The infinite universe in a nutshell:

 

 

 

The insides of a nutshell are just as big as the insides of a nut-tree, a nut-tree forest, a planet with a whole bunch of nut-tree-forests, or a galaxy with a whole bunch of planets, or an electron within a nutshell.  There is no limit to how much a thing can be divided.  There are always smaller bits.  A galaxy doesn’t have more stuff within it, than you do within you – you both have an uncountable number of things within.

 

No finite entities, like clusters of galaxies, could fill the universe to its borders, as its largest constituents, because an infinite universe has no borders.  There is no “final frontier”.  Every entity is contained within larger entities, each unique, but each also exhibiting common characteristics with all others.

 

You have an infinite number and variety of living creatures within you, and infinite multitudes surrounding you, and infinite multitudes of living creatures moving through you at all times.

 

The entirety of your mind, all of “you”, from what you sense to what you do, all of your thoughts and how they make you feel – your entire living essence, is brought forth from the interactions between smaller living creatures, with distinct minds of their own, like your living cells, communicating and acting together. 

 

You are a vast network of trillions of microscopic living creatures interacting together, each with their own individual bewildering intricacies, which nobody will ever fully understand, and whose behaviour nobody will ever be able to fully predict.

Your cells each have a mind of their own.  And you have a mind of your own.  Yet, “you” are “your” cells.  Your distinct mind is the result of the common experience and common activity of a group of cells – a group of distinct minds.  You, are thinking about “your” cells, with your cells.

 

 

 

You are made of living cells acting together in ever-changing and various ways.

Your living cells are each made of smaller living entities doing the same.

Those living constituents of the cell are also made of smaller living entities doing the same.

And so on, without an end to this infinite tree of life.

Each living entity is a group of smaller living entities, acting together.

You are infinitely divisible, infinitely large, and infinitely complex, like every other living entity in the universe.

 

 

 

Each living entity can interact with other living entities (on the outside), to form a larger living entity between themselves, performing coordinated activity, like you participating with other people, in whatever capacity.

It is hard to call a human group, working together, a “creature”.  It is alive.  It is an… entity… for lack of a better term.  It is a living entity – the general term used here for all living “things”.

Just as a living cell is a living constituent of you, you are a living constituent of whatever multi-human living entities you participate in.

Seeing as we don’t produce any oils or sugars, at all, and many other basic nutrients, we would simply not exist without plants.  Can we therefore separate our living selves from these other living creatures as well?  The living cohesion between us and them right now, might not be as graceful as at other times.  Maybe in other ages, we understand and cultivate our relationship with plants in a manner that is reciprocally beneficial and we come to understand ourselves as integral to and dependent upon bioregions or even Earth as a whole – we come to interact with our surroundings in such a way as to definitely consider us as active participants in larger living systems (with minds of their own) (with existences of their own).

  

 

 

Sub-atomic things, like electrons, are alive, just like you or your cells. 

They are each unique individuals with a mind of their own, with the ability to sense and react.  The entirety of the mind of the living cell – its ability to sense, learn, remember, and adapt, is brought forth by the interactions of living creatures smaller than the cell, with distinct minds of their own, like electrons and their friends; and the living minds of the living electrons are brought forth by the communication and interaction between the smaller living constituents within them, and so on, to infinity.

Each living creature is animated by multiple smaller living creatures, communicating and acting together.  If this is the definition of life, then you would never be able to find a fundamental building block – each creature would be infinitely divisible; therefore, if this is the definition of life, the universe must be infinite and eternal.  If this is the definition of life, then any new living entity can only be created by pre-existing living entities interacting.  If this is the definition of life, then Life had no Origin.

 

 

 

There are (very roughly) 100 trillion atoms in one of your cells.

You have (very roughly)  100 trillion cells within you.

 

Below the cell, the sub-atomic entities are probably the next most major independent, prolific, dominant living organisms.  Above that, atoms would be coordinated ‘families’ of sub-atomic entities which stick near each other.  Above that, molecules would be sort of like ‘villages’ of sub-atomic entities; and organelles would act as vast function-specific societies of molecule-types.

In this view, the free-roaming variety of sub-atomics (like electrons), moving throughout the cell in a living purposeful manner, would allow one form of communication across the whole cell to coordinate the activity of the whole cell, and would also move between cells in a communicative effort as well, and would be able to perform a whole host of other functions that would be hard or impossible to observe with our instruments.  Heck, we haven’t even taken an image of an electron yet (a full-resolution picture of what an electron looks like – instead of just a trace of its path of motion as we currently have managed to do).

 

The specialty of some molecules is in their capacity to unfold (or uncompress) and push things as it does this, and to be refolded again (or re-compressed), like a spring-wound battery.  Other molecules are more effective as gripping-agents between other molecules, having ‘tentacles’ on all sides.  Other molecules are arranged together as ‘conduits’ for free-flowing subatomic entities.  Others are best suited to be strung up in a sequence, having complimentary ‘grooves’ on opposite sides, like fancy lego.  Some are designed (yes, designed) literally to walk down fibers in the cell, bearing packages.

In other cases, these abilities of individual molecules are slight, like where the capacity for a single molecule to do things like bend in on itself is limited, it might require a great multitude of these sorts of molecules participating together for any major noticeable coordinated activity to occur in the multi-molecular realm.  For example: each individual cell-membrane lipid molecule contributing its slight bending capacity to allow the entire membrane to move – the slight kink in a lipid would allow sub-atomics to bend that single lipid – purposefully, but to be effective, it requires multitudes of adjacent lipid molecules to act in a coordinated way.

In this model of living sub-atomic entities, the triggering of the activity of a molecule (however slight that may be) would be possible from among the living constituents of the molecule – so instigated within the molecule.  Some molecules may allow for greater expression of the locomotive will of its sub-atomic constituents to move or bend the molecule in which they reside, while more inflexible molecules may hinder the will of its sub-atomic constituents to move or bend – being trapped within a particularly inflexible molecule or stuck with other inflexible molecules (like within a stone).

 

 

 

You are one “branch” on an infinite tree of life.

You are the “end result” or “meeting point” between all of what is “above” and all of what is “below” – all of what is “outside” and all of what is “inside”, and all of what is moving in between.

 

There are common properties between the various living entities.  There is constant motion among all living entities, all the time.  There are constant collisions with other things among all living beings, all the time.  Constant friction and resistance with other things.  The process of creating new living forms is ever-recurring inside and outside of you, and within things moving through you.  The process of living forms ceasing and perishing is ever-recurring, inside and outside of you, and among the infinite multitudes moving through you constantly.

 

 

 

In an attempt to relate their elaborate and advanced understanding of the nature of the infinite eternal universe, populated by an infinite tree of life, the authors of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an, and other original works of Semitic scripture, penned marvellous allegorical and symbolic works of fiction, encoding the common significant properties among all infinite individual living creatures in the universe, with each letter of the common Semitic alphabet symbolising something basic, like motion, or resistance, or matter.  These basic letters – these core symbols representing basic properties of the infinite universe, are then combined in elaborate tapestries of books interwoven with intricate nuance and letter-play in their vocabularies.

Although the infinite extent of the universe cannot be proven, at any time, by any experimental or observational means, direct or indirect; what can be proven, is that the authors of the Bible and the Qur'an believed that the universe was not finite, had no beginning, will have no end, and encoded their advanced cosmology of an infinite eternal universe within the letters of the words of their brilliant books.

 

 The Hebrew term “ein soph”, meaning “without measure” or “infinite”, is a central symbol in Jewish mystical lore, employed as a noun: “The Infinite”.  The different aspects of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life are said to all “emanate” from The Infinite:

  

 

“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 Gerhard Scholem

Kabbalah

New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co 1974

page 89

 

 

“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)

 

Quoted from within:

Kabbalah

Gershom Gerhard Scholem

New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co 1974

page 90 – which took it from:

Ammud ha-Avodah, 1863 211d

  

 

“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)

 

Quoted from within:

On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism

Gershom Gerhard Scholem

Shocken books – New York 1969

page 63 – which took it from:

‘Megillath ha-Megalle, Berlin, 1924 page 75.

 

 

“…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 Gerhard Scholem

Kabbalah

New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co 1974

page 172

 

 

“…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

(1200’s-1300’s)

 

 Quoted from within:

The Essential Kabbalah

Daniel C. Matt

HarperSanFrancisco 1994

page 120

The quote is cited as being from:

“Isaac of Akko (thirteenth-fourteenth centuries), Me’irat Einayim, 217, …

… see Gottlieb, Mehqarim be-Sifrut ha-Qabbalah, 235-”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an assumption within modern science:  there are no assumptions within modern science.

It is assumed, among mainstream cosmologists, that the universe is limited in size and duration – the central, overarching and most pernicious assumption – the assumption of a finite universe.  It is assumed that the universe can have a Beginning – something untestable, pretty darn ridiculous, and reminiscent of many religious creation myths read literally instead of in between the lines.  It is assumed that atoms can exist (indivisible building blocks or “smallest parts” to the universe).  Incredibly, it is even assumed that we have found them!  It is assumed that nothingness can exist (before the big bang, and outside of our allegedly exploding universe).  It is assumed that Life can have a specific origin, before which: no Life existed, and that Life can emerge out of a state of pure lifelessness.  These are just a few examples of the many significant assumptions that have been adopted by various “scientific” disciplines over the years, and these are the big ones that matter.

These are not even hypotheses.  Calling a notion a “hypothesis” implies that work intends to be done to prove it.  These are just assumptions.  If science wishes to adopt such significant assumptions, without testing their feasibility, or even just describing how they would even be possible, then science opens itself up to scrutiny of those assumptions, by use of logic.  So, where science involves assumptions, science can be trumped by sound logic.

 

To figure out how the whole universe works, may rely heavily upon Science, but there are also other avenues at arriving at the truth.

You and I should in no way be obligated to conduct a thorough Christmas-night scan of the heavens to see how many reindeer pull sleds with fat men in red coats bearing gifts – we don’t need to conduct this Science to prove there is no Santa Claus.  Logic, reason, historical context, basic deductions, and a host of other methods are readily at our disposal to arrive at solid facts about nature, including our natures.

 

An infinite eternal universe is, by far, the more logical assumption, while being just as untestable as the illogical assumption that the universe is limited in size and time.

A finite and limited universe, having started at some point, out of nothingness, is irrational and just plain silly when you actually think the details through.  For example, modern official cosmology would have us believe that we are somehow special, in that we are supposedly sitting in the middle layer of the entire universe:

 

Galaxy clusters

 Galaxies and quasars

  Solar systems and nebulae

   Planets and suns

    Humans

   Living cells

  Molecules

 Atoms

Sub-atomic things

 

The universe just so happens to have a few layers of entities above our size, and a few layers of entities below our size, and we’re comfortably sitting in the middle spot, miraculously, where we are afforded an equal view of the top and bottom layers of the universe?

Our microscopes just so happen to have found roughly the same magnitude of depth - the same number of "layers" of entities, or "levels of size" in the microcosm, as our telescopes have found above us, in the macrocosm??

It just so happens that the limits of our current technology match precisely the limits of the universe???  Our best microscopes just so happen to see to the smallest fundamental “atoms”????  Our best telescopes just so happen to see all the way to the largest structures the universe has to offer, and even to right after The Beginning of Time itself – we can just barely glimpse the moment of Creation?????

 

What we call “atoms” – the chemical elements like Oxygen or Silicon – were first claimed to be indivisible.  The very word “atom” means “unbreakable” in Greek, but not only this, the Greek concept of the “atom”, is precisely this idea of fundamental building blocks to the universe, and it was believed that we had finally isolated these smallest lego blocks for the entire universe.  We adopted this simple-minded model of the universe, Atomism, from the Greeks, who also believed in static celestial spheres made of the “fifth element” “quintessence”, with the stars and planets embedded in these spheres, with the outer-most sphere being governed by a Prime Mover, setting in motion all of the sub-ordinate enclosed spheres.  Atomism was adopted wholeheartedly from the Greeks, but celestial spheres were not, probably because we cannot readily visualize how ridiculous Atomism is, but in the larger realm of planets and stars, we can now clearly see (visually and obviously) how ridiculous celestial spheres would be as a working model today.

Then, in the early 1900’s, we smashed the alleged fundamental “atom” lego-blocks, and found that they were made up of smaller bits!  Whoops!  This should have smashed the notion of Atomism along with it.  Instead, it is now assumed that sub-atomic particles are indivisible – fundamental building blocks for the universe!  Now electrons and their friends are the true Atoms!?

When a single electron is fired at a pair of parallel narrow slits, although the electron is made visible at a certain point on a screen behind the slits, if you fire multiple single electrons, one at a time, an interference pattern will be revealed on the screen.  This interference pattern may indicate that a single electron can interfere with itself, by partly passing through both slits on its journey.  This would indicate that a single electron is made up of smaller things – things interfering with each other.  Just as a lightning bolt collapses/condenses to a specific point on the ground, but was in fact made of multiple parts that came together to a point; it cannot be assumed that just because a single electron is visible at a single point on a screen, that it is an indivisible thing that would only go through one slit.

The nature of fundamental building blocks has not been explained or even described, at all, by anybody.  They are simply assumed.  This is not science, it is philosophy.  How can such a thing exist in the first place?  What is the nature of something which has no parts to it?  It is impossible to fathom.  Are the fundamental building blocks empty inside or solid all the way through?  What shape would these smallest parts have?  Just a point?  This point would have to have a shape, even if it is just a sphere, right?  Well, would not the fact that you could observe one side of the sphere as opposed to its other side, reveal that it has multiple parts to it?  No?  OK.  Describe the surface of this empty thing then.  Is it simply that there is nothing inside and the surface is simply the boundary of the void within and the things outside of it?  Can things fall into this void?  Does the void remain void if something falls into it?  And if there is just a void in these fundamental building blocks, then how can they be building blocks of anything at all?  In other words, how can anything that is made of nothing constitute larger things?

Atomism is highly unintelligible.

Big-Bang theory rests heavily on the notion of Atomism.  Without Atomism, each of the parts that explodes from The Beginning, actually had more parts within it to consider, and those parts would be made of smaller parts to consider, and so on, to infinity; with each part being no less significant to the whole of the functioning universe than any other part.  Without Atomism, each part of the universe is just as “large” as any other, and just as complicated to “create” as any other part, and just as complicated to understand mathematically as any other part.  Without Atomism, the theory of spontaneous creation out of nothing becomes infinitely more complex to conjure up and describe and draw on the classroom chalkboard.  Without Atomism, the Big Bang is a big fizzling dud.  Thwoop!

 

And what of the edge to the universe – into which it exploded?  What is the nature of the edge of the universe?  Nothingness itself is a concept that science has no means to prove experimentally, because no experiment could ever be conducted to prove that nothingness “exists” anywhere.  The nothingness before the Big Bang, and the remaining nothingness outside of our expanding universe into which it is exploding, has not only remained untested, it has not been explained or described, at all, by anybody!  Is this nothingness the same everywhere?  Is this nothingness infinite?  Does it go on forever?  So, there is an infinite volume of nothing?!  There is enough nothing to go ‘round, for everyone to “have” their own share, to “own” their own portion of void?!  The supply of nothing is inexhaustible?!

 

 

 

Modern mainstream cosmologists would have us digest the notion that the universe, “before” it started, was a “singularity” – where just “pure energy” was bound in an “infinitely dense” and “infinitely small” “spot”, and then this “pure energy” was “transformed” into matter, using E=mc2.

 

 

 

Firstly, energy cannot be converted from matter, because energy is a property of matter, and nothing else.  Energy is already indistinguishable from the matter through which it moves, so it cannot be converted to matter nor can it be derived from matter.  You cannot just declare that the universe started with just “pure Energy”, on its own, all alone, without any matter to convey this energy along!

      

All of the infinite number of entities in the universe are in constant motion, in infinite different ever-changing ways.  Nothing ceases to move, ever.  Even when things are hitting other things – they remain in motion – just changing direction.  Even when things are imperceptibly still, if you were to zoom in with enough magnification, you would eventually notice some sort of motion.  Even if you strap something down tight and deep-freeze it to an immobile state, the earth is still spinning and it is moving along with it, and the solar system is on the move within the galaxy, and the galaxy is on the move… and so on.

