This is not a Black Body

Today I will try to show you why a Black Body is not a Black Body, and how the unknowable can be known if we know what makes knowledge possible at all. I have had this invisible image in my mind for a few years now, but still I have not been able to share it with someone. This should be understood as “not able to commute that which enables a receiver to respond in such a way that a co-responding happens”. It is obvious that an invisible image is impossible in itself, let alone to communicate. It has to be so. My effort is to trigger a constructive response in you. Not shove my response down your throat. This is very difficult, because anything I say or show will by default be reconstructed according to your existing cognitive structures. It has to be so. But knowing how communication is bidirectional can be of some help.

The image has, to me, opened the floodgates to numerous Aha-moments. It still does. It is a game changer with profound consequences, that is, if you want it to be that. If you do not want it to be of any significance to you, it won’t be. Then it is just someone’s private speculations. Well, it IS someone’s private speculations no doubt, but not necessarily just so. It might also be valuable. It might also be complete/incomplete nonsense.
Ultimately, it is what it is. It is an event of co-responding.

Trying to avoid my usual rambling all over Everything, this will be an introductory post, an initial conditioning of you, so what follows has at least a slight possibility of being understood correctly. Only then can there be an accurate response to what I actually suggest, and not to what you have me suggesting. Only then can it be rightfully buffed or nerfed.

Let’s begin with the scope of this image. It answers none of your questions, except for one; What Is This? By “this” I do not mean any of the following:
God, reality, entanglement, entropy, particles, consciousness, mathematics, religion, free will, continuum, theory, mind, matter, energy, consciousness, purpose, intention, relativity, QM, essence, ether, gravity, true, good, impossible, probable, measurable, important or consciousness.
By “this” I mean: FUNDAMENTAL.
The reason I suggest the fundamental to be of highest priority is this – if we get it somewhat wrong, everything that follows will be somewhat skewed and out of focus. Not “wrong”, but not “right” either. If that is a problem is up to that response of yours. I just want to know Everything for no particular reason at all…it seems.


Using the concept of Black Body (BB) is bound to cause multiple misconceptions, because you know already what a Black Body is, and that is not what I suggest here. That means most readers will stop reading here. Before leaving, some friendly soul might suggest references and further studies so I can educate myself properly. And by that, our paths diverge. I can see for myself that my image is not of a Kirchhoff Black Body. The main reason for this is that my image does not include absorption of any kind, nor anything like emission. Since perfect absorption and zero emission is the very definition of a blackbody, this is obviously something else. There is no need to state the obvious over and over again. Sharing your opinion that the image is confusing and contradicting adds nothing but informational noise. I know it is confusing and full of contradictions. I wrote the damn thing. I have pictured it for soon to be 5 years. If you know it, you also know why it is confusing and paradoxical to an observer. You don’t reject QM out of the box, just because it is confusing, do you? You don’t accuse Zen for being full of paradoxes, do you? Objecting to my use of “Black Body” and “blackbody” without explicitly spelling out why I do that and how they relate to each other in this context, that is just interference and I’ll put you in the penalty box until you stop such nonsense. Unless you actively refuse to know, you know perfectly well what I mean. If not perfectly, well enough goes a long way.



But I reluctantly use the term Black Body anyway, because if I don’t use a conventional label, that is what is wrong and what makes everyone run away screaming “Pseudo-scientific crackpottery”. So I say “Black Body”, thinking it is the closest any concept I know of comes to what I’m suggesting.

I predict that most, if not all, questions you might have about this initial image are answered already. You must read more carefully the part of what it is not about. Then there are likely to be opinions. They cannot be answered but only argued. I won’t argue opinions unless I forget not to. It can be fun and challenging, but mostly it is boring and counterproductive. If you want the image to be potentially significant, you will ask honest questions. If you do not want it to be significant, you will argue your point. No one has ever been persuaded by arguments. Answers is what does it, so keep questioning…Everything!
I did, and I came up with Nothing.

