Chapter 1

INTERPRETATION AND EXPRESSION

(The Creation/Manifestation of Be-ing)

                    If we shut our eyes, cover our ears and block out our other senses of taste, touch and smell, we quickly discover that the body is a mechanism, an interface to experience ..for without it we find ourselves disconnected from what we imagine to be the “outside world”. Our Localized Consciousness however, (that which we imagine as each of our “internal” selves), nevertheless persists ..and continues to seek a way to experience and interpret “reality”. If we use sonar as a substitute interface to the world, such as the Dolphins do, we may then image once again within our minds, a perception of our “surrounding environment”. In a way similar to computers then, our senses bring information about our world to our Localized Consciousness. 

                    Of course, the sensory devices of living forms are different in construct from that of computers, but the operations that our senses perform are in many ways similar. The peripheral devices that computers use to gather information, (keyboard, scanner, microphone, modem), are similar to the functions of our eyes, ears and sense of touch. The devices that computers use to transmit information to the computer user, (monitor, printer, speakers), are similar to our motor abilities of physical movement and articulation. The significant difference between the human psyche and that of the computer however is that we are capable of creative thought and at present, computers are not. Of course, this is only so because computers are still in their infancy and it may only be a matter of time before the continuing evolution of computers will bring about Localized Consciousness within them as well. What we will be exploring in this section however, are the similarities of how computers and living forms decode and re-code the information that they receive and express.

                    Both computers and we form a picture within our minds, (in the case of a computer, its “mind” being the dynamic logic of the coupling of the Random Access Memory/Central Processing Unit), of what is “out there”, (that which is perceived as the immediate and extensive environment), and then act upon this internal “picture” as reality. The structure of this reality is received in the form of a digitized code ..of the varying modulations of light waves, (sight), sound waves, (hearing), intensities of pressure, (touch), and chemical interactions, (taste and smell). When we closely look at any of these aspects of reality however, we find that they consist of interdependent processes rather than things. 

                    The “things” that we interpret therefore are our own justifications of the processes that we encounter ..as our internal formulations of judgment of the coded data that we receive through our peripheral sensory devices and interpretive brain. All information that we receive comes to us in the form of a code that we must decipher and convert into an understandable reality. When we look closely at the operations of a computer, we can see the fundamental processes that are necessary to accomplish this. Computers are models of informational translator/processors that in many ways mimic the relationship of Localized Consciousness to its extended and undivided environment of Primary Consciousness. 

                    Let us then explore the similarities between the perception of the Human Psyche and that of the interpretive/expressive abilities of our created counterparts, our computers, to begin a fundamental understanding of the translation of the..

“Code of Existence”

                    Elementary computer code, (foundational computer language), was originally written in a numerical form called binary. The language of binary, composed of a series of zeros and ones, was an early interface of communication between computers and their human programmers. If the computer programmer entered the correct sequence of zeros and ones into a computer, the computer would accomplish an intended task. A computer programmer could use binary to tell a computer to perform a simple task or tell it to perform a complicated series of functions. The programmer however, had to prepare the binary code instructions in advance before they could be entered into a computer and the code had to be written in the proper order if the computer was to accomplish a desired assignment. Simple computer functions required short paragraphs of binary code, and writing short paragraphs to accomplish simple tasks could be completed within reasonable periods of time. If the programmer wanted to tell the computer to perform a large number of sequential functions however, it would have taken a very long time indeed to write all of the code that would be necessary for the computer to carry out those commands. Additionally, such a long sequence of zeros and ones, (possibly tens of thousands), were subject to human error. If even a single zero or one were out of place, the computer would not perform its tasks properly. More time would then have to be spent finding and correcting mistakes.

                    Today’s computers are capable of many advanced and certainly complicated functions, such as enhanced word processing, graphics, animation, remote communications and equation solving in seconds that would otherwise take many Human lifetimes to do by hand. The binary code required for any of the programs that would allow computers to perform the highly complex functions that are achieved today would have to contain millions to tens of millions of zeros and ones. It is virtually impossible for anyone to key in by hand, to write a modern complicated program for today’s computers using binary code, and yet such programs proliferate by the thousands. This is possible because computer programmers have developed sophisticated program language shells, (interpretive/expressive software, and computers have evolved ever more sophisticated hardware), that greatly reduce the amount of time a programmer must spend developing such software.