All of the infinite number of entities in the universe never cease to encounter other entities, and never cease to change in their motion and resistance.  There is nowhere to hide.  There is no vacuum where you can avoid encountering things.  No area can possibly be truly void.  There is no such thing as nothingness.  There is nowhere to avoid colliding with other things.  There is nowhere to avoid bumping into other things. 

There is even a constant stream of infinite numbers of entities moving right through you, at all times, a constant wind blowing through you, of various sizes and types of entities, inanimate and alive.  This constant wind adds to your physical motion, internally and externally, and powers collisions with you and other things or between things within you, incessantly. 

There is nowhere in the universe to hide to be unmoved by anything or to be free from collisions with anything, or to stay completely motionless, or to be free of things like the force of gravity.  All matter is always energetic to some degree, and only matter can carry energy.

 

It is useful to see patterns of similar motion and resistance and associate those similar events together into a concept of a particular form of “energy”, but energy does not exist in of itself, it is a property of actual real tangible things moving around and bumping into other real tangible things.

Before we found out that air consisted of actual physical particles, maybe some people came to believe that wind energy was a thing, in of itself, separate from physical things.  We have assumed the same notion, that energy is a thing in of itself, distinct from matter, which can be packed into a thing called a “singularity”, and when released it can transform into matter, to “create” the universe from “pure Energy”.

 

If all the matter in the universe came from “pure Energy”, using E=mc2, at the moment of Creation, then is it possible for all Energy in the universe to be transformed into “pure Matter” at some point, with nothing moving around at all, internally or externally – all matter just fixed in place?!  How in the world would this even be possible?  Everything frozen, motionless, inert, both inside and outside?  Really?  E=mc2 allows this?  We can magically obtain all the matter of the universe from a ‘singularity’ (Big Bang) packed with just “pure Energy”.  So, you could theoretically convert all available energy into just “pure Matter”?  Really?

Well, if that sounds entirely ridiculous, then you have to question why E=mc2 is promoted as an equation that allows all the values to go to one single side of the equation, at a single time, to the exclusion of the other side, just before The Beginning of the universe and of Time itself.  You have to question why mainstream cosmologists allow themselves to put all of the values on the left side – to the Energy side of the equation, all at once!  What does “pure Energy” even look like if nothing exists to be shaken about or be disturbed by it?!  How can Energy exist without matter?!  It is an unfathomable proposition!  Ancient fairy tales make more literal sense (while being more rewarding to contemplate).

 

In experiments involving the breaking apart of atoms, the atoms are weighed before and then their by-products are weighed after splitting, and they found that by measuring the difference in weight (here on Earth, in our time, in these conditions), reveals how much energy was released by splitting the atoms.  This does not prove that you can transform matter into “pure” energy, nor does this prove that “pure” energy can even exist, much less does it prove that you can transform all matter into “pure” energy, or that you can transform all energy into “pure” matter.  In other words, these sorts of experiments do not prove that “pure energy” was released.  What if the breakdown of an atom releases, instead: smaller bits of real matter that are in motion – and then we measure the motion and collisions of those smaller bits as energy.  The matter did not disappear, it simply changed form – into bits small enough not to be affected by the pull of gravity – small enough not to weigh anything afterwards (or perhaps departed to avoid being weighed altogether).

These sorts of experiments could instead be perceived as a transformation of matter in motion of one form, into matter in motion in another form.  In other words, there is only matter in motion – energy cannot be separated from its carrying agent/medium.  You cannot convert matter into energy and you cannot convert energy into matter, because they are inseparable – energy is the motion of matter and the collisions of matter with other matter in motion.  Energy a property of matter, it is a description of matter moving and colliding over time, so energy is inseparable from matter, so you can’t transform one into the other.

If we measure less weight of gravity after an atom has split, some of the small bits have either escaped, or are less affected by gravity maybe, like pollen in the air – if you were to condense a lot of pollen together into a ball, it will fall, but suspended in the air individually, the pollen grains weigh essentially nothing, yet there is still matter there – matter in motion.  When an atom breaks apart and energy is released, it is from smaller entities – smaller bits that break off and are released and their motion can then be measured as energy, but energy was not really “created” and matter was not really “destroyed”.  These smaller bits might then be less affected by gravity, or not at all affected, so it only seems that matter has “disappeared” into “pure Energy” as those bits jostle around or fly off after they split off from the atom.

 

 

 

Some forms of entities may be so small that we cannot take a full-sized photograph of their form or full-sized detailed video of what they do, although we may be able to observe their general motion and resistance when large populations of these tiny entities are observed.  For example, gravity is super-small entities streaming through us, and they flow through everything because they are so small.  Gravity proves that there are entities smaller than our cameras have been able to capture with any useful detail to reveal their form or shape or how they move around or what they do.

The observable “warping” effect, seen as gravitational lensing, where light is seen to bend around galaxies, indicates that outer space is not a true vacuum, and that the entities that light waves are travelling through are moving in the direction of large masses, thereby moving the light waves in that direction.  It is actual physical entities (which cause gravity), streaming through space, thereby changing the direction that light waves are traveling. 

The theory of an infinite universe predicts that within space which seems empty, there will always be an infinite number of entities there, but they may be very very very small, smaller than the smallest entities we have been able to observe in proper full detail so far.  Therefore, a light-wave travelling through outer space, is travelling through stuff, and cannot possibly be unaffected by that stuff, and cannot possibly travel for an infinite distance.

The primary official argument used to dismiss the theory of the universe being infinite is that, if it were infinite, the sky would be infinitely bright because an infinite number of stars would shine above us.  This assumes that outer space is empty space, and that light-waves do not slow down, ever – this assumes that light waves encounter no resistance in the allegedly “pure Vacuum”.  This argument (which is called “Olbers’ paradox) also assumes that an infinite universe would have an infinite number of stars – which is not at all the case.

 

The entities that cause gravity have a one-way ticket through things, rather than being on a series of round-trips between things. 

Mainstream cosmology proposes magical beans called gravitons, tiny entities, who, allegedly, perform regular daily round-trips between you and everything else in the universe.  Really?  So, right now, a constant stream of particles is being sent from you to every other object – every galaxy, every atom within every galaxy, and you are simultaneously receiving an incoming stream of particles from every object in the entire universe?  Every atom is constantly sending and receiving a graviton with every other atom?  Huh?  Has anybody bothered to do the sums?

Compounding the silly view of the entire universe painted by the notion of gravitons, we also promote mathematically simplistic equations for gravity, with values extending outward to the full extent of the entire universe, without a change in rates of change of pull at any distance outward, and without an end to the extent of the reach of gravity, for each object in all directions in the entire universe?!

Certainly gravity is a localized feature (even if its locality is relatively huge)!

Certainly there’s a limit to the extent of the pull of gravity from an object!

The silly and simplistic and rigid equations for calculating the force of gravity between any two objects, anywhere in the universe, imply otherwise.

In fact, taken literally, at face value, our childish equations for calculating the force of gravity between objects, imply an infinite universe!  For how could you have an endless reach of gravity in a limited universe!

 

 

 

"Infinite Density" and "Infinite Smallness" are physical impossibilities.

These cryptic turns of phrase encoded and inscribed in the dusty torturous tomes of esoteric Big Bang lore, are obvious contradictions in terms, which in fact reveal major flaws in a theory which literally tries to get something for nothing somehow!

If something were to be infinitely dense, it could never unpack itself at all.  Infinity cannot be subtracted from to get a smaller infinity – infinite density would never come out of infinite density – it would be limitless – it would be numberless – it would be beyond comprehension and beyond observation – it would disallow the possibility of anything ever ungluing itself from anything else, ever!

If something were to be infinitely small, it would never expand into anything of any size or shape, whatever the rate of expansion you might attribute to it.  How can anything be infinitely small in the first place?  If something were to be infinitely small, it would fill no space, it would not exist, at all, in the first place!

 

 

 

A finite universe is a truly wild myth, while science derides all of ancient mythology as deceit or fallacy.

It has not been proven, in the least, that the universe is finite.  It is only an assumption.

A universe which has always existed, which will always exist, and which has infinite entities within infinite entities, is the more rational conclusion, and is the only one that conforms to known physical observations.

A finite universe is an irrational fabrication, by folks who are looking for simple lego-blocks to explain the whole universe, and simple equations to explain their behaviour.  It is much easier to comprehend a limited number of entities (Atomism), and a limited amount of time to track and understand the history of their goings-on (Big Bang), and to use a single equation for all processes in the universe (the stated goal of many modern physicists).

This psychological need for a simple universe, with limited elements, identical fundamental building blocks, simple processes, described by simple mathematics, is further evidenced by academia’s modern love affair with a particular form of the notion of “Occam's Razor”, which goes something like: “if you need to choose from a set of explanations – a set of theories, choose the simplest one – the least complex one, because it is more likely to be true than the complicated one”.  Even though there are more nuanced and more intelligent formulations of this principle of logic, this is how it is generally understood, promoted, and applied.  Thing is, in a universe with an infinite number and variety of ever-changing entities animating each event, complexity might in fact be the more logical default position to take, in many situations.  (Or, we could dispense with such a mildly-useful “principle” and approach problem-solving with thousands of other proper methods.)

 

Occam’s Razor?

Really?

OK then.

Relativity is probably the most complicated, needlessly convoluted, wildly incomprehensible, abstract, least straight-forward, description of the universe on offer.

If you truly subscribe to and promote Occam’s Razor, then things like Big Bang Bulloney should have been trimmed off, by you, long ago, let alone the fact that Halton Arp already chopped up the silly Big-Bang theory decades ago, with bigger and sharper blades.

Knife?

That’s not a knife!

NGC 7603!

Now that’s a … celestial sword!

 

 

 

It is up to you, believer in a finite universe born from your Big Bang creation myth, to fully and adequately describe the nature of absolute Atoms (fundamental building blocks) and to describe the nature of the universe before and outside of the Big Bang (Nothingness).  It is not up to anybody else to disprove the existence of Santa Claus!  No student should be asked to prove that nothingness cannot possibly exists!

Doesn’t it seem peculiar to anybody that Science praises itself as conquering the Church’s stranglehold over the minds of men and women, while fully adopting a core tenet of the very same Church:  Creatio ex nihilo.  The mathematical solutions to Einstein’s equations that allow for an expanding universe were first formulated and introduced to Einstein by a fully ordained priest, Georges Lemaitre, who felt this would finally confirm, scientifically, the literal reading of the creation myth in Genesis.  Einstein was thrilled to adopt the Belgian Astronomer-Priest’s solutions, because it made Einstein’s universe work without resorting to his mathematical correction known as the cosmological constant, which stabilized Einstein’s theoretical universe.  When Big Bang was first proposed comprehensively, the Pope praised it in an address to a host of astronomers in attendance. 

No student, in a publicly-funded (secular) institution, should be force-fed the notion of creation-out-of-nothing, much less should a student be asked to prove that nothingness cannot exist!

 

 

 “How can one describe the universe at the beginning of time?  I now think I can show how the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the Laws of science.  The universe exists because the Laws of general relativity and quantum theory allow and require it to exist.  If I’m right, the universe is self-contained, and governed by science alone.”

 

Stephen Hawking

In a lecture at the university of California at Berkley, 2007

 

 

 

A finite universe is highly unintelligible, wildly irrational, defies common sense, contradicts raw observations, and demands that students digest and promote concepts less rational than medieval medical procedures – tortuous concepts which twist the mind, and leaves only those willing to believe in something they cannot comprehend much less explain, but can handle the wild mathematics, or worse – it leaves those who are willing to pretend to understand, just to fit in and get the “right” answer, it leaves only these individuals working on, promoting and teaching the same untenable concepts to the next unquestioning generation, while the public simply remains baffled and befuddled and ignores the opaque subject altogether, giving up after trying to digest A Brief History of Time.

The theory of a finite universe, the central pillar of modern official cosmology, is nothing more than B-grade science fiction, hiding behind a web of abstruse mathematics, and overshadows and takes telescope time and research funding away from much more interesting physics experiments, such as those involving plasmas in our observable universe, solving the mystery of quasars, the mystery of star formation, the mystery of connected galactic strings, the mystery of quantized redshift, etc…

The more rational and sensible and far less insane default assumption is that there are infinite types of entities within infinite types of entities, (and some entities may be so unique and fleeting that they do not belong to any “type”).  Therefore, there cannot possibly be a single equation to the universe.  A fully accurate mathematical model of the universe would require infinite equations, describing infinite ever-changing processes, putting the value of labours of physicists in context, with their equations only referring to the small portion of the universe in which our eyes and instruments can probe.  And, being animated by infinite detail, even the equations describing the limited number of physical processes which we can observe would therefore not be able to be combined into a single perfect equation.

 

 

 

Galaxy Clusters

 Galaxies and quasars

  Solar Systems and nebulae

   Planets and suns

    Humans

   Living cells

  Molecules

 Atoms

Sub-atomic things

 

!

 

 

 

We have most certainly not been miraculously granted a comfortable middle spot in a finite universal sandwich, sitting between a few layers of entities above us, and a few layers of entities below, with us enclosed in the middle-most slot, like a slice of ham.  We have built our entire view of the universe based on the assumption that there is nothing smaller than electrons and their kind, and nothing larger than galaxy clusters, yet we simply cannot assume that we have inherited a perfect viewing vantage point in the cosmos, with an equal view of the entire macrocosm and of the entire microcosm, each consisting of roughly equal portions of layers, while having just so happened to have inherited the exact technology necessary to do so in our time!

Atomism has nothing to do with science.  It is ill-conceived philosophy, heavily resorted to by certain physicists craving simplicity and a soft daily job, computing and calculating easy parameters of simplistic models.

Nothingness cannot be the object of any scientific investigation, because there is no test for it.  To be incorporated into a scientific theory, it would first have to be proven, by logic, that it could exist.  To date, the number of logical arguments proving the existence or even possible existence of nothingness, published in peer-reviewed journals and discussed and debated in lecture halls across the world and mulled over by officials handing out funding for research and reviewed and discussed by textbook printing house research staff; totals a great big whopping 0.  Nodda!  Nothing!  There is a void of evidence for the void!  The is nothing to indicate that nothing can exist!  There is nothing to show that the primary ingredient that the Big Bang requires – the background of nothingness, can actually possibly exist, in the first place!

pure Energy” and “pure Matter” are impossible concepts, and have not been established experimentally.

Energy cannot be transformed into Matter or vice versa.  Energy is already an aspect of matter, and all matter is always energetic.  E=mc2 is not some magic spell you can invoke to allow you to transform matter into energy in an absolute way.  It is instead merely a useful tool to describe and handle the specific case of our particular forms of partly-measurable chemical matter (atoms like iron, oxygen) and their energetic ways when they split or combine, in our particular immersion in our particular field of gravity, and its current properties, at this time, in specific cases involving specific atomic materials and their specific unique properties, measured at this time, with our current understanding of mass.

Gravitons are a truly crackpot idea, whose basic physical infeasibility should have been immediately obvious to anybody considering the idea, even for a moment.  Every atom within you emits and receives magical beans with every atom in the whole universe, at a steady rate of pull outward from each atom, constantly???  History will laugh at the Graviton.  In the same way that it boggles the mind that Flat-Earthers are still a thing, so too does it boggle the mind how Gravitons are still believed to convey gravity.  The only thing being “conveyed” by Gravitons is confusion.

Gravity is a localized force – it cannot possibly be that you have an infinite pull of gravity.  It cannot possibly be that the gravity you (allegedly) exert is perfectly pulling at exactly the same exponentially-decreasing rate, precisely, for an infinite extent, reaching beyond the observable universe!  It has not even been established that you, personally, actually even induce a gravitational field in the first place!

"Infinite Density" and "Infinite Smallness" are not mathematical terms.  They just sound like it.

Big-Bang creationism has nothing to do with science.  It is untestable outlandish faith-based belief, more complicated and less rewarding than ancient convoluted scriptures which in fact offer more sensible literal creation narratives, which is telling.

