​

IN ADVANCE, I MUST ASK YOU TO WAIT PATIENTLY TO GO WITH ME TO                                                                    

"WONDERLAND," AS WHEN WRITING ABOUT A RABBIT HOLE, I HAD TO

OPEN ONE OF MY OWN - AND THAT, TO GET TO THE POINT....

 

                                     ***This essay is never under edit, but has been labeled as "Under Edit" for several years until a time should arrive when                                            its social value is relevant.  The Time Has Come -- if it is not clear to the reader, this site is a site of predictions.  The                                                  writing specific to this page is just curiosity set free to ask and wonder -- nothing more.  It is, however, under erasure.

​

                                              Curiouser and Curiouser...... will you take this literally, or figuratively?  2 words to the one who moves on to "raten"...  RABBIT HOLE

    

 

 

To begin with...

​

Where will language carry us away to, either now, or eventually, if we will only allow it to? Should we allow it to? Is it not certain, that words are like magic; do sentences of sorts not build images in our brains that carry us away from the earth to lands that we just know, simply do not exist? Is there an awaited list of sentences that are not convoluted and chaotic from the cantankerous ego’s wish to be involved? Do people read anymore, or do they wish to see the T.V. behind the words? Are books not subtitles for the imagination? Is prose not the poetry of the people’s need for leaders – poetry: the soul led by the words written under every blade of grass in nature, and some upon the backside of the sun? Where, if not when, will language ever carry us away – or have not some written that the Word is indeed coming to take us away?

​

It appears clear, that is to say, not before eyes, rather, to the essence of the man or woman who stands before the ontological (the universe as it seems), that in their being, neither of which being clouded by asking something as deluded as – “are we really here” – capable of sensing what reality truly is and why it is. It becomes more pertinent (in the moment of realization) that we are indeed present – time, not having its way with the mind which is fragmented and conscious of its involvement with “consciousness”, as something wholly independent of the individual in time, and its many dimensions. So much so, if fact, that the one who is cognizant of his particular presence can speak liberally from what is essential of him; not why, not to what extent, not even where or when, but rather, how are any of us here? The simple answer is, yes – we are indeed “here” – though, once again, to ponder just how that is, is a matter of extreme importance. To expand your consciousness is a matter of simple vocabulary expansion; for all matter is merely a consequence of having spoken: what other than words are ever voiced? So, too, is your reality (not your existence) the result of your own thoughts, all of which are words, even if only a matter of having recollected the imagery of the words overwritten in the canvases of your imaginations. Reality is a plethora of palimpsests!

​

If nature is not full of moments of undeniable sensations of departure of the mind from reality as we know it, which is to say, how because of seeing, we do sense it, then whether or not we are, or are not, is a question that only the blind as a body of essences should be able to put forth morally, having not eyes, but being told almost daily by the lot of humanity that exists in the “seeing community,” that they “see things,” if not anything. Those things would naturally be all things, and those things are perceived by “the blind” as having one sense in deficit to the remainder of human kind who would dare ponder – “are we really here?” THE AUDACITY! Such is an intellectual intrusion of great and staggering proportions when the blind are present with them so as to hear (and perhaps better than they who have sight -- my own conversations with a blind student revealed that she does not hear better, but rather, she is forced to pay closer attention, and therefore, hears more) the bravado and blasphemy imposed upon they who have not their “sight.” If there is a sixth sense, the blind may as well retort --

 

“Not only does reality feel real to me, but my third eye imagines that if this is not real, then you are to me little more than a product of my own, as well as every other blind soul’s imagination – you see, you are less real to me, and for all I know you may be a voice in my mind. For you to ask whether art we, why, or whether or not you are the truly blind one between we who sense on any level that existence is not, is not merely just absurd, but certainly insults my intelligence: moreover, it is an insult to your very own level of intelligence – having eyes to see, yet acting as though you were blind to what you face. I have no way of knowing whether a fool looks a particular way, or why a fool would remain a fool, but I doubt not that you look unlike me in spite of your very human characteristic – deafness! It is because you sound like a fool that I see at all, and due to that you must look different, so that with seeing available to you, you can make distinctions. Are we here? Can you not make that distinction, or are you merely blind to the thought that you query in ere, and fail, in the moment you say that you are sure that you are here, but not how? Distinct of me, you are “third eye blind!”

