Everything has a spirit, or an aura, and each aura is part of a larger aura. The size of the "things" go on infinitely both in the larger and smaller directions. There is no smallest or largest thing in existance, at least not in our realm of perception.
However, there are stopping points. A city, for example, has it's own aura, which is made from every single thing in the space that the city makes up.
At some point we get to the aura that is made of all the auras in this universe. This is the Great Spirit, God, the highest of all. It is neither male nor female; it is not humanistic. It simply is.
Karma is the greatest of these powers. Karma directs fate and destiny, and how we react to that inevitable fate dictates what karma will do with the future. It's a circular process that continues through every lifetime.
The part of the universe we know was not created by the high spirit. If it was, where would the spirits that make that spirit be before hand? The matter that exists in our part of the universe may just have come from another part of the universe unknown to us.
Because no two people see reality just the same, whether or not there is one set reality is actually irrelovent. Everything comes down to perception. Reality for each is what they percieve it to be. "Sanity is not statistical." - 1984.
All is relative, as the language by which we classify things and the science with which we prove things at one point was created by man. All that we "know" is relative to what was once created. However, there are things we know with our souls, things that we may not have an explanation for but we just know to be true. These things often are hard to accept, as they may not be the truths we want.
All living beings have a body, a spirit, and a soul. The body dies, the spirit grows through life and becomes a "ghost", and the soul is eternal, reincarnated over and over again.
Because all things make up the high spirit, all things deserve to be treated with honour. Honour is the ultimate virtue and it includes honesty and respect. Never to lie to yourself or another or dismiss another's feelings or beleifs.
Freedom is something which cannot be given or taken away. To be free is to know your morals and stand by them at any cost. Doing so may cause one to lose their life, but life itself comes with that cost.
We must get past possession to the appriciation of being able to partake in things. We must share all we find in life and share the beauty and truth with everyone.

January 1998




PARTIAL SUPPORT FOR THEORY “ALL IS RELATIVE”
PROOF: Normality and perfection are relative.

Since the time when humans gained the ability to bypass instinct and act with thought, they have lived with purpose. They have been driven by the pursuit of what they call “success”. Success is frequently defined in society today by the amount of money and acceptance one acquired in their life. This may seem at first reasonable enough- money is the means of acquisition for almost everything, and acceptance as well as money are the chief providers of opportunity. With money and acceptance, one can acquire most anything and will and be aided and accompanied in life by others. But how is this state of living “success”? It may provide comfort and stability, but this is in terms of material things only. Some may say that the possession of material comforts is enough in life for them to be successful, but this is only true as long as the material possessions are not removed from their life. For as soon as this happens, where are they? This is why success should be measured internally, not externally, for success can only come when opposed by failure, and if material comfort is success then failure must be the loss of this material comfort. True success, when achieved, cannot be taken away. This is why true success is the knowledge of self and the ability to sustain happiness in the face of all adversity, for these are things that cannot be taken away by anyone or anything. As well, all through history there have periodically been groups of people with extreme religious fervor who feel it is their supreme purpose in life to serve God and prepare for the next life. During the High Middle Ages the Holy Roman Church stated that religion was to come before all earthly pursuits, and that they were servants of God by spreading Christianity and the word of Jesus. However, if they truly put worship above all else, they would not be concerned with others, only with their own religious fulfillment. This can be explained by their belief that it was their duty as Christians to spread Jesus’s word; however, Jesus never promoted violence, and they often used violence as a means of spreading Christianity. As well, the Puritans that settled in Massachuttsess went there to escape religious persecution. They said that all they cared about in life was serving God and preparing for the next life, and they were willing to withstand any of lives trying experiences long as they abided strictly by their religion. If this was so, why did they not stay in England? If they were so persecuted, the worst that could happen would be that they were killed for their beliefs, and if the entire purpose of their existence was to prepare for the next life, why did they care whether or not this occurred? All of this proves that instinct has not been completely diminished in the humans; they still have the instinct to belong to a group, to convert others to their group, and above all to survive. These belonging instincts explain the belief of material acquisition as being success, for this is the norm in modern society, or, to use a more appropriate term, the average. Since there is no clear-cut definition of “normal”, we are forced to conform to what is the average. However, the term average implies that it is the most common level on a group of several different levels. There is no one center point that is all-encompassing of all levels, simply a sum of the levels divided by the amount of differences. Therefore, normality is simply a sum of difference. If “normality” is none more than this, and this is a known fact, why do humans spend their entire lives striving for this idea of normality that can never be reached, when they could strive for the knowledge of their own selves, which is not a sum of differences but one complete and achievable idea? Moreover, how will they be injured by not striving for this “normality”? The ultimate question that each individual must answer is this: what is more valuable, the achievement of a financial and societal position that will allow for material comfort and general acceptance by peers, or true self-knowledge and happiness which may deny some material comforts and acceptance but can be sustained despite outside occurrences? One can choose the path of either internal or external happiness, and, if one is lucky, one may occasionally achieve both. If the conclusion is reached that humans strive for this external success for the reason of human nature, one question still remains: why are there people who do not agree with or practice these ideas? Are they “defective” in some way, or not as instilled with the nature of their species? If prejudice, war, and conformity are elements of “human nature”, why are there those who are not instilled with these elements? If human nature is instinct, why is it not in every human? This raises the question of is this truly an instinctive nature or are we taught “human nature” as a way to condition against the pursuit of an “ideal” world? This “ideal” world has been a focal point of humans for generations, but if perfection follows the same focus of the external world as normality, and all external objectives in which all must be synonymous cannot be reached, then perfection cannot be achieved. The only achievable perfection is the ability to fully understand and live as one’s true self, therefore the pursuit of perfection, such as success, can only be achieved internally. Therefore, perfection and normality are non-existent as external objectives that can be reached synonymously by any person, and are only existent relative to one’s own true self. Therefore, perfection and normality, like all else, are relative.