Cosmology is not a science, even though it depends heavily upon investigation and observation.

 

 

 

There cannot possibly have been a Beginning, nor could there possibly be an End to the universe, because: an infinitely large thing cannot expand or collapse as a whole, nor can it be destroyed as a whole.

 

 

 

By contemplating upon the fact that contemplation alone cannot reveal the true state and nature of all temporary finite things inside and outside of you, a sense of mystery may fall upon you.

By imagining infinite living entities on the tree of life, each adding a drop of uniqueness to each moment, inside you and outside of you, a sense of mystery may fall upon you.

An infinite ever-changing ever-present universe, invites, by necessity, our rational minds to the conclusion that conclusions about any finite thing are limited by our senses and limited by our capacity and opportunity and will to form these conclusions.  Even though we can be sure of certain conclusions about the totality of an infinite universe, all of the lives of the ever-changing individuals therein will always be full of mystery.

As a civilization advances to this realization (after the strongest microscopes and the strongest telescopes have their limits pushed), and its citizens finally realize the universe must be infinite - that this is the most rational conclusion about the totality of the universe, then this immediately casts a veil of mystery upon every finite entity.

Therefore, mysticism, is the natural result of the inevitable transcendence of science – when we discover the limits of observation and testability, and are forced to deduce and infer things beyond the reach of our eyes, by means of logic and integrative contemplation, and well-justified and well-defined assumptions.  We are all then forced to become mystics, if we seek to advance in a meaningful way, in our understanding of who we are and of what’s going on in the world; relying, of course, on the firm footing of facts having already been established by direct observation through the rigors of the scientific method, a powerful tool for understanding things near to our size and time.

 

 

 

“ … now he had learnt to see the great, the eternal, the infinite in everything; and therefore – to see it and revel in its contemplation – he naturally threw away the telescope through which he had hitherto been gazing over men’s heads, and joyfully feasted his eyes on the ever-changing, eternally great, unfathomable and infinite life around him.  And the closer he looked, the more tranquil and happier he was.

The awful question that had shattered all his mental edifices in the past – the question: Why?  What for?  – no longer existed for him.”

 

War and Peace

Tolstoy

Book 3, Part 4, Chapter 12

 

 

 

“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 (1200’s)

 

Quoted from within: The Essential Kabbalah

Daniel C. Matt

HarperSanFrancisco 1994

page 103

The quote is cited as being from:

“Abraham Abulafia (thirteenth century),

Hayyei ha-Olam ha-Ba,

in Adolph Jellinek, Philosophie und Kabbala, Erstes Heft

(Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger, 1854)

44-45; cf.

Gershom Scholem

Ha-Qabbalah shel Sefer ha-Temunah ve-shel Avraham Abulafia

(Jerusalem: Akademon, 1969)

210-11

Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 136-137.

 

 

 

 

“…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 (1200’s-1300’s)

 

Quoted from within: The Essential Kabbalah

Daniel C. Matt

HarperSanFrancisco 1994

page 120

The quote is cited as being from:

“Isaac of Akko (thirteenth-fourteenth centuries)

Me’irat Einayim

217

see Gottlieb, Mehqarim be-Sifrut ha-Qabbalah, 235-

 

 

 

 

 

“One night (in a vision) I saw myself conjoined with all the stars of the heaven, being united to each one with a great spiritual joy.  After I had become joined with the stars I was given the letters (of the alphabet) in spiritual marriage.  I told this vision of mine to one who would take it to a man versed in visionary lore, bidding him conceal my name.  When he related my vision to the man, he said:  “This is a measureless ocean and the one who has seen the vision shall have revealed to him knowledge of the highest things, of mysteries, of the properties of the stars, such as will be shared by no one in his time.”   ” 

 

Ibn Arabi

(1165-1240)

Sufis of Andalusia

The Ruh al-quds and al-Durrat al-fakhirah of Ibn ‘Arabi

Translated by R.W.J. Austin

School of Oriental Studies, University of Durham

In a biographical sketch of Ibn ‘Ababi’s life, before the main translation

Beshara publications 2002

Page 35

 

 

 

 

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: Alif, Lam, Mim.  And that’s it.  No explanation.  Just seemingly random individual 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.”

 

Quran And Bible

M.S. Seale 1978

page 30

 

 

 

 

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 Qur'an:

 

“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.”

 

Contemplative disciplines in Sufism

Dr. Mir Valiuddin

East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980

pages 130-131

 

 

 

 

The Sufis, however, are not the only Islamic tradition that sees meaning in the words and individual letters of the Qur'an, 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.”

 

Mediaeval Isma’ili History and Thought

Edited by Farhad Daftary

New York, N.Y. : Cambridge University Press, 1996

pages 79-80

The source is cited within this book as:

Ja’far b. Mansur al-Yaman, Kitab al-Kashf, ed. R Strothmann (London, etc., 1952)

pp 48 ff.;

ed. M. Ghalib (Beirut, 1984)

pp. 54 ff.

 

 

 

 

The earliest known Isma’ili 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 [making the word kun.  … Then through the waw and ya’, which became a name for what is above it, calling it therefore kuni. ”

 

Studies in Early Isma’ilism

S. M. (Samuel Miklos) Stern

Jerusalem Magnes Press, Hebrew University ; Leiden

E.J. Brill, 1983

page 18

 

 

 

“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.”

 

The Shambala Guide to Sufism

Carl W. Ernst

Shambala – Boston & London 1997

Pages 91, 92

 

 

 

 

The most widely used dhikr of all was the name Allah.  Here is how it is carried out in the Chishtiyya order of the Sufis (established in 930):

 

“… 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 (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).”

 

Contemplative disciplines in Sufism

Dr. Mir Valiuddin

East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980

page 104

 

 

 

 

In the Qadiriyya order of the Sufis (established in the 1100’s), 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.”

 

Contemplative disciplines in Sufism

Dr. Mir Valiuddin

East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980

page 53

 

 

 

 

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.”

 

Contemplative disciplines in Sufism

Dr. Mir Valiuddin

East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980

page 64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Someone somewhere once said something like “I won’t answer whether I believe in God or not, until we all agree on the definition of terms.”

We should, likewise, not rush to declare that plants do not have a mind, until we all agree on how exactly we define what a “mind” is, in the first place.

In order to arrive at a definition of God, as specifically understood by the authors of Semitic scripture, we would first have to come to a solid definition of Life and Mind, seeing as the letters in the names of God indicate fundamental basic concepts of lively activity occurring in specific contexts.

 

 

 

If we are made of living creatures communicating and acting together, is this the case with all living creatures?  Is the cell also made of living “cells”?  If nature reveals that we are made of living constituents, and that this is a possible arrangement, then the cell might not be the “basis of all life”, but it might also be “based” on smaller lifeforms!

If we stay within the current model of a finite universe, this is impossible, because there would be nothing smaller than electrons and their friends.  And so, professionals are constrained to offer up definitions of Life by only being allowed to invoke molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles to explain the entire gamut of behaviours and complex designs we see in ecosystems big and small.  Having already declared these bits to be simplistic, machine-like, and lifeless, professionals then resort, in grave error and with scant evidence, to theories such as the “emergence” of complex “network” behaviours from trillions of simplistic machine-like rules, as defined by unbending physics and chemistry equations, magically producing things like you reading and comprehending this sentence and producing everything else that you are.  You are allegedly just a group of lifeless bits and bobs bouncing about, producing your consciousness and your will, by oodles of random interactions between lifeless bits, and when considered together, these simplistic interactions produce the entirety of your thoughts, feelings, desires and intentions?  So then, we are Artificial and Intelligent?  So what’s all the fuss about discovering AI?  Has not Science already proven that we in fact consist only of artificial bits?!

 

Our efforts to search for life outside of our familiar realm is curiously limited to a specific search for living entities like us, living on other planets like ours, playing around with radio dishes like we do.

The very questions we ask ourselves about the nature of our lives, about how our minds work, and how the minds of plants, animals and single cells work, and how the minds of other creatures we have yet to encounter would work, and where we should look to find unique forms of life that we haven’t yet witnessed, and which tool to use – the telescope or the microscope; all of these questions, and many more, are severely limited in their scope and variety, due to the fact that modern science insists on notions such as electrons and the other sub-atomic entities as being indivisible, or that nothing in celestial realms is alive, say, galaxies, perhaps?  Some scientists even claim that smaller levels of things are more simple, so a cell, it is alleged, is a simpler form of life than us, with neurons for example acting as simple transistors; and molecules are simple machines, and even electrons, some allege, are 1-dimensional (literally – we take dimensions away from these alleged smallest parts to the universe).  The smaller the parts, the simpler they get, until, they insist: indivisible or 1-dimensional entities are all that can be found if you manage to rummage around the bottom layer of the universe.  So, our notions of the very nature of life have to conform to this very narrow view of the very fabric of the universe.

There is no way we can address the question of how lifeforms arise, or what is the nature of Life itself, or what is an adequate definition of the minds of living entities; there is no way to address these questions without first realizing that the universe must, by logic and reason, be infinite – that there is infinite detail animating any lifeform.

 

Within the well-sealed bubble of the finite-universe model, it might have seemed enough to ask how it is that a living cell comes to life, by tinkering with and combining molecules or boiling them, mixing them about, cooling them, and zapping them with electricity, trying to simply kick-start the cellular machine, and presto, living animals that are single cells.

OK  Great. 

How does this help us explain the living nature of a living cell, making decisions?  I thought electrons, atoms, and molecules are all just mindless bits that will act and react in only a single possible way, right?

We see the cell through the eyes of modern mechanistic physics and chemistry.  We see sub-atomic particles as machine-like inanimate bits acting in a single possible way pre-determined by the laws of physics and chemistry.  And so, we see any cell as a mere conglomeration of smaller inanimate entities, just bouncing around, flying around, bumping into each other, cementing together, breaking apart, sending goods in specific directions; and all this just so happens to produce a conscious cell that can remember, learn, communicate with other cells, make complex decisions, and act deliberately and in a unified way in the face of multiple signals pressuring it?

If you are just a collection of particles which only act in a single possible way, according to the immutable laws of chemistry and physics, and these are grouped into cells, and you are just a grouping of cells; then do you actually ever make any decisions?  Do you choose anything?  If you do wrong, could you just plead yourself as a victim of the inevitable single possible way your particles and chemicals and cells and organs could have possibly acted?  You had no choice, other than what all of the mathematically predictable particles were pre-destined to do, in each moment?  You are just a bag of lifeless particles and molecules bouncing around in a single possible physical way as described by modern chemistry and physics equations?  Should anybody be culpable of wrong-doing then?  Should anybody celebrate an achievement then?  If we are all just walking bags of tiny absolutely predictable machines that act in a single possible way, then each thought you enjoy and each action you take is the single possible outcome from previous conditions, completely out of your control, so we could save lots of money and close all the courthouses, and cancel all the award ceremonies?!

 

“Artificial intelligence”?

“Intelligence” is a term reserved to judge the quality of the minds of living beings.  If something “artificial” starts acting in a living way, it would no longer be artificial, by definition.

If the explanation of the living nature of a cell is that its behaviour is the product of lifeless bits bouncing around aimlessly and interacting without purpose, as defined by physics and chemistry equations, then this is a claim of artificial intelligence, a logical impossibility – a contradiction in terms.  Whatever you bring forth as an example of artificial intelligence, as a test, would have to, by definition, either be alive and sentient and therefore not artificial; or it is not really truly intelligence that is being demonstrated and more a product of pre-programmed behaviours.  It is:  either / or.   No mix n’ match!

 

 

 

Chemicals can be routinely combined to produce reactions, predictably.  Molecules and atoms can be routinely made to produce predictable effects.

If you smash atoms, the resulting particles exhibit predictable and repeatable effects as a result.

This repeatability – this seemingly absolute predictability of chemicals and particles, can give the sense that chemicals and particles are not alive – that they are just mechanical or simple bits that act and react in a single possible way, as defined by static chemistry and physics equations.

There are plenty of examples of living creatures doing things predictably and repeatedly, even though they may seem random and unpredictable.

A restaurant on a busy street, will basically see a predictable number of guests, and can order a particular amount of food supplies for the week, while the customers will change from day to day, pretty much the same number of guests will eat each week; but each guest decides to eat by totally unique circumstances – these are living decisions, some random, some regular, which, considered over greater time, are predictable and mathematically reducible.  So, each customer, as a living creature, makes a decision to eat, which can be dynamic and unpredictable; but even getting a random taste for lasagna, could be predictable and mathematically reducible, when you consider large populations choosing meals over the week – the chef knows pretty much how many lasagnas need to be baked.

When you fall in love, everything seems fresh, unique, special, different, indescribable, and full of unique experiences that only you and your interest share and understand.  To an old experienced matchmaker, all of what happens in your new relationship is very much predictable, and she can tell if the relationship will work or fail, with a bird’s eye view of hundreds of relationships throughout a lifetime of matchmaking.  To the matchmaker, the wild new random living relationship is simple mathematics.

Road vehicles are governed by people, making decisions, but overall, it can be predicted how many people will attempt to speed, how many people will fail at the tricky on-ramp merge, how many people will fill a certain parking lot, day to day, generally.  Mathematics can be applied to these predictable values, but they are animated by decisions made by living creatures, often random.

 

So.  Predictability and repeatability and regular similar actions and reactions, statistically occurring in a population of entities over time, is not evidence that these entities are not alive!  Therefore:

The statistically predictable nature of chemistry and particle physics – where you are causing (or observing) similar actions and reactions, in a mathematically consistent way, does not exclude the possibility that the chemicals or particles are alive!

 

Imagine a time-lapse video of Grand Central Station, with an array of doors or turnstiles, with people streaming through, and you see rush hours fly by quickly with each passing day of time-lapse footage.  The sped-up footage would produce regular streams – paths of people moving in consistent patterns, with a consistent proportion of them ordering a coffee, a consistent proportion of them ordering a sandwich, a consistent proportion of them are lost and found claimants, a consistent proportion of them go to the loo, a consistent proportion of them look lost, a consistent proportion of them are on the phone, and so on.  From this perspective, we all seem like a bustling beehive, with identical concerns and group mentality and clockwork coordination (predictable).

Now, slow the same footage way down, to super slow-mo, and pay attention to a few individuals.  The decisions they make will seem way more random, like suddenly realizing something new and changing direction, or suddenly deciding to place a phone call, or just randomly deciding to have a coffee as a rare treat.

Individually, our variable living selves (I hope you agree we are not Artificial), our living minds, often temperamental, often driven by wild ideas, often spontaneously deciding on doing something different; close-up, slow-mo – examined individually – we can easily see our living uniqueness.  At the very same time, as part of the hive, considering greater spans of time, examined as a group – we can easily see just how much we conduct ourselves in mathematically predictable ways, although not absolutely predictable.

 

Just because a particular radioactive atom decays at a predictable rate within a population of oodles of atoms of its kind, it doesn’t tell you which atom will randomly decide to do so.  Just because you’ve discovered, measured, and defined a rate of similar activities, in a huge population, considered over vast amounts of time, this does not allow you to declare that the items are lifeless, or that the activity is absolutely predictable.

 

 

 

A virus is basically just a molecule.

A molecule of Nucleic Acid.

This molecule builds a body for itself with a few more molecules like fats and proteins.

This same sort of molecule, in other situations (within a cell), can see to its own repairs, and can even change its own code – as in the case of Somatic HyperMutation.

 

Some viruses live within us and help us function. 

Only 1 percent of this diverse ecosystem within us is estimated to be known.  Virus species are found in nearly every tissue in your body.  Yes, you have cultures of viruses within you, right now.  We are simply blind to what these living molecules are up to, both within us and outside of us.  We don’t even know how much we don’t know about viruses.

 

Some organisms are alive but will not reproduce, for whatever reason - sterile breeding, or reproductive organs not functioning, or for whatever reason.  How then, can we define Life and Mind by “a living entity must reproduce”  and then insist “but a virus reproduces only by taking a host hostage”.  Why would this matter, in defining life, when there are sterile horses, cattle and humans, perfectly alive, with functioning minds.

