Dear Friends,
Click the link to access the links.
http://theheavystuff.com/?p=88
Be Well.
David
0November 30, 2010
The Possible Phenomenology of Fortean Events and Anomalous Realities - Part One
One of the favorite topics of The Heavy Stuff (THS) is wondering about `impossible Fortean events’ such as this post last August (2008) “Beyond Weird, Beyond Impossible - Means Fortean” http://theheavystuff.com/?p=84. And, in the posting, I touched upon `how’ such events might occur. Specifically, the phenomenology process that I call The Phillips Phenomenology.
Phenomenology, as many of you are aware, is the ontological process - step by step - in having a REAL event occur to an observer; such as a human being. And, as you know, generally the subject of phenomenology isn’t even mentioned when talking or hypothesizing about `reality’ - indeed, in this day and age, quantum mechanics is the preferred way of `explaining things’.
Even, paranormal things and events.
And, since QM is so obtuse and beyond the understanding of 99% of all folks - few people really even try to understand the inherent nature of reality - as presented by some of this eras best minds.
But, phenomenology is different; as it looks at the real basic building blocks of reality from a different perspective. Indeed, you can find the basic building blocks in any of the works of Sartre or Husserl. However, even these great thinkers and writers are challenged to explain reality fully with their perspectives and interests. (Such as Sartre’s interest in applying `values’ and such to phenomenology.)
Which brings us to the Phillips Phenomenology - more of which can be found (first four posts) on THS’s Phenomenology Blog found at http://whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com. (I’ve had a fifth post in the bin so to speak for a year `about space’ - which I hope to provide soon.)
The Phillips Phenomenology attempts to describe reality in the most basic and simple manner possible; and, specifically `defines’ (in simple terms) what a description of `space’ - `time’ and `consciousness’ might BE in layman terms - with `simple’ concepts (even if the concepts seem counter-intuitive at moments). So, let us begin.
When embarking on the task of commenting about reality, the first thing to say is that normal reality events are nearly incomprehensible and wonderous - as such is a valid description of the `endless creation’ before our eyes that humans are asked to comprehend. Indeed, we are beings on a planet that is not only rotating quickly, but which also is in orbit around a sun at a very significant speed; whose sun is also in orbit around a galaxy - again, at a very significant speed, and that same galaxy (The Milky Way) is also in motion within a localized area of the universe - also at a very very significant speed.
Indeed, when all these `speeds’ and motions are `added up’ — each of the humans on Earth are moving at a tremendous rate - something that is almost never considered by human beings.
But, regardless of that, all of the spaces within our immediate proximity are `traveling at the same rate’ - which somehow - translates - into us humans NOT seeing any of this motion of our body; except in immediate relation to `things near us’.
Indeed, our reality, humans reality, could hardly seem more stable and real and tangible - despite a `reality structure’ that `provides a new instant of experience’ instantaneously and continuously.
Yet, to provide that real and tangible - denies access to the actual past, and requires spaces to `actualize location’.
All we as humans seem to really understand is that THIS moment BECOMES the past (joining with all the other previous experiences) and that we already are IN a new PRESENT. You may want to read that sentence again.
Indeed, this mystical structure is part of our most basic assumptions about being a human with self consciousness . The structure itself is part of our very beingness.
ALL of the `spaces’ near us (the computer, a flower, a spouse) have the same exact process/structure `occur’ to them too. Indeed, much is true about the statement `go with the flow’. Permanence seems to be NOWHERE except with the structure itself.
Only the way the structure `forms the NOW’ is permanent. (Isn’t it strange that the only permanence is the `disappearing instantaneousness’ of things?)
This `disappearing instantaneousness’ of things will be an important concept to understand if one is to appreciate this phenomenology of Phillips - which is built on specific understandings of `things’- as being `spaces’.
And, any Phenomenology must have a `sense’ of beginning and a `flow’ from `there’ (the beginning point(s)). So, are you ready dear reader to take a mind trip?
Interestingly, with the Phillips Phenomenology (PP - from now onward in this post) - one can explain `reality’ from the `end perception’ as easily as from tracing the `beginning’. Also, it just turns out, the `end perception’ is built on an easy to remember and understand kernel of truth that all phenomenology’s need to be built upon.
So, what would be this easy to remember and understand kernel of truth you ask? Well, it’s the title of THS’s phenomenology blog listed above — its the phrase that describes ————- the reality we see. And, the reality we see can best be described as:
What Is Not Able To Not Be = Is.
Again, —– What Is Not Able To Not Be - Is ————. What has to be; what has to occur at a given moment of `reality’ that is going to be observed by an `aware space’; — that can ONLY have `one’ counted description `from one common space’ of spaces.
