ᵀᴴᴱ BLUE GNAT: ᴼᵁᴿ HUMAN BELIEF ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇ FLY ᴼᴺ ᵀᴴᴱ WALL

On the matter of fearing the dark and monsters, is it some definitive realisation that monsters do not exist, that allows a child to sleep soundly? We assure our children that there are no monsters to be afraid of, then we make sure the doors and windows are locked before retiring to our own beds. Where we sleep with the understanding, that there are certain things that must be done if there is a sound in the night. The truth is, what the child fears, pales in comparison to what truly exists in virtually every corner of the earth. So which of the beliefs would you call, ‘inaccurate’? The child who believes in monsters, or the adult who believes a locked door will keep their family safe? Belief will most definitively implicate the way you live your life, how you interpret the world, but ultimately, belief alone will not determine your fate.

Human belief is almost a living thing, a perspective shaped and forged throughout our lifetimes. What you thought you knew in the beginning may have changed, what you believe now may not be what you believe at the end. Could a singular anomalous experience change what you think you know about the world you inhabit?

On the 28th of August, 2019, I began correspondence with a fascinating individual identified as Blaine Thompson, The Perinormalist and ‘The Blue Gnat’. Blaine possesses a rare combination of empirically scientific integrity eternally at odds with a life’s pursuit of attaining answers to some of the oldest questions to ever haunt human contemplation. Blaine is what I call a ‘Seeker’, in this regard. An individual of a very rare and specific mindset, grounded in reality yet seeking to know what the very same reality obscures from perception. When Blaine ceased writing publicly I was fortunate enough to continue discourse with him and exchange a great many ideas and perspectives surrounding a multitude of topics pertaining to what can only be described as the unknown.

During the back and forth, we had discussed the notion that a great many individuals aren’t entirely aware of what they truly believe at all. Regarding certain aspects of the human experience, there are lots of things (i.e. superstition, religion, higher emotions, folklore etc) that many countless individuals, due to their own experience (or lack of), may or may not believe to be legitimate. So what might someone discover about themselves and the world (they believe to be) around them when they take that great introspective journey and wade through the waters of their mind’s eye in search of that unencumbered clarity?

When ‘The Blue Gnat’ agreed to embark upon such a journey, I asked if I could share the result of the experiment here. Having spoken with Blaine now for 2 years 5 months and 12 days, I can attest that the answer has not yet revealed itself, perhaps it never will. But there are more questions. Many more.

ᴼᵁᴿ HUMAN BELIEF ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇ FLY ᴼᴺ ᵀᴴᴱ WALL


There’s an enigmatic third joker that exists within the deck of cards that we experience as our social web. Reprehensively, I have crossed paths with it with such a cyclicity, now, that I treat it with much less of a sense of humor than I once did. The playful tip of the hat acknowledgement of its presence, has now more given way to my seeing it maybe more as pathogen than that of a grin inducing nod toward its mischievous inherency. At this point, I have observed this specific psychology in action on multiple occasions, a truth which has been compounded by the sentimentality draped around the circumstances. The device becomes all the more effective when the observing stooge has his heart invested in the human agent. I am referring to a practice whereby lip service is given to public presentation, in which an individual claims to espouse certain ideals and values. However, if one has the chosen affordment of dealing directly with this many faced actor, and if they bask in the persona of the sycophant when the act is posed away from the stage of public proclamation, where there is no concealment, they then find out that there is a rife abundance of contradiction contained within the slanted actions of this oft cloned theatrical Montebank.

As a result of this ensnarement, what follows is that eventual reunion takes place on the public platform, where numerous others are now also gathered in conjunction along with the actor’s participation. It is in this moment that the observer, who considers themself to be a pseudo- representative of some semblance of an imagined virtue (more specifically, referring to me), feels a welling of undigestability in their throat when they see the projection of what is unmistakably a conjured front. The reaction is involuntary, as much as it is conscious, but leaves me tempted to almost think it more autonomic in its nature. The ease with which I have seen it performed is disconcerting. When one feels compelled to see life with untainted clarity, their hand is the one that becomes extended with a determined finger pointing at the large mammal in the room that is the only one possessing a large trunk for a nose. To make matters worse, our seemingly oblivious circus hand with the agaped look of awe, feels compelled to not only walk up to the magnificent creature, but to also walk about it, as well, studiously asking numerous logic based questions with exhausting simultaneity.

This precocious seer knows that the more genuine representation of the trunked performer has been revealed when the now numerous observers were not present before, unlike when they are all partaking of the same space now. Consequently, if the chosen guardian of sincerity chooses to speak up while this individual of cunning is presenting themself in full character (with now additional witnesses serving as an audience), for the audience to be considered respectful they are expected to play along, even while knowing the façade is bathed in, well, farce. Herein is where the trap becomes all the more intriguing. The ingenuity of the ploy makes the morally upright squealer, who is supposedly standing guard, instead, look like the menacing viper in the room that should be ostracized. Social convention bows to the expectation that no blunt and direct words of confrontation are in order. Yes, we know that banter is a normal thing in politics and on television, that people clashingly disagree on a regular basis, and that communal interaction regularly means cohorts discussing how they really feel about someone when said person of controversy is out of the room. It is in this way that perfunctory protocol is enabled, and the performance of life may continue on the stage while the public is gathered, with error correction being built in by the private conversations held in small groups away from the main platform. In everyday social settings, there can be an expectation of more reserve and decorum, if for no other reason, than for the sake of keeping communal order and sanity.

As a way of introducing myself, I may now say that I am the guy who came from the factory with defects. Rather contradictingly, when the crowd is gathered, it is that occasion when I feel most compelled to perform Sherlockian analysis. Does this fact mean that I rudely blurt out my opinions and ruin interaction with good company? No, it most certainly does not, as has historically been the case, and instead, I’m usually considered to be the least spoken person in the room. But, the illustration that remains is that even though I may not always overtly say what is on my mind, deep down, I’m believing that it needs to be said. As a result, a reader now somewhat becomes introduced to my life, for better or for worse, as it pertains to not only a discussion about considering the paranormal when weighed against science, but as well as in the social universe to which I am confined.

So, where did my journey really begin? Based on the specific and limited amount of writings that I have made available to the public, thus far, there may be the assumption that I have had a biased opposition to there being any seriousness with which paranormal claims should be taken. The few readers who have seen my words may feel that I am not sympathetic to belief, and that I am aligned with a resolve to relegating matters of belief to a dungeon of confinement that is constructed from stones of primitivity. The assumption may be that, philosophically, I follow the same paths as some of the brilliant science educators who have served on the public stage through media appearances with addresses to the public. I knew when I penned my first words of opinion on science and the paranormal, that these conclusions would be reached, because they had already happened to a journalistic mentor of mine before me. Because this mentor had such an adroit disposition as a thoughtful polymath, and because he was so gifted in communicating his assessment of logic towards any particular topic of his choice, it could easily be opined by the many that his commitment to a scientific understanding of our existence would preclude any of his own entertainment of any notion that involved belief of any sort. This thoughtful influence of mine was Martin Gardner, and before I become the cause for any misrepresentation of his own outlooks on science, philosophy, pseudoscience, literature, math, the paranormal, etc., I will quickly say that I do not always share the same opinions with him, nor am I anywhere near on the same intellectual par, as was Martin Gardner. I am simply calling upon his inspiration in this written submission, and I bear no endorsement from him or his laudable accomplishments. Like Gardner did in so many articles, I am only trying to put together my version of a written conglomeration in the way that he did, and I am eternally grateful that his written thoughts and example have been left behind permanently after his passing.

