Tag Archive | logic

The Spirit Of Chaos

“Take one of those individual threads in the fiber that seems to be so chaotic and go into the constitution of that, and again you will find The Spirit of Chaosfantastic order, you’ll find the most gorgeous designs of molecules.” ~Alan Watts, The Web of Life

Why is it that we think we must depend upon our brains to lead us through life?

It is not the brain that experiences (the brain is more like a recording apparatus) but our minds, our consciousness experiences and perceives and conceives our environment (environment here does not necessarily exclude an urban or suburban environment). Since our minds experience, by what process do we undertake this experimental existence? Intuition. We feel, we sense what surrounds us, because we ARE our environment.

Intuition is that part of us, as conscious beings, that processes those constant changes within our environment, which can be aware of those incalculable factors. What’s more can interpret, assess, and comprehend those factors, like a kind of calculation (albeit, one that does not involve counting). Intuition can do this faster than the mind can think, and even more rapid than logic can compute. Why then should we depend upon the brain and its logic? Why should we use it, rather than or as substitute for intuition? Logic is limited, therefore, finite. More, it is flawed, because it can only compute either/or, it cannot perceive a dynamo of information (i.e., factors and variables) simultaneously, all extending from separate directions, chaotic stillness. Logic, that is to say linear systems, regulates an environment, and in that regulation transforms that environment into a static environment, the reduction of infinity to the finite. Our intuition, on the other hand, embraces chaos and randomness without fear of punishment or failure, because our intuition knows that in chaos there is order. The brain and its logic attempts to order chaos. So, we as intuitive beings choose life and health, imagination, our wild nature, exploration, and experience to be more alive, to evolve. For this, we as intuitive beings are uncontrollable, incorrigible, impossible to regulate, and non-linear. If intuition is the spirit of chaos, then life be the canvas.

Through an intuitive, fully open, wide-eyed, sensual and honest experience of existence, it is possible to transcend hopelessness, pessimism, disbelief, etc. by living in the moment and accepting things as they come. To really enjoy living and look at life as an adventure, we open our hearts, minds, bodies, and spirits to our natural intuitive state of being. In this way, we can enjoy every moment of discovery in the world…and we can become like children on a playground. Now, this does not imply that we possess knowledge, intelligence or wisdom to be absolutely sure about anything, however, it does mean that we are free to change our minds quite often, because the more things we experience, the more our perception changes, and the more we grow and evolve as human beings.

We are not meant to be miserable beings…we are meant to be vibrant, fully open, playful, sensual, universal beings. We are more than we can become, because each of us is a fractal of light…and we are all connected.

“Light, here, means awareness  to be aware of life, of experience as it is at this moment, without any judgement or ideas about it. In other words, you have to see and feel what you are experiencing as it is. And not as it is named. This very simple “opening of the eyes” brings about the most extraordinary transformation of understanding and living, and shows that many of our most baffling problems are pure illusion.” ~Alan Watts

 

 

Advertisements

Electron Dreams

I create my day by Cornelia KoppIs one really All?

Allow me to explain: Reality (that is consensus reality) behaves like a canvas that shapes and transforms before the beholder.

Schrodingers lolcat by Dan LurieAn End to the Schrodinger Conundrum—the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle assumes that the observer also has powers to predict unconsciously the outcome. You see, the observer cannot inherently possess the qualities of a conductor, as the Uncertainty Principle implies. Because the electron appears as a wave and particle, the observer cannot have any bearing upon the outcome. The real question is the observer sees either wave or particle because both he and the electron are one and the same.

From the electron’s perspective (does this seem so outrageous? Are humans not also electrons; more complex certainly as there are amalgamations of many electrons to form layers of skin, organs, hair, etc. etc., but electrons all), is not the observer also particle and wave? Not metaphorically the same, mind you, but actually.

When you stare at your reflection before breakfast, do you marvel that you appear? Do you question whether you are there or not there? Do you wonder if you are both here and there? Do you try to walk through the looking glass? It is the same with the observer and electron, as the electron becomes reflection of the observer, and the observer reflection of the electron. As such, what measurable difference between observer and electron can there be?

curious by Cornelia KoppGolden Symmetry—when the electron moves as does the observer. Think of the intimacy between observer and electron as analogous to the eye of the beholder, only observer and electron are more like eye and beholder. As if the observer were the eye and electron the beholder, and electron as the eye and observer as the beholder. If this relationship seems symbiotic, no actual host and parasite exist, as the existence of host and parasite assumes there is a distinction between them. With observer and electron, no such distinction exists.

