Tao of Hypertime - Philosophy

Tao of Hypertime Home > Original Works > Philosophy

Philosophy - Dreaming the World Anew

My ideas of how reality works are...odd, to say the least. This will be a sounding board to myself as much as anything else, and if anyone learns from it, so much the better. 8^)

First and foremost is the (admittedly New Age) idea that one person can change the world. Or at least their own corner of it. There are, IMNSHO, as many paths to this as people. Scientific, political, artistic, martial, psychic, magical, religious, and infinite combinations thereof are possible to those who keep their eyes and options open.

Still, trying to travel all paths at once will get most people hopelessly lost. Take it from one who has tried; a certain level of focus is useful at the least. So most of us choose a path that suits us, which is for the good.

Unfortunately, too many of us proceed to condemn, attack or enslave anyone who doesn't share our general way of doing things, and that one fault of human nature has been responsible for more grief than any other, and quite possibly all others combined.

So what's my focus? I have always been fascinated with the psychic, and to a lesser extent, the martial arts. The two seem, to me, to be related to an extent. They are two of the most inwardly-directed paths; IMO they are the most Self-oriented paths.

One way of looking at the choices we have is a dualistic method, by comparing extremes. There are other ways, to be sure, but I have found this method a useful benchmark. So far I have chosen three continua for this process, which act (for me) like the three spacial dimensions. I use this method to 'chart' philosophical paths internally.

One: Good and evil. This is my 'up' and 'down,' and the one I consider the most important. It has been argued that good and evil cannot be absolute concepts, to which I respond: so what? Given the postulate that no philosophical concept can exist as an absolute in the physical world, this is true. But the ideas remain. The problem is, evil is easily defined- deliberately harming another without just cause- while 'good' is considerably more nebulous. Perhaps that is for the best, though. Devoting one's life to feeding the hungry and healing the sick is truly 'good;' I sincerely hope that no one reading this is going to doubt Mother Theresa's nobility of character. 8^) But is creating a beautiful painting 'good?' Is working a dreary job to feed one's family 'good?' Is taking a moment to give directions to a lost couple 'good,' even if there is no inconvenience in providing it to them? What is the limit, the defining characteristic, of 'good?' Perhaps there shouldn't be one; all I can say without equivocation is that it is more than the absence of evil. I will postulate that it is the active effort to assist others, without any malicious intent. There may be 'degrees' of good, just as there might be 'degrees' of evil. Those degrees are debatable to a point, but stealing a waitress' tip is not the evil that knifing her in a back alley would be.

The difference in 'degrees' of good and evil is that good truly is its own reward, no matter the size; all that matters with a goodness is that it has been done, while evils done are a perilous web, wherein it is far harder to escape the center than the edges.

Two: Order and chaos. These, in my paradigm and IMO, are NOT to be confused with good and evil, above. Order can mean justice and chaos, havoc, but order can also mean tyranny and chaos, freedom. They are simply different means to ends, neither inherently superior to the other.

From a constructional POV, order could equal 'science' and chaos, 'magick,' stemming from the scientific ideal of observable reality. This (rather sloppily, I admit) essentially defines magick only through its theoretical antonym, but I know little of magickal theory, and what I do know corroborates this. Dreams and illusions have their own reality, even in the most mechanistic worldview. Conversely, even dreams and illusions require the ability to perceive them and (mis)understand them. Like yin and yang, neither order nor chaos can exist without the other.

Three: Unity and Adaptation. This is how the Emerald Tablet of Hermes (in one translation) defines the 'all' and the 'self.' This duality gets very little press, especially in modern Western culture, which seems to view the 'all' as merely a collection of discrete units. Conversely, many Eastern philosophies argue that the 'self' is an illusion, which is why I find it unlikely that (attractive as they otherwise are) I will ever wholly embrace any of them. Again, I make no judgement as to the moral value of one over the other, I have simply found the path of introspection more useful for myself.

To clarify the meanings of these terms for this philosophical duality, I mean the 'self' to be the path of seeking inwardly for meaning and/or power, and the 'all' to be the path of outward seeking. There can be great comfort in embracing Unity as expressed in religion, spirituality, and/or some scientific philosophies. I myself believe that there is a 'Unity,' which I refer to alternately as the 'Light' or the 'Presence;' that which...is. And to an extent, I embrace it.

However, I have found that I must make my own path; in fact, this is why I attempted greatly to keep the previous definitions objective, while no attempt to do the same has been done here. I feel (and hope!) that the superiority of good over evil is self-evident, and have only slight leanings toward order, which are not constant. 8^) In this third axis, OTOH, I have found that I am turned very strongly inward, and to attempt to deny that in a philosophical construct so intensely personal would be folly.

IMO, the path of Unity needs no defense, and is perfectly valid. However, the path of self-discovery, of power from within, seems to have long been repressed or denied by those who enjoy having power over others. Controlling others should NOT be confused with power from Unity; that which is universal is inherently equalizing rather than dominating. The 'problem' with power from oneself is that no authority can be imposed upon it, and thus it is a threat to those who which to impose themselves on others. After discovering the Emerald Tablet at a website on alchemy, that philosophical construct seems as useful as any in the search to define and enhance the 'Adaptation' that is the self.

I have found that, like order and chaos, Adaptation and Unity have corresponding constructs, which I define as 'psychic' and 'spiritual.' Psychic development, for purposes of this paradigm, is the path of growth through understanding who and what that individual seeker is. Spiritual development can also encourage growth, but is meant more to provide perspective. The one could be compared to a concave mirror, while the other, a convex mirror; the psychic path can provide a focus as the spiritual helps to see the 'bigger picture,' though either can be used to see who you are. The difference comes in more when defining what you are.

The Church of all Worlds

The closest thing I have to a 'Bible' is Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. In it, Valentine Michael Smith (arguably the main character) eventually forms a philosophy/religion/spiritual methodology called 'The Church of all Worlds.' It essentially accepts all religions as valid. (The book doesn't address anti-religions in themselves.) This has been the basis for my philosophy since my early teens, though Taoism influences me greatly. I have recently returned to my 'roots' to explore this concept anew.

Stranger is also a fantastic book that is a seminal work both for science fiction and culture as a whole. I recommend it highly to anyone with a remotely open mind.

As always, more to follow.

Tao of Hypertime Home | Original material | Links | Professional site / portfolio | Site search