​

The nature of language has become so convoluted that our need for approbation is rampant – it seems that a philosophy of rambling is what has been the last 3 centuries’ core tenet. Of all their common ground, none is more far reaching in acreage of circumlocution, and hectares of hermeneutical heresy, folly and plain difficulty in being to the point – even the long sentence can tell a deal more when the words work toward a point that one does truly – understand! But regarding consciousness, I am afraid that why there have been so many failures in describing what that elusive idea is, is simply because the terms of description of the thing describing cannot be reduced, or, deconstructed since consciousness depends a large part upon similarities between cultures’ developing, while simultaneously, there are people who recognize this, and the similarities of development amidst them. The great misfortune is that whilst there are many who recognize this to be so, they are blind only internally to the very importance of how this affects our understanding of what consciousness is – it is an art of the blind that sees the wholly inward looking gaze.  Peering inward, it sees its origin, its center, and thus passes through it only to move outward from it to move back in the direction that it came (from every conceivable direction).  The gaze moves out from center toward center from center ad anfinitum.  The blind, seeing all as one, define all they see (what they cannot describe having nothing to defer to to compare it with - it is no difference - it is all) by all they hear in its simultaneity...their sight as sound, the infinite inward looking gaze of mind undistracted from its purview, the seeing do see, but do not see seeing.  The simultaneity of seeing and hearing distract them from seeing seeing.  The blind only defer to that which guides them - their voice, their words, or word(s) per se.

​

Many who see, do not “see seeing,” just as anyone who senses in any way, does not know that they are capable of, or that at any moment, they may have or eventually “sense sensing.” The phenomenon, when it does occur, is what gives rise to the nature of the quest of consciousness to begin with, which is, not “why did I have that magnanimous feeling, but how of all times possible did that just occur?” But it is a thing to be remarked upon, so as to address that without an address - the thing called “consciousness”. One must first become aware that he has met it eye to eye for but a second so as to ponder at all – “What was that? Did that not just occur, and what was it?” – so as to formulate a better grasp on the essence of humans, who are those that stop to reflect on the meaning of being – and they are understood as alone in that particular style of reflection, as they are the only ones who can define the nature of their existence in terms other than survival alone, by both speaking, and writing. To a lion, one may speculate as to whether the words (assuming for the sake of argument that such beasts have an internal dialogue at all) “my being is eating, and I am here to eat, though I am not sure why I sleep, but it occurs to me on occasion to do so, and I obey.” Unlike the lion, humans are aware of why they eat and sleep, not simply that they do, but without judgment as to the “why.” There are more activities that are similar to the lion (between their “culture” and ours) that humans alone have the capacity to understand, but dissimilarly, there are actions that are supremely human that mammals such as lions will hopefully never awaken – thankfully, they either cannot, or have not yet! For all of our ability to think and reason, it is still unclear why, if one should stop to ask, “why,” rightly, humans as thinking and reasoning creatures also wish to wage war? But the lion, seeing to itself that it is here, cannot be convoluted by a verbal internal discourse, since it does not, nor can it defy its understanding, albeit a very basic one, of why it is here:  to EAT, never asking:  "To eat, or not to eat?" -- though to a great extent one's, being, even the lion's, is contingent upon consumption. That the lion should ever develop such a clever mind as to ask beyond why it is here, it may decide to develop a religion amongst lions, begin to breed for different, unnatural purposes, and hunt, kill and eat we bipeds: not merely for food, but for playing a much more active role in destroying its habitat while the sentient Homo Sapien simultaneously infringes upon its very own habitat.

 

But do we bipeds really make distinctions between habitats such as, “Ours, and theirs?” Knowing that the lion is here to eat raw flesh, what keeps it from willfully leaving its own habitat for something as defenseless as humans, who are, too, defenseless against their own capacity to reason either “this,” or “that: defenseless against their own devices?” What if the metaphor became the status quo, and the lion presumed that it is indeed – “king of the jungle?” Mankind has only strayed so far from its domain physically, and we are within reason, which is to say, not beyond an army of lions’ and lioness’ reach – should they ever begin to reason thusly. But I should say that in spite of this speculation that, such an infringement will obviously never come to pass. From the start, the point was why these powerful creatures never seem to live beyond their speculations, if they have any, in contrast with the powerful minds given to homo sapiens, who can stop and behave as though they were engaged in deep, cognitive reverie so as to inquire – “What is the meaning of all this?” There is to we humans the distinction that language, in an evolutionary sense, establishes a dilemma that may well have sprung up into our consciousness as being only a matter of time before we would see that we are sensing that some, “Other,” sensed, and senses with or without our involvement – lions, in spite of their (OS) program for being (survival), do not involve themselves with the exterior beyond what is within them (by design?) and strike down the destroyers. Perhaps that, too, is only a matter of time, and perhaps consciousness is simply “patience,” as its sole characteristic state of being, merely awaiting its being made what we are most aware of before it can reveal more to us who are aware that there seems to be something pervading the very fabric of existence – that consciousness is conscious, and therefore, what is real and seeing: the Lion awaiting man and woman to sense the king within the queen within the king. For the lion has not pounced upon the whole of humanity – yet! Unlike the lion, we reach beyond our own, to own Others, others and their own. Into the lion’s den we walk blindly with opened eyes, and we are treading upon thin ice, humans! I will explain this soon…

