My Kindle Books - 0.99 To 1.99 - (Contain Phillips Phenomenology)

Monday, March 03, 2014

Nagging Questions And Speculative Answers

Recently I re-unearthed some of my `writings' from the mid-1970's - much of it to do with my readings at the time (The Fourth Way and The Phenomenology Of Internal Time Consciousness) and my altered consciousness states writings about Phenomenology - what I now refer to as the Phillips Phenomenology.

When I told poet J.S. Flower about the writings he asked for me to read some to him - which I did on a cellphone call. As you will read below - it is hard to sound `confident' when one is reading such `heavy' material of an esoteric nature - so, I decided to finally begin the process of putting some of the REAL base material thinking I did about the PP onto the internet - and below - I hope - is just the first installment. All of the underlines, etc, are part of the ORIGINAL writing.

Esoteric Phenomenology
Sept. 1975

Essay of Nagging Questions and Speculative Answers
Q. Can you account, very briefly for how and what non-ordinary reality is to the system?

A. Yes, the not-able-to-not-be is the real of awareness for common consensus. It is not experience itself, it is only the real. Experience itself, is time, the conscious `part’ of the reality structure; able-to-not-be. Time is all the possibilities of a conscious now; of which the space  (identity) selects the real. Space, the not-able-to-be, and the `former’ of I-NOT-I relationships, selects what is real to the identity (space); Real-being the not-able-to-not-be, of the I-NOT-I participation in experience. Experience being the conscious (Time) (Able-To-Not-Be) possibilities of space (Identity) relationships with other space identities. IDENTITY BEING THE REAL SELECTING OF EXPERIENCE FOR SPACE. IDENTITY TRANSFORMS POSSIBLE TIME FOR SPACE. Which brings us back to the question; non-ordinary reality is that space selection which because it is a conscious identity, can move into other now experience. ITS IDENTITY SWITCHES ITS TENDENCY FROM TIME TRANSFORMING INTO SPACE; SPACE TRANSFORMS INTO TIME. EXPERIENCE STAYS REAL WITH THE SUBSEQUENT, NOT-ABLE-TO-NOT-BE, I-NOT-I participation of identity in participation with able-to-not-be possibilities, which are only non-space identities. You `rise’ into the able-to-not-be area of reality orientation and `leap’ into `real’ with your identity of time as space. Your identity, still real, has time as space, instead of the usual space as time identity. Both identities being `real’.
In the near future I will update this post as there was one more entry for this Essay Of Nagging Questions And Speculative Answers from January 1976 - stay tuned. 
The Update - Question Two
(I have decided to not use the underlines of the original manuscript in this second recap - no phrases in the second question or answer were in all caps from 1975 like in the first answer.)
Q. Just where is, and how plentiful is the not-able-to-be concept?

A. This could be the most difficult question about the system yet; for it shows an understanding of the lack of being behind the appearance of objects – save the perceiver himself. The not-able-to-be is a complete concept which accumulates to the creation of an appearance. The appearance has no duration at all. The appearance is space. Knowing space has no duration prevents one from saying after, yet the next point for a consciousness is different. Not the same; and not-able-to-be (anything but itself).
So, when the more conscious concept (able-to-not-be) decides the next point of space; an appearance of the decision is not-able-to-be for that point. When more than one, potentially able-to-not-be (being) concept, is in relating spaces, the resultant is for the not-able-to-be concepts relating in a new common not-able-to-not-be space.
The relationships of the able-to-not-be’s with all of themselves and the former not-able-to-be appearances; now breaks down into a lower consenus of close spaces; in which relationships are not-able-to-be. The able-to-not-be still decides the next point; however its between/of 2 not-able-to-be’s, which instead of being a point form a line (with the new `common’ consensus of the spaces – not-able-to-be’s.
These lines of spaces in relationship form the new `real’.
The individual able-to-not-be’s are still committed to its not-able-to-be, but with other not-able-to-be’s so close in appearance, decides to follow a line of common time rather than individual space. The not-able-to-be appearances; `flash’; then are truly gone. For a new not-able-to-be has been decided on.
We’re in a field of `real’ not-able-to-be’s, which has able-to-not-be’s attention. Not-able-to-be’s are rare in a land of able-to-not-be consciousness; and the `type’ in not-able-to-not-be spaces are even rarer.
The ultimate goal in all this is convert lots of pages on 4 decade old notebook paper into something digital - stay tuned for upcoming examples of Esoteric Phenomenology 

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Internal Consciousness And The Phillips Phenomenology

(This post was begun on Aug. 31st, 2011 - it is a number of unfinished posts that I will be bringing forth.)