Oneness as Reciprocal Union—the concept of oneness is the same mistake as the uncertainty principle assumes there is distinction between observer and electron. This thought is not in error, but incomplete. There is no distinction between any singular entities (the proverbial ‘We’ whatever that includes) from which to pinpoint an all-encompassing oneness, no origin. To say We Are All One is to observe the electron in wave state. I posit, mustn’t there first be a distinction to have elements that can connect into this action at a distance known as oneness?

Peering in again at the Uncertainty Principle: How is it possible for any one (any beholder or electron) to possess control (that is the ability to determine as observer the eventual appearance of the electron)? I mean, the idea that the observer can inherently possess the ability to control (conduct, as if the observer were separate) the universe to such an extent as to predict the electron and himself is kind of just like hugging yourself.

moon ride by Cornelia KoppLet us follow another thread further. To believe that because the boat has a motor and rudder whoever holds the wheel steers the boat across the ocean is like thinking the observer controls/conducts the appearance of the electron as wave or particle. No matter what the engine horsepower or nuclear powered propulsion used, one hiccup from the ocean depths renders any expense useless.  It is more like the ocean steers the boat. The conundrum of the Uncertainty Principle occurs because humans do not control the motion of electrons, they and the electron move simultaneously, neither conductor, neither observer or observed, neither at the wheel, both floating along in quantum foam.

Einstein spoke of relativity; I can see his point. In the guise of oneness, the only point of reference from which all things can be relative is the reflection, which means relativity may actually be an illusion.

Wolfgang Pauli Portrait by AlphaDesignerOnes Within Ones (or A Way Out of the Heisenberg Absurdity) —  See, the beholder and the electron may be symmetrical (do not be so limited in imagination, symmetry does not have to be identical in appearance to be symmetrical. Two concepts can be symmetrical, as such two conceptual masses, an object, can be symmetrical of one another’s motion). This is no contest to thinking; however, let us move laterally to the left and see what we can see. Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system, x-, y-axis. Turn the axis sharply to the left and arrive at a z-axis, a 90-degree turn from the y-axis. If you turn your mind 90 degrees from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle . . . are we still beholder or electron, wave or particle? This idea of borders must first be unlearned.

“People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No, I’m not… If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it — that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers… then that’s the way it is. . . . [M]y interest in science is to simply find out about the world and the more I find out the better it is, I like to find out…” ~Richard Feynman

looking for the sun by Cornelia KoppOneness and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are incomplete as within the depths of their meaning sits the assumption that there is but one level of observation. That of the observer and electron as separate, so the conundrum is the observer can only see the electron as wave or particle and nothing else. Within the Uncertainty Principle and Oneness exists the real question that there is no distinction between observer and electron, like the electron the observer is both wave and particle as well. As Einstein’s theory of relativity posits, the observer and electron are relative to one another, in motion simultaneously, so observer cannot see beyond wave or particle. The illusion exists because the observer has only a single lens perspective; there are other ones. The flaw of oneness, which assumes We Are All One, rather than We Are All Ones Within Ones . . .  within ones, and so forth in all directions. It is more a matter of peeling away the layers, than a single perception.

infinite worlds by Cornelia KoppOneness does not stop at one, no prime mover exists (no which from which there is no whicher. Apologies to my fine fellow, Alan Watts), no origin, no nicely spelt out beginning to the story, motion does not require cause and effect or effect and cause. As the photon emitted from the electron, it simply moves as randomness disguised as cause and effect.

When oneness appears as social diversity (the continual perpetual mind-spinning circular categorization of intangibles, the tree-ing of an otherwise single concept, i.e., departmental hierarchy within a body corporate) bureaucracy abounds, actually epitomizes that there is no real origin. When it is used for the pleasure of finding things out then you have onion-ing. Where each one within one has all other ones, yet, out of nothing also appears as a new one (within one). Analogous to a field of probable action constantly flexing to accommodate new ones, without bias or judgment.