​

But to reiterate a key tenet mentioned before about the approbations (the need for approval is human, that a gaze may look and love, worship or adore the created, the creatures or become The Gaze) that are what may be rightly called “run-a-muck,” in that we allow them to “slide,” never-minding this, or that – to rightly critique a good portion of the philosophers of the past is to refuse them the dignity of critiquing them on the grounds of their sentences being far too cultish to consider – I.e., they were meant for their contemporaries to pretend as though they understood what was being said well enough to argue back – ultimately the lot of the debaters leaves the den of “thinkers” no more edified than they would be if they went to hear a crowd of lions roar! That alone says enough, but to push that image a step further, not only would the lions be far more easily understood, they would have had the better argument in devouring both the philosophers’ themselves, as well as their lack of reason! Ironically, it is this lack of reason that led them to the lions to begin with. In their defense of their own council, they each and every one roared in pretense as being the ontologically superior creatures – they who clearly know they are here, and why – amidst a group of “philosophers” who arrived in the kings’ courts and can’t begin to answer how that happened. But that is, I’m afraid, where mankind is truly headed. Strangely, into a lion’s den of what consciousness is, but without a steady approach into that, “yet to be charted” domain: I am compelled to state that without faith, one is a fool to dare to go there. Whether the atheist is ready, or even willing to admit it, the proper deduction is to announce with “pride,” that God is consciousness – and at this point in time more than ever, it seems to be a question that Consciousness is begging us to ask – “what truly is consciousness?” So then, who is God, other than a particular Lion into whose territory we are, with the help of the sciences, daring to venture, and coming devilishly close to discovering!

​

Right off hand, the task of grasping the elusive wonder of what the essence of reality is, is easily approached from the starting point of there being an “Original” infinite mind to begin with, and for that matter – to end. It would be unfair to determine that such a mind (the sort of mind that many ascribe to God) cannot be rightly anthropomorphized by humans to some allowable extent by “it” – and we have, calling “it,” (God) “He” for centuries. Metaphorically, we have called God many things, so one must stop to wonder if it is cruel to ascribe to that sort of mind human characteristics at all, when again, off hand, one and many have likened God unto the aforementioned beast: a lion; that is, an animal that by virtue of our current level of awareness, humans are tempted to think that it thinks less than humans. (Supposing this to be true is to suggest an inherent truth to something that is omniscient since it knows all things – deductively, one may ask, “how can it think?”

​

[***Consciousness must thereof be known only as “knowing”]) But God is to be likened unto some thing (an idea at best), so then, the better attributes of humanity may be justly ascribed, as could those of a lion who says – “I eat to survive” – how could an omnipotent thing have wants, that is, other than for other entities to survive those things that are not of “it?” When uttered in this context, it makes the virtue of the lion its very own economic approach to living in its surroundings so that its habitat is not diminished – a more eternal, supernal mind, could only be perfectly economical, bound to itself, in itself by LAW, being LAW unto itself. In contrast, that is, with men, who when eating, often indulge in themselves and are to the many, encroaching upon their own survival by being so glutinous – ironically, killing their own organism by infesting their bodies with too much of what was merely only necessary to begin with, and championed by its being decidedly too good to do without more, and that, only for the sake of more. In saying any or all of this, it was never my intention to stray from the topic at hand – consciousness – and become overtly theological, rather, to merely state what appears to my blind being, to be a consciousness that preceded us. It is conscious of substance, having made it all, and needs it only by virtue of its own desire to salvage, if any, only some who will reflect its nature, knowing what they need to survive, and by what. To one of humanity’s many “gods,” who called his self (where self is essence, and essential), “the bread of life,” this assertion comes into focus. Humanity, being of him/it (being comprised partly of spirit) implies that our only “real” need is to be conscious of its provision beyond our desire – God provided his desire to supplant our own desires.

​

​

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT STEMS FROM THE NOTION THAT IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS “KNOWING,” THEN KNOWLEDGE THAT COMES AFTER THE FACT, SUGGESTS THAT A FACT MUST HAVE ONE TO DECIDE UPON ITS BEING FACTUAL. IF TO KNOW SOMETHING DOES NOT IMPLY THAT IT (THE THING KNOWN) IS A FACT, THEN REALITY CANNOT BE EITHER – EPISTEMOLOGICALLY, FACTS CANNOT FOLLOW THE FICTITIOUS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A FACT THAT FICTION EXISTS. IF GOD, THEREFORE, IS A HUMAN FANTASY, HE DOES THEN EXIST EVEN AS A PIECE OF FICTION. HOWEVER, THAT THERE ARE PRECEDENT FACTS BY WHICH THINGS ARE KNOWN, SOMETHING HAD TO CONSTRUCT THE FACT THAT IT MAY BE DISCOVERED, ULTIMATELY COME TO BE DEEMED FACTUAL, AND THEN ACTED UPON TO EVOKE CHANGE.