A `reality’ that is the end product of a phenomenology of spaces that `peak’ with the literal `disapperence of our common now’ - the `instantaneous disappearance’ that is part of a different structure - that is indeed the very description of phenomenology itself.
Once again, the `end product’ of the phenomenology is the `instantaneous disappearance’ - `that which has expired and can only expire once - at one moment of `time and space’ - which the PP describes as in the simplest words possible of this `static description’ as `showing’ the `IS’—- ———- What is NOT able to NOT be. The unchangeable. The is.
How’s that for heavy? Welcome to the world of thinking about things in an ontological manner.
Ultimately, in science terms, different `spaces’ (remember, all humans are spaces) - `share’ their `last space’ into a common space (which, once again, IS - the not able to not be) – and, again, this `common space’ can only exist once - because all spaces are already in their own real ( and separate) now - just before the `release’ of that space (to the human, we are `releasing’ our information about our location and motion of our individual space via light that bounces off our literal surface) to the common space of the — what is not able to not be.
But, with all that power - the - what is not able to not be is — `runs off’ (this is also a Husserl term) - as it is `replaced’ with the `next’ `what is not able to not be = is’ (which is our collective separate nows joining by vanishing for us - as we are already in that new separate now).
This `jump’ from one structure to the next (the very description of actualization of spaces) - was described by Julian Barbour in his book `The End Of Time’ - as something similar to `picking the space that is’ `the most similar with the least intrinsic difference’. (Which, if you think about it - gives our stability in moving from one moment to the next with `all this’ going on at the sub-atomic level.)
All of the above ideas brings the smart reader well along in the thought process of what a phenomenology is like - what an `end product’ - our actual reality - is like. Literally, the IS (described). Which IS (also) part of another structure — and that is being - connected to all the previous what is not able to not be’s.
Connected, to the real past - the experienced past. The IS connection to the WAS. A `common space’ in unison - that can only be connected to - the what is not able to not be.
(And thru the individual spaces - connects to the WILL BE.)
Now, as mentioned before - the IS (in the PP terms the not-able-to-not-be) - is the result of `individual spaces expiring’ into their own NEW space.
So, now - is the time to separate `from’ the what is not able to not be’ and to `retreat from that end product - a common product ‘ to go into our own spaces. Our own bodies. The `thing’, the `space’ that we are - the space that we experience as `instantaneously disappearing’ - the `space’ that we have that is a lived experience - that is actualized.
Yes, if we look closely enough at our own space we see that WE TOO have the `not able to not be’ happen to our space. It is what we `expire’ as a `what is not able to not be’ to the `common space’ that becomes (by combining with all the other spaces in near proximity to ours) `the real’ not able to not be (of common consensus).
But, `we’ have a sense, correctly, that WE are more than JUST a `not able to not be’ — Certainly, if we have freewill - it wouldn’t survive in just the `not able to not be’ - would it? Could it?
Aren’t `we’ something more? Isn’t `our’ space, the very thing we call real, - `special’ is some manner?
As humans we wonder - Is there some way to simply describe `my space’ that gives ME the freewill that one as a human can seemingly sense is true?
THS - thinks so. Because, as it turns out, `our real space’ can be described in even simpler terms - terms that are still interlocking in logic to `our determined common space’ in the - not able to not be - as they must be.
That description of `our space’ will have to honor one of the main positionings of phenomenology - that our reality `disappears instantaneously’ - replaced - with a `new determined instant’.
Now, remember, our common space is not able to not be.
Our, `own space’ can best described as - `Not able to be’.
To BE a space - with a lived experience - that `space’ - to acquire that lived experience - must be `NOT ABLE TO BE’ - any other place - any other time. A living space has only ONE location with motion (that we are normally aware of) - and that ONE location with Specific motion - requires THE SPACE - to be - NOT ABLE TO BE (anywhere or anywhen else).
Are you still with me?
You are a brave one aren’t you?
Now, what it means at the human level is that - we as humans - can never grab and extend forever one moment (while living) - we experience `our space’ `once’ for each `common location’ - knowing we can not be able to be anywhere or anywhen else. Knowing that our `instantaneous space’ vanishes - and is NOT ABLE TO BE.
Yes, our space, is determined - but - that does NOT mean we are without the means to have a structure that includes freewill. To determine - that which is determined.
But, if the common reality of the not able to not be ISN’T the location of freewill - and the not able to be — of our own space - ISN’T the location of our freewill; - then, where is our freedom?