Gardner voiced his opinions on so many topics, while also having written a column for Scientific American for over two decades. He received mail from readers on a regular basis, some of whom challenged him on grounds of where they thought he must fall in terms of opinion, when in fact, they were challenging him on assumptions that were faulty. Some of the subjective assessments applied to him were simply not correct. There were those letter writers who wrote from a confidence that they must be certain of the platform from which he must assuredly be opining regarding his stances on certain topics. Here, on this blog, I have been given the opportunity to give a bit more of an insight as to where I, myself, am coming from, although I will try to keep it from being too overly revelatory. The main focus of this piece is still birthed in unison with a support for inquiry where finding data driven answers are as objectively formulated as they may be culled from good evidence.

If one reads the early pages in my book, “From Pieces to Poe,” they will learn about the traditional upbringing that I hail from, which is one from which I have never departed. Additionally, they will find out the mark that the passing of my grandparents left upon my life. Having to watch their suffering, and their succumbing to the ravages of cancer three years apart from one another, forever changed me and set my path before me. My questions about this marvelous cosmos that we inhabit emanated from a pain and emptiness from loss that exponentially complicated an already prior interest of an innate yearning to know. I never could have dreamed just where these aching questions would ultimately take me. I have learned more than I ever would have had I not taken the road less traveled, and yet, as one who was, in years past, so confident in the understanding that science has given humankind up to its current point in its history, I now find myself continually conceding deference to the fact that I know vastly less than what my assurance in the empirical process had ever given me in the fore. My venture is humanely driven, which is why I have made it a point to perpetually point back to the loss of my grandparents, so that it is always known that I am completely human in this enterprise. When it comes to discussion about belief, and philosophical and theological reckoning, I have always wanted to conduct myself with the most human of respect as can be shown. If this especially suited goal of mine is not achieved, then nothing else matters, and any scholastic efforts would drown from such a shortcoming of unwanted dissolution.

Therefore, the question becomes begged, why may have my writings sounded to be abrasive towards the topic of ghosts, and perhaps the entire spectrum that the paranormal covers? Well, let us hope that they may only sound abrasive, and in the words contained herein, I would very much like to dispel any notion that they have been meant to be abrasive. I will make every effort, here, to try and directly reference the questions that I have posed, as appearances can be quite deceiving, which is a very pertinent fact in my life’s game. I have spent the last twenty years of my life trying to dissect matters of asking what is true in regard to some of the biggest questions that we may all ask? Yes, some of my written words have been pointed, but certainly not because I am anti-belief, because I am against any possibility of ghosts existing, because I am not sympathetic to supernatural proposition, or because I am cynical or mean-spirited. There are few things I detest more than cynicism, as for some reason I cannot seem to share a room with it. What a reader must understand, in order to accurately grasp what I am trying to accomplish, is to understand that my efforts in writing about ghosts have been incredibly concentrated and very zoomed in. It is when one zooms out that they find that my more understanding outlook concerning the overall involves quite a bit of the traditional, mixed in with a romantic appreciation, which stems from a humble reverence for the grand pageant in which we are all a part.

But, no, what I have done in a more concentrated form, is to really make a go at splitting hairs over evidence that has been presented to the public. I have tried to hold that evidence to scientific standards, as best I know how, as well as measuring it against the application of logic when evaluating against reality as we seem to experience it on a daily basis. As a result, I’m always left asking any reader to consider this side notation of mine so that they are not left assuming that I am a debunker in my own personal nature. The term, “debunking,” can easily imply that there is a bias from the get-go, that will be allowed to carry over into investigation. I am here to adamantly say that such is not the case, and I have always intentionally bypassed any use of the term, “debunk.” I’m interested in objective answers, regardless of where they may really fall on the spectrum. What is important is not to fall for something purported to be true, when in fact, deeper research may mean finding a totally different revelation that is contrary to that which has been proposed. When dealing with evidence, I look to steer clear of bias, and to cling to sensibility. What one will also hear me saying is that if there is not enough data to satisfactorily address a noted event, to date, then we simply have to look for and/or wait for more data until the gaps can be filled in by good information, and not by that of conjecture.

Also, in stepping back from performing pointed analysis, I enjoy this whole over arching discussion about mystery as much as anyone, and within the context of my own predominant views. I have no problem delineating the contrast in that when I am looking at evidence, I am attempting to do so with the best methods that I have been able to learn from those individuals who, I feel, are the most qualified to speak to the subject based on their repertoires. But, independent of the rigor of critical assessment, once a more personal appraisal can be discussed, I can then speak with less reserve and from the heart, which often means my meekishly offering an, “I don’t know, but out of respect, I can wish,” form of a salutation. I think wishing should be allowed in a universe that is this marvelously constructed, regardless of whether one believes it to be constructed ultimately by a Designer, or by physical laws alone.

If I am willing to pardon this goodwill towards the ghost story, then why the need for such rigorous investigation in its measure? Why expend so much effort in taking the way an event is described, and then giving it a critique via unbridled reduction, when a ghostly explanation is so much more enjoyable for human nature? There was a time that one of my answers would have immediately involved that of an address about the welfare of the public. I really do not think it fair for the public to be told that things are a certain way, when, in fact, they may clearly be another, wherever cognizant reduction is applied. However, even though this retort is still a definite part of my answer, over time, I have learned that ultimately, I can only represent my own conviction as an individual, and that even an effort as noble as wanting to keep someone from being duped or misled can be met with resistance. But, in my case alone, I simply do not want to settle for false truth. I would love to see the evidence that assures me that my grandparents still exist in another realm outside of the physical one in which we reside. As much as that hope would pervade, I still am not willing to settle for contrived evidence in order to make the case, nor do I want to offend the beauty of the belief of faith, where there is already offered assurance that in the distance, there is a non-empirical hope that is supposed to be more real than we can imaginably know. And, of course, the absence of proof in the here-and-now, and in contemplations of thought experiments, do not, in and of themselves, mean that an afterlife does not exist. The twenty-first century society is incredibly educated, and it has that segment of its membership that winces at the idea of mentioning the possibility of an actual afterlife. After all, they have aptly ingested their science classes, as well as the popular promulgation of encouraged thinking that stresses the importance of enlightenment. However, what they may not necessarily know is that there is already a template for ascribing a tinge of the rational when discussing the possibility of an afterlife within the framework of a more substantive lingo, which can be discussed as a hypothetical, albeit a hypothetical only. This consideration can take place based on some speculative approaches towards a neuroscientific understanding of the brain, consciousness, and what happens when a person is technically deceased, but then revived.