Like an elaborately woven tapestry with fractal designs, the tapestry as first layer oneness (or the observer’s perspective/perception), and all the threads are the ones within. One can look at the tapestry and say We Are All One, and then one can look at a thread and say We Are All One. It is not so much that we forego the trees for the forest or the forest for the trees, as looking closely at a thread. It works in the other direction, too; the tapestry does not end at its borders. Think of the tapestry as our known universe, and the threads as people-ing, earth-ing, sun-ing, solar system-ing, hell, it could even be universe-ing.

Let us not end here (wherever ‘here’ may be; our imaginary 90-degree turn), as further question beckons: Who am I?

wanderer between worlds by Cornelia Kopp

Image Credits (used with permission through CC license)–
(in order of appearance)
“I create my day” by Cornelia Kopp
“Schrodinger’s lolcat” by Dan Lurie
“curious” & “moon ride” by Cornelia Kopp
“Wolfgang Pauli’s Portrait: Macrorational vs. Microirrational” by AlphaDesigner
“looking for the sun”, “infinite worlds” & “wanderer between worlds” by Cornelia Kopp

The Pleasure of Finding UnThinking Out

Richard Feynman Digital Painting by Balamurugan BhaskarWas Richard Feynman really intelligent?

Richard Feynman’s mind discovered secrets of natural law as if it were compelled to, of this attribute who has any doubt? Feynman was known for his uncanny ability at peering into the quantum foam and divining the mysteries of the universes. However, he was not a magician, but a primordial poet. Pulling on the secrets of potential existence, miniature big bangs contained in an elegant symphony of symbols. For all his beautiful brilliance therein lay fallacies of flaw: logic. His theories and discoveries (Feynman Diagrams) have been illustrated unalterable thoroughly and rigorously proven to be correct, still standing against the test of time. In what is he correct though? Elegance? Symbols? Strung together numbers quantifying the unquantifiable? A seeker, searching out the bottomless pit of observable action?  Atomic in his energy race for the penultimate pinnacle of “that which there is no whicher”? And what is its symbol? A Bohr Model surrounding Manhattan?

Richard Feynman said that during the building of the atomic bomb, he never thought about the human lives the testing of the bomb portended. After the Trinity Test ended, he and the other scientists celebrated. What we, the beneficiaries of the atomic race, know and remember of that era are the photographs depicting the burned victims and stock footage of the atomic tests released by the military; and known by its true name, Destruction.

Richard Feynman celebrated the precursor of searing, fleshless death to tens of thousands because a product of his brilliant mind succeeded. To Richard Feynman the magnificent glow of what would ten days later become Little Boy was the affirmation of success. To the residents of Hiroshima, it was the wrath of god. Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, Nobel Prize winner, professor, joker, father, friend, husband, and child of the universe played the drums and drank wine to the tune of death’s bell. Is that not disgusting? Is that not an heinous act? Does that not make one want to deny someone as prestigious as a Nobel Prize recipient could be so. . . EVIL?

Richard Feynman did not think.

Hydrogen Density Plots by OskayMan’s celebration of his labor pangs can be awfully unwinding. Man’s attempt at supernatural godhood can create a monster of focus that life itself fails notice. In all other aspects of his life, Feynman displayed great depths of empathy, generosity, and kindness as profound as his natural talent. Feynman was not a monster of a man, but was the ilk of great men recorded by human history. His feats are not small in impact on human consciousness leaping into the future (Feynman whispered the beginnings of the current technologically advanced computer age into the builders of the digital revolution [quantum computing]).

Initially, Feynman’s focus was such that he did not consider consequences of success, even after the rational reasons for developing this type of mass destruction no longer applied. As the soldiers hired to drop the bombs thought nothing of the life below the peering eye of their scope, Feynman did not realize until later the impact and totality of the act he committed. Beyond the air, below the looming devastation lay only a target, a completion of a mission, the following of orders, nothing more. Nothing more. Where it lay as the greatest war in the belly of the hired soldier;  this kind of conditioned response is almost necessary under such extreme psychological provisions, elsewise the hired soldier might not drop the bomb (or build it). Words are chosen carefully so as instruction overrides conscience, what Feynman lacked in his focus to solve the problem of nuclear fission. He simply did not think.

