Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(2nd edition [re-edit] - Dec 2012) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
Ever since the dawn of consciousness - at least since an understanding was
sought in earnest - ‘life’ has been the most perplexing thing humans have
ever tried to put in a box. What is it… really? Equally baffling is
individuality… how each of us can be… well, ‘us‘. As a unique
individual, it’s as if the rest of humanity are merely actors in some
interactive movie… albeit genuine circumstances as far as humans are
able to determine.
Whatever the case, real or not, for the purposes of trying to discover what life and individuality are all about, we’ll assume reality is more than just a concept… that it is actually real (in the opinion of the creator).
We all know, of course, life is so confoundedly alien to our way of thinking it’s difficult to even begin thinking about. We’ve got little or nothing to form our thoughts around. Well, let’s see if we can find a few things. But first, let’s look at how we might commonly look at our individual existence.
First off, we might attribute our individual being to the simple fact
that we were born… that is, as an individual, we became that person. But
hold on… became that person? Why us? Equally baffling, why didn’t we
become someone else? It should be astounding that we just happen to be
the one experiencing what the eyes of our body see.
While it’s not difficult to see other people as living individuals, the curious aspect is why I became I and you became you… effectively ‘alone’ in the world since, as far as we’re concerned, we‘re the only one doing the experiencing.
However, the point of this article isn’t about the question of why we became individuals, a religious matter and beat to death, but instead looks at the question of how we became individuals… specifically ‘us‘. Of course, to determine the essence of our individuality we must ponder at a depth where it is difficult to remain focused. Thoughts often evaporate, because, as said, we‘ve got no worthwhile words to work with. After all, we’re dealing with the profoundness that each of us somehow became an instance of individual awareness apart from all others. Specifically, we’re dealing with the amazing reality that it just happens to be ‘us’ doing the experiencing.
Having set aside the question of why we were born (the divine purpose) in order to focus on ’how’, one would soon recognize we’d also have to deal with the question of ‘what‘… and maybe even ‘who‘. Knowing what we’re dealing with (or who) should help answer the question of how.
Also lurking in the shadows is the question of why were we selected to be born at a particular time (year). Or were we selected? Or was it random that it was specifically us who became alive? Or are the terms ’selected’ or ’random’ even applicable?
Even the terms "who, what, where, when and why" might come into question. Perhaps the following poem taken from my book STD LEX points this out.
WHO-WHAT-WHERE were first, as cavemen try,
a useful beginning for their mastodon fry,
from this WHO-WHAT-WHERE, WHEN was taught,
WHY came last, as a sophisticated thought.
By the twelfth century the 'w' words came,
maybe much earlier on a Stone-Agers train.
Mystics have said in those times long ago,
that languages are barriers, as ever slow,
then posed a question, as yet outstanding,
do words further, or create understanding?
If mystics were right, our thinking wrong,
makes God illusive when words always bomb.
I go assured into the heart of the matter,
atop WHO-WHAT-WHERE is WHEN up the latter,
of time to relate, WHEN took some thought,
then a dimensional WHY for answers sought.
While WHY makes sense in an earthly realm,
we can't assume so for that ethereal helm.
WHY is a bastard and three-lettered stray,
and a different color is this misfit gray,
yet WHY is for reasons, purpose and cause,
that He doesn't need WHY, is WHY's clause.
Creators fashion to tie language in knots,
why we hung our WHYs for not telling lots.
That creators create and gives not a damn,
for creation’s sake is both lion and lamb,
instinctual concepts see no logic for WHY,
contradictions prove these no reasons fly.
Creators came, saw and WHY-knots creation,
left Adam an apple and to Eve, temptation.
Can creators create without a good reason,
but holding jobs with no rhyme is treason,
in redemption however, left me my thought,
complete are works where no WHY is taught.
They left no reason for vestiges or skies,
yet identifies freedom by telling no WHYs.
If there was a WHY, then meaningless free,
yet given necessities, seeds, a nice tree,
of elements and love, for in the sun bask,
came truth in masks, our earthly WHY task.
Freedom was served for a spiritual matter,
unanswered WHYs put my proof on a platter.
A.O. Kime (1941- )
As this poem demonstrates, in trying to address these questions we’re
faced with having to contend with the shortcomings of languages
(semantics). It is the same problem one has in
trying to explain sensory experiences. For a lack of appropriate terms,
the only alternative is to try explaining oneself in different ways (to
paint a picture).
