The Secret of Everything

Copyright 2015 A. O. Neuron
All Rights Reserved
Also available for Amazon Kindle

version 0003.77
2

Table of Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................5
Part 1: The Way to Understand Everything......................................................................................................9
What is Reality, Really?..................................................................................................................................11
An Example of the Universal Model............................................................................................................13
Perspective is All We Can Know...................................................................................................................15
Discovering the Illusion..................................................................................................................................18
What are Relationships?.................................................................................................................................20
Everything is a SPIR.........................................................................................................................................21
Anatomy of a SPIR...........................................................................................................................................24
The Meaning of Using a SPIR.......................................................................................................................27
The Geometry of Perspective Scale.............................................................................................................27
The Importance of Representation..............................................................................................................28
The Purpose of Perspective............................................................................................................................31
Part 2: The Reality Around You, The Reality Through You..........................................................................34
We Draw Illusions, and are Drawn to Them.............................................................................................36
Searching Chaos for Paterns........................................................................................................................39
The Vastness of You..........................................................................................................................................40
What is Thinking?............................................................................................................................................41
Everything Is Relative to Your Perspective................................................................................................42
Drifing In and Out of Relevance.................................................................................................................45
The Power of the Logical Narrative.............................................................................................................47
Evolving Our Story...........................................................................................................................................48
The Meaningful Now.......................................................................................................................................51
The Living World Around You.......................................................................................................................53
Part 3: The Qest....................................................................................................................................................56
What is Happiness?.........................................................................................................................................57
How to Be Happy.............................................................................................................................................58
The Art of Resonant Relationships..............................................................................................................59
Becoming Comfortable with Your Self........................................................................................................61
Avoiding Things You Don't Want to Experience.......................................................................................64
The Art of Resistance.......................................................................................................................................65
Resistance is Futile...........................................................................................................................................67
The Goodness of Inequality...........................................................................................................................68
Right and Wrong, and Karma........................................................................................................................69
Does Evil Exist?.................................................................................................................................................71
The Joy of Human SPIRs................................................................................................................................72
The Role of Technology...................................................................................................................................75
What About Science?......................................................................................................................................76
Part 4: In Pursuit of the Universe......................................................................................................................78
Is the Universe Infinite?..................................................................................................................................81
The Potentials....................................................................................................................................................82
What is Energy?................................................................................................................................................84
Spacetime...........................................................................................................................................................85
Time is Another Mater...................................................................................................................................86
Time and Physicality.......................................................................................................................................86
Mater..................................................................................................................................................................88
The Nature of Gravity.....................................................................................................................................89
The Laws of the Universe...............................................................................................................................90
The Only Law in Town....................................................................................................................................91
States of Harmony, States of Mater...........................................................................................................92

3

The Meaning of Phi & Pi................................................................................................................................93
Phi is Everywhere in Physical Reality.........................................................................................................93
SPIR Systems.....................................................................................................................................................94
Illustrating a SPIR with Simple Math.........................................................................................................95
The Secret of the Universe.............................................................................................................................97
The Expansive Now-here................................................................................................................................99
The Color Scale...............................................................................................................................................100
Relationships Meet Resistance...................................................................................................................101
The Genius and Schroedinger's Cat..........................................................................................................102
Size Doesn't Mater........................................................................................................................................103
Observing the Instrument............................................................................................................................103
Searching the Past for Answers..................................................................................................................104
The Theory of Nothing..................................................................................................................................105
Part 5: Consciousness, Dreams, the Perfect Reality, and You..................................................................106
The Consistency of Conscious Being........................................................................................................108
The Present is a Gif That You Never Got (but Hints at a Relationship That You Did)...............109
Relationships and You...................................................................................................................................110
The Naturally Artificial Human..................................................................................................................113
Living the Dream............................................................................................................................................115
The Physical Dreamworld............................................................................................................................116
Dream Interpretation of the Physical World..........................................................................................118
Everything is Harmonious...........................................................................................................................119

4

Introduction
We will begin to uncover the mysteries of our reality by looking at things from a new
perspective; one that keeps the subconscious self in mind. The subconscious mind
understands reality far, far beter than the conscious mind ever could, and we can learn a
great many things about our own lives from it. By using the same method that both our
conscious and subconscious selves use to perceive – presented in the first chapter of this
book – we can discover the answers to questions like:













What is the meaning of life?
What is the universe, and how did it begin?
How can I be more happy?
What are space and time?
Do good and evil exist? What does it mean to be good, exactly?
What is the purpose of my family and friends?
What are dreams?
What are mater and energy? What is antimater?
Where does my reality come from?
How can life be beter and more interesting?
What is gravity and how does it work?
What is consciousness?

We are able to answer these questions and much, much more using a relatively simple
system that can be applied to anything and everything. The reason it can be universally
applied is because this system – a simple formula – gives birth to perspective, the foundation
for your every experience and reality.
As a civilization, we now understand that approximately 96% of the universe is a complete
mystery to us. Scientists also know that we are unable to perceive more than 99% of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Less than 1% of your body's DNA is human and only about 10% of
your body's cells are of human origin. Further, 1/3 of your entire life is a mystery, as we don't
yet know what dreams are. And afer thousands of years of conscious introspection we still
don't know what consciousness is. Intelligence and emotions are also mysteries, as are time
and gravity. We understand a bit more about the brain inside our head, but know litle about
the brains found in our gut and spinal cord. It would be reasonable to say that, despite all of
the advancements we seem to have made we do not actually have much of an understanding
about the reality we find ourselves in. A rational and encompassing explanation may even be
beyond the reach of science.
It follows that any previously unknown yet valid explanation of reality will appear to be
completely ridiculous and counter-intuitive from our current perspective. Everything in this
book will be just that. But we will also uncover the mysteries of our reality using a new kind
of logic.
This book will clearly demonstrate that what we perceive as reality is actually our
interpretation of relationships between things that cannot themselves actually be perceived.
By focusing on the relationships between things rather than trying to figure out the things
themselves, reality is relatively easy to understand. Further, we will demonstrate how
creating reality as we wish can be as simple as re-interpreting special relationships that are
already there.
5

If we know that we understand only 4% of the universe, can we really assume that we know
the extent of what we don't understand? Could it be possible that we don't understand much
at all because our basic assumptions about reality are of the mark?
If, for example, we had a test with 10 problems of increasing dificulty, we are not 50% done if
we are on question number 5. We first need to know all of the answers before we can say how
complete our test is. We cannot say that we understand the answer to even the most basic
questions simply because the solutions to problem numbers 9 and 10 may require a complete
rethink of the fundamental assumptions that seemed to work so well for problem numbers 1
and 2. The last answer on the test will always be blank simply because by then it will be
obvious to us that the answer is far beyond what can be reasonably expressed with language.
This book holds that we each have an inherent understanding of how reality works but do
not yet have the concepts and language that would enable us to use this understanding
consciously. Part of the purpose of this book is to introduce new concepts and new ways of
thinking so that we may approach a more complete understanding of our reality.
Fortunately, there are no right or wrong answers on this great test of ours. There are only
answers that make the next question more dificult to uncover if we are convinced of their
truth. What is “true” is likely beyond both the flexibility of words and the limitations of
perception, so we can start by geting rid of our assumptions about what is true. We can even
assume that nothing we can perceive is absolutely true at all but, instead, learn to work with
the reality of the relationships between what we know in order to approach the direction of a
truth that we cannot perceive. If our answer is, “We don't really know, so anything is
possible,” it can open doors and our eyes to an understanding that we couldn't see was
already there.
It is a litle ironic to think that the universe may only be a mystery because we have been
thinking that perception equals reality the entire time. We assume that we can objectively
sense reality when it can only be experienced subjectively, as this book will demonstrate.
Further, we will demonstrate how what we consider reality is an illusion that is actually more
real than any truth could ever be, and how this paradox is possible.
Science now understands that “color” doesn’t exist outside of our brains' interpretation of it. 1
What our brains do is perform an amazing feat of calculation, taking the relationships
between the impulses generated from cells in our eye and interpreting them as color where
no real color exists. Rather than being a property of the thing that we're looking at, color is a
sensation that exists entirely in our minds. We will also discover that what we're looking at
exists entirely in our minds, as well. We are surrounded by these and other illusions. But how
and why? And how can we create our own convincing illusions?
In this book, we will illustrate how reality itself is a sensation based entirely on relationships
between things rather than the things themselves having any reality, and how we can use
this understanding to our advantage.
There is no point in breaking past an illusion that has come to be all we have ever known. It
is the nature of perception, and the reality of perspective. It is not just impossible to “become
one” with the universe, it is irrelevant. How boring would it be to exist as nothing-in1

As well, there are no universal rules that define ‘color’ solely on the physical properties of light. Color is
subjective rather than objective, even though it appears consistently throughout your reality.

6

particular? To have nothing to compare yourself with? To have no relationship with anything
because there is nothing else? Instead, we can learn how to work within the illusion to
understand the what, how, and why. We will discover how all of the answers to the questions
we have are completely within our lives right now. The answers you seek are in the way you
pour a glass of water, walk through the door, or looked in the mirror today. We don't see it
because we're focused on the illusions rather than the relationships. We think what we see is
the reality. But, like as in a film, the story of our existence is in the magic between the frames
and not in the reality of the individual frames themselves.
You don't have to wait for anything or do anything special to uncover these mysteries. The
answers are not somewhere else. They are where you are right now. Forget about becoming
one with the universe; All-That-Is should be you with your myriad of interesting
relationships, perspectives, and experiences – not the other way around! And so here you
are... forgeting what you are so that you have a chance to relate to anything and everything.
But how is any of this related to making friends, eating delicious food, listening to good
music, geting the kids ready for school, saving up for a new house, going on a trip, looking
out of the window, or taking out the garbage?
When you do anything you are working with illusions. What you are doing is interpreting
something else that you cannot perceive. You could say that you are breaking down the
vastness of the nothing-in-particular that you actually are (or, All-That-Is) into smaller bits
that you can perceive so that something can make sense right now. Just like you interpret
your dreams in concepts, sights, sounds, and shapes you already understand consciously, you
interpret this vast reality in concepts you understand – your life. It may seem like you're
taking out the garbage but this is actually part of the illusion. You are experiencing
something else entirely. The conscious-you finds a way to interpret the reality of the
subconscious-you in a way that makes sense. If that way is taking out the garbage or looking
out of the window then that is what you experience.
Let's take an example of something we might do every day – talk on the phone. The voice on
the other end of the line may sound very real to you. The voice responds to your questions
and statements, and has a personality. You remember the same voice from countless other
conversations in past. The voice even knows of things that no one else does. To you, this is
not just a “voice” but a real person. However, the voice that you hear is no more real than the
dream you had two nights ago. What you are hearing is a representation of something else
that is produced from electrical signals interacting with your telephone. The voice on the
phone seems quite real and connected to a real person, but you are still interacting with a
representation of a voice rather than an actual voice.
But the representation doesn't end there. If, instead, you were to speak to your friend in
person your mind would be showing you its representation of that person. You would be
perceiving the signals sent by your brain, even if you are standing in front of them and
listening closely to their voice. At every level of your experience you are interacting with a
representation rather than the “real” thing. As we will see afer this introduction, the reality is
not in the person, place, or thing but in the relationships that are had. We cannot perceive of
anything directly because the reality of it only comes about through its relationship with
something else. We only know of “hot” because of our experience with “cold”, and we can't
know of either by themselves. These dependencies extend to everything we can imagine and
are how we can perceive of anything.

7

We will uncover the nature of reality as being not a collection of convincing illusions, but of
these representations being the way we can experience very real relationships. It is
interesting to think about what is beyond the seemingly infinite layer of representations but,
perhaps more importantly, we will discover how we can use this knowledge and
understanding to change our lives, create and discover the reality we want, understand just
about anything, and experience a kind of living that we did not realize was possible.
We will discover the four fundamental elements of all that exists. We can break down any
particle, object, process, being, event, feeling, thought, and everything else into four simple
elements. We can do this because your perspective uses these four elements to create your
reality and fill in all the amazing details. You are using them right now, subconsciously, to
read this book, think about it, perceive the area around you, remember the past, and discover
the future. And you use them to do everything else that you could possibly imagine.
The four elements are four “leters” that comprise the language of perspective. Without these
essential elements there is absolutely nothing that exists, because without them there is no
relationship. You cannot speak without making sounds, you cannot see without photons of
light, and you cannot perceive without using these 4 elements.
Many, or perhaps most, of the concepts presented in this book will seem to be too fantastic to
the point of being unbelievable. But I present to you that nothing in this book is true, but
everything in this book will be reasonably explained. Truth may not need to exist, because it
is likely independent of perception. The only question that maters when reading this book is,
“Can I use any of the material in this book to understand or change my reality?”
You may also find that this book needs a second reading, as the perspective you have when
you finish the book may be diferent than when you started. That also means it is writen for
diferent kinds of viewpoints, so you should at least find a litle something useful. And feel
free to skip any section that you might find a bit confusing; you can always come back to it
later if you want.
The first two parts of this book provide the foundation for this new understanding. It is a
logical illustration of an abstract process, so it may at times seem like your neurons are firing
a bit too much in some sections as we explain things that really can't be explained using
writen language. Afer we have grasped the basics of how it all works we can begin to see
how it relates to the ebb and flow of our human lives, to the world around us, and see how
we can make use of it in our everyday afairs.
We will also uncover how your subconscious mind at each moment ingeniously uses this
formula to automatically discover (or, “create”) the reality that you experience, and illustrate
its meaning.
The secret to everything, as we will see, originates from your own subconscious mind.

This book is available on Amazon (for Kindle devices and apps) at
htp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VPT0F82

8

Part 1:
The Way to Understand Everything

9

Interfacing with Reality
Everything in this book is derived from a new, never-before-published formula that, quite
simply, expresses how reality is formed. This simple
formula – illustrated on the right and simplified
with stories and explanations throughout the book
– can be applied to everything from the micro to
the macro because it is the key to how perspective
works. Perception is how we know of reality, and
perspective is where our entire reality is born.
As we move into a deeper understanding of reality in these pages we find out how we can
apply this system (called “SPIR”) to our everyday lives and also answer the truly important
questions. But first, let's learn the basics.
Perception is

We know that words are representations for other things, not the things
how we know
themselves. But ofen, these representations are good enough
of reality, and
perspective is
approximations for what we want to do. All we need to do is use a simple
where our
word like “financing” and someone else can understand the more
complicated concept we are trying to convey. The leters used in a language entire reality
is born.
aid in everything from thinking to communicating to understanding. They
do this by transforming complex things into simpler things, allowing us to
interface with more complex realities in a much easier and more eficient way.
We use interfaces all throughout our reality to make sense of it and help us create and
discover meaning in our lives. The remote control to a television, for example, allows someone
to interface with the more complicated functions of the device such as re-programming the
setings or finding another signal. Using our senses we can see, hear, taste, touch, and smell
our surroundings that first come to us as complex electromagnetic signals. You can – using
just 26 leters of the English alphabet in your mind to interact with your fingers – write just
about anything you can possibly imagine as a way to interface with other experiences. You
can literally draw a combination of abstract symbols on a page to change reality, build things,
fall in love, retell entire histories, start revolutions, move people to tears, end wars, change
your life, inspire people to change their own lives, create music, write a prescription that can
cure someone, create a legacy for your ofspring, and a countless other things.
Throughout history, the mixing up of shapes and sounds into language was powerful enough
to serve as the foundation for humanity's actions as it adopted agriculture, formed
governments, built large pyramidal structures, applied medicine, put Europe in the Dark Ages
for 1,000 years, started the Renaissance, bought and sold enslaved humans, brought people
out of enslavement, wiped out entire populations, started new countries, made billions of
people believe in a particular way of thinking, put humans in space, built planet-wide
networks of information creation and sharing, and so much more.
On a biological level a mere 4 “leters” of DNA are able to communicate the instructions for
life itself and carry the codes of your distant ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years
ago. Like DNA, the SPIR system is a language that we make use of without knowing how
and is even more fundamental to the birth of reality that your subconscious and conscious
selves make use of. This language of perspective is far more powerful than arbitrary shapes
and sounds invented only a few thousand years ago, and even more powerful than a
language used to encode genetic information for organic life forms that are a very small part
10

of your entire perspective. If spoken language, a system of communication with other human
beings that was invented thousand years ago, can completely transform how we perceive and
interact with the world around us and help us to build entire civilizations and all the amazing
things that go with it, imagine the power of the language of reality itself to form a consistent
and convincing existence for us to see ourselves in.
Consider SPIR as the basic language of reality, a direct interface with all that you can
possibly perceive, think, remember, and experience. If you can conceive of anything it is acting
as either a Structure, a Potential, an Interaction, or a Representation (SPIR). These elements
are able to communicate the instructions for creating reality itself and encode everything
that exists into a single perspective. Every part of your reality fits into one of these elements,
and forms relationships with other SPIRs to create the reality that you know and experience.
You can use the same formula to discover and create anything you can possibly imagine,
simply by changing how you interpret these relationships. It can also be used consciously to
logically manifest whatever experience you desire. We will uncover a bit more of how you can
use it to change your reality but first let's understand what it means.
The language of the subconscious mind works because it is a direct interface with our
extended consciousness to form reality. Why should the workings of your subconscious
remain a secret forever? There is no reason you should be a secret to yourself. There is no
reason we cannot, as a species, evolve to create whatever reality we want, just as we do in our
dreams. If we can advance our understanding of the world around us to transform sand into
silicon and make powerful computers to perform previously unimaginable feats on devices no
bigger than our hands, then imagine what we can do with subconsciousness. The sand
doesn't have magical properties, and neither does subconsciousness. But they both seem
magical without an understanding of the processes involved. The power to shape reality
comes from our ability to see what is already there in new and useful ways ways, and
transform it into something else.
You don't need to understand what it all means right now. We will discover the meaning in
this book, illustrate its usefulness in everyday life, and also use it to answer some of life's
most important questions.
We will find out why a question like, “What is time and space?” is just as important as
questions like, “What should I be doing with my life” or, “How can I make more friends?” and
are perhaps have even more value for your immediate reality. What good would
understanding the universe be if we could not use that wisdom to improve our lives and
tweak the quality of our experience? What sense would it make to have a deep understanding
of the universe and of reality but it not being enough to satisfy feelings of loneliness, pain, or
even hunger? We will learn how the world that we experience is a representation of the
reality that we don't experience, and what it means for our everyday self.
What is Reality, Really?
Your subconscious formulates your entire perspective and every experience in your past,
present and future using a method that we will outline. But what is reality?
Reality is representation. What we call “reality” is an interpretation of something else that we
do not experience. You may look around and think you are experiencing reality, but what
you're actually experiencing is a field of representations for other things that you are not
experiencing. Everything that you see, including your body, is more than 99.999% empty
11

space.2 However, we still think we are perceiving reality. What are perceiving is, instead, an
illusion that interfaces with reality. That is because the subconscious mind not only uses
energy in the most eficient way imaginable, it doesn't use energy at all. It doesn't need to. It
only needs to approximate something and then interact with this representation. The fewer
ultimate representations there are for things the less interactions that are needed until we
reach nothing-in-particular. Everything that exists, including what we consider reality, is a
purposeful illusion that is meant to provide the means for something far more real to come
into being: relationships.
To illustrate this trick of the mind more simply let's imagine that you are looking at a digital
photo that you took of a good friend of yours. The image obviously represents your friend
and is, without question it seems, the person that you know so well. The image captures as
many of her beauties and imperfections as any image can. Could you then say, “This is my
friend”? Probably not afer considering it for a minute. You might say that what you are
seeing is only a representation of your friend, and that your friend was somewhere else (i.e.,
not inside your phone or computer). Your friend is more than the representation, or so it
would seem. But what if at that moment she called you on the telephone? Surely, that voice
could only be one person. She knows who you are, can recall times you've shared together,
and knows things you've not told anyone else. It most definitely has to be her.
Even then, you may be aware that what you're hearing on your phone is your phone's
representation of her voice electronically transmited rather than her actual
voice, and your brains' interpretation of those signals. But what is her actual
Reality, for
voice? Can you really know what it is? If she was standing in front of you
all intents
talking about what happened to her today, would you be hearing her actual
and
voice or listening to your own interpretation of it? When you touch her are
purposes,
you feeling her or your mind's interpretation of the electrical impulses
does not
received when you appear to touch her?
exist as we
know it

Thinking of this further it could be said that, despite all the pictures you've
seen, countless hours on the phone, and times you've met her in person you've never actually
experienced her for who she really is. You've only ever experienced your interpretation of
what she is. In actuality, you've experienced your perspective. Of course, your friend is far
more than your interpretation of her. But where is she?
Can we experience reality for what it really is? How do we not mistake our interpretation for
the actual reality?
If what we call reality is actually a representation of something else, it is an illusion. But,
fortunately for our endeavour, that means only illusion exists and there is no such thing as an
absolute reality. What we know as reality is actually representation.3 Reality, for all intents
and purposes, does not exist as we know it. Illusion is the only reality that we can know of
anything. That we can get valid feedback from illusions tells us that the illusion is real
enough, good enough for whatever we want to do, and is likely an interface with something
greater.
Reality is an illusion that makes sense and can interact within itself. In this way, illusions
allow us our only interface with what is true.
2
3

We'll get into why space isn't exactly empty (not because of electromagnetic and other fields) because there is no
such space, later.
That brings us closer to the origin of the word “real” which means, “belonging to the thing itself” or “relating to
things”.

12

An Example of the Universal Model
Let's take a quick look at SPIR again using human reproduction as an example. Reproduction
is expressed in the following graphic as the logical intersection of male and female that forms
a harmonious relationship that can be perceived; in this case, the birth of a baby.
The Potential element is the main actor in
the process. It always has two “opposing”
sides to represent the primal forces of chaos
and order. In this example chaos and order
are expressed as male and female,
respectively. The chaos side is always trying
to randomly expand while the order side is
always trying to contract. The order side also
handles the Structure and so sets the stage
for interaction between the two sides. In our
case, it means that the female side hosts the
reproductive process.
Now that the terms for engagement have been set, the two sides are able to interact. Each
side sends a continuous stream of “ambassadors” to interact with the other side in order to
bring the relationship to a harmonious equilibrium. Each side also makes a “tribute” to the
other side; in this illustration and as an example, the female side provides an X chromosome
and the male side provides a Y chromosome.

In the beginning of the reproductive cycle (here represented by the spiral) there is overexpansion (via rapid cell division called cleavage) followed by an over-contraction (called
compaction) as a balance between the two extremes is found and a fertilized egg implants
into the uterus. Once a harmony between chaos and order has been achieved over the
following months, the cycle is complete and baby is ready to be born.
This is, of course, an over-simplification of the entire process of reproduction. An important
point to note is that each part of the SPIR cycle is made up of other SPIRs. Every part of any
process, from the micro to macro of that process, is itself a SPIR that functions the same way
as illustrated here and works with other SPIRs to form the reality that you experience.
13

A Family of Relationships
Can you describe what the color “red” is to someone, without comparing it with something
else? Red does not exist objectively. It not only needs to be defined through other things but
exists entirely as a relationship with other things. Red, or anything else that you know, does
not exist independently. Not only can you not describe color, feeling, and smell without
comparing it with other things there is nothing you can talk about, think about, do, or express
without using something else as a reference. The things that make up your reality may seem
separate but they are illusions that draw from the same source – relationships.
Where was "4" before you added "2+2"? We don't care that numbers are abstract concepts that
have no physical reality. We only care to use the product of a relationship between two
illusions. Perhaps the answer will help us to build a house or manage our finances. The aspect
of reality that maters is the relationship between illusions, not the illusions themselves.
A metaphysical relationship can be interpreted as a representation that goes on to form part
of another illusion, resulting in more relationships. When we perceive reality what we are
doing is like taking the frames of a film and using them to form a relationship that can be
used for something else, or at least perceived. When we perceive we are not perceiving of
something directly, only its relationship with other things in our perspective. “4” without any
other numbers existing would make no sense, as there's no frame of reference. When we set it
next to other numbers it becomes part of a picture of reality that we can experience.
If you see a cup begin to fall to the floor you are likely to perceive the next logical
relationships. Perhaps you will perceive of the cup's relationship to the floor as it breaks. Or
maybe the fluid inside will spill. Other relationships will result, such as pieces of the cup
spreading out on the floor when it breaks, or the sound it makes in the air as it drops.
Although we can say that perception is awareness via our five senses we would be ignoring
the awareness of things when we think or feel. And we have far more than five senses if we
include the senses of every organ, cell, and organism in our bodies that come to our
awareness indirectly. Perception is really the means by which we interpret reality [defined in
the following section]. However, for this book we will stick with the usual definition.
The amazing thing about metaphysical relationships is that you can interpret them any
number of ways. Perhaps you interpret the cup, instead, as receiving a leter in the post, or
stubbing your toe, or seeing a squirrel jump to another tree. Seeing the squirrel jump, for
example, would be the same as the cup hiting the floor to your subconscious mind because
the relationships are the same. They're two ways of interpreting one relationship.
When we observe a person walking into the room we are interpreting the next logical
relationships into our perspective. If it didn't make sense we wouldn't perceive it. Perhaps
next week diferent things will make more sense and the same metaphysical relationships
will be interpreted as us moving a lamp to the other side of the room, or whatever. Using our
senses, though, we see only the products of the relationships rather than the relationships
themselves.
Have you ever had the feeling of déjà vu, that somehow you've already been somewhere or
experienced something before? Are there any repeating paterns in your life that you can't
explain, at work, home, or with friends? Does anything seem like the same thing over and
14

over again, interpreted in diferent ways? Those are the metaphysical relationships at work.
Each representation symbolizes a metaphysical relationship in the same way that the word
“cousins” represents particular members of your family, who are also each a representation.
You could, for example, invite your cousins over for lunch and get to know them more,
forming a closer relationship. One relationship could represent countless other relationships,
similar to how a good relationship with Aunt Anne could bring you closer to her siblings. A
representation is an interpretation of countless other relationships that no longer need to be
in your perspective. We don't need to say 1+1+1+1 when “2+2”, “4” or “four” will do. We've
already approximated it, so the other symbols aren't necessary. This entire field of
representations is like a geometry of relationships, and it is the nature of perspective.
Perspective is All We Can Know
Let's clarify a bit how we'll use the words “perceive” and “perspective” in this book:
 perceive: to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses
 perspective: the particular angle, view, or interpretation one has of a reality
You perceive things via your senses, but you can consider perspective something more of a
mental picture of your reality that goes far beyond your five senses to includes your
thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and more. Perspective is like the algorithm you use to form a
unique interpretation of reality. No one else shares your perspective, because perspective is
formed from relationships that we call consciousness [to be explored].
Our mind tries to make sense of whatever it is perceiving, no mater what it is. If we cannot
make sense of something then we cannot relate to it. In order to perceive of anything we
must be able to relate to it in some way. If we cannot relate to something that well, it is
simply ignored or replaced with something that we can relate to beter.
For reasons that we will illustrate, perception is very eficient. So eficient, in fact, that we
perceive only what and how something is related to us. We translate things that don't make
sense into our cognitive framework so that it does make sense. A newborn baby, for example,
does not perceive of the details of a face because baby doesn't have much else to compare
such details against. The sounds of mother's voice are very relative to baby's perspective,
however, and is something heard even in the womb. Baby will therefore connect with it most.
Baby's brain, in fact, uses mother's voice as the preferred mechanism by which the parts of
the brain responsible for language learning are activated,4 among other important infant
developments. On a similar note, a mother can pick out her baby's cries out of a room full of
other babies crying, because it is the voice that she herself relates to the most.
Our ability to perceive only what is relative to us means that we cannot perceive of what we
cannot imagine. It also means that we make things relative to us so that we can perceive
them. Our reality comes from our imagination. More accurately, our reality comes entirely
from our perspective and how we interpret metaphysical relationships that are already there.
Perspective is not the same as opinion or belief. If you believe that you can fly that wouldn't
be your perspective. That being said, many aspects of what you might believe may be
translated into your reality and you could interpret these in various ways.5 Perhaps a belief
4
5

Refer to htp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101221521952234.htm
However, what we consider our “belief” is actually a sense of our reality [to be discussed]

15

that you could fly is actually something else that you cannot accurately describe.
It is convenient to say that when we are walking down the street we are moving our legs to
transport ourselves on the ground. But that is only one aspect of what is really going on.
What is really happening is a change of perspective. That is to say, we change how we
interpret our reality at every moment whether we are sleeping, walking down the street,
working, talking, or whatever.
When someone walks into the room where you are siting, we can say that they are using
their legs to move themselves into the room. Or even, we can say that they're "walking into
your perspective". We don't yet have the vocabulary to conceptualize these things, so we use
what is most convenient for conversation. We know that when we are looking at the moon
we are not actually seeing the moon as it is but, instead, processing light photons in the cells
of our eye. We interpret the signals and call it “moon” even when it is only as far away as our
own perspective. We are perceiving the signals in our mind, not the moon.
But what does the moon look like without the signals? What is beyond the perception of
something?
Imagine a subject so complex that afer a 1 day class you still cannot begin to understand it.
Imagine that 1 year was not enough, and not even 4 years of classes would allow you to
really grasp it. Even afer an entire lifetime you could not fully understand it. The
understanding cannot be contained in any one class, so you need a seemingly endless
number of classes. Any understanding is not contained in any one class itself but in your
relationship with the material presented in the class.
Now imagine that instead of trying to learn an extremely complicated subject you were
trying to perceive something that only appears to be complicated: what you really are.
Imagine that this truth could not be perceived because it could not be contained in any one
perception or interpretation, but required a seemingly endless variety of interpretations. Like
a dog trying to catch its tail, it appears to be a complicated efort when it is in fact the
simplest thing. We are trying to perceive something that is beyond perception.
We try to perceive of something so simple, in fact, that it does not exist. It is simpler than
perception. When it “moves” it is so energy-eficient that it uses no energy, only relationships.
We can't "see" beyond our own perspective. You cannot know of another perspective because
the moment you try it becomes a part of your own perspective. You cannot feel exactly what
your friend is feeling, only interpret it into your own thoughts and feelings.
The signals that you interpret as the moon do not come into your perspective, it is the
perspective. Before the signals were in your perspective they weren't anywhere. The moon
exists only in your perspective and nowhere outside of it. You have simply interpreted a
metaphysical relationship in a way that makes sense to your reality.
At each moment we re-interpret what is there. Each moment is a representation of a Nothing
that cannot be perceived. What we perceive and experience and the way that we perceive and
experience it is the same thing. A change in your perspective may be interpreted as motion,
time, space, events, processes, etc. When something moves it is not moving independently of
your perspective. How could it? We can only ever perceive the interpretation.

16

Our reality is the method by which we interpret primal chaos, or “Nothing”. Your body, the
clouds, the trees, your neighbors, friends, stocks, cookies, and ladybugs are not only from
your perspective they are your perspective.
As we do not perceive or experience something that isn't logical to our perspective we cannot
perceive of this Nothing. “Nothing” doesn't make sense. It is illogical. It follows no patern or
form. It adheres to no understanding or structure. If we could somehow perceive of this
Nothing we wouldn't see anything because there would be nothing to compare it against.
Even as we describe Nothing we make it something. That is the birth of consciousness.
So instead of everything-in-one (Nothing) we have it all spread out before us as an illusion 6,
interacting in a field of relationships ready for us to interpret in any way that we want. Some
things appear to be closer to our perspective, and other things seem to be further away.
When we see someone walking into the room we are re-interpreting the relationships in our
perspective. There is no one actually walking into the room no more than there is anyone
talking in your head right now as you read this. You do it in order to make sense of the
relationships, and relate. You see someone in one instance, you hear a voice in another
instance, and imagine seeing them in yet another. It's the same type of illusion.
Your brain has a diferent view of reality than your hands or eyes do. In the cognitive sciences
it has been demonstrated that a simulation of something will make the brain react in the
same way as they would react to the “real” version of that thing. Although your brain can
distinguish between an illusion and what we call reality it responds similarly to both. Our
mind knows that both are illusions, but consciously we do not think that way. And
interestingly, the brain maps what you think happened rather than what actually happened,
and may not know the diference between the two kinds of experiences.7
Your brains don't care about what you think is reality, because what you think is an “illusion”
and what you think is the “real” thing are the same type of illusions. Only the relationships
between things, not the things themselves, are important.
Is mentally humming a tune a reality or an illusion as compared with the “real” song? How
about listening to the song on the radio? Or over a telephone? Or listening on your
headphones? Or seeing a live performance of the song? All of these are representations, and
each is an illusion as valid as the others. There is no “reality” of the song. There are only
representations that form relationships that we interpret to be a song heard in various ways
(depending on the relationships).
We aren't emotionless if we see an image of someone being hurt, even though we know it is
an image and not the “real” thing. Even an animated movie could bring us to tears. What
maters more than how “real” something is is the question of how relative it is to your current
perspective, and the relationship it has with other things in it.
If you see an onion next to a painting of an onion, which is more relative to your perspective?
The onion that smells like paint, or the one that can make your eyes water? If you're a chef,
then perhaps the onion you can cook with is more relative. If you're an artist then perhaps
the onion in the painting is more to your taste.
6
7

It is an illusion because it is still Nothing, afer all.
“Brain Maps Perceptions, Not Reality” htp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031210420632920.htm

17

Changing your perspective is as easy as changing your interpretations of the things that
make up your reality. If you interpret something diferently you can have a diferent
relationship with it. You can change your reality by changing how you interpret things. Let's
learn more about the basic relationships and then go from there.
Discovering the Illusion
[Feel free to skip this section. It's about the beginning of the universe, so could get confusing.]
What we sense as reality is not anything real or solid but
the perception of the relationships between illusions.
Observe the image on the right. Do you see the foam itself
or the structure of the foam bubbles? To you, the reality of
the bubbles is based on its structure. You only know of the
structure because you can see paterns, making sense of it.
Perhaps there is really only one uniform bubble, but your
perspective shows you lots of diferent bubbles. Without its structure you would not be able
to see it. You are able to perceive by processing paterns, and without some kind of structure
you don't perceive anything at all. By adding structure we are able to perceive. But the
structure itself is not the reality.
If you zoom out, all the individual structures you saw before would become part of one
structure – perhaps a single 45 degree angle. It would then be surrounded by other structures
you didn't zoom into. If you zoom in you wouldn't see a structureless foam but simply more
structures. (Meaning, you would still interpret relationships no mater what level of micro or
macro you're on.) It doesn't mater what those structures are or that they're illusions. The
important thing is that the structures are there so that the foam can be perceived. We know
of one thing only in relation to something else.
What we call reality is simply looking for paterns in chaos (or “the void”). The paterns aren't
really there, but we would not be able to perceive of anything without a structure, so we
make up a random patern. We interpret chaos in a way that makes sense to us. We then
relate these paterns together, like drawing a line from one point to the other, and put these
in order so that they make sense. It is like looking at stars, seeing shapes that aren't really
there like gods, humans, and other animals, creating stories from them, and calling it reality.
In our reality we can represent the primal patern as a sequence of numbers. The numbers are
not important. They are just a way to represent the structure. Reality doesn't come from
these representations but from the relationship between representations. This sequence
begins as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and so on, which is just adding the last two numbers together to
make the next number.
The “beginning” of the universe is a part of every perspective, being the foundation of reality
at every moment. Let's find out how perspective is formed by looking at the meaning of the
first few numbers in the sequence and finding out what they actually mean: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, and
5.
Starting with a nothing that cannot be perceived (0), we define it as “Nothing” (1). Exploring
the extent of Nothing we have an infinite potential that doesn't really exist because it can
only be compared to itself (1, again). It then pretends there is something else (2) that
18

interacts (3), forming the illusion of something real (5) via the relationship between the two.
If everything was perceived as one thing, unified, there'd actually be no perspective because
there'd be nothing else to compare anything with. So, we limit the infinite potential of allknowing, all-seeing perspective with some kind of structure. When we add structure we are
dividing Nothing into 2
somethings that seem
diferent. In this way, the 2
something-diferents forget
that they are actually the
same thing. But we're not
done just yet. Importantly, we
must allow the 2 somethingdiferents to interact to
solidify the illusion of their
separateness. By interacting
they can pretend to be
separate from whatever they
are interacting with. Without
this illusion there is no
consciousness or perspective, as consciousness is a relationship that forms some kind of
perspective. The relationship of the 2 illusions builds a resistance that seems very real, called
reality.
From each perspective this illusion seems more real than anything else, including its own
source. As the illusions interact with the new reality, the process repeats itself again and
again. The geometrical shape of these somethings helps us to perceive, and each forms a part
of our perspective from its relationship with other things. If any something in this geometry
shifs, the entire geometry is also shifed (because it is actually one thing).
Now imagine that this foam can be read by your perception like the needle of a record player,
providing you with reality as it “reads” the relationships in the foam. As it senses the foam it
also “writes” to it simply by shifing its geometry, allowing for the impression that it is
moving through space and time, thinking, feeling, and being. When you are looking at
something, you are sensing this field of relationships and interpreting it as your experience.
The foam is a field of all relationships called the geometry of perspective. It is reality.
This process can also be expressed as an equation: s((p+p)/p)+i=r. The following illustration
adds numbers: 1((2+2)/2)+3=5. Let's break it down:
In order to know itself,8

(S) Structure / logic

2+2

All-That-Is (or, nothing-in-particular), seemingly
infinite and without perspective and reality,
destroys itself (an impossibility), creating
/2
the illusion of separation,

(P) Potential / illusion

3

and the relationship between all the seemingly
infinite and separate parts is born,

(I) Interaction / relationships

5

“creating”, or discovering, reality.

