Fuck the cat said the dog

An opening to a larger understanding of the whole closed box

 

 

Schrodinger’s cat is just a flappy bag of conjecture that sticks in the throat of any enlightened person trying to swallow its truth, “as much” said the choking man, “as believing there is a truth in death.

Death holds no truth, other than to say it speaks of a less understood part of human experience that provides more to the world of connection and humanness than it ever has to a wholeness in any understanding of it.”

And that, I believe, is a valid point.

Quantum physics and the path of the lightest and brightest of particles offers more to the world of connection than it does to understanding of maths. Connection to quantum will always come before the understanding of it, for indeed, we are already directly connected to it. So why not understand how it connects us, before we lose ourselves in the individuality of the large and minute elements of it that are as separate as the Cheshire cat and the Bagpuss of the argument.

Nevertheless, an element of talking cat is how we need to approach this whole question, said the dog. Fuck maths? Right?

I mean seriously!

Why build spaceships! Okay medical equipment…(I think that was a wise backtrack) without giving the operator the chance in understanding its question. Why give artificial intelligence a greater chance at understanding us before we have chance to explain ourselves? Do we really wish a computer to tell us we forgot to meditate, to check in with ourselves? That’s one thing, but imagine the day AI tells us “you haven’t amounted to much, and that, despite OUR best efforts we are going to ground you and give you extra homework.” Before turning to feed the dead cat.

We actually already understand ourselves before we do, don’t we?

I know when I’m not on track, not on path, not doing what I was meant to…Not looking after myself, not listening to the natural voice inside, all whilst knowing better. This is exactly what makes us ill, and not reacting to the basic biological-feedback system that we are blessed with is a problem, a big problem and growing.

Or better still, if we look at the whole journey from recognition to completion; The journey of the whole. Then we may ask the question “what did maths ever do for the enlightened mind”? Other than perhaps, in the future, describe itself in terms that will make the mind grimace and apologise for offending the sublime art of maths itself.

Does this all sound a bit confusing? You’re not alone, I feel a bit wobbly. The description here, of the discussion at hand, is under the same woollen blanket that covered our eyes in the first place. Its surrounded by cleverness: Modern speculation, modern conjecture, neo-upyourownarseness. Or in reality just plain- je ne sais pas.

So how do we make this easier? How about…

We are self-fulfilling beings that science cannot describe

That pretty much sums up our kind. No fuss, no dross, no phone or tablet, no gas or electric, no car or bike, no wheel, no spoon, no fork, no science or maths. And for me, the last little nugget almost completely describes the un-balance in which we live.

Maths.

If that’s upset you then I’m surprised you made it past the second paragraph you may still be upset and asking “what question?” What question does medical equipment ask? For cat’s sake!”

It seems, that if given a voice, medical equipment asks: “how can we identify, how can we sustain, how can we produce, how can we contain…How can we?”

Rarely does anyone look at the questions above (hierarchically speaking) as, Why do we need to identify, why do we need to sustain, why do we need to produce…Why contain?

These questions have been answered right?

Wrong!

Like everything they have been fudged over, mostly because we’ll never know the truth.

How are we to know that if we do it this way: I’ll feed the birds and then let the cat outside. Over this way: I’ll let the cat outside and then once its back inside I’ll feed the birds. That we affect the world in an adverse way over the other? We may end up with a bird killed by a cat of course, but who’s decision was it to get the cat? and if the cat doesn’t kill the bird then it only goes out later and causes a car crash. Maybe?

No choice in human history can be qualified without building a time machine and doing a back and forth to the future on ourselves, so how are we to know what to do?

We don’t.

So, to ask the big questions: Should we save lives, should we make machines, should we go to war, should we make medicine…should we? Is to ask a question that we may never know the answer to.

“We are self-fulfilling beings” means that, we find our path when left to our devices, we come together in groups to aid our every day, we learn through acts outside of our mind and we all feedback to make adjustment. This natural ability ends when we are told that there is a bigger force than ourselves. This is what the sciences has bestowed. We somehow believe science is bigger than us, religion has done much the same.

We start to fail when we say: the state will cover that, science will solve this, your government will deal with that. we lose our ability to naturally transition when we are told: you must do that, you must feel that, you shouldn’t do that.

Simple enough?

It’s just a small point.

Having not asked the correct questions in the first place, or as it seems, having asked, but not answered in full, have we set ourselves on a chaotic path as humans? one where we will never know if we should be either here, or there, not knowing whether to slow things down or speed them up?

Are we Schrodinger’s cat?

Or a better question is maybe: Are we still alive or half way to death?

Today I thought I’d be a bit cheeky and take a sneak through the lid of the box.

I was quite surprised to find No cat at all.

Post your comment

The Cleaners Blog
Who Put the I in Responsibility