‘Mystic paper’

‘Mystic paper’

Some of you may remember my description of omniscience and omnipresence etc as so; consider that reality is a piece of paper but without any edges, anything you draw upon it is intimately connected to the paper. Then imagine the paper has a quality similar to magnetic tape and it records everything put to it. There would be a communicative layer between the paper and everything drawn upon it, no matter how slight the impression of the pen upon that paper, nor even if you had two pens drawing simultaneously [to duplicate quantum mirroring], everything would be ‘known to the paper‘ in an intimate tactile manner. To explain further…

Now imagine you had a sheet of paper something like an ‘intelligent material’, similar to programmable plastic ~ has the processor etc built into the material so acts like a monitor and the pc as one thing. Now let us imagine that instead of a pen you have some electrodes attached to your head to effect means of communication between you and it. Now your thoughts may be turned into images and text upon the paper.

Ok, now imagine some futuristic technology whereby in effect, that the paper has within its composition all your neurons, so now effectively the thinker and its object are one. Your thoughts would become the images and text upon the paper, and given the addition of a speaker one may hear what you have to say also.

Now for a massive jump;

Lets go back before the universe [or all universes] existed; how can anything come after the primal state which is not formerly within that state?

Ultimately reality and all ‘existences’ are in that pre-existent oneness.

So if we imagine that oneness to be the ‘mystic paper’ [as I attempted to define in the above analogies], does this help define how the whole thing works, that its all the same thing acting upon or within itself. We can easily visualise this as the computer as thin as a sheet of plastic and with all its attributes built into that, so what can this idea tell us about prime reality?

This is a great thought experiment, quetz. And I’m sure it deserves a better reply than the one I’m about to make, but that’s how it goes sometimes.

When you talk about mystic paper that way, I suddenly find myself thinking of Warehouse 13 and a potential artefact called Mystic Paper, which might be the very kind of paper that someone like Albert Einstein or a famous quantum physicist used, where the universe described and the paper the description is written on become one and the same. Anyone holding that paper would have the same power, to literally create a new universe at the stroke of a pen. Cosmic, eh . . . .

thanks :slight_smile:

Believe it or not I didn’t realise that connection lols. Yea the idea is to try to draw in image in peoples minds of an emptiness with everything in it, then what does that mean etc.
The idea of creating new universes by having the paper is interesting, though I think we all already have it in our minds. Thing is everyone has it and the universe has it then there’s causality etc, so its only effect overall is perhaps in the realm of invention and creation, art and poetry perhaps too.

These are mindbending ideas, which are like bread and meat to my cosmic-hungry psyche.

After seeing the PBS show on relativity, which was so awesome, I started having this feeling that the universe conformed to Einstein’s new view and predictions. Then later I learned that David Bohm had the idea that thought itself was quantum, and it’s pretty quirky to think of thought as having that kind of potential, exactly like putting the ink of that thought on mystic paper.

Well, Q, I think that that is a very intriguing and useful way of thinking of everything. I know I can never get enough perspectives or metaphors on how to explain things.

I feel that your stopping at the “Mystic Paper” is a tad arbitrary. There’s obviously a parent pre-state to the initial pre-state. (Like how a creator God must have Its own creator God.) Or we could just abbreviate it and say that the universe, defined in one sense, is and always has been infinite. The East understands this well. But this is where I think the Western mind fucks up; a Dutch brainiac for some reason can’t truly understand Eastern philosophy cerebrally. I don’t mean this absolutely, I just mean it’s more difficult for the Western mind to “get it.”

The Western fascination with “buzz words” does not do justice to Eastern conceptualizations. We reason to the point of “infinity” and stop, thinking we’ve reached the conclusions we are are looking for. But that’s not where it ends – it doesn’t even end in the first place. Concepts like the “Mystic Paper” may help some reach newer levels of thinking, but what we’re truly looking for here is actual transcendence. Eastern philosophy is as much a practice as it is a science. Western minds are too accustomed to lazy habits – they’d rather philosophize in a very passive manner. But to truly get it, one can’t stop at the “Mystic Paper” – upon its very conception it must destroyed and transcended. One must engage with these ideas and ride them into the ground.