Then of course there is the Gatekeepers of Credibility who will respond per usual:
You must include relevant equations, a list of references and vectors, scales, philosophical background, elementary charge, the number 137, set-theory, topology and algebra and whatever (we decide) is required for communicating anything at all of significance.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, these Gatekeepers would join the following category.

Then the impatient ones who wants all their favourite questions answered promptly, or the image explains nothing at all to them. They want more than just an alphabet. They want you to read for them. You are supposed to read their favourite story, over and over again.
But consciousness is primary and is not of a Black Body
But there must be spacetime inherent in the image and it’s not
But existence is mathematical and cannot be based on geometry
But existence is based on geometry and cannot be based on a nondimensional point
But this has to be observable or it is supernatural metaphysics
But God is not reducible to a scientific concept
But Science is not reducible to an unknowable Genesis
But a Black Body is just a useful concept
But a layperson cannot possibly understand this without extensive education and years of diligent practice.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, it would be to help them strengthen their arguments in favour of their current story.

But nevertheless,  there is a faint hope of someone who is not only guided by convention and a priori assumptions of what is possible, true, desirable, correct, allowed and appropriate. Someone who was not dead set on reframing this image to fit his own theory/model.  If that one person looks at the image, reads the few words attached and makes a little effort to let the input stand for itself, if only for 10 minutes, then s/he might just come up with some relevant questions, and not just the predictable ones stated above. S/he might be curious….doubting…wondering…
How does that move?
How did that get there?
What enforces that?
Why is that not a Black Hole?
Why is that unknowable?

The last one I can suggest an answer to right now. It is unknowable because there is no knower relative to it. It is more fundamental than epistemology and ontology combined. In those domains, the questions are usually based on the a priori assumption that there is an existing relation knower-known. Then we start elaborating on that relation.
Who knows who, are both observers and observed, are they one or two, how does information flow from one to the other and in-between, are they discrete or continuous, local or nonlocal etc.. You can spend a lifes worth of asking the above without knowing for sure. But there’s wealth of relatively correct answers to pic from and they keep coming. Already the old Greeks knew. Everyone knows, but no one seems to know why.

If you look really closely at the/my Black Body, you might realize that there is no possible relation presented. This unity is not of relativity. It is the epitome of the Absolute. Before your pre-conception of the term “absolute” shuts down all your cognitive functions and crystallize it into a solid wall of rejection, please take a few minutes and check the source. Absolute refers to that which is away from+loosening.  From that root of perfect unity, it has grown branches of meaning that are like the origin, but only relatively so. Can you spot the potential problem with this? To me, it is obvious. If we start to wobble in relation to the absolute, we are immediately lost and separated from its very nature. So much that it can suddenly mean the opposite to itself, as in “make separate”. This brings immense confusion to all our thinking about fundamentals. To make it sensible and useful, we must hold on to the most basic and concrete definition and meaning it can possibly have. That would be; “not lost” or perhaps “conserved”. Then we can use relative as its extreme opposite, as in “coming and going” or perhaps “progressive”.

The careful reader can easily spot an inconsistency, and it is a tricky one. How can that which is, by its most fundamental definition, absolute also be relative? This is a very good objection to what I have just said. I would be a fool to suggest that the ultimate cause of all existing effects is (a) absolute, and thus (b) empty of relations. That would be saying General Relativity is totally wrong and a theory of Nothing at all. It is to negate what is obvious in our everyday experience. Since that would be stupidity per excellence, I will not suggest that.

