One
of the delusions that condition our lives is the illusion of Time, which
results in our sense/perception and memorization of continuity, that is, the
continuity of our individual and collective existence. If we accept this widely
spread and powerful, I would say fateful perceptual and cultural
deception—though we mostly do—we will inevitably be troubled (unless we have
some effective alternative or new illusion) by the source of this continuity,
which is interruption. Awareness leads to non-awareness, self to non-self, and
something that has a beginning inevitably has an end. Awareness of
non-awareness evokes associations with the cessation of consciousness and the
subject itself. The origin of linear existence, which starts at point A, is
non-existence that occurs upon reaching point B. Linear perception and
evaluation of one's own existence as well as the existence of the world in
which we are embodied produces a more or less linear constructed memory. The
internal mechanism of consciousness organizes the contents of memory
chronologically, more or less strictly separating elements of dreams from
elements of the so-called waking state. In this process, there is a
differentiation of all those contents that do not fit into the constructed
image of the world and oneself in it. These interruptions of the linear flow,
or discontinuities, are categorized as miracles, fantasies, or hallucinations.
The
feeling of déjà vu is a “delay” of daily consciousness in relation to the
consciousness of the “ethereal” double of a human being. The consciousness
associated with the double is much broader and perceives time/space
differently, compressing it into an omnipresent continuity. This omnipresent
continuity appears as discontinuity to daily consciousness. Everything we (do
not) remember, whether it has happened or will happen, is in some way
accessible to the double consciousness. Hence the belief in fate or the
possibility of predicting it, as knowledge of it is stored precisely in this
dark side of consciousness. The dark side of consciousness is passive but more
complete than the daily one, as it contains not only what is inaccessible to
daily consciousness but also daily consciousness itself. Daily consciousness
contains what it has directly encountered, and sometimes even something that
has surfaced from the dark, double consciousness. Additionally, there is an
entire class of impressions that we mistakenly perceive, which are destined to
be automatically repressed, and when they accidentally resurface, they are
attributed to the so-called subconscious. Linear consciousness forms a rigid
mental structure and psychological profile that is constrained by culturally
imposed boundaries. All this creates the framework of cultural humanity that a
young human being adopts under the immense pressure of adults, the community
(and today, media), which also determines the framework of experiences,
knowledge, and the direction of subsequent “development.” On the other hand,
the presumed higher form of consciousness, which we rarely become aware of,
stands in a kind of superior position in relation to both the dark
consciousness and the daily one. This higher consciousness is the goal of the
work and efforts of many mystics and esotericists, while its reflections and
crystallizations rarely and spontaneously reach ordinary people but are
immediately repressed. In inherited culture, there are no associative patterns
of meaning in which such internal phenomena could be framed.
The
belief that humanity evolves throughout its existence on Earth is an
ideological perspective, as it interprets reality according to the biological
theory that life inherently evolves. Life does develop, that is true, but how
do we know that the human being is evolving? Perhaps it has already reached its
peak in the distant past, and hence we are now witnessing a degenerative trend.
What proponents of this view see as a general condition of the species, natural
development, and progress, is actually a rare and individual process of mature
consciousness. Only some individuals evolve; the majority of human beings do
not. The urban lifestyle has crippled humanity, rendering it incapable of
making decisions. I know this claim contradicts the general belief that
so-called primitive humans were thoughtless individuals immersed in
totemic-animistic communities, and thus not autonomous in their choices and
decisions. This perspective appears through the distorted frameworks of
prevailing contemporary thinking, but it does not mean that modern humans are
fundamentally different from such an image.
Today,
instead of the individual or traditional communities, decisions are made by
institutions. Individuals choose among the available options, and sometimes not
even that much. Democracy is the political expression of this state of
consciousness. We choose between TV channels, political parties, presidential
candidates, sexual partners, vacation offers, bank loans, religious teachings,
and digital packages. This is a mass reduction of people to the level of
so-called Pavlovian reflexes, rather than freedom of choice or the embodiment
of human free will. It is far from the ideal divine state of humanity with
awakened consciousness of its own divinity.
Unfreedom
comes from interaction, through the sweet juice of the Tree of Knowledge.
