Sunday-Edition

On Infinity and Beliefs

In an infinite universe, with infinite space, attributes and possibilities, it is absurd to imagine that one may know anything at all, for to know something amounts to arriving at a finite conclusion,and this is infinitely impossible. Yet in an infinite universe embodying infinite possibilities, the act of knowing is also infinitely possible, or so the optimist will hasten to offer. But if it is both infinitely possible and infinitely impossible to know something, then how can either notion be a possibility?

An infinite universe has no finite threads, so it is unthinkable that in an infinite universe one may arrive at a finite conclusion. It is equally absurd to entertain the conjecture that I may arrive at an infinite conclusion, as an infinite conclusion is no conclusion at all.

It is as absurd to believe - I take that last word back - It is as absurd that one could know that the universe is finite as it is to arrive at a finite conclusion in a infinite universe, for in order for anything to be viewed as finite, one must be able to distinguish where that thing ends, and hence, where something else begins, even if it be empty space, and as long as there is a continuum of any sort, there is no finite end. I must conclude, then, that in either case it is impossible to conclude anything.

And so there is utility and good in faith and belief, for these qualities provide for us direction in an otherwise infinitely complex and infinitely directional universe.

And it is useless to question the beliefs of another, for no matter how absurd they may be interpreted by us, they are no more absurd than our own beliefs.

And if these last two statements appear that I have come to a conclusion, then you know not where I am coming from.

If the universe is infinite, then it must be infinitely large and infinitely small - there can be no finite end.

Time too, is infinite only when the duration of an event is both infinitely swift and infinitely protracted in relation to other events. Does this not mean that all events are infinite in duration of others? Is life infinite in duration?

Size, too, is to be considered infinite only when objects are, in relation to other objects, infinitely large and infinitely small simultaneously.

So human beings are both infinitely large and infinitely small, simultaneously! Our life span is both infinitely long and infinitely short at the same time.

But an object which is infinitely smaller than another cannot exist, at least in relation to the larger object, because the two of them are infinitely separated in space and time, and can have nothing in common, as this commonality would constitute a finite measure between them.

And we cannot consider ourselves to be a finite part of the universe, as infinity knows no finite boundaries.

We, therefore, do not exist in this infinite universe. Does the infinite reside within us?

On Life

It is no better to be alive than not to be, for life teaches us nothing of the universe we live in, andteaches nothing except the prosaic vicissitudes of life itself; and when life is gone, so is everything we thought we knew. Our canvas, so to speak, is wiped clean, and resting inert, it waits for the vagarious stroke of nature’s brush.

Life is sine wave: when it is up you have awareness and the sense of time; when it is down youhave no awareness of the previous state. And so it goes, on and on and on…

What is the universe, you ask? You, me - we are the universe!

How is that you torture yourself with questions surrounding the nature of death, when you havenot yet passed the ultimate test of life? The test is a question: what is the meaning of life?

God is everywhere; there can be no void. There can be no void; therefore the concept of death is descriptively inaccurate. There can be no death; therefore there can be no life, for life is the opposite of death, and death is not possible. There only is. Existence is. God is. Life is. Deathis. Life and Death are the same; get it?

People do not mourn for the dead; rather, they grieve over their own personal loss, and they behave ritualistically in fear of that power which executed the loss.

We grieve not that time has robbed us of our loved ones; rather, we grieve that time will rob us ofour lives, too.

We are not a part of the universe; the universe is instead a part of us. It extends outward from our bodies in all directions infinitely, and our bodies are in fact integument’s of the infinitely small.

More on the Will

The ameba and man, contrary to everything we have been led to believe, are essentially thesame. Their form is different, as are their physiological processes and behaviors, but the spark of life, the commonality that all things living share and which distinguishes them from the nonliving, is indeed the same. The force of life, or will, transcends all barriers of shape and size, indeed - even form, and governs the existence of all living things.