The reason my image of this Black Body is empty of relations is that the image is incomplete. Not only incomplete, but also fundamentally wrong as it stands right now. What makes it wrong is that the most vital aspect is missing. Unless I add the missing property, the unit is indeed absolute and non-relative, just like I said it is. But it will not remain so for very long. That which is absolute will only last a moment, or perhaps 3 moments. I’ll leave that to those who know math and physics. Read that again before you start arguing. Absolute is not of a stable state, let alone a particular “thing/object”. Not in my image. No way. I claim it to be a momentary configuration that, in a very specific way, makes the existence of relatives and relations impossible. It is a momentary state of a unit that can be of numerous momentary states as defined by an existing observer. The only one of these possible states that an observer cannot observe is likely to be the state of absolute-ness. Why this is so will become less of a mystery when we have graced the Black Body with its most prominent attribute. I said it is incomplete, but that needs a slight revision. It is incomplete if understood from the context of its effects. That context is to no surprise the current universe of measurable relatives. This image is of that which potentially enforces it to be what it is. QM and GR deals with the numerous effects. My image is not that. It is not of an initial condition, but of an eternal conditioner of conditioning. Can you possibly recognize the significant differences between condition – conditioning – conditioner? Try object – observation – observer….

As for now, all we know is that whatever is pictured here, it is not of observable qualities.
If we wish, we can therefore label it “supernatural”, “hidden” or “that which cannot be known”. I suggest we avoid all such definitions because they hi-jack our imagination and steals away from us any degrees of intellectual freedom.
If supernatural, scientific mind shuts down.
If hidden, we must invent that which hides it. Please, don’t do it. You will end up with a cover, a bulk, a boundary and a double cover. Before you can say “Duality”, game is over.
If “That which cannot be known”, there is the obvious risk of abandoning the whole issue. Of course, we are not able to let go of the fundamental question, but if we dodge the question of why an absolute state is unknowable, we begin to generate objects that have the property of being invisible, ethereal or omnipresent.
A spacetime grid or a universal background or …gravity…

Ok, now you are free to do what you are forced to do:

– A double cover is a …formalism…necessary…understand…Nobel Prize…
– Your use of the word “observer” is …Copenhagen interpretation….uncertainty….nonsense.
– A singularity is by definition _insert your preferred definition_
– What do you mean by…duality…intellectual….body….ontology…obviously you’re wrong.
– Absolute can be defined as …without a conscious witness….just so you know!
– In string theory, dimensions are ….which contradicts…because
– Contrary to what you imply here, General Relativity is not …
– Already the old Greeks knew that …fundamentals must…because…
– I get the impression you believe …which is wrong…because..
– Just because you consider…doesn’t mean…because…
– My God you’re full of your own garbage aren’t you.

Yes of course, definitely; it is, it does, it means, it should, it must, I will, I am, I can’t, there is, there was, he said, you are, you can and no one should, just as everyone is required to.

Now, does a dog have Buddha nature, or can we for once respond according to what actually is?

To have ones mind changed

When believe something, I really believe that. Until I don’t. Then I really believe something else. If I believe that I know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really knew X. If I believe I don’t know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really don’t know X.
What X really is, X only knows.
X is probably X.

Since I was old enough to contemplate existence and what existence really is, I have gone through a lot of beliefs, and I promise you, I believed them all equally much. One such belief was that the story of Big Bang was totally unbelievable. I found, and still find, a thousand reasons not to believe it. I will spare you the details, and I’m sure you know most of them. Or so I really believe anyway.

Come a moment in life when a certain belief changes shape and colour. It might still be the same belief, but something has drastically changed. In the case of my dis-belief in the Big Bang story, the change is not the Big Bang itself, but what the Big Bang is about. Suddenly I find myself believing it was actually so. It was a Big Bang-ish event which kicked off the universe as we know it. But having learned more about the concepts involved and how we argue about them, I have found that the problem is not the Big Bang but how the story is told. It is as unbeliavable today as it has been for all of my life. But today I believe myself to know better why the story sounds like science fiction and why it doesn’t make any sense.