I’m not meaning to sound preposterous here, as I inevitably would to someone of such respected advocacy of educational responsibility, like a Dr. Steven Novella, or by those who are of a like mind in the neuroscience and medical fields (or any other fields for that matter.) I certainly cannot say there is scientific proof of an afterlife. But, I would follow this previous sentence by including a very emphasized, “not, yet.” If a neuroscientific model such as the Orchestrated Objective Reality proposal ever proves itself as a candidate for explaining consciousness against quantum mechanics, or is in part correct, or some comparable version of it stands on its own or opens the door to a quantum understanding of the brain, then all of a sudden, we are sailing in some different waters. I’m not saying that the propositions of Orch OR automatically confirm an afterlife, for that is not the point of referencing its existence. It merely begins an attempt at putting forth a physics based explanation on how maybe consciousness could be at work in the human brain. I’m simply saying that if the model were to be true to some degree, then there could potentially be some interesting side discussions that would be resultant when stepping back and conducting a discussion regarding philosophical implications. And, furthermore, if it should ever be determined that matter really is a derivative of consciousness, as hard as that concept may be for many of us to wrap our heads around, and if near death studies were to accumulate more impressive and firmer data than what exists now, then we would already have a way in which we could fathom the reality of what we might call an, “afterlife,” within the boundaries of a more substantively based dialogue. It would be at such an introduction of these points where scoffers would accuse me of being the one sympathetic to pseudoscience here, even though I have just stated that my comments are not rooted in, as of yet, established science. However, what I have learned in my two decade endeavor of thinking about the big questions is that it is a mistake to dismiss some ideas too quickly, because what is not science today, may very well be established science once enough tomorrows have passed. I have embraced the re-realization that this universe is immensely amazing, and though I do not intend to overhype hypotheticals so as to irresponsibly or prematurely escalate them as having passed all the needed tests at this stage, I also do not intend to be so closed minded as to overlook any evidence that should warrant further study. To the contrary, I am spending my own time looking into the examples I have cited in this paragraph, because, especially in the case of the Orch OR model, I most definitely think that there is something to be found. In fact, I’m stating my public endorsement of the work proposed by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, as well as of those researchers who have opted to explore further into the propositions of the Orch OR model about a quantum based approach to consciousness. I thoroughly believe that the Orch OR model is in imperative need of being pursued, and that possibly it, or some variant, will help to lay necessary foundations and help to set science on a course for unlocking the amazement of consciousness in its operation.

All the same, in the way that I see reality, and in the way that I most prefer to engage it, I also see peril in buying into misinterpreted or misrepresented data. This caution label is still attached with me, even if skewed data might be more comforting to buy into if it would assure me that I could assume my deceased loved ones still exist somewhere else. In my book that I cited earlier, I spend a brief amount of time giving attention to some of the conundrums that can exist within this take on this investigative journey, because what if a piece of evidence, regardless of its merit, does give someone comfort? Do I want to take that comfort away? I really do not, as life can be hard enough as it already is. And, what I want to definitively say in my present words, if I were to get no other point across, is that I would never, ever want to be the reason that anyone decided to not believe in something. I would never want to take away a person’s trust in there being something more to our being, and I would find it to be horrific if anything I have ever written would foster any such outcome. It is just that for me, as a lone psyche, I simply cannot be satisfied with embellishment. My passion is to understand reality as it is, and not the way that I would prefer it to be.

My mother and father are in their mid-eighties now, and sometimes our conversations are interrupted by moments when the coldness of real life catches up with us, when we have to acknowledge the dreaded imposition of mortality. We are reminded to never take a single day for granted, and I try diligently not to do so. The memory of my grandparents keeps me vigilant in making sure that I do not leave anything unsaid with my parents. Nothing garners greater significance in my life than communicating to my parents that their value to me is that of the utmost. Loss teaches us not only to relish those who have departed, but to also never take for granted those who remain behind with us. Loss should encourage us to make sure that the remaining know of their personal significance within our affinities.

What enables the undergirded interaction with my parents is the tradition by which they and I have all chosen to adhere to for establishing a baseline by which we can find common footing. Martin Gardner, in some of the errant accusations that were directed at him, was judged, and understandably, by many to be an atheist. At least one individual who even knew him for years had drawn the same conclusion, but simply did so based on how Gardner broke things out rationally, as if perhaps to make himself sound like the world’s most staunch materialist. Yet, the reality was that Martin Gardner was not an atheist. Although he did leave the church, his belief in God remained with him throughout his life. Gardner called himself a philosophical theist, along with the additional tagging of calling himself a, “fideist.” In consistent form, he explained how he arrived at his decisions and belief, while also not excusing his own views from logic. Unlike Gardner, I have never left the church. Thus, I am left with having to justify a sympathetic appreciation for a more specific system of belief, and over time, for lack of any better description, I have come to refer to myself as a quantum subjectivist within the context of my own affiliated denomination. The moniker is merely a fancy way of taking conjecture from some unbridled discussions derived from the philosophical far side of quantum mechanics, while blending them with the philosophical school of subjectivism, all the while being framed against the Synoptic, Johannine, and Pauline writ. Wow, were you able to get all of that in one reading? But, how do these previous words serve as any illustration when alluding to my taking the time to speak a bit to my also having a healthy admiration for the subjective? Do I then still sound like the skeptically minded magician? Perhaps Gardner did not in some cases, nor do I, in some cases, and I really think it more satisfyingly balanced to say that I am actually glad that I do not sound to be the curmudgeon magician, all of the time.

When discussing belief, and the immense beauty that I find within it, the greatest hurdles for me have never had anything to do with the commonly cited list of logical gymnastics, crisis of doubt, theology, ontology, teleology, correspondence/coherence theory, human suffering, etc. What has served as the greatest academic impediment for me is the fact that some of my deepest remembrances have resulted from injurious misrepresentation by others over the ideals on which the faith is founded. Countless other individuals have issued the same citations in protest, but I am speaking in somewhat of a different way that is more logic based and not wrapped up in any juvenile focus over hypocrisy. My question becomes, how am I able to speak rationally to the irrational behavior by which I have been on the receiving end, delivered by some individuals who identify themselves readily with faith. These personal incidents have been highlighted and indelibly imprinted upon me by persons who claim to attribute their life foundations to faith persuasions, and yet, I could easily sit here and type in elaboration, with specific examples, as to just how calloused and ruthless they can be while giving themselves the total laterality for doing so. Remorse is not in their makeup. Since these individuals, of their own volition, have professed their religious affiliations, I always took assumption as to the code of ethics by which they would more than likely conduct themselves, even though the mini-magician in me knows better. I always engaged these specific individuals on the grounds of fairness due to my socially based grandeur, because of their public correlation with these belief systems. I expected that fairness was always the background by which they would police themselves, and that, in turn, I would also honor my respect for them through imparting fairness through my own action. In stark contrast, I came to experience an unforgettable unfairness that falls outside any rational application or thoughtful rumination having to do with any faith based set of behaviors. I was appallingly reminded of why I have always known to read persons through the eyes of magicians, because to not do so, is to always miss what is really underneath. It is this one core factor of thoughtless malfeasance which has made it so difficult for me to continue to try and execute a sensible dialogue when speaking to theological application to life. Logically speaking, these kinds of actions leave me in a, “does not compute,” mode, whereby I can no longer seem to even make an attempt at any intelligible address. After enduring these very key and life forming experiences, while always having tried to make sense of these contradictions, I have been left dumbfounded how individuals can lead such dual lives, where they can follow the rules of the streets when they so fit them, while their professed belief dangles as no more than a mere magic charm to be worn around their neck and invoked when needed. I am bewildered and left wondering if I can ever take part again in a discussion that I sentimentally miss, because of the aesthetics that it contains, but a discussion that also begs so much elucidation from the minds of the self-serving. My own mind grinds into a state of wheel lock where there has to be any consideration of professed believers defaming such a beautiful belief by retaining a theological narrative through which there is absolutely no application. More simply put, why bother proclaiming an ideology that implies standards, when their regard for most individuals should instead be considered as ambassadorship for sociopathy over that of any theistically acquainted God?

But, what is more important to note is that it is not the faith, itself, that is tarnished, in these instances, nor are the many individuals who do practice faith so nobly. I have certainly never lost my respect for the faith tradition or the individuals who represent it with such admirable devotion. No, I am simply left clueless by narcissists who identify themselves with a faith, and yet seem to represent everything that is the exacting opposite of its wonder. But, what the truly faithful know is that if there is any value to the faith, at all, then it is up to the individual to live up to its standard of fairness, regardless of whether anyone else chooses to return it in kind. It is in cases like the ones I referenced above where I am left to admit cognitively that the dream of life may always, at any time, be disrupted, the interruption though which we are awakened by that which is supposed to be good, and yet, humans are even able to find a way to stain the good with bad. But, whether faith or no, whether belief or no, whether ghosts or no, everything takes place within that context in which we must ante up to relegation in the acknowledgment of what we must recognize as the condition known as, “real life.”

