Delicate, Not Old

Why are old things delicate?

Yet delicate things aren’t old?

Quantum entanglement

What’s constantly entangled?

Time, surely?

No, that’s just tangled.

Delicacy is, entwined tangles.

Delicacy is, constantly aware.

Awareness of meeting it’s match.

Time, that constant match.

Wait…age, you’ll meet your match.

Stop…life, no time to catch.

Is Nothing Something?

Sometimes, I think, there is nothing I can think, that hasn’t been thought before, given my circumstances.

But then again, my circumstances are unique. As are all of ours.

But now particularly.

From what I can see, and from what I have been taught…much of all our circumstances have occurred within the peripheral of, all or nothing.

But now I think, I straddle existence between all and nothing – seeing both and seeing that, it’s not a certainty that it is all or nothing. There’s a whole lot in between.

And seeing that there is stuff in between, is only the beginning of forever. Because there’s more infinity traveling towards nothing, than trying to maintain the journey that you see.

So I have learned, not from myself but from life itself, that we are bound to be drawn to nothing. To want, to learn, to know, more about what nothing is.

It seems nothing, is the thing, I want to know about.

 

 

Seeing, yet Believing

It only matters if I’m looking.

Close my eyes, just me, nothing.
Sometimes, I feel my eyes burning.
They have control that they aren’t yearning.

If I close my eyes, the things they would see, still happen.

Things, without my eyes piercing.

Things, not knowing my eyes be looking.

Having not pierced those things, they be, undetected. Those thoughts continue, undisturbed and unaffected.

And being, having not been affected,        to the world, I beckon.

Waiting for attention.

Charity (revised)

Charity is, a characteristic,

peceived beyond realistic.

Becomes the personality,

with power in reality.

 
Charity, the characteristic,

prevails in those who risk it.

It’s pascal’s Wager, wins always,

for charity, for happy days.

 
But charity, that characteristic,

is born from life’s statistic.

As sure as we’re to suffer,

well, charity is our lover.

 

See when you suffer,

you create, the joy of charity.

And should you find yourself at peace,

’tis not long ’til, some poor soul weeps.

Charity

Charity is, a characteristic,

perceived beyond realistic.

Becomes the personality,

with power in reality.

 

Charity, the characteristic,

prevails in those who risk it.

It’s Pascal’s wager, wins always,

for charity, for happy days.

 

But that what charity does present,

diminishes all it represents.

And that what charity does consist,

glows brighter when the plight persists.

 

And when that plight begins to fade,

it’s so-called truth retreats in shade.

Can’t be true then, that what is right,

is only that what, exists in light.

The Nature of Truth


An idea is the perfect form of the thing it relates to by virtue of its limitations within its truth. This is the pure idea, how it exists theoretically and in isolation.
A true idealist can only be a realist in reality. The idea inevitably unravels within the vastness of other infinitely perfect ideas. It is only when it does not unravel, are you a realist.

Infinity is Relative

img_4144

We’ve complicated infinity as a concept, by definitively pointing out that it never ends. Of course it’s so hard to conceive of ‘it’ never ending, when ‘it’ is nothing.

Infinity is a description of a specific unending pattern. Infinity doesn’t have to amount to one unending pattern, combined of all unending patterns. That doesn’t make sense, because that couldn’t amount to a whole unending pattern. Such a situation would actually be finite because at some point, isolated unending patterns would cease interacting with other infinite unending patterns…and so the whole ends.

Do I move or does the World move?

img_4044

Ain’t it weird how I move and the world does not? Or is it that the world moves, and I do not…?

Internal processing of external movement manifests itself in two ways:
External objects that are not fixed to the earths surface (in a stationary/inert way);
external objects that are fixed to the earth’s surface (in a stationary/inert way).
The former relates to other living entities, man-made machines, gases, liquids etc…
The later relates to what we consider the earth’s surface itself. An earthquake is a good example of when our senses, and survival mechanisms are dumbfounded.

But why do we have the ability to comprehend that things are either moving or they are stationary? My deduction is that, what we think of as moving and not moving, is only true to the extent that our internal alerts are triggered, recognising a difference between ourself and external stimuli.

The things that we recognise as moving, become more recognisable relative to the distance observed over a certain period of time, traveling away or towards ourselves.
Therefore the moving things that we are less able to recognise as moving, are the things that move closer to the movement in which we ourselves are moving.

This recognition of external movement is not really movement and non-movement. It is simply all movement that diverges from the speed at which we are traveling.

And doesn’t this prove existence?
It demonstrates that we are travelling at a certain objective speed, controlled by gravity and other forces which are specific to our external environment. These forces have in turn been determined based on the objective agreement that common observable external things, are moving at an agreed rate.

Everything that does move, to our recognition, is rational based on the common truth of ‘ourselves’. This is mathematics (laws of physics, including theoretical physics).

This common truth can only be the mind. The mind is the thing that recognises, even when it itself is still. Our minds are the things that aren’t moving.

The unmoved mover.

Learning From Mistakes

img_4024

Relates to an objective and, the things that didn’t achieve it.

The objective is not clear but, it certainly is ahead.
Were mistakes, as now believed,
once part of the objective?
So then the certainty of this objective, is certainly part mistake.
Or have I mistaken the objective?
Is this what learning is?

What is learned from each mistake,
does not extinguish learning;
and each mistake and what is learned, exists within that learning.

And what regard we give to learning, composed of each mistake!
Not knowing where we’re going,
except only that we’re learning.

So learning is ahead of us,
made
clearer
by
mistakes.