to top

False Truths and True Lies

The dimensions of space and time are, as Wei Wu Wei says, responsible for bringing seriality into the picture. If we think about this in terms of information, this becomes very clear: if a thing happens once, that is information, and if it happens more than once – if it happens lots of times – then this is redundancy.



Information is the same as uniqueness or originality therefore, and redundancy (which is the lack of information that nevertheless fools us into thinking that it is information) is regularity. ‘Regularity’ is just another way of talking about seriality since it is the same thing repeated over and over again, like copies or duplicates that have been run off indefinitely from an original. Once we have this way of looking at what information is (uniqueness) and what it isn’t (redundancy or repetition) then we can see just how it is that the dimensions of space and time bring seriality into the picture. A dimension is seriality – this is exactly what it is and no more! When we are constructing a dimension we start off with a single point (a singularity) and then we indefinitely extend this point in a particular direction. We don’t add anything else to the mix, we don’t perform any more manoeuvres, we simply ‘extend the point’ and in this way we transform zero dimensions into one dimension. In this way, we transform singularity into regularity!



So we start with a zero dimensional point and we develop this unique situation into a linear axis which has, as we all know, one dimension. If we wanted, we could then take this one dimensional axis and extend it again in a direction that is at right angles to itself to create a two-dimensional surface. And, using the same procedure again, we could then (if we wanted) extend that flat plane, at right angles to itself again, to create a three-dimensional solid. It is the same procedure over and over again – nothing new. This is the only trick we know! If we felt like it, we could even go on to construct a four-dimensional hyper-solid with no more difficulty than it took to carry out any of the other steps. We can go ahead and construct the space-time continuum and its still nothing more than a repetition of the same basic step – it is still nothing more than this business of ‘extending (in a tautological fashion) the original zero-dimensional point’…



The way we normally look at this business of ‘pulling dimensions out of nothing’ (so to speak) and constructing thereby a multidimensional framework or continuum, is to see it as being amazingly, stupendously fantastically ‘progressive’ or ‘creative’. We see it as being nothing short of an outright miracle! This is the ‘miracle of creation’ despite the fact that we have just portrayed it as being rather simple and unremarkable. Instead of looking at the creation of a one or two or three or four dimensional world as a miracle, we are arguing that it is nothing more than a cheap trick. From an informational point of view (which is the point of view we are using here) all of this ‘dimensional expansionism’ business represents a loss of information content rather than a gain, which is the way that we usually look at it and the reason the creation of these dimensions (or the space-time continuum) represents a loss of information is because all we have done by this so-called ‘act of creation’ is to bring seriality into the picture. We have created a world out of seriality…



A straight line is, after all, nothing more than the serialization of a single, zero-dimensional point: we take this zero-dimensional point, this unique singularity, and we duplicate it endlessly, thus transforming uniqueness into regularity, information into redundancy, originality into an endless series of identical copies! The zero-dimensional point was an original, a singularity, but then again the original zero-dimensional point had (or has) no extension to it, and so we cannot say that it is something that has been ‘created’. It is uncreated because it is zero-dimensional, it is uncreated because it doesn’t occupy linear space. It is uncreated because it has no ‘seriality’ in it. Nobody creates zero – nobody needs to create zero!




From an informational point of view (which sees to the heart of the matter, unlike our usual superficial way of looking at things) this process of dimensional expansionism – the creation of the space-time continuum – represents a cataclysmic loss of information – a collapse rather than a progression or development. In order to appreciate this viewpoint we need to look at the nature of entropy and why it is that ‘the absence of information’ – when we see it as an absence – is actually information after all. This assertion (the assertion that ‘the absence of information is the presence of information when we see it for what it really is’) might seem rather paradoxical but it makes perfect sense once we get to grips with it. If I come across some element in my perceptual field that contains no information, and yet which doesn’t falsely advertise or promote itself as containing information, then this in itself is telling me something real. It isn’t a trick, it isn’t an illusion. It isn’t a misrepresentation. If we can see that some element or other doesn’t contain any information then we would be gaining insight into what Milarepa calls ‘the vacancy of samsara’. To gain such an insight into illusion is itself not an illusion, as we have just said. It is an example of genuine insight – the sort of profound and genuine insight that hardly anyone ever has! To see right into the heart of mental sterility is a profoundly creative act, as Jung says. This makes ‘the seeing of the vacancy of samsara’ information, since the seeing of samsara is indisputably a unique event and not just a regular, repetitive, ‘mass-produced’ or ‘stereotyped’ type of perception such as we would find in unending abundance within the endless Ocean of Samsara.