Unfreedom tastes like the first suckling of mother's milk. Social
manifestations of linear consciousness are reflected in the multitude of
constraints that shape our lives and upbringing. These constraints burden the
individual psyche as well as interpersonal relationships within society or
community. Chains of species, expectations, culture, and socialization,
although imposed, are primarily intended to bind from within, through their
adaptation and acceptance by the individual. In this way, they more intensely
and unscrupulously chafe from within, constraining and limiting the horizons
and perspectives of human consciousness.
People's
conviction in the uninterrupted linear continuity of their individual and
historical intergenerational biological existence reveals or conceals the
spectacular and almost schizophrenic fragility of the very foundations of human
beings and their perceptions. When we add the traits of fatality, transience,
and delusion, the overall impression of the creature called Man is more than
catastrophic. Common sense is ready to oppose the view that existence can be
achieved in a non-linear manner. On the other hand, in its religious and
eschatological projections, the same common sense dreams of eternity, a linear
eternity based on non-linear principles.
From
the perspective of current vulgar chronocentrism, discontinuity in
consciousness and perception, as well as non-linearity in chronology and
inconsistency in the origin of memory content, are symptoms of some pathology,
"mental disturbance," "madness," "psychosis,"
"hallucination," and so on, whereas in the past, they were seen as
"divine signs," "demonic possession," magical influences,
etc. As common sense itself can observe—though it usually notices but does not
delve into the investigation or overlooks the ultimate consequences of such
causality—any change in perception entails a corresponding alteration in the
human form. The greater the discontinuity in consciousness, the more pronounced
and visible the physical changes in the person, up to the point where the
person might disappear or transform into something else before our eyes! If
someone is asleep or in a trance, it is quite obvious. If someone is mad, it
can be seen in their gaze, posture, behavior; but if someone is in a completely
non-linear state of consciousness, it is impossible to detect from the
perspective of linear consciousness. To linear attention, non-linear phenomena
either do not exist or are elusive to standard methods.
The
pillars and markers of common sense are memory and the impression that we
recognize things, events, people, and other living beings around us, as well as
the main principles of reality's functioning (and relationships within it).
This impression is both a product of and a condition for acquiring a certain
security during the exploration and investigation of the world. It is the
foundation of our belief that we exist and that the world exists, and we
acquire this belief through life experience. It is also a result of stabilizing
our attention at a certain level within the bounds set by significant factors
during our being’s interaction with the external world. However, despite this,
the fact that some people greet us when they see us, that we have spent almost
our entire lives with certain people, or that we have memories, mementos,
objects, or photographs, is no proof that we existed yesterday, nor that
"yesterday" ever existed. A true proof that yesterday existed would
mean that we can unequivocally repeat the events of the previous day. This
would be an experimental proof by all standards of the scientific method. This
method, by definition, includes the possibility that someone else, using the
same procedure, would achieve the same result. Can such an experiment be
conducted?
Based
on various testimonies, memories, and indirect evidence, we believe that
yesterday existed (and that we were part of it). Unless something unexpected
has occurred, today everything remains in place as it was yesterday (even if it
is not so, we have the impression of continuity between today and yesterday).
Guided by memory and the impression of continuity of things and events, we
accept yesterday and consequently today, and also tomorrow, without any
hesitation, believing in our individual and collective temporal continuity. If
today is Monday, then yesterday was Sunday, and tomorrow will be Tuesday. We
cannot stop the Earth to prove that it is moving. Based on some purely
perceptual, technical, or technological indicators, we conclude that the Earth
is moving or that the celestial sphere is rotating around it, producing
impressions that our culture categorizes as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and so
on.
Humans
have developed technology to be consistent with millennia of established ways
of perceiving and processing sensory impressions. Thus, technology will, to a
certain extent, serve that purpose—reflecting back to us the projected image of
the universe. Technology has advanced to the point where it has confronted us
with nothingness, both the infinitely small and the incomprehensibly vast. We
have reached a range of knowledge from subatomic particles to immense phenomena
such as galactic clusters or quasars. In both cases, we have faced the concept
of infinity. In practical terms, this infinity has no utilitarian value. We
cannot practically reach anywhere, but we have faith that we will be able to do
so someday. However, who will be able to do that? Which "we"? And
what does it have to do with us here and now? It means nothing to us here and
now. Through the forces of cultural determinism, we create our collective (and
thus individual) cultural and civilizational reality. We believe in what we
have created solely based on our perceptual and emotional impressions, on the
habits we have formed in relation to it, and on the objects and environments
that surround or serve us. If that is the case, then why shouldn’t our linear
and continuous existence be just one of many variations and modalities of
existence?
