The Moment

[Vibroverse]

The idea that reality is created in the moment is kinda "crazy". Me being a human instead of being a cat, for instance, being actually created in the moment. 

The words and concepts and structures and knowledges being created in the moment. The memories being created in the moment. 

What the fuck are we even talking about if the entire reality is "building" itself in the moment, even the habits of our mental patterns being "built" in the moment? 

What, then, is the "thing" that creates this moment to be this moment, creating the realm of what we call "relative" level "instead of" the "absolute level? 

How is the"relative" level of time and space and continuity "create" itself out of that which, we say, is timeless, and out of the realm of historicity? 

How do you even have patterns of thinking if there is no time, for a pattern implies, obviously, a continuity in time? 

I mean, I know that at some point, soon probably, I will say that "okay, existence is paradoxical and 'illogical', deal with it", I know. 

I mean, yeah, but we cannot deny that there is an order and structure going on also, and what we might call "feeling" is important in the equation. 

If reality is consciousness, then, obviously, what you call feeling is telling you about the state of being through which you're "imagining" reality into being. 

If reality is "imagination", and if you are you are, then you cannot stop "creating" in "any moment", or reality would just, crudely speaking, disappear. 

And, so, you're always creating what you call reality "in every moment", from your relative, time space perspective, and your feeling is telling you "how" you create in the now. 

You, somehow, have created the groundedness of being so deeply and strongly, that it is, for instance, almost close to impossible for you to defy gravity. 

You, then, are creating the "platform level" of being in the deep level of your mind, and that part of you you've defined as God, or Infinity. 

You, as the humanized experience, are seeking for the experience of oneness with God, a, in a sense, harmony with God in the form where it has become your actuality. 

Then, do you understand how, and why, the experience of "feelingness", of "intuitiveness", is important in every moment of your being, even when you're not, consciously, aware of it? 

That's true, also, that you cannot be consciously aware of "it" all the time, for "it", for you, in your, in a sense, modality of being has become "one", in a sense, with your experience of "being". 

That's, in that sense, is your experience of "relativity", in the experiential sense, with what you "identify" as the idea of that which is perfect, that is your perception of being by being "the you" that you are being. 

That's how, and why, even, if you think deeply, enough, about it, you are created as an evolving being in an experientiality of space and time, even if you are not space and time. 

Being is manifesting itself, in a sense, as the "process" of being itself where it also is the idea of "not being" itself, and the "idea", in a sense, is reality. 

And the discovering of the idea of the idea is also a part of the process of "intuitivity" that, in itself, is "intuitivity". 

[Vibroverse]

And philosophy, in my opinion, has forgotten about that, that it is, as being, so one with that that it becomes "two", in a sense, with that. 

This, also, does not just include philosophy, but all the endeavors of the "humanizedness", and it made it, in a sense, "two" with itself, for it is "too" close to being. 

This, then, made being define "itself" as other to itself, for it is the intrinsic experience of being. 

 

[Vibroverse]

Time and space, in this opinion, are the experience of self reference that "builds" itself as here and now, and it, already, carries its own mode of being in the here and now. 

 

[Vibroverse]

However, it is so finely structured in itself, by the "beingness" of itself, that it "becomes" a process. This is the process where "you" become an "other" to yourself to "discover" you. 

And another question is about the possibility of the idea of other alternate realities, as it is often described. Is it possible for being to be itself in a mode of infinity? 

I mean, in this opinion, reality is described as vibration, as energy, or, you might say, perceptivity. So, the question is, can it be possible for being to be "not being", by being "being"? 

If we think of it in terms of perceptivity, as perceptivity being itself, then it "seems" possible for perceptivity to be itself, by not being itself, in a "mode" of temporality, in a mode, in a weird sense, in a sense, of a "processness". 

If we think of reality as a "densified" modal structure of "dreaming", then is there a way "out of" the perceptible structure of being "beingness" where it also, in a sense, is "otherness"? 

Can there be a "reduction" point of being "beingness" where you, for instance, find yourself as a cat, and as that which has, in that sense, "always" been a cat, where the modality is, for lack of a better term, modulating itself into "being" itself? 

