June 25, 2012
We live in a world of versions of information (or programs, tunnels, reality art) where there appears an inclination to express our individual versions of reality. Could this be because of a seemingly primordial pattern among all intelligence–of a requirement for progression/transition in order to keep from seeing That–Nietzsche’s Void, the Gateless Gate, the feedback loop serpent? Can (a primordial version of) the motive for anything at all be to avoid staring into a blank canvas apathy?
In my visionary states, I have experienced entities that seemed to have nearly represented whole universes or reality tunnels (to use Robert Anton Wilson’s term). The entities, such as those mentioned by Terence Mckenna, gleefully dive into ones being in order to allow the experience of a novel, yet momentary reality program. The astral space may then feel like an endless free trade zone–an astral museum, a matrix, a crystal kingdom (crystals being associated with information storage). In being there, perhaps one inadvertently represents ones own reality tunnel as an art piece.
Though even at the level of our everyday reality, the trade game appears just as prevalent. Instead of abstract entities representing universes, there are individuals representing versions of their personal lives–be it subpersonalities, roles (vocational, parental, etc.), morals, traditions, etc. And every moment, an individual is a momentary information package begging to be opened by somebody else lest the package expires. The death archetype here then appears to be essential, so as to keep the drive for attachment to the various reality models so that they can be shared. This process of information sharing can be viewed as a level of love–expansion/integration (or illusion thereof) of information.
Because everybody appears to have the drive for such a process, the more receptive (whether it be lover to lover or commercial producer to consumer) appears to get all sorts of doors to open. The mere expression of ones willing cup nature/reciprocity (granted, likely dependent upon on the cup’s value or illusion thereof) is like the sweetest daisy to the bee. From all directions, people will buzz you in on their reality models much like Mckenna’s entities. The more one is buzzed in, the more the inventory of information builds so that one can package ones own unique package for others to experience.
Perhaps we should view these packages as gifts, for they will manifest gifts in return. Perhaps we should further open the imagination trade so that our world resembles more of a playground than a feedback loop-reminiscent machine. Perhaps this very integration of reality expression (or illusion thereof) is (a primordial version of?) love’s nature. If so, let’s put some love out there to make the world a more vibrant, less tedious-looking canvas. Be receptive. Be humble. Play the field?