Internal Consciousness And The Phillips Phenomenology

First, short of `stopping the world' as Don Juan of Carlos Castaneda fame used to say; we humans have virtually NO access to our actualizing `now' (which is really `the current space') - which exists with the `space' of our body/mass. ' Indeed, our human consciousness is uniquely presented as part of `what we are' - and located with `US'/ourselves. AT or WITHIN our body is the normal experience for self-awareness.

We also know that our `instantaneous' self - `runs off' and is replaced with that new `actualized space' of the `instantaneous'. And so on...... and so on. -------- While we `intellectually know' that all datum of our senses, having `arrived after' lights `bounce' and the accompaning sensory data translation which happens instantaneously from our brains - BUT, AFTER translation, of data that has already `actualized' within `anothers space' that is within our common field of perceptions with all other `spaces' (with consciousness within them).

In other words, the `data' our eyes percieve is already `in the past' and are the showing of the `run off' of those spaces as light actualizes them for others consciousness. Which brings up the first mental mindbender - others `run off' PAST - PROVIDES our individual `future'/now perceptions.

Yes, everyone's `run off past' - is the only perceptual path to the `future' - or is it?
Please check out my Amazon Kindle Books - Author Page.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

This post was started in 2008 and worked on in 2009-2010)

Empty Space - Part Two

I want to first thank you for digging deeper via my blog . Welcome to the Phillips Phenomenology Blog. As you can see, this is just the fourth posting here -- but -- as you can read from the first few posts -- nothing could be heavier than what this blog strives to describe. And that, is the - phenomenology of reality as presented to a singular, individual, space - like a human.

Indeed, as humans, and indeed, as the seemingly most aware species on the planet, in our solar system, and perhaps within 4.5 light years or so - we are uniquely positioned to comment about `things' - including, consciousness, space and duration. And, as you are well aware, our species have numerous scientific theories that explain nearly all space and all time back to fractions of a moment after this universe's creation. Some of the theories are amazingly consistent and elegant and some would say - even beautiful.

Indeed, as the fullness of this blog slowly continues - I would hope the words consistent, elegant, and beautiful can even be applied to this theory of phenomenology that I will be articulating. As you know if you read posts one and two -- the Phillips Phenomenology -- is literally `inspired from elsewhen/elsewhere' in altered states -- and, as I have already described ... nearly ghost written would be an accurate description as to how the fundamentals came into my thought in the 1970's.

So, in this posting - the subject matter will once again will be - `space'. Or more accurately, spaces. It really would be worthwhile to first off read `Empty Space' on my `heavy stuff ' website - then return.

Thanks. ----------- Ok ---------- Ready for more phenomenology?

To summarize the above Heavy Stuff part one article -- the universe is huge -- but within that hugeness -- matter -- specifically, the `space' of matter (atoms and sub-atomic particles) --- is amazingly scarce. And, when you consider how `instantly fleetingly' that moment of space has to `actualize within' --- the whole shabang of reality begins to -- well -- literally, .......... disappear.

It appears-or shows, literally, that `the creation' - or actualization of - of the specific space-time (duration) literally is made of nearly nothing at all - much as has been speculated by physicist Julian Barbour in this theories that `time doesn't exist' -- and, yet, `it' - the `creative/created flux' seems to be, literally, `everything' (every space and its embedded trajectory) to a singular self-aware consciousness.`

And, to that dichotomy, we bring the Phillips Phenomenology.

As I began to articulate in The Heavy Stuff blog post - perhaps EVERYTHING - is a space. INCLUDING spaces transformation into a space-like `thing' we call `our reality' (and our `time'). Indeed, if phenomenology shows that `time' is more space-like than ever considered before - perhaps `time' in essence doesn't `exist' - and Julian Barbour is right. But, we are many caveats from that using this phenomenology - because the Phillips Phenomenology has a definition for `time' (as we know it) - but - admits - it may be and probably is - nothing more than a negation of the preceding `space'.

All of this phenomenology begs for a genesis - and one will be speculated upon - probably, ultimately, in various formulations - and no genesis may come forth from this particular post. But, importantly, the words that the Phillips Phenomenology associates with space, time, and reality - do have a grounding and a fairly `seeable' structure - regardless of the genesis -- literally at the very beginning of the space-time of our reality.

But - back to the subject of this post ------ Empty Space (part two) --- and the phases or phenomenology of `space' for a singular observer, like a human. And, it's important to know that the phenomenology `begins' by `slicing' the space and time of `matter' to its `ultimate fractional form' - the fraction of actualization of a space.