Well neurons do have the three aspects [positive, neutral and negative] rather than binary on/off that computers currently have, so this makes them far more variable and gives the option to change 3 fold. God only knows how much quantum interaction is going on in an entire matrix of them. I think much of this goes on in the imagination, but that can take effect in the world where it is met and limited by causality.
It’s a new world to discover that we have only just scratched the surface on. I think we can build though-qualia-bodies so to say, that can be passed between people giving us different moods, love etc, it’s a bit way out there I know.

I see it that there is no pre or after state, here we are seeing it as linear, though it is probably a continuum as well as an infinity/timeless. We have to think all-time + all qualia as a single entity perhaps. Yea I see it more eastern like the tao.

Oh I believe in the more organic side of philosophy, I just use buzz words and ideas to give it form, something to grab onto. The problem with eastern is that it transcend and stops there, but how do you draw the universe from nirvana?

I don’t know what you mean by qualia-bodies? If you wouldn’t mind explaining, I’d so appreciate it.

Yes, I’m so there. How do you build a universe from nirvana? But then, most people are trying to build nirvana from their universe, aren’t they? Is it possible they’re going about it the wrong way round?

Well its some of my way more outlandish philosophy ~ if it isn’t bad enough lols. I’ll start with the idea of a mind in a void, what would that mind be ~ would it not have body of some kind, would it have entity, a presence, volume etc? can then minds create qualia-entities aside from itself e.g. do we generate love within ourselves as such, then [hopefully] its recipient creates similar, then the two when joined become the quality of love between people. it’s a bit like saying love is chemistry but without the chemistry.

Right so you cannot have a pure emptiness from which the universe derives, equally you cannot have a universe aside from that emptiness or the absolute in western terms. So we have to think of the universe as within the ultimate reality ~ the manifest as the expressed form of the un-manifest.

Exactly so, one builds our universe from the mystic paper, perhaps we can become one with the oneness though and the universe we built is part of a greater symphony?
…but thats still more than nothing.

Well, does a mind have to have a body? Or can mind exist in its own right? Are you saying that love is a “qualia-entity”? I still don’t understand what a “qualia” is.

Why not? Why can’t yuo have a pure emptiness from which the universe derives, especially if – as you say – you cannot have a universe aside from that emptiness? (I don’t why you are thinking of emptiness as “the absolute.” ??? )

Also, what is the ultimate reality that we are supposed to think of the universe as being within? Are you saying that this ultimate reality is the manifest as the expressed form of the un-manifest? I could agree with that view, but it still doesn’t illuminate for me what ultimate reality is.

I’ve been thinking of the universe AS the mystic paper itself. Being mystical of course, the paper can build and grow also.


You are right, giving mental qualities ‘body’ is a step to far and makes them too much like an object. What I am exploring is the question of entity, what entity does a mind in a void have? …some people would call the soul the mind-body, it may be thought of as a representation of the human form and hence walks talks etc, and yet it is pure mind.
If we can think of mind as we do our bodies like this, then we can think of e.g. the ‘heart’ state of the mind [as like the traditional heart, the centre of love, emotion and intuition etc] as also having entity [body]. Is it then such a far stretch of the imagination to think of other mental qualities as having entity?

Qualia can be simple things like the colour red [as it is not a physical thing as such] or the idea of ’you’ or any quality that is meta-physical. Some people think all things are ultimately qualia ~ as all thing derive of a non material aspect [even the entire universe].

I only use the term; ‘the absolute’ because many people have some concept of it, and the idea ties all things into one. I think it cannot all come from pure emptiness because you need something by which the universe is manifest, that alone is more than nothing, is a quality aside from emptiness. Equally, everything in the universe is within the whole, so is inside that emptiness, hence the absolute is full and empty at once.

Yes I am thinking of ultimate reality is the manifest as the expressed form of the un-manifest. Good question, what then is that? Hmm if you had a big chunk of plasticine and shaped it into the universe, we would look at that shape and call it ‘universe’, and yet ultimately it would still be a big chunk of plasticine. I don’t really know how else to describe it, I am still trying to find better ways to do that whilst accepting that my ‘reality map’ may be entirely wrong. Or as you put it…

Yes indeed, the universe and infinity is the paper, reality must ultimately be a oneness, so it is probably truer to describe that by the metaphor ‘mystic paper’ than it is by the description; infinity + universe.
I agree it can grow and change endlessly as there are no other parties external to it, hence there is nothing to stop it [life the universe and everything] from happening.

quetz, you do make me think. (I hope that’s a good thing.)

I like this mode of thinking. I have always had an inkling that there is such a thing as a thinking body, and now I’m inclined to think that everything has consciousness.