This would be sort of like saying that the Alcon Blue Butterfly is not alive because its caterpillar is nursed in an ant colony, or that a wasp is not alive because it lays its eggs in caterpillars (sort of).

 

First, we should ascertain whether or not there is a friggin’ whole order of life within us and outside of us, of which we only have rudimentary understanding.  If molecular life is a thing, then innumerable important discoveries are just waiting to be made, in various fields.

 

Basic research can be benefited by basic logical deductions.  Well-reasoned cosmology could be the bedrock of research.  It’s not really about finding answers.  It’s about finding the right questions.  If the questions we ask ourselves are limited to “how do we colonize Mars?” or “where is the dark matter hiding?” or “where is the dark energy hiding?” or “when exactly did the universe begin?” or “what would it feel like to go into a black hole?” or “when will this virus randomly mutate into a new form next – from random changes to its inert (lifeless) programming code instruction-set”.  If these are the sorts of questions we continue to ask ourselves, repeatedly, ad nauseum, at professional and personal levels; History will laugh at our generation(s), for sure, and will disregard our “Science”, and just pick through our raw observations for what they might have actually been worth.  But, that’s my opinion, because I already have my answer regarding this question.  If these few words haven’t convinced you that molecules (and therefore: viruses) are alive, hopefully you can see how the question is well worth asking, and well deserving of an answer.

 

The fact that we can’t even appreciate the living nature of some of our worst foes (and numerous companions), plainly reveals how little we understand the workings of our cells and their living constituents (molecules); and how much would be possible if we were to awaken to the fact that molecules exhibit clear living behaviour.

 

 

 

It has been proclaimed that it is only Genes and the Environment in which they find themselves, which govern all of what occurs within a cell (and, by extension, within you).  100 percent.  The cell is just a passive bag of water and chemicals bobbing and bouncing about – acting only by means of the chemical pressures and signals and by the chemicals produced by the genes within the cell. 

Those are the only two forces determining the activities and fate of the cell, and, by extension, your activities and your fate as a whole.  Lifeless, random, chemical codes being triggered only by pressures and signals from “The Environment”.

Maybe there are many proper scientists who have now (or maybe always had) transcended this myopic silly thinking, but, if this is still the common belief, then one flaw in this notion is:  What of the living minds of your cells?

Like, for example, your muscle-mass is seen as being determined only by combination of x percent of DNA (including epigenetics) and y percent from the environment (like the availability of dumbbells and Frosted Flakes when growing up).  Just genes and “The Environment”.  That’s it?  For 100 percent of all your living activity, day to day, moment to moment?  All of what you are and do is only some combination of genetics and “Environmental” factors?

 

Belly size:

63.25% determined by Genes.

36.75% determined by Environment.

0% determined by the living minds of your cells, and their deliberations and decisions.  Like certain cells craving certain foods when you see them, and sending out their yays – calling out signals to eat those certain foods, maybe contrary to other cells who wish not to deal with the deleterious effects of gluttony and indigestion at this hour.

0% determined by You - your appetite, for example.  The decisions you make.  For example, the way your majority of cells interpret and respond to cravings of those few cells, and how you react as a whole in light of all this controversy.

 

Eyesight:

39.18% Genes

60.82% Environment

0% You (the way you use and treat your eyes, and the number and quality of carrots you choose to eat, etc…)

0% The living minds of your cells.  Like, how motivated they are in general to work hard to improve or repair ailing sub-systems within the visual system.  For another example, if there are new demands for visual processing techniques (like, maybe you just started a new job where you have to read tiny characters all day, or play mix-n’match with products based on visual markers) – individual cells (or clusters of cells) might be generally motivated and able to imagine and implement novel visual processing abilities.

 

 

 

The way in which geneticists, throughout the history of genetics research, make proclamations about what genes mean, cosmologically, like whether or not they can be exploited for profit, without harm, for example, by smashing genes into so-called “junk” regions” which they didn’t understand at all – the way in which they have promoted their opinions, is imbued with witless baseless philosophical notions – yes – many notions promoted in genetics have been philosophical – not scientific.  “Junk DNA” was an opinion, based on philosophical assumptions – that 22,000 lifeless genes is all you need to make you work, for example.

Junk DNA = Junk philosophical opinion.

 

When Science is showered with way too much undeserved authority!

When Science is confused with technology/lab-work – technology for profit!

It is the general public, more importantly, that generally consanted to this monstrosity.

We allowed a billion-dollar fertilizer company to sell us their philosophical opinion that the regions they blasted their genes into had no function, and the genetically-mutated plants should be just as happy in life, and just as adept at, say, water-management as its properly bred genetically-unmutilated progenitor cultivar.

Ph. D.sDoctors of Philosophy employed crap philosophy to (perhaps unwittingly) aid and abet crimes against Nature, all while hiding behind an illusion of being non-philosophical – empirical, factual, solid, evidence-based, peer-reviewed, reasonable, rational, closest to the truth, on the good side of Science.  And we went along for the ride with blinders on.

 

We built our first generation of nuclear power plants before plate tectonics was even accepted, much less developed as a mature science.

Likewise, we blasted regions of DNA before even the scope of subtleties and complexities had yet to fully be ironed out (which remains the case), let alone all the details of all the aspects of encoding biological information, even if we ever do fully iron out the full scope of aspects of genetics.  Heck, we hadn’t even fully sequenced the human genome yet.  We declared 99 percent of the code to be unimportant, just a short while after discovering the basics of the molecule of DNA.  And then, boom!  Let’s treat these creatures like machines – and mess around with their useless junk code, and start forcing people to not even save the seeds from this plant, because we now own this mutilated monster.

Lab-grown genetic monster-animals are clearly an abomination, because we can see that it just ain’t right.  A frog with an eye on its leg, or a hideous cross between two disparate creatures.  It’s ******** obvious.  We just shouldn’t do that.  It is more subtle in plants, but the lack of wholesome integrity is evident there too.  Even in the basic yield, per acre, of the mutilated crop compared with un-engineered un-modified true-bred parent cultivars.  Our hand at playing God (and patenting the creation) was not only a bad idea for the souls of these deeply fundamentally mutilated living creatures, we don’t need this GMO silage to farm properly in this day and age.  We have plenty of other ways of producing crops bountifully and profitably – heaps more ways.

How would you feel if you were part of a test generation for a genetic modification whereby your skin oozes an insecticide, like against mosquitoes.  We would never consider it.  The idea would be very repellent.  That toxic crap always being produced, and the drain on our metabolism, and other possible side-effects, and blasting “junk-DNA” regions to insert this code – with all the possible developmental abnormalities that might ensue.  We would feel the drain on our regular function, and the pain of the toxin on our skin.  Plants are not sentient, they don’t feel pain, they are just machines to produce for our consumption, so who cares about GMO.  Who cares about the life of a mindless jumble of roots, twigs and leaves.

 

 

 

Just as the philosophical interpretation of “Junk DNA” regions has ecological, political, economic and social implications, so too do many other philosophical notions adopted and promoted, like the notion that the life of the cell – the mind of the cell – our own constituents – what we are made of – what makes us who we are – that these are not involved, even .1% in the development and activity and fate of the cell, and of you and your life as a whole.

For one example of why this matters: if this is what is promoted in the classroom today, then the complexities of the society of cells within you might come to be primarily viewed through the eyes of genetics (which has been allotted an inordinate and undue portion of the life-determinism-percentage-pie); then, maybe, diagnosis and treatment of diseases might be addressed only through the tunnelvision of modern genetics, in some cases.  Not only do we lack a full understanding of what Genes do, we also lack a full understanding of what Genes don’t do.  So that’s a problem.

Or, for another example, if a psychiatrist believes that 100 percent of what a mind-condition a patient being treated for is due only to lifeless chemical reactions having been brought about by lifeless molecules encoding previous information (including epi-genetics) – and these lifeless coded molecules are immersed in an Environment that might also promote and bring about the condition – if these are the only two doors of perception employed, maybe this doctor would prescribe chemicals alone to correct the situation along with maybe walking in circles in a park Environment, rather than delving deeply into the life within – the mind produced by the complex society of living organisms within – and the history of this living soul as a whole, and its expectations for the future.

With the Genes/Environment-only view of the world, our dreams (the productions we enjoy while sleeping) are just random lifeless signals firing for no reason, some of which just happen to make prescient points, but it’s all just essentially random.

With the Genes/Environment-only view of the world, complex states of mind, such as Jealousy, Anxiety, Exuberance, Dynamism – often indescribable, have no basis in anything of deeper meaning within – of any sort of culmination of the tapestry of living communities within you working together or against one another at times.

With the Genes/Environment-only view of our lives – it is just lifeless chemicals, particles, governed by physics and chemistry equations, which govern your cells, their minds, and, by extension, your mind as a whole, all ostensibly reducible mathematically!

 

 

 

When an amoeba is confronted with two morsels of food, on either side of itself, at equal distances, it does not extend itself to both morsels at the same time; it instead tackles one piece of food, then another.  The amoeba is not drawn to the food by some lifeless chemical interaction between it and the food.  It is not going to move toward both food morsels at the same time, stretching two legs in both directions, unable to reach either morsel.  It is alive.  It has a mind.  It understands what eating is all about.

So too do our single cells make individual decisions.  We each have trillions of minds within.  Each may be receiving tens of different kinds of chemical and electrical signals, all the time, but chooses only to do specific things, one at a time, deliberately, in a unified fashion.

 

Single cells are conscious of their environment and of their own selves.

Single cells remember.

Single cells learn.

Single cells adapt to unforeseen circumstances.

Single cells fashion weapons and tools.

Single cells hunt specific prey.

Single cells fashion homes for themselves.

Single cells seek out a mate.

Single cells are each independent living creatures, with a mind of their own.

 

You consist of 37 trillion of these unique distinct living souls.

 

Single cells can fight with other cells. For this to occur, they must be conscious of one another and of their changing position, they must be able to remember one another between hits, they must have thought about the matter in some way (although maybe not all that wisely), each must have some sort of opinion of the other, each must have a will to attack (or to defend if that is the case).

 

You are a vast network of trillions of microscopic living creatures, tiny octopuses, interacting together, each with their own bewildering intricacies, which nobody will ever fully understand, and whose behaviour nobody will ever be able to fully predict.

Your cells each have a mind of their own.  And you have a mind of your own.  Yet, “you” are “your” cells.  Your distinct mind is the result of the common experience and common activity of a group of cells – a group of distinct minds.  You, are thinking about “your” cells, with your cells.

 

 

 

A popular misconception among both scientists and consumers of science, is that we only use a small portion of our brains, and if we could only boost our brain-power closer to 100 percent, all the world’s problems will be solved.

This notion demonstrates just how narrow and specialized Science has become, (with Science having once been called “Natural Philosophy”, a more generalized and integrative pursuit).

A single cell, acting alone, in nature, without sending electrical signals to others, is still working and thinking and accomplishing things!  Just because somebody is not constantly conversing or otherwise signalling others in a group, does not mean they are not working to contribute later!  When cellular communication/interaction doesn’t show up on the MRI scan, this does not prove that the cells are not individually busy thinking things through, maybe preparing for future contributions, or maybe just tending to its own needs, so that it may be able to contribute later.

Even in the most complex co-ordinated project or activity, like the NASA moon-landing program, for example, involving hundreds of thousands of people, even in this multi-year intensely-concerted and inter-disciplinary effort, you didn’t have every scientist and engineer constantly communicating and working with every other scientist and engineer, every moment of every day, all the time.  That’s silly.  So too do all of your cells, even during a concerted effort, don’t necessarily all have to be talking and interacting with all other cells, each moment, for there to be a concerted effort at play!  When a solitary engineer, designing a particular gadget for the space capsule, sitting in a room, drawing on a drafting table, in isolation at that moment, without communicating at the moment, is still contributing to the group – still contributing to the NASA mission, at that moment, even though it would only later be evident.  When a single cell is contemplating, individually, the business of the day, and how to solve issues, without communicating at that moment, if it figures things out, it is contributing to you as a whole, but this would only be visible on the MRI scan later, when it communicates the ideas to others.

Our minds cannot possibly be defined by brain signalling alone.

More brain signalling does not necessarily mean more elaborate or effective brain function.

Less can be more.

The mind is not merely found within the brain alone.

MRI surely does not reveal all forms of signalling.

 

 

 

The distinct nature of cellular constituents would be way more obvious in the mind of a tiny worm, a few hundred cells big, compared with us.  With our 37 trillion cells, conversations involve so many more individuals participating, and their contributions blend into and get smoothed out by the sheer number of participating individuals.  But, in a tiny worm, the conversations would be clearly instigated by particular individuals, which the other cells will probably be personally familiar with, and can sense and get to know and remember individual cells and the way they usually contribute to the group (worm). 

We, on the other hand, have so many more cells that it is not obvious that we are made of cells.  We have so many cells that conversations between them can get convoluted or fragmented or lost in the mix, while also offering a wider range of possible ideas to ponder, and a wider range of individuals to focus on specific things, or to bring up and keep specific topics in mind. 

The sheer number of cells within us, is one element that helps to give the sense of a uniform distinct mind of our own.

If we were only 100 cells big, it would probably be obvious to everybody when two cells are having a conversation.  In other words, it would be harder to have sub-conscious thoughts, seeing as everybody is so near to everybody else, and can hear everybody else much clearer compared to our network of 37 trillion.  In a worm 100 cells big, there would still be sub-conscious thought at play, but it would be mostly from within cells, rather than between cells.

 

 

 

The remarkable phenomenon of Savants – rare individuals with uncanny specific abilities, like Alonzo Clemens, who can sculpt intricate clay models of animals, from memory alone, within tens of minutes, even in the dark; or Leslie Lemke, blind, autistic, with brain damage, is able to reproduce an elaborate piano composition after hearing it just once, just as beautifully and technically proficient as the recording he hears; or George Finn, who can give you the day of the week for any date between the year 1 and the year…..  who knows… at least 90,000 years from now, and he can do this within seconds, without a calendar app projecting the answer on his eye glasses:

 

Morley Safer:   “What day of the week was May 30th in the year 1”

 

George Finn:  (within seconds)  “May 30th in the year one was on a Wednesday.”  (stated as a matter fact)

 

Morley Safer:   “What makes his talent so extraordinary, is that with his limited intellectual capabilities, he cannot multiply even the simplest numbers.”

 

Morley Safer:   “I would like to try some math questions with you if you don’t mind.  Some arithmetic.  Could you do 3 times 2.”

 

George Finn:   “3 times 2 is uh… , is it uh… , 7?

 

Morley Safer:   “Or, howbout 5 times 7.”

 

George Finn:   “5 times 7 might be … … , 50 …”

 

Morley Safer:   “Besides calculating days and dates, George also remembers the weather for each day of his adult life.  We checked him against the weather service, and of course, he was right.”

 

Morley Safer:   “November 3rd 1958, what kind of day was it?”

 

George Finn:   “It was a cloudy day, it was on a Monday, it was cloudy that day …  that’s right.

 

Morley Safer:   “It was.”

 

George Finn:   “And there were snow flurries that morning …  very cold … little bit of rain drops too.”

 

Morley Safer:   “Windy?”

 

George Finn:   “Yes, windy.”

 

Morley Safer:   “Howbout May 2nd 1940.”

 

George Finn:   “That fell on a Wednesday.”

 

Morley Safer:   “What was the weather like?”

 

George Finn:   “I can’t tell, I was too [young], I was only an infant baby.”

 

Morley Safer:   “Do you know how you do it?”

 

George Finn:   “I don’t know.  That’s fantastic that I can do that!”

 

Morley Safer:   “But how do you do it?”

 

George Finn:   “I dunno.”

 

Morley Safer:   “What happens inside your head?”

 

George Finn:   “I’ve got a good mind, that’s why I do it.”

 

Morley Safer:   “What day is June 6th, in the year … … 91360?”

 

George Finn:   “Ninety-one thousand, three hundred and sixty …  … June the 6th … … it would be on a … … it’ll be on a … … Friday.”  (twelve seconds after the question was posed)

 

Morley Safer:  (astonished)   “Well, you’re remarkable and it has been a great pleasure to meet you.”