(R) Representation / interface

1

8

Or, paradoxically, know that it does not exist. This is the process of the “absolutely now”.

19

What are Relationships?
We'll talk about relationships throughout this book to illustrate many of the concepts of your
subconscious mind. But what do we mean when we say “relationship”?
Just as you have relationships with others that you cherish you may draw a blank when
trying to define what a relationship is exactly. But you know who your relationships are with,
how they afect what you do and how you feel, how they allow you to meet others and
develop bonds with them, and more. But the relationship is itself without definition – we can
only interpret a relationship into something that we can perceive. That's how we know a real
relationship is behind the illusions we interact
with. We come up with terms to try to define a
relationship, like “dad” or “my brother”. When
we say “family” what we mean is the
relationship that all family members share
together, rather than referring to individual
persons. But it's not one relationship. It's a
geometry of many relationships. When we
think about family we can think of the
individuals that make up a family as the
representations and “family” as the reality that
is experienced. We illustrate the geometry of
these relationships in the image on the right.
We may think we're seeing an airplane, for
example, but what we are actually experiencing are many diferent kinds of relationships. The
airplane does not exist by itself, but only in relation to other things. Further, it's a simple
representation of a far more complex reality, like saying “dad” instead of trying to define
something that cannot be defined with words.
As you can probably guess, the endless variety of relationships can become quite
overwhelming. That is why our subconscious mind makes it simple for us. Instead of having
to perceiving of a myriad of interactions directly we perceive of a person, place, thing,
process, emotion, thought, etc, that approximates them. Rather than having to interact with
all of the individual things and relationships that make up a wall, for example, all we need to
do is perceive the wall and interact with it. We can also change our relationships by finding
new and diferent representations of those relationships, or even re-interpreting what we
already perceive. While we cannot perceive of relationships directly we can sense them
intuitively in our reality by paying atention to the representations around us and how they
interact harmoniously with one-another (or don't seem to).
As we will learn throughout this book, it is the nature of your subconscious mind to simplify
your reality as much as possible as it minimizes interactions by representing things and
making paterns, and then interacting with the representations through relationships. A
relationship can be thought of as a meta-patern, or family of paterns. Using our language
example again, this would be like being the first to invent words for concepts you wanted to
convey. Each word, or handful or words, could save you from having to write out pages of
descriptions for concepts each time you wanted to write about them. Your finished work, a
manuscript for example, would represent the entire relationship. Each person reading it
would interpret it in a diferent way, much as we interpret the geometry of relationships in
unique ways to come up with whatever reality we choose to experience.
20

Everything is a SPIR
What is the mysterious bubbly foam between your fingers that gives the impression that you
are taking a shower, thinking about your day, driving somewhere, or experiencing anything?
These are the four elements9 (SPIR) at work.

Everything in your perspective conforms to this model, from sub-atomic particles to talking
with your best friends about a new film to your body to the way you walk along the street to
entire civilizations to distant galaxies to the particular way air flows over the shoulders of a
17th century soldier waiting for commands.
When SPIRs interact together we get the geometry of perspective. Consider the geometry of
perspective as a map of every kind of relationship imaginable in reality. But it's not just the
map; it's the territory. It is what we perceive as our entire reality and being.
When you look at your hand or the sun, you are actually perceiving the geometry of the
SPIRs. Every thing that you can imagine is a representation that has a SPIR at its core. As we
have discovered, these SPIRs are actually representing something that is beyond perspective,
allowing us to interface with it. The logical narrative of reality is illustrated through their
interaction, as each harmonizes with others to form reality. The narrative is how chaos
collapses into space, which is reduced to a vacuum, which at some point collapses into
protons, hydrogen, our Sun, infra-red light, and a sandwich and to other complexities where
it's re-cycled all over again.
The subconscious mind does not need to understand the details of everything along the line
of this great cycle. You don't need not know subconsciously how much the particles in a
sandwich weigh before eating it, stripping the sandwich of its electrons in a process that we
perceive as tasting like harmony. You only need to know the relationships between the simple
representations in the SPIRs. Your subconscious doesn't need to care about the complexities
of how you interpret something, only know how to draw a line from one something to
another. You are free to interpret these relationships as the Sun, a sandwich, a marriage, or a
car. However, the reality is not in the Sun, the sandwich, the marriage, or the car but in the
9

There are actually 5 elements, with one being number 4. It is not used, as it represents nothing-in-particular and
is already satisfied with Potential (2) + itself in the SPIR equation. It is a proxy for something that does not exist
because it cannot be perceived or imagined. If it could somehow divide itself up, it would be the other 4
elements.

21

relationships between them.
We see the Sun consciously but subconsciously we are interpreting the same relationships in
another way. This efect is more obvious in our dreaming reality where, upon awakening, we
ignore the subconscious dream interpretation of the relationships and focus on a more
physically-oriented interpretation that makes more sense to us our waking self. We can be
aware of our conscious self in the dream only as we relate to it when we awaken, whereas in
the dream the awareness of the waking self is “just a dream”.
The diference between the conscious reality and the subconscious reality is only in how
either interpret the same relationships.
Because any complex process or thing has a reality that depends upon its relationships it can
be far easier for us to understand anything and everything. The relationships that allow a
scientist to perceive of gene mutation in the morning are perhaps the same relationships that
allow them to perceive of taking a break in the afernoon or taking a shower in the evening.
The way in which we interpret the same things diferently makes us not see that they are
actually the same thing. We confuse the illusion of how something looks, behaves, or
responds with the reality of what it actually is. The reality is that we can only perceive of
relationships, not perceive of the things we know through our 5 senses.
We don't need to understand anything in detail, only how the relationships work. Whenever
something is too complicated in our perspective (meaning, it requires an abundance of
interactions) we simply represent it and form a relationship with the new representation. For
example, there is no need to sense the entire electromagnetic spectrum of our universe. It's
far too complicated to make sense of it physically. We need only represent the entire
spectrum in a way that makes sense, as photons for vision, heat on our skin, sounds, time,
and space, among other ways. Other parts of our bodies, such as cells, may interpret the
same relationships in diferent ways that make sense to them, for their own purposes.
Oxygen is useful to one part of our body but detrimental to another part, or a minute to a
rock or tree may be a far diferent experience than a minute to a human, for example.
Though the illustrations you will see on
these pages are simplified – and
necessarily inaccurate – versions of SPIRs,
the essence of the process is the same. Two
seemingly opposite forces spiralling into
each other and balancing out to form a
harmonious representation of their
relationship that we call reality.
We'll leave out some of the more
complicated SPIRs (such as DNA, partiallyillustrated on the right) and focus more on
how reality is formed from the intersection
of opposing forces. Let's take a look at some of the more obvious SPIRs.

22

23

Anatomy of a SPIR
A SPIR is basically a system where two compatible things come together in a certain way to
make a third thing. We don't think that reproduction of another human is the same process
as how everything else in the universe comes into being, but the process is exactly the same
because the origin is perspective. Here we will explore the basics of reality-forming SPIRs.
What we know as reality is the logical intersection of two
illusions – chaos and order – forming a harmonious relationship
that is perceived as being real. The reality of this representation
can then be used to interact with something else, and so on.

What we know as reality is
the logical intersection of
two illusions, chaos and
order, that forms a
harmonious relationship
that is perceived as being
real

The two sides of Potential are chaos and order, appearing to be
opposite so that each side seems more real. The infinite potential
side is chaotic. The limited potential side is orderly. The limited potential side is the logical
side, so it makes a Structure to reduce the infinite potential side to more balanced
proportions. The interaction between the two sides builds a resistance, which becomes a
Representation. The basic physical shape is known in science as a torus, the fundamental
form of balanced energy flow. [For more on Potentials, please refer to page 82.]

In our illustrations, the positive side (chaos) is represented by red. The negative side (order) is
represented by blue. Yellow is what comes out of the two sides interacting. Their interactions
are represented by positive and negative flows coming out of one side to the other.
Interactions actually produce 3 representations: a main representation between the two and 2
others, one from each side of Potential. However for simplicity's sake we will mostly cover the
main Representation, as well as to try to make the illustrations as simple as possible.
Although the reality of a SPIR isn't exactly what you see here it's a good enough
approximation to get some understanding of the process.
Let's review the 4 elements of reality
again, and its formula (on the right):
S = Structure, logic
P = Potential (positive/negative,
chaos/order)
I = Interaction, exchange
R = Reality, representation, interface
Structure is fairly easy to understand.
It's basically just rules and logic.
Interaction is just that: things
interacting and exchanging, and
something else coming out of the
relationship.10 When two things
interact according to some logic, reality
is. (Again, the “two things” are of
course illusions but the relationship between the illusions is real.)
10 Just imagine Interaction as a field that extends outward to all other SPIRs. The closer another SPIR is the
stronger the interaction.

24

What Do We Mean By “Logic”?
The word “logic”, used in this book, means any kind of order or structure. It does not imply
that there is only one kind of logic or a single reason for things. It refers to the element of
Structure and is something used to make sense of something else. There is as much logic as
there are ways to perceive things.
If, for example, you are standing on your head because it feels good when you do it 3 minutes
a day then it is logical. You have formed a narrative that makes sense from your perspective.
It need not be completely efective from beginning to end, nor be a part of anyone else's
perspective. It just needs to be “good enough” to facilitate some kind of meaning, or at least
take you to another representation. In this way many things previously seen as “illogical”
become logical when one considers that things have an order that depends entirely on the
perspective. The logic doesn't need to make sense to everyone, or science, or popular belief, or
even anyone else, for it to be entirely valid. Everything is perceived via logic so therefore
everything has some kind of meaning.
The trafic paterns on the streets of Mumbai are part of the logical narrative of driving in
Mumbai, but not of the logical narrative of driving in Munich. The “nonsensical” rantings of a
paranoid schizophrenic are logical in that person's narrative and related narratives, but would
probably not be logical in another narrative. As logic equals Structure, logic increases in
proportion to perspective.
We need not uncover “reason” when thinking about the Structure of our perspective. We are
ofen not aware of our own reasons, beliefs, and opinions about things. Turning on a light and
then leaving the room for 3 days is logical because it is part of an overall narrative. You have
a light that can be turned on, and it is in a room, and you have the ability to leave, and leave
for 3 days. All of these things are utilizing the Structure of your perspective, so for purposes
of this book it is considered logical, whether or not we agree with a particular reasoning.
(And in another way, the light, the room, and the days are just illusions and interpretations of
something else. Sometimes the way we interpret something can make us not sense the
Structure, and therefore its reasoning or logic.)
Descartes' famous axiom, "I think, therefore I am," is as meaningful as, “Bananas are yellow.”
The logic of "I think, therefore I am" does not exist in any conclusive reasoning but in the
ability to put together a sentence using a constructed language, as demonstrated with
“Bananas are yellow”. Both sentences are made up entirely of representations, but we mustn't
forget that interpretations made via language are also assumptions about their relationships.
The first sentence assumes that there is an “I”, it does something, and that means something
else, while the second sentence assumes that bananas exist, are anything, yellow exists, and
bananas are related to it. They are both equally meaningful because their reality depends
entirely on their interpretation. They are also equally meaningless.
The meaning of any statement, or of any thing, is entirely dependent on the logical narrative
in which it has been interpreted. Such statements are not true statements because of the
nature of their dependencies.11 We can be careful not to confuse our interpretation of
relationships (such as a banana, for example) with the logic or Structure that allows us to
perceive of the relationships.
11 Descartes, likely having realized the fallacy, later changed the axiom to “I am, I exist”, but the fallacy remains the
same. Perhaps an evolution to “I, I” would have allowed him to see the pointlessness of the exercise.

25

SPIRs in Action
SPIRs are how perspective works. Everything that is perceived is part of a SPIR system that
interacts with other systems.12 At the center of each is a representation discovered from the
interaction of Potentials.
Everything from neurons to currency to business to weather is a SPIR system. Its
interpretations appear in our ancient stories, traditions, and depictions such as a snake eating
its tail, ying-yang, puting two hands together to get a result (prayer), or the tree of
knowledge of good and evil in the story of Adam and Eve, among other things.

12 However, this process is not ad infinitum. It doesn't go on forever, as infinity doesn't really exist. Each need only
be represented somehow, and a relationship come out of representations interacting. And everything that
“exists” only need be represented in a single SPIR, which is something like S((P+P)/P)+I

26

The Meaning of Using a SPIR
Using a SPIR is like a dimensional bending that merges two realities. A reality is only a reality
when it is formed from the resistance, or relationship, between two Potentials. When one
thing is harmonically opposed to something else it is not a reality itself but exploring its
Potential. When one thing works against another thing, both will be changed appropriately
and a new reality discovered.
When we build something, we can build with an inherent limitation that will balance these
natural forces as we create new realities. Although we can try to remember our infinite potential, it is only when we forget some of that
SPIRS are the
infinity that our real potential is known.
way in which we
discover our own

We discover reality by forgeting who and what we are. Both sides of
meaning
Potential are connected at the core and can therefore interact to make
reality. We are both of these sides at once, as this is the structure of our own perspective. The
more the sides interact the greater the representation, and the more convincing the reality.
We cannot know the experience of one side of Potential without experiencing the other side.
SPIRS are the way in which we discover the meaning of our own existence.
The Geometry of Perspective Scale
Everything in existence is a resistance formed by the relationship of seemingly opposing
forces. Resistance is relative because
Potential forces can vary, which
makes harmony relative. Water as a
gas, for example, is chaotic
harmony, while ice is ordered
harmony, and water as a liquid is
harmoniously balanced with both.
This “fractal” spectrum of harmony
forms the geometry of perspective
that we find ourselves in.
As everything is a representation of
something else we can think of all
things in the universe (from going
out for cofee to chemical reactions
to space and time) as being on a
type of scale of perspective. For
illustration only, imagine that more
complex relationships (such as cofee) are further down13 the scale from simpler relationships
(such as space), which are closer to the center of the spiral. The illusion of “cofee” depends on
illusions at higher octaves (such as space or hydrogen), so we can consider cofee a more
complex relationship.
Where physicality is concerned, the primal relationship of chaos and order is represented by
the electromagnetic field. Our reality is not an electromagnetic field, but it is the least
complex representation of the chaos/order relationship in our perspective. The electric
represents chaos and the magnetic represents order. From our physical perspective all
13 Up and down are just illusions to make sense of reality, and this illustration

27

relationships have electromagnetic properties. But of course it's just another illusion.
We can therefore consider “life” and our physical reality as an electromagnetic reality in order
to understand, perceive, and work with other interpretations of the primary relationship on
the scale.
The Importance of Representation
[Feel free to skip this section if you already have a grasp of how representations work.]
Imagine we were having a discussion a thousand years ago and I said that I could throw light
at you from a box and recreate your image on it. Amazingly, you would not perceive my
digital camera as I perceive it. You would, instead, have an experience that makes sense to
you, in whatever way. It might be that what you see is a rock polished so that it reflects your
image. The rock in your perspective is as real as my camera because we are both interpreting
the geometry of relationships into something that is makes sense to each of us. But I am not
holding the rock any more than I am holding the camera, because the camera is my
interpretation of the relationships, not the reality. Each reality is as valid as the other because
each is an interpretation.14
There is no interpretation of reality that is independent of your perspective, plain and simple.
When you perceive something, you are perceiving the relationships of other things you can
only sense by interpretation. Your perspective is a highly eficient approximation of
everything that exists. We approximate our complete reality through representations, which
are specific interpretations of a group of relationships.
When we use a computer, for example, it is not that we are interacting with a separate
physical object to perform tasks. The physical object we see is a metaphysical representation
of lots of other SPIRs working together. The computer you touch is no
A representation more real than a word on its screen that you copy and paste. Just like an
application can't do anything without having a relationship with a system
is a specific
interpretation of to run on, you've developed these representations in order to do
a relationship or something via relationships you could not otherwise do. Through
group of
representations we can interface with metaphysical relationships.
relationships

We can use our minds to add 1+1, or we can use a calculator. Working
with the representations (“1” and “+”) allows us to discover new perspectives. We cannot add
the two numbers together if we didn't symbolize them. It is similar to how you, as a baby,
verbalized words using your vocal cords in order to be able to think in a new way and learn
how to interact with your physical environment.
If you drive a Ferrari, you are interacting with the representation. It is not possible to actually
drive a Ferrari because a Ferrari does not actually exist, and neither does driving. Only the
relationship between you and the representation, the car, is real. But a broken, old Ferrari is a
diferent representation than a newer one and a diferent reality and experience would be had
because of the diferent relationships and interactions involved.
In order to change our reality at each moment we simply interact with diferent
14 With a diferent sense, you can fool someone's sense of taste by giving them water and telling them it's milk.
Blindfolded, of course. For a few short moments they will taste milk. In this example, however, the camera is not
at all relative to the other person's experience.

28

representations, or interpret our old representations diferently. Even a slightly diferent
interpretation could mean new interactions, and therefore a new reality. This allows us to reinterpret what is already there and discover something new.
A representation is part of someone's reality depending on how they interact with it. It can
influence their emotions, their perceptions, their beliefs, and what they experience. It can
completely shif their reality under the right conditions. But it is not the representation that
is doing this, it is the relationship that the representation interfaces with. The reality that
“results” from interacting with one representation can be the same as from another
representation. Joining a club in order to improve your status through networking could take
you to the same kind of relationships as learning to play the piano, for example. Though the 2
interpretations of the 1 relationship would likely be diferent, to your subconscious mind they
are the same thing. The 2 realities are just as real because both are approximations. But an
approximation (or, representation) is all we can possibly know. There is nothing that can be
truly represented. The illusion becomes reality.
However, everything is as true a representation as it can possibly be. That is to say, as close to
truth as it can be. Your reality is the perspective that uses the least amount of interactions
possible. The more out of balance a representation is the more energy it would take to
represent it, as it would require an excess of relationships to perceive it.
Even that which has not ever been symbolized in our awareness can be represented. As soon
as we think of it, somehow, it is a representation that is ready to interact.
If something cannot be related to it does not exist. Existence is dependent on relationships.
Without a relationship, something cannot exist or be existence-free, or be conscious or
consciousness-free. Yet, subjective experience is not a representation of objective experience,
as the method to perceive reality subjectively has no counterpart in objective reality. There is
no true objectivity. For anything to be objective it needs to be independent.
Truth cannot be represented, not socially, scientifically, or mathematically. A truth does not
exist within the framework of anything in a way that would make sense in the narrative of
whatever is trying to perceive it. Truth does not relate to any representation, and so therefore
cannot be perceived.
In a similar way, we can represent the process of drinking water from a glass mathematically
but not in a way that is useful to the person that wants to drink it. We cannot therefore truly
approximate “drinking water from a glass” with science or maths because the representation
may not relate to its reality. What we are measuring with becomes what we are measuring.
Something that may be easily proven (i.e., made more relative) in one reality may not make
sense in another. A physicist's understanding of physics is useless to a baby walking for the
first time, though baby is working with a diferent yet equally valid interpretation of physical
relationships. The reality of the subconscious mind would not make sense mathematically,
politically, or biologically, for example, because diferent representations are used. The
systems that we build are primarily based on representations rather than relationships, so it
is dificult for us to see how things are connected. However, our subconscious can understand
the relationships between things but not how we consciously interpret those things.
You already make representations that work for you in your reality. The computer you use is
completely representative and interacts with other representations, shown as follows:
29

Each key...

(representation)

on the keyboard...

(representation)

corresponds to a switch or circuit...

(representation)

which allows an electrical impulse...

(representation)

to flow through...

(representation)

and the microprocessor...

(representation)

to read it and find its place in the character map.

(representation)

The icons on your screen, every bit of information you receive, and every other associated
thing are all representations given life through relationships. Even the electrical impulses
which make your fingers type, and your vision that interprets the signals, are representations.
Every level of the representation is logical to the system that uses it. All is a field of
representations in the geometry of perspective that we call reality. Take away the
representation, however, and the system will still function because it is not reality that
controls the system but the illusion.15 You don't need to know how a mouse works in order to
do amazing things with it. You need only use it in a certain way. That is, you only need to
work with the representations in a certain way to form other relationships: the mouse
clicking the icon, for example. Fortunately, the mouse has a physical structure built-in to
allow it to work and allow us to interact with other aspects of our physical perspective.
If you showed a mouse to a roomful of people who had never before heard of or seen a mouse
and you told them what it could do, some people might start writing with it to make it do the
things you said while others might pick it up and hold it to their ear and talk. Everyone in the
room might think you're a bit crazy if they weren't aware of how to logically interface with
the capacity of the mouse in their reality.
If someone was keen to use it properly based on the instructions provided then they would be
learning how to make the representations work for them. To others, it would seem like magic.
The representations around you form relationships that are your reality. You don't remember
something because it's stored in your mind. You remember it because of the mental map of
representations that you are working with. Take away the relationships and you have no
memory because there is nothing to interact with for the memory to be perceived.
Did you ever have a memory of something that didn't really happen? Or maybe you visited
somewhere for the first time that you could have sworn felt exactly like a place in another
city. Perhaps you smelled something that brought back old memories, or met someone that
reminded you of someone else. Perhaps you saw something you've never seen before and
intuitively knew about it. Perhaps we are talking about déjà vu again. This is thinking past
the representations you are experiencing and sensing the relationships. To your subconscious,
two things that look diferent could be the same thing if the relationship is the same.
These relationships form and reform your memories and experience at every moment.
Fortunately, our memories of the past seem very consistent, and our current reality seems
15 The intersection of two illusions, or Potentials, is reality, and therefore the illusions “control” reality. For example,
taking away the nucleus of a cell (its supposed "command center") will have no efect, and it will continue to
function as normal.

30

stable enough. But why does our reality seem consistent despite all the chaos described here?
We are actually perceiving relationships rather than the physical objects and events. The part
of us that is aware right now interprets these relationships in a way that makes sense. We
can interpret these relationships however we want, as long as it is logical somehow. But we
don't get new interpretations from new representations. If you, for example, are taking a trip
overseas for 3 years it does not mean that the new place is a reflection of your new feeling or
reality. It could just be that you are interpreting the same relationships diferently.
When we value something not because of its physical properties but for its relationships,
then we have begun to understand reality. When we learn to perceive of relationships then
we have begun to learn how to perceive of and be conscious of ourselves.
Interpret your current mental and physical representations diferently and you've found a
new reality. The reality you seek really is right before your eyes.
With dreams prety much the same thing is happening. You dream of being a wheel rolling
into a brick wall with a clown hanging of a basketball hoop and think it's weird because
you're thinking of the way it looks (or feels) physically rather than the geometry of
relationships. Those things are happening in your interpretation, not the geometry.
The Purpose of Perspective
We perceive in order to explore relationships. This is the nature of consciousness. We cannot
perceive of what we cannot imagine, because what we are perceiving is our interpretation of
metaphysical relationships.
If we do not seek out relationships with something (anything) then we would not exist. It is
because of this that we explore relationships with everything in our perspective, to some
degree. This exploration is not so much creating consciousness as being conscious. If one
thing relates to something else then it is conscious. The consciousness, of course, is not
created from the things themselves but from the relationships between the things.
In life, it is of no particular importance what kind of relationships we explore. We create
relationships in order to exist, not to make existence beter. The metaphysical relationship
someone creates with their window could be the same as the metaphysical relationship
someone else has with their pipe. Someone could lose a son and develop a stronger
relationship with a neighbor's nephew. Nevermind these things you cannot see. What maters
is the harmony in the relationships that are around us. The reality that results from one thing
relating with another thing can be interpreted as happiness, sadness, fire, pencils, cookies,
faith, beliefs, etc., depending on the balance (or type of harmony) between the things
relating. But we need not worry about how we are relating to things that we want or don't
want. It would be easier, and perhaps more efective, to consider the things in our immediate
reality that we are relating to more closely.
Because a representation is a stand-in for something else, and that something else is a standin for something else, and so on, we may never know what something represents. We can,
however, take a look at what something relates to, and then try to figure out intuitively the
relationships that may come about from interacting with it. Although we perceive these
things in a way that is relative to us and spread out logically in a field of spacetime we are
actually perceiving every relationship simultaneously.
31

When you are siting in your living room, the universe exists (literally) within the entirety of
your perspective. This is because every relationship that exists is represented in your
perspective. At that moment there is nothing outside of your living room (or even behind
you) until you perceive it. The reality of everything else is “contained” in the relationships and
our interpretations of those relationships.16 The sound of a dog barking implies that a
physical dog is there, but again it is a representation. The barking sound may not be from the
same metaphysical relationship as a physical dog, because you are not interacting or relating
to the sound as you are the dog.
As we cannot perceive of a “Nothing” we separate the nothingness into a seemingly infinite
variety of representations in order that we may try to perceive of Nothing from it. 17 We represent and interpret Nothing in order to exist, though it cannot actually represented or
interpreted so we get a seemingly infinite variety of Potentials and representations and a
seemingly endless universe.
This trial at "perceiving nothing" is what may appear as perception of "here" and "now". At
each moment the entire universe is created anew because each moment is a representation of
the interpretation of Nothing.
Everything that exists is represented in your current perspective. New York City, for example,
does not need to exist until you perceive it. Yet, you can never perceive it in its entirety
because its entirety is not there. You are only perceiving the representations: a photo of New
York, the name "New York", the idea of New York, etc. These representations may hold the
same relationships as the city itself, because any of those representations could have the
others eficiently “packed” into it, like a fractal.
In this way every representation is like a holographic memory file that contains other
representations. They are all representative of relationships, afer all, so take up no space or
time.
When you look at the moon or distant galaxies (or something or someone else) you are
interpreting relationships. Distance in space or time is just the logical placement of
something in our perspective. A distant planet or person is rarely as relative as the something
that is closer to us. If you have just landed on planet Mars, for example, you will represent
Earth somehow (perhaps with pictures, or in your mind) and these new representations of
Earth could become more relative to your perspective than the physical Earth itself. As you
have a new representation you have interpreted the “Earth” relationship diferently, which
will cause you to interact with it diferently, which will afect the reality and its meaning. We
may even become more atached to the idea of Earth (which you've represented with
pictures) than the actual planet, without realizing you've created 2 Earths in your perspective.
The way you perceive of something depends entirely on how you interact with it. And the
more you interact with something the more you see it in your reality, because you will begin
to interpret your other relationships the same way. The broken window of our previous
example will begin to afect how we perceive the windows around it.
As we interact with our reality, so does our reality become.
16 Another way to say it is that reality is procedurally-generated via the SPIRs algorithm, makes it logical and
consistent, and seemingly endless.
17 However, “Nothing” neither exists nor doesn't exist. Existence is irrelevant to it.

32

How Can the Answer Be This Simple?
We have not found the answer to everything, perhaps only discovered somewhat simpler
questions. Yet, it is far easier to formulate complicated answers than any simple questions.
There is no limit to how complex we can make something appear, nor how much we can
divide it up and make it seem like reality is a far greater task than it actually is – all we need
to do is throw time, space, and resources at it to imitate the infinite reality it seems to be.
Whenever we are looking for the answer to something we can consider how what we have
already discovered relates to other things in our perspective in order to find the underlying
logic upon which the discovery of our answer may rest. We can also use what we know
already to relate to the things we do not yet know. We can meet anyone in the world with a
few of the right introductions, no mater how secluded they are, and we can find any answer
we want with a small handful of reasonable logic, no mater how impossible it may seem.
The simplest answer is that which has the most logical questions. Indeed, we limit the chaos
of a question with the reasoning of an answer, finding a harmonic resistance between the two
that may not make the most sense, but is good enough to work with to get a step farther.
Something that applies to everything can seem repetitive, even a litle boring, which is why
we make the simple more complex in the first place. But when we have minimized the
interactions required by our relationships then we have reached a most beautiful simplicity.
Any answer is not simple where perspective is involved. We would not want it to be.
Complication allows us to exist, and eat sandwiches. But we can make eforts to ensure that our
journey is harmonious with the stops we make along the way, and whatever complications that
arise flow from the most simple.

33

Part 2:
The Reality Around You, The Reality Through You

34

The Story of the Boy and the Genie
There once was a boy who met a genie. The genie gave him 3 wishes.
"I wish for an endless supply of wishes," the boy commanded with a smart grin.
"Very well," said the genie, herself smirking. "You have an endless supply, and two more
wishes afer that."
The boy didn't take long to think of another wish. It was something that he had been
thinking of for quite some time. He wished for a spaceship to take him far away from Earth.
He travelled quite far away from his home, his parents, and his friends, and along the way he
wished for things like air, food, water, friends to play with, and anything else he wanted.
Although the journey to other worlds was fun, afer a while he grew tired and wished for an
endless amount of physical energy so that he'll never have to rest. Though even afer that he
still had an unlimited supply of wishes lef, which somehow comforted him for now. Yet, he
was still quite lonely because he continued to realize that his every experience, from his
friends to the air he breathed, was an illusion.
“They only came to be and came to play because I wished it,” he thought.
It was all an illusion, really.
He eventually came back to Earth because he grew lonely and missed the things he could not
control. He was actually tired of creating his reality, and missed dreaming about things and
geting excited about them. He missed fighting with his brother because it also meant that he
liked making up with him and felt good about his ability to defend himself or try to run
faster. He missed his homework because it gave him something to do and meant that he
would have a sense of accomplishment when he finished it. He missed his parents because
even though he didn't agree with everything they said and it was far from a perfect family,
they have been there since the beginning and know him beter than anyone else.
Along the way, he had somehow lost all hope. But he was hoping to gain it back.
Afer considering all of this for quite some time he decided that life is beter lef to its own
elements.
His last wish from his endless supply was to 'undo' his first wish, and return the endless
supply of wishes back to the genie. He destroyed his never-in-a-lifetime chance at geting
whatever he wanted.
He lived a much happier life afer that for a number of years. But still, in the back of his mind
was the lingering thought that it was all an illusion. That somehow his life, which he was
now quite happy with, was something that he wished for and wasn't real. Perhaps it was all
just a dream that he wished for as he talked in his sleep, and the genie hadn't told him. He
wanted to feel more secure than that. He wanted life to be itself, chaotic and wild and good
and bad, and to be as real as it could possibly be. He wanted to feel alive.
What an awful thought! To think one is not real and does not exist. "What could be worse
that having absolutely no value?" he would think.
35

This troubled him far too much and he soon began to lose sleep over it. One day he made a
decision.
He finally used his second wish. "I wish I never met the genie!" he exclaimed.
With those words and a puf of smoke the genie vanished forever. In some ways it was
already too late. Having had an endless supply of wishes, the boy was a genie himself. But for
the remainder of his life he never once considered it, nor thought it was even possible.
His best wish, by far, was to be able to dream again and forget that he ever knew that part of
himself and all the things he could do by simply puting two and two together.
We Draw Illusions, and are Drawn to Them
Imagine you could do anything, be anything, know anything, simultaneous to the desire or
want or need. Imagine you were an omnipotent being in all imaginable ways. How boring
and purposeless would that be? In that way, could forgeting be more exciting? How
interesting would it be to create an endless maze or illusion for yourself to bring a sense of
purpose to your existence? Could limiting your infinite potential make sense?
When you listen to someone speak about something they are really excited about, eat
delicious food, watch a talented athlete or musician, or something that makes you feel
wonderful, isn't it great that you have no idea what is coming next? Wouldn't it be more
interesting to be amazed rather than be bored because you already know everything? How
wonderful would it be to have a relationship with something that isn't you, or to learn about
or do something new like it's the first time?
If you are everything all ready, what logical choice do you have other than to divide up your
existence into infinite illusions, and forget that you did just that, if you want to exist and
perceive of anything? Without the illusion there would be no experience because there would
be nothing to compare it with. Forming relationships with illusions is the best we can do. The
more we relate to things the more those things seem to exist.
The illusion is far more interesting than the reality, as the true reality does not interact. We
are, thus, drawn to the illusion. But the interpretation of reality comes entirely from you.
What maters is not whether or not something is true but how you relate to it. A fictional
story could change your life as much as a non-fictional story. Surely, media and governments
everywhere take advantage of our brain's lack of concern with “truth”.
Another person appears to be separated from you because you have managed to convince
yourself that your perspective comes from your body, because that is where “relevance”
seems to be centered. It is not much diferent than thinking that your sense of self comes
from your senses. You do not so easily experience the perspective of your heel, for example.
And you do not so easily experience the perspective of the person across the room.
There seems to be a dividing line between “you” and “other”, and it looks like your body. The
illusion of high-relevance in your perspective is your body. But we fool ourselves again when
we think that what is outside of our bodies is not very much related to what we are. Siting in
the comfort of our homes is an illustration of our perspective, we might think, but siting in a
boring meeting for 6 hours somehow isn't also an illustration of it. We focus on the physical
36

illusions rather than the relationships, so the connection is more dificult to see.
If the world was entirely in your perception, where would 534 Ridge Lane be? What is Proust
doing right now? And where did grandma's chocolate cookie recipe come from? Things seem
separate in space and time because, again, we are focused on the physical illusion. The 534
Ridge Lane illusion could be right in front of us, re-interpreted in a way that goes along with
the logical narrative of our current experience.
This also means that a pair of shoes drying in the sunlight in the year 1292 could be more
relative to you than a person you last saw a couple of weeks ago. Both are a part of your
perspective (as the concept of shoes in 1292 was just introduced to you) but one
interpretation of something close to you could be those old shoes, and another interpretation
of something not so close to you could be the person from a couple of weeks ago.
Surely, if 5 people gaze at an abstract painting and were each asked their interpretations we'd
get 5 diferent responses. Each is interpreting the random noise diferently, it seems. 18 The
painting itself does not exist outside of the interpretation. The interpretations of the painting
do exist, however. We sense relationships and interpret them as “thoughts”, “opinions”,
“events”, “beliefs”, etc.
What of all the details you can think of that comprise your world? Everything from the
macro to the micro is a random interpretation of Nothing, formulated in a way that makes
some kind of sense. Each interpretation will appear to have some basis in reality because
each interpretation is as real as any other. We can only compare illusions with other illusions.
We can apply logic to someone picking randomly from a deck of tarot cards, for example. We
can formulate a story from the chosen cards into something that has some validity to it as we
interact with the person to whom it is directed. This, too, is an interpretation of Nothing as
real as any other kind of interpretation where paterns are formed. The more the parts of the
story interact the more real the acting and play seems. We can do the same with any
obviously random phenomena. But we also do the same with everything else we think is real
and true and isn't so random.
When you are looking at something you are interacting with it. When you are experiencing it
you are also integrating it into your logical narrative. Your reality is a logical representation
of existence. It doesn't mean that if you are in the bathroom there are quasars and galaxies in
the shower, unless that's your thing. However, it does mean the same relationships that can
be interpreted as quasars and galaxies are there in your current perspective in some way.
Every aspect of your perspective dances with every other, forming a geometry of
relationships. As you interact you also become. When you look at a television, for example,
you are interacting with those values in your perspective. You are, you could say, merging
with television technology-consciousness and television media-consciousness. The more you
interact with it the more your reality will be oriented to it because your focus has changed
the other aspects of your perspective to match the updated logical narrative. Drinking
alcohol, for example, we are interacting with the alcohol on more than one “level”, so to
speak. We are interacting with something we interpret to be alcohol (but of course is not). In
another perspective the alcohol is represented and interpreted diferently. Pouring alcohol
into a gas tank would not make a car drunk, but it could make its owner “drunk”.
18 Although there seems to be 5 diferent interpretations, there is only one. Yours.

