Moebius BAND: 1 sided BAND. A self-reference
“God said: Revolution is revolving. Revelation is revealing. Aren’t they the same? When applied to your inner self, aren’t they both a clearing, a change in scenery, a change in your view of what is really going on within you, inside you, the you baring yourself to the Sun, finding your fundamental self amidst all the debris you have taken on and now leave, and now you gain, gain a wider deeper perspective of the world within you, which, of course, is where your world really exists.
Life does seem to revolve around you, doesn’t it? It is like you watch yourself revolve. What are you revolving around? You may think you are settling down, and then the unsettling comes. You may see unsettling as loss of confidence in yourself when it really means the Humpty-Dumpty of yourself is being put together.” http://heavenletters.org/dreams-god-may-have-for-you.html
“God said: I see you and not the bubbling of you. I see beneath your disguise or disguises. You cannot fool Me, beloveds. You may fool yourself, and you may fool the world, yet you cannot fool Me.
Self- referencing
____________________________
The split between the mind and the heart
In the preceding blog (#42) and in this blog, we aim at presenting how I am (ego), as part of our neurological structure as well as the result of a symbological representation of our self-created self through the mechanism of perception, is a statement that is auto-destructive by yielding itself the statement “I am an illusion”. In other words, “I am” does not exist. I am does not really exist because it is a reconstructed image of an imagined self resulting from an experimental separation between our mind and our heart. With this separation as a premise, I am can only be a logical reconstruction, a theory, a theorem that contains its own Trojan Horse.
In I AM, the mind and the heart are One. There is no division between them as well as there is no division between Love and Truth. Love and Truth are totally consistent without the need of a proof asserting their consistency. Contrarily to the mathematical requirements of consistency where a true statement must produce proof of itself — without being self-referential — or, conversely, where the existence of a proof allows to say that the statement is true, love and truth are self-consistent in the sense that their very being is their proof, not in a tautological, self-referential way, but in a creative, generative and ever-extending way. “God created us in His image” is not a self-referential statement, or a statement that contains a copy of itself, even if it is based on pure likeness and sameness. That is the magic of the only number that really exist: 1=One.
Love and truth are also complete in and by themselves since they internally contain everything that is needed to extend themselves, to develop systematically an infinite totality of true and loving propositions. Therefore, the experience of separation or self-creation (I am) must constantly require a proof of its own truth because it is based precisely on the experimental separation between love and truth.
We became individual, self-conscious I am, separate from I AM, by virtue of this very separation of love from truth. The perfect likeness, sameness or oneness between love and truth is what produces light. Or we could say that light is the perfect expression of the oneness of love and truth. We are created by this light and we are light. And it is this separation between love and truth that has separated light into light and darkness and love into love and fear. Having been virtually separated, love and truth gave rise to hate and ignorance which are not their opposites but their absence.
We could say that the virtual loss of light was a condition to give rise to I am. Should we then draw the conclusion that I am is an absence of I AM? I am had to experience and define itself as inconsistent and incomplete to rediscover the consistency and completeness of I AM. That is the symbological theorem of I am. Once love is separated from truth, the light is lost or forgotten and the mind tries to reconstitute the truth by the truth only, leaving the heart behind as the unsolved and insoluble mystery of love. The seek of truth without his love complementary has yielded religions, philosophies, theoretical sciences and, particularly, mathematics. The heart became the battlefield between the logical truths and falses.
In seeking the lost light through the exclusive search of truth, the mind is ignoring that the key to reconquer truth is by reuniting love and truth, which have been virtually and artificially separated. Love and truth hold each other’s key.
Proof, self-reference, and false analogy
Now we understand better why I am is always seeking proofs of itself to feel consistent and complete. The proof is what links love and truth even when they have been virtually separated and concealed by the split mind. It should be called the proof by 1/One. But in its symbological structure the mind is trying to seek the link inside itself instead of seeking it through the heart. So even if I am apparently reaches mental consistency, it does not grasp its real meaning and value because it is deprived of light which is the essence of the sought proof. And this sought proof of light is the perfect expression of the oneness of love and truth. It is a strange loop but a real one and the only real one. Left on its own, I am ends up in destructive statements about itself and the others, self or other devaluation and criticism.
We have already seen in blog #42 what a mind seeking truth within itself inevitably ends up in generating self-referential statements. Gödel’s theorem is a celebrated one in mathematics and the language we use to speak about ourself and the others is full of self-references where we tend to prove ourself within the rules of our own I am system of references. In other words, in our “communications” with the other(s), we simply distribute copies of ourself in our statement about the state of the world.