                    A computer language shell first interprets the programmer’s instructions that are written in English, (or any other written human language - which is also a code), and then converts and expresses the programmer’s instructions as binary or higher code to the computer. The shell translates the written “human language” instructions of the programmer into binary and then expresses those instructions to the computer as binary, (or in the case of modern computer systems, the zeros and ones are expressed in the more advanced mathematical languages of Octal, 16bit, 32bit and higher, such languages being multiples and functions of binary). A program shell therefore is basically an intermediary translator between human and computer languages.

                    (Similarly, the human forms of interpretation/expression of Science, Religion and Philosophy are intermediary language shells that are interposed between ourselves and what we perceive as our environment, that attempt to translate the common code of that environment. It should also be noted that our own sensory/translative apparatus - our body and brain, are also shells of translation that we interpret and express through. With this understanding we can see that we are translating through many levels of interpretation and expression).

                    Of course the first computer program shell had to be originally written in binary code and this took a great deal of time using many programmers. Once the shell was written and its mistakes were corrected however, it was a simple matter to make copies of the shell and pass it around to many programmers so that they could then write complicated programs in short periods of time. (Similarly, the “translator shells” or - conceptual systems - of Science, Religion and Philosophy have taken thousands of years to evolve and are still being improved). The first computer program shell was known as “Basic” and more sophisticated program shells have developed over time. 

                    We get a hint here of what a “code” is. The receiver of a “code” must be constructed in such a way that the code can be translated into a picture, (idea), within the mind of the receiver. In other words, the “hardware” must be compatible with the “software”. A “code” therefore is a language of modulating waves or varying intensities that impact the receiver, and when the receiver translates these impressions into a picture, it will be in the form of a modulation that is intended for another compatible receiver. In the deeper sense, the preparation of a “coded” message is the formulation of a thought, and the code of our environment is its “thought” that we encounter.

                    Now, upon closer examination, a thought cannot be interpreted as such unless the expresser and the interpreter are compatible. It will be shown further into this writing that this is only possible when the expresser and the interpreter are extended from each other, connected through a unifying environment ..in that what the observer perceives is that from which the observer extends. In the case of our environment expressing to us, that expression is ever changing and therefore so do we change in synchronous step with it as we interpret. The correspondence between the expresser and the interpreter therefore is a mutual, concurrent function of communication, an undivided synchronous comprehension, each being the cause and effect of the other. Of course, one might say that an expresser and an interpreter may be fundamentally incompatible and it is only the translating shell between them that allows understandable communication. The translative shell however exists in the Tensor Field, (exists within the Wholeness of Primary Consciousness), between the expresser and the interpreter, all three of which are compounds of the Tensor Field and therefore all three are undivided from each other. This is why systems that are built independently from each other, that cannot at first communicate their ideas, can somehow find a way, (that “somehow way” being a translator shell to express and interpret each other's meaning). The translator shell is a compatible compound of the Tensor Field that may be developed between the systems. (The above concept somehow seems familiar and yet the way in which the words are strung together seems almost alien. This is because a translator shell lies like “Space-Time” between two interpreting/expressing objects, as a filter constructed of Space-Time – a re-arranger of thought/consciousness ..an Inertial Modifier/Mediator – no different than the contracting and expanding Space-Time that mediates the “velocities” between objects of mass).

                    Code such as binary or higher is contained within every program designed for today’s modern computers. Additionally, all modern computer programs express their intentions to other interpreting shells or Operating Systems such as “DOS” or “Windows” that are resident as code translators within computers. The operating systems then express the required functions as binary or higher code to the computer, which then expresses the code to a computer user, as comprehensible data. The intended meanings and functions contained within the foundational code therefore, despite traveling through many shells of translation, remain unchanged when they are finally expressed to the computer user. Hence, the final expression of the code carries all of its originally intended functions and meanings through all forms of interpretation and expression, if the translations are free of mistakes. 

