All Just Is - E.C.Nemeth (online e book reader .TXT) 📗

boundary that no concept from within can surmount, again by definition.
In as plain language as possible, the universe is claimed to be the concept that has only an inside and not an outside. Now, the only thing that can have only an inside is something all encompassing, something infinite. So, it is essentially a belief that the universe is infinite that causes the clash with the existence of the Divine. That is, the condition that the universe must be infinite further requires that the idea of God, another infinite concept, to be rejected as false and unnecessary. The understanding of why that is so is the key to making the correct choice between the existence of matter or of God.
Regardless of the stance of science, the fact is that infinity by any definition is beyond the realm of finite beings to understand in any meaningful way. Any description of infinity has already transcended traditional logic because all rational thought that hinges on a premise that just is so, an a priori argument, and makes use of an infinite regressive premise as its basic tenet, has arrived at the same place as all other such arguments: that God must exist. If the previous sentence is true then it constitutes a good reason to reconsider the validity of the scientific model.
There are still other flaws in the scientific model that are equally compelling and point to similar conclusions.
The most illuminating clue is that science is torn between two conflicting world-views. On the one hand there are those who believe in the material or deterministic worldview. This view asserts that the universe is ultimately composed of discrete packets of phenomena that follow immutable standards in terms of how they interact with each other. Their belief is that the universe is essentially grainy. On the other hand there are those who believe the universe is immaterial (i.e. composed of energy). They contend that the universe cannot be reduced to discrete components because each component can also be broken down into smaller components ad nausium. This side believes that the universe is ultimately smooth. These two conflicting ways of looking at the world are both fully supported by the laws of nature as science has it so far worked out. They are a direct result of the famous wave-particle experiments that illustrated the dual nature of light. Those experiments deduced that light, another word for energy, is two distinct things simultaneously. It can act as a wave or behave like a particle simply depending on which property is under observation.
Over time the contradiction that energy was both a discrete, solid piece of matter and also a wispy bit of wave potential resulted in the Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Theory, the two tried and true theoretical foundations in the logical arsenal of science. They forged a connection between matter and energy and between time and space. Together these two theories have grown in popularity and influence until today they are virtually unassailable.
The duality inherent in this universe is the key to understanding how it was constructed. Not only does it expose all phenomena as composed of the same ‘stuff’ but it also points to the very way we think. We think by proposing a topic and then relating that to what it is and what it is not, as was stated previously. That is how we discern the various discrete portions of the universe and delineate their properties. If that is the case then the creation of the universe should reflect this basic fact.
There is also an inherent order to logical analysis that has relevance to understanding how the universe was created. It is how one expands to three and contracts back to one again. If the last sentence seems strange or perhaps oddly familiar, don’t be surprised. All human understanding is based on this concept. First there is one, the proposal or topic or consideration. Next there is three, the proposal, its alternate and a possible connection between the two. Finally there is one again, a new proposal based on that connection. (Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis is an indispensable tool in the process of acquiring knowledge.)
There is yet another way to understand this relationship. Consider the idea that there had to be a Prime Mover, which is also part of the topic of the first chapter; a First Cause that must have existed before the universe was created. It is this Prime Force that did the actual creation of the universe. In terms of the one to three to one model stated above the Prime Mover would be one. In order to follow this model the next step should involve three new concepts. If God is one and then God created the universe, then the universe must have exhibited a triune of truth. That is why the universe is dual in nature. It is everything and its opposite together, no matter how exclusive a thing may be and no matter how much a thing insists its opposite cannot in fact exist. What those first three things were is the topic of the second chapter.
Yet another consideration is the fact that awareness implies a type of movement through time. Although more will be said of this in the third chapter, it is important to understand that if awareness is the prime focus of the universe, in order to be able to experience, then the requirement of a sense of time displacement must also have been incorporated. Movement through time is necessary because all experience has a duration. The experience of a thought, for example, makes sense only as a progression through time. Having a thought is not instantaneous; it requires the creation of the thought (which may prove to be instantaneous), the awareness of the thought and the reaction to the awareness of that thought. Each step in becoming aware of a thought takes a period of time to accomplish. So it is with any experience since all experience is basically an internal thought process and internal thought processes, as we have just discussed, require the passage of time. It is this fundamental momentum that leads to the topic of the fourth chapter.