 

George Finn:  (all excited)   “I’m glad to … what’s your name again?”

 

Morley Safer:   “Morley.”

 

George Finn:   “Morley, I am glad to meet you.  I will remember this day as long as I live.”

 

60 minutes

October 23, 1983

 

 

This reveals sooooo many mysteries.

How in the world can this possibly be?

Just unusual wiring?

Just instinct?

Just DNA?

Just overactive regions of the brain?

 

Imagine how these individuals are treated during dark ages, when superstition would condemn them to a lifetime of suspicion of witchcraft or devil-worship, in need of an exorcism.  Some are surely taken as prophets, with God assumed to be speaking through them, in very specific ways.  I wonder what was asked of people like George Finn, in countless dark ages, asking them to produce wonders and to foretell the future, and maybe even beckoned to determine the will of God.

 

George Finn is not concentrating on each detail of calculation at the forefront of his consciousness.  He is instead letting sub-conscious cellular groups perform the incredibly complex series of calculations.  He is listening rather than thinking actively.  When he is asked to multiply 2 times 3, he is waiting for the answer to come to him, rather than setting about to comprehend the question and do the work as a whole unified mind, step by step.

It may be that, initially, George Finn had thought long and hard about how the calendar works, at its most basic and simplistic level, and having concentrated on the basic workings of the calendar for a time, wound up engendering certain cells within him to become proficient, even to the point of “automatically” running long series of calendric calculations, in good time.

This form of thought can be sub-conscious, and it can be engendered in your cells in various ways, and can involve subject matter much much much more interesting than calculating dates.

 

The authors of Semitic scripture, having imbued meaning into the letters of their common alphabet, with symbols referring to universal properties of the infinite eternal universe, enabled a way for deep contemplation.  If you choose to study Semitic scripture deeply, learning all the terms, and maybe even memorizing sections, or entire books; the mind is full of vocabulary and intricate stories incorporating this vocabulary.  With the words having been coined with more fundamental concepts within each letter, the interplay of meaning between words can lend itself to seemingly “automatic” realizations upon deep contemplation, which can then take on a life of its own as your cells may, on their own, notice new connections between letters, terms, and plot-points from the books.  You may not initially realize the full meaning of certain words and verses upon first reading, but by your cells comparing them to other similar words and stories, in fine detail, the intended richness of meaning may become apparent to them, which, if they manage to relay their findings to a good majority of your other cells, would bring this to the forefront of your consciousness.  When such seemingly automatic or spontaneous cellular realizations occur in great number and rapid succession, it can be overwhelming.  This is the core of all of those quotes from the Semitic mystics related above.

There is nothing irrational about this Semitic-style letter-based mystical practice.  It is simply not understood.

What is irrational is for those who have not studied the original scripture with its original coded vocabulary in the original alphabet, to then attempt the same experience, by staring at Tarot cards, drawn at random, to get “inspired” by the cards representing the Hebrew letters.  How can the Tarot possibly mean anything to a mind that has no Hebrew vocabulary from which to draw upon?  If one utters a “magic spell”, for example, and doesn’t know the meaning of the letters, hasn’t studied any vocabulary, and hasn’t delved into the original texts of the Bible or the Qur’an, it can only be a fruitless and unfulfilling experience.  It would be analogous to George Finn never having been first instructed on how the calendar works.

 

 

 

“My son, it is not the intention that you come to halt with some finite or given form, even though it be of the highest order.  Much rather is this the “path of the names”:  the less understandable they are, the higher their order, until you arrive at the activity of a force which is no longer in your control, but rather your reason and your thought is in its control….

 

And he produced books for me made up of [combinations of] letters and names and mystic numbers [gematriot] of which nobody will ever be able to understand anything, for they are not composed in a manner meant to be understood.  He said to me: “This is the [undefiled] path of the names.”  ”

 

Moshe Idel quotes this on page 235 of Kabbalah: New Perspectives

He refers to it as a quote from a disciple of Abraham Abulafia’s. 

Moshe Idel’s note:

“The author is an anonymous late thirteenth century Kabbalist, whose ecstatic experiences are described in his Sefer Sha’arey Zedek, from which I quote here Scholem’s translations in Major Trends, pp. 149-150.”

 

 

 

“Ecstatic” experience while contemplating upon combinations of letters, is understood here as the activity of your living constituents who deliberate upon and effect new thought and activity from their own realization of the interrelationships between the meanings of the words they are working with, and their constituent letters.

With your cellular constituents experiencing life and acting in their lives at a relatively accelerated rate than we do in our lives, their internal individual thoughts (the thoughts of individual cells contemplating the ties of meaning of the letters between various words) – their internal individual thoughts which may lead them to discover parallels between words and phrases and themes within books – on their own, which can cause them to get really excited about the matter, and just as with dreams, these individual cells may have a hard time communicating their newfound realizations.

When a whole bunch of cells get hypnotised like this and go down the letter-symbolism rabbit-hole in a concerted effort, it can distract you as a whole, especially if these cells are hooting and hollering loudly what they have discovered, and so you might have a sense of being lost in a thousand thoughts all at once, and this might be overwhelming, especially if many other cells also understand both what’s going on and the implications.

With the congruency of symbolism between words being inherent in each letter that your mind processes, discoveries of commonality across words based upon the meaning of the letters may take on a life of its own within you, exciting many interactive processes between your constituents which may become uncontrollable by those constituents of yours who are in charge or try to be in charge of maintaining your regular focus (like, let’s say your Thalamus is busy trying to get your attention on certain things, but your language nuclei, like Brocca’s Area, are overactive and have overpowered communications lines).

With other languages, this interactivity between constituents responsible for storing and retrieving letters and words in your cellular networks – remains a dead interactivity, just a raw access of associations between the meaning of symbols and their corresponding sounds – instead of possibly instigating a deeper discussion between cells concerning the correlations between words, based on their constituent letters – this communication within is absent when using other languages.

 

This is not the be-all end-all of mystical experiences, nor is this the only means that these specific cells (language-processing cells) can come to wildly realize things.   Any cell, by many means, can come to communicate concerning deep matters within themselves and with other cells – without the need of letters or any other symbol – even in the language centers of the brain (and even outside the brain).  So, not knowing Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic, and not knowing any scripture at all, does not prohibit you from experiencing deep mystical contemplative experiences!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With individual cells having a mind of their own, when 2 or more cells get together, their communication and interaction involves the minds of those individuals.  Therefore, even if this group of cells decides to plant itself in one spot in the soil, becoming what we call a “plant”, it still, at the very least, has the minds of the individual cells animating it, even if you can’t accept that the plant has a distinct unified mind as a whole.

 

 

 

There are over 100 million cells in the retina of each of your eyes.  So, that’s 100 million “pixels”.  We will assume that each cell only transmits a simple one-color signal at a time, although they might in fact send more detail than this individually.  So, that’s at least 100 million distinct electrical signals being relayed to other cells in your body.  Now, it cannot possibly be that all of those 100 million bits remain separate and it then takes 100 million cells to reproduce the image in your memory.  Like, when you see a dog, and then recall the sight of the dog in memory, when you recall that image, it cannot possibly be that 100 million cells are each re-broadcasting individual pixels again.  Surely signals between cells, like a visual, are combined into images that can be stored within and transferred between single cells.  When a neuron is processing your vision to determine if an object is horizontal, for example, surely it is not receiving 100 million pixels from 100 million cells!  Your visual stream is processed by countless cells each second, to assess all sorts of things like immediate threats or specific directionalities of motion over time.  Surely each of these cells is receiving a combined signal – where the pixels have been combined into discrete images, if not a well-ordered stream like a television signal.

By the simple fact that you have 2 eyes, combining to form a single image, proves, at the very least that 200 million pixels get combined into something more unitary and more easily transferable than the incoming streams from 200 million cells in two eyes.

 

Plant cells can communicate between each other using the same electrical signals our cells use.

Plant cells are masters at capturing single photons and manipulating them to wind up sugar molecules.

What if a plant cell can inform adjacent plant cells of the current color and intensity of light waves coming in from a particular direction?

What if plants are able to build a 360-degree field of view, with multiple overlapping signals producing a clear crisp detailed and real-time view of the world around them?  In other words: what if leaves double as cameras, in a particular direction of view, which is then stitched to images from other leaves, to provide a somewhat coherent 360 view around the plant?  (Quivering Aspen must be a really dizzy creature then… :)

What if the sub-division nature of a plant, with the trunk dividing into branches, dividing into stems, dividing into leaves; what if this bifurcative nature also offers a pathway for signals to be combined on their way back to the central trunk, thereby informing root and shoot tips what’s going on in the world and within the plant, with combined distinct signal streams of sights, sounds, smells and tactile sensations; all coming together at the trunk and tips, then maybe the combined stream is then re-broadcast to all the cells back out to the leaves, so that the west side of a tree generally knows what’s going on at the east side, and vice versa, through a common 360-view TV signal that all cells receive, free of charge, along with the smello-vision add-on?

If our cells can combine signals into packets which a single cell can store and distribute, maybe plant cells can do the same.  If this is so, broadcasting a single TV signal to all cells within a plant, via a combined single stream, might not be such a big deal to pull off.

 

Cell walls are see-through.

The insides of a cell is not just an empty boring bag of water.  It is an intricately ordered and textured network, which looks more a like a beehive of structured and ordered molecules, rather than an empty bag of water.

What if two cells touching each other, like at a synapse, are in fact, broadcasting images to one another, and the neurotransmitter is just to get the other cell to pay attention?  If so, any cell would potentially be able to interact with any other cell to form a new unified multi-cellular creature, or at least an instance of living activity between them, even if they don’t stick together to persist as a living creature thereafter.

Even though we don’t give credit to individual plant cells as being anything like our majestic neurons, we admit, begrudgingly, that they use the same neurotransmitters as do our neurons!  How dare they confuse the issue of our intellectual superiority by employing the very same chemical pathways our brain cells use to produce things like you comprehending this paragraph.

 

 

      

When two or more cells begin to communicate and do things together, they inherently form a new living entity, with a mind of its own.

When two or more people begin to communicate and do things together, they inherently form a new living entity, with a mind of its own.

 

 

 

How do you go about understanding yourself?

How can you know, fully and completely, all of what you are?

How do you define a life-form, such as yourself?

How do you define a mind, such as your own?

  

Generations of medical scientists worked hard so that you can understand how your heart works, how your bones work, how your muscles work, and many other essential things.

If you were to scan and analyze every organ and tissue within you, thereby coming to understand the nature and current state of all your organs, would this be enough to understand yourself fully?

 

Generations of chemists have worked hard so that you can understand the components of the food you eat, and things like acidity of foods, the nature of the fats and of sugars, and of the enzymes that work to keep you going, and the nature of the air you breathe, and why you exhale certain chemicals, and inhale others.

If you were to have all of the chemicals within you listed and documented, as they are, right now, within you (supposing you could grasp all of that information), would this now be enough to understand all of what you are?

 

Generations of particle physicists have worked hard so that you can understand the different types of electric waves that stream through and throughout you, along with the magnetism this induces, helping to understand, among other things, how your cells signal one another; and they've studied thermodynamics, which helps you understand your body heat, and other things at the super-microscopic level, to help you understand how you work.

If you were to be analyzed and given an inventory of the populations of electric waves streaming through you, and being directed and channelled by your cells, and of all the other particles flowing through and throughout you, and all the details of your body heat emanating from you, or heat being absorbed by you from your surroundings.  If this were all shown to you, in detail, would this then satisfy you - to understand all of what you are, fully?  Could you then define yourself fully?

 

 

Generations of builders and engineers have worked hard so that you can sit in a cozy chair, in a warm room, reading on a computer, the design and construction of which is far beyond your abilities.  Imagine all the careers of dedicated technicians working to design even the fridge that keeps your food from spoiling.  Most of these people have probably long since passed away.  Chemists had to figure out the right gas mixture.  Electrical engineers had to figure out how to supply the power and how to make the pump motor move.  Although you may "purchase" a fridge, it is not really your own - it is the result of the hard work of probably thousands of people.  The way you live in your home is the result of generations of people coming up with habits, customs and rules on what conduct is proper, and what is expected.  You have inherited much from generations of people, like maybe how to cook a tasty soup, or maybe how to tie your shoelace properly, or how to receive guests in the particular culture you are immersed within.

If all of the details of your home life, from the availability of water, electricity and other utilities, the soundness of the structure you live in, the nature and current state of those you live with, and the nature of your neighbours, and the history of all of your ancestors.  If all this were presented before you, and were to be taken into account, would this then finally satisfy you, to fully understand and define all of who you are, completely?

 

Generations of farmers, all over the world, have developed methods for growing food for you, along with generations of mechanics and drivers to convey it to you.  Generations of engineers worked to design and perfect the roadways you use every day, and people you will never meet made the sidewalk you walk on every day.  The general state of the society you live in, and all its complexities, and its history, how things around you got to the way they are, all this affects how you live, day to day, and affects even how you are reading this sentence, right now.  The very fact that you are simply reading this right now, is dependent upon countless factors and goings-on in the vast world surrounding you, for millennia.

If you were to be shown the history of your society, all of the contributions of its members, and all of the inner workings of the institutions that govern it, and the hearts and minds of all those in your society, if you were shown all this, and could grasp it all, would this then be enough to fully understand and define all of you?

 

The society in which you live is affected by other societies on earth, and earthly conditions, like climate, when the rains come, how humid it is, how cold or hot you are right now, if food is abundant in the field right now, and all these are globally interconnected conditions which affect you.  Generations of meteorologists, geologists, ecologists, oceanographers, glaciologists and others, have put together a picture of how things work on Earth, like how the winds circle the earth, and why your home receives the amount of rain or sunshine that it does, which may be affecting your mood, and maybe even be affecting how you are reading this sentence, right now.

If you were to study all of the details of the entire earth, all of the trends, conflicts, success stories, floods, droughts, hurricanes, states of abundance, and the state of all the wildlife, air quality, El Nino oscillations, etc... (supposing you could digest all that information), would this then be enough, for you to fully understand how you came to be, and how you are currently existing, and all of what you are, fully and completely?

 

Earth-life is dwarfed by the power of the sun, and surface life is completely dependent upon its output.  The sun’s output is variable, oscillating from active to quiet in a cycle that lasts roughly 11 years, and reverses its magnetic polarity at the end of each cycle. The activity of the sun can diminish for generations, with fewer sunspots, indicating diminished crop-growing sun-power.  The aurora can disappear for generations.  These cold spells affect human civilizations profoundly.  If you were to be brought into the middle of the Little Ice Age, say, in the 1690’s, your view of the world, of the Sun, and of your prospects, would be very very different.  On the other hand, when the sun gets really active, it can spew out massive ejections of charged particles, which can bombard the earth, zapping the electrical grid on which your fridge depends.

If you were to be shown all of the details of earth's celestial environment - all of the electrical interplay, all of the solar wind, all of the gravitational effects of the planets upon the earth, all of the meteor streams it crosses, and even be shown the nature of our galaxy, and how the sun is affected by changes in the galaxy over time, and even be shown all of the details of all of the galaxies, and all of the galaxy clusters, and how this all relates back to you, sitting here, reading this (supposing you could comprehend all of that information), would this finally satisfy you, to fully understand all of what you are right now?

 

 

 

At which point can you truly say that this or that specific entity does not affect you?

Where would you draw the line?

At which point can you safely ignore a particular entity, certain that it would provide no insight into your nature, to help you understand yourself fully?

 

 

 

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 would be frozen in your 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 (completely) without understanding all of their constituents as well (completely), right down through to all of your constituents, and their constituents, and so on.

 

 

 

When you consider a specific cell within you, you can’t help but to define it as part of you.  The way a particular cell within you differentiates, and acts and reacts to things, is intimately tied in with the nature of you as a whole, and its position within you.

Likewise, if you were the size of a planet, looking down on us, you would not be able to satisfactorily define us individuals without understanding the Earth upon which we live.  The way we grow, walk, and talk, are all intimately tied in with the nature of conditions on the surface of Earth.