37

The alcohol is an interpretation of something else “higher” up the pyramid in the image on
the right. We interpret simpler relationships in a
way that makes sense to our logical, usually
more complex narrative.19 Interacting with a
representation of something is also interacting
with its other representations in ways that
depend on how relative they are to our reality.
For example, the relationship that is interpreted
as gravity can also interact with other, simple
interpretations such as time and density,
depending on compatibility of interactions, but
may not interact with other, more complex
interpretations such as ice or disease.
Some of these experiences are very compatible
with our perspective (such as drinking water)
and some are not. If we drink dish washing
liquid, for example, it would not be a balanced relationship and it will afect other parts of
our reality up and down the pyramid, even before we drink it.
Sometimes the efect of these interpretations may be confused with punishment for a
particular action, or karma. The efect is not equal to the action, of course, because the efect
is an illusion. What maters is how our interactions with relationships change from the action
rather than the action itself. Someone could do bad things their whole life with nothing “bad”
happening to them, and someone could be good to everyone and have only bad things
happen to them. It's not about being rewarded or punished, of course. Wouldn't you know...
it's all about the relationships.
Time and space are also here in the pyramid. Chaos is interpreted as space, then again as the
expanse of the universe. Order is interpreted as galaxy clusters, then again as galaxies, solar
systems, planets, land masses, cities, and so on, for example. All of the complex
interpretations at botom are from the simple relationships at top.
When you remember an event, for example, you're not actually remembering how you
experienced it at the time but perceiving an aspect of your current experience. You are reinterpreting something that appears to be “past” but is actually just as “present” as anything
else that isn't relative. It would be like looking at 3 cars and thinking the “past” was the car
you used to like, the “present” was the car that you like now, and the “future” the car you
didn't like (yet). You're actually looking at 1 car but you spread it out in time and space to
make sense of it in your reality. Spreading out space and time like this enables an endless
variety of other stories to unfold. It is not “past” just because you're not atracted to it
anymore. And it would not be “future” because you don't like it yet. But as you unfold the
story of your existence you use past, present, and future tenses in order to make the story
more interesting and give depth to your reality.
We organize all of the random chaos into an order that makes sense for us. It makes sense
that some things are there while other things are here. Some things are big and others are
small. Some things are past and other things are present. These are the interpretations that
provide meaning to our existence as we relate to them. We confuse this patern-making with
reality when it's really just how perspective works.
19 We even interpret good things to be physically “high”: htp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1520432641

38

In the following illustration we see that diferent perspectives will interpret the same
metaphysical relationship in diferent ways. The perspective of the boy meeting the genie is
the same as a flower blossoming in another perspective, in this example.

Reading a story about a boy and a genie would be a diferent interpretation than seeing the
film version or being the boy himself. Each could be from diferent relationships, or the same.
And sometimes two identical things could be similar interpretations of diferent relationships.
This could get confusing, but we can eventually learn how to use our intuitive sense to tell
the diference.

Space and time are irrelevant in this way. A person, place, thing, event, etc., in past, present,
or future could be interpreted in another way in your perspective. A debate in a forum in
current-day Greece could be interpreted as a forest fire in Australia hundreds of years from
now, or the ofice politics of the East India Company a few hundred years ago. None of these
interpretations were “first”, as space and time are also interpretations. Each perspective
interprets the chaos diferently. But the relationships are the same, in this example.
Searching Chaos for Paterns
The act of perception could be more appropriately termed “patern-making”, building a logical
narrative out of chaotic stimuli. We build identities that
relate to paterns and find comfort in what we seem to have
discovered. We look at randomness and automatically find
order, though order is not inherent in randomness. We break
down chaos with order, and perspective is born.
The image on the right is a representation of chaos and how
we find random paterns in it. We interpret a basic shape (closer to the top of the pyramid on
the last page) and re-interpret it in other aspects of our perspective, making it more complex
the more it interacts. Eventually we will interpret it physically, as something we can see and
touch, as our senses interact with it. As light adopts denser aspects when it interacts with
39

more complex things, such as objects, the objects also adopt simpler aspects with they
interact with simpler interpretations.
Like the universe, life is random. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen
to good people. Something is only “bad” because that is how we interpret it (and things that
are relative to it) in our perspective. We will see what fits within the logical narrative we
already have and ignore things that don't fit. We will ignore the “good” of bad things and
people, and ignore the “bad” of good things and people. But good and bad are illusions that
depend entirely on your interpretation.
Finding meaning through the interplay of opposites means that we will usually create
dramas where none existed before. (Some of us do this more than others, to be sure.) This
human need for drama is actually a need to find paterns in the nothingness and make sense
of things that don't actually exist. Again, the more we interact with the illusion the more real
it seems. Involving others in the drama is one of the many ways to increase this interaction
and heighten the sense that our experience is real, solid, and that we exist.
Finding a balance in the chaos/order relationship is harmonic resonance. It's what makes us
feel good, things taste good, perceive beauty, etc. Happiness, as we'll illustrate on page 57,
comes not from “positive” but from “positive/negative” relationships. Other names for this
harmonious relationship are flow20, “in the zone”, resonance, balance, nirvana, beauty,
proportion, peace, etc. However, these usually forget the opposing force that makes it
possible.
Relationships that are not resonant make us feel a bit like we don't exist, because it takes
more interactions (or, more energy) to perceive of them. When something
is easier to perceive and interact with it is easier to feel like we exist. The The paterns we
less interactions we need for this the less friction there is in our reality.
experience are
As the brain is an interpretation of the mind, the brain discover paterns
in order to use energy most eficiently. It isn't concerned with what is
behind the illusion, because it would just find more illusions. Interacting
with the illusion is just as good, and it interacts with the illusion that it is
most comfortable and compatible with.

the most
eficient
illustrations of
what cannot be
perceived

As the universe is an interpretation of nothing-in-particular, it discovers paterns in order to
interact most eficiently. No real energy is used, because the representations are only
“interacting” with other aspects of themselves. As what we consider energy is the
relationship between illusions, energy is not created or destroyed but re-iterated. The
paterns we experience are the most eficient illustrations of what cannot be perceived.
The Vastness of You
Do you need to understand physics and calculus before you walk or jump? How is it that
load-bearing Kenyan women understand calculus, gravity, and kinetic energy as well as any
physics professor to balance heavy items on their head and walk across plains and up and
down hills? If you tell a lie, what part of you has told the lie? Is it your heart? Your
fingernails? The heel of your toe? Your mouth? Or perhaps one of your brains?
20 Refer to the works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, particularly the book “Flow”. Also
htp://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow

40

Are we like spheres, with no beginning or end save for an edge that helps us to define who we
are? Where is your edge, really, when your electromagnetic outline extends far, far beyond
your skin? Is that part way out there not you? Is there really any point where you can say
“this is me”?
As we have demonstrated, “you” is not the body or representations like skin, brain, eyes, etc.
These are illusions whose purpose is to form a framework for interaction. You are the
relationship of all that you know and all that you don't think you know. The real you is
perspective, and the true you cannot be perceived.
Of course, you can expand your idea of "you" to include other aspects of your reality such as
where you live, your family, where you eat, your house, your watch, or even your
subconscious. These things can help us to focus our identity but they should not be confused
with who and what we are. Every person, place, thing, event, thought, and emotion you
experience and don't, whether in your immediate focus, extended focus, or peripheral focus,
is all your identity. What is anything you see or experience but your perspective? The expanse
of your perspective, you, includes all things you could possibly imagine.
You do not need to understand physics in order to walk or sit. An aspect of you all ready
understands it quite well, and you re-interpret this relationship as something else, perhaps
muscle movement. The understanding of the entire universe and of your entire reality is
represented in your current perspective, right now. We can think that we're not there yet or
that we have some more evolving to do, but then we'd be missing the point.
When we do something, anything, our entire perspective is doing it, too, in its own way.
Stand on your head and you'll do the same thing in your dream reality, too, in its own way.
Every part of your reality will be doing the same thing. Your experience is of the same value
of relationships in another perspective.
Did you walk down the street today or are you re-interpreting what you are doing in an other
perspective? Are you thinking, feeling, moving, touching, talking, loving, seeing, or
interpreting? You are free to interpret things as you like. And here you are.
In order to limit your reality, increase your focus. In order to expand your awareness of
reality, unfocus on it. Never mind how the other aspects of your perspective do it – people,
books, or teachings. Our fingers can only ever point ultimately to nothing. Make up your own
rules, and interpret things as you like. There is no need to focus on everything or anything if
one is looking to increase awareness. Why focus on illusions? Un-focus and see how you
interpret what is already there.
What is Thinking?
The psychologist George Miller wrote, “It is the result of thinking, not the process of thinking,
that appears spontaneously in consciousness.” When we think, what are we actually doing?
When we think we are interpreting the geometry of perspective in a way that makes sense to
us at the time. We are not aware of how we think because what we call a “thought” is not a
thing, but a relationship. A thought does not exist by itself, only in relationship with
everything else.
A relationship can be interpreted as any kind of person, place, event, process, or thing.
41

Perhaps one interpretation could be a hammer that you can hit a nail with, while another is
you meeting a friend at an event, while yet another interpretation is you thinking of what
you will do tomorrow.
If our science understands that a hand exists in three dimensions yet is made up entirely of
things that do not exist in three dimensions, what is our hand really? Is it a threedimensional interpretation of something that is beyond three dimensions? Could it be said
that something that is not perceived to be three-dimensional, such as emotions or a
personality, could be interpreted in three dimensions?
How is it our mind, which we do not consider three-dimensional, can form and interact with
seemingly three-dimensional objects in our imagination and dreams? How could it interact
with such objects in our waking reality unless it interpreted those objects in a way that made
sense to it? If we could translate a three-dimensional object into five dimensions, for example,
it would not have the same form or reality, as it would need to relate to and be compatible
with the other things around it in five dimensions.
What if our three-dimensional hand is actually an interpretation of something that has two
and four-dimensional aspects? What if our thoughts are interpretations of things that we can
touch, see, or atend?
The mind understands that dimensions are just types of interpretations. For convenience, we
spread out these interpretations so that they make sense and we can interact with them in a
logical way. Those things that interact with other things of the same type are relative, and so
are placed together in space, time, dimension, or whatever. We don't realize that a hammer
and the thought of the yellow submarine on a billboard could be the same thing.
Our thoughts can be interpreted physically, and physical things can be interpreted in our
thoughts. The process by which this happens is SPIR, and we do it all the time. The
expression in our physical perspective is diferent, of course, as it will have diferent
interactions and need to be physically compatible. A certain physical object in a room or
arrangement of objects can make you feel uncomfortable, for example, because the physical
object represents something else that may be discomforting.
Thinking, like any feeling, sense, or object, is an interpretation of something else. This is more
obvious when we are thinking in our dreams and our dream reality changes simultaneous to
our thought or feeling, but less obvious when there is more friction involved as we experience
more complex realities like physicality.
Everything Is Relative to Your Perspective
[Fast forward to skip this illustration of time travel and how your experience is relative.]
Imagine that you met someone who told you they were from the year 2130 and used a type
of machine to visit your time. Not believing them in the slightest you ask for a small
demonstration. The time traveller accepts, but need a few days to prepare.
A week passes and you've already forgoten about it until your new friend mysteriously
appears in your bedroom in a sparkling cloud of darkness. Surprised, you remember your
previous conversation and afer some argument about you needing more sleep agree to
accompany your new friend. Your time travel demonstration will include the two of you going
42

back more than 100 years into the past to Times Square in New York City the evening of April
15, 1912.
“But first,” your friend warns, “we'll need to make a few stops.”
The first stop is Times Square in 1987. You both spend a few minutes there before jumping
again, this time to Times Square in 1956. Aferwards, 1932 and, finally, April 15, 1912. Amazed,
you don't think about the nature of the jumps, as you believe it to be part of the
demonstration. However, you find out that they are a necessary part of your journey.
“If we didn't make some intermediate stops, you wouldn't really notice anything,” your friend
explains.
Everything in your perspective is relative to your current space and time. But you are not
standing in space and time, you are interpreting something else to be a certain space and
time. You can't just appear in another space or time suddenly. There needs to be a transition
between one and the other, making the whole process more relative. Your logical narrative
needs to adjust to the new perspective and make sense of it. When you return to your home
time you find out that you were only in Times Square in 1987 for a few seconds. To you it
seemed like you were in 1956 and 1932 much longer than you actually were.21 Your
perspective has made sense of the transition in a way that is necessary for it to relate one
place to the other. This is similar to how our brain will ofen fill in missing information if
there's a visual blind spot.
In order for you to experience Times Square on April 15, 1912, it needs to be a part of your
logical narrative. It may even be that you have found yourself there without the help of your
friend. Perhaps a kind of wormhole materialized in your kitchen one day. But your
perspective formulated the relationships (and the story of the time travel machine, and
someone else operating it) to make sense of it for the integrity of your logical narrative.
No mater what you experience, you must make sense of it somehow. The logic of your
experience is not “true”, but it is a good enough approximation to provide you with consistent
and convincing perceptions. As well, we ofen re-interpret our past in a way that we didn't
actually experience but makes more sense to us today.
As you find yourself standing in Times Square the day that one RMS Titanic sank into the
ocean, you'll find that the properties of your home-time would still permeate your perceptual
facilities, your body, and just about everything else you experience. You are essentially
focused in two places at once, with a grip on neither. It would take some time for your
perspective to adjust to the new reality because the geometry of the 1912 perspective is
foreign to the geometry you know so well.
While you adjust to being in 1912 you feel the sky and air has a diferent quality. The light is
diferent, too, but you don't specifically know why. You may even throw up your lunch, which
momentarily shifs you back to your home perspective. Your interpretation of 1912 is still
heavily influenced by what is relative to you. You seem to be losing your bearings.
Looking around, you don't see what you'd expect. You hear people talk about a ship sinking
21 As you experience 1987, 1956, 1932, and 1912 you are actually also experiencing your home time, as you are still
interpreting the other times from your home perspective. Space and time have realities that depend entirely on
their interpretations.

43

but you do not hear “Titanic”, but something like “titanium” or “Truman”. People walk about
the street but they appear to be wearing the same clothes as people in your time do. Looking
around a bit more you see a group of people wearing clothes from an older period, and then
suddenly everyone is wearing vintage clothes as your perspective adjusts.
Your perspective is a bit confused as it adjusts to the new geometries. Your interpretation of
1912 is very similar to your interpretation of your home time, at least for the first few hours
or days. Everything looks a bit similar to what you'd expect of Times Square today, but still
there's a peculiar quality to it. It seems almost like a dream.
You would, in fact, probably call it a dream even if you were actually standing in Times
Square in 1912. It would feel just like a dream because it is both a dream and reality. Looking
around, you see things you can relate to. Things look old and new at the same time. A line of
cars is in the middle, with their drivers standing outside. You get closer, taking a peek. Every
interaction changing your geometry of perspective and drawing you into the 1912
perspective. The more you interact with it the more the dream turns into reality.
If we did not experience our dreams changing so rapidly, we would get lost in them and
forget about our physical reality. We could spend “years” in a dream but our conscious minds
would not be aware of it. Focusing on a particular geometry and interacting with it changes
how you interpret reality. Everyone you meet in 1912 is there because they have interacted
that much with it.22 Nevermind what year it is, or the time, or who you think was born first.
You find yourself in your current time and space because that is where you expand your
focus, interacting with whatever is there. We actually do this quite ofen. Your perspective
adjusts and here you are. We normally call this adjustment period “waking up” or “newborn
baby”, but your perspective as a baby is completely diferent than your perspective as an
adult. As a baby you're likely still interpreting your new reality from your previous one. Both
perspectives are equally valid, of course, in the same way that two friends can read the same
book and yet have diferent opinions and perspectives on what they read.
Past-oriented events and representations are interpreted into our perceptual framework. To
the other persons in Times Square, you appear to be quite normal. A bit diferent somehow
but you still fit within their logical narrative. They may even see you in clothes that fit the
time.
This is what we are doing at every moment. Look around yourself right now. You assume that
everything and everyone you see is from your current time and space. You are, instead,
interpreting a variety of stimuli and integrating them into your perspective so that it all
makes sense somehow. You are not only making paterns, you are making stories.
A person shaped like a cloud walking down the street next to you would not make sense, so
you either ignore it completely or re-interpret it as something else. A “ghost” makes a bit
more sense, but it's not the time and place for a ghost, as your story goes, so perhaps you
interpret it as a flash of light or a fog instead of a cloud-like humanoid.
Your memories of past are actually distant interpretations of present relationships. You are
not remembering your past, you are remembering an aspect of the present that is “shaped” in
a way that you have determined “past” things to be shaped like. It all fits into your logical
22 More accurately, the people you see are aspects of your perspective. These aspects are relative, so of course they
interact with things that are relative to it. In this instance, the 1912 reality has a relative, 1912 interpretation.

44

narrative. You do not see that the broken glass on the floor exists at the same time as the
glass on the table, so you make up a story about it that makes sense. If broken glass was
suddenly to appear on the floor in front of you, you may even suddenly remember breaking
the glass yourself and implant the memory and allow it to interact with other things that
make sense. The memory isn't really there, and neither is the broken glass.
This is the nature of perspective. We perceive space/time to be two things because it is logical
for us to distance things that are not relative. 1912 and 1987 are the same time, and Times
Square and your home are the same space. Time and space are interpretations, not things or
realities independent of your perspective. 1987 is not so relative to your current perspective
so you place it “in the past”, not interacting with it that much. 1912 is even less relative and
outside of your focus, so you place it in the distant past. We do the same with space, making
the things that don't seem relative to us further away.
There is an aspect of you focused on reading these words. It knows how to “read” and give
those perceptions to your brains. You don't need to know exactly how you're doing it, since
you work with the representation.
There is also an aspect of your total perspective that is focused on other times and spaces. As
you stand in Times Square on April 15, 1912, your more modern perspective would be in your
peripheral focus. The modern world, in fact, would not even need to exist. The relationships
only need to be represented, and they would be so in your conscious 1912 experience.
In some ways, a seat across from you now could be more relative to your current perspective
than your own body 10 years ago. When we shif focus we sometimes consider the previous
focus to be in our memory. But sometimes when we shif focus we consider the other focus
to be something around us.
Your geometry may change and the relationships in your reality may change, but you do not
become irrelevant to yourself. Perhaps you no longer see something in your reality that you
saw before, or perhaps it is “past” or is now far away, but its reality is always near.
It is an interesting illusion to perceive someone else, or something as being past, or
something over there. It is easy to think that these are not you. But you can only ever
experience your unique perspective. And there is no need to resist the endless illustration of
you. You're not a resident of your own perspective, or someone observing your perspective. It
is entirely You.
Drifing In and Out of Relevance
[Feel free to skip this section if you already have a good grasp of how relationships work.]
Imagine that you are outside in the park. There are many people around doing various
activities. There is a group of people playing catch nearby. Some of the people you know, and
some you don't. As you look closer you immediately notice a strange phenomena happening.
The people that you don't know seem to be throwing a ball at a very high speed in the field.
This is odd, because the people that you know a litle are moving much slower than the
strangers are, and the people you know well and are friends with are moving even slower still.
Your brother and your best friend are also playing catch with everyone else. When you look
at them both, however, it seems as though they are moving at an exceedingly slow pace. As
the strangers throw the ball to them the ball slows down considerably, matching their speed.
45

During a break in play you go over to talk to your brother. He is chating to one of the
strangers – whom you observed moving very rapidly on the field – and introduces you both.
You find out that this person's name is Steve and you happen to both work at the same
company. He introduces you to his friend Marya but beyond a simple greeting she does not
say much.
When the game resumes you notice that Steve is moving slower than he did before you met
him. His friend Marya is still moving fast but is somewhat slower than she was before.
This is an illustration of how the geometry of perspective works in a relative way in our
reality. As we cannot perceive everything-at-once, we logically order our perspective. As there
are many things in our perspective, this logical ordering makes some things relative to us and
some things not relative. Some things, like our bodies, are very relative to us and others, like
a distant star, are not at all relative.
Everything in existence is somehow represented in our perspective, not as a person, place, or
thing but as a relationship. We interpret these relationships in an endless variety of ways,
each an interface with a much greater reality that we cannot experience.
Some things we relate to more and some things we relate to less. The highly relative
relationships in our perspective are usually closer to us than other relationships. These could
be interpreted as our bodies, our family and friends, our work, the place we live, or any
number of other things that we know.
Relationships can also be re-interpreted if it makes sense to your overall logical narrative. The
relationship can still be there exactly as it was before but it can appear to be entirely
diferent. If you move to another country, for example, you may wonder how you could be
comfortable in a place that is so foreign from what you're used to, or even wonder why you
may have similar problems as you did back home. In such a way only the interpretation is
diferent but the relationship could still be the same.
How do the people, places, and things in our lives drif in and out? Why does one best friend
from childhood still want to hang out, but your other best friend does not? What does it
mean when people die, or are born, things change, circumstances shif, or people move to
other places?
In our scene in the park, the people that we had a relationship with were a more significant
part of our narrative and geometry than others. It doesn't mater if we like them or not, as
relationships in the geometry are not about wanting or liking. Usually, though, it means that
we will experience those things and people more in our reality if our geometry is like theirs. It
could be that your brother is a significant part of your geometry and so he is more of an
influence (whether or not you are aware of it). Someone you met for only a short time is also
part of this geometry, representing a relationship that shifs a bit “closer” to the other things
that are in your reality.
The park itself and every aspect of the experience is an interpretation of relationships. A
person is not interpreted diferently than, say, a blade of grass just because the person has
eyes. Thus, relationships with non-human parts of your reality are no less valid. An old pair of
jeans may be more relevant and influential to your perspective than the person you just met.
There is consciousness everywhere there is a relationship, whether or not your realize it. You
46

may never see the person or the park again, but the relationship may be interpreted later on
as something or someone else.
Your physical body is likely the most relevant aspect in your perspective. We seem to have
prety much the same face, thoughts, and personality that we've always had.
We have an innate sense for relativity and patern-making and are in a constant state of
harmonizing all of these relationships. We try endlessly to interpret what is beyond
interpretation and so perceive what appears to be motion through space and time, jumping
from one thought to the next, and going through emotions. Although we usually consider
only our body to be who we are, our more real body is everything in our perspective.
When a relationship shifs in the geometry of perspective we may illustrate this as meeting
someone new, going to another place, losing someone, picking up something, talking to
someone, etc. The interpretation fits the logic of our overall story. If our story is more
oriented to business, perhaps it is a new business contact or a renewed contract. If we're more
inclined towards plants and animals perhaps one blossoms or another gets sick.
Our experience follows the logic of our reality. We are always interpreting relationships but
the interpretations must still make sense to us. A person cannot just disappear when our
metaphysical relationship with them changes drastically for whatever reason. Instead, that
person may, for example, develop an illness or die. Perhaps we might interpret this as a friend
going on a trip, moving in with us, geting a job in another city, or becoming even beter
friends. Again, everything must be interpreted in a way that makes sense in our reality.
The Power of the Logical Narrative
Reality's logical narrative is basically a story that makes sense to us. It is the backbone that
our entire existence rests on. It is the method by which we perceive and how anything makes
sense to us. Indeed, it is how chaos, or nothing-in-particular makes sense to us.
We search the chaos of Nothing for paterns where none exist to give meaning to our
perspective and, by extension, our lives. The paterns that we find have no reality whatsoever
outside of our perspective. Although they're paterns that we just make up, they mean
everything to us. We become very atached to them, and rightfully so. Not only do we
naturally seek out paterns as a survival mechanism, only we can perceive the paterns that
we make.
Everything that exists fits into the logical narrative of Nothing 23, then fits into more complex
narratives from there (following a patern like 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8...). Perspective is a more
complex narrative than Nothing, but spacetime is a more complex narrative than perspective.
Each fits into the potential defined by the simpler, more logical narrative.
Making paterns is the only way to perceive, and the only way to try to perceive chaos, the
nothing-in-particular. Perspective is all about taking random stimuli and building a story
from it. By existing within a logical narrative we can perceive of reality in a most eficient
23 The most logical thing is that which applies to everything. Thus, Nothing is most logical. But how is it that the
primary relationships afer Nothing are logical when they are defined as having “too much expansion” and “too
much contraction” as compared with later relationships, which express seem to express phi more closely? It is
because they can apply to everything, express the limits of both Nothing and Something, have the most eficient
interactions through the most eficient representations, and inherently allow for more complexities within those
limits.

47

way; we simply make up our own connections as we go along without having to consider
whether or not it is relevant to us. We simply interpret something in a way that makes sense
to us and it automatically becomes relative.
Further, we form representations of all the most complex logical systems in our perspective.
Instead of having to perceive (and interact with) countless systems of chemical-like
electromagnetism we perceive of other humans that have a clear physical form, a much more
eficient interpretation. Instead of having to experience the nuances of relationships of a
group of atoms entering someone's body we simply see them geting sick or feeling energized.
Rather than having to calculate the involved harmonic relationships in a specific “sector” of
perspective we call physicality, one need only experience walking down the street.
As we cannot aford to use what we don't actually have (energy) we represent everything in
perspective. Everything we sense, think, feel, etc., is itself a story that makes sense of
something more complex, and we give it life with more simple representations. A thing is but
a lifeless abstraction that comes alive when it relates to another. A smile is a wonderfully
simple representation of more complex feelings that do not know how to smile.
At each stage of the story are illusions that only have meaning when relating to something
else. Illusions interact together via logic, making something else that can be related to
something else, and so on. Thus, a pathway is formed that can relate the string of a guitar
with the stairs of a library. It may be that the stairs are climbed as the strings are plucked
and the reason our foot may hit the wrong note as we ascend the staircase may not be
obvious but the logic is neither in the stairs nor the string. Our reading of a novel that we just
got from the library could mirror the same relationships as the strumming of the guitar. To
our subconscious, they are the same thing interpreted consciously as the same ratio.
The story that we experience is how we are interpreting relationships in the slice of our
perspective that we happen to find ourselves in at this moment. It is like receiving a leter
whose contents are entirely dependant on where you are opening it. If you open the leter on
a warm beach its contents may be about the your aunt Maggie who loved taking you to the
aquarium in the summer. If you open the leter on the train you might read a fast-paced story
about a family of country geese who make a move to a big city.
Every part of the story doesn't need to make sense to you consciously. It need only mirror the
relationships that you are interpreting in the same way that a dream might mirror your
thoughts when you sleep. However, we do our best to consciously make sense of things as
much as we can without drifing too far of from the harmoniously balanced narrative of the
subconscious mind.
You could say that your conscious mind completely influences every aspect of your reality
because you are the one interpreting it. This probably isn't obvious now, as our interpretation
is not a “decision”, but as we evolve we may find language and concepts to illustrate the
process of what we are doing at each moment.
Evolving Our Story
Those things in your perspective that seem far away are more complex ways of looking at
those things in your perspective that are near. As the parts of your immediate reality interact
more they become further expressions of your more basic and simple interpretations,
expanding outwards in space and time. A single relationship as close to you as your nose
48

could be an entire civilization thousands of years ago. You have only re-interpreted the
simpler relationships into more complex ones. There is, you could say, a buterfly flapping its
wings at the top of the perspective pyramid, balancing chaos with order.
Our physical bodies are one of the ways that we interact with physically-oriented
perspective. Your arm is a simpler, more eficient representation of “you” than someone else's
arm. You know your arm is relative to you yet it is dificult to perceive of reality through it.
But instead of perceiving reality through your arm, your arm is one of the many ways you
are expressing reality in order to interact with who you are. Your arm makes sense in your
story, but beyond the story it is irrelevant. It's just one of the many countless ways you
interface with something else. You exist beyond any narrative but in this narrative you still
say “I” or “you” to conveniently make sense of who you are by separating yourself in order to
interact with everything in your perspective.
We do not usually think that we are experiencing ourselves when we walk on the grass or sit
on a job interview. We tend to think that we are experiencing our world as active observers.
You can look at your hand right now and even though you know it is atached to your body
and you can feel it, it is extremely dificult to experience reality from your hand's perspective.
Experiencing yourself as a blade of grass or as a job interview is dificult not because it isn't
you or your perspective, but because you wouldn't remember it. This would be like having a
short conversation with someone that was speaking an alien language – you wouldn't
remember any of that, either, because you don't have the concepts or representations that
would absorb the representations of the experience. When you look out from someone else's
eyes you become that person, with the same thoughts, feelings, memories, and emotions that
that person might have. You have no memory of other realities because you are entirely
focused on your own. If you focused on another reality you would cease to be your particular
memory as you now define yourself. And that is exactly what you are doing right now
without realizing it.
As we move, breathe, and live we evolve our story. We walk on the ground, but the ground
itself is an illusion that would not exist if not supported by the entire structure of our
perspective. One thing is not only relative to something else, it depends on everything else in
order to exist. Our perspective cannot be divided, or parts deleted – we must represent
whatever we want to “erase” in order to maintain its integrity. Our next experience, and last,
must be related to our current one. But how do we find the path of the story, our defined
narrative we hold so dear? How do we manage to interpret the chaos in a way that makes
sense to our everyday lives?
How did the first hominid make fire many thousands of years ago, or know that it was even
possible? Some methods of exploring our logical narrative we call intent, coincidence, or
accident. Perhaps the first induced fire was intentional, perhaps it was an accident. Both
methods are still part of a logical narrative that seeks to make sense of the world around us.
It could be, for example, that a fire suddenly appeared in a pile of dry leaves to the
astonishment of a family of nearby humans. The humans, before they could witness “fire”,
had to make sense of it in their reality. The sky was clear, without lightning. How did it
happen that there is a fire, which we have seen being sparked before with lightning?
Perhaps the humans interpreted the same relationship before as looking for fish in a river
and seeing the fire of their own eyes stare back at them. But that was some time ago in the
geometry of perspective, and now the same relationship has made its way around. How do
49

