When anyone begins to talk about who they are, they inadvertently end up giving a summary of who they were. They might say ‘I’m the kind of person who needs to travel’, ‘to think about things long and hard before I act’. Or worse still they might just start listing past event, like ‘I went parachuting once’ or ‘I once punched a horse’. That’s great, but without the tangled mess of subjective associations and impressions that accompany those thoughts residing within your own mind, they are pretty meaningless to everyone else.
So where does that leave us and more to the point where does that leave my introduction?
For some reason the image of taciturn satellites crossing paths and burbling geographical facts at one another springs to mind.
This is the best introduction I think I could muster. Perhaps it seems like a reasonably good introduction after all. But I can assure you that every inference you make and every impression you take from this is most likely wrong. Every meeting and exchange, any attempt to comprehend the ideas of another, generates in us an imperfect simulacrum of those ideas.
Before proceeding it must be understood that we cannot understand anything of one another, and that what we perceive as understanding, is in truth the process of generating a continuous thread of fiction that forms the narrative of our lives.
Just because our experience of reality appears to consist of a series on continuous instances. Is not to say that the continuity of those instances need to follow one another in an unbroken chain.
For all we know, between the blink of an eye a near infinity of time has passed.
The only way to rule this possibility out entirely is to deny the existence of a linking agent between two instances set apart in time, as well as an extra-physical substance with which these linked instances might act upon (a soul).
However this linking agent could be extra dimensional. An entity that looks in on our dimension as we look in on a 1st or 2nd dimension, but which we cannot perceive directly, just as we cannot perceive a 5th or 6th dimension.
Our experience is made up of our perception of multiple dimensions, this is a fact and appears to support the idea that extra dimensional beings could exist. Though my supposition is that we are those/that extra dimensional being(s) perceiving either itself or other such beings through the medium of extra dimensional space. Even though existence may transcend those dimensions.
Unless we were to say that an instance simply experiences itself, removing the difficulty of having to rationalise anything like a ‘soul’. And an instance of consciousness simply waits for the next instance that follows on from the previous to a satisfactory degree in a mechanical fashion, before going on to accept that instance as a part of reality.
In a cosmos where the arrangement of matter is infinitely diverse over an infinite periods of time, there does seem to be an allowance for this. For the random creation of an instance of consciousness, which is primed with the experiences of prior extent randomly generated instances of conciousness. The fact that these instances appear to have some kind of continuity, really being down to chance playing out over infinite space and time.
Both of these concepts are so intractable as to transcend the meaninglessness of metaphysics. They almost need a new category within which they can continue to not exist, without consequence and without implication.