The full definition of a living entity is more than just a sum of interaction between its immediate parts.  A living entity is the end result of infinite living interactions within, and infinite living interactions outside, and infinite living interactions occurring through it at all times.  Although true and accurate, this definition of Life is a little broad and unspecific to work with.  It is easier to define a living entity as merely a group of smaller living entities, communicating and acting together.  Although this suggests and implies separateness from the rest of the infinite universe and makes the notion of the infinite tree of life seem reductionist and simplistic, it is much easier to communicate things using this limited definition of Life.

The full definition of the mind of a living entity is more than just the sum of signals – sum of echoes – sum of communication, between its immediate constituents, like electrical signalling between your cells.  The mind of any living entity is the end result of infinite signals, infinite echoes, infinite communication, between living entities inside, outside and moving through it, at all times.  Although true and accurate, this definition of Mind is a little broad and unspecific to work with.  It is easier to define a mind as the sum total of signalling – sum of echoes – sum of communication, only between the immediate living constituents of a living entity.  Although this suggests and implies separateness from the rest of the infinite universe and implies that our minds can be reduced simply to the minds of our cells working in tandem, without any mention of the myriad of other signals our minds are immersed within and muck about with; it is much easier to communicate things using this limited definition of Mind.

 

 

 

The processes of the mind found among all living entities, things like consciousness, memory, thought, understanding, and will; these would also need defining before attempting to decode Semitic scripture, seeing as these are many of the central figures at play in the narratives.  Doing so might also help in us beginning to treat plants and animals with much greater respect, or to at least consider their life-situation with greater care.

      

 

 

Each living entity has a mind, in that each living entity can be conscious of what is outside itself, conscious of what is inside itself, can remember what it has been conscious of, can contemplate upon what it remembers, and can act in a coordinated way in context with this thinking, to do what it has a will to achieve.

 

For example, when a plant root tip is growing, and it is sensing which direction to move and grow toward, the cells want to find the best path toward nutritious comfortable soil, and they can sense their surroundings, like water or gravity, they can remember from moment to moment where the bad directions are and where the good directions are, and can systematically adjust growth and motion to change directions in the soil, and as all the different cells in the plant root tip discuss the different options at each moment – what sort of coordinated motion and growth patterns to execute, their deliberation, no matter how heated the debate gets in desperate times of drought, or being stuck in a lazy gardener’s backyard – no matter what the drama that drives the conversation between the cells at the tip of the plant root – their communication – their banter – that is thought.

In a plant with millions of root tips, this local thought would almost certainly be sub-conscious local thought most or all the time, only rarely sending loud signals to other parts of the plant that might be hearkened unto by the other roots or the above-ground organs as well.  But, maybe root crops, or plants with only a few major roots (Rhubarb, Asparagus), maybe in this case the dominance of individual root tips and their deliberations would take greater prominence at the forefront of the plant’s mind as a whole?  Mmmmmmmm….   Food for thought!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can become conscious of a thing only by encountering it physically, or by physically encountering an echo of other things encountering it physically.  No matter which way you go about being conscious of anything, there would always have to be some sort of motion of real matter between you and the thing you are conscious of, no matter how many times the echo has to be relayed, no matter how different the entities passing along the echo may be, whether the echo is relayed by living entities or by non-living entities, no matter how accurate a signal is being relayed.  To be indirectly conscious of something (without touching directly), some sort of thing or stuff, whatever it may be, has to bounce from or be emitted from what you are conscious of and reach you, physically. 

A small fish might become conscious of a shark by rays of light bouncing off the shark, and into the small fish’s eye, then that signal of light is broadcast to the other cells in the fish (“echoes” of the rays of light reach the other fish cells).

If some of the fish cells get bit by the shark, the cells in the afflicted region can send echoes of that painful bite to the other cells in the fish, thereby producing an instance of self-consciousness.

In whatever manner the cells of a fish can all receive a similar echo of what’s going on in the world, the multi-cellular organism as a whole can become conscious of things, from those common experiences – those common signals – the common receipt of those echoes of events by all the cells at generally the same moment. 

Just as we don't all read the same newspaper, every day, at the same time, so too do certain cells within you focus on specific things moreso than other cells.  Particular states of consciousness can have varying degrees of being broadcast to some portion of your cellular population.  The echoes of events don't necessarily propagate their way and register all the way down the line, with every last one of your 37 trillion cells, for every event.

Just as we don’t all read the same newspaper at the same time, so too do our cells receive echoes of events in succession, no matter how fast that succession may proceed.  Imagine a creature, in just a simple disk shape, but just one cell thick, and now imagine a common thing to be conscious of, like a ray of sunlight.  If all the cells are directly conscious of the ray of sunlight, when a ray appeared all of a sudden in a general glow over the whole disk, without the need to transfer an echo of this experience of light for the whole organism to be conscious of the ray of light; even so, even in this case, if you were to slow the event way down, and I mean like wayyyyyyyyyyyyy down, you would notice that one light wave struck one cell first, then another, so that even with this direct contact with the ray of light, the whole creature is still conscious of the ray of light in some sort of succession among its cells.  No realization is truly instantaneous.

 

 

 

Every process in the mind of all living entities involves these echoes – these actual physical things that are bouncing around – physical entities, alive or not, relaying echoes of events between and throughout its living constituents, like tiny electrons bouncing between and throughout your cells.

The echoes can be passed along by multiple entities in succession, and some of the entities passing along the echo might be so small and intangible that it seems like some sort of non-physical spirit is at work, but whatever that is, it is still physical entities, alive or not, transferring those echoes between living constituents.

 

 

 

When living constituents of a living entity want to discuss things, share their opinions, reminisce or recollect with others on past events, coordinate some future activity, or maybe just uselessly banter about trivialities, they do so by tossing signals between one another, and these signals are physical in nature, either living or not living.

This is what we call "thought".  Your cells bouncing ideas around, or trying to get other cells to do something in particular, or maybe to perform a rehearsed scripted play to the other trillions of cells within you.  Whatever the business may be between multiple living entities within, their communication is the process we call "thought".

Some thespian cells may have been paying attention to what was going on with your life during the day (the combined life experience of all of your cells – of all your 37 trillion cells), and are trying to get you to watch their scripted production at night, maybe to prove a point, or maybe to make a joke, or maybe to foreshadow what tomorrow will bring, or maybe to point out something the other 37 trillion cells forgot about or failed to notice during the day.

Just as you may, at a given time, communicate with a particular individual in a group, without informing the rest of the group of the conversation, so too are many thoughts within yourself not broadcast to all of your other cells.  They may be broadcast at a later date, to the other cells, but the original discussion would be a sub-conscious thought.

 

Every process of the mind can simply be understood as some sort of combination of consciousness and thought (as specifically defined above).

The various ways in which memory can persist or be brought to consciousness, are as numerous as the various ways in which an echo can be re-propagated or re-instigated after forming some sort of mark on structure of some sort, allowing the echo to reverberate back to active signals again.  Memory could just be called Re-Consciousness.  The structure echoes can make a mark upon, can even consist of living entities (even associated indirectly – an indirect structure).  For memory to register, the re-instigated echoes must reach living constituents of yours.

One can remember a thought – a discussion between living constituents (like your cells).  This is what we call “understanding” or “beliefs” – the memory of thought.

Perception is when consciousness occurs, and some living constituents bring certain associated memories to mind – they broadcast something else as a result of being conscious of something.  It may have more to do with automatic associations, in some cases, rather than thinking deeply.  The association (structure) could have been previously formed by thinking, or they could have been associated by countless other means, and maybe only shallow thinking is then applied when the association is brought to consciousness.

Volition is simply thought (communication between living constituents), where one or more living constituents is trying to get the other constituents in the group to do something.

Wisdom and Intelligence are not distinct processes of the mind – they are subjective judgment calls on the quality of thought – a wise creature or an intelligent creature, is one who is very "good" at thinking.  What one may see as wise, another might judge to be not so wise at all.

 

There is no such thing as “extra-sensory perception”.  If you sense something outside of the senses that you have defined, this does not allow to define your experience as coming from outside of actual physical entities interacting – sending signals that physically reach your living cells somehow.  The “sense” at play is simply undefined, and may be microscopic, but it is still requires physical events – signals – echoes being relayed.

 

A living entity cannot know, observe, sense or otherwise be conscious of the entire infinite universe – all its unique finite entities, even with the most sophisticated instruments or the most broadly travelled messengers or other intermediaries, or by focusing and redirecting echoes of other things toward itself, or by referring to associated groups of things with numbers or any other kind of symbol.  Here are just a few reasons why:

 

If consciousness can only occur with resistance – the echoes from events bouncing onto you and bouncing through and between your living constituents, then when you are busy encountering one thing, your capacity to encounter other things is physically blocked at that point. 

The intermediaries you encounter (the entities transferring signals and echoes), which make you conscious of other entities indirectly, also have the infinite within, so when you focus on the source of the intermediaries instead of the intermediaries themselves, you are excluding all of that infinite information.

If there are infinite entities moving in infinite different directions, then how could they ever all be going toward you or sending echoes toward you for you to be conscious of them all.

Signals and echoes eventually fade because they are incessantly encountering resistance themselves, however slight that resistance might be. There is no absolute vacuum where echoes could propagate forever without encountering resistance to slow them down.

Seeing as all of what you are conscious is relayed as echoes – delayed signals – signals from the past, then by the time you are finally conscious of something, it has already changed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has only ever been and will forever be now.  Everything is constantly changing, or, more precisely: nothing ever stands still. The now is always unfolding into something new, but it still remains now.

During the now, we may become conscious of echoes of what used to be in the now, in a past moment in the eternal ever-present universe.

During the now, we may forecast what the now will look like, in a future moment in the eternal ever-present universe.

But the recalling and the forecasting only ever take place in the now. 

 

Time is a useful concept.  Speed is a useful concept.  Rhythms of things happening over time – that’s a useful concept.  These abstract concepts, with only loose ties to the reality of the ever-present universe, are useful ways of thinking about the now – what the now was like in the past, and projecting what the now might be like in the future.

 

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 infinite entities, which are moving in ever-changing unique ways.

Even though there may be no inherent speed limit, this does not mean that any entity can manage to speed up endlessly without any sort of restriction, to infinite speed.  That’s impossible, for many reasons.  Each entity is incessantly encountering others, even if this resistance is imperceptible to us.  There is no vacuum – no absolutely void space anywhere, in which an entity may cease to act upon or cease to be acted upon by other entities.  There may be areas void of certain kinds of entities, but within this “void” are innumerable itty bitty entities even if they are imperceptible to us.

 

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

A fly perceives you as lumbering around slowly, like we perceive elephants lumbering around slowly.  An elephant perceives you moving around quickly like you perceive a mouse scurrying around.  A fly can be fully conscious of something much quicker than you because it has fewer cells to broadcast the echoes of consciousness.  This is why we are so “bugged” by bugs.

It generally takes longer for a single message to propagate throughout the consciousness of an elephant than it does in creatures smaller than the elephant.  In other words, it generally takes more time for an echo to propagate from the first cell to all the other cells within an elephant, than it does within a fly.  The echoes and signals are moving through and between roughly the same kinds of constituents (cells, tissues and organs), but in the case of the elephant, the echoes and signals are moving throughout a much larger grouping – a larger broadcasting area.   Therefore, many signals can be broadcast throughout your consciousness in the same period that it takes to send only one signal throughout the elephant’s consciousness. 

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 folk seemed to behave so much slower; and once you are fully grown, kids seem to behave with such greater speed compared to what you remember from your youth.  This is why elephants are annoyed by mice scurrying around them – the same reason we are annoyed by flies scurrying around us.

 

This applies not only to consciousness, it also applies to any other aspect of the mind.  All processes of the mind involve echoes in motion – echoes from events of resistance with other things, therefore the size of the living entity hosting the mind affects the speed at which all of the processes of that mind operate.

 

 

 

Super-small entities, relative to you, enjoy such extremely speedier 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.

 

If you were the size of an atom, you would see things flying around the nucleus much slower; and if you were the size of a planet, you would see things flying around the sun much quicker.

 

 

 

When you perceive the regular action of really large entities, from your size, like watching the earth slowly 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, compared with the actions of smaller entities.  Seeing as the actions 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, and are therefore limited in being able to discern the 'paths' or 'directions' or 'functions' of the earth, if any, and how it changes, if it does so noticeably through the course of its existence.

When you perceive the activities of super-small entities, from your size, like watching electrons quickly spin around the nucleus, you see so many more repetitions of the activity, so you can get a sense of their ultimate effect and purposes and inter-relationships with other things, by observing the combined effect of countless repetitions of activities, but because of the speed of activity and change, the physical properties and location of the things involved becomes harder to pinpoint.

 

The larger the entities you look at, the more you lose track of their activity, until you end up looking at galaxies, where you can’t understand much of their activity at all, you’re instead stuck staring at a still photograph – you’re stuck analyzing their physical properties at a very static and knowable location.

The smaller the entities you look at, the more you lose track of their physical properties, until you end up looking at sub-atomic particles, where you really start to lose track of their properties, while you can get an excellent sense of their activity and ultimate effect of their activities, because you can observe oodles upon oodles of repetitions of activities.

So, with super-large entities, we can figure out their physical structure and location very well, but are blind to what they do; whereas with super-small entities, we can figure out what these things are doing very well, but are blind to their physical structure and location.

                                                                          

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. 

                                                                          

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

At some small enough level, the relative speed of existence makes it so that many more individual living entities are born or perish or significantly change every instant than we see in a lifetime at our size.  Many more bonds are broken and many more cemented relative to our realm, every moment.  To maintain 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, constant engaging and withdrawing of participation among the living entities on all of the branches of the tree of life within you.

 

To say that you are made up of infinite smaller living entities in a tree of life is not to imply 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. 

A super-super-super-super-super-small creature within you might work with others around it to perform some sort of co-ordinated action, which would contribute to the activity of a larger living entity, which might contribute to the activity of a larger living entity, which might contribute to a sub-atomic creature's activity, which might contribute to a cell's activity, which might contribute to your activity. But, that super-super-super-super-super-small creature within you is probably not aware of your activity, as a whole, that it had "contributed" to.  Its entire existence might have been so fleeting, relative to yours, that it would never have had the chance to observe and understand any of your rhythms, any of your activity, any of your habits, any of your dreams, etc...

They would feel the same way you feel when you look up at the galaxy you are contained within.  Events are so rare within your galaxy - the intervals between events are so long, and the parts seemingly unrelated, that you feel like a stranger in your own galaxy.  You don't really identify with your home galaxy.  It's just something "out there".

 

 

 

 

 

 

The living constituents of a living entity (like the living cells animating your living self) have the advantage of being able to communicate between each other and deliberate about things at their relatively accelerated rate of activity.  This can make your thought seem to transpire instantaneously.  A thought can seem to occur all at once, but each smaller entity below generally has more of an opportunity to reflect upon and prepare its contribution to the larger coordinated actions and discussions above.

 

Each living entity is organized (animated) by the communication between its living constituents (like between your cells).  This communication is what we call "thought".  Understanding is simply the memory of thinking.  Senses and thought are limited, therefore, all understanding is belief.  Therefore, belief cannot be gotten rid of.  However imperfect working from beliefs is, even the simple worm in the soil, and the fern in the undergrowth depend upon them.

When two cells within a worm, or two cells within a growing plant root tip, discuss things, and discuss the details of multiple different signals (echoes) from their environment indicating, say, where food and nutrients might be at, they can come to a conclusion of which direction is best to move toward, but this is only an opinion that they arrive at, with limited consciousness, and limited reasoning, it is only a belief of what the best course of action is to take.

 

While thinking about something, or recalling a certain understanding of something, this can change all manner of activities that your cells engage in, from their biochemistry, to their anticipation of what sort of work is expected of them in the future, or to expect good times by understanding something which helps with work, or maybe you’re planning a vacation, and they are relieved and act a bit hopeful.  Maybe some cells disagree with others on what your collective should really believe or should really be focusing on.  Some cells might be discussing details only with a few other cells, while others talk about different things, and then may get a chance to speak to other cells about it later, bringing it further to the forefront of your consciousness.  Some cells might be trying to silence other cells from saying their piece.  Some might be ignoring what’s going on in the big picture, and just seek reward or mischief.  All this banter, commotion, or simple chit chat between cells, as the conversations ripple throughout your body of cells, might change the biochemistry and activity of the cells further.  All this activity, stemming from thought or recalling previous thoughts – that is what we call emotions.  A topic of conversation within you might lead to other ideas (new thinking), which leads to new emotions, but at the end of the day, emotions do not exist without thoughts as their initial driving force.

