Notes from the article by Brandon West in Wakingtimes, April 2014

  • Time i just a construct of the universe to keep everything from happening all at once.”  — John Archibald Wheeler.
  • But what if everything IS happening all at once?  Moreover, what if there is no time at all?
  • How can the universe be static and unchanging — when our every experience is of change?
  • The predictions of the equations that are generally accepted by the scientific establishment suggest both that time is an illusion, and that the universe is in fact static.
  • What we perceive as motion is really due to the fact that reality is flashing in and out of existence at a high frequency and that creation is actually disappearing and reappearing, oscillating between form and formlessness at the quantum level innumerable times every second giving the appearance of motion.
  • Therefore, technically things do not move in this universe at all, but appear and disappear in slightly different patterns giving the appearance of motion.  It is not the unified field itself that is blinking, only that which we perceive as solid matter – i.e. particles, nuclei, sub-atomic particles, and the material world.
  • So, on the quantum theoretical level of reality, there really is no motion, but a flashing in and out of existence of creation, yet from our level it appears like fluid motion.  Just like the people on our television screen are not actually moving, but it is the little pixels which flash on and off in coordination with one another so it looks like motion.
  • If we perceive the universe from the level of the unified field, imagine that the unified field contains everything, and that all of creation and all of the past and future is holographically encoded within the unified field, and that all exists simultaneously, encoded within the structure of the vacuum.
  • In other words, creation arose out of this unified field in the form of subatomic particles, particles, atoms, and electrons, and nuclei, which are all just a form of condensed energy — formless energy condensed into form as the universe flashes in and out of existence, but nothing is solid.
  • Einstein said:  “What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses.  There is no matter.”
  • All reality, all time, and all motion is merely the result of consciousness in motion.  
  • There is no motion in the physical world.  This has been proven to us by quantum physicists when they discovered that reality is flashing in and out of existence.  There are only holographic images which change as the consciousness expands and contracts into itself.
  • What if the flow of the unified field within the universe is itself the mechanism which causes reality to flash in and out of existence, and moreover which determines the flow of time?  This means also that all consciousness is an extension of universal consciousness — the unified field — and that as the unified field expands and contracts all other consciousness is brought along for the ride.
  • All of creation and all activity in creation is the result o consciousness interacting within consciousness, creating consciousness, and only because we all share a common consensus of reality (for the most part) does time arise at all on our planet.
  • The unified field:  the unified field is the vacuum structure which is theoretically expanding and collapsing through Nassim Haramein’s black whole dynamics, but it is not technically moving. 
  • It is my contention that all of time is the result of the rotation of consciousness at the level of the unified field, and that tie is completely relative determined by its own perceptual location and scalar dimension (level of consciousness) with which it observes reality from.
  • What we call time is an arbitrary division of the cycles we are experiencing based off of the cyclical rate of change that we are experiencing on this level of reality.
  • In other words, it is merely a matter of perception.  If we were in a void there would be no time because not only would there be no cycles to gauge time by, but there would be no objects to determine motion with. 
  • The unified field, which is consciousness, is expanding and contracting, and because we are that consciousness incarnated in a slightly denser level of reality, in the classical world, we can view that change.
  • Einstein:  “Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it.  Match the frequency of the reality that you want and you cannot help but get that reality.  It can be no other way.  This is not philosophy, this is physics.”
  • Everything has consciousness because everything is  consciousness.
  • At the level of the unified field which all emanates from we are all infinite consciousness. 
  • What all consciousness does is radiate (create) and then ove back towards itself through creation.
  • The universe is an infinite hologram, and we are just passing through and the image appears to be changing, but it is not.  We are just seeing what was encoded all along as we eternally shift our perspective.
  • Between your thoughts is a silence which is the unified field. 
  • Nothing new is created, for it is already present within the field. 








Nothngness“Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed. ”  –  Blaise Pascal

  • To understand anything, as Aristotle argued, we must understand what it is not, and Nothingness is the ultimate opposition to any thing.
  • To understand matter, said the ancient Greeks, we must understand the “void”, or the absence of matter.  Indeed, in the fifth century B.C., Leucippus argued that without the void there could be no motion because there would be no empty spaces for matter to move into.
  • Nothingness is a relative concept. We cannot conceive of anything that has no relation to the material things, thoughts, and condidtions of our existence.
  • The void does not exist.  Every cubic centimeter of space in the universe, no matter how empty it seems, is actually a chaotic circus of fluctuating fields and particles flickering in and out of existence on the subatomic scale.  Thus, at the material level, there is no such thing as Nothingness.
  • The mental sensations we experience as consciousness and thought are purely material consequences of the purely material electrical and chemical interactions between neurons, which in turn are simply assemblages of atoms.  And when we die, this special assemblage disassembles.