We can also look at this in a general philosophical way and start off by stating that all the events which occur – however transiently – within ‘The Set of All Possible Events’ are on a perfectly equal footing in that they are all events that are occurring within ‘The Set of All Possible Events’. This is of course a statement that can’t really be denied! Or we could equivalently say that all the elements that are to be found in the Universal Set, the ‘Set of Everything’ are on a perfectly even footing because of the fact that they are all equally allowed. All possible elements in the Universal Set are all equally allowed because The Whole of Everything contains everything in a perfectly unqualified way – this has to be the case because the term ‘everything’ is of course a perfectly unqualified one! The Whole of Everything does not exclude, the Universal Set doesn’t discriminate in any way against any elements whatsoever – if they exist, then they are allowed. Whatever comes along is permitted. If you are there, then you are accepted. No questions asked, no qualifications required. The situation is an open-ended one.



Why this is so important becomes clear when we move on to the next stage of our argument, which is where we look at what happens when we do start to discriminate, when we do start to exclude. Discrimination involves us in a whole new ball-game – it doesn’t just change everything, it turns everything on its head… When everything is founded upon dissymmetry (or ‘inequality’) then we end up with a determinate reality, a ‘defined world’, a formal system, a world which runs on rules – in a word, we end up with a simulation.



The situation where there is discrimination going on, the situation where everything that happens or everything that comes along is not treated equally, is the basis for all definite realities, the basis for all ‘formal systems’. In a formal system (i.e. for example in a class of mathematical objects) we have to determine what can be there, and what can’t. With the latter (with the objects or elements that we disallow rather than allow) it is not the case that we disallow them but acknowledge the fact that we are disallowing them, but rather that in our disallowing, in our excluding, we are pretending that the objects or elements we are excluding just aren’t there. If we were to ‘acknowledge our disallowing’ then this wouldn’t be disallowing at all but a form of allowing! In other words, if we were to acknowledge that we were excluding certain elements from the set then this would mean that we would actually be including them in the set after all. When we exclude an element from the set this has to be it therefore. The act of exclusion has to be total – just like when I delete someone’s phone number from my phone I don’t keep a record of the number that I have deleted, or even keep a record of the fact that I have deleted anything. If I did keep a record of all the numbers that I am deleting then I would actually be deleting anything!



In the act of exclusion therefore we are refusing point blank to acknowledge that the element in question exists, and we are also refusing point blank to acknowledge that we are refusing to acknowledge anything. We are stone-walling, but we are saying that we are not stone-walling and in this way we create ‘an ignorance the existence of which we are ignorant’, which is a good definition of entropy. Entropy changes everything – it is the entropy in the system that is responsible for everything being turned upside-down without us realizing it. It is entropy that facilitates the creation of the formal system, the creation of the mind-created simulation of reality. Entropy equals ‘invisible redundancy’ – which equals ‘saying the same thing over and over again and thinking that you are saying something different each time’ (or hearing the same thing over and over again and thinking that you are hearing something different). Invisible redundancy is the basis for building virtual worlds – it is the bricks and mortar from which virtual worlds are built.



When we bring about the situation in which we are ‘ignorant of our own ignorance’ what happens is that the elements which we are allowing get misrepresentedthey get represented as being something that they are not. Or we could say that they get wildly distorted – like a whole bunch of phantasmagorical shadows playing out on the wall. As a result of the entropy in the system the allowed elements now possess a false significance – a significance which they seem have but which they do not. This is clearly going to be the case just by virtue of the fact that they have been selected, when they didn’t actually had to have been selected. The fact that they have been allowed, the fact that they have been selected, makes it look as if they had to have been allowed, as if they had to have been selected, and if the elements in question had to have been allowed or selected then this of course means that we have lost sight of the fact that there ever was any choice in the matter. The very presence of the allowed elements obstructs any chance that we have of seeing that it ‘didn’t have to be this way’, therefore.