Let us delve deeper into the quantum foam—

I once thought logic superior to thinking, as if to think were some diseased form of logic. I was delightfully mistaken. Logic has within its very philosophy an inherent and obvious flaw, it mimics thinking. Logic can be described as a series of instructions strictly adhered to, through which process one can conclude true or false, an unthinking (as with thinking there needn’t be any instructions strictly adhered to). As such, logic cannot sustain under its own power, as it can tend toward massive destruction (however, this is not altogether negative as massive destruction transitions into massive construction). Lest duality be the term conjured in mind, know nonduality waits always behind apparent duality. How the universe (“the which from which there is no whicher” ~Alan Watts) holds no bias for any life, animate and inanimate.

Substatics Quantum Mechanics Maxi Single by alphadesignerThat confusion of life, animate and inanimate, is often made. Inanimation cannot, nor does not, oppose life; life includes the animate and the inanimate. Whatever exists is life is the universe. Whether or not its resonance falls under category as animate or inanimate does not apply. For example, a robot animates like a human, is it life?  A human being mimics an inanimate vegetable or mineral, is he/she life? What line of distinction marks life from animate and inanimate?  Animate merely implies that a form of life is imbibed with motion, with motivation and will, with mind and all its capacities. An inanimate object implies that a form of life can be without motion, motivation and will, and without full capacity of mind.

[This does not sound terribly enlightening.

Rest assured, though, that a future writing should elaborate more on this apparent problem of animate vs inanimate. In the meanwhile, let us return to Ritty Feynman.]

The preceding idea Feynman did not fully comprehend until later. Feynman’s brilliant mind could imagine multi-dimensional abstractions layered upon one another in chaotic complexities; he could grasp the madness of the quantum and return with insights so illuminating as to be frightening. Nevertheless, Feynman did not realize the breadth of such an idea (the nonduality of natural law, of quantum mechanics [perhaps the leap of imagination Einstein supposedly could not stomach about quantum mechanics?] until later in his life.

The focused single mind needs equilibrium (as disequilibrium can be no different from the bicameral mind Julian Jaynes discusses about consciousness) to recycle destruction into construction. It was only after he realized that he did not think and why that Feynman erased the line between this or that. The secret of quantum mechanics and answer to the immortal question: But how could it be that way?

Galaxies by Daniele Nicolucci

“The question is: what if our whole universe were just an atom of an infinitely bigger universe? And what if each of “our world’s” atoms contains a whole universe? In either case, we would ever know. We aren’t able to look past our universe (or past our immediate surroundings in space and time, to tell the truth), nor we can look into anything smaller than a few sub-atomic particles.” ~Daniele Nicolucci

This or that becomes this and that, before it becomes thisthat, then thatthis . . . thathis . . .thaits . . . and so forth. Like galaxies colliding [except this is a slight misnomer. When spring arrives there is no clean exact line marking the first day of spring and the last of winter. Spring weaves through winter, tendrils of the awakening days to come ride the last of winter’s wonder]. . .  Galaxies so-call collide, but they don’t hit one another like two walls meeting each other in the middle of an otherwise empty room, they weave through one another, until one can hardly tell one from the other (at a distance) . . . then something new emerges. Two galaxies wrestle but for no reward and under no competition, only the struggle and then oneness again. Just as a paradigm shift ushers a new era, and as a great innovation charts the way for a new kind of culture and mentality.

Feynman played with physics until the day he died, the pleasure of finding things out continued as his mantra well into his last days. One cannot divine pleasure from finding things out until one has forgone his detachment from all other life. Leggo the ego. . .

The day Man touches that obelisk could be the day he always remembers to think.

“I, a universe of atoms, an atom in the universe.” ~Richard P. Feynman

Feynman On Complementarity Between Science And Religion by Martin LaBar

Image Credits—
“Richard Feynman Digital Painting” by Balamurugan Bhaskar
“Hydrogen Density Plots” by Windell H. Oskay, EvilMadScientist
“Substatics Quantum Mechanics Maxi Single” by AlphaDesigner
“Galaxies” by Daniele Nicolucci
“Feynman on complementarity between science and religion” by Martin LaBar

For Your Pleasure: Men’s Madness: The Myth of Male Reason (this is a documentary about logic run wild in a society)

The Glitch

a sudden instance of malfunctioning or irregularity in an electronic system. ~The Free Dictionary

The brain is not unlike an electronic system, yes? What happens when the brain is operating at optimal functioning, and then suddenly. . . glitches? Think of the mind, rather than a brain, and think of consciousness, rather than mind. Now, imagine a glitch within this ELECTRON-ic system. What happens? What occurs? What goes on ‘inside’ that consciousness as it is affected by some ‘outside’ source? [NOTE: use of the terms ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ are, we are aware,  deliberately arbitrary, but necessary for proper illustration.]