Where this realistic admission has not been under appreciated by me is because of the fact that there is that part of me that has, unfortunately, seen itself forced into a jaded rationalist’s corner. In my appreciation for paradox, I know the danger of living on the only one side of the coin, which is that of the skeptical magician. There must be some sort of equilibrium brought about by temperance. The narrative on where I have found my footing for fairness extols the value of story when it is interjected into the thoughts of the pondering human mind. Story acts as a software patch through which one may choose to tend to vulnerable code. Were it not for the written illustration of Dark versus Light, perhaps I would entirely forget to pursue the Light in its stage given depiction with pre-Shakespearean performance. Does a heroic version of Dark really defeat an evil version of Dark? My hunch is that the Dark, of all varieties and persuasions, can only be trumped in the name of goodness by that of Light as consummate victor. Therefore, I choose to allow the infusion of storied goodness to keep me mindful of what it is that I do not want to become. The Dark protagonist may easily be every bit as heinous in motivation as is the Dark antagonist. Precipitously, there are more days when the Dark protagonist wins over that of the Light in my own life, for resignation always seems to carry with it a rationalized defeat that excuses anger and resentment. Ultimately, one has to ask what faith really means, because without clarity of definition, its introduced elixir as an inoculate into life may also potentially inject more dissonance into an already clouded reality.

In keeping with Gardner’s example, I try to hold myself to the logical side of any form of sought after elucidation from the world we inhabit when concerning thought based analysis. In matters of belief, while also admitting that there is no way for me to empirically document as to why I would hold any such sympathies, there is still that exposition that exists for justifying its welcome to the world in which I live. As humans, we cannot live an entirely unsubjective life. If we could, we would forego a multitude of amazing art works and songs. Hopefully, the revelation that I have sympathy towards belief allows the believer in ghosts to know that I am not trying to bash any surmising that ghosts exist, or any other form of beliefs, for that matter. I do, indeed, still have an inexpressibly high favor for the subjective. Therefore, it does lend me a consoling comfort that my parents and I can interact and share on a common plane, and the concept of theological structure gives us an anesthetic view on how to cope with a dreaded separation that physical reality says must come. I rue the processing of such a difficult predicament with which we must all deal in the human condition. I have felt enough loss to know that I do not want to have to endure it again.

But, in contrast, what about my emphasis on the objective? How did I go from being fourteen years of age, to pondering the cruelty of mortality, to pondering the meaning of life and its deepest questions, to eventually spending time, of all places, in haunted houses? There is a tradition that I am happy to have found, because it is this very inheritance that directly relates to why I typed up above that I have gained an education that I never would have otherwise procured. Magicians have offered so much more to the world than simply pleasing us with smile inducing tricks. They are quite an educated lot, and it takes a well rounded education to really represent the art in an impressive fashion. When it comes to their having spoken to matters of ghosts and investigation into the claimed existence of ghosts, they have brought with them an ever applicable skill set that must never be taken for granted. They need to be involved in this discussion so they can assist in providing some of the best reasoned offerings in the way of explaining hauntings, where they can most successfully be. Before I go into crediting some of the magicians who have been indirect teachers of mine (although a couple who are unlisted have been direct), I will first offer a little back history that best sets up their introduction. Magicians bring to the table a knowledge of human psychology, the history of the occult, the practice of role playing within an occultism setting, and then, of course, how to accomplish fakery. These aspects add to the versatility that is needed for observing a purportedly haunted environment, while seeking to not pronounce a haunting valid before it may be due any such a consecration.

Tim Prasil, professor of English at Oklahoma State University (brombonesbooks.com), has done a wonderful job at encapsulating the ensemble of the tradition onto which I stumbled years ago. I am first referring back to the Victorian Era, and as Prasil reminds us, if we start in the year 1800 and move forward, there is a line of demarcation that occurs in the world of thought on ghosts in that century. This line occurs around the year 1840. Prior to this year, there were skeptical efforts at dismissing ghosts with educated and, “scientific,” flair. John Alderson, John Ferriar, and Samuel Hibbert, were three of the intellects who proposed to have naturalistic explanations on how to explain away ghosts. And, Joseph Taylor put together a written work that reminded society that ration ought to be applied to the idea of ghosts in effort to escape the temptation to bow to superstition.

When there began to be a shift to not only a formal contemplation about the possibility of ghosts being evaluated among the educated, but to also pondering the question on scientific grounds, perhaps it makes sense that Cambridge University became a spearhead for the movement. There, the “Ghost Club,” originated, where like-minded thinkers could congregate and hold interchanges about ghosts in an academic setting, and the Society for Psychical Research also came to fruition in the midst of this Renaissance in regards to ghosts. Names such as Henry Sidgwick (economics), William Barrett and Oliver Lodge (physics), William Crookes (chemistry), Edmund Gurney, and William James (psychology), were all prominent members. I won’t recapture the full history here, as Dr. Prasil has already provided this fantastic overview in book form, but for the reader who may be interested in a more detailed account of the early efforts by the SPR should most definitely read Deborah Blum’s book entitled, “Ghost Hunters.”

In this Victorian foray, what is also interesting to note is the representation of writers accounted for in the sport of ghost chasing, along with their accompanying academicians and scientists. This inclusion captures my attention, because as much as I want to be an investigator, realistically speaking, when it comes to ghosts, I can only really regard myself as a written opinionist, and no more. Frank Podmore, the English author, wrote some critically viable appraisals of Spiritualistic sittings. Catherine Crowe, also a writer of the time, advanced the idea that ghosts could be put to the test on grounds of science. Joseph McCabe, the free-thinker writer and former priest, also took Spiritualism to task in the 1920s, and he was critical of the views held by Arthur Conan Doyle and William Crookes. Two other literary names of note, who took part in this tackling of the topic of ghosts included Charles Dickens, and the just mentioned debater of Joseph McCabe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Additional history of interest during this time, and in this paramount discussion, involved that of the exchange between Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle. And, it is with the introduction of this pair and their exchange about Spiritualism that I can now segue into the world of magicians, the afterlife, and critical thinking.

It was because of the advent and popularity of Spiritualism, and proclaimed communication with the departed in the Victorian Era, that gave magicians an important and valued voice in this esoteric part of history. Seances and medium trances were supposed to be channels of demonstrating the authenticity of spirit contact, which gave magicians tangible transpirations to monitor and to observe, and to explain. There became a wonderful cadre of colorful personalities that joined these pursuits, and history records the conclusions that they reached in their insights.