we interpret it this time considering the variety of interactions that have occurred since?
Suddenly, our cousin appears on the other side of the fire.
“How did he get there? I thought he was on the other side of us. Never mind the reason,
though, it's starting to make sense now. Somehow he is the cause of the fire, because he is
near it. His hands are doing something, but what? He is making rocks do the thing we do
sometimes when we are happy. If we hit them together hard enough they will spark. But now
he is doing this in a pile of dry leaves! It makes sense. The small sparks are falling onto the
dry leaves and sleeping on by them. They are holding onto the sparks until there is fire. Yes! It
makes sense!” we might think.
Perhaps the relationship that can be interpreted as “extreme, focused heat” in another aspect
we interpret as “fire” more relative to what is happening now with our cousin and the leaves.
Perhaps the fire just suddenly appeared without context. We simultaneously develop the
story along with the perception of the relationship in order to make sense of it. Perhaps our
cousin “suddenly” appeared behind the flames as a way for us to make sense of it. He did not
magically teleport from one side of the field to the other. He isn't there in the first place, and
neither are you. The grass you lay on, the sky, the air, and the humans are all parts of the
logical narrative – each aspect an interpretation that makes sense. The details don't mater
too much, it could be anything. It is not the story that maters, but the relationships. One
representation is as valid as any other, as long as they make sense somehow.
Sometimes we intuitively sense the path of the story and know how to get from point A to
point B, if that is our intention. But ofen, we experiment to see what works and what does
not. Sometimes we follow other interpretations, which come to us as intuition. And
sometimes we don't know at all. We are blissfully unaware that whatever path we take is the
path of a story that makes sense somehow.
Someone might have noticed that hiting a rock against a stone chips the stone away. Before
that, maybe they were throwing leaves at the stone to interact with it. Each interaction
further evolves the entire story. One doesn't need to know how something works, just that
interacting with something makes something else. We only need work with the
representation of the relationship rather than the relationship itself.
By observing how something may make sense from another aspect, we simply perceive the
representations. When we are children we see adults do things and we make our own sense
of them. This way, we don't have to spend so much time interacting – we simply represent
more complex interactions by perceiving what the adults are doing. We don't experience the
complexities of a job just yet, just represent it by mom geting home before dinner and
having money to take us out on weekends. We externalize the story so that we can illustrate
logic far more easily than if we did not. (This is, afer all, what happens in the story of how
Nothing becomes something.)
An athlete may suddenly break a new record. Other athletes see this and extend their own
logic. Suddenly, many other athletes are able to do the same thing that was previously not a
part of the logical narrative because they didn't interact with it before. The first athlete did
something that represented the new relationship.
We can use representations such as language to direct others others to knock down a wall on
a construction site, but talking to the wall directly doesn't seem to work. But why not? Not
50

because of any physical laws. There are no such laws, only the laws of perspective. There is
only what is a part of our logical narrative and what is not (or not yet, if at all). The moment
we see someone talking to a wall and knocking it down is the moment when we introduce it
into our perspective and begin to interact with it. This is not to say that we will experience
more of it, or even know how to do it. But when an experience becomes part of our reality
then we are more likely to interpret things in the way that requires less interaction. “Monkey
see, monkey do, and monkey done,” to pair a phrase with its logical extension.
Your subconscious doesn't care whether you knock down the wall with a hammer or the
sound of your voice, only that the relationship is interpreted and you interact harmoniously.
It is easy to get caught up in the details and specifics of the story, not understanding that
they don't mater. Whether something is high or low, good or bad, light or dark is entirely
irrelevant. We usually only see and care about the logic that we've created and remember,
rather than someone or something else's logic. Their logic is, afer all, an aspect of your own.
We should not forget, though, that what you represent as “my story” is made up entirely of
other stories. As your body is a simple representation of a more complex system, so is
another person's story a simple representation of more complex stories. Everything we
experience is a guidepost on our journey to make sense of chaos through our stories (logic).
We don't need to understand the geometry of how it all works. It's kind of boring, anyway.
We need only simply things for our mental, emotional, psychological, spiritual, or physical
dramas. Working with the stories that we already know we can achieve the same
understanding of these universal realities as we would meditating for 1,000 years, and it
would be far more interesting. A train going in an apparently wrong direction is still
nevertheless on track. We could even say that we don't mind taking far longer than is
necessary, for sake of interaction.
The truth, if ever it could be perceived, is irrelevant. Never mind so much about how we
interpret these truths that we cannot know directly. Just assume that we interpret them in a
way that makes sense to us right now and will continue to re-interpret things in a way that
makes the best of sense in the new realities we uncover.
The Meaningful Now
Life is like a production of a television reality show. There are thousands of hours of footage
taken of the actors. But the producers and story editors use only the small fraction of the
footage they have that fits the story they want for the show. If the producers of “The Reel
World” decide that a particular character will be biter and miserable, for example, they
would then edit out the 99.996% of the 2,000 hours of footage taken over the past few months
that doesn't show the character being that way. We do the same with our lives. We have
particular opinions and beliefs about our own identity, and other people, places, and things,
ignoring the great majority of what goes on in our reality. This we see as too boring and
uneventful, so we edit it out as soon as it comes to our conscious awareness and pretend it
has no meaning or role in our patern-making. We do the same with our reality, editing out
more than 99.99999% of what we sense and calling it empty space.
We consciously make paterns but don't make paterns with everything – we package the
remainder up, represent it, and make sense of the representation. We pick and choose to
weave the story of our selves into something that makes sense and has some kind of
51

meaning. Life is one giant selection bias.
What we ofen find most meaningful in our lives is that which we can relate to the most. We
translate everything we can into rather narrow, pre-determined parameters and filter out
what we can't relate to. If a being from the non-existent 5th dimension materialized in front of
you now, you wouldn't see it as it sees itself. You would see it as it makes sense for you to see
it – perhaps a delicious fruit tart or aunt Bety's photos from her trip in the Caribbean. We
ignore most of reality and re-present it as something that we can easily relate to.
This also means that we translate time into something that we can easily relate to. There
seems to be a past that was before now, a now that is before us, and a future that we have
never before experienced. This makes sense to us and is a useful way to craf more interesting
(interactive) stories, but we are still interpreting time to be a linear, natural phenomenon
when what we are actually perceiving is the logical nature of our perspective. Time, as
illustrated in a later section, is the compression or ordering of endless space, which itself is an
interpretation of chaos. In the basic ordering of things there is that which is less relative to us
and that which is more relative to us.
In this way we experience only “past”. There is no present or future, unfortunately. There is
only something that we remember, can relate to, or relates to something else that we know
(called “past”) and something that we don't remember and aren't relating to as well (called
“future”). In our perspective, the future is like random chaos and the past is like order. The
“present” is the intersection between the two, but we do not experience the intersection
because it only has a reality in relation to the two. In the same way that there is no absolute
good or absolute hot, there is no absolute past, present, or future that can be perceived or
experienced. We do not perceive or experience time – we perceive relationships. What we
refer to as “now” isn't a point in time but a point in relativity.
The illusion of time illustrates this point: although we can say, “It is now 10:32 AM” there is
no such thing as exactly 10:32 AM. It is something we made up. We can break down a minute
into seconds, and seconds into nanoseconds, etc., but we will never reach an exact time
because time is an illusion that depends on other illusions for its reality. Time is only the page
numbers of our story that we use to help keep track of the order. 10:32 AM is no more
universal than the clock we stick it to.
“Now” cannot be experienced. If you hold your hand a mere 30 centimeters in front of your
face you are seeing your hand as it was 1 nanosecond ago, which is the time it takes for light
to travel from your hand to your eyes. Look around you, and you are experiencing a reality
that is never “now”.
As a rule of thumb, the distant past is less related to your perspective than the immediate
past, though its complexities are still represented in it. We are experiencing the past as it
happens but it drifs away from our current perspective, like a train leaving the station. You
know that the people in the station are continuing to experience their lives “now” even
though you have lef but don't experience it with them because it is no longer relative. Other,
less relative parts of you are experiencing everything in your past as a “now” just as the much
more relative parts are (in the current time). Everything in our experience is represented and
spread out logically in space and time – but the distance is only our interpretation of it, not
the reality. If one day we travelled in time as easily as we do now to other countries it would
be by finding the relationship between the distant perspective and the current perspective.
We would take something (such as a rock) and extract its memory at the same time as
52

inserting some of our current perspective into it.24 We would be realizing that the past is
simply an aspect of our current perspective, not divorced from it. The two continue to
interact. If we did not relate “here” with “there” then it would take an endless amount of
energy because many more interactions would be required to replace the more simple
representations. Amazingly, we consciously do the same with space already. When we want
to travel from here to there we relate the two together by means of transport, which
represents the whole process in a way that makes sense for us.
The hard part, though, wouldn't be experiencing the past perspective. It would be to be
consciously aware of it in your current reality. You could, if you wanted to, just stay in the
distant past but your perspective would shif to the new aspect (past) and your present
would be present in a diferent way, and you would never know you made a shif. Your reality
would simply be interpreted in prety much the same way, and you would likely not notice a
diference. If this sounds like everyday experience, it is because it is. We cannot travel to the
past or travel to anywhere, not even across the room. We simply re-interpret what is already
there.
When we remember a dream, for example, we are not remembering the dream but
experiencing our interpretation of the dream. In order to remember it we re-create it in a way
that makes sense to us in the present. We need to connect it with our current perspective in
order to perceive it. Similarly, a past memory is not a memory of something that used to be
relevant but something that is relevant in the current perspective. You've divorced most of the
physical aspect of it, so you don't really experience that part.25
Let's imagine that we are remembering a stressful or traumatic event from our past. As we
remember this past we are actually re-interpreting the present in a way that includes things
that are related to you but “feel” diferent – and you mark these as “past”. Perhaps our body
responds with increased anxiety or stress as we perceive these new elements just as it would
be if it was happening now. The past is not a memory or record of what happened before but
an interpretation of current stimuli that has no more bearing your reality than something
going on now in a diferent city.
You are what you interpret yourself to be.
The Living World Around You
You can sit quietly in your chair even though there are trillions of interactions going on in
your body at this moment. You represent some of these by simply talking, breathing, or
thinking. As you breathe you interact with your environment quietly, like a conversation that
is just below a whisper. There's no need to think of it, or even know how you do it. We do not
need to be aware of how anything in our body works. We don't even need to be aware of how
our reality works.
Can you imagine the endless physical, chemical, electrical, mechanical, and other dynamic
processes that you manage because you are able to represent them with thoughts and
actions? You don't need to understand the biochemical details of walking – you just do it. You
digest food without being aware of how it's done. You are capable of perceiving and working
24 That is to say, allow our current perspective to be entangled with the memory (its now) of the rock we have
extracted.
25 However, you could interpret this physically as an illness, physical feature or ability, or protein chain, etc. It is
only as real as your interaction with it.

53

with your entire reality because you inherently know how to package the complexities and
then work with those representations in a much more eficient way. Every aspect of your
perspective is related to something else. This relationship is what we'd call consciousness. As
relationships are all around us, so is consciousness.
The physical, chemical, electrical, mechanical, and other processes that you don't need to be
aware of are conscious because they are being related to. There is life in our bodies but we
don't generally think of it as having a life of its own, or even thoughts and feelings. The living
things in it knows that they are part of a system – your body – just as you know you're a part
of a community. Each has its own perspective and isn't focused on the bigger picture, or even
the smaller picture. It needs only find representations for something it does not seem to be
(yet) and then interact with those representations, just as you do.
Anything in your reality, such as an electronic device, is related to who and what you are in
some way. We shouldn't confuse the inside or outside of any thing with its meaning. The
ugliest or most disproportionate of things can be as meaningful as the most beautiful or
proportionate of things. The meaning depends on our perspective, not its perceived harmony.
We use tools, technology, devices, and other things to help us discover meaning in our reality
and to make paterns, like using words to have a conversation or using eyes to see. If the
device allows us to connect with a friend, then when we dial their number or send them a
message it is our story unfolding as we touch and interface with the complexity. Any thing in
our perspective, whether it's a toaster, a mobile phone, or a pile of leaves is something as alive
as any other person in this story. Consciousness is in the relationships between all things and
within all things, not just in things that have eyes to see.
We tend to somehow think that the things around us are not aspects of our perspective, but
of course they are. It is easy to see how your life could be an extension of who you are but
perhaps more dificult to see how a computer, the Sun, or even a person might also be an
extension. If the thought of a computer occurs to you in your imagination you may think
somehow it is meaningless, not realizing that this is an expression of who you are no
diferent than a computer you can use to connect to the internet with. The only diference
between the computer in your imagination and the one in your physical reality is that you
interact with the computer on your desk physically. We believe in the reality of the physical
computer because it looks the same as our belief in it does. It has the same physical
properties like other things that we trust in. We know where the computer came from, that
other people can see and use it, we remember having had it for a while, etc. When we are
dreaming we believe in the reality of the dream computer more, because it looks the same as
the other things we believe in while dreaming. But the computer in our imagination just
appears. We don't experience its story because it isn't logical to the perspective that is trying
to think of where the computer came from. If we could follow our imaginary computer's story
we would see how it, too, interacts just as much as our physical computer and it would
therefore seem just as real to us.
We tend to think that something is not real if we cannot relate to it. Someone seeing a
headline about 100 people dying in a fire last night, for example, will likely react with far less
emotion than hearing a story and seeing a photo about a single person who was atending
his younger brother's wedding party before a fire broke out as he was making his speech,
killing him and others. Never mind that he was only one person among many men, women,
and children there, each with their own stories.

54

Reality, for us, is in the story of how things fit in our logical narrative, regardless of whether
or not they are reasonable from other perspectives.
There is life in every direction in space and time, no mater how much of our current
perspective is in it. We relate to all of it in a way that is more logical to our subconscious, not
in a way that is consciously obvious. Until we understand that we see reality through
relationships instead of things, we will miss the meaning of what we perceive. Everything
that can be perceived is an illusion with meaning, because without the illusions perspective
would be meaningless. The wonderful illusions that fill our reality with all manner of
existence are enveloped by the life and consciousness of relationships.

55

Part 3::
The Qest

56

What is the Meaning of Life?
Your life is as you make it. That is to say, you are free to interpret the relationships that
already exist however you want. What is important is not how you interpret what is already
there but how you are relating to the reality you find yourself in. Life is not about finding
yourself, but finding yourself in others.
When you understand that everything in your perspective is an illustration of who and what
you are then you have discovered a very important part of the equation. The missing pieces
of your true identity are not in your name, how you look, where you live, what your job is, or
how many friends you have. Although you can only ever experience the extent of your own
perspective, the true “you” is everywhere in your reality in the relationships between the
things that you perceive.
The meaning of life is not in finishing university and geting a mortgage on a house and
filling it with a family. Those are interpretations of what is already there and not to be
mistaken with the actual meaning. The question is, “Are the individual things and experiences
in my reality balanced with my entire perspective?” Is the relationship of the house with your
family harmonious? Does the mortgage balance with the family's needs? Are the members of
the family happy? Is your finishing university something that feels good, or makes you
uncomfortable when you consider how it afects your family? Most importantly, do you
realize that the things you see and experience are diferent interpretations of the same thing?
Life is an endless parade of engaging illustrations that allow us to experience the
relationships we would not otherwise see. When we balance the random chaos of existence
with order to make for a balanced relationship it ofen gives us a sense of satisfaction or
happiness, so let's explore what that is.
What is Happiness?
Imagine a spiral. In the center of the spiral are the things most relative to you: your body, the
place you live, your family and friends, your personality, etc. The longer the spiral goes out
the more you find things that aren't close to you
in time, space, thought, and emotion: a
stranger's car at a garage 3,500 miles away, the
weather in another country, what someone is
doing right now in a place you've never heard
of. At the end of the spiral are things you can't
even begin to imagine.
Now, consider that things and events in your
life happen more or less randomly. Each is
represented by a face in the illustration on the
right. You'll notice the random events that hit
the spiral have a smile, the ones that almost hit
it are neutral, and the ones that miss it have a
frown. If the face touches the line, you feel
happy. If it's perfectly aligned, you feel really
happy. But if the face doesn't touch the line you
feel neutral or sad, depending on how far away
it is from the line.
57

This is an oversimplification, of course, but what it does is show how the persons, places,
things, events, etc., that resonate with our perspective make us “happy”. When we feel happy
about something we are actually sensing a balanced relationship and interpreting that as an
emotion. We can ofen intuitively see this balance or lack of balance around us using our
instinct. For example, a particular range of radiation on the electromagnetic scale from our
Sun allows us to walk outside without much clothing. Oil doesn't have as balanced a
relationship with water as tea leaves. Or, might experience dificulties in accomplishing a
particular task or driving on our way to a particular event, and think nothing of it.26
The spiral represents the foundation by which our perspective discovers paterns and makes
sense of the randomness. You can feel “happy” no mater what condition you're in, how much
money you have, how many friends you have, etc. It's all about how we interpret things and
where along the geometry of our perspective we place it. You could, for example, travel to
another country you've never been and feel good for the entire first day, even though you are
in a time and space that is completely foreign to you.
We each have our own interpretations of what a particular balance, or lack of balance, feels
like. Although we may ofen interpret such metaphysical relationships as a feeling of
happiness or contentment, sometimes we may also interpret the misfortunes of ourselves or
others as a balance, feeling happiness or satisfaction even. A relationship can be interpreted
however we like, even if it means sometimes we don't know what to make of it.
We tend to be atracted to things that are more relative to us – closer to us on the scale –
because those things have a higher chance of a connection with who we are, as the spiral is
more concentrated as relativity increases. If you focused on what isn't relative to you – far
along on the scale – you could still find some connections but they're not as likely.
How is it that a prisoner could be satisfied with being in prison afer having spent 25 years
there? The world that has become more relative to the prisoner over the years is what he or
she would most likely be atracted to and comfortable with (despite how they or society
might feel on the surface). Or we could meet a stranger and, as we get to know who they are
and relate more with them, we draw them closer to the center of the spiral. Before we met
them they weren't as relative to us so their (completely random) actions were much less
likely to connect with us. Perhaps we didn't understand their joke, why they wore an old
watch, or didn't quite understand their behaviour. But as we draw them closer we are more
likely to connect with them because the random distribution has a greater chance of hiting
the spiral in the center, where resonance is more concentrated. Then we get their jokes,
understand why they wear an old watch, and understand their feelings more. We may even
excuse their bad behaviour, whereas before we would not have without the connection.
How to Be Happy
Being happy is not a mystery. As we have illustrated, being happy is how we interpret a
balanced relationship of chaos and order with something else in our perspective. We won't
find any examples of happiness that doesn't involve relating to something else.
The “secret” to happiness, then, is to simply relate to more things. Or, at least, understand
that it is okay to not feel happy if you are choosing not to relate to things much. As we relate
26 The dificulties are random, but this randomness is also interpreted into the logical order of our stories, albeit
with a less harmonious placement than other things.

58

to more things we draw those things closer to our perspective, increasing the chances that
we'll experience a balanced harmony in the randomness. Find your perspective in the world
around you and these connections will come automatically. Conversely, you can lose
connections by relating to things less. You can lock yourself in your room and never go out,
fearing the extent of your perspective, but how sad would it be to not want to connect with
one's own perspective?
The feeling of happiness is likely the opposite of being “one” with the universe. When we are
“one” with the universe we are All That Is, and nothing-in-particular. To be “nothing” and
connect with nothing, having no relationship and unable to experience harmony because of
the lack of relationships with “other” is frightening. We naturally avoid this emptiness in our
perspective, creating endless illusions out of thin air in order to avoid this fate. (That is, in
fact, what we have done.)
When connecting with your perspective you don't need to worry about what isn't relative to
you. Everything is represented in your current perspective, whatever it may be. As you sit in
the room whatever perspective is outside the room needs not exist. A sound from a car on the
street is only a sound if you do not experience anything else about it. As reality is endlessly
represented, what is “out there” is represented by what is “in here”. The universe of atoms and
molecules that make up your hand need not exist in a reality where simply perceiving a
“hand” makes more sense. The atoms are folded into the geometry of the hand.
Focus on what is relative, and the rest will fall into place.
Why do people ofen choose to live in a neighbourhood with people like themselves? Why do
we want to be friends with people that we have a lot in common with? Why do we do the
same things over and over? Is it because we don't want to evolve or expand our perspective,
be inclusive, or shake our reality? Or is it because we naturally tend to perceive best what is
most relative to us, and make connections more easily with those things?
Focus on what
is relative, and
Happiness isn't about the feeling of happiness. The feeling is itself a
the rest will fall
representation as much as the chemical that transmits the feeling is just an
into place.

interface for something else. Happiness represents a balanced, harmonic
relationship between you and something else, not mater how far away it is
in time, space, emotion, or thought. We can be just as happy with something that is 10 years
away as something that is right around the corner.

When we consider the state of happiness in our lives we should also consider whether we
want “happiness” or really want what we're already used to. Do we want mysterious new
things that we hope will fall in the right place on our spiral or do we want to interact with
what is already relative to us, hoping that we can make it harmonious? To answer this, we
can consider how much time we spend a day finding replacements for the things we aren't
satisfied with. Perhaps maintaining our existing relationships (too chaotic, too structured, or
balanced) is more desirable than an unknown that we may or may not connect with.
The Art of Resonant Relationships
When we have a resonant relationship with something we have a strong connection with it.
It doesn't mean that you will feel happy from such a relationship, just that there's a good
connection. (However, as we've already illustrated, you're more likely to feel good things from
such relationships.)
59

Let's imagine that, for simplification, two forces in a relationship represent two sides of a
SPIR. The variety of relationships in perspective vary as much as perspective itself does.

A job that you're happy with could be a relationship like 34:21. In this example your employer
could be on the positive/chaos side as it seeks to maximize productivity, and you could serve
as the negative/order side as you balance this out with limited productivity to naturally
balance the relationship. If you limit productivity too much you will throw the relationship
out of balance, causing discord and perhaps geting fired. If you increase productivity too
much you will also throw the relationship out of balance, perhaps causing a great deal of
work-related stress or illness as the imbalance is interpreted by your body, for example.
3:5 is a television show you love, and 5:67 is a show you don't. 89:144 is a gourmet meal,
whereas 3:491 is eating sawdust – you want maximum taste but the sawdust limits it too
much. The relationship is what you experience and feel, not the show or sawdust that are
only representations of the relationships. This means you can feel really good in just about
any kind of job if the balance is right. It also means you could be extremely wealthy and dissatisfied with your life if the relationships are not properly balanced, or extremely poor and
feel happiness from your harmonic movements with the world around you.
Interaction between the two sides is always bi-directional. Each side exchanges parts of itself
in a continuous process of discovery. If a gourmet meal is “144” and your taste buds are “89”
you interpret the stripping of electrons from the food (among other SPIRs going on) in such
an exchange as deliciousness. You get electrons from one system to simultaneously add to
your own system as the food interacts with various acids in your body, eventually providing
energy and nourishment. But consider that your meal is also enjoying you in a similar way,
benefiting from the harmonic exchange on the journey of its own logical narrative.
There really are no actual SPIRs that work together and seek out an impossible balance. It is,
like life itself, a wonderful illusion. (SPIR is among the first of the complexities outside of
Nothing, however.) Perspective is our interpretation of All That Is (or nothing-in-particular) in
the simplest way imaginable that becomes complexity when we try to perceive what cannot
be perceived.
Ultimately, this constant give and take is a busy balancing of illusions that are already as
harmonic as they can possibly be, because they are all the same thing. The more we realize
that one thing is the same as another, the more resonance we experience in our reality.

60

Becoming Comfortable with Your Self
How can you become comfortable with all of your perceptions and, thus, yourself? Is it
necessary to accept everything in your perspective – everything that you know or have
known, everything in your experience, and everything that you can possibly imagine?
We needn't love or even like everything that we perceive, or pretend to. It isn't natural to
force love or good feelings on everything in our perspective. We cannot “love everything” no
mater how good it sounds. That would be an imbalanced SPIR and not a healthy
relationship. Counter-intuitively, if love is how you interpret some feelings then you also
need a dose of hate for some other things. You can't have one without the other. This is not to
suggest that you begin to hate things, of course, but to realize that hate is as natural as love
is because what you are loving and hating is your own perspective. As you begin to accept all
of your perspective (not just the good things) then you can begin to feel more comfortable
with your complete self. It's not easy to think about, but what is hate but order in disguise?
The subconscious mind doesn't care about love or hate, or how we interpret anything else. It
does not perceive those interpretations – we do. Love and hate are words that represent how
we interpret certain aspects of our reality, emotions, and thoughts. They are dificult to define
precisely because they represent other things that are not those interpretations. One
interpretation of “love” in the geometry of perspective could be a chair that feels really nice to
sit in, while another interpretation of “love” could be a colleague that you don't like talking to
but, nonetheless, still work with. Emotions are interpretations that help to define humanity
and our lives, but they are no more true than the chair or colleague is a true representation.
Your interpretation guides your emotions.
What is more important than defining love and thinking how to give and receive love is to
know that when you look at someone or something, you are looking at who and what you
are. Everything else will take care of itself, naturally. When you talk to someone or interact
with anything in your perspective, you are interacting with yourself. In this way we can feel
the natural love and happiness of our perspective not because we are focused on what we
think is “good” but sense the harmony of our perspective in seeming opposites and unrelated
things. If we feel angry or upset with something or someone then we can understand that we
are just geting angry at ourselves. Eventually we will tire of being angry with our own
perspective, and that feeling can more easily be interpreted as something else.
Atraction and repulsion is the nature of consciousness. Problems arise when atraction and
repulsion are thought of as two separate forces. There is nothing wrong with interpreting
something as good while interpreting something else as bad, as long as we know that both
are our own illusions that illustrate the natural chaos/order relationship. Without
interpreting something as “bad”, we can't interpret something else as “good”. Good and bad
are not absolutes but depend on each other for their reality. If you want to get rid of the bad
in your life, then both good and bad need to be re-defined and re-interpreted. It wouldn't be
natural to focus and promote good while pushing bad away unless we wish to create
something that lacks balanced harmony. We can pretend to love everything and be absolutely
good, but it's just an unnatural fantasy that will afect other things in ways we don't want. It
is more natural to simply relate more to what you want (without pulling it towards you
directly), and relate less to what you don't (without pushing it away).
Do we know the extent of our own perceptions? If we observe someone being dishonest do
we deny their direction relation to us by thinking, “Why are they dishonest?” rather being
61

more aware by asking, “Why do I feel this way?" or, “Why am I interpreting it like this?”
To realize that you are everything you perceive isn't easy. We have conditioned ourselves, out
of necessity, to believe otherwise. The things and experiences that make up your perspective
seem so not-me that even realizing that the darkest African person you have seen is a close
relative of the lightest English person you have seen would appear far easier in comparison.
How is our lack of understanding of how a plastic bag floating through the air similar to the
lack of understanding between two close relatives speaking entirely diferent languages? In
both cases were are distracted, or even fascinated, by the details that we can easily sense and
the laws of nature that are implied. We mistake the clever illusion for the reality.
How is everything in your reality a compatible interpretation? How do the things you
supposedly don't like fit in the same space and time with the things that you supposedly do?
How could a friend that we have grown to love so dearly do something that seems to be
wrong or unfair towards us? Again, the value is in the relationship rather than the details
that you see and experience. The details are just interfaces with an expansive consciousness
that unites everything in one perspective: yours.
If I told you that on planet Ghubird it is common for people to greet others by slapping them
in the face, what would you focus on? The details or the relationship? You might think that it
is a strange practice but not really think about how it relates to other things in the reality of
planet Ghubird, and how it might make sense to the people there. Similarly, you might get “a
slap in the face” in your reality without realizing how it relates to the entire story of your
reality. You might focus on the details – the slap, the pain, the loss – but not its relationship
with the other things in your perspective. An old story about a farmer illustrates this:
One day one of the farmer's horses ran away. The farmer's neighbors heard the news
and came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said. "May be," the farmer replied.
The next morning the horse returned and brought with it three other wild horses.
"How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the farmer.
The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses and was thrown to
the ground, breaking his leg. The neighbors again came to the farmer to ofer their
sympathy. "May be," replied the farmer.
The day afer, military oficials came to their village to draf young men into the army
for their campaign. Seeing that the son's leg was broken they passed him by. The
neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be,"
replied the farmer.
It is dificult to figure out, consciously, what we really desire or like and what we really resist
or dislike. We focus on the details of something but not the relationship. That song we think
we hate keeps playing in our mind. We continue to run into someone we don't like. Someone
you know isn't good for you keeps coming back, and you let them. We continue to do things
that we think are bad or make us feel guilty.
If we are reading a self-help book, for example, and have the urge to skip over a section that
might hit a few nerves and make us feel uncomfortable, we are not doing that subconsciously
but consciously. We are interpreting what our subconscious has “already read” (via its own
interpretation) and consciously interpreting it as something else that we want to avoid. We
62

ofen block out relationships we may not want to interpret if doing so will change our reality
in a certain way. Perhaps it's someone we don't want to call back or a meeting that we
intentionally miss. These relationships may be expressed in other ways that may not be so
appealing to us consciously but at the same time cannot ignore. Think of it as you telling
yourself, “That was me that I just ignored.”
What is most relative is not what you think you like or desire the most or are puting the
most energy into, but what is easiest to perceive and interact with in any way. If it's easier for
someone to smoke a cigarete than to quit smoking cigaretes, then cigaretes are probably
more harmonious with their perspective. If a person says they detest violence but enjoy a
number of violent movies, then violence is more relative to them than they probably realize.
Focusing on the good side of things will eventually have the opposite efect, as (for sake of
simplicity) you will give yourself a lesson that good and bad are the same thing. So by
focusing only on one side of the equation you would experience the other side, which
balances the experience as it illustrates its more complete nature. This could take a long time
to figure out, however. You may even try to force yourself to interpret what is bad to you as
something good, further entrenching your perspective in the illusion of opposites.
In life we explore relationships. It doesn't mater what relationships we interact with, as long
as it appears to be something. If something did not have value to your reality then it would
not be experienced or perceived. We tend to resist things we do not like, but this only allows
that kind of interpretation more space in our reality. Being comfortable with your
perceptions is not about accepting everything or “turning the other cheek”. That would be
focusing on the irrelevant details. Instead, when you understand your relationship with your
perspective there is no need to resist or classify anything. You simply play with the illusion.
You can find what you want in what you have already. You can see what you love in what
you hate, and what you hate in what you love. You can see how things relate to one-another.
To take an example, let's say that you want a new job and devote your entire Saturday to
your job search, preparing for the interview, etc. There is a knock at the door; it is a boy you
don't know. You decide to ignore it because you are trying to focus on finding a new job. You
have successfully ignored your perspective and focused on the details rather than the
relationships. Ignoring your perspective when it is so obviously in front of you is a type of
self-rejection, as you are actively denying your own signals. However, this experience could
be what leads you to your new job. It doesn't mean that you need to invite him in for tea and
have a discussion but perhaps opening the door to tell yourself to go away gives you an idea
that you had not thought of before. When we are open to interact more with ourselves then
we are opening the door to a world of experience and understanding that we did not realize
was there all along.
When we resist ourselves it is like thinking, “That isn't me. That is something else!” The
illusion of our perspective becomes even less evident. We don't realize that when we
experience something we are actually experiencing the illustration of ourselves. What we
want is already here and now. We have only to perceive the relationships. Again, we need not
experience what we think is in our perspective. This isn't about loving your enemies, but
realizing that enemies exist because that's how you interpret a part of your perspective. If we
want to have a more balanced experience and wonder about all the things we think we don't
like, all we need to do is find more agreeable interpretations. Or, to put it an other way, "If
you don't want to fight, read the book instead!"

63

Avoiding Things You Don't Want to Experience
Our experiences are interpretations of the metaphysical relationships that are the fabric of
existence. What we experience is not “meant to be” any more than our particular
interpretation is. But sometimes we want to avoid certain experiences that we'd rather not
think about, or draw other experiences closer to us. How do we do that?
Let's say that a certain undesirable event was likely to happen and you wanted to avoid it as
much as possible. Although we cannot avoid experiencing the relationship we can choose
how we interpret the relationship. To your subconscious mind there is no diference between
falling to the ground and watching a chair fall to the ground if the relationships are the same.
As we cannot perceive these relationships directly we can only control what is relative to us.
If something isn't relative then we will not perceive it. If a thought-being from planet
Cucumber thinks its way over to your kitchen, for example, you might perceive it as strange
sounds that you will eventually find to be coming from the sink because thought beings
aren't relative to you, but sinks are.
As no one else knows or understands how you interpret metaphysical relationships except for
you (your unique perspective), it doesn't really mater how they are represented or what they
look like. Instead of experiencing falling to the floor why not make a video where you are
pretending to fall, instead? Instead of someone continuing to experience physical abuse at
home why not live somewhere else so the abuse can be experienced as an uncomfortable
bed? These are of course dramatic over-simplifications but it does underscore “fate” being
entirely dependant on what is relative to you. Fate is not someone being injured in a car
accident if they don't like wearing seat belts or drive like an idiot.
What does the thing you don't want to experience interact with? What are the relationships
involved? If a child is afraid that there's a monster in his closet, how can he dispel the
monster if he's never seen it? How can the child get rid of experiencing the monster that he
thinks is in his near future? We have only to find a good-enough representation for what we
do (and don't) wish to experience. Focusing on details rather that relationships would be like
the child focusing on the monster's fangs. But how does the monster relate to the closet, the
child, the items in the closet, the room, the house, and other things that happened that day?
If the child thinks the monster will atack him, how might atacking himself empower the
child to take control over his reality? Or cleaning up his closet?
Right now, in various ways in our lives we interpret the geometry of relationships however
we want and then make up a story to go along with it. We interpret the good and bad and
everything in between in ways that will make overall sense. We don't need to like it or agree
with it – it only needs to be logical. We do this with our every present experience and also the
past as we interpret some things as memories rather than experiencing them physically now.
Representations are everywhere in space and time, allowing us to draw experiences nearer to
us as we re-interpret relationships that are already there. We bring the distant galaxies down
to Earth by re-interpreting the relationships that allowed us to perceive them in the first
place. We can re-interpret events from our past as present experiences, or things we know to
be far away to be near. We can skip the experience of entire worlds by representing them as
something else. “As above, so below,” as is said.
Calculus, for example, had been discovered thousands of years before Newton and Leibniz
reinterpreted some ancient manuscripts from India. The Indian version of calculus was
64

interpreted diferently and so did not have the same reality as when the two famous
scientists re-interpreted it into ways that were relative to them, which just so happened to be
relative to a lot of other things going on at the time in England. Imagine if, instead, the
calculus from thousands of years ago was represented and interacted with the same. We
would have "skipped" thousands of years of development within, perhaps, a few hundred
years. (How crazy would the Caesars updating their statuses on a social network be?)
Calculus is, itself, a representation of a process that need not be experienced. This means you
can "avoid" lots of maths with it because it is an eficient interface with those realities. 27
Or how about a bronze computer from over 2,000 years ago that was found in a sunken ship
at the botom of the sea, the Antikythera mechanism? The device allowed the interface of
other realities that were represented by it – as any computer does – but another
representation sunk the ship and prevented the computer and perhaps its inventor from
safely arriving to perhaps technologically advance humanity further.
We can atract or repel the experience of anything by representing it. The relationships will
still be expressed, but it'll be neatly packaged up in your perspective by the time you see it.
Most of our reality is, in fact, experienced this way. An event is interpreted in your
perspective as a news story rather than you experiencing the event, for example. We can
interact with a sport that someone else plays. We need not experience the reality of someone
who drinks soda all day when our friend Sebastian represents that already.
There is nothing behind the representation (the maths, the news, the sport, etc.) until it
becomes more relative to your perspective and experiencing that reality is a part of your
story. But even behind the representations that you unpack are more representations. When
we can interact with the representations in a certain way, we call it reality. We also call it
reality when we can use representations to interact with other aspects of our perspective, or
represent other aspects we'd rather not experience.
The Art of Resistance
Without resistance there is no existence. Without something to resist the seemingly infinite
expanse of Nothing, there is nothing. As one side of Potential resists the other, both can
appear to be a part of our reality. But what is resistance, and how can we use it properly?
The play between two illusions (the Potentials) through resistance sets the stage for every
aspect of your reality. One thing appearing as two sides that pretend to resist each other so
that both may exist. Resisting something, you are actually supporting it. Resistance is how
two illusions interact and illustrate Potential. By resisting the “other” side, one side can
uncover its own logical narrative and strengthen its reality through interaction.
If you love something you are also resisting it, because absolute love would be impossible. If
you experience “now” you are also resisting it, because absolute now cannot be experienced.
If you are atracted to a particular color you are resisting it and atracting it at the same time.
Without both sides of the coin, neither side could be supported. If you did not resist the color
it would, in theory, consume you until that color is all you are and you could perceive of
nothing – not even yourself. If cold did not resist hot, cold would become hot and both would
cease to exist from lack of definition and comparison.
If you resist something you don't like, you are also atracting it. If you actively resist a thing
27 The calculations of the more basic maths are still being performed, but not from that perspective.