The
perspectives of the unspeakable horror and the grandeur of cosmic solitude are
quite certain. For many people, the mere thought that being alone in the
universe as the only being, as the only thing that truly exists, can be
disturbing. Despite all possible counterarguments, I insist that this is indeed
the truth. Each of us is entirely alone in the entire universe. From this
perspective, the universe is hell, but it can also be paradise, or none of
those things, depending entirely on ourselves, more precisely on how we handle
the fact of cosmic solitude. If seekers of truth are not ready, unwilling, or
unable to confront cosmic solitude, complete solitude, then truth is not for
them. Many find it unacceptable to claim that the human species is the only
intelligent one in the universe. How, then, can one bear the perspective in
which some average human being is the sole inhabitant of the universe? It is
unbearable if we think of ourselves as individuals with all our daily traits,
virtues, and flaws.
Even
if the fact of cosmic solitude may not be true, there are at least two moments
in life that confirm the cosmic solitude of our being: birth and death. Each of
us comes into this world alone and departs alone, each for oneself, regardless
of the fact that many other human beings are dying or being born at the same
time. This does not affect the stark reality that birth and death are
experienced in the most individual manner. No one else can accompany us in
those dramatic moments, even if they share the same fate. These two events are
fundamental when the world shows its true face. Unfortunately, people mostly
forget prenatal and birth experiences, while experiences of dying are usually
not reported by anyone, unless it involves a near-death experience, which does
not provide a complete picture. In this way, the true face of the world remains
hidden from the vast majority of living people, leading us to question what the
reasons for such fateful deceit might be.
We are alone in the universe, unique and unrepeatable. We find ourselves in the grasp of an incomprehensible force that intends to obliterate us by subtly leading us to believe that we have a self that is connected to the undeniable fact that we individually and collectively exist. It will make us believe that we exist in a linear and continuous manner, thus leading us to reconcile with the origin of continuity and linearity, which is the end. We will believe that we are truly horrified by cosmic absolute solitude and that our life's drama unfolds according to the laws of Destiny or Chance (or perhaps some hybrid category), in any case, due to the necessity of some higher power to which we ultimately cannot resist. If all this is the result of accepting the stance that we are, then a viable alternative lies in the stance that we are not, nor is anyone else. What makes us to be, indeed, has nothing to do with our ideas about ourselves or others. If we say that we are not, it does not mean that we deny ourselves or any of our properties, but rather signifies that we have taken the first step toward establishing new foundations on which we are, certainly in a different way that transcends our current conditioning.
Each of us knows in some way that everything we perceive does not always have to appear as it does, nor is the essence of things and phenomena only in what we see or what we have learned through upbringing and education, and thus formed an opinion about. Everything we see has the potential to take on a different configuration or modality. The line between reality and illusion, existence and non-existence, is thin, while many barriers in the realm of existence are almost insurmountable. Consequently, the gap between logical and moral categories, or values, is not so profound. These categories are relative, as they depend on human choice, taste, understanding, mood, fashion, interest, tradition, inertia. Since they are also defined as absolute, these categories are simultaneously extremely relative. In other words: Truth, Lie, Good, Evil, Justice, etc., challenge reality. They do not belong here, and every human effort to make them come to life in reality is futile and inadequate. In our world, there are only their shadows or reflections. Human nature itself does not want them, while paradoxically, people believe that their adherence to these principles is what makes them human rather than beasts. The gap between these opposing principles does not exist in this world, and if it does, it is extremely relative. It is more likely that there is a gap between this world and all these categories and principles together, while the gap between them themselves may be in some other and entirely different world (or it may not exist anywhere). In any case, their world is not this world.