John Nevil Maskelyne, the London based magician and great of the stage, also helped to expose some of the problems native to Spiritualist practices. Hereward Carrington did the same, but Carrington also held on to some pseudoscientific predilections, and did not find himself as far along on the spectrum of stolid and committed skepticism as were some other magicians. Henry Ridgely Evans was a knowledgeable historian of magic who wrote books that helped to explain the actuals behind some of the spectacles of the Spiritualist performers. Julien Proskauer addressed the matter of Spiritualism, as well, and Joseph Rinn was an ardently skeptical magician, discouraging any falling for the assumption that any contact with the deceased had ever been demonstrated. Joseph Dunninger, who is a great influence of mine, spent a great deal of time addressing the discussion over psi based claims, and a magician here in my hometown was kind enough to impart to me an item documenting Dunninger’s magical act so I could have it as a keepsake. Dunninger passed away in 1975, and Milbourne Christopher, another influence of mine, wrote books that educate us on how to think about evaluating fantastic feats when it comes to supposedly making contact with the other side. Christopher passed away in 1984, and was a true scholar of magic, and like Dunninger, had as much authority to speak on Spiritualism’s performance art as anyone. But, as influential as these gentlemen have all been in my pursuit of what the final word is on ghosts, sometimes I think about how much I have in common with Fulton Oursler. After being the agnostic and skeptical magician for years, later in life, Oursler found room in his life for Catholicism, and he wound up writing some particular books that perhaps betrayed philosophical developments that were to come later in his life. Maybe the cautious and wary magician came full circle from his original upbringing. Some might say that I have come to sound more like Oursler than the other magicians I credit most for having been my influences, including Gardner. I’m not even sure I understand this observation myself. But, I think this admission may have more to do with the fact that going out into the field simply taught me not to take anything for granted. A couple of situations that I encountered showed me how life can easily show us just how smart we are not. We go to investigate to see how things are, and not how we assume that they ought to be.

It was the introduction to the kind of work that these gentlemen of wizardry conducted, which became the foundation for my Sherlock Holmes, “wannabe,” status, and that is still amply applied by me during the creation of this blog entry. Of course, there are other names from magic I could mention. But, in moving forward through the Victorian Era up to the middle part of the twentieth century, that is when we can pick up the setting of the stage for me to eventually run across the work of one Martin Gardner. Persi Diaconis, another magician influence of mine, writes of his days as a youth while going to the Cafeteria on 42nd Street in New York. Diaconis is a magician and a wonder with cards, he observed how Ted Serios was able to accomplish his psychic photography through trickery, and he is a math professor at Stanford University. He recalls how magicians would gather at 42nd Street on weekends and demonstrate and talk about magic, among other things. One of those magic enthusiasts was Martin Gardner, the exceptionally gifted thinker who taught me how I should reason my way through any and all areas of interest that I may have. Gardner, and Ray Smullyan, yet another magician and a mathematician who taught at Indiana University, have both served as Master Instructors for me when considering how to think my way through this great mystery we call life.

As much as I have learned from Skeptics (capital S in reference to nationally and globally known commentators), and as much as I have them to thank for my progression along this self-chosen path, I hold many views with which they would disagree, which is more than fine. We all have to work our way through the labyrinth and try to estimate reality as best we can through observation and experience. My own skepticism has been slightly altered over the past couple of years, but not in any negligent sort of way. The beauty of science is that you wait for new data, and when that data comes, if it is good and solid data, then adjustments are made accordingly. I have had my own new data come in, and I have, indeed, had some things very wrong in the past. I used to feel that anomalies were either simply a result of the way events were filtered and processed, or that they were simply statistical in nature. But, now, I am not such the skeptic that I dismiss the presence of outright anomalies. I have come to believe that the cosmos is more bizarre than I ever could have imagined, but when I type the word, “bizarre,” I do so as a synonym for its compatriot in the word of, “beauty.” Genuine anomalies are a good thing, because they mean there are additional answers that need to be pursued in order to construct a more complete understanding of our cosmos. They mean that there is more data that needs to be collected. In other words, I simply believe in going and testing, which is why I jovially call myself a perinormalist, and not a paranormalist.

In some of the modified opinions that I have changed in recent months, such tweaks have not been egregious by way of rush to judgment. Basically, I have simply come to reiterate what I said from the very start. Rather than sitting back in armchair skeptic fashion, I sincerely cling to the conviction that claims should be tested. Of course, where financial resources or brilliant minds might have to be allocated towards such study, then there may need to be ample assurance that there is valid reason for taking the time to test. Wasted resources would be a travesty, and wallowing in pseudoscience would equally be, as well. But, where there is good evidence for suggesting so, I don’t think the proper spirit of science is to dismiss something, a priori, if there may be grounds for taking a closer look. In my own microcosmic and insignificant little world, I have done everything from having a psychic to sketch my, “soulmate,” to watching ghost hunters in action, to staying the night alone in a home that is supposed to have a poltergeist, to taking part in a watch party for a haunted house that was featured on the Travel Channel, etc. I’m continually giving the paranormalist every chance to make their case. If there is anything to be found in paranormal consideration, however minuscule, then I would prefer to find it, versus skipping it in advance and reasoning that it cannot exist. But, thus far, I cannot say as I have had the pleasure of encountering a ghost.

As a result of this one main disappointing fact, it is now where we may reduce the last twenty years of my life, which comes down to a discussion about the philosophy of science. Writer, comedienne, and podcaster, Carrie Poppy, gave an informative TED Talk that is viewable on YouTube. In the presentation, she talks about how she wound up making contact with a skeptically based group that assists people with claimed haunt phenomena. Her individual case was one where there was definitely something going on at her residence, but after connecting with the right investigators, she wound up learning that she had been the victim of a carbon monoxide buildup at her home, versus that of any malevolent ghost. And, she winds up giving an affable close to her talk after speaking to how, we, the collective populus, live our lives with both objective and subjective experiences. In between, she works in a line in regard to the Resurrection by saying, “Well,…” My reaction to her caveat was to think about the 2009 Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downey, Jr., in which Sherlock Holmes is faced head on with the prospective case of a rising dead man. The Resurrection will obviously always serve as an inviting target for Skeptics, so for the sake of initiating a dialogue over the philosophy of science, which is something I have been doing full-on in recent months, my choosing to play the part of aggravator, for the sake of discussion, in response to Carrie’s sidebar would be as follows. Until a few months ago, I did not give a single odd of favorability to there being credible UAP footage caught on sophisticated radars and cameras. Of course, some of the Skeptics who have been mentors to me would fault me right away on making any leaping assumptions about UAP footage and the potential vulnerabilities of even high tech cameras, but I do not feel that I am leaping. When considering the collective body of evidence surrounding these UAP claims, with radar and testimony being considered along with video footage, my belief is that there is something there entirely worthy of study. And, the greater point I am making here is that we can become overconfident in how we think the universe functions, and in how, by default, we think it fundamentally is in its operation. My whole aim for ever having gone out into the field was to see how the universe really runs, because at my house, there were never any bumps in the night, there were no unexplained voices, and there were never any apparitions. I lived in an environment that I needed to escape from if I was really going to put things to the test. Here, I am hailing what I believe to be the task of good science, which is to go and to explore, and to not sit back. There is a reason I admire Professor Avi Loeb for having taken the position that he has when considering the nature of scientific inquiry. In the year 2021, there were aspects of my prior skepticism by which I became embarrassed. Although I was only trying to use logic and a reliable measuring stick for taking the stances that I did, there was also a time in my past when I emphasized imaginative problem solving, with no biased prevalence to dismissal by default. Had I sat back and missed these last two years of my own experience, I would still be stuck in a Cartesian-Newtonian version of a world only.

What would be wrong with that, especially since I am a fan of the work of both Descartes and Newton? Well, nothing, if that is where the story really ends. But, I’m convinced without doubt, that as far as science is concerned, there is so much more to be learned that is going to shake some of the very foundations on which my teachings at the University were based. There is much more to come, and regrettably, the classroom may be one of the last places to catch up because of certain attitudes that have dominated the scientific landscape. Yes, science has to be conservative by nature, because it cannot go around allowing all proposed ideas to walk through its doors if the necessary rigors have not been met. However, it also cannot thrive if it rejects important evidence, and I thoroughly believe that the indicators are there where science will come to reveal that what we would have considered stranger than fiction to actually be more real than what we ever knew.