                    If the coded language of the programmer is properly expressed to the computer, when a simple geometric form appears on a computer monitor screen, we see the form as it was meant to appear, (a square for instance that the computer expresses and that we interpret). If we saw the computer code that generated the square appear instead of the square itself however, we would have a difficult time deciphering in our minds what this code represented, as we would see a monitor screen filled with odd programming symbols. (Comparatively, Science, Religion and Philosophy struggle with the foundational code of existence in their attempt to translate it into comprehensible data). Accordingly, computer programmers though capable of interpreting the code themselves, would prefer to generate the image of the square rather than have their audience go through the time consuming and tiring mental process of interpreting the code. (We comprehend visual, written and spoken imageries, more easily than their mathematical foundations). 

                    The square therefore appearing to us on the monitor screen is the representative expression of the intentions of a computer programmer who has generated those intentions though a foundational mathematical code and then through a program language shell that continues the translation into recognizable imagery. Hence, the computer programmer speaks to us through the final expresser, the computer, in a language shell that contains within it the foundational code that creates what we interpret as a square. (Accordingly, we receive information through our senses generated to us as the foundational code of our environment, which we in turn translate into sensibly imaged “reality”).

                    In a similar way, when a religious spokesperson declares that “God created heaven and earth”, they are presenting the foundational code of existence through a shell of expression that forms an image in the minds of those who interpret. In scientific terms, this same foundational code might also be expressed as, “A Singular Primordial Force acting upon itself, (interpreted by science as having created the “Big Bang”), diversified its property of undividedness into what we perceive as the electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational processes that have formed into and continue to maintain our planet, ourselves and the Universe to which we belong”. This statement also forms a mental image similar to the one stated prior. Both statements speak of a Supreme Force, undivided from itself - of which we and all we perceive, are a part - expressing, (and interpreting), its own qualities in a variety of ways ..but different labels have been applied to the “Force” within each statement. In the scientific view however, the term “God” may have too many implications of superstition connected to it and therefore may be rejected. In the religious view, the term “Singular Primordial Force” may not be accepted because the word/concept “Primordial” may lack, (as perceived), the necessary qualities of will and intelligence.

Herein lies the fundamental conceptual difference between 
science and religion of the structure of Existence

                    Religion declares that God is willful and intelligent, and science declares that a creative force if existent at all, may not be. Of the two, it might appear at first that science has the more reasonable view, as science does not deny the existence of Primordality, but only says that it may not be willful or intelligent. Religion on the other hand, may have the more discerning view, in that declaring “God” to be willful and intelligent, may have interpreted our Universal Span and that which supports its existence, in a more highly structured way. Of course, an argument must ensue, and many have, as science asks of religion, “How do you know that, “God”, is willful or intelligent, or even exists”? Religion must inevitably answer back, “Look at the structure of the Universe – of which science claims we are created.

                    When we look back upon the Universe through your eyes, science, we see a plan ..and of course, even the mind of the scientist is a product of this. If you say that a Primordial Force manifested into what we perceive as the Universe and intelligent life, then we say that this force contained all of the elements of your will and intelligence ..and more.” 

Within this argument we see confusion over the interpretation of…

“Willful Intelligence”

                    Now of course, neither science nor religion actually knows how existence came about, as much of what is stated is based upon conjecture and belief, but if the development of the Universe, in the views of both science and religion, is a “structured” event, then how does one define “Will and Intelligence”? 

                    Science would state that a mark of willful intelligence is the ability to formulate and carry out a plan ..and that the way the Universe has developed, no planning is apparent and furthermore, planning was not necessary to facilitate its development. Things may have happened only because prior conditions have caused them to, and because of this, further conditions were created that caused more things to happen. In this view, it would seem that the Universe has evolved - sequentially - based upon a structure of related, but fragmented conditions, (the relationship appearing to be “cause and effect” between separate forces, particles and objects), that was not willfully or intelligently pre-planned, but nevertheless unfolded in a way that we through hindsight, perceive as naturally having become “organized”.