In quantum terms, this makes a lot of sense. As I’ve cited before, David Bohm said: “Logic is to Thought, as Classical Physics is to Quantum Mechanics.” For Bohm, there is no real distinction between thought and the physical world.

That’s interesting, but like Bohm, I do not distinguish between the material and the non-material.

When trying to conceive of origins, the mind boggles and loses language. The best we can do is poetry and art, but ultimately that fails too.

I suppose many of us call that “form of the un-manifest” which is manifest as ultimate reality “God.” I like to think of it as Consciousness, and I cotton to the view of Nicholas Cusanus on this manifestation: implicatio, explicatio, complicatio.

I really love the idea of the universe as mystic paper. It is poetic and workable for deep discussion as well. Can’t beat that with a stick and a nail in your foot. O:)

And likewise, which I think is a good thing. :slight_smile:

Or perhaps that everything has conscious-unconsciousness? E.g. a rock is an unconscious part of some manner of consciousness universal [or of the earth ~ if such a body can have ‘mind‘].

Indeed. So the next step is to qualify what mind is and how it works on a universal/infinite scale. For me it is as if there is only the paper and that which makes utility of it [even though that too is within the fabric of the paper]. So you have universals like ‘mind’ then different things utilise it in different ways, or they are subject to its use by other things [as with the rock].

Quite right too, I think it works on that level but also that the non-material can move between bodies, so there is a disconnection of some sort as well as a connection. Perhaps we can see this also when we think of the pre-universe state or where infinity is incomparable to anything else and hence is not attached to anything else?

I think the mind necessarily maps reality [as reality is mind], so our minds should be able to find any state or become stateless. I certainly don’t see any limitation to thought as it seams very amorphous to me.

Well I mean to imply ‘form’ + ‘of the un-manifest’ for that reason, as I don’t think it is god. The image below shows roughly how I see it, all form, presences and properties etc are within the circle, and we cannot have anything external to that and call them properties or what have you. Outside of the circle I think of as pure mind and infinity [ceugant], what makes utility of it is within the circle of being [the manifest]. So if there is god or universal consciousness then its in the mix with us!

Thanks! Its nice to occasionally find people who think similarly at least in one area or another. …and who are capable of thinking on this level. :slight_smile:

Way to go quetz!

Good all around, then.

I once participated in a discussion with a person who thought everything in nature has consciousness, including rocks. Then more lately, reading Bohm has caused me to consider that a distinct possibility. It’s just that the process is much slower or something. I’ve always wondered why destroying and breaking things up bothered me so much, and that is probably why. I remember a spiritual master telling me that even trees have consciousness and participate in karma, along with every conscious living thing.

I’m not sure I understand how or why the infinite is involved in this idea. I’ve been meaning to ask that. I wonder if the logical conclusion is that mind both utilizes and affects mind. It is only that way that the universe, or mystic paper, exists… is perceived… is thought of or about… etc.

How do we know that anything we perceive of or label as material really is? Why can’t be an explicate manifestation of the quantum implicate order of Consciousness, which is un-manifest to us most of the time (but not always), as Bohm thinks?

It’s not thought I was referring to, but language. The mystical or quantum experience defies language, particularly the essential ineffability of the ultimate source, the prima materia (or non-materia). Poetry is a great mediator of these experiences, but as I said, it can only go so far.

But whatever we - call - “God” can be just such an idea. God has been imagined in mystical terms using the idea of the circle or the sphere. Here are some examples.

Empedocles: God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere.

Pascal: God is an infinite sphere who center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere.

Black Elk: I saw that the sacred hoop of my people was one of many hoops that made one circle, and being endless, it was holy.

I didn’t know what “ceugant” meant, so I looked it up and found this: The last and outermost circle in Llewelyn Siôn’s 16th-century cosmogony. It is inhabited by infinity alone.

Very nice. I think somehow I end where you begun, and vice versa. O:)

Well a rock is problematic if we give it localised or personal consciousness, if you smash it in to pieces in one blow with a sledge hammer, where would the consciousness be located?
If a rock why not a grain of sand or an atom? The simplest answer would be that there is mind and that is the very nature of emptiness [as it cannot be nothing]. It becomes ‘conscious’ when it is given utility of a thing, for example; we could speculate that each of our cells [esp, neurons] should have consciousness, and yet it is ‘you’ the TQ that has the utility of the human form, so our cells are subconscious ~ they act only in response to and to serve us. Here we see a difference in utility of mind, we could think that the cells act on their own and indeed would be individually alive if not part of our body. So like the broken rock they don’t make utility of mind except on the most primitive level, to cut a long story short; to organise a universe full of such things, which it mainly is, then one would imagine there to be a general way of achieving this, and hence a universal consciousness/utility of mind on that scale. This consciousness may indeed be further divided into categories of utility.