Bias can hurt science in either direction. Science definitely suffers with the admission of any quackery within its boundaries, but it also becomes maimed if it is kept from investigating where impressive evidence begs to be given an ear. The staunch materialists and naturalists, repeatedly, have shown resistance to a more relaxed malleability of what may be deemed to be of legitimate inquiry. But, what if such resistant resolve were to cause the missing of some fascinating nugget that the universe might be willing to give up? I have held myself against materialistic and naturalistic standards while going out into the field and looking into ghost stories, because that philosophical foundation can work to help keep the inquirer honest and to tamper the influence of pre-existing assumption of any form. These philosophical underpinnings can help to prevent us from diagnosing from predisposition, even when we may not be suspecting it.

And, yet, we live in a reality where there is quantum mechanics. We live in a cosmos where we have to try and explain consciousness. We live in a reality where the proposition exists that matter could potentially be a derivative of consciousness, depending on one’s reductionistic views. There was a time when I would have been the first to resist any such of a notion that there was anything more fundamental than the physical constituents on which the matter in the universe is comprised. In the same way that Martin Gardner was considered a, Mysterian, within a group of impressive thinkers considering the question of consciousness, I too, have to wrestle with this question. What I do know is that if the Orchestrated Objective Reality proposition ever becomes a victor in neuroscientific thought someday, and that if we have to entertain consciousness in terms of quantum fields, rather than inhibiting it to computation through neuronal action alone, then the world as we know it now, changes dramatically. There could conceivably be major questions answered, while new ones would be raised, as well as the instigated spurrings of thought on why some things thought impossible before, may, in fact, not be impossible, at all.

I know that in my own personal grief over the course of time, and in knowing that some of the people I have cared about the most, some have had to be counted in the company of the kind of actor that I have alluded to in my opening paragraphs. The resentment that stems from having to relinquish this admission, on more than one occasion, makes it tempting to want to forever remain the angry magician who looks no farther than materialism and naturalism for explanation, and to cling to the posit that there is a normal explanation for everything. It is this half of me that wants to emerge as dominant when I am standing in a group of people knowing that an illusion is being performed, a happening in which I cannot bring myself to watch or to accept that is really occurring. Yes, performance and illusion I have encountered, but I have never encountered a ghost, nor the direct evidence that would definitely suggest ghosts exist, in the sense that we typically define them. But, there is one unfortunate way for me to definitely see a ghost, which is not the preferred way, nor would it be experienced in the form of the good will in which I have expressed interest by way of healthy inquiry and by way of my previously written sentences. For, if I were to relinquish myself to that phantom which drains the optimism of every soul that has looked up in wonder at a night sky while feeling a humble joy, then the one and only ghost I would ever, assuredly see, would be that of…



ᴵᴺ LIEU ᴏғ RHYME ᴏʀ REASON: ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ LOGIC ɢᴏᴇs ᴛᴏ DIE

(Animation by Dualvoidanima)

There is and always has been an ordinance of belief in effect upon this world. Anywhere and everywhere that mankind goes, his beliefs too, go with him, along with the repercussions associated with said belief. Some beliefs are more palatable than others, some can be proven with various practices, but a great many beliefs are enforced/controlled by popular opinion (or the manipulation/distortion of such). Some things, even if someone sees it with their own eyes, hears it with their own ears, they will doubt the event ever occurred at all. Believing rather, that they were deceived, that their memory is somehow erroneous, a spell of madness temporarily took hold of them, nullifying their senses. The ordinance, must not be questioned, this universe is governed by a set of rules and those rules cannot be broken. Until of course, “the universe,” chooses to behave quite altogether different, changing the rules of engagement entirely.

Our experiences with this world, this reality, go on to shape and mould us in a multitude of ways that we can barely imagine. Our imaginations, too, anchored to this very same existential experience. Somehow, somewhere, somewhen a singular event unfolds, that defies all logic and reason. A singular event that by all rights, by the laws of physics, the laws of nature as they are understood, should not be possible to have ever occurred at all. An event where the rules of logic and physics are effectively broken. What are the repercussions upon the individual(s) to witness one such event? Let alone, a lifetime of such events?

One thing is clear: strangeness, it seems, begets strangeness.

I noticed the screen of my phone illuminate before the sound of the call began, upon answering, an old familiar voice said, “surely we’re not the only ones who still remember what happened?” Flickers of memory cascaded through my mind’s eye, the dust rising over the road as the frill-neck lizard chased after me, hissing, all the way home from school. The mute little girl riding on the back of her German-shepherd, an uncannily gentle creature that would later be murdered by one of the many insidious characters of that time and place. The bizarre inkblot-like formation the spilled blood made as it pooled over the cement as they relentlessly tortured the albino boy. It all seemed like strange details in some obscure work of fiction now. “It was an unusual time, looking back, it’s sort of like trying to remember a dream,” I replied. “Or a nightmare, probably better off forgotten,” the voice said.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

—Friedrich Nietzsche

I shuffled the deck, without looking at the cards. Splitting the deck, I turned over one of the cards. “Four of hearts,” she said, I looked down and smiled. “I wonder what’s the record for guessing cards right, this many times in a row,” I wondered aloud. My grandmother’s voice spoke from across the room, “but she isn’t guessing.”

Three people were seated at a restaurant awaiting their meal. Of the three beverages delivered to the table, one was a can of coke cola, tiny beads of liquid perspiring down the chilled aluminum can. Throughout the exchange of general chit-chat one individual’s attention was drawn to the can as it began to slowly spin 360 degrees. Immediately all three individuals looked at the can and inspected underneath the table, laughing and dumbstruck by the seemingly odd behavior of physics unfolding before them. As they slid their chairs back from the table, their eyes fixated on the can, the can then slowly slid/moved (itself?) approximately 30 cm along the table, before coming to a halt. A young waitress approached the table and asked, “am I crazy or was that coke just moving?” Another patron added, “the table must be uneven, it looked like that from over here too.” There was shock, there was laughter, there was speculation, but then the nattering, the general chit-chat returned. Years later, a doubtful anecdote, at best, a mere question mark remains. There has to be a logical explanation, even if one cannot fathom what that explanation actually is.

A maintenance electrician arrives on site, parking where he always does, every morning. He exits his vehicle and prepares himself a coffee, as he does every day. He returns to his vehicle to sit in the driver seat to consume it. While drinking his beverage, sat in his vehicle he notices a familiar face in the distance, an old work mate he had not seen in years. Making his way toward this individual, he drops his coffee and falls to his knees with the concussive blast of a high pressure explosion. As the ringing in his ears subsides and he shakes the scolding hot coffee off of his hands, he looks back to his vehicle, specifically the front driver’s seat. The windscreen shattered, piping protruding through the metal frame of the vehicle, having burst through the driver’s head rest. The electrician observed visibly shaken upon the inspection of his vehicle, quickly coming to the conclusion that this old acquaintance he intended to catch up with, had inadvertently saved his life. So the tradesman began asking, where is this person, where is he. But he is reminded that he’s in shock, and not to worry about it. Later discovering that not only was the person he thought he had seen not on site that day, he had not been on any site for years, he had died in a workplace accident several years earlier. The question mark haunts this individual still.

Tragedy, she told me, echoes through time, sending shock-waves through memory, through generations, through worlds that cascade into oblivion. It would be another two decades before she would explain just how tragic certain events truly were, but the truth, it seems, found its way into my understanding long before it needed to be spoken. Wandering the abandoned asylum as a child, what I assumed were merely conjurations of my mind, the kind of stories that unfold in thought, were events that actually transpired in that abysmal place, to relatives that I never knew. Now, a memory of a memory, there is no meaning, there is no clarity or closure, merely a question mark, contributing to an ever estranged relationship with reality itself.