                    Of course this view is based upon the Human mind's neurological sequential interpretation of the “evolution” of the Universe, of it being fragmented with interactive particles, objects and waveforms, in that the things and forces that are perceived to be individually existent are thought to act upon each other through gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear forces, causing further developments within this environment through cause and effect. In this conception, a unified, un-fragmented sub-structure of existence, which concurrently relates all things, processes, time-spans and occurrences together, has not been properly considered ..for if it had, relativistic theory would have included the interpretation of simultaneous interactions within the differential multiplicity of the Primordial Force as a Totality of the “virtual moment” ..as a unified, achieving mind - rather than the sequentially separated functions of causes and effects of our synthesized reality. 

                    There is no fault in such a sequential concept however, because the construct of our sensory/interpretive apparatus - our organic senses and brain - relative to our Localized Consciousness, influences our formulation of theories regarding our “environment”. The fundamental though greater realization of existence is however, the widening view by “Localized” Primary Consciousness of itself. We each perceive through an “Animate Interface” - a translative shell of experiential devices ..and because of this we are naturally misled to theorize our own extensity – the Primary Consciousness from which we are undivided, into a translation of “environmental fragmentation” that perceptually separates us from what we observe ..from what we actually are. 

                    Through the exploration of this perceptual fragmentation however, Philosopher Scientists have recently begun to realize the interconnectivity of existence and have indeed initiated a brilliant interpretation of “environmental relationships” through the development of first - general and special relativity, and now quantum theory. This is not to say that all theories that went before did not contribute to the level of understanding that we have reached thus far. Quantum theory however is the breakthrough that has allowed science to finally begin to take into account the unity of existence as interactive levels, as domains generating domains - a diversified unity - of which a singular generation of undivided, but corresponding forces, mutually manifest and intermix their relationships in ways that we are finding to be previously unimaginable. The theoretical exploration of existence therefore, now takes place on many levels, and as our understanding grows, so does our ability to interpret the unity of the relationships between those levels.

                    Ultimately, as this writing unfolds, we will discover that what we are exploring externally - as our “environment”, is the extensity of that which perceives internally ..our own Localized Consciousness - ourselves - exploring that from which we extend ..as many minds in view of Primary Consciousness ..of Primary Consciousness, differentially, in multiple, simultaneous views of itself.

                    Religion would state that because a structured Universe is in place, a willful intelligence, not fully understood, must have been at its inception and still continues to manifest through all that we perceive ..for how could conditions unfold in an ordered way? The fact that things happened in an ordered way indicates an underlying force of unity advancing its will between occurrences within the development of the Universe. In this sense, the processing of force between occurrences would be the “planning” and “intelligence” implicit in what science calls evolution. (Religion in this sense has intuited the concurrent diversity of the Unified Field). 

                    The Primordial Force itself, (or “God”), therefore proceeds to unfold as the “Multiverse/Universe” in an ordered way and although such unfolding may not meet the criteria of what we consider to be “earthly intelligence”, this force nevertheless has ex-pressed its abilities in a willful way that demonstrates a form of “planning”. (Is this view actually opposed to that of science? ..or is it a natural extension of the scientific view - a next step in conceptualization?) The foundation of intelligence therefore may be demonstrated without the act of pre-planning, as planning in advance is time consuming and before this ..Dynamic Intensity ..before this Primary Consciousness ..diversified into the “forces of nature”, before there was a “Big Bang”, before “God created Heaven and Earth”, there was, (in both the scientific and religious views),

no… “time”

                    Through our limited perception of “existence”, we interpret the Primordial Force as Common, Cosmic or Primary Consciousness, Time, Inertia, Nothingness, the Void, Tao, and God, among other intangible translations. We interpret it, having been created by it, as an extended part of it, as “environmental existence", and then imagine that there is an incomprehensible creator ..for lack of our ability to perceive at once ..its Totality. We translate its unity into the fragmentation of “existence” to analyze it, perceptually separating what we interpret as “Be-ing”, or What Is, from “Not Be-ing”, or What is Not, and then imagine the What is Not as “nothingness” or an unfathomable God. This is not to say that “God” is not real ..but only to say that in many circumstances, “God” has been utterly misperceived.