The fifth chapter broaches the symbol-based realm of the finite and the axis of power that results in the manifestation of energy. The concept of the mid-point, the nexus, is explored to find a connection between energy and matter (the topic of the sixth and final chapter).
To sum it up: there are two key understandings, two premises that this work relies on. First, that there is in fact a God who created the universe and second, that at the heart of the reason for the universe is the evolution of intelligence, of sentience. Together they explain why our analytical thinking reflects the very nature of the universe. The dual nature of the universe is the perfect place in which to experience and only awareness can do that so it stands to reason that the Creator intended it from the very beginning (the anthropic principle).
It would be prudent to point out and stress the importance of cultivating patience during the assimilation of this work. Since understanding adheres to the strictures imposed by the ‘12321 model’, the logic employed will seem to be circular. Certain facts will continue to be brought up again and again and a constant string of reminders will be employed throughout to keep the progressing ideas tied to previously determined understandings. The repetitive nature of the work may seem circular but it really resembles the shape of a spiral, reaching ever higher towards the ultimate truth in widening circles of meaning.
The truth, from our point of view, keeps changing because the truth that we embrace at any particular time is a product of what we know – and what we know is constantly changing. This book, then, is not the truth. It is simply another truth on the road to the eventual goal of attaining the means to grasp the ultimate truth. That is the truth that God enjoys and it turns out that it is our birthright as well.
So enjoy your journey along the way of this truth.
Perhaps in time it will lead you to yours.

What is it to be God?
It is. It is, nothing more and nothing less. Yet infinitely more while infinitely less.
Words cannot truly convey the meaning of it.
It is, to you, more a feeling than it is an understanding. It is a meaning without knowing.
God is constant and static in your clearest understandings but I am not that, at least not in totality. I am that and all other linear systems combined. I am the context for every concept, and the concept as well. For this reason it is best just to say that All just is. God being All, that is. By using the name All instead of God, the personality, the conscious awareness, the character, of the Divine is submerged along with every other particular aspect. This is how it should be.
All just is. All; the all of it, the infinite.
To say it is boring is only to look at it in retrospect from your perspective. There is nothing I do not know and everything is fully accounted for in advance. There are no surprises of any kind at any time. Being All, I know it all. Oddly, again from your perspective, the one thing I cannot say is that I have done it all, not in the sense that you would take it in. I am doing nothing, never have; I am pure being, I do not do. You do, I am. (I love word play – it’s so silly and telling at the same time).
Within my depths I create by simply being. The creation is perfectly balanced by destruction at another depth of my being. This dance of creation/destruction marches on and is my hallmark – my essence. There is as much beauty in destruction as there is in creation, this has been shown to you throughout the ages but you will not draw the necessary parallels.
I will not try you with examples as I have many times in the past; you know the truth of it as a sense of rightfulness. For many this feeling manifests as a slight warmness or tightness in the mid-abdomen – the gut. Others may feel a warmth or tingling sensation around the heart and lungs. This feeling signifies truth, learn to cultivate it.
Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. Together they represent the process, the never-ending journey without limits. This I am and so much more and less.
To be God is to be you.
This is the profound statement that has everybody buzzing. I am you. Can you guess the qualifier? I am you and so much more and less. But I am certainly you.
What is it like for you to be God, I could be asking. Do you know it all; do you sense the all of it? No? Yet I say that you are me. So am I lying?
Or are you lying to yourself?
Remember, I am the all of it, there is nothing that is not me, including nothing. So you are me but something stands in the way of your knowing it. It is exactly the something that is to blame, the symbol of things. Things require other things to proscribe their own boundaries. Symbology, the use of symbols to convey meaning or information, is finite and wrought with contradictions. Mostly it is distracting. There is always something to distract your attention from the truth and that is the obstacle that stands in the way of your knowing. You know you are me but you are distracted by something that gets in the way of your knowing it consciously, constantly. Throughout