What if
Ultimate truth was not infinite dimensions--not infinite possibilities, or an experience beyond our own, but in fact entirely one dimensional, entirely a point in a scale: a point in the center. The place in which all is contained and all comes from, all time, all beings, all experience, built on the singular purpose of all.
From this single point radiates everything. From the beginning of a thought, from the spark that has no name and cannot be traced begins a spider web that goes infinately--goes forever, but it is not a line. It is not a circle, or a sphere, because wherever it goes, it comes back to itself, because whatever it begins, begins something else--and that same thing begins at the same place, because all beginnings come from a middle, an end, a decision, a consciousness, everything comes from everything.
So instead of imagining the infinite possibilities, what if, in fact, the infinite was the singular. And to reach beyond what we can experience, we must not see the world in many dimensions, but as one dimension, from which all things flow. The point contains the line, contains the plane, contains the cube--contains the cube as it moves through time, as it begins, exists, and ends. And instead of wishing to see the future, you see not the future but the is, the reality, and the truth that all is contained together.
....
And it made more sense when I began to write it. Now it sounds quite buddhist. I just finished watching the segment of B5 when they send Sinclair back in time, to create all that they have been working to preserve: their civilizations. And it occurred to me that, of course, for the point of the story--all catalysts originated in the same place. (The central point of the show.) And while all these things appeared to be different agents in the show, in the middle of the show, you are suddenly told that the great savior of 1000 years ago is not a historical figure, but a character in the story who has been there all the time. And so the story completes itself. You see all facets of the story at once, beginning from one place, but always returning to that place--because although Sinclair goes back to become the figure that saved civilization 1,000 years ago, he must be born again, to live in his own time, to learn what he learns, and then to go back and save the world, of course. He is trapped in time forever. Existing forever. As a child I could never wrap my mind about that concept. To be born again, as you, after you died, and to know that you must go through these things, again and again. Uniting past and present and future. To begin in the present and do what you must for the past *and* the future.
Which made me think, well, of course that is convenient for the story: in a story, all has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The story begins with the characters, and they proceed through their story, save the world, and whatever. In this case, they originate together, and then filter out into the thousands of places where they must go to make the story a reality. Nothing is untouched by that beginning, but the irony of the story is that it's own structure causes it to double back on itself: causes the *purpose* of the story to be the history of the story.
Forever, it has been clear that nothing can live without the thing next to it. We cannot live without the air we breath, or the food that we eat, or the people that we love. But (at least to me, perhaps, I am late on learning this particular facet of existance) why do we have to begin with what what we are without the things that make us? Why must we begin as seperate entitles, dependent on each other? Instead of beginning as a part of the system, why do we not begin as the system? Just as we are a unique creation of organs, cells, and functions, so are our lives a unique creation of experiences, realities, and perceptions. An infinite amount of things touch us to create us--but do we in fact stand alone? Does our infinity make us unique, or true? I think I am speaking about dependent-co-arising, the buddhist idea that nothing has a pure essence, because all influences it--but I am extrapolating, I think, on the idea that all that is is in fact pure essence--because all exists within one point. All is one dimensional, and infinite in the center. One-ness never ends. If you cut one in half forever, you will never find nothing. If multiply one forever, you will never reach the end.
And if one thing was that central point, well, than it would have to be Existence. Perhaps we are not existing, perhaps we are existence--as everything else is existence. And existence together? The point itself, stripped of all of it's facets into simply the reality that things exist? Well, I would almost say that it is a backwards ontological argument: it is, instead of the greatest of every thing, the least of everything. The beginning of everything. The very basis for which everything is. The point itself would have to be god--but I'll leave it uncapitalized. It would not be a proper thing. It would not be a thing that needs reverence, because reverence exists within it.
From this single point radiates everything. From the beginning of a thought, from the spark that has no name and cannot be traced begins a spider web that goes infinately--goes forever, but it is not a line. It is not a circle, or a sphere, because wherever it goes, it comes back to itself, because whatever it begins, begins something else--and that same thing begins at the same place, because all beginnings come from a middle, an end, a decision, a consciousness, everything comes from everything.
So instead of imagining the infinite possibilities, what if, in fact, the infinite was the singular. And to reach beyond what we can experience, we must not see the world in many dimensions, but as one dimension, from which all things flow. The point contains the line, contains the plane, contains the cube--contains the cube as it moves through time, as it begins, exists, and ends. And instead of wishing to see the future, you see not the future but the is, the reality, and the truth that all is contained together.
....
And it made more sense when I began to write it. Now it sounds quite buddhist. I just finished watching the segment of B5 when they send Sinclair back in time, to create all that they have been working to preserve: their civilizations. And it occurred to me that, of course, for the point of the story--all catalysts originated in the same place. (The central point of the show.) And while all these things appeared to be different agents in the show, in the middle of the show, you are suddenly told that the great savior of 1000 years ago is not a historical figure, but a character in the story who has been there all the time. And so the story completes itself. You see all facets of the story at once, beginning from one place, but always returning to that place--because although Sinclair goes back to become the figure that saved civilization 1,000 years ago, he must be born again, to live in his own time, to learn what he learns, and then to go back and save the world, of course. He is trapped in time forever. Existing forever. As a child I could never wrap my mind about that concept. To be born again, as you, after you died, and to know that you must go through these things, again and again. Uniting past and present and future. To begin in the present and do what you must for the past *and* the future.
Which made me think, well, of course that is convenient for the story: in a story, all has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The story begins with the characters, and they proceed through their story, save the world, and whatever. In this case, they originate together, and then filter out into the thousands of places where they must go to make the story a reality. Nothing is untouched by that beginning, but the irony of the story is that it's own structure causes it to double back on itself: causes the *purpose* of the story to be the history of the story.
Forever, it has been clear that nothing can live without the thing next to it. We cannot live without the air we breath, or the food that we eat, or the people that we love. But (at least to me, perhaps, I am late on learning this particular facet of existance) why do we have to begin with what what we are without the things that make us? Why must we begin as seperate entitles, dependent on each other? Instead of beginning as a part of the system, why do we not begin as the system? Just as we are a unique creation of organs, cells, and functions, so are our lives a unique creation of experiences, realities, and perceptions. An infinite amount of things touch us to create us--but do we in fact stand alone? Does our infinity make us unique, or true? I think I am speaking about dependent-co-arising, the buddhist idea that nothing has a pure essence, because all influences it--but I am extrapolating, I think, on the idea that all that is is in fact pure essence--because all exists within one point. All is one dimensional, and infinite in the center. One-ness never ends. If you cut one in half forever, you will never find nothing. If multiply one forever, you will never reach the end.
And if one thing was that central point, well, than it would have to be Existence. Perhaps we are not existing, perhaps we are existence--as everything else is existence. And existence together? The point itself, stripped of all of it's facets into simply the reality that things exist? Well, I would almost say that it is a backwards ontological argument: it is, instead of the greatest of every thing, the least of everything. The beginning of everything. The very basis for which everything is. The point itself would have to be god--but I'll leave it uncapitalized. It would not be a proper thing. It would not be a thing that needs reverence, because reverence exists within it.