In fact can we not say that generally you need such a level of organisation to achieve universe.

It is that which lies outside the circle on the image i made. It is to represent emptiness as an entity, thing or dimension, which is also mind in its purest state. Mind is not restricted by physicality and hence there is nothing to stop it expanding immediately to the infinite. There is an american mathematician ~ rudy rucker [the great-great-great-grandson of the philosopher Georg Hegel] who wrote upon this in his book ’infinity and the mind’ that the sheer reckoning and conceptualisation of the idea ’infinity’ itself makes a mind infinite.
For me it is simply the base state of all reality, though I prefer to call it ceugant as this includes mind as the thing itself, where infinity is a concept and perhaps the dimension of it. Again we have to separate even something as innocuous as emptiness into many constituent parts, some with ‘body’ some without!

Indeed I think so, it’s a circle, in the above image we have an emptiness and a sphere of thingness - let us say, there isn’t really anything dividing them, hence there is an intimacy and correlation/relationship betwixt the two. Metaphorically perhaps it is like a mirror which twists and folds in upon itself, then by doing so knows itself. Perhaps time is the process of this?

I see, well as atoms are pretty much empty then I can see your point. The separateness I spoke of would come later [in terms of manifestation], more in the macroscopic world we live in. even then just because meta-things can move between bodies, it doesn’t mean that isn’t something like a slide rule - so to say, such that we have layers of mind by which one element can move betwixt others whilst remaining ultimately as a oneness.

Ah of course yes, sorry. Yea language can only point to the actual thing and then we have to hope we have followed direction properly.

I see your point, nice quotes there. its a description of ‘god’ with nothing else, yet we and the universe are in there too. If god is any manner of thing then he is in the circle of things on the image, and we are there too. He may not be outside of that as this is ceugant, the emptiness and infinity.

Yes indeed ‘ceugant’ is used in Llewelyn Siôn’s 16th-century cosmogony, someone also linked me to a French wiki where it is just meant as infinity, and it is generally thought that the circles of abred harken back to a very much more ancient thing ~ probably similar to the NA Indian ‘great spirit’ also known as the ‘great mystery’. I generally think that most pagan religions had such a base by whatever given name [e.g. Egyptian khepera, I think].

Thanks. :slight_smile:

But quetz, can’t the same thing be said about anything that gets smashed up, including people? I’m glad you brought up this question because every so often I think about people who get blown up in explosions; trees that get chopped down, cut up, or pruned; and rocks that get broken up or crushed, stuff like that. And I wonder what this fragmentation does, not only to them but also to us and the world . . . .

I don’t think consciousness or mind is just a matter of body, of utility, or of qualia. We humans caught up in the meme of mechanism have a strong penchant for breaking things up, dividing them into classes and categories, and giving all these divisions names. Many of us humans believe that this is rational, ultimate reality. But some of us do not, particularly the poets and mystics, one being Blake, who said in “Auguries of Innocence”:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

I grok it. Nicely stated.

That reminds me of a Klein Bottle (a 3-D Moebius Strip) which has no inside or outside, and anything that falls in will never get out. That always blows my mind when I think of it.

But atoms aren’t empty at all now, are they? Not even close. At some point we all have to come to terms with the quantum world and how it affects our view of reality. And yes, that’s a big deal.

As I said, the best we can do with language is try to point people towards the ineffable through symbols and metaphors. T.S. Eliot does this greatly, by the way. Check out his poems, “Burnt Norton” and “Little Gidding.”

As for thought, consider these lines from Blake’s song of experience called “The Fly”:

If thought is life
And strength & breath
And the want
Of thought is death;

To segue off Yeats, then, how can we tell the thinker from the thought?

Barring the sexist language, well stated.