So again, we have the perplexing question of our own individuality… how it came to pass. While it’s fairly easy to accept the idea of a living being, something we’ve grown to accept as a reality, mystery or not, from all indications it’s clear the ’me’ part (our individuality) isn’t recognized as a phenomenon unto itself. From an analytical point-of-view apparently not even religiously. Yet, there’s a difference between ’me’ (the intimacy of our being) and all other living things because ‘me’ has it’s own world… separate from all others.
In other words, while life is an accepted fact, ‘me’ isn’t… at least not comprehensively. It is almost more mysterious than life itself. After all, beyond all the miraculous necessities for life such as a heart and brain, which everyone has, we’re still the only one watching the movie… a one-of-a-kind movie. Further, it’s a movie no one else will ever see. While others would be interacting with their movies too, but for these purposes it’s beside the point in order to focus on the phenomenon of ‘me‘.
So, assuming everyone else is not just playing a part in MY movie, that they’re actually experiencing the world just as I am, we’re going to go beyond the fact each person has an ‘experiencing mind’. In other words, why is it, exactly, that it just happens to be ‘me’ doing the experiencing?
In a very real sense, it’s as if we existed before. If not, then
something else must explain the intimacy of ‘me’. Since we seem to know
ourselves beyond that of our lifelong experiences, which seems to
indicate either a previous existence or duality of some type, obviously
of a spiritual nature, the latter would seem to better explain the
intimacy of ’me’ here and now. After all, if we had a past life we
surely would have ‘known ourselves before’ then too. Yet, neither hypothesis
explains how a ’me’ can exist independently.
In a way, it doesn’t seem life could be divisible… parceled out to create a multitude of ’mes’. If anything, straight-line logic would say there should only be one ’me’… a single consciousness because we’re all made of the same biological mass. Nonetheless, that’s the situation… each of us are only aware of our own ’me’.
However, from a metaphysical standpoint the subconscious mind is what represents life and, of course, it isn’t divisible… there’s just one human subconsciousness. While the conscious mind would account for individuality (the divisible aspect) and the multitude of ‘mes‘, it doesn‘t explain the ‘me‘ phenomenon either… not the astonishing and ever-so intimate aspect.
So, obviously, this phenomenon hasn’t been sufficiently described yet… so let’s try again. In doing so, we must keep in mind that even though individual experiences is what life is all about, seemingly a simple matter, there‘s always more to the story when it comes to the metaphysical.
While it is commonly understood each person (or animal) has their own consciousness, apart from all others, gone unexplained is how a ’me’ can be created from the same biological mass… specifically you and I. Again, we’re not talking about all the other ’mes’, just our own.
Actually, it’s easier to comprehend the point of this article if one considered themselves as the sole occupant of this world. Because, in a sense, we ARE the sole occupant.
Although the ‘gift of life’ comes from the magical ‘spark of life’, and
God’s doings, the question remains… why was it given to me? And why
didn’t God give it to me a thousand years ago? For now however, let’s
set aside the question of whether or not we had any ‘past lives’.
Actually it appears two things happen. First, it appears the ‘spark of life’ only pertains to the physical body… that which makes it functional (alive). Then secondly, comes the ’gift of life‘… an old saying meaning it’s a gift to the newly created being (our soul / spirit). Now, whether the gift occurs minutes, hours or days later (following the spark of life to the fetus), is unknown but we should also keep in mind this second hypothesis in our quest for the ‘me’ phenomenon.
Still, the same old problem remains, the quest to explain life is similar to trying to dissect and then explain in quantitative terms the smell of an onion… or the sound of a saxophone.
So too, words have a way of boxing-in concepts and their usage tend to produce wrong perceptions. Or else they're lacking. For example, the term ’life’ was invented even though nobody knows what that entails… being only good for referring something alive. Likewise, ‘alive’ is taken to mean just a functional body, when, it seems obvious to everyone, there’s something missing… perhaps some type of dimension. For all we know life is pervasive, part of the universal scheme… only looking for a place to dwell.
In trying to describe life itself, an alternative is to consider it some
sort of dimension. It appears the case because of the ‘me phenomenon’…
an aspect of life. In other words, individuality is an aspect and part
of the greater whole so therefore exists in some dimensional way. Since
the great differences between the physical realm and life itself can
only be a dimensional matter, it ought to be a clue.
Of course, in addressing the ethereal one must impose on the term ’dimension’ since no better term exists. However, as long as aspects of the ethereal are called 'dimensions', such as ’space time’ (physics) purportedly having eleven, then the term would be suitable for one to impart the general idea.