The Big Bang story suffers credibility mainly because we cannot tell the story of singularity in a reasonable way. And since singularity is a “big” player in Einsteins wonderful universe of relativity, we think it is BIG. We forget that the singularity might just be a player, and the size comes from the way it plays. We understand universe from our point of view. Science prides itself of being objective and non-egocentric, but that’s educated bullshit.
A measuring device might be objective, but the detectors don’t interpret data.
A computer tells no story and explains nothing.
It computes.
A scientist is not objective.
A scientist is a scientist.

Today I believe in the so called Big Bang, but that is not from what science tells me about it. What has changed my mind is what science doesn’t tell me. It says a lot about singularities in theory. There’s a library full of books on singularity.
Gravitational singularity.
Mathematical singularity.
Naked singularity.
Technological singularity.
Then we are told “No one knows a singularity. It is beyond description. The laws of the universe break down in the singularity. It writes its own laws and we have no access to the laws of the singularity

Then I think this: They are looking at God.

The way mind responds to the singularity reminds me of how it responds to some imagined entity which is supposed to be The Beginning.
“In the beginning there was” ….and then the stories diverge. But they are trying to describe the same event.
The Beginning.
After all the books are written, all arguments thrown on the table, all storytellers end their tale with a common disclaimer:
-The Beginner of Beginning is not to be understood.
-The Singular God is beyond conventional mind of mankind.
Still, they have their theories of what this unknown creator created first.
Bible says that “heaven and earth” cames first.
Science prefer to begin with “light”.
Bible says “God did it”.
Science says “We don’t know, but we’re working on it”.

Then I encountered the Monopole and it changed my mind.
It was a Big Bang-ish event.
Heaven and earth is probably prior to light, but light is true while heaven and earth is a metaphor. Both camps win. Both camps lose. Fair deal. At least fair enough methinks.
The discription of a Monopole fits the Wanted! ad to a T.

One undetectable character
One force to unite them all
A master of disguise
Extremely powerful
Carries a Holy Grail full of answers
Description: Looks a lot like “Nothing”

So what is a “monopole” then?
It is what it is.
A monopole is a monopole.
I have no addition to what wikipedia says, and you can look that up for yourself.
The question is – how well does that descripition fit the descriptions of God and Singularity. That’s a matter of opinion and belief.
Today, in my opinion, I believe God is a Monopole Singularity.
I believe in Gods, Monopoles and Singularities.
Heureka as well as Halleujah.
I believe One multiplies as many Ones.
I believe many Ones does This.
I believe the many Ones are of two faces/phases.
All of One (not “in” One)
All as Once (not “at” once)

But only in The Beginning is the One all alone.
So One breaks into Light
Light enlightens all forms of reality
Reality is this Enlightenment
One shines as many Ones
One eventually gathers itself
The many Ones again becomes the Only One
Light returns itself to the source
The One Pole attracts every Little One
Then…what we cannot understand, because there is no “where” to stand.
There are no relatives to the One Alone, so theories of relativity are silenced.
There are no quantities, so quantum theory are silenced.
As a fact, “there” does not apply.
As a fact, “is” does not apply.
As a fact, “One” does not apply.
What applies is Action. That does it. Action.
Not action potential because this reality can not be. It has to be.
Reality must be inevitably enforced, not optional.
Option implies a choise, a decision and intention. Believing this is so, God, Singularity and Monople line up to enter stage. But there is no stage and no One to enter.
Stage One comes later. Big comes with the Bang, but not yet.

This is what makes it difficult to describe. We are trying to imagine action without an actor. We know there is no one physically there to do it, but we know it is done.
So we imagine Force, which is not that hard. But then the mistake of mind.
We attatch some thing that is forceful, as to “have” force.
Always looking for the doer of what is done.
God is forceful
Singularities are forceful
Monopoles are forceful
We believe that if there is force, some thing has to be full of it.
If there is walking, there has to be a walker.

Today I believe that as The Beginning was what walks the walker.
The coming of what comes.
The going of what goes.
The around of all.