Can, at least in "theory", infinite spatiotemporalities exist, in some "plausible" way without being self deferrent, like, on the ontological level, other modalities of "the" modality? 

And it, perhaps, is possible if one is implied, by definition, in the one. And that's the "weird" question that I'm thinking about, that is it possible for "being" to be when it is, in that modality of being "being", to be? 

I, in that sense, "think" of reality as, like, a frame that has zero distance to itself, in the sense that the "subthinkings" also are itself. Then, I wonder, if space can also be included in "that" where it makes sense. 

There is an undeniable "perception" of volume and tactility, but if it, with space, a "movement" of consciousness, then what does it even mean to take up a space? 

The other question, then, is the role "temporality" plays in the "picture". If consciousness, in some way, somehow, experiences itself in the, what we might call, dream modality, then is it possible, perhaps, somehow, to include itself "without" including itself? 

The question of spatiality, in that sense, is an important question. Is it possible for "being", somehow, to "become"? And is it possible for "it" to carry its own "temporality", in that sense, in, for lack of a better term, itself? 

I mean, as I talked about it in my "cat" example before, is it possible for me, for instance, to become that cat, as that which has always been that cat, in terms of carrying the spatiotemporality, in "theory", as a mode of being? 

And do you understand the "problem" of spatiotemporality that I'm talking about here, in the sense of being it another mode, or another, change of being? I mean, then the question is the volume of being, the tactile qualities, in a sense, of being. 

And there also is the question of being being its own self creativity. That implies a randomness, but the question is the nature of randomness. Doesn't being self creative imply that self is self being self creative? 

I mean, imagine a possible reality, a possible world, perhaps, where the inhabitants of that world call what we call cats dogs, and what we call dogs cats. Now, the question is whether that "frame" of thinking includes its own spatiotemporality in itself as "existence"? 

I mean, imagine a world, even, where pokemons are moving around and people own pokemons. Does "that" carry its own spatiotemporality in itself as "existence" for you are able to talk about "that"? 

I mean, then, is it "nothing", no pun intended, but consciousness that holds "this" together instead of holding, at least in our spatiotemporality, "that" together? And what is the "structure" of "beingness" that is "that"? 

I mean, is reality self creating itself as the "physical" forms that it is, itself, also? I mean, can it, or does it, sustain itself without being, in that sense, itself? And the big question is whether the self "formulation", in itself, also, formulating itself? 

The "crazy" question is can consciousness "become" the world without "becoming" the world? Can consciousness "perceive" itself in a different modality where it is being the idea of "reality"? 

Can consciousness "maintain", in a sense, both abstraction and tactility by "being" the tactility? Can it, somehow, be possible, and "good", if it, "by nature" is itself? I mean, can there be a "mystical" gateway there? 

We can, perhaps, ask it as "can you get into the dream state by being that which, in itself, is not the dream state?". And how does the idea relate to that which is not the idea, being the idea of not being the idea, being that which, in its modality, "being"? 

And, then, the question is can the spatiotemporality carry with itself the quality, as we, in a sense, talked about it before, of that which is "not" the spatiotemporality, in its mode, and "modedness", perhaps, of being? 

It, then, "also", becomes the question about the nature of "intelligence". Can, and if so, how can that which is "also" be that which is "intelligence"? That, perhaps, refers us back to what thinking, in, and of, itself, even is. 

I mean, can that which, in that sense, is "intelligence" be that which can be "intelligible"? Is it possible for "intelligibility" to be "intelligibility" by "being" the intelligibility as we talked about it, as being the intelligibility that it is? 

I mean, is intelligibility "included" in that which is, in "that" sense, not intelligibility? And if being, in "that" sense, can converge towards it being itself, then is it possibility to find itself in, or being, "that" modality that it is? 

I mean, does intelligibility, then, is the "thatness" in itself without, perhaps, being that which is "itself" that "discovers" itself as that which is, that also is that which is not, in the, in that sense, modality that it is "itself"? 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Vibroverse