Each of us is a temporary assemblage of atoms, not more and not less.  We are all on the verge of material disassemblage and dissolution.

Alan Lightman is a physicist, novelist, and professor of the practice of the humanities at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

The Novel Is Dead – Notes of Note

This is from the 2014 Richard Hillary Memorial Lecture,  Oxford, given by Will Self.

NovelIn Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan writes about what he terms the “unified electrical field”.  This manifestation of technology allows people to “hold” and “release” information at a distance;  it provides for the instantaneous two-way transmission of data; and it radically transforms the relationship between producers and consumers — or, if you prefer, writers and readers.

  • In the late 20th century, a culture typified by a consumerist ethic was convinced that it — that we — could have it all.  This “having it all” was even ascribed its own cultural era:  the postmodern.   We weren’t overtaken by new technologies, we simply took what we wanted from them, and collaged these fragments together, using the styles and modes of the past as a framework of ironic distancing:  hence the primacy of the message was reasserted over its medium.
  • The literary critic Robert Adams observed that if postmodernism was to be regarded as a genuine cultural era, then it made modernism itself a strangely abbreviated one.
  • If — as many seem keen to assert — postmodernism has already run its course, then what should we say has replaced it, post-postmodernism, perhaps?
  • The crisis registered in the novel form in the early 1900s continues apace.  The use of montage for transition; the telescoping of fictional characters into their streams of consciousness;  the abandonment of the omniscient narrator; the inability to suspend disbelief in the artificialities of plot.
  • So it was with the novel:  we may not have known altogether how to mae it novel again, but we knew it couldn’t go the way of Hollywood.  Now film, too, is losing its narrative hegemony, and so the novel is also in ineluctable decline.
  • The new media:  the web was there to provide instant literalism:  the work of the imagination, which needs must be fanciful, was at a few keystrokes reduced to factualism.
  • In the conflict between the medium and the message, in the long run it’s always the medium that wins.
  • Novelists who cannot make a living from their work become teachers of creative writing.
  • Teaching creative writing:  getting paid for the midwifery of stillborn novels.
  • Facebook links embedded in  digitised texts encourage readers to ‘share’ their insights, writing and reading have become the solitary acts of social beings.   And we all know how social beings tend to regard solitary acts — as perversities, if not outright perversions.
  • The current resistance of a lot of the literate public to difficulty in the form [the novel] is only a subconscious response to having a moribund message pushed at them.


Dark matterSometimes the world seems terribly stupid.  Sometimes its me that is the black hole of stupidity.    Sometimes I meet folks whose brains are where stupid goes to die,  the intelligence killing fields,   the elephant graveyard of common sense.

Full disclosure:  I totally stole my headline from a book title by Mike Robinson.  I have no shame.




Got This One in Your Philosophy, Horatio? Pataphysics for the Masses

pirate_5 In 1948, a collective of avant-garde writers and artists set up the College de ‘Pataphysique.   In 1975, they decided to go underground as an experiment in survival.  In 2000, they re-emerged and today have about 1,000 members, Umberto Eco among them.  Go read this article,  and then go read this novella,  Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, by Jorge Luis Borges,  and come back and we’ll talk.

Andrew Hugill tells us that pataphysics is

the science of imaginary solutions and the laws governing exceptions.  Resisting clear definition, purposefully useless, and almost impossible to understand, ‘pataphysics nevertheless lies around the roots of Absurdism, Dada, futurism, surrealism, situationism, and other key cultural developments of the twentieth century.

When dealing with pataphysics, we tiptoe between between the twin dangers of oversimplifying a serious subject and taking a joke too seriously,  because this really is a serious concept.  It is something of an offshoot of Absurdism.

But what the heck is pataphysics, really?  You will be thrilled to know there are over one hundred definitions.  I will try to bunch them together like a nosegay, a collection that contains all different varieties, but its result is one unified item.  (See what I did there?)

Works within the pataphysical tradition tend to focus on the processes of their creation, and elements of chance or arbitrary choices are frequently key in those processes. Select pieces from the artist Marcel Duchamp and the composer John Cage characterize this.    In addition, it can be found  in speculative computer applications applied to highly imaginative problem solving methods.  Who knew!

In writing, a pataphor essentially describes two degrees of separation from reality (rather than merely one degree of separation, which is the world of metaphors and metaphysics). The pataphor functions as a critical tool, describing the world of “assumptions based on assumptions”, such as belief systems or rhetoric run amok.

A pataphor is not the traditional metaphor, but rather a set of metaphors built upon an initial metaphor, obscuring its own origin rather than reiterating the same analogy in myriad ways.