​

***By the very essence of that statement’s implications, there is indeed a God, and we are awakening to it for a profound reason; a reason that begs the question – if God is eternal, there is no need for HIM or IT to change, so why is it now apparent that what mortals are endeavoring seems to stem from something that perhaps only HE or IT could awaken us to – ITS or HIS being? Its being, being – knowing. Is that better asked as, His or Its nature – and is that not perhaps due to that Being’s compassion? It raises, too, the notion that as a beginning of all things in itself, in which lies the nature of life’s ultimate meaning, that an end is ever more close than ever. A beginning, being GOD, being “discovered” by laboratory approaches, could only react with certain volatility, even hostility, since infinity as a concept, paired side by side with zero, cannot be contained – or, it cannot allow itself to be by virtue of its being LAW. If in a vacuum another vacuum is placed, what would be its grand purpose other than to be exceedingly vacuous? Can all knowledge and all knowing be reduced to non-existent? If so, then there can be no facts. Modern knowledge points to the idea that the most ever-present matter is in fact, the emptiness of space, in and of itself, behaving more like matter than what we have traditionally referred to as material “stuff.” Regarding this, “stuff,” there can always be more within it, and more even still until measurement of it is defined as “absurd,” and at 10^-24, locality is lost, and singularity becomes the reality. Where then, is the center of everything, or even the edge of nothingness?

​

Humans have for long investigated the meaning of life, and philosophies are not lacking who say that it has, or that it has not meaning independent of what the individual makes of it. But to ask, “what is consciousness,” cannot be faced with escapist mentalities so as to avoid the underlying quality of its ever-present quantity – yes, with humans there is consciousness and ever-steepening degrees of unconsciousness, but language denotes a peculiarity that is hinged upon the precipice that now unfolds amidst the phenomenological, ensuing as a final philosophy to end all philosophies, if not a final chapter in some great book where the beginning is the end, and vice versa. Yet some will attempt to deconstruct the matter of even why humans find it apropos to even wade into the subject of consciousness. All attempts at this would, necessarily, have to deconstruct this phenomenon as far back as time itself to ask when a human being became conscious of himself on any level.  It could be said that the remainder of the animal kingdom still awaits a day that it also thinks about thinking, or asks why it bothers to do any such a thing;  it is clear to me, and perhaps many others, that much of our thinking has either been thrown by others out because it was in fact, “correct thinking,” or that for all of our thinking, it has (to date) done little more for the whole of humanity than to put him in a greater state of unease and disrepute – thinking, as it were, has too, led to unproductive trends.   

 

That we are aware of such a thing as consciousness is by no means a step away from God as consciousness in and upon the evolutionary trail of tears! Rather, as a scientific field of research, it has perhaps brought us closer to the great divide’s being peered across to see, somehow, that there is a Creator out there, if not everywhere. But if seeing becomes believing, what then will become of “faith,” without which it is said, “It is impossible to please God.” Again, we are wading into a minefield! The very concept of “The Void” being seen could only pull seeing into it as well. Let me say this again – THE VOID, from which all things stem and by which all is possible, includes seeing as one of its major possibilities. Seeing, seeing, must by virtue of its own LAW to allow for seeing to be, must too, retract all seeing from having been discovered as the source of seeing. This follows the notion that the Holy Bible puts forth that “…no man has seen God, and yet lived…” While it is certain to me that God has truthfully been perceived, I feel equally certain that to see God, is to simultaneously know God. Again, the Holy Bible asserts that, “When we see Him, we shall be like Him.” Eternal? Yes, perhaps so, but how are we who have not faith judged for removing the veil that is His to lift – AND WE HEAR BY THE SAME BOOK, THAT REMOVING THE VEIL IS PRECISELY WHAT HE DID! Some works, it seems to follow, are his alone to manifest. Science, or, knowledge of God, is thereby understood as being His to give to whomever HE WILL, and not ours to uncover: the sin of Canaan. Meaning then, as the beginning and the end, and not ours to decide independent of the only conceptually real – individual.