Very clearly, if we are living in a (virtual) world which is based upon ‘ignorance the existence of which we are ignorant’ (which is, as we have said, the only way in which a formal system can be created) then any statements that are made within this world, within this domain, within this formal system, are going to be of highly dubious provenance! The type of truth possessed by these statements is ‘relative truth’ – it is ‘true only to the extent that the arbitrarily limited realm that we are operating out of is not arbitrarily limited’. Or we could also say that it is ‘true only to the extent that the ignorance of which we are ignorant that is the basis of the virtual or conditioned world doesn’t exist’. In other words, relative or conditional truth appears like absolute truth because of what we don’t know, and don’t know that we don’t know…



So relative truth is ‘truth’ that is based on a premise that is itself not true, which is essentially a disguised way of saying that it is a lie! It is truth that is based on something that isn’t itself actually true. Since all logical sets, all formal domains, all conditioned worlds are by their very nature arbitrarily limited (i.e. they are based on the procedure of excluding stuff without knowing what we are excluding) the type of statements that get passed as ‘true’ within these logical sets, formal domains, conditioned worlds are really false statements that have been artificially validated. When we say that relative truth is an artificially validated lie this helps us to understand why we can say – as we did earlier on – that formal domains always contain zero information. It has to be the case that a lie – when it is not seen as a lie – does not contain any information. It seems to contain information (this being the nature of a lie!) but it just plain doesn’t. Out of these lies, out of these misrepresentative or false statements (which are logically-consistent in themselves, but which rest on assumptions which are themselves not true), arises what we might call ‘a false world’. This false world pretends to be real, it pretends to be ‘the Whole of Everything’, but it isn’t. What is more, as we have indicated, the false world only has any existence at all because of the way in which it misrepresents itself as ‘the Whole of Everything’. If it showed itself as it actually is then it wouldn’t be able to function as ‘a world’, it wouldn’t be able to function as a ‘simulated reality’. The way that the logical class, the formal domain, the conditioned world functions is therefore by passing itself of as ‘a genuinely open or unconstrained situation’, when the truth is that it is closed. Or as we could equally well say, the way that the defined or determinate domain functions is by pretending to be the genuine article, which is the ‘Universal Set’, which is ‘the Whole’…



Although the formal domain is based on discrimination (or prejudice), it implicitly claims to be fair, it implicitly claims to be non-discriminatory. It has to, or else it won’t be taken seriously! The formal realm pretends to be unprejudiced. The closed system pretends to be open; the fraction pretends to be the integer. Or we could just say that the formal realm is a lie that pretends not to be a lie. It sounds unnecessary to say this since all lies worth their salt pretend not to be lie – they wouldn’t work otherwise, as we keep saying. But making this very obvious statement about the necessity of prejudice pretending that it is fair, the necessity of lies to pass themselves of as being honest truths, is worthwhile because it reminds us of the paradoxical principle which we talked about earlier – the principle which says that ‘non-information which can be seen to be non-information is information after all.’



A lie isn’t genuine information but it passes itself off as such, and so when a lie is honest about being a lie this constitutes actual information. The lack of information that admits to being a lack of information is information, just as a lie that admits to being a lie is the truth! So in the information universe lies are information too because they are ‘true lies’. But when we have the situation where lack of information passes itself off as information (the situation where redundancy is mistaken for actual bona fide content) then this ‘false truth’ facilitates the miraculous creation of the virtual world! As we have said, the creation of the false or virtual world represents a catastrophic information collapse, and the extent to which we believe in this illusory world, and take it with the utmost seriousness, is the extent to which we cannot perceive this information collapse, this catastrophe. The Created World depends on entropy for its continued ‘pseudo-existence’, in other words. Really, there isn’t actually any such thing as ‘a catastrophic loss of information’ because information is all there is, and information can never be destroyed (since even the loss of information is information, if we were to see what is going on!) but insofar as we are taken in by the trick of dimensional expansionism, there is a loss. With regard to our conditioned viewpoint, there is a loss of information – because we do not see the trick that is being perpetrated upon us, there is a loss of information…


As we unfold all of the dimensions by serializing the original singularity we aren’t really adding anything new, we just seem to be adding something new, and the reason we seem to be adding something new is because as we ‘roll out’ dimensions 1,2,3,4 etc (or however many it is) what we are doing at the same time as doing this is hiding or covering over the infinite dimensionality from which we took them. What is asserted covers over what is not asserted. What is stated occludes what is unstated – the positive (or created) world conceals the negative (or uncreated) world. To assert or define is to ‘bring out’, but when we bring whatever definite picture is it that we are bringing out, our attention is caught by this definite picture and we can no longer see what we have brought it out from. The original singularity may be zero-dimensional therefore but what we gloss over in saying this is that zero is actually Everything. Zero is The Whole of Everything because it is not asserted – zero cannot be asserted after all because there’s nothing there to assert!