Still with me?    So, whereas a metaphor is the comparison of a real object or event with a seemingly unrelated subject in order to emphasize the similarities between the two, the pataphor uses the newly created metaphorical similarity as a reality on which to base itself. In going beyond  the original idea, the pataphor seeks to describe a new and separate world, in which an idea or aspect has taken on a life of its own.

And where did this nifty word come from?  From a French writer named Alfred Jarey, back around the turn of the century. .. the LAST century.  It is a contracted formation, derived from the Greek epi meta ta physika, which means  “that which is above metaphysics”.

Whew.  Glad we go that all cleared up.


9jamhippo-3_180516Two Egyptian kings were having an argument.  The Hyksos King Apophis was pissed because King Seknere was keeping his pet hippopotamus in a moat, and it made too much noise. 

Well, instead of doing what Mexicans have surreptitiously been doing here for years about the neighbors’ barking dogs,  which is poisoning the dogs,  King Apophis sent King Seknere some nasty letters demanding surcease.  Pffft to you, replied King Seknere.  So, natch, King Apophis took offense, and took to arms and killed Seknere.

In case you are thinking I made this up,  the mummy of Seknere has been found, and it is clear he died naturally — from naturally dying when his head was hacked open with an axe.

Big wars start with little grievances. 


Ireland, Snakes, and St. Patrick

Driving the Snakes Did you know that not only are there no snakes in Ireland, there never were?   Neither are there moles, several species of bats, many bird species, and innumerable insect species.   Wanna know why?  It’s because Ireland is actually fairly small.  One law of ecology is the more land, the more species, the more diversity.

Present day Ireland was assembled largely after the glaciers of the Last Ice Age retreated.    So that means all the wildlife that is there got there by migration.  So anybody with wings or who could swim, could take a shot at the Emerald Isle.  Which pretty much leaves out snakes.  Hard to do the back stroke with no arms.  Or legs.

The legend about Saint Patrick probably came about as Christianity made its way pub-ward, pushing out the early Celtic pagan beliefs.  And one of those beliefs was a matriarchal religion, and  the snake is a representation of the Triple Goddess in the pre-Celtic culture.  When the patriarchal and warrior-like people became dominant, the symbol of the serpent was crushed. So Saint Patrick served also as a symbol of the crushing of the serpent, as the Druids and their culture was crushed.

The Druids associated the serpent with the sun.  They represented the creation and the universe by a serpent in a circle, sometimes by an egg (the cosmic egg) coming out of the mouth of the serpent.  You know who else did that?  The Phoenicians and the Egyptians.

Saint Patrick was not a unique reptile repeller.  There is a whole history of heroes defeating serpents, snakes and dragons, starting with the Greek, Herakles.   We just cleaned up the details and assigned the role to poor Patrick, who was just trying to do his job in the fifth century,  in this clash of the two cultures.






In Aeon Magazine,  Donald Hine writes about the glut of information available to us, and about how our society always has its nose in a device of some kind of device in an effort to access that information.  He asks:

“Exactly what is it that we are looking for?”

What, indeed.

I know what we are looking for.  Not salvation.  Not nurture.  Not power.  We are collectors.  Amassers.  Acquirers.  Everybody has something that they collect.  Ask on any social network what people collect, and it will be your most popular post, with responses longer than a roll of toilet paper.  Not only do we collect, we like to tell what we collect, and talk about what we collect.

And some of us collect information.  Knowledge  Facts. Trivia.  Oddments of data.  But just as our other collections,  a collection of information can be boring.  Because, as with any other collection, what can you do with it except look at it.   Does it affect your life in some way, other than taking up space?

We collect stuff thinking somehow it will give our lives meaning.  But meaning is hard to come by. In order to create meaning out of our collection, we have to create a narrative from it, stories which help us make sense of it.   That’s why we like to talk about our Elvis memorabilia collection, our navel lint collection, our toilet seat art collection, our barf bags collection, to make sense of why we have this collection.

So, too, with our collection of information.  What is there to do with it, except talk about it?

As Hine says, “There is only so much information any of us can bear,  and we cannot go fishing in the stream if we are drowning in it.”   There are only so many artisanal beer bottles we can collect before they all become worthless and meaningless.   Our collections reach a tipping point where they are beyond talking about.   They simply exist.

So what do you collect?

Here Ya Go, Hon. Enjoy.

Image I’m not quite sure why, but I heartily dislike when a waitress, or waiter for that matter, plops my food down in front of me and says, “Here ya go, hon.  Enjoy.”    Boy, does that grate on my nerves.