I also say thanks. What are the “circles of abred”? Also, I sometimes think we humans have lost so much by destroying the idea of mystery and the feeling of awe at the very existence of the world around us. It’s kind of hard to do that when everything is thought of mechanistically instead of organically and holistically. But it’s discussions like these that feed my soul and give me hope. O:)

Well in the ‘replica of you‘… thread it seams that the transcendental quality of you is the very thing you are essentially, and it seams to be impermeable; if you made a copy it would not be you. Now if we go in the opposite direction and start dividing I think we are still left with the same thing, if you cut the brain in half you get either a dysfunctional duel personality of one TQ or you get two TQ’s and schizophrenia [I know it doesn’t literally mean duel personality]. Basically if your body was blown up there is just the TQ of you left, so it is no different to being killed by any other means.

With vegetation you can cut a piece off and grow another plant, so presumably it’s the same as a germ dividing, TQ’s can endlessly duplicate so one would presume it goes the other way to, such that they can be merged. That is if all life has TQ’s, it is probably that more complex life creates these but less complex forms belong to more universal consciousness.

It may be simpler to not think of it in terms of individual identity, and that there are just universals which get utilised in differing ways. Its just that where you have wills and quantum computers like the brain, then it is as if those universals have broken off and become individual, even though there probably is no actual separation. An analogy would be where the universals are like air and form balloons, the air simply fills the larger space it can, so if a germ it fills a small balloon, if a human then a larger one ~ if that makes any sense.

Agreed. Blake apparently was a druid, I certainly see how he was thinking and I know what you mean here. I only use such terms to try to explain something which is more fluid than water, more vacuous than space. Perhaps then we humans are by whatever means, guiders of and riders on the currents.

If we take this to the idea of the paper and infinity, then there is nothing to stop it being anything, then once it is something e.g. us, then according to that somethings nature, that thing can do what utility of the paper it can manage; literally anything [virtually].
Yea a Klein Bottle is mind blowing, and that is exactly what we have to do to understand the paper; break the mould of what we think reality is.

I took it that they were, in the sense that we look into an electron cloud which seams somewhat full, and each electron is simply a centre of energy revolving according to how the observer sees it. This is why I took to the idea of there only being ‘relationships of energies’ [bit like our Klein bottle perspective of the paper]. Anyhow its not my field so I am happy to go with what you know on this.

I’ll go back to my diagram again if I may; the want of thought I presume is the idea of thought before you think of it, that that thought is ‘dead’ [like the rock or subconscious consciousness we spoke of earlier]. The dead thought enters the sphere of consciousness which is ‘alive’ or at least aware, and experiences the thought as being alive via mimicry; the way the knower [sphere of consciousness] can know a thing would surely be by replicating what that thing is within itself. The eye looks at a frequency of a certain length and the brain says this is a red colour thing, it then produces an electro-magnetic pulse [let us say] which is recognised by the brains seat of consciousness [the physical mimic of the knower’s consciousness], and by this is brought into the conscious sphere. Thing is, we the knower ‘see’s that as a red thing that the eye is seeing, yet there is no red out there. It would seam then that the knower has its own language and the brain its own too, fortunately we learn each others languages as we grow up and can communicate quite effectively.


Ceugant is the centre of three circles, abred is the outer circle [the unmanifest] with the world betwixt the two. Again it’s a bit like our ‘twisted’ description of the paper. So we have the consciousness [the knower], the form and the unconscious as three integral and interacting parts of the whole [which is ultimately one].
Yea I take heart from the more organic view too. :slight_smile: I wouldn’t know how to think of the world I have experienced any other way, I always take it as my basis that the mechanistic element is there to serve the organic.

We don’t want to be free from our questions or puzzles that need to be solved , for to be free from them is to put an end to ourselves.

Either one is in a thoughtless state and does not know it; or he knows his thoughtless state and he is not in it.

my explanation was better :astonished: :smiley:

Or he knows his thoughtful state and is in it.

You cannot be in a thoughtless state and also know that you are in such ~ as that would be a thoughtful state of thoughtlessness.

He is his thoughtful state. There is nothing else in him, other than that. Thought uses the mechanism of knowledge to perpetuate itself, to create a continuity and permanence for itself. Thought can never know anything as it is. It has to distort what is given according to its knowledge. Aside from that, beyond that, you can never know what is happening.

In actuality nobody knows anything about life. All we have is speculation and theory, sets of beliefs and opinions that shape the understanding of the world. You are that. There is no thinker thinking toughts, there is only knowledge that gives thought its structure and the repitition of knowledge in modified ways.