65

or a person you are also becoming that thing or person, because part of your perspective then
focuses on it more. Pushing something away you are, in a way, transferring your energy to it
simply by interacting to shif your perspective more to it. Without resistance there is no
interaction. Instead of geting completely lost in a film, person, place, or object we interact
with and resist them to maintain our own integrity. We unknowingly resist and atract
everything in our perspective to some degree in order that we may have a perspective.
Imagine a magnet that has a lead ball levitating in the air above it. The magnet is pulling on
the ball, but also pushing it away at the same time. The “resistance” between the two forces is
the position (or reality) that the ball finds itself in. This position is the golden relationship
(phi), a balance of reality between the two illusions. You could push the ball towards the
magnet, but it would take more energy that just leting it float where it has the least amount
of resistance. Reality is that which takes the least amount of resistance to experience.
We cannot inhale without exhaling. Our bodies do not grow at night without shrinking a bit
during the day. We cannot like something without disliking parts of it at the same time. There
is no “absolute” cold, love, height, pressure, or beauty, because those things do not exist by
themselves. There is only harmony between two illusions, and sometimes it is balanced.
You could say that we are beings resisting a state of nothingness so we create illusions to
seem like we exist. Resistance is at our core, and it is not a bad thing. The harmonic
resistance between atraction and repulsion (chaos and order) is the nature of our existence.
Because balance is needed, expressing just one extreme or another will not produce harmonic
results or a stable reality. Resistance must be a part of the process for a harmonic reality to
come about. A casino where there are only winners (or only losers) cannot survive. A religion
based on “good” that does not integrate “bad” will not be successful. A story where there is no
conflict is not an interesting story at all. With resistance there is life.
However, when we lean too much on either “atraction” or “repulsion” our experience may not
meet our intentions. When we don't understand that we cannot atract something without
resisting it at the same time, unwanted things may be experienced. We might even feel
sometimes that the entire universe is acting against us or not giving us what we want, not
realizing that we are just experiencing the balance of our perspective. A tree that resists a
strong wind is the first to snap, while a nearby blade of grass that finds a balance within the
two opposing forces is simply blown back and forth.
If, for example, you try to resist a person completely you are interacting with them even more
than you would by focusing on something else. To your subconscious, it doesn't mater if you
interpret one thing as good or another thing as bad. Only your conscious mind cares for such
distinctions. You may think, consciously, that you don't like something and want to voice
your opinion about it but what you are actually doing is puting more of your focus on it and
interacting with it more. You might then wonder why you get more of what you don't like. If
you push something away because you do not want it in your life all your subconscious sees
is you interacting with it and forming new relationships as you interact. We ofen atract the
things we don't consciously want, and ofen repel the things that we think we do want.
If you do not want something in your life, make it and the things it has relationships with
irrelevant by focusing on something else. This might be a bit tricky because sometimes the
thing we think we don't want is atached to the things we do want. Another way is to reformulate your relationship with what you don't want by realizing that the two opposite
sides are the same thing. We can either realize the harmony between the two sides or try to
66

push one side away. We sometimes wonder why conditions might worsen when we think
we're doing the “good” thing, but the two sides are intertwined with each other. A
government that wants more law-abiding citizens, for example, would do well to decrease the
number and extent of laws rather than increase them. A structure can be made stronger by
introducing empty spaces arranged harmoniously within it. Without silence between the
notes of a composition there is no music.
If it seems that your reality is working against you it is not because of some cosmic force. It is
simply the way you are interpreting your reality. When we resist parts of our perspective
(that we don't want) and wonder why other parts (that we do) seem to be working against us,
we have misunderstood how our reality works. Neither side is good or bad, so there is no
need to resist our own interpretations of either side.
When we perceive the same opposing forces in the clouds above our heads we do not call it
hostility, oppression, or say that the system is working against us. We may simply say that it
is raining and know that opposing forces are necessary in order for reality to run its course.
When we perceive “evil” or things we think of as bad it does not mean that you are the
antagonist or are doing bad things to the other parts of your reality, or even punishing
yourself. Rather, you are simply interpreting the opposing forces in a certain way.
The more we resist the natural harmony inherent in our reality the more complex the
structure of our perspective must become to support it, requiring more interactions to
maintain the same reality. This is the busy-ness of being lost in the illusion of complexity.
To properly resist something you give it room to exist somehow in your perspective. How you
interpret it is entirely up to you. To “defeat” or reject something is to defy your own
perspective. There is no need to reject what you do not perceive, so the question is why are
you interpreting it in that way?
Resistance is Futile
Let's imagine that I gave you a task for one week. Your task was to do all that you can to hate
and resist the Brazilian wandering spider, one of the most deadly spiders in the world. I don't
tell you why you need to hate this spider. That's up to you to figure out. You have one week
to hate it.
How do you imagine that you can hate and resist something that you don't know that much
about? You'd first have to learn more about it and find something about it to hate. You have a
good idea how you might start out; it's a deadly spider, afer all. You then find out that it's
both aggressive and venomous. Appropriately, it might even wander into your bedroom while
you're sleeping! Now that you've found a few good reasons to hate this spider, you can begin
to filter out your experiences that don't fit with your new logical narrative.
But, in developing negative feelings for the spider you've done something you didn't really
intend to do. You see, in order to resist the Brazilian wandering spider you'd first have to
focus on it. You cannot continue to resist what you are not interacting with. How can you
hate something that you didn't have a relationship with in the first place?
You might find that this spider finds its way into your reality. During that week, and perhaps
for even longer, you find the spider “suddenly” everywhere. It's featured on a television
channel, it pops up unexpectedly in your search engine results and news feed, and your
67

entomologist friend happens to mention it. You even meet a guy from Peru whose cousin was
biten by such a spider. Because you focused on repelling the Brazilian wandering spider in
your perspective two forces came into play: atraction and repulsion. You consciously focused
on repulsion, but thinking about it atracts the specific interpretation. You may have been
thinking you are pushing the thing away from you when you are, instead, in a relationship
with it that doesn't feel good. So, instead of ending up with a harmless, stained photo of the
spider (which is one way the relationship could have expressed itself harmoniously) the
spider wandered in through your front door and bit you in the ass.
In order to get rid of what you don't want, don't focus on it. Think about this: every time you
resist, reject, deny, hate, or try to get rid of something you are actually interacting with it
and, thus, atracting it to you. If someone puts a glass of spiders in front of you there is no
need to push it away. You'd just be interacting with it and making it more a part of your
perspective. Why even look at it or talk about it?
By interacting with something you are creating possibilities. Two things come together in a
relationship – you and something else – and make a third thing such as an emotion or a new
experience. Instead, make it irrelevant. Find something else to ponder, and walk elsewhere.
Unfortunately, we are not ofen aware of what we actually like and don't like. We only know
a litle of what is in our perspective. We catch ourselves singing or thinking of a song we don't
like and pass it of as the song having a catchy tune, rather than realizing that we are
atracted to it. We work or spend time with people we think we don't like, or find ourselves in
situations we think we detest. But they are still in our perspective. Why?
We are atracted to whatever we find in our perspective, plain and simple. That's why it is
there. More specifically, we are atracted to how we interpret the relationships that become
the reality we experience. Our entire perspective is how we interpret everything. Rejecting
some of your own interpretations of reality is a futile efort (because you cannot separate
positive from negative). Learn to relate to your entire perspective.
We naturally use positive and negative forces for every aspect of our existence. If our bodies
didn't resist the food we put in our mouths we wouldn't be able to digest it, as there would be
too much mass if it wasn't broken down inside the body. When space is broken down we get
things like light and hydrogen, which eventually become what we eat as more complex
interactions are formed. We atract and repel these, too, by making simple systems more
complex and then breaking them down again into even simpler ones. Although the cycle
seems to go on forever, from the origins of existence through our bodies and down to subatomic particles again, there is really only one process at work that we interpret as a
seemingly endless reality that we cannot actually perceive. We resist in order to exist.
The Goodness of Inequality
We are, by nature, journeying through the illusion of inequality. We propagate the illusion of
opposites in order to experience life. If all temperatures were equal and there was no such
thing as “hot”, for example, temperature would not exist.
We should not be fooled by the illusion of equality, however. Endless variation of the same
thing is what perspective is. By wanting things to be equal we are wanting interpretations
and relationships to be the same, which isn't natural at all. How can one person or thing be
equal with an other when the relationships in the geometry of perspective are diferent?
68

Inequality is inherently natural. Nowhere in the natural world do you find things that are
diferent but equal. Not even the sides of our own bodies are equal. For some reason, we are
compelled to feel that humans must be equal to each other in order to live harmoniously. The
universe is naturally unfair, but harmonious. It is harmonious precisely because it seems to be
unfair. Harmony is far more important than equality, because without opposing forces
working together there is no resonance with All-That-Is.
Further, there is no need to perceive everything in the universe as one. It's okay to perceive
duality and see some things as "good", or positive, and see others as "bad", or negative. Just
understand that what you are perceiving is a completely harmonious you, and ofentimes
what you might interpret as bad is actually good for you. It's the reason we exist. Without the
illusion of "other" there is nothing.
Experiences are neither positive nor negative, as they are made up of lots of positive and
negative things coming together. That makes your reality neither positive nor negative, good
nor bad, but a balance between seemingly opposing forces. You can think of your reality as a
way your subconscious mind shows you that you are the things you perceive and there is no
real diference. But the nature of our perspective requires we see a diference, so we go
through existence experiencing things that seem separate from who and what we really are.
You need not realize that your perspective is actually you in disguise, but life would probably
be experienced more harmoniously if you saw all the elements working together.
Things do not come into your perspective without your “consent”, because you are your
perspective, even when you don't understand that you are. Unfortunately to our
subconscious, what we want and what we like is of no importance. What value does liking
one thing over another have if both are aspects of our perspective? What good would it do to
consider wants that change constantly from a perspective where time is irrelevant? We see
something as separate from us, or do not understand the nature of good and bad and
everything in between because we simply do not understand the entirety of it all.
If you see someone being abused, is it happening in your perspective or outside of it? Would
everything in your reality perceive it the same way? If not, could your perception be
subjective and depend on your interpretation? Would an ant or a cloud also perceive the
abuse in the same way? Could we then say that not only is the abuse in your perception but
in your interpretation?
The only question that the subconscious mind would ask it, "How harmonious is this
relationship in the current reality?" We are then free to interpret the relationship however we
like, as harmoniously good, harmoniously bad, balanced, or anything else.
Right and Wrong, and Karma
As an example of karma, let's say that you were leading a nice, stress-free life without
anything really bad happening. One day you got angry and hit someone. The next day your
pet gerbil died. You may link the death of your beloved pet to your anger the day before and
think the two are related by karma, one causing the other.
It could be, instead, that the geometry of relationships changed when you interacted with the
person by hiting them. In your new perspective the gerbil was not compatible. It would not
just disappear, of course, but must take a logical departure from your reality. Death is one of
69

the ways the gerbil could make its exit. It could also depart by running away (and coming
back if your narrative meets it again), someone else taking care of it, etc. We interpret the
geometry of perspective as a logical narrative, so it appears to us that things flow in a linear
fashion. We see cause and efect where there is none.
Although there's no consequence to any of your actions in the way of cause and efect, this
doesn't mean that we can act irresponsibly. You could say that at every moment the entire
universe is interpreted anew from the formula of your perspective, everything happening at
once. By interpreting a relationship in a particular way you are making something more
relative to you, whereby your entire reality becomes more like the thing you have interacted
with (going in all directions, past and future) and the way you have interacted with it.
We cannot really know if something is good because we cannot perceive of all things at once.
If someone feeds the hungry can we say it is good? What if the hungry party is an alligator
and humans are being fed to it? Does it then become bad? What if it's a silly new online game
for charity where $5 goes to a good cause for every zombie human you feed to the alligators?
What if the charity funnels money to those doing nefarious deeds? We do not know what
something is unless we know how it relates to everything else. The definition of something is
found in everything else. There is no "good" or “bad” independent of perspective.
Something becomes good only because it appears to be that way in the current perspective,
not because it actually is. One thing becomes a “cause” and another an “efect” not because it
is, but because that is how we define it. We do not know the cause of something, nor its
efect, because we cannot perceive of everything. If we see someone throw a ball to a catcher
we can claim that the catcher was able to catch the ball because someone threw it. It makes
sense, and it is valid. However, it only makes sense because that's how we interpreted it.
When we experience something that seems to be the direct result of something else, we are
not experiencing cause and efect at work. We are experiencing a new reality where diferent
parts come together and dance in unison. Some parts we know, some parts we don't yet
know.28 When something new shows up or we experience more of it in our reality it is because
it is more compatible with the new perspective than the thing it replaced. When someone
disappears or their presence diminishes it is because they are less compatible with the new
perspective than other things. A chair doesn't move because we move it – it isn't actually
there in the first place. We perceive the chair moving because we fold the entire universe into
a neatly-packaged reality that we can then try to make sense of in an easier, more digestible
way. Yet, we are folding relationships into themselves rather than trying to package up
everything that can be perceived.
We cannot contain the entirety of reality in a single experience so we make up paterns to
perceive a changing perspective, not realizing that any change is simply us puting two or
more illusions into some kind of order. The chair moves because that is what we see when we
look at the relationships inside the fold through the medium of perspective.
The general population, as it stands today, is only interested in clear distinctions between
good and bad. A book such as this, for example, would be read by many more people if it
focused on things like “love and light” or “positivity” or “healing” and talked about the world
and reality as if they were black and white. Somehow, we believe such things like beauty
being in the eye of the beholder, but don't apply the same reasoning to good and bad, right
and wrong, and this and that. Taking this farther, we ignore the good in people we consider
28 That is to say, some parts are related to our previous reality and some parts have become related.

70

bad and the bad in people we consider good, as if either became more or less true by
perceiving it. Surely, evil is just as valid and important a reality as good is. Otherwise, such
things would not be perceived, nor would such polarities be so entwined.
As we are not ever satisfied with our interpretation of All-That-Is, we experience a
continually-changing reality that seems to always be the most logical reality that we can
experience at that time, regardless of how we feel about our own interpretation of it.
Does Evil Exist?
What we call “evil” is just a word that conveniently and eficiently represents a concept that
would not exist without other representations supporting it. At the top of all these endless
representations of representations we find All-That-Is. There is no absolute evil, as absolute
anything cannot be perceived. That is to say, there is nothing that is evil without it being
defined that way by comparing it with other things. Evil doesn't exist in a silo. There is no
partially evil, either, as parts are illusions of a nothing-in-particular that cannot be entirely
perceived. “Evil” is inexorably defined by what we know as good. Evil is an interpretation.
As we interpret, so do we atract. We are not atracting evil if we interpret something as evil,
but we are conditioning our perspective to see more things like that as what we have
interpreted relates to other things in our reality. It is no diferent than a broken window
atracting more broken windows as your interpretation of the first broken window influences
your interpretation of whatever is around it. If you interpret something as bad or evil then
you are atracted to the interpretation in some way. Any perception takes interaction. You
didn't need to interpret it that way at all, but for some reason you chose to do just that. It
doesn't mean that you yourself are evil if you perceive something else as evil. However, the
more it is perceived in your reality the more you are choosing to interact with it in such a
way.
The only diference between good and evil is in the interpretation. To one group, for example,
Professor Silverlake is evil and morally wrong. A second group identifies with Professor
Silverlake and doesn't understand why the first group thinks him evil or wrong but, instead,
thinks Professor Yellowlake is evil and morally wrong. The fly on the wall perceives both
professors, but not in the same way. To this fly, and to the floor that the professors walk on
every day, the question of them being good or evil is irrelevant. The only question for each
member of both groups is, “Why do I perceive myself this way?”
No perspective is more valid than any other because it is all one perspective: yours. Other
perspectives are illusions, aspects of your perspective. You cannot experience beyond your
own perspective, and you can't possibly know what's going on outside it. If you were to step
in someone else's shoes, so to speak, you'd still be experiencing an aspect of your perspective.
We cannot say that something is true simply because a great majority of the people that we
know seem to feel the same way. Look around again. Do you know how each colony of dust
feels about it? How about the angle of the shadow? How do all the physical and non-physical
things in the room feel? Although other human beings are an important part of our
perspective, the vast majority of our overall relationships have non-human aspects.
Perhaps one of the most dificult things to think about is that you are all you could ever
possibly perceive in the one perspective of the grand reality. When we are considering this in
relation to something natural like a plant or a tree, it is easy to consider and digest. But when
71

we extend that to things that we don't like or think of as “evil”, we move beyond novelty into
a place that highlights the very nature of our own existence.
We don't want to think that we are the source of all the bad things in our perspective
because it would provide far more certainty and responsibility to the question of the source
of everything else. “If Genghis Khan exists entirely in my perspective, then I am completely
responsible for all Genghis Khan did. It also means there is no limit to who and what I am!”
This can be a frightening thought if one thinks of it that way.
We normally avoid thinking that we are already connected with everything else (as it misses
the point of existence), so we make random distinctions. Some things taste good, others not
so good. Some things we like, some things we don't. Some things are really good, others are
really evil. It's all an illusion, of course – a kind of serious game. Another part of your
perspective has a diferent geometry of perspective (a diferent “angle” so to speak), so
probably has diferent likes and dislikes. Your own perspective right now is likely diferent
than it was last week or last year. But they are all aspects of the same thing.
We feel separate with things for a reason: to connect with other aspects of ourselves. It is
hard to look at oneself without a reference. It is natural to want to have mirrors so we can see
who we are. The reflection is not the real thing but it is good enough to work with. Although
it is natural to not feel totally connected with other things we can have a harmonic
relationships with the things that are not “us”.
Yes, evil exists. It exists as much as the deliciousness of a slice of pie or the joy you might get
from the movie aferwards. The devil is only in the (mis)interpretation of the harmony that
surrounds you.
The Joy of Human SPIRs
Although we intuitively understand how SPIRs work we do not really consciously understand
the process. Our misunderstanding, or perhaps ignorance, of natural systems creates
variations that are still natural, but emphasize the positive force more than a balance of
forces. We end up with systems that have no or litle opposing force, something designed to
pursue infinity instead of a system where infinity is balanced by limitation. In other words,
we ofen want certain things to go on forever without end, thinking that this is the model
that makes the most sense. Endless advancement, laws, creativity, happiness, profits, income,
family, productivity, and more.
Such social systems are riddled with logical fallacies such as confirmation bias and argument
from authority, as they are not designed to depend on opposing forces.
These are not inherently negative or harmful systems but systems designed to facilitate the
pursuit of meaning in our lives. They work as they're supposed to. (And we will see how such
systems are perfectly natural). But because they do not integrate opposing forces to beter
balance them they do not promote and facilitate as much harmony as they could.
We adopt an endless variety of these circular SPIRs in order to interpret relationships with
them in the hopes of creating more meaning in our reality. Each of the following systems is a
meta-physical tool interpreted into one’s physical existence for the purpose of giving focus,
meaning, and to transcend and transform our daily lives.

72

System

Type

Form(s) of Endlessness

Omnipotent Entity

Religion

Conversion, Enlightenment,
Sufering, Omnipotence

People Management

Politics

Laws

Measurement

Science

Knowledge

Government

Authority

Regulation

Money

Business, Capitalism

Profits, Growth

Human Resources

Employment

Productivity

Chance

Gambling

Jackpots

Creativity

Art

Expression

Entertainment

Celebrity

Fame

Physical Achievement

Sports

Winning

Media and Social Inputs Television, etc.

News, programs, articles, etc.

Food

Cooking, Eating

Recipes, Taste

Audio

Music

New songs

Image

Consumerism

Shopping

Environmentalism

Sustainability

Preservation

Formal Education

School

Learning

Circular SPIRs tend to be overly-emotional, with supporters defending the recursive logic of
the structure's narrative at all costs. Again, these are not bad or harmful structures; they are
the focus of much of our reality. We can, however, say that they're chaos-heavy structures
without an inherent opposing mechanism built in for more balanced relationships.
Many corporations, for example, seem to exist for the sole purpose of competing to stay in
business and provide executives with busy-ness, no mater how meaningless the overall afair
is. Other businesses may fill a trivial need with a line of relatively meaningless products and
services that serve no other purpose than to keep the company in business.
Ofen, those subscribed to a system will begin to see their reality through the lens of the
system. Operating by natural systems ourselves, we cannot interact with any system without
adopting some of its perspective. And although we can find utility in each of these systems
we should not forget that, as we interact with them, we are also integrating our own
perspective with it. For example, the more we interact with traditional, formal education (or
those who have been so educated) the more imbalanced our own perspective becomes until
we find ourselves overly confident in the supposed truth of what we have learned.
It must be noted that any system conforms to SPIR on some level. These systems will afect
limitations in other, unintended ways, usually with the stakeholders involved. Many aspects
of environmental “preservation” promote ill-health in humans 29 and lead companies to
increase prices unnecessarily, for example. An ever-expanding economy comes with increased
consumer debt. University tuition prices rise without end, discouraging students from
pursuing an education. The more laws there are the more people are found to be breaking the
29 Such as the toxins in energy-saving light bulbs that leak out when heated, which are not in incandescent bulbs.

73

law. Endless news is being shared where there is none, focusing on irrelevant happenings and
creating a false sense of importance and priority. A myriad of recipes means that you will
ofen have no idea what you're eating, which may afect health. The list goes on.
Without a logical system at its base or a strong enough natural limitation a system will sufer
from an endless variety of logical fallacies and likely evolve diferently from what was
intended and also afect other systems in unintended ways. But this isn't an argument
against these types of systems. We all enjoy things like music, food, and the by-products of
scientific discoveries among other wonderful things. We can, however, learn to build systems
that have its own opposition built in to discover healthier types of systems that are more
natural. Some of us realize that allowing for sadness can lead to a more healthy psychological
and emotional state rather than pretending that everything is good. An educational system
that has “known/unknown” at its base might allow students to discover for themselves,
becoming instead a way to facilitate the pursuit of learning rather than rote memorization. A
governmental system that had “authority/non-authority” at its base might build cities where
innovation, experimentation, and personal freedom can thrive, or cancel out a percentage of
existing laws every year.
We have circular SPIRs at the core of our civilization, ingrained in its every gear. Natural
SPIRs seem almost counter-intuitive, as if they were not compatible with ego. Can you
imagine a national holiday for sadness where we were encouraged to cry over something? A
company saying that it wants to reduce prices to benefit consumers because its profit
margins are too high? A news program saying there is not much to report today, so they will
lead with something happy? A team of scientists saying that they made too many
assumptions the past 10 years and need to start over? Or environmentalists proclaiming that
we should follow nature's example and allow some species to expire, naturally? It is silly to
consider these things precisely because circular SPIRs are so ingrained in how we do things,
but even more silly to formulate systems with endless chaos at their core. These systems seek
to nurture infinity in a way that allows for limitless expansion like a rising sea without
boundaries. Instead, an endless parade of logical fallacies such as argument from authority
and confirmation bias30 are found in its wake. These systems typically promote the
interpretation of ambiguous information as supporting its existing structure while ignoring
other information that challenges its fundamental assumptions, unless that information
poses a direct threat to its survival.
Each system develops a logic that is apparent to its proponents. A test to see how rigid the
beliefs are for any system is to see how it works with contradicting or opposing information.
Does it recognize that there are other equally valid realities? If the system does not operate
by confirmation bias there will be no need to confirm or disprove new information that has
revealed itself. In order for the integrity of the logical narrative to be sustained, circular SPIR
systems ignore and reject information that does not conform to that already in place.
Without confirmation bias, we do not perceive of reality. As humans, we need such systems
in order to live and perceive as humans. However, we should be aware where we are
subscribed to a belief system that may inhibit our movement and interaction, or shield us
from new information in the pursuit of an infinity that does not exist.
As we pursue circular SPIRs we will explore a system's seemingly limitless possibilities. Let's
assume that our family of humans from our prior example are now comfortable with fire. The
30 Science, economics, education, media, medicine, corporations, and other are especially prone to the “argument
from authority” fallacy.

74

discovery may have been one of chance or intent, but the humans learned that if they allow
these two things to interact in a certain way it will result in a third thing that can be used for
something else. At first the making of fire is a novelty, shown only to close associates. Then,
interacting with other systems, it expands as a new property of special occasions or
conditions. From there there practice of making a fire spreads as much as it can until it
reaches more balanced systems that limit the spread of the practice. As systems tend to
pursue the limits of their capacities, the humans will eventually use controlled fire for
cooking food, building shelter, medicine, hunting, and burning down entire forests.
We must assume that if a system is designed to be unlimited then it will eventually try to
pursue the capacity for which is was intended, and even beyond what it was intended for. We
focus on the present reality rather than the unlimited nature of the system itself. Surveillance
starts in Thursdays between 5 and 6 in the afernoon and proceeds over time to encompass
all 168 hours of the week. Conditional rules will eventually try to flow to unconditional rules.
A website selling a single broken laser pointer will explore its endless capacity for person-toperson transactions and may eventually become a telecommunications provider. A search
engine will try to explore the endless applications of its algorithm. A political ideology with
the capacity to change how people live and work will eventually seek to do just that.
At each stage the system integrates its constituents as part of its logical narrative. Frogs don't
mind being boiled if each gradual increase in temperature makes sense from the last. Each
change will appear to be logical in the system at that time, even if the system itself is based
on logical fallacies.
The joy of circular SPIRs is a head-first joyride into the depths of a chaos that we can only
perceive by imposing our own endless order. We interpret the chaos as the endless perception
of a mirrored illusion, perhaps not realizing that when we let go we will experience a greater
balance that will naturally find its way to the harmonious space between the two extremes.
The Role of Technology
Technology, the systematic application of a technique, is the means by which we interact
with our reality. The technology we use is our interface. Technology, as we've seen, is not just
new technology such as mobile phones or graphics processors but also old technology such
as language or the way we communicate and interact with others, the way we think and
sense, how we eat, our sleeping and working paterns, etc. We use technology to build
relationships with other people, ideas, and the objects we see (and don't). Technology is
everywhere. Like anything else, the reality of technology is entirely in perspective. So what is
technology, really? What does it mean that in our perspective we may see computers that are
being made to think and develop intelligence or that people are increasingly connecting with
each other around the world? Are we building intelligent machines, or are we reverseengineering ourselves and discovering the timeless narrative of how we came to be? Is
technology how we progress into the future, or the method we use to make sense of how we
discovered our own fundamental relationships?
Translated into the reality of space and time, evolution might very well work backwards as
well as forwards. A human engineer would look at how the brains work and re-engineer
them, considering them highly ineficient and filled with legacy (and unnecessary) parts. "We
are optimized for an ancestral environment and not the present one," it might be said.
Fortunately, perspective is much more of an engineer than its more complex human
creativity can conceptualize. Of the brains the mind may say, "This system is a wondrous
75

composite of complete possibility, making relative all available states of chaos and order.”
The secret life of our technologies is that we are discovering new ways to interact more
closely with our perspective, even as our world seems to become more complex. 31 We can use
the web to explore new relationships with words and images or explore relationships from a
social application on a mobile device.
Technology illustrates our primal need to perceive other as we interface with reality. From the
illusion of one being two and interacting, we can exist. By making perspective more complex
than it actually is we can be more secure in our existence when the illusions interact. When
we pretend that we are not all ready connected, we have a convincing reality. Technology
helps us to discover the meaning of our existence and provides the backdrop of a convincing
reality for this continual discovery, but the meaning itself is as much an illusion as the
technology is.
What About Science?
Science, although useful in the pursuit of ourselves, is unfortunately based upon the
mistaken premise that we can accurately perceive reality. Science admits, however, that we
can perceive almost nothing – less than 1% of what exists. This chaos-heavy, simultaneous
atraction and repulsion (or, contradiction) is generally unstudied, as perspective is not able to
be factored into modern equations. That science does not test its basic assumptions –
accurate perception – goes against core scientific principles. We haven't actually made much
progress since the days of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, despite how shiny things may
appear on the surface. It is time we applied the scientific method to science itself.
Scientific observations are assumed to be objective when they are subjective. Unfortunately,
modern science would fail its own test; the scientific method cannot be tested scientifically
because the foundations of the method rest upon assumptions independent from experience.
"..there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive
reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.
These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is
grounded.." – Kate and Vitaly (2000)
The nature of something cannot be observed independently of the observation (as it is). There
will always be "perception" of something, even when perceiving through an apparatus. 32 Are
you perceiving properties of the electron, properties of the electron microscope, or properties
of your perspective?
Circular systems based on authority and legacy tend to sufer from the argument from
authority and sunk cost biases. We assume that the logical narrative of others whose ideas are
popular and respected should take precedence over the others who don't have popular ideas,
while not seeing the emotional efect that the celebrity and status of others have on
reasonable thinking.33 We assume that the technological and scientific progress made over
the past few hundred years could have not been far exceeded with a diferent kind of
31 In this way, technology is like gravity. See, The Nature of Gravity in Part 4, “In Pursuit of the Universe”
32 Math is the only science that does not need to be based on reality. But its discovery is still a human invention.
33 An example of this fallacy, amusingly demonstrated by amateurs: htps://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=4BlLX03OJRU

76

approach to science. We haven't experienced an alternative, so we have nothing to compare
our progress to. But we don't think that a saying like, “a broken clock is right twice a day”
would apply to us. Of course, we can move the hands of a broken clock and point it wherever
we want. Why fix what works during the 2 most important times of the day? Logical fallacies
can always be reasonably explained. This is not an argument against science, however. Qite
the contrary, an argument for the scientific method to be applied to where it will have
greatest efect.
If we, for example, were to make science objective at points of interaction (publishing,
funding, and peer review) how would it be diferent from today's environment? That science
research cannot be published objectively should demonstrate one of the ways we could begin
applying the scientific method to itself. If a scientist is bribed or pressured (via funding and
de-funding) to subscribe to and promote a certain logical narrative and ignore others, it
would be folly to say that research is being done objectively. A researcher that depends on
grants and funding from any outside organization will likely be influenced by the needs,
opinions, and other influences of that organization, rendering their eforts subjective.
Another researcher may not even begin to pursue a hypothesis that may possibly find others
in strong disagreement. Further, if the impetus is subjective, the research will not be
objective.
Subjectivity makes most, if not all, of the sciences a circular SPIR system that is beneficial to
us in a certain kind of way that we've become accustomed to, but one where fundamental
assumptions are not questioned, only one kind of understanding is presumed to exist, and
the logical narrative is emotionally and vehemently defended. How can we pursue parallel
universes in spacetime while at the same time waste time arguing against parallel theories?
How can anyone insist that 10-dimensional worlds exist while ignoring the other 9
dimensions of a particular argument? The power and influence of science today is not unlike
the power and influence of Western religion during the Dark Ages when what was being
preached was not what was being practiced. In order for science to truly flourish we must
begin to apply the scientific method to itself.
If we were to apply the scientific method to science itself, what illusions would we uncover?
This kind of meta-scientific discovery is the reason such a thing would not happen, nor
should it. Science as we know it would cease to exist. Rather than destroying our current
method of scientific reasoning we can, instead, learn to balance the equation with a more
harmonic relationship that takes into consideration the necessity of opposing forces to hold
up a solid foundation, much like the Ancient Greeks and Romans did when building
structures that can outlast most any we build today using brute force. Instead of approaching
these big, ancient questions about the universe with a small, crumbling handful of logical
fallacies in tow let us begin to observe from the origin of perspective.