In the first place, “Enjoy!”  is not a complete sentence.  It is lazy speak for ‘I hope that you enjoy your meal.’    Oh, and please don’t call me ‘Hon’.  I’m not your
‘hon’.  I am somebody else’s hon.  You, miss/mrs/mr waitperson, may call me ‘Ma’am’.   Or ‘Your Majesty’ if you are more comfortable with that.

Here in my Mexican city, they say, “Aqui tiene.”   (Here you have [it]).  Sigh.    And they call you ‘hija’ or ‘hijo’ [daughter or son].  I have been called ‘hija’ by people less than half my age.  The proper address here in Sunny Mexico is ‘Señora’ or ‘Señor, which if they are trying to practice their English they will translate to Mrs. or Mr.   And it sounds very strange, because of course, Mr. or Mrs. is not a stand alone title, as it is in Mexico.   I have a neighbor, a genial young man,  who generally addresses me as “Mrs. Señora.”

So the correct thing for a Mexican waitperson to say  when presenting your food, is “Buen provecho, Señora.”  Which is the Spanish equivalent of ‘Enjoy your meal, ma’am.’

I wonder why the service industry in the USA has gotten so casual.  Even in rather nice, upper level restaurants, you are liable to encounter the perky ‘Enjoy!’, as if every waitperson were a campy gay person in wait garb.

And while I am whining, I might as well whine about the cheery immediate faux friendship with one’s waitperson.  “Hi,” they’ll chirp.  “My name is Dashiell Salmon and I’ll be your waiter/waitress for the evening.”   OK.  Fine. Now that we’re BFF, can I order?

Whereupon comes the long recited list of specials.  I have to confess, I have the memory of a gnat, so when they get to oh, say, the third item, I have forgotten the first two.  So I usually ask if they have it written for my perusal.  Usually, no, like it makes it more unique a menu offering if it is off menu, only in their bouncy cheery heads.

What a sucky way to have to make a living.  Being all spunky and upbeat all the time even when you feel like the bottom of a bird cage.  I know.  I’ve done that.  I did it back when I was perky and upbeat and 18 years old and it seemed like a great way to make a buck.  I can remember working with other women in their forties and fifties and praying that that would not ever be me, that I would have worked out a way to live life so that in my middle years I didn’t have to deal with ‘the public’.   I find people are really really nice for the most part.  However, the public are beasts.  Vile and cruel.  And not just because I forgot the drawn butter with the lobster.  Just that anonymous people have forgotten their souls.  We all need to remember our souls when we intermingle with the madding crowd.  Because if each of us remembers our own soul, we can then be reminded that everyone else out there owns a soul, too, and it should never be stomped on by our or anyone else’s size 8 galoshes.

So, anyway, don’t call me ‘hon’ and don’t tell me to ‘Enjoy!’   Because that will ensure that I won’t.

Have a nice day.




The sunlight is stronger here, high up in the mountains of Mexico, in what is known as the Central Highlands.  It makes me squint, makes it impossible to read outside, even in the shade, although I have tried countless times.  Maybe it is the lack of pollution, or the thinness of the atmosphere.  It can burn my skin in less than 15 minutes, and it has given me a permanent red nose because of my lack of consistency with the sun screen.

It is strong enough that you can grow most plants under shade if there is sunlight just beyond the shade.  And if you use an opaque plexiglass kind of roof over your patio, everything will grow and bloom and not burn to a crisp.

My cactus plants are thriving.  I can’t keep them in large enough pots before they need transplanting again to something bigger.  They bloom.  They spread out.  They, of course, are meant for this high desert atmosphere.  Even in our chilly winters, they grow.  And bloom.

James Thurber once said, “There are two kinds of light – the glow that illumines, and the glare that obscures.”   We have here the glare, the glare that obscures by its very brightness, but it is also a glare that welcomes bright colors.

Mexico is a land of bright colors.  The bright light here saturates them and makes even the most garish of them look just right.  Reds, eggers-julie-steep-hill-with-colorful-houses-guanajuato-mexicooranges, yellows, rusts, turquoises, pinks, blues, whites, all show their cheery best in this bright glare, under the clear blue sky.

When it is cloudy here, the bright houses look drab in spite of their charming painted exteriors.  We need the sun to bring out the finest palette.

“The light is all.”   Ralph Waldo Emerson said that.  He was right.

I leave you with this thought:

Ever since we crawled out of that primordial slime, that’s been our unifying cry, “More light.” Sunlight. Torchlight. Candlelight. Neon, incandescent lights that banish the darkness from our caves to illuminate our roads, the insides of our refrigerators. Big floods for the night games at Soldier’s Field. Little tiny flashlights for those books we read under the covers when we’re supposed to be asleep.

Light is more than watts and footcandles. Light is metaphor. Light is knowledge, light is life, light is light.
~ Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider

Even a small star shines in the darkness.