The self-referential language we use to describe human relationships could be called “false” analogy. We find the same relationship between analogy and false analogy that we find between I AM and I am.
Analogy is usually defined by a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. Different things are basically dissimilar but can share some similarities, some analogies. This is the consistent theorem of the multiplicity of forms in the 3-D world. We can say, in this sense, that all the I am on this planet are analogical. In more formalized terms, all the I am on this planet are isomorphic, that is having a similar structure or appearance but being of different heredity.
Obviously, this analogy is based on twoness or duality: we don’t know we are one (we think we are fundamentally different from each other) so we make analogies for self-reference purposes. How many times do people simulate a question apparently directed towards a third person to obtain an answer concerning themselves? Think about people referring to their pets behavior to refer to their own behavior. The human logical analogy is based on the distinction between you and I. It contains the seed of self-destruction because in trying to contact or communicate analogically with the other in order to ascertain itself, I am is seeking a proof of itself, yet it depends totally on its reflection in the mirror of others. This is shaky ground for consistency. That is why it is a false analogy.
When God says He created us in His image, He is talking about real analogy which could then be defined by an inversion of the preceding definition of analogy: a dissimilarity (multiplicity of forms in creation) in some respects between things that are otherwise similar. There is no you, they, us, but only I.
It is obvious that real consistency of I am in the relative world is impossible as well as complete consistency is impossible in mathematics in particular and in theoretical sciences in general. Would truth had to be proven, it would no longer be the Truth. Oneness can prove its truthfullness using the rules of its own system without being self-referential or auto-destructive. Mathematics cannot. For example, in Oneness, all numbers must be included in one and they must be positive integers (Oneness only knows multiplication or infinite extension of itself). So how can mathematics postulate that 1+1=2? It has to be accomplished through the symbol 0 (zero). Zero is the wild card that allows to create the illusion of reality of the number 2 and its successors. In reality, 1+1=2 supposes 1+0+1=2 where zero is a transformer. In the mathematical Fibonacci series:
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, …
we know that each term of the series comes from the sum of the two preceding numbers: 3 comes 2+1, 5 from 3+2, 8 from 5+3, etc. But what about 1 and 2? 1 would come from 0+(-1)? and 2 from 1+0+1? Hence 0, 1, 2 are axiomatic. They don’t belong to the internal numbers of the generated Fibonacci series. They are considered to be true but they cannot be proven. Paradoxically, this means that the truthfulness of 1 and 2 cannot be proven using the rule of the system (the sum of the two preceding numbers). In mathematical terms, it could mean that if the Fibonacci is true, it is because its unprovability results precisely from its truth.
In other terms, the proof is in the proof or in the jar.
The power of instantaneity
We can conclude that I am is the requirement for proof. And a proof needs to be proven by something else that is dissimilar but yet presents a similarity or an analogy yielding the truth of a statement. This means that I am is always circumstantial so ever-changing. Paradoxically, its consistency lies desperately in its inconsistency as well as its completeness lies desperately in its incompleteness.
The opposite of proof is the power of instantaneity. Proof is time and space dependent. So is I am. I AM is this actual moment of eternity. We could also say that I AM is instantaneity. It is the proof of the proof. As a theorem, I AM does not need any premises, any axiom. It is its own premise, axiom, theorem and it is always consistent, complete, true and loving in the brightest Light.
It is now known that the heart contains neurons and that these neurons are more numerous than in the brain. Research in the new discipline of neurocardiology shows that the heart is more than a simple pump, that it has a brain of its own.
For a long time, consciousness has been believed to be localized in the brain. But the term consciousness itself means “to know with” and we know with our body and with our heart as well as with our brain. So consciousness really rises from the brain (mind), the body (sensory perception) and the heart (emotions) altogether, synergetically.
It seems that the heart’s brain can learn, remember, and even make decisions without requiring authorization from the cerebral cortex. But the most significant discovery in neurocardiology is that the heart communicates with the body and the brain through powerful electromagnetic rhythmic interactions. The heart’s electromagnetic rhythmic field has an amplitude that is 60 times greater than the brain’s electromagnetic field and moreover penetrates all the cells in the body.
Could it then be possible that when I am decides to look for I AM in the heart and not in the mind, a real analogical and neural process would happen where an instantaneous mutual recognition of the mind and the heart would resurrect the light that is the love and truth of I AM?
Written by Normand Bourque on Sep 06, 2013
Be First to Comment