Fearless Reason

Fearless reason in an age of frightened absurdity.

Month: January, 2012

The Big Bang, Transcendent Consciousness and the Theory of Everything.

My mind often goes back and forth between the mundane happenings of everyday life and deeper often abstract philosophical questions. To the extent possible I try to integrate the conclusions of these different thought patterns – but my most recent musings in the philosophical realm have consumed my conscious thoughts over the last few days to the exclusion of all else. To the extent possible I will now share with you my thoughts as they relate to the Big Bang, Transcendent Consciousness and the Theory of Everything.

If that description alone did not scare you off – congratulations, you are in possession of a fearless mind and may appreciate what I have to say.

This story starts at the beginning, as so many stories do. But the beginning I speak of begins just prior to the Big Bang. For those of you who are not familiar with the concept, modern physics postulates that the universe began in a singular bursting forth of matter and Being. Prior to this time there was was no time…or space for that matter…or matter…for that matter. At least not in any form we would recognize today.

At this point then, everything in the universe existed simultaneously in one “place,” at one “time,” as one singular point of BEING. From this point of BEING the universe was created, dimensionality occurred, and life as we know it came about. In this sense, everyone, and everything, is a direct descendent of BEING.

As this realization passed through my intellectual mind to my intuitive core, another idea occurred to me. An extension of the Big Bang Theory is the idea of an ever expanding universe, which ultimately will expand continually until it can expand no further – then like a rubber band the universe will rapidly implode to the point of BEING that was its origin.

Taken as true, what does this mean? Well we are fragments of BEING expanding from the center of the universe, and will one day return to that origin. Therefore, our separateness is temporal at best, and the Being of all things is intractably connected to all other Being, to which it will inevitably return. In short – separateness is an illusion of dimensionality. Without dimensionality, there is but singular BEING.

If you missed that leap in logic I apologize. This view presupposes that there are “dimensions” and that the primary difference between now, and prior to the Big Bang, is that prior to the Big Bang dimensionality did not exist. That being said, given this view, BEING is fragmented only by dimensionality.

Because dimensionality is such a critical aspect of this view of the universe, I began thinking about its nature. The view I find most compelling is that on a quantum level certain Being resonates at different “frequencies.” A view supported by the most recent concepts of quantum mechanics and the observation that quantum particles both exist and do not exist in one place at any given time. It may be that the quantum particles in some types of Being resonate more or less often, so that Being resonating at the same frequency can interact, but has difficulty interacting with Being resonating at a different frequency. This creates the impression of distinctness and dimensionally which separates Being. It also leads to the conclusion that prior to the Big Bang, BEING, or quantum particles all resonated at the same frequency and thus there was no distinctness and no dimensionality.

At this point I found that I had a theory of Everything, and as is my want, I attempted to apply it to my mundane existence.

My first observation was that I had basically reinvented the wheel of every major religion – especially Hindu, Buddhist and Native American thought. My second observation was that…maybe this was a good thing. It may be that intuition has been telling us for thousands of years what our rational mind could not yet grasp. Certainly, all religions have their faults and have often been abused and bastardized, but this could only be done by those who do not understand or fully appreciate the significance of these ideas. Because the world changes when you truly realize your distinctness is an illusion, and that your nature and the nature of all things is BEING.

My rational mind had carried me this far. Each supposition built upon the other in a logical and cohesive fashion, using the best data and theories of the natural universe at my disposal. It was only upon BELIEVING this proposition that I found myself irrevocably moved beyond the conscious state that has been my everyday life until this point, into one hitherto unexperienced.

I have never been a man of faith. I am a man of reason and logic. I observe, I draw conclusions, and look for the best possible explanations for the world around me. More importantly, I strive to be fearless in my use of reason, and try not to cling to paradigms and ideas that are no longer relevant, accurate or useful. So it was with fearless reason, which had long reinforced my separateness from all things, that it began serving the opposite purpose of making me a part of the whole.

Having made it this far I began reevaluating old ideas that had been formulated under the old paradigm of separateness, and began reevaluating them in the context of BEING. In so doing I rediscovered my soul. Under the paradigm of separateness I had discarded the soul, because it was incongruous and based on a number of metaphysical inconsistencies that I had hitherto been unable to reconcile. However, in the context of BEING, the idea of a soul became almost a logical certainty.

Assume that the universe and everything in it consists of BEING, which is divided only by dimensonality – which creates the illusion of separateness. Under this view, everything, including humans, exists multidimensionally. So there are aspects of the “self” that exist, but that resonate at different frequencies, so that not all aspects are aware of one another. In our three dimensional world we hear, touch and see Being that resonates at our frequency, but find it difficult to interact with other Being, that resonates differently and exists on a different dimension. Some people spend their entire lives increasing their awareness of other frequencies by harmonizing their own vibrations. Our societies call them Priests, Monks and Shamans, but they all strive for, if not achieve, greater unity with BEING.

