There are two types of reality, not just the one, as we might think. There is the measurable or quantifiable type, and there is the type that can’t be measured, the type that can’t be quantified, the type which we can’t actually say anything about at all.
In our day-to-day lives we have no dealings with the type of reality that can’t be measured; it doesn’t figure in our calculations at all – naturally enough! Instead, we concern ourselves exclusively with the quantifiable realm; if asked, most of us would probably be of the opinion that there isn’t any such thing as ‘a non-quantifiable reality’. How could such a phenomenon ever be proved or demonstrated, after all? It’s pure unverifiable conjecture, we might (reasonably enough) argue. The rational mind is a measuring device, so of course it isn’t going to take kindly to the suggestion that there could be a level of reality that is immeasurable.
What we’re arguing here however is not just that there is such a thing as ‘an unquantifiable reality’ but also that the other type, the type we are so immersed in in everyday life, is a projection of our thinking process, and as such is not an intrinsic feature of the universe itself. It is – we may say – no more than a convenient assumption that we make, in other words – a mere convention and nothing more. To talk about proof in the way that we are so habituated to doing as a red herring, an irrelevancy, since proof only mean something in the domain of the quantifiable. In order to prove anything, we first need to have a starting-off point that is quantifiable, something that can act as a standard or yardstick in this business of ‘establishing proof’ (which is – when it comes down to it – the same thing as ‘obtaining knowledge’).
Essentially, we are obtaining knowledge by comparing the unknown to the known, and to be ‘known’ is to be ‘quantifiable’. There is no such thing as something that is both known and unquantifiable. The act of measuring involves using the known standard to make comparisons – we’re using the known standard to investigate, and shed light on, the territory or subject matter that is being measured. By comparing the known with the unknown, we are converting the unknown into the known – we are ‘seeing the former in terms of the latter’. When we do this we are necessarily taking our standard for granted, we are necessarily taking the validity of our measuring stick for granted. We couldn’t proceed otherwise. The judge – in order to judge – cannot himself be there be subject to judgement – this kind of business can of course only work the one way.
The very act of measuring involves assuming that measurement – as a ‘thing’ – is meaningful (as opposed to meaningless). Or to put this another way, the very act of taking a measurement assumes the existence of the Quantifiable Realm. This being so – as it inarguably is – we can hardly use the argument that because something can’t be proven, it doesn’t exist. We can’t say that because the Non-quantifiable Realm can’t be measured this demonstrates in a conclusive way that it can’t be real. The ‘measurer’ here is ultimately the thinking mind and the thinking mind is functionally incapable of doing anything apart from tautologically proving that the assumptions it has necessarily made (in order to be able to operate as the TM) are true.
Logic (i.e., X, therefore Y, etc) can’t be anything but a loop – it will always prove itself to be right (which is to say, it will always bootstrap itself into existence), but because it must always prove itself to be right (and cannot do otherwise) this so-called ‘proof’ is completely without meaning. Self-validation is no more than an empty tautology (or – in less abstract terms – we could simply say that ‘self-praise is no praise’). When we talk about the Domain of the Quantifiable (i.e., the type of reality that can be measured) what we’re referring to is simply the Continuum of Logic therefore, and the thing about the Continuum of Logic is that it isn’t a real thing. The type of reality that can be measured isn’t any sort of reality at all, when it comes down to it. It’s a game, an abstract conjecture. It is merely an ‘exercise in self-reference’, and as such it is quite empty. Measuring isn’t real, it isn’t real because when we measure something we subsume both ‘the measuring stick’ and ‘the thing which is to be measured’ under the same umbrella of logic, which means that anything we determine as a result of this operation is never going to be any more than a tautological restatement of what has already been presumed.
We can come at this another way if we wish and say that the Quantifiable Realm is made up of ‘paired opposites’ – which is of course a redundant thing to say since opposites can never be not paired! Paired opposites (which is to say, polarities) are the building blocks of Extrinsic Space (ES being another way of talking about space that can be measured). What happens within the field or continuum that exists between the negative and positive poles is that a kind of ‘artificial gradient’ is set up whereby we have ‘more of’ in one direction and ‘less of’ in the other. If we don’t look into the fact that the positive / minus gradient is – of itself – totally meaningless, totally arbitrary, then this provides us with a deterministic system that we can adapt ourselves to. This act of adaptation appears meaningful to us when we don’t question what we are adapting to. When we adapt to the given framework (such that we see everything in terms of it) then ‘all our questions are answered’, so to speak. A Positive Reality has been provided – all questions are now answered and so all that’s left for us to do is ‘obey the requirements of this all-determining system’. The ‘WHY?’ has collapsed leaving behind nothing but a ‘HOW?’ – ‘Why should I obey this so-called ‘rule’?’ has been turned into a mere matter of optimization (i.e., ‘How do I best obey the all-important directive?’)