​

Again, society seems to be faced with the onslaught of awakening, but a bit arbitrarily. That we are now more than ever more conscious of what is taking place globally, should indeed awaken a sense that we are seeing, seeing – we witness the rise and fall, birth and death, generation and regeneration of so many age old qualities, “these days,” at a pace that is beyond any other era in human history, that the phenomenon of awakening mortals should in a sense, or to some extent, come as no surprise. However, it is not to be taken for granted, which is to put forth that for such an occurrence of mankind to begin to sense that consciousness can be glimpsed, he should be more frightened than he is. It appears to me, that is, regarding my intuition of the very nature of the topic as to what consciousness is, that its arrival into the mainstream, cross-cultural dialectic as a matter to be dealt with either scientifically, or philosophically, that it should, too, be dealt with cautiously! Whether one believes in the existence of God, seems to some extent, ineffectual really, though it does on some very disconcerting level, appeal to my sense that there is, after all, something quite sacred and holy – numinous – lurking like a shadow that is ready now, for some reason, to reveal itself. This should be seen now as a paradox, that is, since it is also being sought under surgical pretexts. Having said that, we have not arbitrarily stumbled upon this phenomenon, though something about who we are as a species seems instead, to have awakened it to a cause that is independent of us, though I am certain that IT, would like very much to share ITS grandeur with us – how we treat this new concept is of the utmost relevance, to speak “generally.”

When the universe began, one may wonder intelligently how the fabric of time spanned from some then, certain center, although now, we are not aware that the particular center spoken of was specific, and no doubt, a singularity – but whether it was a singularity of consciousness is no trifling matter! Every ounce of energy in the universe was present at the occurrence of the Big Bang, or in the revered moment of its being voiced, which I say due to there being an upheld and believed in, “six days of creation.” That it can be said with confidence that this singular event stored and released such a great quantity of energy, leaves only room for conjecture as to whether or not time contained that energy in parenthesis for future occurrences that were once yet to unfurl, or whether it happened all at once – a twinkling of an eye, as it were. In parenthesis, meaning, that at the beginning – BANG – did time instantaneously arrive, or did time unravel only after there was coincidentally, separate consciousness of its coming into form from the void? Either “yes,” or, “yes.” Since God as a concept is understood as being eternal, time was to IT, subsequent, but also precedent – and that is a phenomenological paradox if ever there was. I.e., time followed eternity, constructively speaking, but philosophically, it is strangely the oddest of non-sequiturs: what could time possibly have to do with eternity, and how can it be relative on any level, since eternity encompasses the form of time. It is both before, and after, so why not, too, in it’s very midst? IT MUST BE! Again, in parenthesis, time with respect to consciousness can only be deemed in durations whose lengths are “days” if there is someone to whom the duration was meaningful by virtue of time being meaningful to it. How is time pertinent with regard to a being for whom time bears no consequence, though, its sequence follows its incidental presence? Can God, therefore, determine a day prior to a life form, for that life form; or is a day only consequential? There would by this reasoning, have had to have been a presence for whom a day is effectual, since it is also understood that time is not relative to an eternal mind, evidenced by the deduction made through the Holy Bible that to the God of the Jews, “A day is to the LORD, a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day.” It literally means that to a figure not bound in time, but the creator of it, there is no influence upon Its being. But to answer the question put forth as to whether time was instantaneous, alludes to the modern notion of there being a continuum of it. If so, only by virtue of time being instantaneous to the one whom its duration has no direct impact so as to change its nature. The answer then, as stated before is – YES, it was instantaneous, and YES, co-incidentally. Perhaps the only co-incidence: there was someone present to whom time was capable of impacting – CHRIST. He who is the beginning, witnessed the creation as creator, simultaneously, He witnessed his own death, and resurrection. I am not extending theological tenets as much as I am the nature of the paradoxical aspects of the Biblical creation account. It simply astounds me, that is, how consciousness seems to need knowledge of all things, even human life, for human life to be. I.e., God could not create humans unless He had ever been one, or ever would have become one. For Him, it would matter not when, rather, that He will have ever been in the flesh at all for time to occur, for there to have ever been a consciousness of it at all, since consciousness is knowing, and since to know something, it has to be experienced. The meaning of Life then, is Christ. All meaning independent of Him, can not be.

In another way – have we all been here since then, and only at that time, unto its end, which evidently, now makes itself known as we are curious enough to explore what being is (being conscious of Consciousness)? What is time to Consciousness? Should one consider that when the organism (the human body) that contains the energy that makes us alive is faced with the precarious vulnerability of sleep, it awakens as though no time has passed at all?