August 1997





PARTIAL SUPPORT FOR THE THEORY “ALL IS RELATIVE”
PROOF: Reality is nothing more than perception (with support from the ideas of religion and psychiatry)

When asked to define reality, one would most likely respond with something similar to the comment of “it’s just what is”. Yet every person in their lifetime will experience a completely unique version of what is. On every level: physical, mental, spiritual: each person’s experience will be unique. There is no one true reality, contrary to the Plato’s idea of the Forms where some absolute exists. There is no absolute Beauty, Truth, or Love wherein we can only experience fragmented bits of an absolute our souls once knew. Reality is what we see, feel, hear and touch every day. It is what we understand, what we believe. And for each one of us it is a different experience. What we “know” to be truths can only exist in a spectrum, and that spectrum widens through a lifetime of experience. What we know to be the greatest good, the deepest love, the purest truth, will be altered as we go through the experiences of a lifetime, and are faced with the same of the opposite end of the spectrum. The spectrum itself is infinite, but our perception limits what we see as “real”. But there is no one true “reality”. Everything we know to be true was once an idea conceived by another human being, and therefore is simply the result of an experience or a set of experiences. Yet this is no proof that there exists a set reality outside that which we as infallible humans can perceive. All is relative to the average, as the average will always have control in order to keep society from degenerating into a state of chaos. In order for society to function, there must be some idea of normality to be strived for. This normality is dictated by what is average. Humans have always felt the need to explain what they cannot understand, or rather what is outside of their realm of perception or explanation. And so there come in the invention of things such as religion and psychiatry. No culture has ever been studied that did not have some sort of higher power to explain the unexplainable. However, as science became more and more widely used as a form of explanation religion was used less and less. However it is still used as a way to monitor the concept of morality. Morality is needed to keep order in society. Some acts must be able too looked at as immoral or wrong so as to be punishable, for if this was not so random acts of murder and destruction would occur on a regular basis. We need to believe in the concept of evil to put our own minds at rest when we punish those who go against the laws of society. When we look at people such as Hitler or Bin Laden we must see evil in order to feel justified in our actions against them, though what they did they truly believed was right. That was their reality and holds no less weight than anyone else’s reality but to preserve the safety of society as a whole they must be punished. Many would say that they are simply insane, but the concepts of sanity and insanity are simply attempts by man to categorize the differences in perception from the norm. Psychology is an attempt by man to categorize ways that people perceive things outside of the average. Reality, being none more than perception, is held dear as an idea of being absolute, so we fear greatly those who stray from the norm and the average is greatly protected so to avoid chaos. Psychology has been a fascination of man for centuries in an attempt to understand why some people perceive the world differently. The truth is that we all perceive the world a little differently, some just more apparently than others. The level of difference has become marked by something we call sanity. But how is one person’s reality superior to another’s? If there are ten people and one sees something that the other nine don’t, does that make that person “insane”? No, it is simply a difference in perception. True, there is an average, “normal” per se, way that we as humans are wired, and some differences in perception can be made “normal” though chemical treatment, but that does not change anything except that it adds one more person to the average. As well, the ideas of “immoral” and “insane” are relative to culture as is proven by the fact that they are not held to the same standard in the different cultures. How “wrong” something is is dependant on the society in which it takes place. As well, the ideas of what is normal or “sane” change throughout different cultures. Therefore, religion and psychology exist primarily to keep the average in a culture, and to keep chaos from taking over by moral and societal expectations which, if they are not met, are granted an ill response. This relates to my previous theory that normality and perfection are relative, and therefore simply sought after at often great expense to the individual simply to achieve a place among the society in which they live. I can offer my first-hand experience in this field. I am, by clinical terms, insane. I am diagnosed with eight psychiatric “disorders”, claiming that I do not experience reality “normally”. However, the way I experience reality is my reality, and therefore how can it be considered wrong? When did abnormal become faulty? And why must it be so? Because these “disorders” hinder my ability to function to the level expected of me by society. Again, as dictated by the average. And so I must conform, at great financial and person expense, to society in order to achieve. There is some sense in this, as there has to be some order to society in order for it to survive, yet I do believe that the idea of an uncommon perception should be looked at as simply different instead of faulty. Protecting society from our self-created ideas of evil and insanity are humanities way to preserve the common good. The most common ideals and perceptions will always prevail, as survival will always be the top priority.


December 2001