I was awoken in the middle of the night by a phone call, I didn’t recognize the number or even the area code. I could hear the familiar sounds heard within the carriage of a train, moving along the tracks. I could hear unintelligible voices in the background, it didn’t sound English. Then what sounded like a female voice saying, “Kappa… Kappa… Kappa.” I replied, “Hello, who is this?” I could hear the sounds of a train a moment longer, then they hung up. This went on for months, happening one night every few weeks, usually after midnight. It became apparent to me, that the word Kappa, 河童 in Japanese meant ‘river-child’, an amphibious yōkai, a creature of folklore. That didn’t give any sense to the purpose or nature of the continual prank call. Some years later, while traveling Japan during one of the many train trips taken, I had an eerily familiar feeling, as I listened to the sounds of the train clunking over the tracks, and just as I anticipated it, I heard a woman somewhere in the carriage say what I knew would be said, “Kappa… Kappa… Kappa.” I struggled to get out of my seat, by the luggage and other passengers, looking around for anyone holding a phone. But no one was, and the passengers looked concerned and uneasy as I investigated them with a glare. So I returned to my seat and the weight of the question mark grew heavier.

The ancients knew it best, there was good, there was evil, but most of all there was the in-between, the tricksters, the deceivers. These elusive beings that left all those who crossed-paths with them scratching their heads. Forgotten by the modern world. Their will was intangible, there was no rhyme or reason, it dumbfounded mortal men that gods, fay, beings of great power would toy with the lives of so many, to achieve, seemingly nothing. Yet in their mischief, in their tricks and games, theirs was the greatest gift of all. It was always a display of triviality, a literal example of nonsense, leading us both metaphorically and literally down the garden path. Exposing us to unbelievable spectacles that many might call paranormal or supernatural, in an effort to unveil what lay before us, that consumes our existence from the moment we are born to the second that we die. The ordinance of belief, alike our reality as we understand it is not rigid, indestructible or impervious to challenge.


(Illustrated by Artwoonz)

All too often the questions are put forward, if intelligent life exists beyond our planet, why hasn’t it been discovered? If intelligent extraterrestrial life exists, why doesn’t it make contact with human life? There’s no shortage of answers to these questions, but I resort to answering these questions with another question: Why would intelligent extraterrestrial life desire to make contact with human life in the first place? Not in a snide cynical way, insinuating that human life is best to be avoided (despite living my life by that very sentiment) but for what purpose would contact serve? If human history has taught us anything, the interactions of even slightly technologically advanced cultures with native inhabitants around the world time and time again has proven extremely detrimental to the contactee and often even those making contact. After contact is made, life for the contactee will never be the same again. Many naturalists might agree that ultimately, an act of benevolence can be as misguided and troublesome as an act of cruelty, in the end. One cannot inject themselves into a system, without changing it in some way, for better or for worse.

In many instances, after a great amount of observation, the ‘human experiment’ have generally come to appreciate this understanding. As of 2013, there were approximately 100 tribes existing on planet Earth, half of which living in the Amazon rainforest that have made absolutely no contact with the outside world. While some may seek to plunder resources, others may want to share religious views, others might just want to expose these groups to technologically advanced medical procedures, educational opportunities. All of these people may be certain within themselves that their desire for contact is justified and even in the best interest of these isolated people. Only, we’ve been down that road before, we already know how it ends. Who truly benefits from the collision of worlds? For one party, their world stands still, they are at the mercy of forces they never knew existed. For the other, it’s Tuesday.

In the fictional world of Middle-earth created by J. R. R. Tolkien the world goes about, in large part oblivious to the existence of hobbits (small humanoids) and their lands called The Shire. They have some interaction with the outside world, scarce travelers, merchants etc, but unknown to most hobbits, their borders are protected by guardians, rangers known as the Dúnedain from the evils of the outside world. Without the unseen allegiance working to protect the realm, the Shire and its inhabitants would likely cease to exist.

Personally, I find a great deal of comfort in knowing there are some few truly free groups of people left, scattered around this planet, and in a just and honorable world they could be left to their own devices, oblivious to the fact that anyone is speaking/typing about them at this instant, and for generations to come. They don’t need to be regulated, controlled, informed of anything. Inevitably a dying ambition, like all ambitions in the fullness of time, but as long as such groups are protected, preserved, the world in a way retains some of its innocence, some of its freedom that has been lost elsewhere.

Is it possible, that a theoretical extraterrestrial being could ever possess that same sentiment for our species? Someone/something understanding the repercussions of contact would be cataclysmic to the human race. Just as it were to other species of other planets seen throughout the universe throughout time. In the idealized fantasy, we are given advanced technology that we didn’t earn, that we don’t possess the wisdom to control. In the idealized fantasy, we receive access to medical technology that can cure any sickness, extend our mortal lifetime possibly indefinitely, utterly selfish and futile desires that serve only the individual. In the idealized fantasy of extraterrestrial contact, we learn the secrets of the universe. Secrets we would likely fail to comprehend, but in lieu of enlightenment, there would be an understanding of inferiority, bewilderment and a loss of our humanity. We would seek to adapt to a universal existence, beyond the reaches of our solar system. No longer big fish in a small pond, but microscopic paramecium inside a seemingly infinite ocean. You might be thinking, “well, that sounds awesome”. But that feeling you get after you learn how a magic trick is performed, applied to life as we know it, could lead to unfathomable despair. For instance, if it could be proven that the universe we exist within was actually inside a part of an incredibly large being, something similar to a gargantuan tapeworm (possibly also within some other even greater gigantic being), would you get out of bed for work on Monday morning? Would you still want to produce offspring?

If intelligent extraterrestrial life exists out there, anywhere, could the greatest proof of their benevolence be leaving us to our own devices, like those dwindling tribes of the Amazon rainforest? Existing in a haze of mystery and wonder, for the most part, staying out of human comprehension. Watching our every triumph and failure, similar to how we might momentarily observe an ants nest. Granted, many humans cannot resist the urge to kick in and destroy an ants nest upon observing one.

The thought could also be entertained, however, that there is not one singular body representing the will of all intelligent life in the universe. Just like those that trespass beyond borders and make unlawful contact with indigenous people to gain access to their lands/resources, certain extraterrestrial beings might not subscribe to the naturalist ideal either. One such proposed “alien race” (or inter-dimensional being) is the archetypal green/grey alien with a diminutive figure, large head with massive almond shaped, black eyes. ‘Greys’ are often associated with abductions, “probings”, cattle-mutilation, human experimentation, most negative experiences surrounding encounters of the third kind (and beyond).

Is it possible that some governing extraterrestrial force seeks to prevent/punish encounters, trespassers in earth’s observable celestial neighborhood? Are we being purposefully kept isolated by our own version of the Dúnedain for our own protection right now? Or is my assumption regarding a theoretical benevolence entirely misguided? Of the myriad of theories put forward regarding concepts pertaining to the Ancient Alien theory (belief that prehistoric and early humans made contact with advanced beings, interpreting them as “gods”) some suggest a somewhat more nefarious agenda is at work. Such as the ‘Ancient Alien’ interpretation of the Sumerian (Ancient Mesopotamian) Gods called Anunnaki. 𒀭 An or Anu, the personification of the Sky, Heaven or Sky God (above). 𒆠 Ki, personification of Earth, the Earth Goddess. Through the union of heaven and earth, came the Anunnaki. Interpretations (such as ‘The Twelfth Planet’, 1976 by Zecharia Sitchin) suggesting that mankind was created to serve as a slave race to the “gods” to acquire resources for the Anunnaki home-world, Planet X, or Nibiru (many of Sitchin’s claims and translations are disputed). Countless conspiracy theories regarding Planet X/Nibiru/the Nibiru cataclysm have roused authoritarian platforms in the past, with suggestions of flagging or banning such topics to stifle the spread of specific conspiracies, some deem troublesome because they pertain to ‘the end of the world’.