I mention this because it is irresponsible to have a philosophy of consciousness that cannot consider what its relationship is to the qualia of the human sleep-dream as a psychic reality, that does not apply the virtues of the mind in its most hyperactive state, to the time to which we ascribe that there is consciousness of consciousness. Like the singularity that we call the beginning, when time was perhaps much more complex, the body, when most vulnerable and in a natural state that is much closer to what we understand death to be (since the human organism slows down measurably) – eyes have not meaning in a dream, and images are as real, if not more real than when they are simply seen while awake. The body is not more necessary but less, far less than when awake, though just as engaged, if not more engaged with the nature of the universe than at any other time. How then can one explain the sense of having taken flight when he has never been so far above the ground? Consciousness then, seems to have included a primer long ago as to how to avoid the trap of the corporeal, so as to establish sensitivity to hyperspace, and hyper-real states of perception that can rightly be concluded as equally real, if not more so! Sight is not a requisite of determining what is present when consciousness is approached as a scientific field of study, when to begin with, one must engage rationally and initially that consciousness is purely, and most distinctly, pertaining to its attributes, anything but tangible. Real, but not so as to be examined, which is where the bastardization of a thing becomes probable, and that highly so – to call Consciousness the deity that many have long believed in still leaves it the deserved room to decide for both IT, and us, just what it is. Flight, in so far as dreams are concerned, seems to be more like a gift to teach us to let go of the Laws of the universe as being what is real, most real or even acceptable. If God, or Consciousness is anything with certainty, it is beyond “sacred” regarding our limited scope of vision (which is only durational) into what “sacred” could possibly be. It is clearer to humans, what holiness and sacredness is not, and it may need to remain that way. There is in time, the common occurrence of déjà vu, an inexplicable sense that something has been done “before,” and it may have been. In an eternal sense, what was thought from there was experienced at that moment without distance between the event and the thought (without duration). The dream then, as “visitation-esque”, but in parenthesis: no time has passed to the mind from laying down to rising up! So then, déjà vu as the recollection of the dream-life from before the incarnation of this energy: this energy that we all really are. The visitation, as it were, and for lack of a better term – time travel – an escape from the corporeal to revisit our origin where LAW alone applies, independent of the Laws of the universe which often take precedence, and errantly so. A way, if you will, of being reminded of our subsequence to the Beginning and of where our true home lies – eternity.

As said before, like a lion, it is not for us to invade its respective territory, as it is certain to have the skill to have any one of us in its own way, for its own delight. By metaphorical assertion alone, it is clear, too, that should man take down the Lion, the Lion must only allow it to be so, and to some, it is understood to be just how it would die, if at all. Somehow it seems much more strange that the singularity as an idea, would not remain in a grave. But it seems to be necessarily so contrived in the Holy Scriptures, that such a Mind, such Consciousness, being the source of all energy, could by no means die by virtue of what IT is, and what IT has always been and will be - eternal. But how great to be at the brink of an era that will look more deeply, and more qualitatively into what this idea of consciousness is, less quantitatively, since “in Him, all things consist.” The blind, which when they lead the blind, are said to fall into the ditch. It is strange how as of late, it has become apparent on variations of planes how the blind are able to navigate quite well, even in urban environments without the assistance of those who “can see.” It raises the question, at least to me, as to whether there are some who will be tempted to believe that because they see, they see seeing for what seeing is at all. What’s more, it leads me to believe that many who see, still have no idea that the ditch was dug for themselves, by themselves – The Grave.

But allow me to make a strange leap from such a gift to how the mind defeats its demons, but know that this is but an interpretation of the mind’s imagery making prowess, and a decoding of its thick, dream symbolism.

As Alice was able to annunciate what Carroll could only imagine, was she, or the entity Carroll falling through the proverbial Rabbit Hole, made only proverbial by the writing’s meaningful inscription? Carroll made no leap or bound from anything other than the experiential – whether by psilocybin or DMT, one may never know unless Carroll’s comprehensive history is disclosed – coming into the body writing. Carroll, not “I” in his own fantasia, expresses the phenomenological nature of the

sub-conscious’ voice, only able to build or construct such a fantastic hallucination by either the excited hypothalamus’ dream state of operation or the previous conjectures’ effects – neither of which, linguistically, are mild, both of which, however, are linguistic. An infant child may dream, but it is very unlikely that until the child can comprehend and tell of that dream that it can recall it, since memory is to a large extent attached to the brain’s capacity to describe what it sees. As it learns what it sees, it is because it can speak of the seeing, and the indescribable eludes recollection. Carroll’s small girl is all the more unique, as it is a young girl who is not only the story’s third person investigation, but also the omniscient author’s description as to who a hero is – was this his ultimate fantasy, the ultimate fantasy of the narrative, or every young girl’s fantasy? For perhaps this is a query that the feminist body must now occupy space and time on, for it appears that the underlying essence is that for this to be the case, it must also be a considerable hallucination. But as it has been said, in the realm of dreams the laws of the universe do not apply, whereas the savior of mankind and his miniscule consciousness is the scene of the woman, wherein his masculinity had nothing to do with the salvation of either the fantasies of men, or his ego-masculinity. He did say that, “something greater than Solomon is here.” Did his genderless speech carry great weight so as to suggest that a kingdom not of this world (time) has nothing to do with gender, as it is written in another place, that “in heaven, people will be like the angels where there is neither marrying ,nor giving in marriage.” NO – Carroll’s introduction of a female, much less a very young one, has nothing to do with fantasy, but everything to do with that which is considerably MORE REAL! Hyper-real, as in, hyperspace, where the dimensional attributes of this time/space domain are of no consequence! The dream reigns true; the mind the major muscle group of eternity!