As soon as we assert (i.e. by definitely saying 1, 2, 3, etc) we turn our backs on what we are not asserting – this is how the business of asserting works, the only way it can works. As Wei Wu Wei (2004, P 9) says,


Free, we are not number one, the first of all our objects, but Zero – the Universal and Absolute Subject.



Even though to understand it requires us to go against our own thinking on the matter, zero is unlimited and therefore the same thing as the Universal Set (or the Uncreated World) precisely because no one has tried to bring it out, precisely because no one has tried to say what it is. We think that when we go from ‘zero’ to one and then to two and three and so on we are progressing – we think that we are going from ‘nothing to something’ but really we are going from ‘the undefined Wholeness of Everything’ to something that looks (from its own viewpoint) as if it is ‘an improvement’ (so to speak) but which is actually a colossal ‘disimprovement’. No matter how big a number we assert (or count to) the number we assert is still only as big as we assert it to be, as big as we define it as being, as big as we specify it as being. It can never be a jot bigger than this and so it is limited. However big it is (and that could be a billion to the power billion) the number we hit upon is the limit. Zero, on the other hand, has not been asserted, has not been defined, has not been specified and so it does not limit itself!



As the first, second, third and forth dimensions are ‘rolled out’, like the red carpet is rolled out to the presidential jet after it lands (or to the royal carriage when it pulls up) they become our taken-for-granted basis for perceiving the world, conceptualizing the world, thinking about the world. The logical framework that corresponds to these dimensions looks like ‘an improvement’, looks like an asset or advantage, but really it is just a limit that we cannot see beyond. The rational mind is a limit we cannot see beyond! We can therefore say that the unfolding of the dimensional framework out of the origin which is Zero has the effect of entrapping (or hypnotizing) our consciousness as it is unfolded so that we immediately see things in a back-to-front fashion, in an upside-down fashion. We now retrospectively perceive the progressive unfolding of the logical continuum that has been produced as a ‘positive act of creation’ rather than a catastrophic loss of information, which is what it is. As the dimensions are rolled out, in full ceremonial splendour, they immediately create their own inverted way of seeing things and in this inverted way of seeing things redundancy appears like genuine information…  Rules then appear as actual positives rather then mere ‘collapsed tautologies’, rather than ‘a thing that is true only according to itself’.



This is the ‘inverse creation’ – the creation of the false or deceptive positive world (the formal domain which appears on its own terms to contain genuine information but which doesn’t) out of the true Uncreated World, which is the inexhaustible source of all information, and which our fixation upon the positive world prevents us from being aware of. The Uncreated World is the Source, the Mother, the Pleroma, the Cornucopia, (it is Philip K Dick’s Yin Realm), and the determinate or rule-based reality which comes out of it (which is the Yang Realm, in Philip K Dick’s exegesis) is the opaque ‘prison-like’ world that effectively occludes it. This is of course the essential Gnostic myth of the ‘false creation’ and the containment of human beings in a deceptive reality, which Philip K Dick (The Exegesis, P. 276 – 277) talks about here –


Salvation – from what? From the world, which is an iron prison…God did not design such a structure of suffering: he extricates us from it, and restores us as part of him. This is the acosmic view in all my writings: the empirical world is a fraud, counterfeit. I write about reality as an illusion because it is, and I see that it is. Thus my witness is tremendously powerful attack on the world – but I am just now realizing that this view (of world as illusion) is Gnostic. My corpus of writing is an assault on the created universe of matter, highly original and accurate. It (the view) discloses the deceptive nature of empirical reality – now I have had it revealed to me that this world is an impediment between us (man) and God.



On the one hand we could say that the false (or inverse) creation occurs when we start conceptualizing the world, when we move out of non-conceptual reality into the formal system which is made up of our thoughts, and on the other hand we could say that it occurred when the space-time continuum was condensed or coagulated out of the unbound and uncontained state of Original Symmetry which exists outside of the qualifying dimensions of space and time. The two collapses are reflections of each other – one system of limitations echoing another.