There are only two ways by which this “will” could have come about: On the one hand. It mayhave been created, in which case we must assume that there is a Creator, or “God.” But if this is true, then what kind of “God” is our creator? Is there any way of knowing? We might assume that “He” is similar to us in that he judges behavior; he embodies thought and emotion, and heemploys a moral code. We may believe that he is good, and just. Some would go so far as to say that he is omnipotent. But if this is true, then why is there suffering? Is suffering part of God’s plan? And if so, then God is not benevolent, at least not for everyone, for some innocent people are born by him into a life of terminal suffering. All people will suffer in their lifetime - there is no escaping this fact. So if God is “good,” then we must conclude that he either sees the suffering and can do nothing about it, or he doesn’t see the suffering as suffering; In other words, God is either not omnipotent, or he is not omniscient. On a final note, we might further add that as longas we believe God to be “good” and “just” then we must assume that He never intended for people to suffer. But because people, indeed - all living beings suffer anyway - then something has obviously gone wrong with God’s plan. In other words, in more succinct terminology, God is prone to error. God help us!

But then, suppose there is not God, no creator, no final judge of good and evil. If life was not created by a God (and here “God” is meant to refer to any creative force, be it a conscious, seeing one or an unconscious, unknowing one) then there is only one possible explanation for its current existence: Life has always been. The will of Life was never created, for it is as eternal and infinite as the universe in which it resides. Life is a process, a “will,” not a thing. Living “things” are only manifestations of a universally homogeneous will of life. When we see a flock of birds swarming against the background of a blue sky we are not seeing individuals, really. What we actually see is a single, massive “blob” of the will, seeking to procreate itself, searching for fecundity. The will is not concerned with the survival of individuals, so long as those individuals procreate before their demise.

While all life forms are essentially alike in that they are composed of and governed by a monogamous, universal “will,” it would be foolhardy to conclude, then, that there are no differences between them - obviously, there are. There is very little in the way of similarity between a spider,and a fly. One is an insect, the other is not; one has eight legs, the other has six; one is an active predator, the other is its prey. And yet, a common interaction joins them, for between predators and prey, one cannot exist as it does without the other. The will of life is not concerned with the survival of the helpless little fly; not is it biased or in any way predisposed toward the continued survival of the spider. While we recognize that these species do indeed struggle for continuity, nature does not, else why would nature sacrifice the fly to feed that existence of the irrepressibly spider? And if the spider is dependent upon the fly for survival, then couldn’t nature seek to protect the fly? The answer to the last question, of course, is in the affirmative, and nature provides for the continuance of the fly through an exponentially accelerated rate of proliferation. But we can readily see that it is not the survival of individuals that is important here; it is the survival of an interaction that is maintained. In other words, Life (if I may substitute this word for “will of life”) is geared towards the survival of Life itself - not any one individual component of the will.

We find that at all levels of living things, from microbes, bacteria and zoo plankton to elephants and man, Life feeds upon itself. With the exception of plants, no creature can survive without the consumption of living matter, or should I say matter that once was alive (and if the Sun is actually a life form, then all life forms do indeed, feed off of other life.) The food chain extends up to and beyond man (certainly, perhaps millions of years ago, Man’s precursors provided a basic diet, or at least an occasional palate delight, for some predatory creature). Even today, if some poor, unsuspecting human should be devoured by a more primitive beast, neither nature or the beast would grieve for the unfortunate one (Indeed - the beast would be thankful for the full tummy, and nature would be content with the beast’s satisfaction). I am reminded of a limerick:

There was a young girl from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
When they returned from the rid
The girl was inside and the smile was on the face of the tiger!

Such are the vicissitudes of Life!

While man has now evolved to the point that such a tragic fate has become a rarity (few humans are eaten in their entirety), microbes, nonetheless, feed on human matter on a regular basis. Humans, likewise, rejoice at the prospects of eating just about anything that can be comfortably placed into the mouth and chewed with a pleasant effect. All things we eat are basically cellular, and all cells are living things, so it follows that life is not concerned with the survival of this or that living thing, so long as some living thing remains. Life both feeds upon and recycles itself.