LIFE: Love Infinitely Furthers Evolution, Sander R.B.E. Beals [best romance novels of all time .txt] 📗

trail. A nice example of this was Paul's arrival yesterday evening, switched me from parallel writing/moviewatching to moviewatching/speaking with a friend. If you view the whole of the All like the infinite collection of bubbles it is, then you could say Paul and I arrived on the surface of a reality called joint moviewatching, and each went our way once the movie was finished.

As bubbles go, the example above is typical of connected bubbles: because they are connected, none of them are perfectly spherical: they have shared surfaces which define their interfacing. As long as both of us are on the same shared bubble surface, there is an interface between us, defined by the plane we are on. The moment Paul gets up and goes home, he effectively steps from one joint surface onto another, called 'going back home'. Now I can stay on the movie watching plane, but if it doesn't feel right anymore, I might switch to a more enjoyable pastime. Funny sync: the street where our homes are, is semi-circular...

Now remember what I learned from last night's Iron Man movie? A System has a Boundary, but the Boundary has an Interface separating inside from outside. The movie made me realize all of a sudden (from zero to absolute certainty in 0.0) that each Interface has both an inner layer separating it from the inside of the System, and an outer layer separating it from the Environment, sort of an airlock really. Well, Nature is quite adament about that too: even the soap bubbles I just used as an example have two layers of soap molecules, with a layer of water inbetween (more info here). If an object touching the bubble punctures only one layer, the bubble stays whole and attaches to the object. If it punctures both, the bubble is history! Even the photo on the previous page shows it, with the light edges inbetween the bubbles, and the darker (colorless) water inbetween them. And even though Paul and I feel quite at home in each others company, we are restricted to interact via the interfaces we both feel comfortable with, but even on those we do not disagree...

Sunday 3PM, almost. And even though I'm utterly convinced that time is but an illusion, if I want to interact with the supermarket or the video store, I'd better get there within their time interface. So I guess you guys and gals have been placed on the second tier, while I get something to nourish the physical part of me, and some bits and bytes to satisfy the more voracious energetical subsystem. And I guess I'll have to say no to the Rolling Stones, who are right now proposing I spend the night with them.... ;-)

Back, and with a story to tell about interfaces and how they influence our behavior: as I exited the supermarket, and took the long way home, I spotted him: the guy with the bike, sitting on a bench at the same corner where he stood the first time I encountered him. If that first time was any indication of what I'd heard then (even though I didn't feel threatened), I did not want such a conversation going on again. It had been Dutch, but the topics he spoke about rang true and at the same time had given me the feeling of just having been thrown in the deep end of the pool, before even having been awarded my first swimming certificate. I'd been thinking about his words all night, not properly knowing what to make of them. It was as if he spoke to my subconscious, rather than the conscious me that stood in front of him. You could say we had an interface, but it was a shaky one. So yes, I gave in to the urge to switch to the short way home, to return here with a story about an interface gone haywire....

Bring it All back to You!

As I flipped the page, JetAudio flipped to S Club 7, and "Bring it all back to you" which was their sound advice, both literally and figuratively. Now to you, apart from a cheerful song sung by a bunch of kids, it may mean nothing. To me however, 7 is the 'special' number, and S is a special letter, because of both my name and my chosen alias (and hers)..... In this way, we all have our preferences which make us choose or avoid certain experiences.

Now the song just sung made me realize I always have looked onto the idea of Manifestation in quite the wrong way. Where I figured it brought something into the material realm, in such a way that I'd be able to interact with it, my last page has simply explained to me that since time is irrelevant, remembrance isn't about the past. Neither is planning about the future. It is true, a Wish is a Dream which by definition opposes an Experience we want to see materialized (if you dream, you don't have it yet). So we can go circular and Plan to Realize the Dream, but then we consciously forget about the Cosmos' shortcut: without time we are planning for the now instead of the future, and we even need not remember the past. We simply can Realize that our Wish (and it's inevitable outcome) was always there, from the moment it was inseminated by our being...

Now up until this point in writing, I didn't figure it out: my dearest wish which cost me many a doubt, always had me absolutely certain of one thing: I shouldn't and wouldn't do anything in the realm of planning and realizing to make it manifest. Still though, there was this tiny bit of doubt about it actually becoming an experience. Having just explained it to you however, I guees it's all being brought back to me: no doubt, just staying in the lower regions of the above diagram: Dreaming and Remembering! Does that mean I'll never get to the manifestation part? Nope, because I have observed my material form to have experienced a steady rise of wondrousness, that just seems to be unstoppable. So I guess it's just like Buzz Lightyear claimed: "To Infinity, and Beyond!!!"