If you take this view to its ultimate conclusion you realize that everything has a “soul,” or to put it more accurately, everything has Spirit or Being. In this way all things can be seen as fragments of Being on a path to greater integration and unity with its other dimensions. Put another way, the implosion from the initial Big Bang has already started, and humans and everything in the universe are on a path towards reintegration with BEING – integrating the multidimensional barriers that create the illusion of separateness. So when all Being resonates at the same constant frequency it will implode, and once more become BEING – without distinction of any kind.

Human consciousness exists primarily in a three dimensional world, but greater integration of Being may very well lead to an integration or connection to fourth and fifth dimensions which expand our consciousness to these dimensions and beyond.

In writing this I have attempted to follow reason where reason will go, and be fearless in my pursuit of it. Though this metaphysical account of the universe is different from the popular three dimensional one, or even a purely esoteric faith based conception, I believe it to be a rational and intuitively compelling account of EVERYTHING. If you follow this metaphysical framework to its ethical and logical conclusions, you end up in a bizarre intellectual and emotional landscape. I will leave to another post the transformations I have witnessed in myself, and the ethical implications I have drawn from this conception of reality. For now, I simply urge all who read this to attempt to view the world for a day using this paradigm – and more importantly, try to regard yourself, and everyone, and everything around you as full of the same Being, and realize that it is only the illusion of separateness created by dimensionality that distinguishes injury to others from injury to self.

Ron Paul: An Austrian Love Story

To the surprise of everyone, including Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman has been quite successful in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Yet despite having come in third in Iowa and now second in New Hampshire, many still do not take Paul seriously. In fact, many seem to view Paul as an ominous forbearer of the Republican party’s impending existential crisis.

While it is unlikely that Paul will win the Republican nomination, his success is a harbinger of things to come. Ron Paul is doing what few Republican presidential candidates have done in the past 20 years Рhe appeals to both moderates and young people. It is not often talked about, but the Republican party has a demographic problem that threatens its very existence. The demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican party as it exists today. For many years, Republicans won elections because the country was full of white middle-class voters who mostly voted GOP on Election Day. Today, however, that simply is not enough.

One of the major problems facing the GOP is that the Latino population is the fastest growing segment in the U.S., and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Another is that the overall population is increasingly urban and secular in its sensibilities, and less inclined to buy into the self-ritious moral crusades of the past. Given these trends the Republican party must adapt accordingly, or face becoming increasingly marginalized, and ultimately obsolete.

Over the past forty years the Republican party has successfully built an uneasy coalition between the socially conservative and fiscally conservative segments of the population. Though some candidates embody both principles, rarely does one find a candidate who is a “true believer” in both. Often it seems that candidates are firmly committed to one or the other ideology and pay lip service to the other in order to fit within the Republican mold of what an ideal candidate should look like. However, both in practice and politics these candidates’ true colors usually bear out.

The best recent example of this can be found in the way social conservative darlings like Gingrich, Santorum and Perry have viciously attacked Mitt Romney for his role at his capital investment company Bain Capital. All of these candidates have derided Romney as a heartless capitalist who destroys jobs. A stance that is quite out of step with a pro-free market Republican agenda. Yet these candidates have nevertheless gained traction amongst social conservatives with this attack.

The truth of the matter is that there is cognitive dissonance between the classical liberalism of fiscal conservatives and the idea that the government should be the guarantor of Christian morality on the part of social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives by definition support small, limited government, with maximal personal responsibility and liberty. Social conservatives on the other hand see themselves as being under siege by an increasingly secular popular culture, and look to the government to institutionalize their values. It is rarely noted that this would require an expansion of government, and greater monitoring and intrusion into the personal lives of every citizen. In this respect fiscal and social conservatism are irreconcilable.

I personally have had a long and thoughtful journey to the right. This journey, in no small part, was made more difficult by the fact that I came to political awareness under George W. Bush, who as a “true believer” in social conservatism was also a fiscally irresponsible big government Republican. Many young and moderate voters see the inherent conflict between the philosophy of fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, and are alienated as a result. Going forward the G.O.P. must adopt a platform that is logically consistent, or tear itself apart for lack of coherence.

There are many critiques one can level against Ron Paul, but inconsistency isn’t one of them. Paul unabashedly supports the free-market, and endorses both personal responsibility and liberty. A position out of step with the mainstream, which endorses fiscal responsibility but social paternalism. Paul has found traction, despite not being a very good politician, because his ideas are sound and consistent. One does not have to sell half their soul in supporting Paul, because his ideas are logically interlinked byproducts of a unified underlying philosophy. Ron Paul isn’t likely to win this battle, but his ideas may very well win the ideological war.