The fact that cells can communicate much quicker between themselves than we can with other people, and the fact that soooo many thoughts and memories can be brought to mind at the same time, and whose emotional flavours may get mixed in with emotions from other active thoughts, this leads to possible emotional states which seem to instantaneously provide the drive to do something, or to think further, or to answer a complex question very quickly, but it is not emotions, in of themselves, that accomplish this deep “intuition” or “instinct”.  The credit goes to individual souls within you – some of the trillions of cells, deliberating and acting together.  Your living constituents, your cells, can be inspired and driven by emotions, and they can induce emotions by what they say and do, but it is the minds of your cells that provide you with your intuition and instinct and impetus to act.

If an art critic says “I feel that your painting belongs in the garbage dump”, it is not really that feeling that brought him to this conclusion.  He has been judging artwork for years, and has all sorts of bits of understanding (from all of his thinking over the years), which may include thousands of factors, which may be processed by many different cells, which are all crying out their opinions of the piece at generally the same time.  As you might imagine, these individual bits of understanding may blend together into some indescribable nearly instantaneous feeling, as those opinions are broadcast to your other cells at generally the same time.

 

Single cells can reason and feel and make decisions.  Therefore, even a simple worm or fern inherently has some form of thought at work within it, even though the operation of a worm or grass plant, and the complexity of communication between those cells may be simplistic.  Simplicity of mind is not evidence of absence of thought.

If all living beings think, then all living beings have emotion.

There is a background tone of emotions within each living creature, which is set by all of the understanding that it has formed, especially the understanding that you frequently bring to mind (broadcast regularly to a good majority of your cells). 

Emotions will traverse and ripple throughout a worm or fern differently than throughout our bodies of cells, so thought and understanding are, of course, not the only things that affect how emotions play out and affect further thought and activity.  If the art critic was suffering from a cold, his understanding would translate into emotions in a different way, but whatever emotion he will have concerning the artwork will still stem from his thinking and understanding initially, which are accomplished by his living cells and their communication and interaction, which are, of course, influenced by the current ripples of emotions.

Thoughts may induce feelings, which may move us to think fresh thoughts (or re-think old thoughts), which may induce fresh feelings, and so on.  This interplay is continuous, ever-present, and tightly intertwined.  The true credit belongs to the living minds of your living constituents, with minds of their own, communicating together, rallying each other, suppressing each other, helping each other, oppressing each other, congratulating each other, and any other interplay that goes on between sentient individuals in complex societies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“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

 

Quoted from within:

On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism

Gershom Gerhard Scholem

Shocken books – New York 1969

page 55.

 

 

 

 

 

In order to convey the complexity of the ever-changing eternal infinite universe, and of your place within it, the authors of Semitic scripture were forced to make generalizations and simplifications, and even forced to get into the tricky business of commenting on cause and effect relationships.  When a character begets a child in Semitic scripture, this is a recurring cause and effect relationship between fundamental processes in the universe.

Using the 22 letters of the common Semitic Alephbet as a starting point, symbolizing the most simple fundamental things like “matter” is one letter, “motion” is another letter, and “resistance” is another letter, etc… the authors then took these simple symbols and combined them to form the vocabulary of the texts, transforming this simplicity to convey more detailed concepts.

Then, by systematically weaving the vocabulary together in an intricate tapestry of books, the authors were able to delve into incredibly complex subject matter, giving a glimpse of what the infinite universe looks like and how it works; all while understanding fully that it is based on simplistic notions – the principles symbolized by each letter, and that the cause and effect relationships outlined in the narratives are not absolute.

 

 

 

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 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?  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?  You are, similarly, constantly changing.  New cells are born into your flesh all the time while existing cells die off. 

 

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, and however short-lived their existences 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.

 

So, even if the concept of a “thing”, or “entity” is fundamentally simplistic, limited, ever-changing, fluid, often impermanent, and can be intertwined with other “entities”; this is crucial concept – a necessary simplification, the different aspects of which the designers of the common Semitic Alephbet assigned to certain letters.  The authors understood the limits presented by trying to convey an understanding of the infinite ever-changing universe within a small number of symbols (22 letters), and that this simplification is necessary to convey any sort of understanding.

 

 

 

Another useful way of understanding the infinite ever-changing eternal 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.  Where there is no bonding or structure, there is nothing to “touch” and nothing to bounce echoes.

Think of a group of entities which have little or no structure maintained between them, like a cloud of water vapour.  Now try to hold or squeeze the cloud.  As you apply resistance on any one of the constituents, it just gives way – it can’t hang on to the other constituents to counter the external resistance.  Now if you take a pool of liquid 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.  And if you try to squeeze a ball of ice, the parts are bound so firmly that it can bounce echoes of itself more readily – it is (generally) easier for you to sense the presence of water in that form.  Light rays will bounce off the ice and into your eyes, more readily than if that same water in the ice were in vapour-form in the air.  Same with sound waves.  Bonds between things allow us to touch or receive echoes of other things touching these things.

 

But, again, 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.  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, to infinity.

 

So, again, the designers of the common Semitic Alephbet sought to start from a simplistic group of symbols (the 22 letters), which includes a letter for “matter” and a letter for “empty space”, knowing full-well that these are not perfect representations of the ever-changing state of each portion of empty space or each portion of matter.  But, these are critical fundamental concepts, and a useful starting-point to convey an understanding of the infinite universe.

 

 

 

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.

And the entities permeating through you are themselves being incessantly permeated by smaller entities, and so on.  And you may permeate through and outside some of your parent entities.  And your parent entities may permeate through and outside some of their parent entities, and so on.

 

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.

 

 

 

When you are asleep, without dreaming vividly, maybe even breathing improperly, maybe even causing aches and sores by laying in an awkward position, at this point you are not as alive as when you are fully awake, at work, taking care of yourself, and performing coordinated activity.

(sleep can be very lively if you are dreaming vivid dreams, which might be a very active state of your living self, where the physical activity is not muscular, but still involves motion and signalling between cells in a physical way)

If you are sitting watching television, like a mindless zombie, eating mini-donuts and peanut butter and Nutella on a banana, and being distracted by commercial interruptions, and you even forget what you were watching during the commercials, this does not compare to your living self at work, during intense fast-paced activity (physical, social, mental, or otherwise).

Each one of your trillions of living cells, may have more, or less, of an ability and a will to contribute to your coordinated activity, at any particular time, thus giving a range of liveliness, rather than being either entirely “alive or not” at a given time.

 

 

 

So, the 22 common letters of Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic and other Semitic alphabets, being outrageous simplifications of things which can get very complex, should be taken with a grain of salt.  In other words, even though we use these concepts every single day, there is no absolute thing called “matter”, no absolute thing called “empty space”, the boundary of single things or creatures are often hard to define, often fleeting, and constantly change, and the life and mind of a living entity enjoys varying degrees of living vibrancy and so terms “alive” and “not alive” are often more nuanced in real life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a customized script used to represent the 22 letters of the Hebrew and Aramaic alphabets, as well as the first 22 letters of the Arabic alphabet.  The characters were derived mostly from the Proto-Semitic script, the common ancestor of all 3 alphabets:

 

 

 

The letter-slots that are blank are those that either have not been found or identified at all and there is no strong guess as to its identity. The letter-slots that are shaded but have letters, indicate only potential candidates, without certainty.  There are only a few stone inscriptions which show this script.  For example, here's a recent discovery in Egypt, at Wadi El Hol:

 

                

 

  

 

Here :    PC  MAC    is a free font of the customized selection of characters from Proto-Semitic, where the missing letter-slots have been filled in by characters from other Semitic scripts, like Nabataean and Phoenician.  Once you install the font, you should be able to see the characters in this here table:

 

A

q

B

w

G

e

D

r

H

t

V

y

Z

u

Hk

i

Tt

o

Y

a

K

s

L

d

M

f

N

g

S

h

O

j

P

k

Ts

l

Q

z

R

x

Sh

c

Tv

v

 

 

All of the letters common to the alphabets of Semitic languages (“ABGD” scripts/languages) all of these letters are consonants.  The letter A, for example, is not the vowel sound “A”.  It is the absence of sound.  It is called the “glottal stop”.  Like the middle of “Uh-Oh”.

 

 

 

 

 

q is a symbol that represents multiple entities (two or more), which are separate from one another.  Like vapour in the open air, like dust freely blowing in the wind, like strangers walking in a crowd without any relation at all.  When q is made of really small and rarefied things, it can give the sense of empty space, but no portion space is absolutely empty.  All portions of space that seem empty have some matter in it.  q is the absence of bonds that maintain matter.  Matter is represented by the next letter, a

a represents multiple entities (two or more), which are attached to one another, 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.

z represents a combination of q  and 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 sort of 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 a     z 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 (or brief) it may exist.

 

Hands tightly interlocked together would be more like a , some sort of solid structure.

Hands rubbing, or hands held slightly apart, but still maintaining proximity or non-static contact of any sort, would be more like z

Hands held far apart would be more like q

 

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 tightly 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 with a slight gap –z , 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, it sees more q  than z  between the hands.

 

 

The next three letters represent all the individual entities within qa,  and z, whether they are alive or not, considered in their simple physical external relationship to other things.  These next 3 letters are literally a “surface” understanding of the entities – how their physical surface relates to other things.

 

w  represents individual entities where they are separate from others – essentially ‘pointing’ toward q

s  represents individual entities where they are bound to others (or otherwise maintaining static direct contact) – essentially ‘pointing’ toward a

x  represents individual entities where they are near or ‘with’ others without maintaining static direct contact – essentially ‘pointing’ toward z   x 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 with which it is associated, or it may be intertwined with them while not directly bound to them and not maintaining static direct contact.  And any other sort of ‘nearness’ or ‘intermingling’ or ‘proximal association’.

 

If you are playing hockey outdoors, and you’re the goalie, you are standing firm on the ground – so you are a s  in relation to the earth.  You foolishly chose not to wear a helmet so your head is exposed directly to the sky – making you a w  in relation to the heavens.  At the same time, you are taking slap-shots and players are slamming into you, and spectators are shouting waves of disapproval through the air toward you, so you are a x  in relation to other things around you.

 

 

e  is the motion of w   It is the motion of entities where they are unbound.  Like a puck flying freely in the air.

d  is the motion of s   It is the motion of entities where they are stuck to or maintaining static direct contact with other entities.   Like the flicking of a puck with a hockey stick (as the puck is being pushed).

c  is the motion of x   It is the motion of entities where they are near others or otherwise staying ‘with’ other entities, but are not attached or maintaining static direct contact.  Like a puck sliding on the ice.

 

r  is the resistance of w   It is the resistance that occurs when entities encounter other entities from which they are separate.  Like a player dodging another player’s check.  Like a puck bouncing on the sideboards.

f  is the resistance of s   It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage other entities to which they are stuck or maintaining static direct contact.   Like a goalie catching and squeezing the puck in his glove.   Like the reverberating waves of grumbling throughout a spectator’s bones as the goal is prevented.

v  is the resistance of x   It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage with other entities to which they are ‘near’ or otherwise staying ‘with’.  Like a player’s scraping his skates on the ice.  Like the puck flying through the goalie’s kneepads and hitting the kneepads along the way.  Like the spectator’s hands clapping together repeatedly.  Like the goalie scratching his head, wondering what just happened.

 

 

 

t  represents the life of entities, where they are generally more free and unbound and unconditioned and unpredictable.

g  represents the life of entities, where they are generally more bound and more conditioned and engaged in more similar habitual activity.

 

These letters for life are not necessarily pointing to a specific single surface-level relationship with other things.  If you want to indicate a specific physical state of a living entity, you can combine these letters for life, with the letters that we just talked about at the hockey game (qwer asdf zxcv ). 

A living entity can act in different directions at the same time – as part of a single coordinated activity, so it’s not as simple in the physics.  All your organs and limbs might be involved as part of the same coordinated activity – while some may have radically different physical positions than others – some organs are working inside, some outside, some might be working with entities going through you like when you breathe – all as part of the same coordinated activity.

You might be free and unbound in an open area on vacation, with no external obligations, but pretty much act in a repetitive way, unable or unwilling to shake loose from your habitual way of thinking and acting.  That way of thinking and acting would define your living self then, rather than your external physical situation.  On the other hand, you might plant yourself in a peaceful spot and free your living mind from your habitual way of thinking and acting, as you remain stationary.

 

 

y is the organized unified living motion of t

h is the organized unified living motion of g

 

u is the organized unified living resistance of t

j is the organized unified living resistance of g

 

 

i and k represent the aspect of entities where they are not living.

i is non-living entities in more unbound and loose and rarefied form – like vapour or mash potatoes.

k is non-living entities in more bound and tight and condensed form – like ice or gold coins.

 

Even though these two letters represent the stuff and things when you get lots and lots and lots of entities not acting in a living way together, i and k also refer to just a small number of entities (even just 2) which are not interacting in an organized unified way together – like a few strangers sitting together on the bus, each minding his/her own business, or two competitors in the world of business.  Considered together, the competitors form a non-living entity.

  

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of the 22 common letters of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic Alphabets are consonants.  Any particular combination of these consonants can be used for multiple different words, by adding different vowel markings (little dots above and below the consonants, and also the use of some of the consonants as vowel indicators which can make it hard to determine the original spellings).  There are telling similarities between the words with the same consonants but different vowel markings.

In these following examples of Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic vocabulary, the reason why you will see multiple entries for the same combination of letters is because these words are pronounced differently, but their vowel markings have been eliminated here. 

 

“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 (1200’s -1300’s)

 

Quoted from within:

Kabbalah: New Perspectives

Moshe Idel

Yale university press, 1988

which quotes it from: Bahya ben Asher

Commentary On The Pentateuch (on Numbers 11:15)

ed. C. D. Chavel, III page 62

 

The phrase “splinter into sparks” was taken from the translation found in

The Essential Kabbalah

Daniel C. Matt

HarperSanFrancisco 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lll

 

To fasten with a nail, to be nailed.

 

 

One, Two, Three!

Tac, Tac, Tac!

Split, That, Wood!

 

 

ll

 

Nail, spike.

_

To blossom, bud, shine, sparkle, flourish.

A blossom, flower, shining thing, plate (of gold).

_

Fringe, curl, tassel, lock, vine tendril, fin, spark.

Feather.

Wings.

An unclean bird.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This compliation of dictionary entries includes non-scripture-based dictionaries of Aramaic and Arabic, which fills a lot of the volume in the entries, and lends quite a good deal of light upon the words in scripture.  Some entries would be entirely irresolvable without Lane’s Arabic Lexicon or the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.  Be that as it may, some of these words (in non-scriptural dictionaries) might be loan-words from non-semitic languages (like much of Syriac vocabulary), and some of these words might simply have been coined without the letter-code in mind.  If you see words highlighted like this, you can rest assured it was included in the inspired 3 works of Semitic scripture.

 

The spelling variants, which, in some entries, run in the thousands, have been detailed to the utmost degree possible (within means), but, there are some entries where it is simply unclear if a certain letter is consonantal, conjugational, or a vowel (a problem even the Masoretes couldn’t fully resolve!).

The most controversial aspect of this work, which you or a scholar might object to, would be in the sorting of entries to infer meaning between them.  You may disagree with the sorting of some items here, but it is simply the most logical grouping fathomable at this point, from this vantage point.  The vast majority of sorting decisions are pretty obvious and should be uncontroversial.  Where there is no discernable relation between entries with the same spelling (same core letters), I have divided the entries with a paragraph: _.  But, this doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no relation between divided items: maybe there are too few entries to figure out the pattern; or maybe the letters, being so fundamental, were applied in unique ways in two different entries, ending up with radically different meanings.

 

Again, the highlighted terms include at least one bona-fide reference from scripture:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alq

lq

al

 

To go out, come out.