Giving the fact that we already have been sucked down the cosmic plug-hole of the ‘Great Information Collapse’, we have no other perspective on matters than the one that we have been provided with after the collapse, and this is not any sort of perspective at all. We have no perspective – all we know is the serial world and so we can’t help perceiving endlessly extended (or inflated) ‘seriality’ as actual genuine content. We’re stuck in seriality, we’re embedded in seriality, we’re entrenched in seriality, we don’t have the capacity to consider that there could be anything else other than seriality, which is to say, we don’t have the ability to even consider that there could be the possibility of anything that is not represented in terms of space and time, in terms of ‘where’ and ‘when’.



The fact that we suffer from this ‘inability to think outside space and time’ is inarguable. Linear space and linear time are the qualifications which we use to sandwich the whole of our experience within, bracket the whole of our experience within. If there is something, then there has to be a ‘where’. If an event occurs, then there has to be a ‘when’ that goes with it. How can there be a thing without a ‘where’? How can there be an event without a ‘when’? It’s not just that the ‘where’ and the ‘when’ are important to stick in there, they are absolutely essential.



A thing is only a thing because it is embedded in space and an event only gets to be an event because it is located in time. And even when we say that we suffer from an inability to think outside of space and time this is a redundant point to make because thinking is all about putting things and events within the correct categories – if I happen to have a thought about something then this thought isn’t really about the content of the thought (although this is what I imagine to be the case), the thought is simply the mental category, so that the ‘content’ of the thought is only what the category in question indicates that it is. A thought is like the label on a jar therefore – we relate only to what the label says is in the jar, not what actually might happen to be in it. Thoughts don’t actually have any genuine content at all, when it comes down to it – they are abstractions and to be an abstraction is to be ‘content-free’. So the thought is the category, which means we can’t think outside of the category. And similarly, the thought is the framework, which means that we can’t think outside the framework!



And yet despite the impossibility of thinking outside the framework of time and space we can still get a feeling for what it means to be ‘outside of space and time’, just so as we don’t rationalize it, just so long as we don’t intellectualize it. Why wouldn’t we be able to intuit what it means to be ‘outside of space and time’? The rational faculty is after all only an ‘add-on’, albeit one that we have over-valued, over-subscribed to, over-invested in, idolized, placed on a pedestal, worshipped, and so on. The essence of who we are isn’t anything rational, isn’t anything that can be conveyed or in any way represented by a bunch of logical categories. The essence of who we are is beyond all rationality, beyond all thought, beyond all logical categories. Thought is after all only the way in which we make maps or models of reality; it is only the way we have on commentating on reality – it isn’t reality itself. Not only is ‘who we are’ beyond all mental categories or constructs, beyond our logical frameworks of understanding, it is also beyond the framework of space and time. Who we truly are is beyond all limitations whatsoever – hence the words of the Heart Sutra mantra –

Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha



(“Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone utterly beyond, Enlightenment hail!”)



To say that there is a part of us that is beyond (or outside of) space and time is of course the same as saying that there is a part of us that is Eternal. The mythological motif of the Eternal is something that resonates very deeply with us, for all that we can’t understand it intellectually. Our ‘map-making faculty’ cannot make sense of it (because it can’t be mapped out or in any way enclosed within a determining framework) but our whole being knows what the word Eternal means, even if we don’t know that we know it, even if we are somehow separated from this intuitive knowledge. As Joseph Campbell says in the 1988 TV series The Power of Myth:


Eternity isn’t some later time. Eternity isn’t a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now which thinking and time cuts out. This is it. And if you don’t get it here, you won’t get it anywhere. And the experience of eternity right here and now is the function of life. There’s a wonderful formula that the Buddhists have for the Bodhisattva, the one whose being (sattva) is illumination (bodhi), who realizes his identity with eternity and at the same time his participation in time. And the attitude is not to withdraw from the world when you realize how horrible it is, but to realize that this horror is simply the foreground of a wonder and to come back and participate in it. “All life is sorrowful” is the first Buddhist saying, and it is. It wouldn’t be life if there were not temporality involved which is sorrow. Loss, loss, loss.



Eternity is what we have forgetten so very thoroughly in everyday life and – having forgotten it – our lives become infinitely distorted! Our lives become infinitely distorted as a result with our obsessive fixation with trivial and transient details, as a result of the absolute lack of perspective which our amnesia with regard to the Eternal brings upon us. What this amnesia brings upon us is the tyranny of illusion, which is called in India Maya. The story of Narada (as related by Devdutt Pattanaik in Seven Secrets of Vishnu) illustrates the relationship of Eternity with Maya:


Amongst Brahma’s many sons was one Narada. Narada refused to marry. He did not want anything to do with the material world. Like Suka, he preferred the realm of Narayana, when time and space do not exist, where Maya casts no spells. He went a step further; he encouraged Brahma’s other sons to stay celibate like him. He did not see the point of engaging with Prakriti. He did not understand the point of constructing Brahmanda.