The Beginning comes around and goes around
Today that is…


Doing the Being

It does what it is
It need not “do” what it “does”
It “does” what it is
The action is of the agent, being the agent
Being need not be “done”
It just is
What it is, is what it “does”

This is not what we believe to be true
Not-believing is not “done” by us
We are disbelief
We are uncertainty
We are not absolutely sure
Therefore, we are also creation,
while not “creating” anything at all

Creation is of novelties
so we are the excitement with news
Always excited by new novelties
Mind is most of all creative
so mind creates
It cannot stop “doing” what it is
Only by being still
Creations of mind comes to a halt
But there is no “you” that can “do” the stillness
Either it is, or it is not

Scientists that are not knowing this
cannot “do” knowledge of this
Therefore, they “do” novelties ad infinitum
They cannot be stopped
and they do not mind this
because they are not mindful
of what is

So they believe in creation and “doing”
There are fields that does
There are dimensions that does
There are particles that does
There are objects that does
There are scientists that does
and data that does a “show”
Data shows

But reality has no doer of what is real
Reality realizes by simply being real
This is the hard part for creative mind to understand
Understanding and knowing is not done
by an entity that does the understanding and knowing
There is knowing or there is not knowing
Science is embracing not-knowing
Because creation stops with knowing
In the stillness of mind
there is only countinous change
The still mind creates nothing
It simply responds to the flow of change
It knows this by being this-ness
and it can only be when no doer is there to mind it

That’s the paradox

The still mind, not occupied with “doing” the stillness,
is a mind in a continous flow of change
A still mind is not separate from an external flow
A still mind is not a separate mind
It is a momentary expression of whatever flows
where the still mind is

The still mind knows the real flow
by being the real flow
in the momentary shape of “mind”
A tree is also a momentary shape of flow
but a tree is not a mind
so they respond in their subjective, unique way
A tree is tree-ing the flow
A mind is mind-ing the flow

To mind the fundament of reality
is to mind being one as be-coming two
Being one is what this is
We can label that “form”
Form is what it is
To be coming is what it does
We can label that “formless”
The flow requires the one to act
so being one is never enough
If one is one, it cannot flow
One also needs to be the coming of one
Being one is to be coming one
over and over agin

Being one is not being two
That is the simple nature of the unified field of entanglement
There are no lose parts or isolated systems
One is unbreakable says the scientists
But “one” is just a quantity
and quantity is never enough
We must add the quality of one to know one correctly
The quality of one is to come
To come and come and yet again come
One adjoint operation of one
coming and going
Being the coming back to itself
Thus reality be-comes realized

Looking at how one begins its cycle of be-coming one
it looking at singularity
Singularity is not of form
Singularity is no thing
Neither is it nothing
Singularity is formless action
Singularity is time without space
The Arrow of time is a measure of the flowing
not of what flows
The flow of one, coming back to itself,
is not a linear arrow pointing in a particular direction
To come into its being, the arrow of time must be circular
The hands of time must wrap around its being
Have you seen a clock?
I have …

Time is frequency of rotation
It is a measure of how many times
one comes back to one
The zero of time is not between 11 and 1
The zero of time is at the spinning center
in the face of being
from zero emerges the hands of time
From origo stretches the hands of the original face
A clockwork reality
that never fails

Out of no “thing”
in the very middle of no “where”
there is the quality of formless action
Out of zero comes the being
of this One.

The initial state is a no-state
The zero time action is a trait
Singularity is the coming of what becomes the being
One formless flow of many forms
of this One

It begins with a quality
the quality is two faced
One is contraction
One is extension
One is: extended contraction
Contraction causes many forms of one
Extension causes the many of one to flow
Reality is the one effect
Reality is spaced out time

Just be the looking at it!



