought, some sort of habit you’re engaging in, some worry, some song you may be playing over in your head, images you may be reproducing in your head, complex concepts being deliberated upon – building idea upon idea, intention which you apply, will which you maintain, will to coerce others to perform your will which you maintain, or whatever else.  These knots may stay tight even when the focus ceases, in expectation of returning to that focus later on, or because the constituents then have a hard time untying themselves, or for whatever other reason.

Notice the effect of changing your focus and activity on the knots in your head, heart and elsewhere.  Notice the effect of untying, strengthening, or otherwise changing the knots, on your focus and activity.  You might notice that in order to consciously clear your mind of the knots, you have to keep a knot to continue your cessation, to repeat your un-repetitiveness, to focus on clearing your focus, to hold on to your letting go.

Now.  Great intensity of thought may occur when relaxing and letting loose with a plethora of wild signals bouncing around all over the place, but the purpose of this section is to point out that when focused thought is consciously maintained (from your own volition), your brain and other centers/hubs of inter-cellular communication tend to squish.

Even though focus from your own volition entrenches the structure of your constituents at some point, this might allow for fresh liveliness elsewhere in your container.  For example, if some of your constituents are busy co-ordinating a particular effort – some sort of structured repetitive job performing the same tasks over and over again, this might allow your mind to wander – other constituents who are not involved in the processes of the regular job might have the freedom to explore various things and may even use the repetitive job as a foundation for exploring multitudes of new things.

You have trillions of living cellular constituents, each with their own mind.  It would be a rare event that all or even nearly all are involved in the same task at the same time.

MOBILITY REACTION

We seem to have this little trick.  When we get up and go, freeing ourselves on the outside, leaving our static default condition of being stuck to the ground – when we become mobile – our constituents have this way of tightening up, sticking closer together, favouring structure on the inside.  Likewise, when we stick around, entrench and enclose ourselves with the grip of structure on the outside, our constituents have a tendency to let loose between each other, to let go of structure on the inside. 

In fact, by simply standing up, the tightening reaction is triggered, and by simply laying down, the loosening reaction is triggered. 

There are thousands of exceptions to this.  One of which is the fact that different organs and different regions within the body can be tighter or looser than others, and some organs or regions react to mobility differently than others.  Or, let’s say you hold firm to a plot of ground undergoing an earthquake.  Or let’s say you let yourself loose out in an area of little external resistance, like hovering in outer-space, then your constituents will probably not react in the same way. 

Some might lose the ability to perform this switch by consistently going against the grain or otherwise upsetting this pattern.  One way of disturbing this useful trait is by moving about when the flesh is very loose, or sticking around when the flesh is very tight, or eating on the run, or by switching too fast and too often between mobility and stasis like waking up abruptly, jogging arduously, and then rushing to sit in an office chair for 10 hours, day after day, etc...

There is a multitude of effects from this simple reaction that one can meditate upon, like the effect on the blood and the effect on super-small constituents which are able to move in and throughout you. 

Again, this is a human reaction (and may be present in some other human-like creatures too).