Phenomenology is about to tell you.
The first thing to say about `our freedom’, our freewill, - is that it isn’t a guarantee –as you can `see’ already. Already we’ve had TWO parts of the phenomenology revealed that DON’T have seem to have any freewill - and seem to be determined.
But, humans, and probably reality itself - has MORE to their structure than WHAT IS DETERMINED.
In other words, each of those determined phenomenology realities (the not able to not be and the not able to be) - had more to their structure. MORE than `just spaces’ hanging out together. Sharing common space experiences that are not able to not be.
Hopefully, BEING, more than a determined space that IS not able to be. The limitation of being our space - being - not able to be. Being, seemingly, only a space.
But, even science - tells us that `space’ is more - that our `space’ is really `space-time’. That is the actual `trigger’ that anchors us into a reality with other spaces; the space-time combination that triggers stability.
Interestingly, from time immemorial - those that have tried to describe the obvious about `time’ - have had to face contradictions. Such is phenomenology’s situation also.
You see, humans don’t think of the instant - the disappearing space that we are.
No, humans `think’ and `live’ in the `time aspect’ of our reality.
Thinking, living, and experiencing - require time to reflect upon space.
Be that reflecting from another `space’ or - somehow - with an `element’ of `time’ of `consciousness’ of `awareness’.
Something that is yet - another element of a phenomenology; another part of the structure that exists - but, must exist, without affecting - other parts of the phenomenology already established - already understood.
Parts such as the `Not able to Not be’ — being our common space determined reality. Parts such as our own space being `NOT able to be’.
So, the description of this new phenomenology element must be something OTHER than the two `truths’ above.
Something must exist - with energy and freewill - that must be a part of this element of the phenomenology. Something that describes freedom in its simpliest terms.
Such as being ————- ABLE to NOT BE.
Something that would be ABLE to NOT be `space’. Something that would be ABLE to NOT BE — the not able to not be.
Something with freedom - something that is NOT SPACE. A part of the structure that IS ABLE. That has `freedom’ within a phenomenology context.
That isn’t determined.
To most, The Able To Not Be — would seem to be TIME to most humans.
But the PP sees it slightly differently. The PP sees it - as `what is MORE than space’ - or - as what is NOT space.
And, that, is more than the common understanding of time - as `what is ABLE to not be’ - that would include `the concept of consciousness’.
Consciousness, is ABLE to `not be’ - our space. It is able to reflect on our space and indeed on our spaces - of which it is aware.
The ABLE to `not be’ ISN’T obligated to `occur at a particular space with motion’ as it isn’t a space (in strict definition of space, perhaps, when IT `does an ABLE to not be’).
In addition to not being `obligated’ to occur at a particular event - WHAT is `unfolded’ from the ABLE of the Able to not be - is also - NOT determined.
That is what gives us our real freedom - that the choices that evolve from the ABLE are NOT set. Are not determined. That choices are part of the 1/3rd leg of phenomenology now described in the PP.
Again, those legs - so far - are:
Not able to not be - final product of phenomenology.
Not able to be - final product of our space, represents us to common reality.
ABLE to not be - that which is separate, conscious, and, not space at it’s core.
So, with all that - now it is required that we examine certain Fortean Events and other anomalous realities. Indeed, I will look at anomalous realities first - as they seemingly may have explanations directly tied to the phenomenology structure.
To me, one of the greatest anomalous realities is the actualization of Doppelgangers in the common consensus. I use this term Doppelganger to refer to `observations’ made by living humans when they `see’ and `experience’ a `dead’ person as a `living space’. Some of the first modern tales of such experiences involved immigrants - who when crossing the ocean to a new land - and who died during the journey - would be seen `walking the streets’ in the flesh - in their old hometown on the continent. And, of course, in modern times - the most famous case of the pilots of Eastern Flight 401 - which I wrote about here http://theheavystuff.com/?p=17. (But, to summarize, both pilots were `seen’ as `real humans’ on Eastern Planes that had parts from the recycled crash parts of flight 401 - it went down in a swamp and parts were re-used. Indeed, the pilots were seen by people that knew them and who didn’t know them. They even talked on occasion or gave warnings. But, in EVERY instance, of course, they `vanished into thin air’ at some point of the observations by live humans.)
Now, just what - from a phenomenology standpoint - allows this seemingly impossible event to occur?
(Continues With Part Two)
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- The Heavy Stuff - Is Hosted On The Worlds Largest Internet Host - Find Out More Today
- Page Rank AND Reddit Submission Page Rank
- Are You A Heavy Stuff Subscriber?
0
No comments:
Post a Comment