Many of Brahma’s sons agreed with Narada. They also refused to marry. This happened several times, until an enraged Brahma cursed Narada, ‘you will stay trapped in the material world until you appreciate the value of Maya.’



Narada went to Vishnu and asked him the meaning of Maya. In response, Vishnu said, ‘I will explain after you quench my thirst. Go fetch me some water.’



Narada went to a river to fetch water. But as he was collecting the water, he saw a beautiful girl. He was so drawn to her that he followed her to her village and asked her father for her hand in marriage. The father agreed and the two got married. Before long, Narada was a father and then grandfather and then great grandfather. Narada felt content. Suddenly one day, it rained. And the rains refused to stop. The river swelled and broke its banks. Water rushed into Narada’s house, and to his horror, swept away his wife, his children, his grandchildren and his great grandchildren. He screamed and shouted for help as the water dragged him under. Suddenly he was pulled up and found himself in Vaikuntha (Vishnu’s abode) before Vishnu.



‘Narada,’ said Vishnu, ‘where is my water? I am still thirsty.’ Narada did not understand. Where was his family, his wife’s village, the river?



‘Where does this pain and suffering come from, Narada?’ asked Vishnu with a smile. ‘I thought you had full knowledge of Maya before you set out to fetch water for me.’



Narada bowed his head in realization. He knew Maya but had never experienced Maya. Brahma was encouraging his sons to marry so that they experience Maya. Knowledge of Maya is not experience of Maya. Unless one experiences Maya, one will not be able to empathize with those who are trapped in it.



Said Vishnu, ‘you knew all about measuring scales and subjective realities. Yet you forgot all about them as soon as you experienced the material world – home, family, children, and village. Your understanding of Maya and Brahmanda could have helped you in the tumult of pleasure and pain, but it did not. Such is the spell of Maya. Now that you have experienced Maya, I want you to go and meet people, shake up their measuring scales, challenge their subjective realities, until they realize that the only way out of Maya is seeking answers out of material reality. I want you to provoke them into following the spiritual path.’



As we have said, we bracket everything within the parentheses of ‘where’ and ‘when’, such that ‘where’ and ‘when’ are not merely seen as very important qualifiers, but as the absolutely prerequisite for everything that exists. Yet these brackets, these qualifiers are entirely hollow, entirely redundant. ‘Where’ only has meaning in relation to the spatial axis, just as ‘when’ only has meaning in relation to the temporal axis, and yet all axes, as we have explained, are entirely empty of substance, entirely redundant in their nature. All axes are constructed via the fatuous expansive of the unique singularity. The proof of this statement is that each and every point on an axis (each and every point in a logical continuum) is an exact copy of the point that came before it. If this were not the case then the linear axis would not be a linear axis. If this were not the case then the continuum of logic would not be a continuum. If this were not the case then the logical continuity would not be a logical continuity…



The unique singularity which has no extension in virtual or extrinsic space is the only reality and yet by extending it in virtual or extrinsic space we effectively cover over this reality, and separate ourselves from it. Extrinsic space (i.e. the virtual space that is created by the logical framework) is a type of ‘description’ (or ‘analogue’) of the unique singularity. Extrinsic space is a type of ‘description’ (or ‘analogue’) of intrinsic space. And yet extrinsic space isn’t ‘description’ (or ‘analogue’) at all really because it doesn’t so much ‘describe’ intrinsic space (or ‘analogize’ it) so much as it obscures it, and points us in another direction entirely! The logical framework misleads and misdirects us – it is ‘the father of all lies’!



Separated from Eternity, all sorts of empty, pointless things seem overwhelmingly important! Separated from Eternity, we are compelled to dedicate ourselves to these empty, pointless things – we are compelled to devote ourselves exclusively to them! Separated from Eternity, we are compelled to devote ourselves to the infinitely inferior copy at the expense of the priceless original!



Separated from Eternity, we are compelled to exclusively concern ourselves with the old at the expense of the new, and ‘the new’ – which is Eternity – is the only Reality…







Image –





Leave a Comment