Alice, popular for having said –“Curiouser and curiouser,” where having said that one learns immediately that new words must be invented, or age old models of how one ought speak must be forgotten to describe that which is for our conscious minds, inconceivable! No doubt that Carroll knew well that “curiouser and curiouser” were, to begin with, misspelled, yet ironically, even his intentional misspelling seems to have been overlooked as being necessary to convey the elucidated thoughts of a young girl. Again, sex has nothing to do with it, but the one who spoke, “curiouser and curiouser” was not the omniscient Author – or was it? Even the omniscient Author seems unscathed so as to correct her grammar as a sidebar comment – the author becomes the audience, who must intuit that her perception required such revision of the English language – for it is doubtful that the readers of Carroll’s fantasia have ever stopped to say, “I refuse to read further since Alice is clearly an idiot who cannot speak properly.” NO – the audience is infused with the author (Carroll) who dies in their beholding, and along with Carroll, they too, depart from correcting what needs no correction. One does not stop to either punish the young girl as a schoolmarm might, but in the moment of becoming Carol, they too, become Alice – so too, is Consciousness.

Curiouser and curiouser, the reader as dreamer is able to identify with the mystique of the mind and travel along with her, though had Alice ever stopped to say – “I could not help to utter the words, curiouser and curiouser,” suspension of disbelief may have been lost in the moment that the subject “I” robbed the audience of the rightful moment of saying – “I too, have been there, Alice!” To describe a dream is often eroded in the telling of it in the first person. The narrative of a dream is only evocative from the standpoint where YOU, as the subject dreaming, have the voice of, “I,” present in its midst, or in the active moment of reliving the dream. To take an audience into a dream is not to assume that you have a role in their dream, but to alleviate the audience from the “I” who seeks to overwrite the listener of the realm to which we have all ventured, and perhaps as ONE. Carroll fails to subjugate the audience to his self by inserting the “I” as Author, who needs no gender to have a voice, nor does the reader need the sense of their own gender to become Alice in themselves, as themselves; “Alice as Allen,” who have only one significance, which is the expectation for yet another hero to come along to save the day with his masculinity, not merely a mind separated from a body, but a nonbiased audience who can become grafted into the being, Alice – a despotic rewrite of what is considered and upheld as “the self.” Both male and female insert their essence into the role, neither of which is concerned with their gender by the time the villain is relinquished of her tyrant rule. Herein, Carroll’s phenomenological realm, a Queen of Hearts, no less, who is too, defeated by a young girl. Had a young boy contributed to the death of a villainous Woman-King, its interpretation would transform from heroin or heathen – “Young boy seeks to destroy the tyrant of all men’s wounded and broken hearts; oh, the indignity of chauvinism and masculine sexism!” – thus read the front pages…

Curiouser still, and perhaps more curious than before, is that Carroll depicts a dreamscape in which he assumes the accepted frustrations of woman herself, lo, even those of a young girl who is perhaps best interpreted as pre-pubescent. Why insert himself into such a peculiar, if not difficult to imagine, literary moment of having to assume the prescribed character traits of a youthful dreamer – Alice; that is, unless of course it was always only his perception of such an innocence being precisely that which could put an end to tyranny. Carroll imparts upon his omniscient author the knowledge of what is required in a land whose protagonists are the ones who are conceived by traditional standards as “mad,” who men like Montaigne could not separate such qualities from their genius. The “Hatter,” mad as he might have been, somehow the only one who could perceive, along with Blake, something inorganic and far superior than gender traits, so as to endure Alice, to suffer her femininity, and see her as a victorious Messiah of Wonderland. The mad, who parted ways with culture, adopted a woman as victorious, and benefitted her by assisting Alice with otherworldly, creative capacities of redefining reality. In the dream, the young girl was not only assisted by the mad men, and other talking creatures, but was in alliance with they who were out of their minds, and gave her trust to something other than the established order – the “Other” becomes a power that shares with the undervalued young girl, not even yet a mature woman, still, able to reign supreme. What did Carol see in women, and why emasculate his self, unless he knew what lied in women – great faith.

