is vs I
Alpha/Omega. Father/Son. Brahma/Atma
Is all just another way of saying the 'is' and the 'I'.
The I is represented by omega here, the last, the final, because it was deduced / crystallised / eventuated on a backdrop of is, which is prior, alpha. Because of the infiniteness of Is, omega is absolutely free self. Using this god given freedom, omega abdicated the throne as the heart of all existence and now centres itself in 3D worlds, making distances and conditionals between its full self and the grand is. Like a journey, yet still always in the middle. Our 'Matrix' is omega's scenario that independence from alpha is sustainble and worthwhile and important and meaningful.
AlphaOmega is the same thing, but we must accept that it's a 1then2 sameness, 'i' cannot happen without the 'is' as a substance for it to occur in. You need electricity to play a film. You need billions of years evolution to make the body and brain you now equate yourself with.
The philosophical foundation "I Am" is technically wrong then, or at least in the wrong order, because the Am (noncentral) must be grounds for a central I (subjectivity) to occur. Alpha (at first of course) found its bottom line, birthing/discovering a living omega.
I is the sole heir of Is. I technically has the power and permission to stray from its position and burn out, because is will always be is... The mechanics of a kaleidoscope are the same no matter the pattern. Me and you remain in the direct centre of life as part of a grand split personality disorder. My current meditation is of trying prioritise the is before the I.
We live in like a break or pause, or disrupt from full communication between I and is. A daydream fantasyland. A scenario of independence. It's not forever, the universe ends, and full communication between AlphaOmega is restored/rejoined. The bridge to full communication has already been crossed actually, even now, in the very minds of some of the inhabitants of the simulation.
Comments
Post a Comment