For a human, book, tree, computer, - for anything with a shaped space composed of atoms and subatomic matter - that `infinitesimal duration' of `now' - the present - ONLY exists for the actual space itself. Nothing of the `original space' exists at all - within the `perception it - the space - creates - for `other spaces'. By the `time' a `space' has `light' bounce off of it - so that it can be represented to other spaces (which because they are not the reflecting space -- are a `timeframe' away) that particular `space' has `run off' - becoming a `space/time-like' representation for other spaces with awareness.

Indeed, it is important to realize that in `perceptual reality' - none of the spaces - none of the supposedly `solid matter' - is actually within perceptual reality. None of it at all - all of `it' has `run-off' into `another reality of phenomenology' - the `timelike' representation of that space for others to experience. Indeed, a totally `empty space' at this point as far as to `real mass'.

The Empty Space Of -The Not-Able-To-Not-Be --------- that everyone of us call -reality.

Please vote in the sidebar poll or go to my front page to see all my posts and vote too

Thursday, June 05, 2008


Hello readers of the esoteric - you have reached right to the very bottom of things - phenomenology. This is my phenomenology blog which features my original Phillips Phenomenology and will also occasionally do posts like this when the media ventures into the world of `seeing the future' or issues of time, space and freewill or determinism. By the way - see my latest post on my blog concerning `seeing the future'.


As you might know, my most read blog and indeed one of my most read ever postings was about freewill and determinism. That post was about a research study that tried to determine if fruitflies had `freewill' - an idea I expanded - to inquire if Humans had freewill. Clifford Pickover picked up the post on his site and his site was then picked up by BoingBoing > resulting in being my most read posting on The Heavy Stuff - here's the link I'll let you read the article to find if I leaned to the freewill side or the determinism side.

But, back to the question I've positioned in the title and as you can see -- IS the poll question I'm taking also on this website (it's just to the right - please vote). Once again, can ANY of the `3 categories of time' - past, present, future, - be changed. I will bet you have NEVER thought of this before. And, frankly, without a deeper understanding of phenomenology - is largely a meaningless question. I will try to traverse some of the various levels of this seemingly simple question.

Looking For Change

One might think that the simplest answer to this question could be applied to The Past. Obviously, it seems, the Past - cannot be changed. We cannot return, with our current space, to a previous moment, and produce a different timeline of reality. As far as we know, it has never been done; seems illogical, and if the past could be changed -- would anything be able to be confirmed as real? The time-flow seems to be only away from points in the determined past. If we are looking for change - it doesn't seem to be found in the past. (Right?)

Looking For Change

One might think that the simplest, most common answer to this question, is that The Present - is where change is found. But is it really? Isn't the present where `actualization' is found that `determines' the present? Determining it to the place that it literally can't change? So that it is placed as real? Could something that is determined and which joins the past --- a place we know no change exists - be the actual place that it is possible to change? Are the characteristics of the present more similar to the unchangeable past or the undetermined future?
Looking For Change
Since the past is unchangeable, and the present literally being The Determined Now, surely the place where change might exist is the future. One problem. The future doesn't exist. If change is placed in the future - it is placed in a location that literally doesn't exist. Can we really look for change there? In a location that doesn't exist?
Remember, we live on a planet. Our Earth is NOT in multiple locations simultaneously. Where the Earth surface will be in the future within the universe is not accessible within NOW as a real thing.
OR, is there ONLY change? Perhaps, only the past can be changed? IS our only perception - the change - from one moment to the next? Is reality not changed every moment? Is change the very definition of REAL to a conscious observer? Is not the past changed to the present and the present changed to the future?
Perhaps, only the past and future can be changed?
Or, only the present and the future?
Simple question right?
How ever you feel, please comment, and vote in the poll too. Thanks.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Hello folks; you are among those rarest of readers who dig the deepest - one of the few looking for the `information' behind the `screen of reality' so to speak. The attempt to see the `Oz' who sets up our reality of common consensus within the field of perception. And, perhaps, a smidgen of that truth will be found in the description of a phenomenology you are about to read.

Most of you who are able to find this blog come from one of my other `Heavy Stuff ' websites. My most popular blog is at and my other blog of just UFO posts is at . You can also find a link to this blog at my website on -- that url is -- on that website I have a small daily listing of anomalies, the paraNormal, and mind perceptions. I'd love for you to visit my other websites and guarantee that you will be entertained and more.

