Gift of Life

artist rendition of man thumbing through book

The gift of life… but gift for who?

(1st edition - Jun 2010) 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 is 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.

We were born

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?

Understanding the shortcomings of languages

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?

A past life or not?

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’ 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.

The spark of life and gift of life... a difference?

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… keeping in mind even if our ‘me’ was deposited (our spirit), it’s still a gift. Of course, we don’t know yet which is the case. 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 to 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… looking only for a place to dwell.

The dimensional aspect... well, sort of...

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 belongs 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 give life a ‘status’… something to build upon. As it is, life has no scientific status whatsoever… completely ‘unassigned’ and therefore scientifically ignored.

The hologram

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 (not a 3D imagery of our physical body). In a way, a ‘hologram’ might be a better characterization than ’dimension’ for this angle of attack 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) 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 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.

Mathematical reconciliation the only means to quantify?

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 ever quantify other sensory experiences it might lead somewhere since it appears our senses are in the same ballpark as life?

Although the best characterizations are that the subconscious mind represents life, and the conscious mind represents our individual being, a masterstroke in definitions, the dimensional aspect may help explain things as well. 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 ’me’ 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 'dimension'.

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”.

Where did the 'intimacy of our being' come from?

Perhaps sensing this intimacy is the reason some people think they’ve lived previous lives? While some claim they have the memories of a previous life (as testimony), although it’s perhaps possible memories can be inherited like some instincts, but whether or not we’d 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 of its relationship to a time frame (a beginning point).

While one might argue that ‘intimacy’ can have a beginning point (past life or not), it doesn't seem possible unless a single reoccurring thought is all it takes. While doubtful, that line of thinking doesn’t explain how it just happens to be us doing the experiencing either.

While some may prefer to call the ’me’ our spirit (or soul), commonly deemed to be eternal and a good description since we‘ve grown up with this term and have a general idea what it means, but to look upon our spirit as being ’projected’ from elsewhere into our conscious mind (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 'subconscious').

However, despite its common use, the term ‘spirit’ hasn’t been sufficiently characterized over the ages either. On the other hand, some things don‘t need explaining. Without explanation, we already know from the intimacy of our being that our spirit would be a wonder to behold... an absolute marvel.

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 more heartfelt) approach.

Also, to look upon our soul as having ‘depth’ may add something to the picture we‘re trying to paint. Gazing upon the heavens at night helps impart that idea… the more stars the better. It gives us a better perspective on the meaning of depth and how it may apply to our very soul.

A.O. Kime

Go back to (or see more) articles on metaphysical wonders (phenomena) and inkwell philosophy
Also see Spiritual Metaphysics… the overlord of realities
Also see The Sensing Capabilities of the Spiritual Soul

Matrix of Mnemosyne... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world

Last modified: 09/03/10