And if you thought anyone has been trying to lead you in a certain direction, don't figure they are out there to get you like Rockwell once shook the music world with "Somebody's watching me". Probably we al had these ideas at one time or another, but most of us just shake it off, and stay in the Matrix as it has come to be called.

But then something puzzled me: yesterday I again saw Iron Man 2, specifically the scene where Stark is creating the new element. His friend asks him "What is this?", holding up a circular damaged object with a star on it. Back when I saw it for the first time, it didn't trigger, but yesterday it did: it was the damaged shield of Captain America, a movie which has only recently been released! Now why would such an object be in a movie that preceeded the latter one by at least two years?

Now I have always been an analytical mind, can't deny that. I would actually drive my fellow audience crazy with my comments on movies, rather than enjoying the story with my mind in couch potato mood. I guess that's another way our realities clash: We continuously see connections, like Stan Lee all over the place...... Or agent Coulson and SHIELD from Iron Man again appearing in the movie Thor right about... Now!

Funny sync upon rereading: Hugo is playing on the screen to my right, and he is just telling his girlfriend Isobelle that "the Movies are Our Special Place". Funny how ISO is a term from photography, so Isobelle literally means "the Light that is Beatiful", and she happens to hold the key to his dream, the repairing of the writing automaton in his hiding place in the attic of the Paris station. I don't know about you, but I'm getting the shivers, since it feels like I'm the automaton, the boy and the girl at the same time... (great movie about the history of movies)

But if time is irrelevant, then any hint can appear anywhere, and be interpreted by anyone. Just like his younger son now scourns Odin for not having told him that he had been taken from the battlefield as an infant. Odin saw it as protecting his 'son' from the truth, and the son saw it as having been withheld it! Or what to think of what follows: Jane wants to accompany Thor when he heads for the hammer, but her dad knows about the comic book stories from his youth, and dissuades her from it because of his fears...

The way I figure it, it is just like aiming a camera at the monitor displaying its picture: we are not just doing this once, but an infinite number of times: all the realities we hold for fiction are no less real than those we actually believe in. And the movie industry is showing us a lot of interwoven storylines and realities, so much so that most of us have a very fuzzy boundary where our reality is concerned. Just now, dear old Dad was confronting his eldest daughter with the descriptions of the nordic figures he'd found in a children's book. She counters by telling him he's always told her to be thorough, and he says he's talking about science, not magic. And there, the wisdom of youth shows: Jane quotes Carl Sagan, who has reportedly claimed that "Magic is but a precursor to Scientific Reality".

And of course that is all the more reasonable, since our linguistic utterings include both real and fantastic concepts: nobody down here knows how to generate an Einstein-Rosen bridge, yet most of the people who regularly watch movies have a grasp of the concept, especially since it has been graphically explained in a few movies, most notable the one in Event Horizon, where the science nut abuses a pinup model by showing how he could get from one end of her space to the other one, by folding her onto herself...

And the movie subjects? We used to be oblivious about how movies were made, except that it had to do with cameras, stages and players. Some of us knew about tricks like the green screen technique, which used to be quite visible to the viewer's eye, just like the small puppet soldiers in the filmings of ancient Greek myths back in the thirties and forties. Nowadays, we see more of the stunts than before, because they have to fill all those DVDs and Blurays with something, right? But how much of it is truthful info, instead of just a coverup scenario for the fact that some of us have already figured out how to build Einstein-Rosen bridges?

What I mean is this: let's talk animation, computer-generated movies from start to end. I guess Toy Story stole the feature-length trophy from Pixar's desk lamp short, but you could always tell it was animation because of the resolution, and the somewhat simple physics of the whole thing. At the time, they proudly mentioned that they'd had a computer farm of hundreds of graphics workstations at work to render the eventual end release, but being a computer nerd, I immediately knew there wasn't a computing restriction on rendering the movie because you can render it at any speed, and then play it in 'real' time. And let's not forget the advances in computer programs: tricks like motion capture gave the beings generated a real look and feel, to a point where it becomes hard to distinguish 'real' movie making from tricks.

Or should we just call them 'tools of the trade'? Point is, to the people working with them, they are everyday reality, and to the normal folk, it's just "Magic which is a precursor to everyday reality". Just go into analyzer mode, next time you see a movie, especially the action stuff and scifi stories: you'll see cameras doing stuff which no camera in the physical world could ever do, like passing through the glass in a door, or