 1962, Amer.Eng., possibly from Yiddish glitsh “a slip,” from glitshn “to slip,” from Ger. glitschen, and related gleiten “to glide” ~Etymology Online

3.58. What is this seemingly innocuous grouping of three digits (Funny that one cannot describe these digits without using digits in the description—what kind of language trap is this?! How can one speak of three without using 3? How to overcome this apparent handicap)? As it appears here, it can mean much of the clock, as in denoting “Time” (but more like appointment; a much better description of so-called Time, is it not? Society breaks up the day into categories applicable not to the day or night—or motions of the sun, really—but only according to some schedule. So, doesn’t that make any group of digits on the clock a matter of appointment rather than some sense of Time or earthly revolutions? The earth does not repeat, why does the clock? Yes, the clock says

it ticks off 24-hours. How does it do that with but 12 numbers times 2. What is this logical game? How is it played? Are we taught times tables so we believe in the clock and appointments? So, we listen to the schedule and forget the motions of sun, earth, galaxy, universe, the beyond? So that we know nothing of synchronicity? So that coincidence becomes magical rather than actual? Alternatively, perhaps a deeper deception. So, that we are ignorant of motion and slave to manipulation, tactic, strategy, and machination. Blindly faithful in a process called O’clock and spawn of Father Time, rather than evolutions of form. Machinations and processes are for the other-minded, the pre-occupied mind bent to the grind and drudgery, the Working Man and the Career Woman. Elements of psychosis both.  A world in which we have never been at home. The world of the whore to consumption and the killer of consciousness). That is how we see “Time”, but that, fortunately, is not our intended meaning of 3.58.

How dependent we are upon symbols! Were I to write 3, 5, 8 as 3:58, then immediately of the clock arises in your mind. If I were to pen 3, 5, 8 as 3.58, perhaps some measurement of scale or weight comes to your mind. And if I were to add the most familiar symbol [in America,] $, before 3, immediately those salient images of money, buy, ‘For Sale’, all arise. That the numbers themselves are symbols is another matter, yes? 3.58 does happen to be monetary, but now maybe you think a small value, spare change even. However, it is far, far more valuable as to be considered priceless, at least to Stephen and myself. We finally obtained debit cards (after many, many years of loathing we care not to explain now) and began using them while out and about rather than carry large amounts of cash. I [Nicole] forgot about a 5AM point of sale transaction as the balance drew nearer to zero, so realized some days later that the $3.58 debited at Dunkin’ Donuts was declined (another Time would be needed to fully explain how this occurred in today’s digital age, but I digress). Panicked, we realized that we must put this straight with Dunkin’ Donuts. We walked 4 miles to the DD as quickly as possible. After explaining what occurred to the manager onsite (he and the other employees at first seemed frightened we had come after some complaint or trouble, but their fears were soon put to rest). He disappeared into a side room, returning moments

later with request that we take a seat, and we waited.  After speaking with the supervising manager (the person that checks the accounts), we were told that the store is insured and with a charge so small, we needn’t repay. This was unacceptable to us! We insisted for many minutes that we pay the $3.58. This left much of an impression upon the owner, as he tried to talk us out of it many times before relenting. We settled, he shook our hands, and insisted that we accept an offer of a complimentary donut or muffin. We thanked him and left.  We left relieved, our minds at rest.

What does this mean? When a computer is to carry out instructions, it travels from one and zero and to another zero and one, and vice versa. Well, the glitch is more like the computer incapable of moving to the next zero and one because the previous zero and one is absent, or corrupted, or jammed up in some way. The corrupted or missing information must first be returned, repaired, or found before anything else can be done. This is why we will walk however many miles to correct a discrepancy. In the case of $3.58, it is not about money, you see, or the apparent pecuniary value. It is also not out of fear of trouble or hassle, law, authority, or some other such abstraction, it has nothing to do with fear at all.