The gradient between <positive> and <negative> becomes an instruction therefore and this instruction provides us with a basic means of orientation. It provides us with a ‘job’, an ‘occupation’, a ‘purpose’, a ‘reason to do whatever it is that the rule says we should be doing. There is a tension that springs up between the two complementary poles, a tension which determines how things should be. A rigid and uncompromising form of order is being imposed ‘from the outside’. We might think of iron filings arranging themselves on a sheet of paper which has a horseshoe magnet held beneath it. The Extrinsic Order here is being provided by the abstract ‘field lines’ that exist between the North and South poles of the magnet. We can – speaking from a psychological point of view – take advantage of this phenomenon (the phenomenon of Extrinsic Order) by accommodating ourselves to it as if this adaptation were something meaningful, as if it were something legitimate (which it absolutely isn’t). It’s not ‘legitimate’ in the sense that we take it to be because the extrinsic type of order that is being furnished by the operation of logic is at all times perfectly null.
The gradient between the two opposing poles of <plus> and <minus> constitutes a rule (or – to me more accurate – it constitutes a rule when we lose sight of the fact that the Continuum of Logic is not the same thing as reality itself and therefore carry on as if it were the whole story). The Continuum of Logic – necessarily existing as it does between the two poles, the two opposites – is made up of nothing other than this ‘artificial gradient’ – that’s all that’s in it. Another way to put this is to say that the space between <plus> and <minus> isn’t a real space – there’s no space there, only a type of virtual space that seems to offer us the possibility of moving in either one direction or the other. That there ‘seems to be space when there isn’t’ is the core illusion. On the face of it, this movement is not virtual but actual we can measure it, we can see how far we have come and where we are located now in relation to where we previously were. This is the domain of the quantifiable and what it provides us with it is the possibility of being 100% orientated (or 100% defined) within the terms of the game that is being played. The game isn’t real however (games aren’t), it doesn’t exist outside of itself outside of its own terms of reference and its own terms of reference are purely artificial (if we may continue to put it like that).
We could say that the system of logic (‘X’, therefore ‘Y’, etc) provides us with a type of ‘artificial authority’ that we can adapt ourselves to in order to obtain a (spurious) sense of ontological security or concrete reality, but this wouldn’t be quite right; to say this isn’t quite right because all authority – without exception – is artificial. Authority simply means ‘lack of freedom’ and lack of freedom isn’t a real thing – it’s just a contrivance. It’s just an idea, a construct and as such it is only to be found in the Mind-Created Virtual Reality, which is the same thing as Extrinsic Space. It is the fact that there is zero freedom in the MCVR, zero freedom in Extrinsic Space, that allows us to be defined in the way that we want to be defined; If there were freedom then there would be nothing to define us, nothing to wall us in, and that’s exactly what we don’t want. What polarity does for us therefore is that it allows us to play a game without knowing that we’re doing so (which is of course the only way there is to play a game). When the only reality we know is the manufactured (or synthetic) variety that exists between <yes> and <no>, <right> and <wrong>, then Intrinsic Freedom is replaced by the Extrinsic version, the Extrinsic surrogate. It is replaced by External Compulsion (or Authority) that we identify with, and the fact that we identify with the external compulsion means that we can’t see it. This is the ‘blind spot of unconsciousness’ that our mechanical lives hinge on. We are not aware (in the identified state) of the external compulsion which is driving everything and – what’s more – we can’t be told about it.
In conclusion, we don’t want to have anything to do with the type of reality (or with the type of space) that can’t be measured because that would banjax the whole set-up. Any perception at all of the Unquantifiable Realm would instantly expose the fakery behind the artificial set-up which we are calling Extrinsic Space and if we didn’t believe wholeheartedly in this set-up (in this ‘system’) then we wouldn’t know ‘who we are’. Without our ignorance (our ignorance with regard to the fakery) we wouldn’t know ‘what it’s all about’. We wouldn’t know anything and as a result we would be plunged into an existential crisis of the first order, and we certainly have no appetite for anything like that. On the other hand, if we opt instead for the false solution that is provided for us by Extrinsic Space, that is provided for us by the Domain of the Measurable, that is provided for us by the ‘System’, then the consequence of this act of avoidance is that we miss out on life itself. All we know is the surrogate, which is a null state of affairs. ‘A life lived in imagination is a life not lived’, says Robert Earl Burton.
Image credit – wallpaperflare.com