That said, this blog was my original attempt at posting anything on the internet - the subject of deepest passion to share with the internet hyperspace. The only seemingly totally original ideas I'd ever had perhaps. And, as you can see from my first posting -- it's about phenomenology. Perhaps my favorite book EVER was by Edmund Husserl. It's a book that sometimes isn't even listed as a book he wrote. It has the heaviest book title of alltime. The book is called `The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness' -- it's beyond heavy. It's a book I didn't encounter until after this phenomenology came to me in truly altered states under the influence of the cannabis in the early 1970's. I lived in a state with decriminalized laws and times were very loose and esoteric oriented in some circles of users. Truly, some of the first great high times of thought in America.

But, back to phenomenology and the reason for re-starting this blog. As I said, this blog is going to provide the deepest look into the phenomenology that I've frequently written about and touched upon in my The Heavy Stuff blog. I feel that when I write about phenomenology in relation to many of the `anomalous things' that I cover in my THS blog that it seems `too deep' -- and too hard to explain in just a few words to make a secondary point about Ghosts or other phenomena. So, this blog will lean very heavily into providing the best description I can provide to this explosion of internal thought nearly 35 years ago. I expect that this blog will expanded beyond my phenomenology ideas of the 1970's and welcome original phenomenology thoughts you may have had -- please leave a comment with them. I want to stress, nothing is too far out when it comes to speculating about the reality structure.

OK, Ok, that is out of the way. Since you have waited since 2005 except for the tidbits in The Heavy Stuff -- today's post will be as brief and overviewish as possible. I hope to get into the details and the big explanations in future posts - and you won't have to wait 2 and a half years - promise.