Think of this: order out of disorder, fractalisation, lateralus, nonlinearity, nonduality in a dualistic system, unlogic (not logic although appears very similar), not ethical, but appears highly ethical, not about morals although appears to be highly moralistic, more about a sense of truth, but not in the sense of morals, altruism, philanthropy, ethics, standards, logic, or even philosophy

(more because truth is the closest concept able to describe the necessity of avoiding gaping holes in thinking). The utter need to correct a mistake, the need to rectify a miscalculation, the need to redeem one’s sense of consciousness. And this not in the same sense as righting a wrong, for there is no belief in the ultimate right or the absolute wrong, it is not a pursuit of righteousness, or an effect of conscience. Conscience has nothing to do with it; although, there is an utter motivation, an immediacy to rectify the mistake, a compulsion, this is not the same as “The Little Voice inside Your Head” or the Voice of Conscience, the proverbial angel on one side and devil on another. It is more like glitch in a code (no, not a code of ethics, must your mind wander so easily?), as in a computer system (and no, I do not mean to liken our minds to that of a computer; I am merely using this as the best analogy for an otherwise inexplicable intangible).

Perhaps, more examples are necessary. We invite you to step inside our minds just a little farther. Around 1990, Stephen attended a technical school and had perfect attendance, I had perfect attendance throughout high school, and we both received certificates for perfect attendance because we can’t miss anything. When we make an error, it is catastrophic. When Stephen was on parole, he went to over 300 appointments without missing a single one. When there is a misdeed, there is a compulsion to expose it, you see. I once spilled coffee onto a comic I borrowed from the library  I was about to return, I immediately told the librarian upon arriving at the library what I had done and that I was more than willing to pay for the damage no matter what the cost. We admit all this to illustrate that The Glitch is not a matter of guilt. We are very upfront about mistakes we make and adamant about our exactitude.

This is origin as to why we can’t deal with bureaucracies and incompetence, and most people in general. That our minds work like this makes it difficult to deal with people, whether in communication or otherwise. I often construct what I am going to say before I open my mouth and will deliberate for weeks, days, hours, months, years before I speak it to make sure that my meaning cannot be misconstrued in any way. It’s part of the reason why I am often called so quiet. It also makes it difficult for us to lie, because the lie causes a schism in our minds. Every decision has to be analyzed and all information must be analyzed, several times in multiple ways. We have had multiple conversations at length (as many as seven hours at a time) analyzing something before we embark upon it, etc., so much so that our doctors have dubbed it “analysis paralysis.” Although, this can be an applicable description, our minds are not exactly paralyzed always by analysis.  Because our minds work in this manner subjects such as mathematics, physics, finance, etc. are very easy to grasp. We are lost, however, to understanding human behavior. Human behavior trips us up all the time, in every way, and every time, to the point that it becomes almost impossible to talk to anyone for very long periods. We were ibasically isolated for 7 years with but one another’s company prior to starting on this adventure of sorts. Only by established patterns can we have any indication of human behavior and that only in groups. On an individual level, our analysis of human behavior collapses completely and we are left confounded.

When one or the other or both simultaneously have a schism, our minds search for any kind of ground to stand on as self-defense, to keep from splitting apart, or shattering. We will analyze how to cross a street or walk on the sidewalk, anything on which to grip and come to conclusion just to keep from frying our minds. We read everything, even in passing so know all kinds of tidbit

information from whatever environment we find ourselves in, even if it has nothing to do with us specifically. We will read anything that we lay our eyes on, even if it seems inconsequential (Stephen has read the phone book many times and I have a knack of reading any and all kinds of signs, it’s one of the reasons that makes it extremely difficult to drive or enter a store for long). We notice everything, entering a store can cause a schism because our minds ultra-aware of our surroundings. I often play Sudoku to affect heavy amounts of concentration in order to detach from all the stimuli. Too much stimulation can also cause a schism, so can too much noise, even from loud voices, so we avoid crowds. It makes being in the city for long almost impossible without developing a migraine or stomachache.

Lest we give too much of a single dimension, this same manner of our minds make it so the forest is a wonderful place of solace. To wake to the sound of the birds in the morning as the sun rises, to hear the leaves bristling on the breeze, or sound of a single bird singing its heart out to the day or another bird, the twittering of the bats in the evening as they feed, the footsteps of the deer in the brush, and the soft sound of the breeze weave our minds into a beautiful tapestry with the forest, the sky. . . the beyond. Trust, we do not pity ourselves (nor do we consider ourselves lucky or succumb to some arrogance); we live as we do, as freely as we can, in a nondualistic world that both harms and embraces.

Welcome to our schizoaffective disorder and order.