Proceed out, proceed to, proceed from.

Come forth, go forth.

Bring, bring forth, to complete (bring out).

Carry, carry away, export to.

Appear, become known, make public, (fame or slander) spread afar.

(Raven) flying to.

(Springs and rivers) flowing forth.

Excrement, dung, dirt, covered in excrement, filthiness, uncleanness, sordidness, vile.

To become dirty, to soil.

Lead out, lead forth.

Bring about.

(Lightning) flashing from (fire), (fire) spreading to, (Fire) breaking out.

Pursue.

Leave, depart, go out, cast out, escape, (flee) away, set out from, go free, release.

(Border) proceeding to, reaching to.

Go off (into exile), go beyond (a border).

Losing (one's temper).

Losing (one's cattle).

(Arrow) going through (a heart).

Bulging (eye).

(Heart) sinking.

Rising (of the sun).

Send out, clear out, take out.

Put away.

Extract, exacting (money from), (posessions) reverting to.

Pluck out, pull out.

Producing (butter or strife or things growing from the ground), put forth (buds), (shoots) spreading out (over garden).

To have a seminal emmision.

Issue (children), descendants, (line of descendants) springing from.

Prematurely (giving birth).

Growing (plant coming forth).

Issue (an edict/command), give out (a report), report (words) to.

To utter a cry or sound, bitch (so called because of her cry).

Draw (a sword).

Laying out (construction materials).

Paying out (wages).

March forward.

Started out (journeying).

Enter (combat).

(Spirit) expressed (through).

Originating from (oneself).

(Tower) projecting from.

(Lots cast) falling to, laying to.

End (of the year).

Upholding (justice).

_

People.

 

 

lqlq

 

Issue, offspring, produce.

Crops, (all that) springs from (the world).

Descendants, offspring.

 

 

wlq

 

Fissure, rending open.

 

 

flq

 

A place or act of going forth, issue, export, source, spring.

Fountains, springs.

Mine (silver).

Utterance, proceed (out from lips), issuing (a decree).

An exit, outlet.

Import (from).

Rising.

East.

Starting place.

Seed (sprouting).

 

 

vlq

 

An outgoing, extremity, perhaps: source, escape.

Borders, farthest borders.

Termination.

Springs, exits.

Escape from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ql

 

To press, be pressed, urge, hasten.

Make haste.

Hurried, hasty.

Narrow (constrictive place).

 

 

wl

 

Shine, glisten, for instance a grain of a pomegranate, gleam.

The light shone or shone brightly.

Of a cloud: intensely shining or gleaming with lightning.

The fire appeared on being struck.

The shining [of perfume].

Make a sign with a sword, waving it, or moving it about [so that it shone or glistened], wag one's tail.

The land began to show its plants or herbage.

Live coals because they shine or glisten.

Make a fire burn or blaze intensely.

A vehemently hot [day].

The eye, said to be so called because it shines or glistens and hence:, an officer employed as an inspector by a police-magistrate.

Inquirer, searcher.

Examination, exploration.

To examine, search, strip, examined thoroughly.

_

Byssus, fine linen (glistening white?).

Linen maker.

_

An egg.

_

To bubble forth.

_

Mire, mud, swamp, marsh.

_

To dry up, become lean, become emaciated, weak.

 

 

el

 

Chalk, lime, gypsum.

Plaster a building with gypsum.

To be marked with chalk.

Preparer of gypsum.

Places in which gypsum is made.

_

Short.

 

 

rl

 

Leap.

To make to jump.

A thing slipping out from the hand.

The motion of flight.

Leap for joy.

Rejoice, exult, pleasure, joyfulness.

Praise.

Dancing.

Wild she goat, gazelle, hind.

To tame, to break a horse.

To come upon suddenly, or unawares, with evil, or mischief.

Thief.

Men who flee from war or battle or who put themselves in motion for flight.

A place where a person or thing declines or turns aside or from the right course or direction.

Diving place, or plunging place, in water, a place in which fish go to and fro.

_

To stick.

To squeeze.

_

Pain in the eye.

_

Slag of iron or water in which red hot iron has been plunged (water "leaping"?).

 

 

il

 

Arrow.

Cast a pebble or small stone, smite with a pebble or small stone.

To sling (arrows stones).

Pebbles, or small stones, things that one throws, like the dung of sheep or goats, gravel.

Wound, bruise.

To smite through, wound severely, shatter, crush through, strike.

To partition, divide, live out half, parcel, separate, (overflowing torrent) reaching to, cut off.

Partition, portion, lot, share, ranks.

Half, middle, midst.

To pluck out, to pick one's teeth.

(Fur and the nap of cloth) became removed or stripped off.

Putting out.

The outside, a street, abroad, exterior, fields, outdoors, in the open, outer, outward, without.

(Truth becoming) manifest, arbitration (?) (source dictionary question mark).

Wall.

Quick in going and in journeying or pace, running vehemently and quickly.

Shave off hair, cut or sever a tie of relationship, paucity or scantiness of the hair of the head.

Shaven off.

_

Shaft (in the entry for arrow).

A wooden implement with which one sews.

Sew up, sew together.

Fastening.

To inweave, to make firm, to confirm, to support, to heal, to repair.

Palm leaves, rug, foliage, a strip or thong of leather in the girth, or with which the girth of a horse's saddle is tied, or the girth of a beast, anything with which a man binds his waist.

To construct out of palm fronds.

Narrowness or contraction of the outer angle of the eyes as though they were sewed up, squinter, blink at the sun, or look at it by contracting the eyelids.

Having a narrow or contracted vulva.

To be tightly bound.

Fastening.

To be stretched.

Tighten, strengthen, strongly, bond, shroud.

Firmness, hard, difficult, diligence, continence, constant.

To move something with force, to twist, to strain, to make firm, to shut, to stretch, pull, to hasten.

To constitute.

To be taut (foot, bow, thought).

Chain, band, constitution, gemination, strength, ephod.

_

Back, surface - especially of water or waves: the surface or top, bottom or reverse of a page(??) (source dictionary question marks).

Loin, back (of the body).

To turn tail, flee.

Turn away, return, go back, flee.

A place to which one turns away or aside, which one flees, a place of refuge.

 

 

dl

 

To thieve, steal.

Thievish, steal repeatedly.

A thief, a robber.

Act as a spy, do something secretly or covertly, close or lock a door.

Turn aside, or away, from a thing, or affair, declining from it, avoiding it.

Looking to the right and left as though desiring or seeking a thing, or looking as though he were deceiving, or beguiling, to seek to obtain, or attain, a thing.

Looking, or glancing, at someone from the interstice of a door or of a curtain.

_

Spokesman, interpreter, envoy, mediator [angel as mediator].

Scoff, mock, deride, scorn.

Satire, a mocking [poem], a scorning, a scoffing.

Irreverent or immoral person.

 

 

fl

 

Squeezing, pressing, wringing, churning, to squeeze out.

To shed (blood), to be drained out, to expire.

Squeezer, extortioner.

To swell.

Rinsing one's mouth with water - agitating water in one's mouth.

Wash or rinse a vessel, put water into a vessel and shake it, wash or rinse a garment or piece of cloth.

To suck, sip, drink.

Suck a pomegranate.

To give to suck.

The sugar cane [because it is sucked].

What is sucked from or of a thing.

The pure or choice part of anything, purest, choicest.

Chaff.

Suction.

_

Instrument for inserting medicine in nose (by squeezing or sucking???).

_

Struggle, strife ("squezing"? / "extortion"?).

_

To be settled.

_

Unleavened bread, unleavened cakes.

 

 

gl

 

Put oneself in motion, or put oneself in motion and go away.

Prepare oneself for motion.

Became in motion or in a state of commotion, agitated, stirred, shaken, moved, or moved about, bestirred himself or itself, shook.

To struggle, contend, fight (to put in agitated commotion?).

Strife, contention, quarrel, law suit, litigious.

To fall in ruins (the commotion of the falling ruins?), destroy, lay waste.

The horse having his bridle pulled in and being put in motion, raised his head.

To take by the forelock, chide (a camel), - to raise, or elevate a thing.

(A camel) shook or became in a state of commotion in rising from the ground.

A wild ass - because he ceases not to raise his head, going to and fro, like one running away at random.

A serpent that moves about much.

Such a one moves about his nose by reason of anger.

Move the tongue about.

Hawk, falcon.

Plumage, feathers.

Twittering (under same entry as: 'sprout').

Turn aside, turn away, elude an opponent, draw back, recede, retreat, remove oneself, separate oneself, withdraw, retire, retire to a distance, flee, escape, become safe or secure.

A place to which one has recourse for refuge, protection, preservation, or concealment, a place of refuge, a place to which one flees, a place of safety or security.

To bloom, blossom.

Blossoms, flowers.

To sharpen (under entry for 'to blossom').

Shine, sparkle, gleam.

To blaze, kindle, spark.

Sprout.

To bring forth.

Move a thing, put it in motion, or into a state of commotion, agitated it, stirred it, shook it.

Raise a thing, raised and seated or showed or displayed the bride upon, the doe-antelope raised or elevated her neck.

Such a one was exposed to disgrace and infamy, or to the utmost disgrace and infamy.

It became raised, or elevated, or high, even and erect.

Set one up as a lord, or chief.

Put furniture or goods or utensils one upon another.

Trace up, or ascribe, or attribute, a tradition to the author thereof, resting it on his authority, by mentioning him.

Make a thing apparent, manifest, plain, or evident, showing it, exhibiting it, manifesting it, evincing it, discovering it, or revealing it.

To go to the utmost length with a creditor in reckoning, so as to omit nothing therein, he (God) went to the utmost length (with a man) in questioning and in reckoning.

Make a she-camel or beast exert herself to the full, or to the utmost, or beyond measure, in going, or pace, - urge, incite, elicit her pace.

A kind of swift pace, the utmost pace which a beast of carriage is able to attain, vehement pace or going.

The end, or extremity, of anything, the utmost, or extreme, extent, term, limit, point, or reach, of a thing.

Ditch.

_

People or company of men crowded, thronged, or pressed together (The agitation? The getting ready to move? The brining forth?).

 

 

jl

 

To oppress, force, fight against, harass, constrain.

Oppression, constraint.

To compress, force.

Hard.

To pluck out (eye), squeeze out (water).

To defraud, tear away, rob.

To resist, oppose, rebel, reject, disobey, refuse.

Obstinate, stubborn resistance, contumacy.

Repugnance.

Wrestling, each endeavouring to throw down the other.

Beat with a staff or stick or rod, strike with a sword, contend by striking or beating, acting roughly towards, and oppose, or contend with.

Become difficult, a thing or affair becoming difficult or intricate or confusing, obscure, strange, distressing, severe, grievous.

Rugged, high, difficult.

Any one who is hard or difficult with respect to that which another desires of him.

Bind a wound, it was or became hard.

Put forth or propose a verse difficult to be explained or understood, make use of strange language or a strange expression.

To be forced, compelled, constrained.

To shut, wink.

Contradict.

(A grape vine) put forth its rods.

_

Tree, wood, log, shaft, stalk, stick, timber, staff, rod.

Tailbone, backbone, tail.

Compact and strong in make.

Dense or tangled wood, what are collected together in a place and are near together, and dense, or tangled.

A place of growth.

_

To counsel, plan, devise, advise, conspire, consult, decide.

Advice, consultation, counsel, council, plan, strategy, principle, device, scheme, designs, purpose.

Advisers, counselor.

_

To cry, howl, squeak.

Urgent prayers.

_

Dry, desert.

_

Bulbous.

Plant name.

_

Pot.

 

 

kl

 

To separate.

Separate or remove the flesh from the bone.

To branch off.

To part, open, rescue.

To free, separate, or clear (anything from anything), release.

Freedom, or release, from a thing or state - primarily denoting one's being in a thing and then coming or going forth or departing from it, deliverance, salvation.

Forsake, abandon.

Deliver, save.

To recompense.

He produced, or gave forth, or gave to him somewhat of his right, or due.

Something becaming separated from another thing, parted asunder, severed, disjoined, or disunited, detached.

[The rain] clearing away.

What leaps, or leaps up, like the particles that leap up in effervescence of wine, the bubbles of water.

A lizard escaping or slipping from one's hand - meaening one's fingers becoming unclosed.

To break, shatter, shake to pieces.

A shattering.

Something opened, so as to form an interval, an interstice, or a gap.

A clove of garlic.

Pull out, pull up, pull off, remove, or displace, a thing from another thing.

Go forth, depart.

Dispersing and taking oneself away from, taking fright, and running away at random.

To be dispersed or scattered, harry, spread (abroad or over the countryside), sow (seed), pour out, overflow.

A scatterer, disperser.

To go away into the country or in the land.

A wound becoming moist and flowing, sweat exuding.

Of the locust or cricket - it uttered a sound.

Of a child - he uttered a weak weeping like whistling.

Being in a state of commotion, and twisting, or winding.

Piece, portion, lot, column or page (of a scroll), column of text, text, booklet, composition.

A cutter, engraver, or a seller of stones, or gems, for rings or signets, of a ring or signet: the stone or gem or what is set therein of a different substance therefrom, any gem or similar stone, rare or common, natural or factitious, and any hard stone cut for inlaying or for construction, a die such as is used in the game of tables or backgammon, and an ossicle that is used in like manner.

A joint, or place of separation between two parts of an animal, or any joint, or any place of meeting of two bones, except the fingers.

Looking intently, or hard, or opening one's eyes and looking intently, or hard.

Shine, glisten.

 

 

zl

 

Cut, cut off, clip, shear, namely hair and wool and plumage and a nail of a finger or toe.

Said of a well - it fell, fell down, fell in ruins, or to pieces, or collapsed, inclined and became demolished, or fell in ruins.

Break (bread), to be broken, fragment, to designate, set aside, place in a corner.

Cut in pieces, cut in two, cut short.

Chop down, cut down.

Cut off piece of a limb, a reptile (perhaps one that regrows cut limbs?).

Axe, hewer.

To shave, to vow.

Eunoch.

Summer, fruit (pickers), summer fruit (fruit plucked out in summer?) (summer harvest?), spend the summer.

To break.

To be plucked out.

What is cut or clipped or shorn of the wool of a sheep.

A tooth becoming broken, cracked, or split lengthwise, or fell out, or falling out from its root.

[A bird] having the wing clipped.

Having the forelocks clipped or shorn.

Cut, clipped, or shorn.

Cuttings, or what is cut off, clippings.

Cut piece, plank.

Thing with which one cuts hair.

To pare a nail or the like.

A weaver cutting off from a garment or piece of cloth, its unwoven end or extremity consisting of warp without woof.

To cut off the extremities of the ears.

To define, impute, to reckon, to reckon to someone's account, to promise, to make an agreement, to agree on a fee, to be reconciled.

Pact, promise, vow, prepaid interest, discount, proportion, salary, pod (?), hull (?), agree, bargain, animal laden with grain.

To be defined, to be destined, to be imputed, to be deducted, to be cut off.

End, goal, highest peak, limit, outer limit, farthest, farthest border, border, boundary, after (at the end of a term of time), appointed time.

To cut off, scrape, scrape off.

Washing of part of garment.

Extremity, end, farthest end, extreme end, mouth (of a river), remote, remotest part, last one (individual in a group), edge, corner, outermost, border, outskirts, frontier, outpost, fringe, curl, portion, breaking, morsel, quarter.

To go to the utmost length, or point, in a question, exhausting a subject.

Reaching or attaining [and eliciting and investigating] the utmost [that was to be reached in the question].

Judge.

To proceed to extremities or become extreme in an action.

Extreme.

The part where the growth of the hair terminates in the fore part and the hind part of the head.

Defined, fixed, stipulated.

Fixed length of time, definite sum.

To bring an end to.

Death.

To be impatient.

Tired (of living), to feel a loathing, abhorrence, or sickening dread, terror.

To despise, reject (cut off from one's presence?).

A thorn, thornbush (???).

To awake (???).

 

 

xl

 

To run.

Runner (of the king), guards, (mounted) courier.

Dash to fro.

A running, a race, course.