                    The act of diversification then, is an indication of the, (instantaneous), pre-conception by the Primordial Force of the “existence” it was to become ..which further indicates a pre-existent substructure, (actually, a superstructure), that may possess what both science and religion interpret as foundational “intelligence”. The Totality of Primary Consciousness is undivided from itself, but able to shape itself into an infinity of diversifications within its own Unified Field. The shaping follows the logical rationale of mathematics – of the differential equations that are its diversified processes ..as its comprehensive language to, through and of itself.

                    Here we find a clue to what religion perceives as “creation”, as it will be shown further into this writing that the Primordial Force is also what we consider “Time” to be, though not interpreted as “sequentially spanned” until it is perceived by cognizant extensions of itself such as we. In this sense, all events are concurrent except in the view of extended cognizant interpreters. Furthermore, within our own experience, the synchronicity or concurrency of time and events - apparently unrelated differential occurrences that seem nevertheless to correspond to each other - is strikingly evident within the phenomenon of “non-locality” as derived from our own quantum field experiments showing the opposite spins of electron twins, and our personal experiences of what we interpret as unusual events, such as dejavu, premonition and precognition. Evidently, religion having intuited the unity of the Primordial Force has concurrently encouraged the pursuit by science of an understanding of existence as a “Unified Field”.

The next logical question thus arises;


How can there have been “intelligence” prior to Existence?

                    Actually, there wasn’t, because what we image as “Existence” is only our synthesized rendition of it – our neurological “reality”. There is no - prior - to “Existence as it is”. Existence and the intelligence of Existence dwell together as a unified function. The transcendent tension of wholeness upon the Void generates an imbalance of charge within it causing it to diversify within and of itself. The diversification must follow logical paths ..and this “rationale” of the Void is its “intelligence” expressing as “Existence”.

                    At this point the middle view of Human philosophy must intervene, to state that the occurrence of what we perceive as order and possibly intelligence is only interpreted this way, because we as the perceivers are generated from the same medium that is being perceived. We are constructed of the same foundational code as that of the Primordial Force and are therefore compelled to interpret that force, (which includes ourselves), as ordered existence. Within our “sequential” interpretation however, we mistakenly imagine that the “force” was there before we were.

                    We interpret sequentially because the Animate Interface, our body and brain that we perceive through is interposed between our Localized Consciousness, (each of ourselves), and the Primordial Force, (Primary Consciousness), from which our body, brain and Localized Consciousness extend. The best way to visualize this would be to imagine our body and brain extended from Primary Consciousness and then looped around another extension of Primary Consciousness, (forming our Localized Consciousness - each of our Souls), - all of which is undivided - as pictured below.

“Localized” Consciousness in view of Primary Consciousness
through the “loop” of the Animate Interface

                    The part of Primary Consciousness that is surrounded by and focused through the animate loop becomes Localized because it perceives that from which it extends, (perceives Primary Consciousness - which is actually itself), through the loop. Because the perception by “Localized Consciousness” of Primary Consciousness is interrupted by and then translated through the perceptual lens of the Animate Interface, Localized Consciousness interprets its own extensity as a continuing series of interruptions or digitization's, (a “code”), perceived as a separate and sequentially fragmented “environment”.

                    It is only because we perceive through the interruptive loop of the Animate Interface that we perceive our extensity, (our “environment”), sequentially. In the deeper understanding however, as we are undivided from what we perceive, - we are thus concurrent with Primary Consciousness - as cognizant extensions of it, and it is only because of our concurrency that we are able perceive our own extensity of Primary Consciousness as ordered and therefore as reality.


 

Return to Table of Contents Return to Presentation Page
Do you have a suggestion about or criticism of this page? Please send us an Email