77

Part 4:
In Pursuit of the Universe

78

The Greatest Trick
Afer more than 500 years since Copernicus first turned his mind to the cosmos, cosmologists
agree that only about 4% of the universe is understood. The remaining 96% is unknown and
termed 'dark mater' or 'dark energy', which is an other way to say that nearly all of the
universe is a complete mystery and we shouldn't be so confident.
As well, science still doesn't understand why the act of observation would afect the
measurements of sub-atomic particles. However, it is understood forces like gravity can
influence the visual perception of moving objects 34 and the perception of time, and the mind
can be influenced by other forces like electromagnetism. There are also some new theories on
the fringes of quantum physics35 that suggests the mind can interact with information in the
universe at the Planck scale36.
The subconscious mind understands that observation comes from perception. We are never
observing anything outside of our perception. The universe could not possibly be divorced
from perspective because perception of anything (including everything, or even other
perspectives) is entirely subjective.
If the universe had a beginning it would be fully contained in the present moment. As time
does not exist outside of perspective, the only cause and efect is the illusion of whatever
logical narrative we have come up with to explain an endless variety of random data. The
“beginning”, if there is such a thing, is not an event but a simultaneous process that never
stops.
We can look to the first few numbers in the Fibonacci series to find out how this process is all
ways unfolding. Here is the subconscious mind's interpretation of this random data. We
begin with the numbers 0, 1, 1, 2, and 3. Each successive number is a sum of the previous two,
starting with 0 and 1, then (0+1), (1+1), (1+2), (2+3), etc.
In the beginning, there is nothing (0). No reality or form, no perspective, and no relationship.
“Nothing” cannot be perceived because there is nothing else to compare it with. It can also
not be understood because it cannot be perceived.37 Nothing tries to know the expanse of its
nothingness (1) but at the same time has nothing else to compare it against (1, again), so
cannot really know anything. It exists and doesn't exist simultaneously, the birth of
Structure.38 From this illusion Potential (2) is born. In order to know something, duplicates
itself and then forgets itself ((2+2)/2). Infinite Potentials then appear. All of the Potentials
Interact (3) together, forming relationships.
These relationships build an illusion of one thing being related to an other thing. Perspective,
movement, and consciousness are born. When we perceive “reality” we are actually perceiving
this geometry of perspective and interpreting it in whatever way.
Nothing, expressed in the formula of the subconscious mind, is the empty space between 3
34 “Your Perception of Gravity Is All Relative, Study Finds” htp://www.livescience.com/132906-brain-perceives-gravitysenses.html
35 “The Weird Efects of the Mind and Gravity” htp://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/621
36 Definition at htps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale
37 Therefore, nothing in this book is true. Just think of it as a reference.
38 That "Nothing" neither exists nor doesn't exist is the primal Logic. Like an empty box, it is only empty because it
has been defined as being empty. Without Logic then the emptiness is irrelevant. Another way to think of it is 3-2=1;
Interaction without Potential = Logic

79

and 5. (This, of course is 4, which finds itself in our formula as 2+2.)
Duplicating Potential (2+2) is an important step because from it we get infinite potential,
which is the same as nothing-in-particular (or, Nothing, which is the non-existent 4). A
potential that is infinite has no perspective and could be considered absolutely random,
because there is nothing else to compare itself against. We then take away Potential again
(/2) in order to create the first relationship, or logical narrative – a nothing-in-particular that
seems to be an infinite something. That is to say, we look at all of the Potentials and see a
randomness that makes no sense whatsoever (and makes us feel like we don't exist). We then
make it “less random” by picking one potential and making sense of it. This then becomes our
complete reality.
In order for there to be the illusion of existence and reality, you must forget that you are
Nothing and interact with the illusions (the other aspects of you that you forgot about in
order to be able to have a relationship) as if they are not you, in a way that builds a logical
narrative.
Reality is created from the logical interaction of representations that manifest as separate
entities. Nothing cannot be perceived, so it is perceived as an infinity of things that are
separate. In order for a relationship between two or more things to be possible they must
forget they are the same thing. We are unable to see beyond this illusion, of course, but try as
hard as we may.
The universe and everything in it is a representation of this process. It's your perspective, a
seemingly endless expression of consciousness, relationships, geometries, realities, stories,
thoughts, and everything else wrapped up in a nice logical narrative. It is the greatest trick in
the universe.
You can try a bit of this trick yourself by staring at some clouds for a while. Eventually, you'll
notice some paterns that aren't actually there. Maybe you'll see a rabbit or another shape. If
it was thousands of years ago perhaps you'd notice that before there is rain the clouds get
dark. So, you might come up with a logical narrative that the clouds are heavy because Zeus
secretly met with the storm-inducing god Notos to bring torrential rains onto an
unsuspecting populace. You can then pick out some other random paterns (from a seemingly
infinite selection) that confirm your observation, such as a very wet messenger from the
North. A few hundred years later you notice some other random paterns that other people
adopt that seem to conflict with an older narrative, so come up with a new logical narrative,
ad infinitum.
You might even observe people close to you create drama out of thin air. This human need for
drama is actually a need to see paterns in the nothingness, to tell a story that doesn't
actually exist but appears to make sense anyway. The drive to feel like one exists is primal.
When there aren't enough paterns for someone to feel like they exist, they simply make
them up.
What seems rational today could be ridiculous tomorrow. Not because we are ignorant, but
because we simply interpreted the randomness in a certain way. Even today, the greatest
thinkers may not agree on the how or why of something. Each perspective interprets the
chaos diferently for a total of relationships to unfold. Without random interpretation the
universe does not exist, but perspective makes it so.

80

Is the Universe Infinite?
The world around you seems to go on forever, to the outermost reaches of the universe and
beyond. But does it really? Are we really looking at something infinite when we peer out into
the heavens or into the endless layered details of the microscopic world?
Cosmologists use maths to help explain the universe. But we mustn't confuse the infinities of
maths with the infinities of the universe. Of course numbers can go on forever if that's the
kind of system we use. If we divide 10 by 2 we get a nice round number. But dividing 10 by 3
we get a fraction that goes on forever. So where did the “infinity” go for the first calculation?
We're using the same number system and same approach, but we've shifed from a 10-2
perspective to a 10-3 way of looking at the world. Why do some things appear finite while
other things, in the same system, appear infinite? Why does my body appear finite from the
perspective of my eyes but infinite from the perspective of an electron microscope? In some
perspectives, infinity appears to exist.
The real question is, “Can infinity be perceived?”. The subconscious holds that we cannot
perceive what is beyond our perception. From the formula of perspective, we can see that if
infinite Potentials exist then there would be no perspective. Therefore, infinity is meaningless
because it is only a value-less concept to represent that which cannot be perceived.
In order to discover a basic and concise explanation for the world around us, we must start
from the right place. If we, for example, tried to calculate the exact tax on our groceries from
a 10-3 perspective, it may take quite a long time. We may even come up with a logical
narrative to explain the complexity, postulating that the supermarket exists in 10 dimensions
or has a counterpart in 3 parallel universes, and then invent a method to describe it all that
looks absolutely beautiful – from the 10-3 perspective. We probably wouldn't care to realize
that a child could do the calculation for us if we simply started from a 10-2 perspective,
something more relative to what was being observed and “good enough” for the purpose.
If I brought home for you a nice big Box of Chaos, its reality could not be contained in any
one perception. Looking into it you would think that the box goes on forever in endless
dimensions. It would appear infinite, because you would not be able to perceive it in its
entirety.
In our above example, we cannot perceive the entirety of 10 divided by 3 but we can perceive
the entirety of 10 divided by 2. From one perspective reality appears infinite because it
cannot be contained in our perspective. It appears chaotic – but chaos is simply an order that
we do not yet perceive. From our perspective the universe seems to go on forever in every
direction. The only diference is that there is no perspective that can “contain” the entirety of
the universe, so it appears infinite. Some perspectives just have diferent logical narratives
than others. Some of these logical narratives provide a more useful explanation of everything
and how to work with it. Some of these narratives can put you on the other side of the galaxy
by simply thinking about it. But it would still be patern-making, however useful the paterns
would be under certain conditions39. Reality can only be approximated.
Our universe seems complex because we're starting from a vantage point that makes it
appear that way. We make observations but rule out perception (and mind) as irrelevant,
39 What is an iPhone to an ant? What is a phe^(mo)du7 to a human? Each subscribes to the narratives that are
relative to their geometry of perspective. Be careful the next time you accidentally step on an anthill. You could
have just destroyed a time machine experiment.

81

when instead they could be the primary tool for discovery. We build exceedingly expensive
machines that do the same work an elementary school drop-out could do – if we started from
perspective that was more relevant to what we're observing. Any observation is actually an
observation of your reality. When we perceive, we are observing our own perspective and
making sense of it in whatever way. If something appears to go on forever, perhaps it's
because your reality cannot be contained in any one perspective.
The universe and everything in it is an expression of the geometry of perspective. The
physical manifestation of this geometry is electrical forces, the operating field of physical
perspective and the primary physical SPIRs. These, and everything else in the geometry of
perspective feature two opposing forces – potentials – at work to create a special relationship
that we interpret as something.
The Potentials
The Potential sides of a SPIR are what makes us able to approximate reality. One thing
pretending to be two things (via opposing sides) that interact together in a structure, forming
a reality. Let's take a look at some of the names we know the illusion of opposing sides by.
Positive Potential

Negative Potential

Chaos

Order

Creation

Destruction

Vacuum

Mass

Expand

Collapse

Repulsion

Atraction

Emission

Absorption

Explosion

Implosion

Space

Time

Heat

Cold

Fire

Ice

Emotions

Logic

Infinite

Finite

Nothing

Something

Electromagnetism

Gravitation

Capacity

Ability

Production

Capital

Electric

Magnetic

Remember

Forget

Volume

Density

Objective

Subjective

Macro

Micro

Good

Bad

82

Kinetic energy

Potential energy

Health

Disease

Awareness

Ignorance

Dreaming

Wakefulness

Nutrients

Toxins

Output

Input

Hydrogen

Oxygen

Strength

Muscle

One side wants to expand forever (chaos) while the other side works to limit the expansion
(order). When the two sides interact in a certain way – forming a relationship – you get a
representation, or approximation of the relationship called a resistance. The new
representation can then form another relationship with anything else, though the success of
that enterprise will depend on compatibility.
When anything on the lef interacts with anything on the right, we get something we can
use. When creation interacts with destruction we get life, for example. When vacuum
interacts with mass in a certain way we get radiant energy. When female interacts with male
in a certain way, we get baby. Each of these systems can have subsystems of their own. The
illusions can also interact with other illusions to form reality. An electrical field, for example,
interacting with time is an electrical wave. All of the illusions interacting together forms the
entire universe. But not every aspect is balanced. Let's look at the relationships between the
first few numbers of our series (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8) again.
Sides

Ratio What

0:1

0

[beyond perspective]

1:1

1

Nothing-in-particular

1:2

2

Too much expansion

2:3

1.5

Too much contraction

3:5

1.66

Stabilizing...

5:8

1.6

Approaching harmony

As you can see, the primal relationships are imbalanced, yet still harmonious.40 We can have
too much of one side and not enough of the other side. We can find extreme cold, too much
production, too much pressure, too much strength, etc. However, these aspects will
eventually relate to other aspects to balance out and are, by nature, always harmonious. You
can think of something that is “too strong” as being chaotically harmonious and in the
beginning of a more harmonious relationship (1:2).41 It might even interact with something
that makes it “very weak” to balance the equation. But, again, imbalances are still
harmonious.
The more a Potential interacts with other Potentials the more equilibrium there is between
40 Note that this is a simplification. It, for example, should not imply that there is too much space and not enough
time (since space:time is “higher” up the scale). There is a lot of space and hydrogen, to be sure, but this is
balanced out in other ways. They are conceptually imbalanced but inherently harmonious at their Nothing core.
41 As everything interacts, you can also have relationships such as 2:8 (something that would be “too cold”, for
example) or 3:55 (something that would be “too massive”, for example).

83

the two forces as it approaches a more balanced ratio, called the golden ratio.
When an illusion interacts with another illusion of the same type (positive-to-positive, for
example) discordance results. Discord is natural and can be maintained for a while, but it is
not balanced. A lack of balance may mean that more illusions from the other side are
required – such as energy or time – to smooth out the equation. A lack of harmonious
relationships is highly ineficient. For example, we can take a trip into space using discordant
methods (such as a misunderstanding of spacetime) but it will require far more time, energy,
and resources than using concordant methods. Or, when two of the same electrical fields
interact they might cancel each other out. Or, we could work out in the gym to build muscle
for 5 hours a day, but will be paying with other Potentials that may contribute to ill health.
Ideally, any aspect of one side is paired with an aspect on the other side for balanced,
eficient, and optimal results (around 1.61). When two illusions on the same side are paired
together you get imbalance, poor performance, disease, ineficiency, etc. For example, cold
isn't good for muscle performance because the two are diferent interpretations of the same
thing, but heat balances out muscles in a more harmonious way. However, the body becomes
cold to assist in melatonin production before sleep and stimulate other processes. Gravity
and mass are paired, but gravity does not have an efect on another interpretation on the
same side (mater). Cold air is dense, and warm air is not. Disease is subjective, and health
can increase capacity. Chaos implodes, and we get the universe. 42
Further, each of these illusions is just that – an illusion. They are not absolute. You can never
have “absolute male” or “absolute heat”. The interaction between two illusions forms a
representation. We will explore a few of these representations in this book.
What is Energy?
Energy is the resistance between vacuum (void) and mass. It is mass contracting the vacuum,
reeling it in from its endless expansion. In other words, energy is interaction as relationships
form. The more compatibly things interact the more “energy” is perceived. As one thing
relates to another thing more, it relates to another thing less. Energy is created in one corner
of perspective and destroyed in
another. The type of energy that
is perceived depends on the
relationships of the things that
are interacting.
When we think about how
reality is modelled we must be
careful not to restrict ourselves
to three dimensions. Just like in
space where there is no “up” and
“down”, there is no real positive
or negative with an illusion.
Illusions can also interact with
themselves and others to make
something new. A photon could
be on the expansion side of Potential while a “blue” photon can be on the other side, for
42 There are other processes involved, of course, from other SPIRs. For example when there is a collapse of “male”
by the female at human conception. We will only be covering the basics in this book.

84

example. We can also consider the other aspects of the Potentials when thinking about
something. Health of the body is as much a factor of light as the food we're eating, for
example, or when considering the nature of gravity we may do well to consider gravity's
efects on female versus male. Potentials are harmonious with other interpretations on the
same side, but balanced with others on the opposite side.
Spacetime
As we can see from the following model, what we call “time” is actually the spacing of chaos.
Time makes the space (in more native form) perceivable. Thus, spacetime is born.
To illustrate, let's imagine a universe without space or time. It is “chaos” (or, nothingness) and
is, for all intents and purposes
endless because it cannot be
perceived. Along comes
Structure, which is just chaos
trying to come up with some
kind of random patern. Chaos
splits itself in two via this
structure, forming spacetime.
When we look out into the
universe we are actually seeing
this efect. Looking at one galaxy
we see it as it was 3.2 billion
years ago. Looking in an other
direction we are looking back in
time several hundred million
years. Each thing in space is a
diferent time, like each location
in cyberspace is a diferent IP
address.
As you can see from the illustration, the two sides interact. On one side we get dimensions of
space, which is the geometry of perspective. On an other side we get an endless spacing of
time. Each thing that appears to take up “space” is actually taking up spacetime. Two galaxies
exist in the same space but appear to be two separate things because of this time-spacing
efect. It is one thing, divided by time. It is all the same thing: chaos. Breaking it down makes
it perceivable. But it must be broken down into a seemingly infinite array of spacetime.
When you are observing two separate things you are actually observing one thing. Since it's
not possible to observe only one thing (1:1) it is endlessly divided into perceptible parts.
When we perceive distant things we are peering into the past but when we are talking to the
person siting next to us we are also perceiving the past, although to an exceedingly
infinitesimal degree. Not only does everything in the universe – so to speak – exist in its own
spacetime, the person siting next to you is you in an other relative “time”. The “now” cannot
be perceived, save for what is not now, as we think of it.
Time is on the negative side of the equation, along with energy and light. Time, like light and
energy, is contracted chaos, or space.
We can observe the contracting of space in a photon. As a photon of light enters a medium it
85

seems to “push” itself as it exits the medium. This efect is space being ordered, contracting
via light. Through a medium space needs to contract more in order to maintain its integrity
relative to its logical narrative, as the density of the medium does not allow space to contract
in the same way as it did outside of the medium. As it exits it is still contracting itself as it
had been in the medium and again adjusts its contractions to the environment. We can
observe this repulsion/atraction efect as it repels itself away from one aspect of its
perspective to another, expanding and contracting at the same time.
Time is Another Mater
As you can see from the last two illustrations, the relationships between time and
“antimater” is the same. That
is because time and antimater
are the same thing in diferent
forms.
When the vacuum Potential
and the mass Potential
interact, energy is born. The
by-products of this interaction
(mater and “antimater”) come
from each side trying to
“overpower” the other. These
by-products also interact, as
Potentials, forming other
things. Time (“antimater”) and
space (“mater”) interact,
forming the “spacetime”
representation of physicality.
When an element interacts with other elements, we get diferent variations of the same thing
such as time and “antimater”.
The interactions are not limited by themselves. One does not come before the other. It is the
universe of perspective, so they only appear to be separate, or separated in spacetime.
Time and Physicality
What is time? And why does our physical existence seem to inexorably follow the ticking of
the clock? The beating of our heart seems to keep track of the passing moments for us as we
go about our day until time runs out and our body perishes.
Where does a second go when it has passed? Humans invented clocks to keep track of time,
but why does time seem to keep track of us? Where did time come from?
Nature seems to care more about relationships than the hours of a clock or weeks of a
calendar. Birds migrate whenever they anticipate having access to the most abundant food,
and take note of the weather to time it. Pets will become confused by artificial light, and even
our own sleeping paterns have changed from polyphasic sleep to a sleeping marathon. 43
43 Not a beter or more natural sleep, just common in some pre-Industrial societies:
htps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep

86

We set our internal clock (or, circadian rhythm) according to relationships, not the time on
the clock. Our relationship with the sun, the seasons, with children, with work, etc., is the
geometry of perspective illustrated in spacetime. As our relationships change, so does it. A
sundial illustrates our interaction with light and darkness. Hourglasses, astronomical clocks,
and water clocks also illustrate our interaction with the world around us. Even some old
mechanical clocks illustrate these relationships by telling stories or making bird sounds.
It is by understanding these relationships in our logical narrative that we can understand
what time is. Our sense of time is based on the interactions and relationships between
illusions.
Time flows neither backwards nor forwards. We are simply sensing relativity however it may
flow. Just as we will lose the sense of the length, width, and breath of an object if it is
suspended in mid-air without a background to compare it against, we will lose our sense of
time if the signals are changed or removed. Time is the pace of relative interaction, a
resistance that allows an interface with electromagnetic potential (chaos) to balance
relationships (order). Without relationships there is no sense of time or space.
If time is an illusion of the senses, then was anything ever created? In this way, no energy can
ever be created or destroyed not only because there is no time independent of perspective but
because there is no energy (or, relationships) independent of perspective.
Although you are, right now, travelling through time at a rate of 1 second per second, this is
only a measurement of the clock. The rate at which you're navigating the geometry of
perspective is not constant. Our actual interpretation of time does not depend on the clock.
Let's imagine that time is like an endless swim in the ocean. When you're swimming you
notice the waves are fairly constant. Sometimes the wind seems to blow harder, making the
waves come more quickly. Sometimes there is litle wind, and time just drifs by. You know
that each wave has a relationship with other waves, but you don't see how or even where the
waves are coming from. Boats that pass by create bigger and stronger waves, but you can see
these coming a mile away and avoid them if you wanted to. You could slow down time
dramatically by swimming to a stress-free place, but you convince yourself that it wouldn't
provide meaning to your life. High tide seems to be when you are working hardest, providing
more meaning to the time you're experiencing. Low tide is good because it gives you a good
rest. But the rest of low tide depends on the activity of high tide. When your friends are
swimming nearby there are more waves, but smaller and more manageable to the point that
the waves seem to fly by. Of course, you are also making waves and sending those out in all
directions in the same way that you are geting hit by ways whose source you do not see.
The waves do not count the passing of time, however. They are your relationship with the
world around you. Each wave is a representation. You assume you are interacting with the
wave but you're actually perceiving the relationships. When you felt one wave hiting your
face, did you notice the thousand tiny waves before it or was your perception folded in the
bigger wave? You see 1 wave because you are relating it to other waves, all the while ignoring
the fact there are no waves – only lots of water that seems to move.
We pick out paterns to make sense of reality where no paterns really exist. Those paterns
then become an aspect of our reality, allowing us to build the logical narrative of our lives.
You're born, you grow up, you go to school, you work, you die – and everything in between.
87

Without the ability to illustrate the narrative by puting some relationships before others,
much of the meaning is removed. The waves help us to absorb reality in manageable chunks.
Time, along with space, is our way of organizing representations into a logical narrative so
that we can extract meaning from the illusions. We tend to not only perceive physicality in
three dimensions with orientation but also time and space; we know that in space there is no
“up” or “down” or North, but we orient ourselves as part of the patern-making. We do this
with time as we do with space, superimposing the dimensions of space onto the directions of
time where there are none. The directions could be mixed around and the efect would be the
same. Past could be future, instead, and we wouldn't know the diference because the
relationships would be the same.
Mater
How does the structure of mater relate to the structure of perspective? All mater can be said
to be electrical in nature. More
importantly, what we call mater is
perspective in nature. Although the
diference between two types of
mater is in the properties of the
atoms, the relationship between the
atoms is due to how the atoms are
distributed electrically.
An atom is “created” from the
resistance of a proton and an
electron. Although representations
are like cavities created from the
resonance of two or more objects,
nothing fills the cavity. The cavity
interacts with other cavities –
thereby acting as a Potential
element – creating the “outline” of a newly-discovered representation from the relationship.
Each part of the atom is also a representation. An electron, for example, has four numbers
used to describe the electron. The
electron is also a SPIR system, as are
the proton, neutron, etc. Each
element maintains all other
relationships at the same time,
retaining a “memory” of other
interactions that afect its current
interaction.
The spins of an electron are
manipulated by electro-magnetic
fields, themselves SPIRs. A family of
SPIR systems interacting via
perspective is the geometry of
perspective.

88

The Nature of Gravity
What we term gravity is the relative resistance between chaos and order (repulsion and
atraction). We tend to think of gravity as atraction, but what we are seeing is an equal harmony
between the two opposing forces. The states of gravity – gravitational expansion, gravitational
contraction, and gravitational equilibrium – are all acting at the same space and time. Gravity is
a relative phenomena, being resistance between two Potentials rather than a constant force.
Gravitational expansion is chaos.
Expansion is the expression of energy, like
electromagnetic energy moving outward.
Gravitational contraction is order. This is
observable in the formation of moons,
stars, planets, and other concentrations of
mater. Contraction is the “creation” of
energy through close relationships.
Gravitational equilibrium is what is
measured as gravity, the resistance
between two primary forces. It cares not
for an object, but its mass (which is not a
measure of how much mater something
of made of, but a value of the
relationships between constituent parts).
Standing on a planet, for example, you are afecting its mass because gravity considers no
distinction between you and the planet – you would be part of it. The more one thing relates to
another thing the closer its position in spacetime and the less resistance there is for gravity.
Gravity would consider the orientations of all the SPIRs that make up all things related to it the
“mass”. As the mass of a body is a variable, its
gravitational relationship will also vary (i.e., not
be gravitationally constant).
More distance (chaos) is balanced with less
gravitational atraction, while more mass
(order) is balanced with less gravitational
repulsion. Though gravity atracts and repels at
the same time, it is not a force that pulls or
pushes anything or floats in space between objects. The universe is expanding and contracting at
the same time because of relationships, much like how 100 people forming a tight sphere can
expand the sphere while
simultaneously geting closer to a
select few others in groups. In this
way, the same proportions are
maintained in relative distance and
no “additional” energy is created,
but only shifs as relationships
shif. As one person moves to form
a more energetic relationship with
another person who is like them,
one also lessens the energy of
another relationship as some others
become less relative. As resistance is relative, to each person space would seem to contract while,
to the groups and sphere as a whole, space expands. In a similar way, the Sun does not push or
pull on a distant object but is atracted and repelled by things relative to it in the chain of
89

relationships, and atracts and repels the distant object as it is folded into the more relative
object. To the Sun, there is no need for the distant object to exist, as it is already harmoniously
compacted in the closer relationships.
What we call gravity is the chaos/order spectrum of repulsion and atraction. Gravity is not a
constant but a relative resistance between the two Potentials. When gravitational forces are not
in balance they are observed as something else, such as radiation (expansion) or energy
(contraction). Gravity itself is not a force that pushes and pulls on objects, as there are no objects
to push or pull on. Gravity is an aspect of all things and is not an external force but an internal
“sense”, as all things atract and repel all other things.44 We should not, for example, confuse the
weak smell of apple pie from the house next door with our very strong sense of smell. The
“strength” of gravity is not in its force but in its ability to (for lack of beter terms) send and
receive information about the relative position of things to harmonize relationships, regardless of
space or time. In this way we can compare it to space, which does not push or pull on physical
objects but is simply a field where those objects can express their geometry of relationships.
Space is a sense of relationships, as is gravity.45

The Laws of the Universe
Can you name a law that is outside of your perspective? We might assume that reality's
ultimate truths exist in the world of mathematics. Further, we might assume that
mathematics – a human invention – is somehow independent of perspective and we only
discovered what was already there. However, it would be impossible to discover or invent
what is objective, as discovery relies on perception, and is thus subjective no mater how
universal it may seem.
It is more reasonable to assume that mathematics is one way to interpret what is already
there, rather than an ultimate or
absolute way to model or define a very
small part of all reality. A series of
beautiful and elegant (read:
harmonious) interpretations, if you
must, but interpretations nonetheless.
We could, if we were so inclined,
interpret the Special Theory of
Relativity using peanut buter
sandwiches. The result would be far
more crude and complex than other
methods, illustrating just how
convincing mathematical
interpretations, which present the
universe far more simply and
beautifully than sandwiches, can be. We assume that most simple interpretations we have
discovered thus far are the ultimate, most objective truths when in reality the supposed laws
of nature we've discovered over the centuries are mere approximations precisely because they
are only interpretations. The Standard Model of particle physics, for example, is supposed to
unify electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, but does not.46 Electricity and
44 This correlates to Newton’s Law of Gravity, where bit of mater in the universe has a relationship with every
other bit of mater in the universe, but extends the relationship beyond atraction to each bit maintaining a
harmonic ratio between all things.
45 Also refer to the section, “Relationships Meet Resistance” in Part 5.
46 htp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S023702269230220142983

90

magnetism, as another example, are only symmetric in empty space, absent of any actual
magnetism or charge.47 It would not be unreasonable to suggest that mathematics, because of
its approximate nature when applied to our biggest questions, is a subjective interpretation
that relies more on perspective. Perspective, or something like it, is likely the only way to
really define reality. Perspective is the most fundamental property of everything that we
know, and don't know, to be. In this way, what we call “the universe” is a subjective
perception. What we think about when we're thinking about the universe is concepts that
either have or don't have some validity in our perspective.
If there was a law that applied to the universe and everything that exists, would it not also
apply to dreams and our imagination? If the law is absolute, then you should not be able to
go against the law in any kind of way. If the laws of quantum physics defy those of
conventional physics, then it could be said that no universal physical laws have ever been
discovered. Dreams “defy” conventional physics just as quantum physics does, perhaps even
more so. If we say that our physical laws are absolute but do not apply to some aspects of our
own physical being (such as a sense of self) then they are neither absolute nor universal.
Rather than experiencing the laws of physics, thermodynamics, biology, chemistry, etc., it
may be more reasonable to assume we are experiencing the structure of perspective made
more complex via physicality. Gravity, for example, would then not be a law of nature
independent of perspective but one of the ways the physical aspects of perspective is defined.
Instead of a force that has a reality beyond perspective, perhaps gravity is how we interpret
the existence of an over-abundance of 93.5 degree angles in the geometry of perspective.
If there is one law at work in the universe, it is the law of energy perspective. It holds that
everything that exists is eficiently represented somehow in your perspective. Representing
illusions as much as possible enables eficient interactions to take place in the geometry of
perspective. These are not exact representations, of course. That would not be possible since
the source material cannot be perceived. The representations need only be “good enough” for
interactions to result. Like the laws we have come up with, they are approximations.
We represent Nothing (or, absolute randomness) so we can interact with it via a logical
narrative. Randomness is automatically represented and integrated into perspective as soon
as we interact with it. As soon as we “perceive” of Nothing it becomes the illusion that makes
up our reality. Reality is not by itself logical, only the experience and perspective of it is. The
reality beyond perspective is meaningless. It is only when we perceive Nothing by applying
random (inherently meaningless) interpretations and calling it perspective that something
meaningful is born.
The Only Law in Town
If we were to peer deep into a nose until it is not a nose we'd probably see that the only real
diference between it and the flower it smells is how the parts that make up both interact
with each other. Surely both a flower and a nose are made up of the same stuf that makes
everything else up, although we may find that they are arranged diferently for their
respective purposes. This brings us back to the only real force at work in the universe –
energy perspective.
A flower does not smell as a nose does because it would not be eficient for it to do so. It
47 Most theories of elementary particle physics aside from The Standard Model predict that magnetic charges
should exist in nature, along with their magnetic currents. None have been observed in nature.

91

would take far too many interactions for the collection of atoms and molecules that we call a
“flower” to smell like a nose. As interactions are organized into groups of SPIR systems that
dance with the harmony of chaos and order we see eficiency itself. The balance between the
two forces is mirrored in the balance between systems, and groups of SPIRs, until we zoom
out to find the overall harmony that makes for eficient interaction at the level of perspective.
When is a nose not a nose? When it is no longer eficient for the atoms and molecules to
maintain balance with the overall structure in the kind of relationship that leads you to
interpret it as a “nose”. The particles that make up your body can be anything in the universe.
But right now they are most eficiently your body. “I” is the harmonic resistance between
chaos and order. The perceptible here and now, “I”, is the most relative and eficient
illustration of everything that is.
Our interpretations of reality also follow this patern. Any person, place, thing, event, etc., is
most eficiently whatever it is interpreted to be right now. Our interpretations are complex
relationships that confuse us into solidifying their reality as we interact. Ours is the
perspective that requires the least number of interactions to exist.
We do not just perceive of relationships – we are the relationships. What we call
consciousness is the same as a relationship, as each relationship is a perspective.
The law at work in the universe is simply perspective. We perceive what is most eficient for
us to perceive, sensing the interpretation of the geometry of relationships that requires the
least degree of interactions to fold everything into the focus of a here-and-now perspective.
That is to say, the law of the universe is “I”.
States of Harmony, States of Mater
As we have explored the macro of the geometry of perspective scale in Part 1, there is also the an
equally important micro scale. The
micro scale is seen in the various states
of all mater and non-mater. Taking
the example of water [see illustration]
as a representation born of hydrogen
and oxygen potentials, we see chaotic
expansion in its expression as a gas to
its orderly contraction as a solid to its
eventual harmonic resistance as a
liquid.48 As water cools (order) below 4
degrees centigrade, it contracts to a
latice structure that we call ice.
Diferent states also work together in a
harmonious way that is independent
of space or time. For example, bones of
the physical body expand and contract
at a diferent rate than the brain, which grow several times in size afer conception to
adolescence, when it decreases 10-15% in size.
48 Further, each of these states is also a system of its own where gas, for example, would have its own perspective
that it is the harmonic resistance of and water is another of its states.

92

The Meaning of Phi & Pi
Imagine a line that tries to go on forever. This is the “infinite potential” side of Potential,
expressed in chaos. Limited potential collapses it by imposing
order on it. Here are the two forces at work, and where the
sense of reality comes from. By simply perceiving, we limit
the potential of chaos. However, both sides interact and form
relationships. The infinite potential side tries to expand the
limited potential side, and the limited potential side does the
same. However, it is limited potential that controls the show (as it is born from logic and
order, whereas infinite potential is born from chaos and disorder, beyond perspective).
But what about pi? Pi, the ratio of a
circle's circumference to its
diameter, is what you get when
infinite potential goes unchecked:
chaos, represented by a circle that
goes on forever. By introducing
order into the equation we can
perceive reality by limiting
potential. The two sides make
endless exchanges, interacting and forming relationships that we call motion, light, energy,
gravity, peanut buter sandwiches, etc.
Our human-oriented physicality leans more to the contracted side of
things, with more limited abilities and awareness. It is natural for us
to want to balance our limitations by creating circular SPIRs in our
society and culture, and in our sciences.
Phi is Everywhere in Physical Reality
In the early 13th century a man named Leonardo Pisano Bigollo travelled to the Middle East
and brought back knowledge of two important things that originated
elsewhere. The first was the Hindu system for writing numbers, an
eficient way of representing numbers that opened up new
possibilities in mathematics and science.49 The second was part of
Ancient Egyptian geometry that we now call the “Fibonacci” series.
This endless sequence of numbers expresses various paterns found in
nature50 such as seed heads, pinecones, fruits and vegetables, flowers,
the spiral movement of leaf and branch distribution, tree branching,
honeybees, weather, galaxy formations, and even humans 51. Modern financial systems also
use it.52
The Fibonacci sequence begins with 0 and 1, and the last two numbers are always added
together to come up with the next in the series. The first few numbers in the sequence are:
49 An example of how we can learn to work with the representations in perspective to discover new realities.
50 More examples can be found at htp://io9.com/529852588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature
51 Most of the human body's parts are of one, two, three and five segments: fingers, nose, mouth, eyes, and three
segments to each limb. The proportions and measurements of the body also conform to the golden ratio, as
Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man illustrates. When a person's face conforms to these proportions, using various
points such as their pupil, nose tip, hairline, nose width, etc., we say that their face is “beautiful”.
52 Reference htp://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/0332104.asp

93

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987...
The ratio between neighbouring numbers (1.618) is called the golden ratio, phi, and “divine
proportion”. Molecules of DNA conform to
this ratio and sequence, measuring 21
angstroms wide and 34 angstroms long. Of
course, “ratio” is simply another term for
relationship. What is important is not the
numbers themselves but the relationships
between the numbers. In this sequence we
also find our numbers “1, 2, 3, 5”, the
numbers of perspective. These numbers are
the first four non-zero numbers that can be
used to find the quotient of the golden
ratio.
This relationship doesn't care for the details (since every detail is all ready represented), only
the relationships between the representations. The relationship forms the reality. We tend to
focus on the representations and miss the substantially more important relationships that
they facilitate.
SPIR Systems
SPIRs do not work in a vacuum but interact with other SPIRs. Each element of a SPIR is
multi-functional (as the four elements are interchangeable, as they are actually four diferent
aspects of the same thing). The Potential element of one SPIR can serve as the representation
element of an other, for example. In this way the SPIRs can interact. This leads to everything
in perspective being systems of SPIRs. The following is an example of how SPIRs work
together in the process of photosynthesis.

94

Illustrating SPIR with Simple Math
Much of the understanding our ancient ancestors had of the 4 elements and how they
worked together has been lost either in our journey to complexity or in the changing
interpretations of words and concepts. Though there is evidence to suggest the ancients had
advanced knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, or perhaps even electricity 53. Here's an
illustration of SPIR to uncover the sum of 65 x 32 using a mathematical operation still in use
by Ethiopian women today, as well as in modern computers:

53 Their ability to electroplate fine gold would have required it, as would have walking and painting in dark,
underground areas inside pyramids and tunnels without using soot-forming candles, torches, and oil lamps.

95

In this example, we have not magically created “2,080”. We have only discovered it and it is
now a part of our perspective. We can now interact with it, forming new relationships. Each
Potential can flip between positive/negative, depending on the relationships.
The two sides of Potential are afected by the relationship, forming two other representations
besides the main representation, each weighed to whatever side of Potential it belongs to.
When represented physically, for example, the positive side could weigh itself towards an
“electric” representation, providing electricity to a physical device, while the negative side
could weigh itself towards a “magnetic” representation, producing a magnetic field.
If we used this process more mentally we could also use the relationships to afect change in
our perspective simply by thinking about it mentally to afect our physical interpretations. 54
Your entire reality is made up of SPIRs. Imagine that you are surrounded by these and your
body is made up of these, each interacting with those around it and navigating the endless
“electromagnetic” fields to find a balance.
Further, imagine that some of these SPIRs that make up your physical body extend far
beyond it and had a relationship with all that you perceive. And some of the ones that
seemed closer to your physical body are interacting with lots of other SPIRs around it. Some
of these are “connected” with the Earth's SPIRs, giving the impression of gravity. Others give
the impression of heat, sound, light, space, time, currency systems and financial transactions,
social relationships, or even people, places, and events. Some SPIRs are even interpreted as
parts of our body, from skin to muscles to flesh and more.
When we perceive, think, feel, etc., we are interpreting these SPIRs and their relationships.
SPIR is the only process at work in reality and the entire universe, as it is perspective. When
we perceive or think of any process at work it is a SPIR and its associated SPIRs. 55 From the
universe itself to galaxies, planets, oceans, towns, taking a drive, going to eat ice cream, all
the way down to what appears to be the smallest of the small are all SPIRs at work,
constantly shifing, moving, flipping polarity, and relating.
However, we do not need to perceive of each “individual” SPIR and what its doing, only the
relationships.56 In actuality, there are no individual SPIRs, only representations of the process.
If there was a colony of SPIRs in front of you it would look like a table, a tree, a mouse, or
whatever. And as each has an afect on the other, perceiving this field of representations
becomes quite easy. You need only perceive the table – not the sub-SPIRs that make up the
reality of the table – in order to interact with it. The table becomes the reality of its SPIR
systems at work and is an approximation that other SPIRs can use to interface with them.
Our being is our ability to afect these relationships by forming SPIRs of our own. We make
use of this process all the time, subconsciously, when we do anything. These are not forces,
they are relationships. Nothing is an obstacle, and physical size doesn't mater. All that
maters are the relationships. As such, we can build our own SPIRs however we wish.
54 Something that will be covered in a later book
55 However, all SPIRs exist on the same “level”, though it may not appear so. That is because every something is just
as much of Nothing as anything else. Every something is an interpretation of Nothing.
56 This is similar to how cosmologists don't need to calculate the gravitational efect of every object in the universe
when trying to figure out the Earth's motion, only the Sun and sometimes the moon and the other planets are
enough to provide an approximation or representation.

96

The Secret of the Universe
We illustrate nature's eficiency in the Fibonacci series. The order of our “natural numbers” of
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc., may work for us but it is not the most eficient or logical route for
nature, or the subconscious mind. Let's consider the diference between a human perspective
and a more natural perspective with an example.
John is looking to go to Brookes University afer high school. Like his brother and mother he
is interested in studying medicine, and Brookes has a reputable medical program and is also
close to home. We may consider the best way for John to get to Brookes is to study hard and
make sure he scores high on the maths and science portions of the entrance and other exams.
The most eficient and logical path for nature, however, is for John to simply walk down Third
Avenue all the way to the Pointe intersection and turn lef. John is only 10 years old, but
needs to give his brother, who atends Brookes, a couple of tools from the garage.
From your conscious mind, the most natural and eficient way to get from 0 to 10 is to go
through the other 9 numbers first. From your subconscious perspective, the most natural and
eficient way is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, because each successive number is an interface with the
numbers before it. Here, “5” is a representation of “3” and “2” that we can interact with.
Your perspective unfolds reality in the most eficient way possible, and no more. You could
say that it is intuitively aware of all geometries in your perspective so automatically knows
which way is the most eficient and logical way to go. For us, the shortest distance between
to points is a straight line. For the subconscious, the shortest distance is one that logically
interacts in the most eficient way possible, using the natural folds of what is already there.
John's perspective could also take him on a bus ride or have him being dropped of by his dad
if there was a logical narrative that made those experiences most eficient. If John's
perspective made dad and dad's car more relative at that moment (meaning, his dad is around
and is available to drive), that may very well be the case. So the most eficiently logical way
for John's perspective to get him to Brookes may be to take a ride with his dad, but first
stopping to get ice cream and take a walk through the park.
The mind is aware of all geometries in your perspective because it is the foundation of that
perspective.57 The most elemental force in the universe is this perspective. The geometry of
perspective, when illustrated numerically, is the 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc., series.
Further, our perspective unfolds the illusion in a way that produces the simplest (or, most
balanced) geometry. As nothing exists outside of our perspective, there is no need to calculate
infinities (if infinities existed). It need only “render” or calculate what is most relative.
You could say that nothing exists until it interacts with something else. It would mean that
the entire universe is contained within your current perspective, and need not exist until it
needs to but only for those relationships that it needs to exist for. Everything in existence is
already represented in your perspective in some way. The representation serves as a proxy to
interact with everything else. Nothing in your perspective need be real for interactions to
take place, only the illusions are necessary. Further, something only needs to be represented
inasmuch as you are interacting with it. If, for example, you are listening to music and only
interacting with its sound because you have your eyes closed, there is no need for your
57 However, it is not aware of your interpretations.

97

perspective to “render” the music device until it needs to, because it is already represented in
other ways. If you touch it with your eyes closed, then it need only render the sensation of
touch in your geometry of perspective.
Amazingly, that would mean you can have sunlight with no Sun. And when you are looking
at the Sun, the energy of the Sun is very minimal. It's only "Sun temperature" when it needs
to be. Schroedinger's cat in the box isn't in the box afer it closes. Afer that, only meows are
needed for the integrity of the logical narrative. Perspective wastes nothing.
Scientists know that no energy can be created or destroyed. But the subconscious mind
knows that no such energy exists, only representations of what appears to be energetic. The
universe (or, more accurately, your perspective) does not waste energy. It is so eficient, in
fact, that it does not use energy at all.58 It uses the relationships between illusions. The
relationship between one thing and an other thing is not created or destroyed, it simply
changes. There is no real motion, only the appearance of it as relationship values change and
we logically relate to other representations. What we call energy comes from relationships.
The goal is not to be energetic but to afect relationships. More specifically, energy is an
illusion “created” by the resistance between representations. The type of energy that results
depends on the representations (and their requisite geometries). The only reality of anything
is that it is a representation. The things it represents are also representations.
Motion is everywhere, but it is not absolute because it is not independent from perspective.
How and where one thing moves is diferent for each. Motion is relative. Everything is in a
state of motion but this “motion” is how we sense relationships that seem to change as our
perspective changes. It it is our perspective that changes, not the thing itself. The thing itself
is an illusion. As the reality of something is the relationship of that thing with other things,
so too is the motion. If there is no motion how would our Sun's energy be produced if no
energy is created? Even if it is powered by nuclear fusion59 we are still saying that the energy
comes from two or more lighter atoms fusing into a larger one.
If we consider our Sun, instead, a representation or our interpretation of something else then
we can consider that its reality lay in relationships as it interacts with other representations.
This would include its solar system and everything else in the universe to some degree,
perhaps even a source for the endless supply of particles in the nuclear fusion model. That is
to say, the Sun does not exist in a vacuum, and neither does anything else.
Everything has a relationship (and interacts) with everything else through folded
relationships. When a representation changes so do all of these relationships. No energy is
used, none is wasted.
As everything is represented there is no need for the things being represented to exist in your
reality. What does this mean? Look away from the sun and the Sun is wholly represented in
its light. There is no more “Sun” as you know it. Close your eyes and your physical reality is
fully represented in your other senses. Go to sleep and there is no room. Your perspective no
longer needs to “render” this part, because it is all ready contained in other values. By
representing everything, Nothing-in-particular remains an eficient illusion. Physical motion
is abstract motion. Energy is abstract energy.
58 Of course, it can't use what it doesn't really have. There's no need to: pretending to do it is just as efective, as
anyone who's ever had a wet dream can atest.
59 A mistaken premise considering that extremely high temperatures would be required in this model, which
coronal holes show are not found inside the Sun.

98

Space and time are not true realities, but measurements of abstract relationships. We think a
table is 2 meters tall because that is what the measurement reads, not realizing that we are
also measuring the yardstick and the table's relationship with everything else in our
perspective.
As the only value is the relationships between the representations, the representations
themselves need not truly exist (or even show up!)
The Expansive Now-here
Imagine that you are living in a flat 2-dimensional world and you come upon a 3-dimensional
apple. Being 2-dimensional, you do not see how an apple can be round, juicy, and red all at
the same time. It's a strange concept for you. So you perceive the apple as being born circular,
evolving into something juicy, and turning red as it gets older. This narrative makes more
sense because it is presented in a manner that you can easily perceive. You can relate to birth,
life, and death. You would not then be perceiving what the apple actually is but this is no
diferent than you right now perceiving an apple as being separate from the tree, the person
that eats it, or the table it rests on. We perceive the apple in a way that conforms to our
paterns, not in the way natural to itself.
We are unable to perceive of what anything really is, because in order to do so we'd have to
take relationships away.
Of course, we are not 2-dimensional beings or even 3-dimensional beings, but we can have
those properties. Anything can be translated into another perspective, but the interpretation
of the thing would change. Are our thoughts 3-dimensional? How about our emotions and
personality, or bodies? Even quantum physicists agree that something as physical as our
hand is made up of things that don't exist in 3-dimensions. But what happens when our
emotions are “translated” into 3 dimensions? Or our personality and thoughts?
Let's broaden this thought experiment to something else. Imagine that you are somehow
peering into a 4-dimensional world and behold a strange sight. In it, you see a civilization
with seven sides. The first side you see is Ancient Sumer. The second is Ancient Egypt. The
third is Ancient Rome, then the remaining four sides: Medieval Europe, Iroquois, the British
Empire, and one you've never seen before called Doumis. Whenever something happens on
one side of it, it simultaneously afects each of the six other sides. Like the inability to
perceive of an apple as being round, juicy, and red all at the same time from two dimensions
we are unable to perceive of one civilization being all seven from three dimensions.
Since we are unable to perceive something absolutely (or, perceive all of what it is) we
perceive only parts that represent a whole that can never be fully-represented. But this
doesn't mean we will be aware of what something represents.
A sound outside the range of our small slice of the audible spectrum may appear as a light
within the visible spectrum. A geomagnetic explosion may be interpreted, in our perspective,
as political chaos in a particular country. An interesting cloud may be an old colleague. The
sound of running across the floor may be interpreted as a breeze in an “alien” perspective.
The representations themselves don't mater – nature doesn't care if something is a boat or a
sun, only we do. The relationships between the representations is what maters.

99

In mathematics, chaos theory holds that the flapping of a buterfly's wings in one place can
create a system that may evolve into a storm in an other place far away, given enough time.
The subconscious mind holds that they are diferent aspects of the same thing, like standing
on a fractal and viewing it from two diferent angles.
The Color Scale
The color spectrum also illustrates the scale of perspective, as we can see in the following
illustration. (Note that red photons are larger than blue photons so will have larger
electromagnetic fields, which may lead to mysteries in the sciences and form the basis for
quantum physics.)60

60 The famous double-slit experiment in quantum physics uses only monochromatic light. Using a light with more
than one color the experiment will break down, because the efect depends entirely on the wavelength of the
photon. (Photons of diferent color wavelengths will have diferent paterns through the slit.) A red photon will
be larger than a blue photon, and so will its magnetic field. Photons passing over an object will bend from the
interaction of the magnetic fields. A small enough slit will produce the paterns seen in the experiment but a
large slit will not, as the photon's magnetic field will not interfere with the slit. When the photon passes through
a slit with two sides some photons will bend in one direction and some will bend in an other direction. This efect
is light difraction, but because two slits are being used the difraction will form an interference patern.

100

Relationships Meet Resistance
As Earth moves through the solar system, it does not have time to adjust to the new position
of the Sun so that its orbital balance may be maintained precisely. It must do so
simultaneously, lock-step with the Sun and planets, at all times. Supposedly, nothing travels
faster than the speed of light. However, there is no speed of relationships when two things
relate.61 This is instantaneous, because a relationship doesn't change without afecting all
other relationships at the same time – they must keep to the same ratios.
We see two things in our interpretation, but the mind “sees” nothing-in-particular. The Sun
and the Earth are the same. In our slice of reality the two seem to be diferent things rather
than two aspects of the same thing because the aspects contain complicated relationships.
Our perception separates these
seemingly-diferent aspects into two
things, to make sense of them.
Just as light may travel more slowly in a
medium such as water or air,
relationships travel more slowly in the
mediums of perception. Some of the
“angles” in the geometry of perspective
are like mediums for us to interpret the
relationships in. Our sight – one
medium – has an angle that doesn't block our view of relationships so much, so we can
interpret a new relationship slightly faster than the speed of light. Our sense of hearing has
an angle that is more sharp, so we interpret new relationships much slower. Our brains,
however, will slow down our vision and speed up our hearing to harmonize the senses.
Imagine, if you will, a sphere with 7 other spheres nested inside it. There is a bug at the
smallest sphere at the center that carries a message to the surrounding spheres. The message
is actually a blank piece of paper, but the first sphere that it arrives at interprets the paper to
be a simple geometric shape. This sphere then marks the paper with its interpretation. Each
subsequent sphere receives the same message when the bug gets to it, but can only interpret
the message in a way that makes sense to it, like a painting. The last sphere gets a message
with all the markings of the other spheres, but still interprets the message in a way that
makes sense to it. Each sphere thinks it is geting a diferent message, but the message itself
doesn't actually mater since each interprets it their own way. It only maters that the bug is
delivering something that the spheres can relate to. Without the bug they would not know
that relationships were possible.
Further, let's imagine that the first sphere from the center is called “Light”. The Light sphere
interprets the message as fast as the eye can see, because besides the shape of the paper it
doesn't have much else to relate to. There is nothing complex to interpret. Therefore, it meets
less resistance than do the other spheres that need to relate to more and more geometry, and
each takes time to interpret it (as the geometry complexifies) in a way that makes sense.

61 Relationships are considered simultaneous because if something travelled “faster” than relationships (time thus
being irrelevant) it would not have a relationship and would therefore not be able to be perceived.

101

As resistance is the “result” of two potentials interacting, we can see how spheres meet with
resistance as each sphere interprets the message. The spheres, or SPIRs, of speed, movement,
change, thoughts, events, emotions,
etc., of everything in the universe
are interpreted this way.
The greater the resistance, the more
complex the angle (so to speak) and
the more the SPIR represents other
geometries (or, has other geometries
folded into it). One SPIR can have
any number of other sub-SPIRs
folded into it. What was a simple
relationship at the first sphere was interpreted to be other, more complex relationships, in
there other spheres. In the illustration above, sound is a more complex octave of light, having
interpreted the same relationships in a diferent way.
We perceive most that which takes the least amount of energy (or, relationships) to perceive.
We have the greatest relationship with that which we perceive, and interpret, the most of.
The Subconscious Mind and Schroedinger's Cat
The subconscious mind doesn't know anything about Schroedinger's cat. The funny thing
about the famous cat experiment is that there is, of course, no cat (or experiment) to begin
with. There are only relationships that we interpret to be “cat”, “box”, etc. For sake of
argument, however, let's forget about reality and pretend there is a cat for a moment. This
illusion only lasts for so long, however, because once the cat is in the box it ceases to be a
"cat" if we are not perceiving the entirety of the cat. It reverts back to being an array of
relationships that can be interpreted as a cat, or a meow, or movement in the box. Perspective
is eficient and will not waste energy allowing the interpretation of relationships that aren't
perceived.
If the box moves afer we put the cat inside, the cat exists only in our imagination. The
movement does, too, but it is relating to our perspective more than the cat we don't see. If we
hear a meow coming from the box, it does not mean there is a cat inside. The body of the cat
needs only exist in our perspective when the body is perceived because there is no actual
body, only the interpretation of a body in our perspective. We don't interpret what we don't
need to. We would not interpret the cat's whiskers if we did not see the cat and its meows
can exist independently from the cat itself, the cat being folded in whiskers and meows.
Unpeeling another layer of the illusion we can know if the cat is alive or dead before we open
the box because of the nature of relationships. The reality of the cat is represented, even if the
entire cat is not there as we knew it. This is similar to how gravity from our sun “knows”
about the state and position of the Earth some 8 minutes before we can measure (not predict)
it. Relationships are instantaneous, unconstricted by our interpretation of spacetime, and the
relationships that make up the cat can be observed outside of the box before it is opened.
The irony of the Schroedinger's Cat experiment is that it is a thought experiment that sets up
a scene – illusions – that we interact with; the cyanide, box, cat, experiment, etc. This allows
us to confuse the illusions for reality. Its paradox is that the experiment can only be
measured from the same perspective.
102

Size Doesn't Mater
Should we discover the most fundamental element in the universe we will see that it is
independent of "size" atributes and is, instead, fundamental because of function (another way
to interpret a relationship). The study of the universe is ultimately a study of our own
perceptions. As we have seen, the pink elephant in the laboratory is consciousness. Without it
no hypothesis or experiment can take place. It is likely the most ill-considered variable in
most experiments.
The universe does not obey two diferent set of laws depending on the size of the object.
Something is not more fundamental because it is perceived to be smaller. Size doesn't mater
to something that considers only relationships. We experimentally observe sub-atomic
particles behaving diferently because that is how we observe. Things more related to how
our senses and brains are structured appear to behave one way, while things less related to
how we are sensing them appear to behave another way. We're back to dividing 10 and 2 (the
physical world), thinking it is diferent from dividing 10 and 3 (the sub-atomic world).
A friend's life will not be understood by examining their organs. We will not have an even
deeper understanding of them by analyzing their cellular structure. We can claim that the
system of beliefs and thinking that govern our friend's life is not mirrored in their DNA, but
we'd be missing the point. When we are at the cellular level what we're observing is no longer
our friend but other kinds of life physically integrated.62 Your friend is not aware of the
microbial life inside their body nor does he or she need to be. The two living systems are as
deeply related as the contents of your wallet. Yet, each behaves according to their own
interpretation of a fundamental set of rules.
When we conceptualize the world of sub-atomic particles we need to do so from a sub-atomic
perspective rather than one based mostly on physical operations. We look at a sub-atomic
particle against a backdrop of subjective spacetime and wonder what strange rules apply. Not
only does this require new vocabulary to decouple our connections to physicality when
thinking about something that has very diferent physical atributes, but an entirely diferent
way of thinking about physical things.
Observing the Instrument
Although scientists can theorize about (and find evidence for) particles that travel faster than
the speed of light, they can only perceive the results at or less than this speed of light. An
inch will be measured as an inch, even when it's not. Perspective is also a medium for light to
travel in, and a way for measurement to interface with reality. The instrument that is used for
the measurement or observation is rarely considered as afecting the measurement or
observation, but ofen what is being observed are the efects of the instrument and whatever
it is relative to rather than what is being observed. It is obvious when you look through a
telescope that your perspective is changed, but less obvious when using other instruments
because one has no physical frame of reference with which to compare and used to model
what is being perceived. Instruments can be references of interpretation, but are used as a
means to observe reality. For example, looking through an electron microscope we do not see
electrons. We see the reality of the electron microscope. 63
62 Reference:
htps://web.archive.org/web/220122061250420930/htp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_body_politic/
63 We are, more accurately, looking into that section of the geometry where the instrument appears.

103

If you invented a new gestalt spectrometer that is designed to capture oompa particles, you'd
probably find them eventually with a bit of tweaking. But it doesn't mean that they exist
outside of your interpretation. Satisfied with your results you'd find a place for it in the
logical narrative of your field of science. Other scientists could then find the same particles
using the same or a similar instrument, verifying your results. However, other instruments
without such relationships in their immediate geometry, like a kaleidoscope or a pair of
binoculars, will not allow you to interpret oompa particles in the same way. (Remember
though: the other scientists would also be a part of your perspective, as would their findings
be. Surely your perspective is apt to agree with itself more times than not.)
Searching the Past for Answers
When looking into our historical past for answers we can consider not only the words and
their original meanings but how the terms were used in their original contexts. We can
consider that we are looking at the past from our current perspective, not the past
perspective. Consider today we have four quantum numbers of the electron (used to describe
it) in physics: the principal, azimuthal, magnetic, and spin quantum numbers
These numbers are useful to physicists in their description of the electron, and by extension
of mater. Let's further imagine that 1,000 years from now we have a new kind of science.
Also, in a few hundred years there is a Second Dark Ages for 500 years and much the
information from before the 22nd century was lost. However, some scientific records stored in
quantum computers survived and these four words found their way into whatever English
will evolve into in 1,000 years. But instead of being used to describe the electron they
morphed into the words used to describe the 4 parts of the day:





Principal: 12am to 6am
Azimuthal: 6am to 12pm
Magnetic: 12pm to 6pm
Spin: 6pm to 12am

Because the meanings of the words have changed we don't have any context with which to
pivot our understanding of how the terms were used in the 21st century.
We assume that our ancestors in the 21st century thought that the day was divided into 4
parts because, judging by the extraordinary amount of land used for farms compared with
our cities, farms must have been humanity's most important enterprise. Farmers must have
used those 4 terms to keep track of what to do when. How primitive! Further, English isn't
really used that much anymore. Like Latin or some of our far older languages it became
unpopular over the years. And with each translation the original meaning becomes further
lost. The dominant language is now "Fang". Here are our 4 words translated into their
meaning in Fang:





Principal: midnight refreshment
Azimuthal: breakfast meal
Magnetic: mid-day meal
Spin: evening meal

Future researchers interpret our primitive understanding to mean that god took his four
104

meals a day and counted the number of bites of each, and the number of drops in his drink.
From these bites and drops, reality was formed every day.
We cannot assume that a concept used thousands of years ago still retains its original
meaning and context, or relationships, today. Or, that the language we are using to
understand the original language in has all the corresponding words and concepts in our
language. Further, that any integral yet non-obvious features of a writen language (such as
the sound a particular shape makes or the diagrammatical component of a section of
hieroglyphics) has any modern counterpart. Instead, we get words whose meanings have
changed over the years, names of forces that become names of gods and other entities,
mythologies that only make sense as imaginative stories and not actual descriptions of
anything real, and structures, shapes and other artefacts that have lost their meaning.
It would be amusing to imagine a nuclear power plant being thought of as a "government
tomb" where heads of state are buried because in 1,000 years we build structures with
nanotechnology and look at the 21st century with a nano-perspective. So much time, efort,
and resources were used to build nuclear reactors they must have been used by government
for its own benefit.
The Theory of Nothing
Philosophers have been searching for a single representation that applies to everything for
thousands of years. Cosmologists have been searching for an ultimate theory that explains all
physical aspects of the universe in a single law since the Big Bang.
A “theory of everything” that could be applied to any field would not appear to be scientific
at all any more that it would appear to be political, religious, economic, psychological, etc.
Surely, it is not even thought to be possible that everything could come from a single source.
Such a theory would appear to be a theory of nothing-in-particular and, thus, not seem very
interesting or useful at all. How would it relate to anything in particular? How could
perspective be “the answer” that unites every question ever writen down? Surely it must be
more complicated than that!
It is easy, and sometimes elegant, to make something more complex. But it is dificult to
make things appear simpler and less complicated. We are inclined to represent new
discoveries, not ones that are ingrained into our being. In our search for meaning we cannot
help but to play with illusions, and to represent things that do not actually exist. It is not
interesting to discover something that relates to everything without first being secure in
knowing that one would still exist if one understood that existence is irrelevant. Unification is
to be avoided at all costs if we are to survive.
When we consider something that can be applied to everything we must be sure that it is
simple enough to be perceived from any perspective. A theory of perspective, or even Notes
from Your Subconscious, could be a step in the right direction but it is not the ultimate
answer. There may be no ultimate answer or ultimate representation of what is true. We may
discover new relationships that are interesting and become more relative to us than the
former, but this likely goes on forever until we realize that there is no right answer.
A theory of everything would be quite useless, as nothing-in-particular is irrelevant and
without perspective. A theory of nothing would make far more sense.

105

Part 5:
Consciousness, Dreams,
the Perfect Reality, and You

106

What is Consciousness?
The word consciousness derives from the Latin conscius, “to know with”. This is similar to the
word science, which is also derived from the same root scire, “to know”. Although we cannot
know anything without consciousness, in the breadth of all our sciences we have no
definition for what consciousness is. Consciousness and science are connected at the root,
but you'd never know it by how far they apart they've grown. We cannot know if we've really
progressed without knowing how far we've come.
Is there anything that you're completely aware of? Reality is unlike our experience – we can
only perceive our interpretations. We cannot see, hear, touch, taste, feel, or even think beyond
our perspective. For us, our perspective is all that is, but is not yet enough to perceive reality.
The day that we give up the notion of truth is the day that we learn to work within the
illusion to find out, instead, what truly works for us.
We think of a consciousness that can be aware of something – but even illusions laugh at
such thoughts. The term conveniently hides the reality that we cannot be aware of something
directly. Consciousness is all about relationships. If you look at your hand you are not seeing
your hand for what it is. Although the illusion seems like reality it is the only way to perceive
we've ever known, and so it becomes our reality by default. What the hand is really like is
irrelevant, and likely does not exist without an interpretation of it. It doesn't mater how
something sees itself, either, as that is also an interpretation. If you see yourself as tall and
bear-like and someone else does not, it doesn't mean that they aren't seeing you for who you
are. Perspective cannot be shared. Even as you look in the mirror you are interpreting the
electrical signals coming from your retina as they were in the past; we cannot even share
perspective with ourselves because the moment we do it becomes another perspective. If you
could perceive the signals directly you'd still be perceiving an interpretation.
True reality cannot be perceived directly. Truth has no perspective. Illusions are more
important than reality because they allow relationships to exist, whereas absolute reality
does not. What is important is that which we can use. The illusions “create” consciousness
simply by relating to each other, making up the geometry of perspective we call reality.
Consciousness, by itself, does not exist. We can only know of other – it is impossible to know
of your self on a 1:1 relationship. Such would be beyond perspective because there is nothing
else with which to compare. So we make up “other” in our body, our thoughts, our beliefs, our
actions, other people and things, and events and activity all over the Earth, round infinity
and back again.64
Watching a film, the illusion of motion is very convincing. We are so engaged in the drama
we forget that we are watching individual frames rather than something lively. The magic
happens in the relationships between the frames to give us a picture of reality. We, too, will
find consciousness not in the frames of existence but between those illusions.
What do you consider your "self"? If it is your body, then what do you do with a part of your
self when you clip your nails or cut your hair? If it is only the living part of your body that
you consider your self, where does your self go when you lose weight? If it is your mind, do
you gain more self as you get older and wiser, or perhaps lose part of your self if you can't
64 That is to say that we can represent infinity and interpret something to be infinite, but infinity itself does not
exist. The universe is no more infinite than finite, as there really is no “other” other than something that cannot
be wholly interpreted and so seems to go on forever in our natural interpretations.

107

remember something? Where is your self when you are dreaming – in the dream? If
consciousness is "awareness of my own being", what does it mean to be aware of another
being? Are you independently aware of your being, or are you just using one part of your
“self” to sense another part? If you are more than your brains, could you be aware of what
remains if your brains were shut of completely? There is no one point that we can say, “This
is my self” because there is nothing to point at. We are wanting to point between the frames
but end up focusing on the frames themselves for the answers because we can see them.
The notion of self must, paradoxically, include other things. There is no self without what we
don't consider our self to be. In order to be we must relate, as we cannot be by ourselves. We
must be in relation to something else that is (or isn't), as we cannot be conscious by ourselves,
only in relationship with something else. In order to think or feel, we must relate to what we
are thinking and feeling. By thinking, we open a dialogue with something we do not yet
sense our self to be. By feeling, our emotions flow to where they were not but a few moments
ago. In order for consciousness to be, it must be conscious of it being something else. In our
brains are mirror neurons which fire the same way if you do something as they would if you
see someone else doing the same thing.65 That we may be conscious, we must forget that we
are there already, but still remember how to get there.
This brings us back to the root of consciousness, the Latin term for, “to know with”. We are
conscious when we know with something else, forming a relationship. But, as what forms
conscious relationships is a variable, consciousness is relative. We are “conscious” by relating
to one thing more and another thing less. As an example, the more aware we are of dreams
the less aware we are of waking reality. And the subconscious mind is not aware of the name
of what you had for breakfast, but you are.
The Consistency of Conscious Being
Let's imagine that you are having conversations with two people siting in two separate
rooms. The subject of the conversations is clouds. The two people you are speaking with are
exactly the same except in one way: one person knows what clouds and its related concepts
are, and the other person does not.
When you talk to the person that knows what clouds are, they are able to relate to the
representation (“clouds”) as well as other concepts in the conversation such as beauty, form,
lightness, and flufiness. They know why a cloud can be white and airy or grey and heavy.
They know all of this because they already have relationships with those concepts. Thus, this
person has a conscious awareness of clouds and can follow the conversation with great ease.
However, when you talk to the person that does not know what clouds are, they are unable to
follow you. They can only begin to relate to clouds by listening for concepts they can relate
to, and then relating “clouds” to those.
Now imagine that the two people you have spoken to are actually the same person that can
consciously decide when to remember and forget about all the cloud-related concepts.
As “consciousness” is all about relationships, we can be conscious of something by simply
relating to it. The more we relate to something the more conscious of it we are. 66 Further, we
can relate to other beings that seem more like us, such as other people or certain kinds of
animals, and we consider those to have consciousness, too. If you were able to relate to a
65 Reference: htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E
66 Though, again, this means that we are then less conscious of something else.

108

cloud by talking to it, you might even consider it also has consciousness. But what cannot
relate? It is all consciousness. It is not possessed, however. One is only conscious via
relationships – without some kind of relationship there is no consciousness or
subconsciousness, or perception.
This is no diference between your conscious self and subconscious self; they are the same
self, but seem diferent as it relates to concepts. Where the relationship between one thing
and another is not relative (i.e., not clearly defined) to our waking consciousness we call it
subconsciousness. The more we relate the deeper we can perceive. This is what makes the
subconscious mind great. It forgets itself to form a relationship with what it has forgoten
and uses the relationship to form paterns that propagate reality, allowing for a seemingly
endless interpretation of all the geometry. Your perspective makes everything possible.
The Present is a Gif That You Never Got (but Hints at a Relationship That You Did)
Our lives seem to revolve around the present moment. It seems like we're on the edge of
something amazingly new and continuous, yet perfectly balanced between the known (our
past) and the unknown (our future). It seems to be all we can be really consistently sure of,
like an always-changing, active and perfect memory.
But, unfortunately, the present doesn't exist.
We know that when we look at the stars we are looking back in time billions of years, as it
takes a really long time for their light to reach us. Light from our own Sun does not have too
far to travel but is still around 8 minutes old. Although sound and light take time to travel we
can still function as though they were instantaneous occurrences, as our brains don't seem to
care for how old or new something is.
Looking at our own hand or listening to our own voice we are not seeing or hearing it as it is
in the present, but as it was in the past. The diference is in nanoseconds, but it is still
significant enough that it isn't truly now.
These illusions work well enough that we can manage our lives without struggling with
fundamental properties of physics as we walk down the street or pay our bills, but it also
points out that we are not able to experience reality directly, only the workable illusion of
reality. Also, the importance of relationships.
Light travels from our Sun at 671,000,000 miles per hour. Sound travels to your ears at 768
miles per hour. You can walk home at about 3 miles per hour. But a relationship is
instantaneous. The Sun has already formed a new relationship with everything around it
before its light has had a chance to think about it. Your brains already have a relationship
with a decision several seconds before you are aware.67 Gravity of the Sun knows where the
Earth is going to be long before its light reaches us. The geometry of relationships does not
care how we interpret spacetime, because space and time are just resistances in its geometry.
The question is, “What is relative?” If your 5th grade teacher's words regarding success are
relative to you, it won't mater how long ago it was. Her words will resonate with you
wherever you are, regardless of time. If you chiseled out a shoe and a chair from the same
block of relationships, perhaps one shoe will not be as comfortable as the other when you're
wearing it, or siting in the chair makes you feel like going for a walk.
67 Reference: htp://phys.org/news12723952619.html

109

Gravity of the Sun doesn't care about stars in other galaxies, as those relationships are
already folded into relationships of whatever is nearby. What is far is folded into what is near.
Everything doesn't need to be known, only the harmony of what is close needs to be sensed
to extrapolate the totality of everything else. If Jupiter was somehow to disappear, the
“shock” of the unfolding relationships would push the Sun a litle, then pull it back as it
organized the unfolded relationships into new folds. As people and things disappear from our
lives we may also be shocked in such a way.
Your past and future are also folded like this. Past and future are simply experiences that
aren't so relative to you. The resistance between the two we call the present, but even this
cannot be touched. The present illustrates the universal illusion.
Is it time that allows us to perceive an apple as round, juicy, and red? These things are just
our interpretation of the relationships behind the apple that allow us to see it that way. We
are perceiving what is related and folding up the rest into the wide arms of potential. We are
perceiving the same apple as a seedling, an apple tree, an unripe apple, a ripe apple, a halfeaten apple, and a roten apple – but all folded into the round, juicy, and red apple because
that is the apple that is most relative to us.
It is not the speed of time that causes the “delay” of perspective, but our own swinging on the
geometry, like monkey bars, as we sense the next closest bar to swing on. What we call the
immediate past and future are the next bars backward and forward, but the present is our
time spent between bars, floating in an experience that has no representation. We are not
conscious of the present because awareness of the present only comes about through a
relationship with something else, in what we call past and future.
The future expands our awareness, while the past contracts it. The harmonic equilibrium in
the middle, the resistance, is our present. We seem to be move forward in time as our bodies
are powered by chaos and limited by order. The past burns the future like oxygen burns
hydrogen in the fuel cell of our bodies, beckoning us electromagnetically as the past turns to
rust. Chaos and order, forever tugging at each other. Only their progeny seem at peace.
Relationships and You
Blissfully surrounded by illusions, the more an illusion relates to something else the more real
it seems. Focusing on these relationships is how we fall asleep, how we manage to wake up,
and how we go about our day. By the magic of relationships the familiar is a window to the
unfamiliar. We can relate to anything through what we already know. You could say that
perception is information about relationships, and as we perceive something we get
information about those things that it represents, and other things that are folded into it.
The light you see when you look up at the night sky has not travelled for billions of years. It
travels only from the edge of relevance to your immediate perspective. The light you see
takes no time to travel. It's a relationship.
There is nothing in a person's reality that exists by itself without interacting with everything
around it. A broken car in a garage will interact with the surrounding environment and may
even influence the geometry of other things and people nearby. Stresses at home or in the
workplace are a part of the total perspective, not limited to what we consider to be the cause
of the stress. Every aspect of your reality, every person and thing you like and don't, drinks
110

from your cup and bathes where you bathe. The separation is only in our imaginations.
What we call chemical addition, for example, is not addiction to a chemical but a person's
relationship to their surroundings where interaction with a certain drug can help to facilitate
the relationship, and sometimes force a temporary logical narrative. In this way, the drug is
an interface with a reality that parallels the current one in relativity. Or, you can say, the
drug enables them to adapt to the other aspects of their environment that they perceive. The
body doesn't know the diference between the drugs in our food or any other drugs, only the
efect they have on how you interpret relationships. Some efects are more powerful than
others and may have unintended consequences.
Look at this cute litle hamster. She's ambitiously climbing his wheel like there's no tomorrow.
His litle feet seem to fly to each rung of the wheel, but she
never quite reaches even the height of the center axle. Some of
us might see the hamster running up but never out and begin
to wonder about our own place in society, feeling like there's no
end to the race like the hamster might. Others might not see a
hamster at all. But the big question is how does this hamster
understand calculus? Is she over qualified for his job as a
hamster wheel operator, or is there some kind of magic
involved? Worms also perform what we call calculus to find food.68 But how? We are not more
intelligent than a hamster, nor more intelligent than each other. Some of us learn faster than
others not because of intelligence but because we meet with less resistance in our
interpretations, relating to more things and are thus able to interpret relationships in a more
balanced way when it comes to overall harmony.
But humans are not the only beings that interpret relationships – all of reality does. If you
have a well-kept house, for example, and decide to not fix a second-floor window that was
recently cracked then the other windows around it may begin to interpret relationships
diferently. They are more likely to adopt the interpretation of "brokenness" and atract more
opportunities for broken windows and related manifestations. The entire property can be
afected by this small change in the interpretation of relationships. Tomorrow has found a
new interface.
These relationships are integral to our universe and our lives. We naturally want to create
relationships with something... anything. We constantly seek out opportunities to create a
relationship with someone or something else to further the illusion of our existence. A person,
place, thing, idea, anything that is or can be somehow represented. We give names to this
consciousness-creating process: love, lust, hate, obsession, laughter, passion, anger, fetish,
happiness, etc. It doesn't mater what kind of relationship it is. We don't know anyway – we
can only interpret them. But we create relationships in order to feel like we truly exist.
When you interact with something you are sharing a relationship with it. Consciousness is
interaction, and neither comes first. Anything you are aware of you are interacting with. For
example, we cannot see a distant star without a photon from it interacting directly with our
sense of sight. You cannot smell dinner on a plate without the molecules in the food
interacting with your olfactory neurons. Similarly, we cannot think of someone else without
their representations directly interacting with our thoughts. And as we relate in present, so
do we become in past and future.
68 Reference: htp://www.livescience.com/5022-worms-calculus-find-food.html

111

You Are Not Human
Just as consciousness exists in relationships rather than individual somethings, humanness is
a state of being rather than a state of physicality. We are human because of our relationships.
Your physical body is a massive collection of both physical and non-physical consciousness. 69
Approximately 100 trillion bacterial cells, each with its own consciousness and thoughts (via
relationships), inhabit your body. You have 10 times more more bacterial cells in your body
than human cells. What we refer to as human DNA actually has anywhere from 100 to 1,000
times more microbial genes than what we think of as human genes.
You are, in actuality, not human. You stopped being human the moment you were born and
microbial life began to take over. A complex microbial ecosystem stakes claims in our
digestive and respiratory tracts, our teeth, and our skin. They establish increasingly complex
communities, like a forest that gradually takes over a clearing. By the time we’re a few years
old, these communities have matured, and we carry them with us, more or less, for our entire
lives. Less than 1% of our genetic make-up is human DNA. It’s easy to ignore the astonishing
fact that we are not nearly as human as we think.
“Human beings are not really individuals; they’re communities of organisms,” says
McFall-Ngai. It’s not just that our bodies serve as a habitat for other organisms; it’s also
that we function with them as a collective. As the profound interrelationship between
humans and microbes becomes more apparent, the distinction between host and hosted
has become both less clear and less important — together we operate as a constantly
evolving man-microbe kibbutz. Which raises a startling implication: If being Homo
sapiens through and through implied a certain authority over our corporeal selves, we
are now forced to relinquish some of that control to our inner-dwelling microbes.
Ironically, the human ingenuity that drives us to understand more about ourselves is
revealing that we’re much less “human” than we once thought. [from The Body Politic70]
To you, an aggregated consciousness, riding a bicycle is a simple activity. It does, however,
require the rapid execution of successive calculations of physics, trigonometry, and calculus.
Calculations that would be quite impossible for anyone to do (rapidly, if at all) with their
brains are easily and quickly performed by the other types of consciousnesses related to their
person. You quite ofen and easily perform calculus at speeds that would make Isaac Newton
burst into sweat. We take these abilities (or relationship-consciousnesses) for granted and say
that it just comes naturally to us, without ever actually knowing how we do it. Other types of
animals have also been shown to perform calculus,71 but perhaps researchers never thought
to apply the same question to humans.
We can perform calculations of physics without thinking about them because parts of us do
make those calculations. We are then intuitively aware of the result because we need only
sense the representation that has the answer folded in it. These microbes pass from one
person to another, and from system to system. If, for example, a microbe in your body has
figured out how to perform a certain feat it could spread to other persons, depending on the
geometric relationships. They would then know how to perform the same feat because they
now have the same microbes with similar relationships. Ideas, thoughts, and much else
comes from these sub-systems. You are as human as the clothes you wear.
69 Just as our brains operate in both physically and non-physically-oriented (metaphysical) geometries.
70 htps://web.archive.org/web/220122061242225838/htp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_body_politic/
71 htps://web.archive.org/web/220122061242225838/htp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/7051/title/Calculating
_Dogs

112

The Naturally Artificial Human
The evolution of humanity is both artificial and natural. Before recorded history we were
rarely the most adapted to our surroundings. Most ofen, we were one of the weakest and
least-adapted animals. But we learned how to invent and use technologies to our advantage
and change the dynamics of our survival as a species. We should realize, however, that this is
not much diferent from what other species do.
Our intelligence has evolved with the help of tools and technologies. We are not so much
“naturally” intelligent as the intersection of natural and artificial intelligence evolved from
technology we discovered, from the axe, to language, to farming, to the axis. What kind of
memories would we have if we could not communicate with others or assign names to
objects and concepts? What kind of problem-solving ability would we have if we did not build
more complex lifestyles and social structures? What would our brains look like if we never
learned to hunt or grow food? Somehow these kinds of developments are part of natural
evolutionary processes but, paradoxically, the activities themselves are deemed unnatural.
Our bodies are as artificial as any tool we use, as both are illusions and interfaces with a
greater reality. Thus, a farm is not less natural than a forest. Our body is not more natural
than a mobile phone just because it is an organism – a rock is not an organism, either. A rock
is formed by so-called natural processes, but a mobile phone is formed from human activity
taking advantage of natural resources and processes. The diference between this and the
natural resources and processes used in the reproduction of another human is the degree to
which the conscious mind is involved in the process. The more human consciousness doesn't
direct something, the more natural it seems. Conscious activity is not considered an aspect of
nature – suggesting that there is no consciousness in what we call “nature”, or at least human
consciousness isn't natural and anything we choose to do is divorced from it. It would not
seem that a mobile phone is natural even though it naturally exists entirely in perspective, or
its warm surface is home to countless microbes and bacteria of its owner and anyone who
has ever touched it, or that it is a harmonious composite of known physical laws that allows
you to extend part of your awareness halfway across the world. But if we consider
consciousness to be relationships rather than human-like intelligence, one thing is just as
natural as another no mater what it looks like.
The complexity of the more true natural world – that is to say, everything in reality –
confounds us as we lose sight of the more important relationships between all things. But by
adopting a physical body and using various tools and technologies (all aspects of perspective)
we have learned how to extend our immediate perspective much further and relate more
closely with things that were previously not relative to us. We should not punish nature's
complexity, while ignoring its simplicity. Technology is a natural process.
In perspective, there is no distinction between what is natural and what is artificial. All
relationships are natural. Everything that can be perceived is natural, as perception itself is
natural. As beings with perspective, we explore relationships and add artificial stories and
interpretations on top of the native relationships we find in the geometry of perspective. The
perception of a tree is as artificial as a plastic milk container, as they are both artificial
interpretations of what is natural. It follows that we are as much artificially intelligent beings
as we are naturally intelligent beings. We cannot perceive nature, only interpret it artificially.
If illusion is good enough for All-That-Is, then it should be good enough for us, too. Further,
we as humans have evolved as a result of artificial selection. From an evolutionary
113

perspective, our technology has removed most of the selection pressure on “naturally fit”
atributes. The more we make use of technology the more “natural” evolutionary selection
becomes irrelevant. We have, in efect, selected ourselves. We were not created by our
beautiful Mother Earth, soupy random chance, or the Spagheti gods. Each of us is born of
perspective and its relationships. Consciousness is, indeed, everywhere and anywhere a
relationship exists.
We can think of the human mind as perfectly optimized for all of space and time, as the mind
considers illusions as reality. What is the origin of space and time if not our perception? The
mind needs not classify anything as either artificial or natural. It doesn't care to classify
dreams as either natural or unnatural, because it doesn't mater. The human mind doesn't
care if a fire comes about from what we think of as artificial or natural means, and neither
does the subconscious mind. Rather, “How does this relate to my perspective?” We don't yet
realize it consciously, but the only thing that maters is the relationship between things no
mater where they come from, how solid they appear, or how long they've been around.
From a more universal perspective, convenience stores and strip malls are just as “natural” as
the trees they replaced. Is there any part of a strip mall that is not derived directly or
indirectly from nature? We worry about over-development when meat consumption has a far,
far greater impact on the life of those same trees.72 But is there any process that we have
come up with that somehow extends beyond the initial impetus of All-That-Is? Have we
outwited the universe by adding tax to a stick of gum? We are not so clever, but we think of
something that evolved over millions of years as "natural" while more recent creations are
not. However, the first convenience store also took millions of years to evolve, as did language
and everything else that we consider artificial. Babies are not artificial because they are made
by human activity, and neither are artificially-inseminated babies. If a convenience store is
unnatural, so are our dreams and imagination – they all arise from complex human activity.
Although we might consider a young boy talking with three girls at the same time to
optimize exposure to the atention he might need human nature, we still consider this kind of
activity separate from nature itself. Might a tree have no concept of the artifice of human
activity as it positions its leaves to optimize exposure to the atention of sunlight? We
separate ourselves from nature, nature from the universe, and the universe from ourselves.
Everything is naturally-occurring because there is nothing that works outside that which
encompasses all of nature – perspective. Could we say that the activity of human nature is
somehow unnatural because we think it is special? How arrogant it is to assume that we are
the top of the food chain when our supposedly “human” bodies are less than 1% human? 73 We
are literally being consumed alive by other organisms. Or perhaps we claim to be the most
advanced species when we cannot understand the language of any other species, nor
consider that consciousness applies to them as well? We are more interested in spending
billions of dollars to build a giant machine that might open up a portal to other dimensions
and create black holes than we are in really trying to figure out what a Beluga whale might
have to say. Can we assume that every species naturally believes it is the most special and
most wise and sees value in whatever it has managed to create, just as we tend to do in
groups or as individuals? We persist in thinking that we have the capacity to destroy a planet
that was here billions of years before we started picking our noses, and will likely be here
billions of years afer we are gone.
72 In 48 states of the US alone, nearly 60% of all land is used to produce meat. (41% used by livestock for grazing,
and an additional ~18% to grow crops to feed livestock only.) However, only 3% is considered developed land,
home to 75% of the population. Also, most freshwater resources are used for meat production.
73 The human body has about 20,000 human genes and 2-20 million microbial genes.

114

If plants and animals use language, are they not also using technology? Granted, language is
a technology hundreds of thousands of years old but it is still a tool that we invented. Might
they have invented their own means to communicate? Let's not assume that plants and other
animals have always had such abilities, nor are clueless as to what they are doing. Of course,
plants do not speak any language that humans have constructed, or even possess organic
brains to support their long term memory and ability to learn.74 However, plants have been
found to talk to each other through nano-mechanical vibrations.75 Could this not also be
considered technology that evolved to suit the needs of the entity using it, similar to our own
development of vocal language to communicate? We might even consider that we term our
inventions “artificial” when they could very well be more natural than we realize.
Are genes natural if they afect human activity and behaviour? We consider genetic
expression natural, but the expression of a cultural facet, such as wearing a suit, artificial. Is
the evolution of a larger brain in humans natural when considering it paralleled the evolution
of our tools over the past 2.6 million years? Artificial evolution is not separate from natural
evolution, but married to it. When genetic changes are driven by culture and technology, how
divorced are those things from nature? We are artificially intelligent because much of our
intelligence has come from the use of our tools (“artifice”). But this extends to everything
that we have invented, not just physical hand tools. Beyond language, there's reason, society,
culture, arts, the sciences, games, history, media, and just about everything else in our dayto-day existence. The artificial and natural work together as one. Nature is chaos, and
technology is order.
Like everything else in the universe, we cannot exist by ignoring an opposite. We have not
evolved into rational beings any more than we have evolved into hygienic beings. We have
the capacity to think with some degree of rationality to make associations, but we pair
rationality with our emotions to continue to evolve as a species. We do not eat for nutritional
value alone. If things like eating or sex did not feel good many of us would not be compelled
to do them as much as is required for our growth, genetic mutation, and ultimate survival.
We do not care primarily for what is true, such as purely rational beings would, but what
feels good, is useful, and we can relate to. Needing evidence for something before acting is
rational, but evidence is nothing without a relationship with the person taking the action.
Smoking may be bad for your health from a rational standpoint, but perhaps the possible
outcomes aren't so bad when weighed against the emotions that compel one to smoke.
Beter than rational beings we are logically emotional beings, balancing chaos with order to
express All-That-Is. In this way, and like a dream, what is natural ingeniously supports itself.
Living the Dream
You are having a dream of being in a restaurant and eating a delicious meal. The waiter
comes over to ask how the food was, and you had to respond exactly how you felt – it was
the most delicious meal you've had in a long time. Now, in your dream you may feel that it
really was a very delicious meal. Let's consider a question: who cooked the meal?
If you were still dreaming you might think that the cook in the restaurant made your meal. If
you become more conscious of the dream upon awakening, you might still feel that the cook
74 htp://sciencewa.net.au/topics/environment-a-conservation/item/2745-greenhouse-experiments-show-plantslong-term-memory/2745-greenhouse-experiments-show-plants-long-term-memory
75 htp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130250720602855.htm

115

made the meal but also realize it was “just a dream”. A bit more aware, you might then realize
that it was you who made the meal and made it delicious. Yet even more aware, you might
realize that there is no meal, table, waiter, or restaurant, and that these are illusions that
enable you to have some kind of perspective.
Where do we find ourselves now, in waking reality? We ofen find ourselves thinking that it
was the cook who made the meal. We are still conscious of it all being an illusion, but what
purpose would perspective serve if it did not allow us to have a perspective? The most
valuable perspective in this scenario is to sit in the restaurant and enjoy your meal. In this
way we are exploring relationships. That is to say, in the “most conscious” awareness there is
no relationship. Once you know that everything you perceive is an illusion you begin down
the path of destroying your self. So, dreaming is preferred. The more convincing the dream is,
the beter. If you need to create a dream that is so convincing it seems like reality, so be it. If
the reality is so convincing that even the expansion of consciousness – dreaming – is deemed
unreal then you've done well.
And so here we are. What isn't a dream? That is to say, you can't look around and not see
something that isn't an interpretation of something else. In the next few notes we will explore
not only what is going on when you fall asleep but how that “dreaming” reality permeates
your waking reality.
The Physical Dreamworld
Your consciousness is the harmonic intersection between chaos and order, regardless of whether
we are awake in the physical world or awake in the dream world. You cycle through the scale of
the SPIR of conscious relationships [illustrated below] at all times, from the seemingly infinite,
chaotic world of the subconscious to the seemingly finite, ordered world of physical reality. 76
However, you are always conscious.
The metaphysical part of the
spectrum is the world of the
subconscious. It is the expansion of
relationships to an infinity as you try
to remember yourself as everything.
As you dream you begin to contract
the awareness of these relationships
until you “awaken” physically and
focus on the idea of consistent
experience and things being solid and
real. Physicality, you could say, is the
over-focus and limiting of
relationships. However, the impetus
for infinite expansion is found in our
use of circular SPIRs [see page 72] to try to balance the limiting focus that physical being
requires. Our physical focus is so strong we ignore the relationships that make something as
simple as a door possible. We would look at a door and say, “This is a door, and that's a fact!” and
forget all of the other active relationships it has.
By harmonizing the two forces, your subconscious mind can be more physically conscious. We
76 Simplified in the illustration as “metaphysical world” and “physical world”, though there are diferent flavors of
both, and much “between” and beyond. And, they are both diferent flavors of the same world.

116

are always conscious, however, regardless of how chaos or order are a part of our awareness of
relationships. Waking and dreaming and everything else related to consciousness is all part of the
cycle of this awareness. We give it diferent names depending on how much expansion and
contraction there is, like conscious, unconscious, subconscious, various dreaming states, etc.
When you are physically conscious it is dificult to recall your dream perspective, and when you
are metaphysically conscious it is dificult to recall your waking perspective. 77
Like any other resistance between two potentials,
consciousness is relative. If you are physically
aware, your dreaming perspective is not. If you are
dreaming, your waking self is not conscious (i.e., not
relating to the physical world that it knows). But
the amazing thing is that both your waking self and
dreaming self are perceiving the same world. The
dream world is an interpretation of the physical
world, similar to how light is an interpretation of
energy.
Light, sound, and other parts of the electromagnetic
spectrum have physical properties, as science tells
us. Light exerts physical pressure on objects in its path78 and we can see because of photons
interacting with our eyes. If we could somehow experience what light sees from its own
perspective, our view of the world around us would be quite diferent. Yet, light surrounds us and
we are able to use a small slice of its reality in our everyday lives, without even thinking about
how amazing it is that we can relate to something so seemingly non-physical. Light not only
interacts with our physical being, it is itself an aspect of the physical world.
The world of the subconscious or dreams is not a separate place or phenomena, or in your
imagination. You are living in it, right now. The dream world is entirely physical. The physical
world is far, far more expansive than even your wildest imagination. As we have learned at the
beginning of this book, we perceive a very thin slice of physical reality, less than 1% of the
electromagnetic spectrum that allows us to see and hear, and much more.

Let's imagine that we are drifing of to sleep and hear a sound that we are quite sure isn't
coming from anywhere in the waking world. It must be a sound in our dreams, but it sounds
so real. Do you think you just made it up or are you interpreting part of the other 99%, a part
of which you can possibly perceive subconsciously? If this sounds crazy, then dogs and other
animals that perceive other parts of the 99% must be out of their minds. Is it so far-fetched to
think that we can be conscious of some of these other relationships, too? Is it a dream to
think that we have relationships with some of the 99% of reality we ignore? Might the people
you dream about still be interpreted in other ways when you wake up, and therefore continue
to exist?
Perhaps it not so hard to imagine that we have our own “light” or metaphysical sense to
perceive the world in a diferent way. Surely, we have this already with intuition, gut feeling,
dreams, the subconscious, thinking of something new, and more. But we still perceive what is
relative to us, not foreign, no mater what state we're in.
77 Not to be confused with remembering what you dreamt when you awaken. This is still the physical
interpretation of the dream world rather than remembering a dream perspective itself.
78 Or, at least that is what the science books tell us. It is more logical that nothing exerts a physical force directly
but interfaces with electromagnetic potential (chaos) to balance the relationship (order) of whatever it is
interacting with.

117

As we relate to the world around us more we call this sleeping or dreaming. However, this is
not increasing the number of relationships but simplifying them. The Sun doesn't need to
relate to everything in the galaxy to maintain its position in the cosmos (contrary to scientific
understanding) but only simplify existing relationships to conserve energy (by interacting
eficiently) to react to the position of every atom in the universe at every moment so it
doesn't get out of position in the slightest way. A bird in a flock, for example, does not do this
by trying to perceive the position of every other bird in the flock, but by following the
position of a few birds immediately around it, which serve as its interface to the rest. There is
no need to try and relate to everything when everything is already neatly packaged in what
is relative to you. Again, the numbers 3 and 2 are folded into a 5, which contracts what it
represents from expanding too much. The physical world contracts the metaphysical world,
and folds it into its every waking relationship.
The physical world and the dream world are two interpretations of the very same world. One
interpretation, the physical, is a more complex interpretation of relationships but still represents
them. Although relationships are more dificult to form where there is more resistance, such as
while in the physical world, sometimes the table you see is just a table, sometimes it is a house,
and sometimes it is the memory of dry leaves.
Dream Interpretation of the Physical World
We interpret our reality at all times whether we are awake or dreaming. We also interpret our
dream world while we are awake, and our waking world while we are dreaming. Take a look at
the following image and think about what is going on.
There are as many ways to interpret it as
there are perspectives, from a snake
wrangler clearing an infestation in an
abandoned house to colored pixels on a
2-dimensional plane forming paterns, to
just about anything else that can be
imagined.
It makes no sense to try to interpret
another perspective, including your own.
If you remember a dream about a snake
and you think the snake represents someone you know, why do you remember the snake instead
of the person? If we think our dreams mean something or are trying to tell us something, what is
your current experience telling you? What is your life trying to tell you right now? Is every
experience and event filled to the brim with meaning? This isn't to downplay the importance of
dreaming but the normalcy of dreams and subconscious reality. They are as much a part of your
life and experience as anything else that you've done today. Every moment is an interpretation.
A dream is not very logical to the waking perspective so we interpret the dream experience to
make it logical to our waking mind. Is it coincidence that the things you remember about your
dream are elements and carry-overs from your waking experience?
Now imagine that you are trying to convey what is happening in the image to a friend that
cannot see the image. It would be dificult for them to make sense of what you are saying if they
did not have the proper language (representations) to relate to it. This is what happens when we
awaken and try to make sense of our dreams. We are trying to interpret a perspective from
another perspective that uses a diferent language and representation for its reality. As our
waking language cannot translate the dream experience into concepts that we can grasp, we can
118

only remember paterns that seem to make no sense. In fact, we translate the dream experience
so much so that it becomes something else. Without an interface we cannot relate. Without the
same language and representations, the dream world and subconscious experiences don't make
much sense. As we awaken we begin to un-relate to the reality and lose the interface, unable to
remember the reality of our experiences from only a few moments before.
If you made up words and concepts for every aspect of the image and explained all of it to your
friend while they were looking at it, then they can relate to it much more. You would then be
beter able to describe the image and they could experience its reality. The words you made up
are interfaces to the new perspective, and portals to it as you use the new concepts.
We might interpret a relationship in waking reality to be, for example, someone drinking a glass
of water. This makes sense to us because we can see how the person, the water, the source of the
water, the glass, etc., relates to other elements in the reality. When we are dreaming we can also
see how diferent parts of the dream relate but lose the sense of these relationships when we
awaken. We may just remember one interpretation of the dream but not how it relates to other
things in the dream.
The logic of the dream part of your perspective is diferent from the logic of the waking part. Our
waking perspective needs more interaction and relationships to experience the same reality. In a
dream the relationships are easier, so even a simple relationship is logical. Imagine that the two
perspectives are experiencing cleaning a room in your house at the same time. The dream
perspective experiences the room being dirty and the room being cleaned the next moment
because it sees the relationship between the two states and that “clean room” is an aspect of
“dirty room”. Opposing relationships are natural to it, so it doesn't see the conflict. However, the
waking perspective doesn't see the relationships so easily and needs the narrative of how the
clean room came to be. It will take “time” to contract the space of the geometry of perspective as
you jump through the logical narrative and make the clean room logical in your reality.
If we lucid dream we are using a similar conceptual framework and representations that can
beter interface with our waking consciousness. When our waking perspective shares in the
experience we think we are experiencing the dream first-hand. This lucidity of metaphysical
awareness is the harmony of chaos and order of consciousness that we can experience more of if
we give our natural tendencies a litle more exercise.
How do you manage to fall asleep? You simply create a bridge by relating with a representation
of the dream world. You hear a sound or see something in your mind. Perhaps the sound
becomes a bird becomes a street that you live on becomes friends becomes an entire story. Now
your consciousness is in the dream world because you unfolded a simple relationship. When you
remember that you are already living a dream, all of existence becomes a lucid, encompassing
reality. When you forget the natural metaphysical relationships between all things, then you
awaken to the individuality of physical perspective.
Everything is Harmonious

Although the relationship between opposites forms everything in existence, no real opposites
exist. As we have learned, without the illusion of opposites there is no reality. As these two
seemingly opposing forces are interpretations of the same thing, all things that exist are in
harmony with each another. For All-That-Is is naturally in harmony with itself and all that it
is. On the scale of you, your perspective harmonizes reality whether or not you realize it.
We have explored the universe through the self and have seen that the edge of the universe is
only as far as our own perspective may take us. It doesn't mater what lay beyond it, as we
119

can be assured that it will be cut out of the same quarry from where we find our existence.
Beyond what we are there is only what we truly are, something so great it cannot be
contained in any one perception.
What is water but the beautiful expression of a universal chaos and order that manages to
hide in the mountain of our existence as a relationship between hydrogen and oxygen? If we
add more chaos it harmoniously expands to a gas. If we add more structure to the
relationship it contracts to ice. These expressions are all harmonious with the simplest
realities of being, relationships, and perspective.
Nature isn't ofended by expressions of chaos and order in whatever form they may take.
Time and space allow ice to exist for as long and as much as it is harmonious with what is
immediate to it. If our own water turns to ice or gas, why should this nature upset us? We
consider these opposing forces to be natural when coming from a non-human source, but
against the nature of our perspective if coming from something that looks like us. Surely if
someone else turned our water to ice we'd need to think twice about it, forgeting their close
relationship with our own perspective. Is there any diference if nature expresses the reality
of opposing forces through a person rather than a storm when a person is also an expression
of your nature? We can only interpret relationships that are the most eficiently harmonious
expressions of All-That-Is. How we interpret these natural relationships is up to us, but we
can never reach beyond this chaotic harmony to find something that is out of order.
Your Perfect Reality
We can either have truth or we can have perception. We can't have both. If there's “truth”
there's no perception of it. If there's perception, “truth” cannot be perceived. We can perceive
only an illusion that is more than a good-enough approximation for our reality.
Reality is the intersection of two illusions, chaos and order, that forms a harmonious
relationship that is perceived as being real. Your perception is the most perfect thing you'll
ever experience because of this beautiful harmony. There is no reality more perfect or more
amazing than the one you're experiencing right now.
Forget about what something looks like or feels like. Forget that your bed might be a litle too
hard or the neighbors might be too loud on weekends. Forget about how money might seem
to have a life of its own for a moment, and sometimes doesn't come home for weeks. Those
are illusions. Think of it as the subconscious thinks of it; the beauty and wonder of the
relationships between illusions, not the transient markers for relationships that come and go.
Focusing on the physical aspect of things is like geting a present and obsessing over the
wrapping and completely ignoring what's inside. How amusing would it be to think that the
wrapping is the gif itself? There wasn't even a nice ribbon on the last one! But yet, this is
what we do. We focus on the representations and assume that the physical interpretation of
something is where the real value is.
What is a perfect reality? It is not the perfect job or the perfect life according to your hopes
and dreams. It doesn't mean geting what you want. The subconscious mind doesn't care
about how many times you've fallen on your ass or how many obstacles you think you've
overcome. It doesn't care about how many cars you think you own or how much you think
you recycle. Those experiences exist in your complex interpretation of reality, not in the
simplicity of reality itself. Unfortunately for some of us, how you interpret reality is far more
120

important than what you are doing in it. A single, carefully-considered interpretation can do
more for your life than a thousand achievements ever could.
A perfect reality is the balance of all relationships. That's what your perspective is doing right
now. You may not see it as being “wonderful” if someone dies from lung cancer because they
have been smoking cigaretes for 20 years. Perhaps they were well-loved and will be missed.
The subconscious mind sees relationships, not the illusions that we focus on. It knows only
that the person has been interacting with something (that we interpret as cigaretes) and
another relationship forms (that we call cancer). As far as the subconscious is concerned, the
relationship worked out well, despite our own protests. How you interpret it is up to you.
Your reality is a perfect representation according to the value of every person, place, thought,
thing, process, emotion, and experience in your perspective. These experiences are all
relationships doing their thing, and you doing your thing by interpreting them as you wish.
The process that “creates” your reality is perfect. How you decide to experience it is entirely
up to you. There is an endless variety of interpretations, it seems. Pick one. If it doesn't work,
pick something else. How beautiful is it that you're not stuck with one interpretation? You
could pick and re-pick thousands, even millions of times if you wanted to.
And that's exactly what we do. Moment afer moment, day afer day.
In an absolutely perfect existence there would be no drama. In fact there wouldn't be
anything else, either. It is the drama that focuses reality. The resistance between chaos and
order can be interpreted as anything you want: good and bad, high and low, angelic or evil,
happy or sad, and everything in between and back again.
It is understandable that we could get lost in the process of all these relationships and think
that this drama comes from somewhere else. But it is entirely in the perspective you call your
reality and you therefore have a choice in how to interpret it.
Without “order” masquerading as a cold and nasty soup we would not know a hot and
delicious pizza. We need one in order for the other to be experienced. We would not exist
without the two seeming opposites interacting. This also means that there is no higher state
than the one you're in now. There is nothing to “ascend” to, there is no heaven or hell, and
there are no angels waiting for you. What else is there to discover but the variety of your own
perspective? You are perfectly free to interpret the relationships therein however you want.
How amazing is that!
You are the most beautiful and wondrous thing that could ever be imagined. But “you” are
not just the you that you see in the mirror. “You” is perspective. You are something born of
nothing-in-particular in all of its hell and glory. This is the stuf of existence. And we
delightfully ignore the power of the moment to create all of reality as we go about our day.
It's quite dificult to see yourself without a mirror.79 Now imagine this on a cosmic scale. You
are that which leaves home for an eternity in order to forget who you are so that you can remember yourself once again in every possible kind of relationship. You are the happy ant that
plays with dust. You are the angles in a room on the 5th floor. You are the rookie eating your
enemy's heart. You are the light running through the galaxy's veins and the unfunny clown.
79 Some call it vanity. In other ways, it's a confirmation of existence as much as being able to consistently see your
nose and hands from your eyes. Without such signals to illustrate our existence, how true would we feel?

121

You are that which takes an endless variety of perceptions and perspectives to try and
reproduce. You can't really remember yourself completely, but you sure do have an amazing
time trying! You formulate all of the poems, birds, laughter, love, clouds, hats, and swords in
the world and across the heavens to try, time and time again, to capture your essence. You
are the life of life. The wonder of the wonderful. That which the endless variety of your
perspective tries to capture but cannot begin to. That is the endlessness of how awesome you
are.
You try through all manner of drama of every possible measure to form a universe of things
that – for beter or for worse – cannot capture even a small fragment of the impossible-toperceive. But you don't even think about giving up trying to look at yourself in the mirror
once and for all.
Who are you? You are whatever is possible to be, in whatever way you want. You are always
your best interpretation, no mater how itchy your underwear gets. You are one and the
other, and neither, all at the same time. You are so confident in your existence it seems like
you don't exist just to be able to make a grand entrance at every moment.
But this is a paradox. You don't want to be nothing again. Not existing is so boring and lonely.
You only want to be able to perceive yourself, but by doing so you get lost in the everything.
This is how you like it. Being many-things-at-once reminds you of being nothing-inparticular, and that's not the direction you want to go. You want the illusion of something-inparticular; far more exciting! You don't want to know the intimate details of how you breathe
– you just want to breathe! You don't need to know the intimate details of your cells and
hormones and other internal processes when your body needs adenosine triphosphate. Why
should you care? You only need to feel the hunger! You don't need to have intimate
knowledge of your system needing more DHA than it did 5 years ago, you only know you
love to eat salmon and you want some right now. When you eat, you don't need to know how
your body breaks down food into electrons, you just think about what you'll be doing when
you digest.
You represent more complex processes as simply and eficiently as possible so you interact
with the other things that you've nearly forgoten about. You have complex representations
with vast inner galaxies that interact with other worlds, but you see only a chair and a table.
Representing these realities more simply allows you to interact with them in ways that would
never have otherwise been possible. Who wants to sit on a micro-galaxy?
And so here you are again. Impossible to define, impossible to perceive, impossible to merely
think of... but how wonderfully amazing it is that you try endlessly, again and again. Try is
this illusion, and as much that we can possibly do. When you try to perceive something so
amazing and indescribable that it is beyond perception, even a litle piece of it is still worldchanging and wonderful. A couple of tiny words on a piece of paper can literally rock your
world. Our “try” is enough to create an endless universe of interpretations, exploding and
imploding at every moment and filling in again with an entirely new something that we can
perceive as whatever we want.
Your clothes do not illustrate the complete essence of who you are. Your friends don't reflect
it completely. The dishes on the table do not capture the essence. The dirt blissfully hiding in
the comfort of your fingernails cannot even daydream of such wonderful things. You are so
wonderfully hidden yet so spectacularly visible because it is this chaos/order relationship
122

that formulates your existence and extends to everything that could possibly be.
Are we alone? Are you alone? If everything in your perspective is “you”, what and who else is
there? It would seem from this that you are, indeed, alone. Is it true? What else is there when
you are everything? Ahh... But you are not actually “everything”, because then you wouldn't
exist. You are an interpretation of everything. You are not alone, because then you'd be
nothing-in-particular, all by yourself and not existing at all. Being "alone" is irrelevant. You
could not be more surrounded by everything. There is no need to worry about being alone
when you can form relationships with everything in your perspective. We tend to focus on a
handful of people in our lives and the dramas we produce. But the subconscious mind sees
the relationships with everything, not just people. Imagine knowing as much about the life of
the table in your room as you do about your closest friend. Imagine knowing that the water
you just drank has a memory of an interesting family of fish that liked to play all day in the
ocean. Imagine having a “conversation” with the bone in your finger about what it was like
being part of the Sun. Imagine knowing what pets and other animals and plants are thinking
and feeling. Imagine an older person shouting at their television and it shouts back, in its
own way. This is no more crazy than still hearing the same voice in your mind as you read
these words. You are just interpreting what has been there all along, in a way that somehow
makes sense.
If anything, having 10 close human friends and family would be lonely existence compared
with the amazing life of 10 close human friends and feeling a connection with everything else
around you. The more relationships you have the more alive you feel. The more harmonious
the relationships, the more you feel yourself fold into the arms of the universe itself. Nothing
can be irrelevant when there is so much of something else with which to compare.
So here you are. A universe of relationships to explore. And all this love, this beauty, the
cheeky grins, these hats, these countless swords and all the stories and poems that will ever
be writen are a part of something entirely wondrous and beautiful. This particular story –
the epic drama of existence – is all that needs to be and is the most real thing that could ever
possibly be imagined. Beter than merely being something that exists, you are that which can
relate with whatever you want to exist.
You are all that you need to be right now. There is no need to be anyone else, go anywhere
else, do anything else, other than what you are doing right now in your perspective. Until, of
course, you re-interpret everything again and explore a universe of new relationships.
In one word, the you we have here tried to describe is perfection.

If you enjoyed this book, buy it on Amazon. Thanks! More books to come.
htp://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VPT0F82

123