The question of Mu

In Zen here is a famous koan known as Mu. A koan is sort of a riddle that a teacher gives a student to work on. These riddles have no definite answers as regular questions have. The purpous of a koan is to break conventional though patterns and, in a way, short circuit mind in order to access knowledge behind reasoning. It is a way of studying reality as it is when not reasoned about or understood by a human observer.

A monk asked Master Chao-chou, “Has a dog the Buddha Nature or not?” Chao-chou said, “Mu!”

That’s it. One question, one answer. Case closed.

There are of course numerous interpretations of what Mu really means. I suggest the point made by the master is this – mind will never stop asking questions, and the sooner you realize this, the sooner you know the mind, and knowing mind opens the door to knowing Everything. So why say Mu? Mu is not an answer to the monks question. Mu is a negation of the questioning itself. It doesn’t answer that particular question. Instead it answers the natural function of mind to persistently put reality into question. Mu is just another way of saying “God did it”. It is the end of further questioning. Now, the Master, being a Master, didn’t Believe in God or any other diety. Knowing mind fully, he didn’t Believe in anything mind told him. Neither did he reject anything of minds content. To the Master of Reality, there is ultimately nothing being wrong or right. There is just what is. Instead of saying God or Buddhanature is Everything, including dogs, he says “There is no definite answer to any of your questions, so stop asking”. The message is this – if you stop asking questions that require an answer where reality is reduced to separate parts with inherent properties, you might just realize that there’s a whole reality that includes all seemingly subjective and unique phenomena. You may be enlightened by the fact that reality is conceptual and understandable only to mind itself, but unknowable when absent minded.

But there’s trap in this, waiting to catch mind red handed. The reflexive response of mind when “understanding” Mu is to, yet again, trying to understand it. Mind cannot help itself from repeating the act of questioning. Mind Thinks – Oh, so reality is something else than how it appears to my mind. My experience is not of reality but of illusion.

No you don’t. You will never “get it”. You missed the point of Mu. Mu said “Beware of questioning reality because that habit of mind will keep it from knowing the essence of it”. Instead of “getting it”, you immediately questioned the reality of minds experience. You stupid fool!

Mu is relentlessly wrecking everything you believe to be important aspects of knowledge. If you ask “What mind”, you miss the point.
If you ask “What is real”, you miss the point.
If you ask “What is the point”, you miss the point.

You see, mind has to keep asking questions, never accepting a definite answer. That’s the very function of human mind. It is not wrong or “illusory” at all. It is perfectly normal and fully functional. You need not do anything about this response/function of mind. But if you want to know reality in its most ultimate sense, you must realize this mind function first hand. You must learn the essence of mind in order to understand how it “knows” reality. Mind gains knowledge by not accepting input as experienced, but by questioning reality as it presents itself in the experience of mind.

This is why a Theory of Everything can never be accepted by anyone else than s/he who puts it on the table. Imagine gravity being the cause of vortices in condensed matter. Let’s say that is essentially the creative force behind Everything. Whatever it is, someone will inevitably respond – Ok, but what causes that to happen? If reality is such that the ultimate cause cannot be caused itself, mind will never settle for that kind of Everything. It will keep asking – Has a dog Buddhanature?


What is This

Throughout my posts I will often use the word This. When I do, it is to emphasize the reality that you and me have as “experience”, exactly as it is right here, right now. This is what generates all our ideas, theories, patterns of thought, emotions and behavior. Everything is all of This. When we point at an object over “there”, and say there it is, it is still This. Without This, there would be no objects anywhere, no observers, no pointing and no looking.

This is “reality”.
This is “existence”.

I prefer to say This because it connects to the subjective experience. If we say “everything” mind usually thinks – Everything is not possible to know. No one can experience and understand Everything. Everything is too big to even imagine. Same goes for saying “reality”, and now we add arguments about what is actually “real” and what is “illusion”. Before we know it, there is a lecture on epistemology.

