Saturday, May 2, 2009

What do you think?

This is just what I've written in respect to the book idea. I know it's a little weird. I think it's stylistically similar to the blog, but it assumes the person hasn't read anything of my previous writing or ideas or w/e. I think it comes out fairly clear. I don't know if I mean for this bit to be a starting or introduction, but I'm sure it would work as that. It needs refining still, but I'm reasonably happy with it. Here you are:

There is a “first principle” on which i base all of my ideas and propositions. This principle is that reality is independent of human perception. From this one belief all my other ideals and convictions flow in a lucidly logical manner.

In the side of my mind there is a thought that says I should say my belief in the existence of God is my first principle, but that would not be true. What is the point of writing this all if I’m going to posture as some nun, so secure in this existence that to find someone who does not believe is a staggering shock? No, my belief or knowledge or faith in God’s existence comes secondarily. His existence is something that I once needed proved. He has proved himself, but that is another story altogether. My first principal would, however, indicate the existence of a being greater than humans on whom reality can depend.

I think the best thing to come out of this first principal is that it means the collective consciousness of humans is not all there is to the world. I think this is beautiful from a creative aspect, because that means humanity can reach outside of itself for inspiration, both artistically and emotionally. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it will still make a noise because the universe, the entire material and metaphysical world, will vibrate with its movement.

When I think of the universe, there is a lot that passes through my mind. I think of what we can see through telescopes, of course, and the vastness of the galaxies sprawling indefinitely through space. I think of time, and the lack of it, and the movement of it, and the meaninglessness of it. I think of the possibilities also. What other dimensions exist without human perception? Because of the first principle, it is possible that they exist. I read (in Wikipedia, the genius-est thing ever) about hypercubes once. They are “four-dimensional” objects. People can’t actually make them, or even see them because our bodies can only occupy three dimensions. They’ve made concept drawings of them, though, in 2D, and they’re really a lovely concept, string theory and all that. One of the lines that struck me, though, is that these things could exist, but we would only perceive them as cubes. The analogy given was that a sphere appears as a circle of varying sizes as it passes through a 2 dimensional plane.

The universe is thus, in my mind, full of endless possibility, endless dimensionality, and is a wonderful place indeed. There is only one universe, but there may be multiple “space”s, if that makes sense. The stars and planets and all that could be duplicated in the same universe.

If you have any comments for encouragement or adjustments I should make, or disagreement with the material itself, let me know because if you read this silly blog you probably rock.

1 comment: