| ALL OF US (No fault, no blame) ____________________________________ UNIVERSE | GALAXIES | PLANETARY/MOON SYSTEMS | PLANETS/MOONS | Assumed Non-life-Rocks, clouds etc. We have no knowledge of awareness. | Life simple - Bacteria, viruses, lichens, plants etc. We have no knowledge of awareness, only response to stimuli. | LIfe more complicated - Animals. We have limited knowledge of their awareness. | Life, more complicated still - human beings. Human beings have adapted to have an awareness of being aware. They can control their existence in many ways more than other animals (more often than not to their detriment and possible demise). This does not mean that the human animal is more important since 'nature' works to its best advantage despite the creatures is produces through the process of natural selection; it has no preferences. Life is the input and output of various electro-chemical reactions leading to a dynamic ('doing'). The resultants are changes which produce the variety of life on this planet. What we call death is not merely the reverse, it is merely a lack of input. This input may be called energy, which is the combination of electro-chemical stimuli. In death, we still output these reactions but there is no dynamic. Human beings seem to be different from other animals because they are dynamic on a different level. They have a consciousness (and sub-conscious) that does not seem to be apparent in other animals. They are aware of being aware and can consciously control a lot of their environment. Other animals do not seem to be able to do this. This essay relates particularly to human animals. Early input/ouput Zygote: Input from a male to a female resulting in a fertilised ovum (egg). Embryo: Input from mother + Input from father towards the mother. Basic output, (earliest unconscious biological memory). Foetus: Input from mother + Input from father, maybe more output, later unconscious biological memory. Birth: Severe input from mother, secondary from father (if present at birth (if the father is not present, he still has an input depending on the relationship between the parents)), later unconscious biological memory) Early years: Severe input from both parents (if present); most if only one parent , still later unconscious biological memory and an increasing sub-conscious biological memory. Later years: As the independence of sibling/s increases, (almost always hampered by the unconscious and later developing sub-conscious biological memories, plus now those memories which the child has determined for itself plus also a struggle to be independent from the parents: All this leads to Levels of Awareness _______________________________________________ High Level Low level Thinking, sensitive, ability to change Unthinking, insensitive, inability to change An individual's identity is based on the data fed to it as from the above table. It is my notion. It works for me, perhaps not for you. My concern, however, is WHO AM I? and WHY AM I AS I AM? The earliest data available to us of our existence is not available to us directly (i.e. consciously as we normally define 'consciously'). As human animals, we appear to have three levels of consciousness. There may be, of course, be several more and certainly they are not isolated. That is, they are part of a continuum (i.e. they merge into each other and are not separate): Unconscious The unconscious is what we are not aware of but we are influenced by. Sub-conscious The subconscious is that which lies above the unconscious but may still not be available to the conscious (our awareness of being aware). Conscious This is the state we are in now, (however that may be defined in terms of our relationship with the world upon which we impinge). This is our awareness of being aware. The conscious state is constantly undergoing change depending on what is happening at the time (i.e. a particular time and circumstance) via our sensory mechanisms. This is total and dynamic. The body is a total organism where nothing is separate; everything works together. Biological memory The notion of biological memory, is not mine. I remember going to a seminar once where it was talked about. My reason for writing this is to put into perspective some of the things in my life that have caused me some pain and feelings of regret in some of the behaviours that I exhibit/have exhibited. Some of this may be a repetition of what I have said before but this essay is a reflection in context. When the cells of our body are destroyed, either by accident or biological design, they are replaced. None of us ends up with the same cells that we started out with; at some time, they are all replaced by new ones. Some aren't but, by and large, they are. Now since the cells are replaced by like cells, the nature of them must be 'remembered'. This is not news; the DNA remembers. The notion of biological memory is that cells not only remember the way they are supposed to be (except for cancer cells who want go and do their own thing) but that they also retain another memory; the memory of what happened at the original time of conception and anything that happened afterwards, hence biological memory. However, it is the whole being, whether morulla, embryo or foetus, that remembers. This may be conjecture. However, I will use an personal illustration. I have this dream sometimes (maybe an anxiety dream) where I am going through a tunnel that is very narrow. I am very frightened. I 'know' at the end is a lighted room. It has no exit except a window. I know that I am going into a space less claustrophobic but I am still frightened. There is no end to this dream, I merely wake myself from it (survival?). The fact of my birth was that I was born of a very scared woman. I was born during an air-raid on London in 1944, one month after the V1 bombs (doodle-bugs) were sent by the Germans. I was born in an air-raid shelter during such a raid. It is a pretty good assumption that my mother was frightened enough not to want me born at this time. However, she is giving birth to this organism against her will. I ask merely if this is the consequence of my dream? I was a crying baby. I was frustrated. My mother was frustrated. She did not know what to do. I was succumbing to her frustrations. I was also not breast-fed properly as her milk did not 'come down' as they say. Did I not carry on this 'biological' memory into my own life and children? The answer is 'yes'. Thus there may be regrets, but no blame. Who blames the blamer? I am not proud of the way that I treated my children during their first years. Hands up! Guilty! What I am concerned about is that perhaps my biological memory of such events that have happened to me have passed onto my children. The crux of the matter here, is that we have no 'real' memories until we are about four years old. What's gone on before that, it would seem, is a biological memory. That memory is carried into our future life through the new cells that we make as part of our biological function. I believe that we do retain this information, otherwise, how do we react as we do, to similar circumstances? We don't consciously know what we are doing because it is a memory that is sub-conscious. 'We all make the same mistakes.' Why? Because we don't break chains by force but by examining the weak kinks and trying to put them correctly (and perhaps, in their place). This can only come about by trying to come to terms with our biological memory. I think this is with us throughout our lives. I still get bad feelings when I hear children crying and screaming. I am not really enamoured with babies and having them. I do not get the rush of adrenaline when I hear that people are parents, grand-parents or some-such. "Oooo! I'm a father/grandfather!" does not, I'm afraid (even if this grates on sensitivities) give me any excitement. It's a fact, or a truth. Parenthood is the product of a union of two people, whatever the reason and the reasons are bounded by that biological memory over which we have no control. What happens, happens. That I did not treat my own siblings as I should have (given a better biological memory and a better tutorial) is still and always will be, a concern of mine. It's a concern I will have to live with until the end of my days. Biological memory is not about excuses; I make none for my own behaviours. It's about what has happened to one through no fault, no blame and how one subsequently acts. If we can understand this, I feel, then we can break the chains that bind. One loves one's siblings, no matter what. If one doesn't, there is something seriously wrong and I wouldn't want to comment on that in this essay. I have always loved my siblings and always shall. Whatever has been done by them or to them is very important to me since I made them. It is my responsibility, whatever I might say otherwise (which I don't, of course). I did not make a mistake marrying my wife, whatever else may have followed or what she might say. It was part of my own naiveté and my wanting to have a partner; to be part of some-one else and in my un-wisdom, 'two together as one'; (that idyllic relationship from which dreams are made, but not the harsh reality). Ever a dreamer, I went the 'full hog'. Both my children were born of love. Of that there is no question in my mind. I am sure that I was conceived in the same way. My mother has a great deal of good qualities (although she is a controller). I know, in her own way she loved my father. But she, too, had her own biological memories and carried them forward into her life with him, as did my father. They carried on into mine and my children. I do love. I love too much, sometimes/often and it can get me into strife. I love the children I teach and have a hankering for young girls (and older ones!) as well as the boys. I'm not talking paedophile, here, heaven forbid! but I attach my love to them. It is because I have a quality of non-sexual behaviour (probably because I'm too shy) that people I meet feel that I am 'safe'. I could 'have' a great number of women, desperate for my attention but I don't. I have never treated women as sexual objects. I have no sexual relationship with women (or men) because I could not see how they could live with me. I am very unconventional. I need my space. I need my space because that's what I've grown up with. I never wanted to be a loner but that's what I am. I prefer my own company because I don't want to let my 'shadow' self out. Ruth knew that (for her own reasons). We never married (though I asked her) and that was probably very wise. I owe a lot to her, she was great fun in many ways and she understood the need for space. For better or worse, my space has enabled me to stand back from the world as it is presented to me (not good) and allowed me to produce poetry, music, articles and so forth in the perhaps vain hope that I hope will help others in their quest for consolidation into the universe that they never asked to be part of. Jean Genet was a French homosexual. His major book "Our Lady of the Flowers" was written in prison. I always remember what Jean Paul Satre wrote (in paraphrase): His books seem to be negative but they always lead to the positive. Thus so with my own works; my poetry, my music and so forth. There should always be a positive end to our negative behaviours. What appears to be a negative, is, in the correct hands and mind/s and so forth a positive, a way forward. Nostalgia is great when it's a way forward, not a living in the past. No fault, no blame; only understanding. Nature, that is, the world as we entered it by whatever means, works in harmony. Man doesn't. By some quirk (perhaps) of this Nature, some mutation that occurred that was not directly anathema to survival, Man has evolved into a growing negative and anti-survival mechansim that not only is self-destructive but also destructive of the Nature that bred him. Having said that, we are all conceived in a world that may have come before us ('may' since we have no direct knowledge of this except through our unconscious/sub-conscious/conscious). We have no knowledge of this, certainly no control, whatsoever, of these supposed/maybe even historically supported events at conception. Thus, we may not or cannot be sure that any history comes before us. We will/may never know any of the truths about this; they are a question of faith and truths as we may glean from any knowledge and experience that we might discover later and append our own dictums for ourselves, not what others might say. What, and all we can know (as far as our senses allow) is that we are alive in some way (some people do not even have this allowance). To be alive is to be aware that we are, since the words are our language support this. Given that we have a consciousness (that is, we are aware of ourselves) we have some control of our lives. We must be very conscious, at the same time, that there are elements of our persons that we need to learn about which affect us in other ways. Given the table listed above, we have all come through a similar process. That is, a conception, a pregnancy and a birth (however that is accomplished). The knowledge of these initial events is mainly unconscious; that is, we are unaware of them. However, there are myriad events during our conception and (our mother's) pregnancy that may contribute to an unconscious and sub-conscious memory and at the same time, a biological memory as we develop in the womb. These events have a profound effect on our later behaviours that are at first unconscious but come into the subconscious of our being.. That is, we may later recall them in our own behaviours. [*Why are we as we are?] As we develop from a morulla of cells into an embryo and later a foetus (terms as described arbitrarily by 'scientists') we must (if we are human and have an awareness of being aware) become conscious, in some way, of our existence. This knowledge, I believe is 'written' in the cells of our bodies and, as they inevitable 'die' and are reproduced, that memory is carried forward into the new cells; hence the 'biological memory'. *Why are we as we are? This really is the same question as: Who am I? We are as we are because our fathers and mothers conceived us, whatever their motives, reasons or circumstances. In their turn, they are as they are (or were) because of their own mothers and fathers and so on, backwards in time to such an extent that all information that might possibly help us in our quest is lost in history; again, for whatever their motives, reasons or circumstances. If we have a problem with this, or if we need to find out more about this, it is very difficult. It is very difficult because we can never know what led to our conception in the first place, nor what came before. All would be conjecture in any sense. So what am I? I am a product (an adding together) of two humans. [unconscious] I am a product of sexual reproduction which allows for change and diversity. [unconscious] Therefore, I am unique. I have knowledge of my birth. [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious] I have an awareness of being alive since birth [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious] I have an awareness of being alive since birth, even though I may be malformed, brain-damaged and so forth. [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious] I have an awareness of being able to control my bodily functions to a moderate degree that will, unless biological mal-formations preclude this. [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious] Given the above; I'm alive! To be alive, is, according to most humans, the process by which we survive by whatever means. To be alive, is to be able to procreate; that is, to prolong our species, by our most natural means, i.e. sexual reproduction (unless some malfunction precludes this, by which token we are still alive). To be alive, is to be able, as far as possible, to become independent of our parents (as the biological means of our existence) and make our own way in the world. To be alive, is to be able to change and accept change. Note: I fully understand that there are many humans who do not fit into any exact description of any defintion of being alive as in the 'definitions' above, hence the notion of Levels of Awareness. We are not accountable to anyone for this truth; it is part of the process of evolving; no guilt, no blame. TO BE ALIVE, IS TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE AND ACCEPT CHANGE Preamble and possible defintions (all questionable). The word 'live' has two soundings. The 'i' may be a long sound, as in the word 'strive' [live] or a short sound, as in the word 'give'. My sounding here, is as 'give'. The dissertation/monograph given below is not a slant on any given text. The texts referred to are examples only of literature written or recorded by those with the ability and knowledge to encrypt such knowledge for the benefit of communication with others. In my view, there are two important books which have shaped Man, as he is (as a particular animal). They are the 'Bible' and the 'I Ching'. Long before the 'Bible' came the Book of Changes ('I Ching'). The I Ching is a book of wisdom, not a work of 'wisdom' that the bible was to become due to it's changes only to satisfy those who deemed to change the knowledge gathered for their own ends. I am NOT decrying what may have entered the bible, nor extolling the virtues of the I Ching. I am merely stating what I have researched. I am no beliver in a god nor otherwise. I am merely a researcher of myself (and thereby others) to determine the best for them and myself A vast number of people believe willy-nilly in the bible (as they may have it in any of its many incarnations). I understand that there are many truths in this book (as in any book ever written). I also understand that it (the bible) contains many injustices and behaviours that make it a plethora of questionable validity and cause for concern. The bible is a book or books given to misinterpretation since it is a conglommeration of stories most often without any shred of experience or evidence inherent and moreso written long after the event/s. The bible is a book which you read for enjoyment, spiritual comfort, quite good stories (as far as they go) and may be the word of a god (we shall never know; nor is it important that we know, as that is a question of belief and faith). What I am saying here, is that the bible, as it is written and read, is a stagnant part of the vast majority of lives and the basis upon which a number of societies are founded. That is why it is becoming less and less relvant to those of us who are alive. dynamic and therefore, not stagnant. The Book of Changes (I Ching), however, is no such book. What it does or can do, is to make one realise that life is change, not a stagnation. Stagnation is what controllers want. Controllers have a level of awareness that is not relevant to the rest of us but they are clever enough to make (some of us) believe that they are correct. They do this by coercion, bullying, nannyistic rhetoric and didactic statements. They have invented the tool/essence of the bible (as a religious faith/truth) to control others who are less well informed (because they are less well informed) because they are too busy living a life from which these people can extract their living by coercion, bullying, political rhetoric and so on to get what they want without having to do the hard work. They then assume an 'authority' backed up by their bully force (which they pay from the profits of those they have so coerced/bullied etc.). This is the Might of Right, the Right of Law and so forth. What might they what to achieve? It is certainly not for the benefit of mankind. It only gives satisfaction to their own self needs and wants. All of this is calculated (unconsciously, subconsciously or consciously) to make everyone else unhappy. Thus they wage wars upon others to perpetrate their myths (and greeds) and make more unhappiness. Unhappy people need to make others (not perhaps unhappy) unhappy. This, for a short time only, makes them happy. The bible is very (I might say) is often used against people for the purposes of power and control by those whoseem to need power and control. Many people believe and have faith in this book, written as it may have been by those who want/ed to share their knowlege and experiences and dreams with others to the common good. Such a book as the I Ching is not. Both books (I am not saying that they are contradictory!) may be used for certain ends; however, one is used for power and control, the other has no such pretentions. Have you ever heard of a confrontation between peoples over the I Ching? My major concern is that of the control of one human by another, for/by whatever reasons they may choose. Who can we believe? Truths are properties of beliefs. They are personal and although they might be shared with others this is only inferential knowledge for them. They should not be foisted onto others for our own greed (which is what it is). We can only believe what our senses tell us. However, these senses can be modified by either biological processes (modifications by direct experience or malfunction) or direct control by another being (some form of' brain-washing' or whatever word you want to call it). Given that Man has the capability of communicating to other beings using speech, writing and art, these are the forms of communication that are most used and encouraged. They are the tools by which we communicate the feelings that come from our senses. The word 'tools' is critical since they can be used appropriately or not appropriately. Given that large proportions of the general public (i.e. Man) have been subjected to these tools of communication since birth and given that high levels of awareness of these people is suspect, the use of these tools has been to coerce others into believing what these people want. Whether there are any truths, is a matter of non-knowledge, since knowledge comes from personal experiences that we gather from our senses. Belief is a question of personal behaviour, of interpretation of that incoming data and our reactions to it. We can try to force our beliefs onto others but what they believe we can only infer, we can never 'really' know. We have been brought up ('brain-washed') into believing the written word. 'It's in black and white'. Since we have developed a more visual stance, we are strongly led to believe the 'viewing' (that is, pictures, films, videos and so forth). Unless we actually sense our world for ourselves, we can only infer what others think, say or do. Any knowledge that comes from other beings, therefore, can only be inferred unless we have directly experienced it (sensed it). I believe (sic!) that a belief (a truth to us as individuals) is wordless. It evokes a feeling within us. This can only be shared in a truth (not inference) by our behaviours as manifestations of that belief. I feel that this is the same for a faith, whatever that may be and all other qualities for which we have names (or words). This is a matter of contemplation, not the tools of communication. It's a sad truth that words and images can and are manipulated to ends that are mostly negative. Why this has come about is not something that, I believe, is explainable. One of my major criticisms with the Truth is that we have words at all. We have come to polarise words and make certain of them objects and give them capital letters. I refer to such words as Truth, Justice, Right, God, Devil and so forth. Their is Truth so there is Untruth. We have failed to maintain the realisation of the continuum of such words. That is, there is no Truth only truths, no Jusice but justices and so on. Life is a continuum. It is a participle, ongoing, not stagnant. The world is constant change; it is a moving picture, not a single frame. "Answer 'Yes' or 'No'. That is not what happened; it was between 'yes' and 'no'. What we learn (including beliefs, faiths etc.) is gleaned from our sensory mechanisms and the behaviours we learn from those around us. This learning can be manipulated by others and as far as I am concerned this is why the world is such a sad and dangerous place. At the same time as learning, we must not forget (since we have this capacity as human animals) is that we also have an animal nature. As far as I am concerned this is most often the better part of us. For a belief to be of real value to ourselves, it should remain wordless (since the nature of words unnecessarily complicates things (since they must be defined and defining is a personal thing), a feeling that we have that makes us comfortable and happy. A belief is not an emotion, it is a feeling. They are certainly not the same. Prophecies I have a real problem with these. The problem lies with a belief that they have a part to play in our lives. I'm not so sure. Prophecies tend to stagnate life, to stifle change and that things can be changed. The first book of wisdom, the I Ching, is not a book of prophecy, nor does it contain prophetic material. It is, however, used to prophecise. The Runes were originally an alphabet used for various purposes; they now are used mainly for prophecy and divination. The Book of Revelations in the Bible, does, however contain prophecies, so does Nostradamus, the Tarot, Astrological data and all other forms of divination. It seems there is a need for some sort of prophecy or divination for most of us. I certainly am not immune. There is a comfort (and non-comfort) in this 'knowledge'. It's all a question of belief, which is personal. I strongly feel that prophecies and divinations are the work of those who would deem to control others. Controlling others for their own ends gives me (and has always given me since early youth) very bad feelings. Controlling is the very nature of 'authority'. This is always self-assumed unless it is given. It rarely is. I do not believe in the spreading of any 'Word', whatever it is and by whatever methods are chosen. The phrase 'leave me on my own!' comes to mind very strongly, here. If I want to know anything, I will search for it, thank you; and I will find it when the time is correct. Fortunately, I was not 'brain-washed' as a child. I have always been very independent of everyone. This is probably why I am not a very 'social' person. However, I taught myself most of which I know by reading the words of others, being in contact with those persons (who by some miracle I can't and won't explain because I get good feelings about positive magic) have crossed my path. I live to teach non-violence and the ways of the earth as I feel it should be, but not by coercion, I hope by example. World peace If there could be, it would be wonderful, I don't have a problem with that at all. The problem is that until humans start to think for themselves instead of living their lives through some-one/thing else (who doesn't exist, usually), or through prophecies and divinations, or being persuaded, coerced or otherwise 'brain-washed' by the controllers, this can never be. Controllers are never positive. They must be shunned. The choice is yours. You do have a choice, it's called free-will. That free-will is a dynamic. It goes forwards, is change and not stagnation. It is a continuum of spirit, which is the essence of our personal being. Simple Looked upon simply, the world is simple. Back to Basics. Basics are a matter of personal experience and education. If education is defined as a 'learning curve' then we all get education (whatever our circumstances). The world (which we call 'Earth') upon which we live is the one upon which we exhibit our behaviours. Our behaviours are the way in which we react with other creatures. Those behaviours are a direct result of the union of two cells. These two cells retain the data of the original parents (and their ancestors, whomsoever they may be). It is from these that is determined our individual nature and our subsequent behaviours towards them. |
| Return to CONTENTS page |