This cannot be argued with. This is your continous experience happening in the body. It doesn’t matter if it’s big, small, fantasy, fact, partial, fleeting, wierd, true, pleasant, horrible, nonsensical, dreamlike, common, distorted, psychotic, valuable, idiosynchratic, precise or unbeliavable.
This is what the mind observes and responds to. This is your experience, not the experience of an african river or of a penguine diving for fish. Those subjects have other experiences of This. What all subjects, all different forms of universal matter, have in common is the responding to This.

It is important to stress the fact that This does not “mean” anything. “Meaning” is a function of intelligent mind, not a property of This. This might be a sunset, but what This sunset “means” is up to the intelligent observer to decide. A sunset doesn’t even mean that daytime is soon over, because that is only relatively true. In reality, there is just a sun and a planet, and the seem to move in particular ways.
That’s what This is.
Very precise.
Spot on.

There is this guy Tony Parsons who has a funny way of dealing with This. He has written a book called The Open Secret and travels around talking about This. When someone asks – Well then, what exactly is “this”, Tony usually answers – It is This! That is pretty annoying to intelligent mind because it is completely useless information. The answer doesn’t help you understanding This at all, and this is the point Tony is constantly making. Experience, as it is, cannot be understood rationally. It can only be experienced. When you analyze it, the experience is already gone, and now you’re analyzing the memory content of mind. Doing so is of course yet another experience, provided you are mindful of what happens. But if you try to understand the experience of analyzing an experience, there is suddenly a new experience. That of “trying to understand the experience of …”, you get the point I hope.

This is impossible to analyze and understand, not because it is illusory or unknowable. On the contrary, it is precisely the knowable reality of This which makes it an “open secret”.  It is what actually happens, as it happens. The “as it happens” is central to This and to understanding why it can’t be analyzed in and of itself. This is a process that simply does not stop as to be defined as “this” or “that”. Freezing snapshots of reality is what mind has to do in order to understand it. Without these definite snapshots, no science is possible. Without defining experience as of “this” and “that”, we can hardly communicate properly. Our very identity of being Me depends on a stable entity that has the experience of a changing reality.

This is long before good and bad, true or false. This is simply what This is.
This is what we are, and what Everything is.
Everything is always This.

So here is Tony’s take on This. You don’t have to agree on whatever you may find “conceptually incoherent” or contradicting known facts. What he is trying to communicate is that This is not is relation to reality. This is reality as it Is. In reality, there is concepts, incoherence, contradiction, knowledge and facts. This is ultimately all-inclusive and totally for free. And yes, it is also useless.

What something looks like

Throughout history, humans have tried to capture the totality of existence by various symbols. They all suggest a sort of complementary relation of what is known and what is unknown. A common theme is recursive polarity. There is the black and the white, negative and positive, and these two seem to be locked in a repeating pattern. There is an infinite loop of one after the other. They never merge and they never separate. There is no fusion or fission, but just an endless repetition of the same interaction. The poles seem to be forever attracted but never united. Two lovers and an endless lovestory. The chase seems to always be better than the catch.

Hunab Ku


I relate these symbols to Singularity, the idea of a “something” that is both “some” and “thing”. When dealing with words, I always check the etymology. This is essential if you want to get to the roots of where we stand. In etymology we can sense what lies “under” our current “standing”. That is not a pun, but a valuable way of reaching understanding. Some means  as one, together with, and that suddenly makes sense to the notion of something. We use the word “something” when there is an uncertainty of “what”. Same goes for “someone” and “somewhere”. When there is “some”, there is also as sense of possibility. It could be this or that. It could be here or there. We just don’t know for sure.

But rest assured – there is a SomeOne that does know.
SomeOne does the knowing.


Something should be understood: As One, together with Thing. Can you understand what this means? Before you answer, find out what means actually means. You must know what we are saying before you say too much. It means halfway between extremes and of second rate. It also means to intend and signify.

The symbols of eternal and infinte completeness, of Everything, means exactly This. And by This I mean Everything! As you can see, any attempt to mean Everything is bound to be of second rate. Whatever we mean is of second rate. This is why the Meaning of Life is of lesser importance than Life as it Is. When we search for the meaning of life, our efforts are to make it second rate. Life itself never means anything. Existence is always of first rate, superior and primary. Meaning of life is of second rate, inferior and secondary. The meaning of life is the pursuit of Ego.

Take a close look at the symbols again. Ask yourself – what is “some” and what is “thing”? My guess is that you see the “thing” as the black part, what is obvious and material. Then you see the white part as “some”, thinking it represents the transperant and uncertain aspect complementing the obvious other.

Now, remind yourself of what your interpretation means. Remember that whatever meaning you apply to the symbol, it is inferior and of second rate to the symbol itself. The symbol has its own meaning, and is of second rate already. If you add your meaning upon that, we end up third rate. If I interpret your meaning as to add a layer of my meaning, we are now four rates away from the source, the reality which the symbol, you and me are trying to explain. The significance of ex-plaining will be of interest when we take a look at the geometry of ex-istence.

The symbols can not be fully understood if we restrict our observation to what is seen. The empirical investigation will inevitably miss half the point of Singulartiy. So what is the black/white polarity if not a representation of known/unknown, seen/unseen, science/religion or body/spirit?
If you still don’t know, take another look and ask youself – how can I possibly “see” a representation of “unseen”? How can this symbol manifest the spirit and uncertainty of a hidden variable? Answer is, it can’t do that!

Yin Yang


Both black and white represents the “thing” of “some”. There is still some which is one, as together with what you see. The polarities are not hidden at all. What you see is always what you get. In reality, there is “thing” and “things”, and they are all out in the open for us to experience and investigate. What we cannot investigate empirically is the cause of black and white effects. So then we might conclude that ultimate reality, a Theory of Everything, is impossible to know. Perhaps we must rely on faith after all? Let science deal with the black and white, with the material things, and have religion speak of an unknowable Some One, call it God, that works in mysterious ways.
I reject that. I’m about creating new mistakes instead of repeating the old ones.

The Some of something is not hidden at all. You just didn’t get it right. You interpreted and added meaning to One, as together with. You devaluated Some and made it less significant. The meaning of yours is inferior to the meaning of Some. Read again and do not interpret what is written:
This = OneThings

If I keep adding more meaning to it, it will make the statement weaker, more not-true. Keep that in mind when I say:
Reality is This
is Everything and Every Thing
Everything is Some Everything
Every Thing is Some Thing
In everything, there is something
In something, there is some everything

The symbols are only pointing to the thing-ness of This. But This is simpler still so don’t start thinking about it. Instead, see it as it is, face to face. Sure the some-ness of something is there in the symbols. They do not lack any real quality. But the some-ness is inherent in all of existence. You need not stare at a particular symbol to not see it. Some-ness is the quality of same-ness. Both come from the root Sem. Whatever thing you look at, you will never observe the same-ness. That is because same-ness is One, as together with thing.

Some of you will eventually understand the meaning of This. And please don’t follow your reflexive intellect on that. I am not dividing us into “Enlightable” and “Unenlightable” individuals. When I say “Some of you”, I’m talking to You reading This.
The some-ness of Your being will eventually resonate with the some-ness in every thing. It is the resonance of same-ness in all of the universal every things. All physical objects/forms are this One, as together with.
Together with what, you might ask.
Ahh, intelligence…

Together with all physical objects/forms as this One
With all physical objects/forms as this One, together
All physical objects/forms as this One is together with
Physical objects/forms as this One is all together with
As this One, all physical objects/forms are together
This is One together with all physical objects/forms

SomeOne is to gather all things.

Call it God
Call it Gravity
Call it Chi
Call it The Force
Call it Whatever

Ultimately, it is the Same Some and you better hear it call You.
Without it      No thing
But here You are.
You see?