While the dimensional properties within the spiritual realm are completely unknown, to just consider them dimensional phenomena might be a good place to start. For one thing, it would explain life enough to give it some sort of ‘status’… something to build upon. As it is, science has not given life any status whatsoever… completely ‘unassigned’ and therefore scientifically ignored. There isn't even a scientific symbol for life (as if it doesn't exist).
It isn’t ignored by everyone however. It has been suggested that life is
a hologram… meaning our mental state is being projected here from
somewhere else (the 'me' part - not a 3D imagery of our physical body).
In a way, a ‘hologram’ might be a better characterization than
’dimension’ for this purpose because it gives us something to ‘picture’ whereas an
undefined dimension doesn’t excite our imaginative powers at all. Then there
are the string
theories (particle physics -external website) floating around which may help
explain life… but they would only be mechanical explanations. They would never
explain the intimacy of ’me’.
However, because of the multitude of individuals in the world something must explain how each could exist within the same dimension and still be different. While it’s still a singular dimensional phenomenon we’re dealing with seemingly, it appears to be one with ‘windows’ whereby each individual can experience life differently. While a hologram is a good way to describe the projection of ones essence into the physical realm but even a hologram needs a window from which to experience.
While a window and hologram are just other ways to describe (or explain) the conscious mind, but in speaking in the vernacular of ‘dimension’ we should keep in mind all existent and theoretical dimensions have odd and varied characteristics… albeit within a scheme which lend themselves to the possibility of being mathematically reconcilable whereas there is no way to mathematically reconcile ‘life’ much less ’windows’. Perhaps that explains why there is no scientific symbol to represent ’life’… no mathematical value has ever been established because one first needs an equation to explain it.
Perhaps there’s another way to quantify life rather than through a
mathematical equation? After all, musical keys are quantified yet have
no mathematical properties. In other words, musical keys have dissected
sound, measured it in effect… but so far it’s been the only success in
quantifying something sensory. Perhaps if we could quantify other
sensory experiences it might lead somewhere since it appears our senses
are in the same ballpark as life.
Although the best characterizations so far are that the subconscious mind represents life, and that the conscious mind represents our individual being, the dimensional aspect may take it a step further. Yet, we still haven’t found what ‘me’ is all about.
Being a ‘me’ is absolutely amazing and surely as much a wonder as life itself… if not more-so. Amazingly, while it’s easy to comprehend how there could be many ‘mes’ in the world, each individual being one, we simply can’t comprehend or explain our own ’me’. It’s as if we can see the forest but not the trees.
Again, so as not to lose track of where we’re going, why is it that it just happens to be us doing the experiencing? What does that mean?
While it may often seem the world couldn’t exist without us (our participation), in a sense it wouldn’t (or doesn’t) exist… not for us if we were dead or were never born. It therefore could be said that living in this physical place is to be living in a dimension. If it wasn’t a dimension, then we’d always be aware of the world even if we were dead. Actually, the difference between life and death may be the best characterization of a 'dimension'.
Horizontal, vertical and depth might only be 'sub-dimensions'
(applicable only to the physical realm).
The concept of a hologram would also fit nicely with what Socrates purportedly believed… that “physical objects and physical events are ‘shadows’ of their ideal or perfect forms”. If in the ballpark, this could indicate our being is a reflection of ourselves in another state of existence. Simultaneously being in another state of existence would explain the “intimacy of our being”.
Perhaps sensing this intimacy is the reason some people think they’ve
lived previous lives. While some claim they possess the memories of a previous
life (as testimony), inherited in some way like instincts,
but whether or not we’ve had a previous life is only a side show to the
issue at hand. A past life doesn’t explain the intimacy of our being because,
it seems, there still must have been a beginning point.
That is, unless reoccurring thoughts are all it takes. Whatever the case, following that trail doesn’t appear to lead to explaining just how it happens to be us doing the experiencing either.
|Don't forget to read the amazing article
"The sun... is it alive or not?" and if you
like poetry see "metaphysical poetry" and/or "poetry a la mode" (yes, right here on the world's 1st and only 'reality plus' website)
But for beginners., to look upon 'us' as being ’projected’ from
somewhere within the spirit world (as if a hologram), helps us visualize
the picture better. A picture, after all, is what we're trying to
paint... but one which, like any work of art, can't be characterized
in precise terms. Precise terms applicable to the vagueness of the
spirit world must await further understanding
and linguistic genius (such as the terms 'conscious' and
While in a semi-technical sense the ‘me’ phenomenon is the reflection of our essence and that our body serves as the window into this earthly dimension, and while being just more characterizations in order to impart the general idea, my article on the subconscious mind takes a different and perhaps a more productive approach.
Matrix of Mnemosyne... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world
Last modified: 03/05/16