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 http://www.theheavystuff.com/ and my other blog of just UFO posts is at http://www.ufodisclosurecountdownclock.blogspot.com/ . You can also find a link to this blog at my website on Squidoo.com -- that url is www.squidoo.com/anomalyman -- 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.
the PHILLIPS PHENOMENOLOGY
THE IDEA THAT DESCRIBES `SPACE'
NOT-ABLE-TO-BE
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.
THE IDEA THAT DESCRIBES `TIME'
ABLE-TO-NOT-BE
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.
THE IDEA THAT DESCRIBES `REALITY'
NOT-ABLE-TO-NOT-BE
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.
LITERALLY BEING A BEING WHO IS NOT ABLE TO NOT BE
And, who yet, has freewill.
MORE TO COME
THANKS FOR READING
AND THINKING