My first and only post in 2005 tackled this subject matter. The whole concept of `how could time have ever begun?' -- lead me to an answer -- The Limitation of Space, Gives Time --. It was after this literal revelation that I came up with how `space' should be understood. (And, that time would have a different description.) The understanding that came to me and that I literally almost `ghost wrote' in a 30-40 page diatribe while in these altered states --- was that the way to understand the characteristics of `space' -- was to think of them-it ---- as (being) NOT - ABLE - TO - BE .
I know that sounds counter intuitive. We are `spaces'. Everything that we can see as an object, IS a `space'. It IS `space', specifically the perception of spaces, which most of us assume to be what REAL `IS'. None of us question the reality of IS -- and IS `is' spaces. And that is all fine and dandy. My description, my phenomenology idea --- says nothing about REAL being any less `real' than you usually understand. INDEED, the idea is what make real REAL. And, for that insight -- you will need to think deeper about this one more time.
The THING that makes real REAL -- is that spaces are counted and are in a frame of reference to themselves (and other things too). Consider this. IF your `space' at any given moment was different, or could be changed -- then what you assume to be REAL would be an illusion - after all, it could be changed. IF you could change the past --- would the REAL you experienced then REALLY have been real? NO.
The ONE thing we are granted is that as our space occurs - as our very space is actualize - it is counted as REAL. Nothing can change THAT (the past) and therefore it lives as being and having occured - and as a reference point. Because in being counted, it `sets' as (being) not-able-to-be -------------- that space and its relations NOT BEING ABLE to be anywhere, or anywhen else. Literally, showing its representation ONCE and ONLY once. Space relations are defined as never re-occurring. It's just the way it is. Amazingly that NOT BEING(ness) is our strongest link to what can be considered Real.
This is only a teaser, honestly -- within those 30 or so pages are all kinds of speculations and different `takes' on these basic descriptions that literally remain fresh in my mind until this very day. I also want to report that if this blog ever starts quoting from the `original documents' - you will find it very wild and speculative; often contradicting ideas seemingly.
BUT, back to the most illusive of ideas ever to occur. Time. Indeed, as I said in my original blog post of this blog ---- to me the ultimate question is --- How could time have ever begun? I guess others ask this questions as how could God have begun - or - what was before God/Time? And, my answer, about time that was forth coming about times beginning did not need to refer to a `time' before God/Time or time -- since it was the very `self-reflective' description of what reality would BE within `common perception'. Space-Time would be what `perception' or `reality' would describe at creation. Everything that would `fall under the one category or the other' would be what totality IS. Everything, in describing REAL is describing the IS'ness of space (s) (relations).
So, if reality was in `need of a description' at creation - some idea needed to be `different' or `able to shed light' on the only reality - space - and it's `idea' that IT, the first space (and all subsequent ones-spaces), was NOT - ABLE - TO - BE. THE REAL. What could possibly be a near equivalent concept? The One and Only - TIME.
Yes, this is the same Time that some physicists such as Julian Barbour say doesn't exist at all. Indeed, a growing number of physicists say that time and perhaps even space doesn't exist. And, folks -- doesn't that begin to get close to my `real phenomenology' that I'm describing? One that describes reality in basic ideas able to be understood by anyone. One that describes the structure itself.
I'm not surprised that to physicists time may seem an illusion - or - that someone reading my phenomenology for the first time will say that if `all spaces' (the very thing we are) are NOT - ABLE - TO - BE that THAT doesn't sound like much of a `reality' -- and in a sense that is true. Reality is momentary. Reality is fleeting. No Reality has permanence. To me, Julian Barbour and myself are talking off of the same page - perhaps. Perhaps not. ---- Because the Phillips Phenomenology does describe what time IS. What time's important overriding attribute is described as BEING. Especially considering that space seems to be all that there is -- after all -- it's all that can be photographed or pointed at. It, space, is what all identities are represented by (our DNA is our space). So, what can Time bring to the table?
Simply put; Time Makes IT (space) Real. And, it makes `spaces' real - by - BEING - something other than space (s). As you read above, the Phillips Phenomenology says that time can be described; and can be described as something `other than (this) space'.
It's as if `something' wells-up out of space. Indeed, some would look at Time's description and say it is nothing but an offshoot of space (and it's description) -- and, in many senses that is a near correct view. But, it's not quite right.
Because Time's description is ABLE-TO-NOT-BE. And, while `space' never seems to get to be `real' for more than a `moment of actualization within perception'; TIME has a different status totally. Because, while space might be `everyTHING' - TIME IS everyWHEN. ONGOING. ALWAYS THERE. REAL. NON-DIVISIBLE. OMNIPRESENT. THE ACTUALIZER OF LIGHT ON SPACE. WHAT MAKES SPACE REAL, ITSELF. Even more important to conscious beings such as ourselves, provides a `real place' for `freewill'. I mean it. Space may be counted and in a sense NOT REAL compared to TIME. But ultimately, our space consciousness includes time - and includes the potential for freewill over the space we posses. And, maybe, even freewill over the time we posses.
You may want to memorize those words. They are power words. They describe the fate of all actualized reality moments. Space's actualization BY time - yields - reality -- which is an idea described by the words NOT-ABLE-TO-NOT-BE. What has to be. The determined. The determined `spaces'. The limitation of `space appearances' via counting time actualization's. The assigning `of spaces' to a spectrum of information representation (via the laws of physics :ie: spaces). The inevitable. The determined. Our reality. The not able to not be.
After all, going from `one moment to another' --- YOU suddenly don't find yourself a mile from where you were --- you don't find yourself 100 miles away -- or heaven forbid, 186,000 miles away one second later. NO, you find yourself, your space where your momentum was taking it. That is how human spaces move. We must accept just how limited IN REALITY we are being `made of spaces'. (We are fortunate to have freewill or all of our space could be plotted - but - because `our space' has freewill (we are determined to other spaces) -- we are much less plot-able. (If that is a word.)
BUT, to other spaces -- to other people --- our space is represented as `a determined space-location' -- as a NOT ABLE TO NOT BE -- we literally HAVE TO OCCUR when and where we DO-IS-BEING.
And, who yet, has freewill.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

What Is Not Able To Not Be; IS
These are the opening words which best describe one of the key ideas of a phenomenology that came to me in altered consciousness states in the 1970's. The phrase is one of several that underpins a description of reality that may indeed be `esoteric' or, who knows, perhaps pure manure to your perceptions.
The mental inquiry began with the most profound of questions -- How could time have ever begun? Eventually, via altered consciousness states, an `answer' was forthcoming -- 'the limitation of space, gives time'. Hey, now I had both The Question and The Answer -- or so I thought. Instead, pages flowed from the mind to the hand to the pencil; with words and concepts I had never ever considered -- or encountered.
Little did I know that I was writing, at the age of 23 and 24, an actual structure of a phenomenology --- a concept totally alien to my brain.
The altered states indicated to me that space itself --- matter --- actually was not able to be. I know that may seem flippy at first read. But, think about it. Matter; ie:space; for a `given moment' ---- is NOT able to be ---- anywhere else, anything else, and by even `existing at all' - can never happen again. That moment, that space, IS, not-able-to-be.
That concept, NOT-ABLE-TO-BE is what space, ACTUALLY IS. Space itself (as the component of Space/Time) only occurs as a concept. And, that concept REPRESENTS THE WORDS ----- NOT ABLE TO BE. Every moment, of every `space' --- is NOT ABLE TO BE. It evidently is the `idea' represented by `space'.