No matter how curious, it is not important that we deconstruct the qualities of the dream world of Alice, and Carroll’s tale of feminine triumph over what they are commonly considered – Queens of Hearts – defiant as this wicked woman may have necessarily been for Alice to have had a formidable foe to defeat; still, she is the product of Alice’s sub-conscious mind, and therefore, a probable future Alice. How, though, unless early on in her youth, what Alice was subject to become in her conscious life by virtue of what she lived amidst culturally, she killed in her own consciousness at a level that she had not yet visited in time. But what role did her eyes play in the external truth of Carroll’s vision, other than a young girl with a fascination for bunnies who chased a furry creature deep into a forest (the mind) in an attempt to catch it – perhaps to cuddle it – and when on her hunt, she fell asleep at the base of a tree (consciousness) where the rabbit disappeared. The loss of her elusive prey of sorts exhausted her, and she laid beneath the tree to rest and she fell victim to the overwhelming sense that sleep might replenish her depleted energies. Curious, is it not, that we go closer to death in search of life sustaining resurgences of energy? Curiouser perhaps; Alice’s dream is little more than a depiction of the bourgeois home she fled from in search of nature, or, what is natural – a real and more vivid dream. For even Alice’s mother may suffice the proletariat needs of the young girl who throughout time has been defined before she had her own choice to discover who, and what she is. The life left behind in pursuit of a rabbit, a rabbit we have all chased – some to successful ends where we learn who we are, even if only in “mere dreams.” After all, they may mean nothing, I must concede. Maybe Alice did only want the simple pleasure associated with catching what is elusive, but is that not just like so many of our dreams – both waking, and dreaming? Escape is, too, a dream worthy of our esteemed consideration, once considered what is to be outran. For it was in her sleep, as a rational interpretation of where Alice might have actually ventured, that she defeated the menacing queen of hearts. But it is in fairness that one might well conclude, that the Woman-King she defeated was the latent homosexuality of her wife-abusing, tyrannical cross-dressing father who she killed, thus, the dream remains but a fantasy, if not an allegorical disclosure of the history of the man, Carroll himself.

But I dare not believe impossible things, since it is doubtful that a young girl would be the savior of a chided class of tea-drinkers, unless of course they were against noon itself being the only time for tea – a cultural order, that is. For why can’t tea be timeless, is that not a noteworthy dream?

Awe then, may just be the manner in which we seek to peer around the veil of reality, but I think better of such a thing as awe. It comes not from altering one’s perception, but from relying upon the natural order of things to reveal it in its own due time. Sleep, in itself, may make manifest what one has always wanted, and we close our eyes to go therein; we go to the actual realm of sleep to awaken where the true desire is before our one eye, though often what is wanted is depictive information – seeing as an act of being, rendering what is awaited to be understood as our highest of integral desires – integrations of need to supplant all of our natural wanting with information that pushes us toward our deepest waking needs. Strangely, it should appear to all who are ready to recognize that they have entered a sleep induced trance in which the imagination is so heavily involved with the psyche so as to produce imagery that is also capable of resting in the region of the human brain, that our memory is able to recollect the dream – memory plays a role in learning, which one must remember: memory plays that role, and the role of bringing fond feelings to the fore of perceived “time.” The universe, in and of itself, is riddled with imagery that is capable of producing awe, but the technological evolution of the human race, that new realm, virtual in its primary enterprise, has interjected the language of the universe into its own subjective parameters, thus injecting the human collective psyche with manifestations of the universe’s imagery simultaneously with its own – data, then, becomes the primary locale of one’s thought: and, yes, data needs a location since information must be stored. To an all knowing entity, data is not locale, but locale is the entity itself, so much so, that data is too the entity – it makes no deductions, but many inductions. Saying so is to suggest that data is a thing, tangible, united to all other bits of information, and data cannot be unless it operates as a stream. Just as a river, broad or narrow, whose source leads to the lowest possible point in a topiary sense datum (the earth in this case), where the ocean is a final resting place – so, too, is data – start/stop and linking with other streams, rivers and creeks around the globe. There is then, no gap between “begin and end,” and there is no back of the two (beginning or ending) that does not connect with the other. Like the dream that comes true, so, too, must the imagery of “Other” mind’s installments of its manifestations of language. For instance, that which is “alien,” has for long, simply been virtually anything considerably foreign to any culture. For long, but not always – like a river that begins from a spring and flows to a sea, unknown at some point in time was the rain. Alien, as the story goes, and the product of the grotesqueries of some “culture:” also capable of producing, and reproducing the facets of the flowing stream of information. Evaporation is overlooked as a source of new streams of consciousness, as it is not seen, but understood by perception. Again, that which is alien is by now only an idea that is suffered by the world’s remnant tribal communities. Alien is better described as a lowly state gone missing, and welcomed with its enchanting enigma. Perhaps that is why I see these things a great deal of the time - www.brandontart.com , then again, what else would I do with all this time but alienate myself from my own thoughts so that I can listen to the universe say over and over again: "LET THERE BE LIGHT" to begin with.