Then of course, the idea of being a genetically engineered slave, abysmal as it may be, is still a better plight than being genetically created livestock. Could there be beings somewhere in the universe that had a hand in harboring life on this planet not to plunder resources, but to be the resource itself. As highlighted in a previous topic ᵀᴴᴱ MISSING, some 4, 432, 880 people are documented to have vanished in the last 20 years, without ever being seen again. Perhaps, the silence, the reason for the dead air, the unusual often unpleasant interactions, the elusive behavior of UFOs in lieu of contact, is because extraterrestrial life has as much to say to us, as we might have to say to cattle soon to be slaughtered for human consumption. They would rather us unaware to their existence, unaware to their agenda because blissful ignorance means business as usual.

According to Worldometers.info by the time I finish typing this sentence there are an estimated 7, 838, 425, 754 human beings upon planet earth. There have been many varying estimations proposed in various studies suggesting there is a maximum human population that planet earth can sustain. One group, Worldpopulationbalance.org claim that the current human population is actually three times greater than the sustainable amount (based on renewable resources and absorption of waste). Applied to the concept of some nefarious extraterrestrial agenda, the current state of our world could be viewed as a prime time for ‘the harvest’. How unfathomably unpleasant it would be, if despite all human achievement, advancement of any kind, and in the end, the fate of our species was actually sealed before it began. Such beings could even orchestrate a genuine disaster and appear like biblical arks at the end of days. As our various governments herd us aboard, we stagger bewildered and unknowingly, to our doom.

Alternatively, perhaps the reason contact has not occurred, is because our nearest extraterrestrial neighbors are at an identical point in their technological ability as we currently find ourselves. For the time being, simply just out of reach from one another. Maybe our nearest living off-world neighbors are closer to prehistoric man. Maybe they have a stunning, beautiful planet of their own, rich in resources that we could only dream of. The question is, just like the dwindling isolated tribes of our own world, are they better off if we refrain from contacting them also? Would we have the benevolence to guard them from afar, stay unknown to them out of respect. Or would we arrive as “gods” and plunder from them? How odd would it be if we were in fact genetically created as livestock, or to serve as slaves and somehow avoided our fate, to reach the level of advancement of our creators. Only we chose a different path, we set a standard for life better than what might have been intended for us. When we have the means to make that choice and depending on what path we take, perhaps then certain beings will see us fit to make contact with, after all.

GHOSTS: WHAT ᴄᴏᴜʟᴅ ᴛʜᴇ DEAD ᴡᴀɴᴛ?

(Animation from GIPHY.com)

Why do we do what we do? There is no shortage of texts, theories and hierarchies pertaining to motivation, its purpose and its connection to survival and existence. “Why did the chicken cross the road?” “To get to the other side.” Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) breaks down human motivation laying out the elements that meet the “conditions within the individual that are essential and necessary for the maintenance of life and the nurturance of growth and well-being.” —Beata Souders, Positivepsychology.com. These needs can be simplified to three primary categories. Basic needs, psychological needs and self-fulfillment needs. The basic needs include physiological, the raw fundamental needs required to perpetuate our basic (biological) state, along with safety/security. Belonging, union, self-esteem and accomplishment. Lastly, the need for self-actualization, and achieving one’s “full potential”.

When it comes to the living, there are a great many reasons why we do the things that we do. Even the more heinous, deplorable of human actions can be explained using motivation. “Motives for murder can be condensed into four sets of ‘Ls’: Lust; Love; Loathing; and Loot.” —Peter Morrall, Murder and Society, 2006. Lust and Love, both connected to attempts at achieving psychological needs (or perversions of such): union and self-esteem. In the barbaric sense, two or more conflicting parties, whose disagreement reaches its pinnacle will lead to violence, murder/defeat being the accomplishment of ‘ending’ an enemy (the mentality that stirs before many homicides to this day. Also, according to Friedrich Nietzsche when it comes to acts of cruelty and acts of benevolence: “On the doctrine of the feeling of power. Benefiting and hurting others are ways of exercising one’s power over them”, thus a similar motivation could account toward contributing factors for significantly implicating another individuals existence. An expression of power, a sense of accomplishment, good or bad, irrelevant). Lastly, and likely most obviously, the motivation to acquire ‘Loot’ or wealth from murder is driven by the prospect of personal gain (among other variables).

Consider anything any living soul has ever said or done and with enough contemplation, you’ll soon discover a myriad of (possible) elements that may explain the motivation that led them to do whatever it is they’ve done.

But could the same be said for the (theoretical) dead?

When it comes to the basic understanding of ‘ghosts‘, many cultures share an idea regarding the incorporeal presence of what was once living, most often human (or animal), somehow lingering after death. (The Shinto Tsukumogami 付喪神 being one of the exceptions, an inanimate object believed to gain a ‘kami’ or spirit after 100 years. If the object is treated poorly by its owners, the item’s spirit will take on an insidious persona. Other exceptions might include the likes of demons, jinn (جن), ‘shadow entities’, essentially sentient beings of religion, folklore & myth that have never existed on earth in a natural mortal state).

*Haunting: “A belief in the lingering presence of an unwelcome and often malicious intruder.”

Fantazmë, прывід, φάντασμα, spøkelse, גייַסט, ուրվական,幽霊, Hayalet, Exspiravit, Ysbryd, 유령…

Mentioned above are just a few of the many ways in which human language from all over the world can express the word ‘ghost’. There are approximately 7,097 languages (according to ethnologue.com, 2018) and you would be hard-pressed to find one that did not have a means of expressing what we in the western world call ghosts.

A Compendium of Fear, C. M. Johnson, 2019

The Ghost/Phantom/Specter, stuck between the mortal world and beyond, in such a predicament either by choice, accident or punishment. Ghosts can be regarded as ‘lost souls’, blindly following the motions of life into death, glimpsed by the living as a sort of memory or echo of what once was (The Stone Tape theory). Ghosts in this light could be interpreted as something closer to a residual recording of some kind, as opposed to a truly sentient existence, that reacts to new stimuli. Though this benign, disconnected understanding is not highly popular among paranormal communities, believers or culturally. *This could be because fear, entertainment and intrigue have aided in the dispersion of widespread understanding of ghosts. A campfire story involving an echo, a ‘record’ of a ghost simply isn’t as frightening as a thinking/reacting supernatural entity.

What could possibly motivate the dead to do anything, if it is done so at all? What could the dead possibly want, if the dead were capable of wanting? Is it will alone that governs the existence of specters, if so, whose will? Could a ghost end its own existence? What purpose, if at all, does the existence of ghosts (fictional or otherwise) serve?

One popular conceptual basis for motivation for the dead has been called unfinished business. Implying motivations, desires held in life can transcend into the afterlife. Spirits of the dead lingering on earth watching over their loved ones, committing precarious deeds of chance otherwise blamed on luck, fate, guardian angels or a variety of mythological creatures. In many cultures around the world, particularly tribal cultures, the spirits of the ancestors are said to bring fortune and guidance to the living. Motivated by the love they held for the families/group in life and a desire to assist in the preservation of that group/lineage. The ghost of a murder victim believed to linger until the murderer is brought to justice. The ghost of a missing person lingering until the biological remnants are discovered, and so on, sometimes aiding in their own discovery. Almost always universally seeking a poetic, tidy ending, without any loose ends. But why (as so many clairvoyants claim) would a deceased person fret about ‘the missing ring’, or ‘the lost inheritance’ or ‘Name needs to forgive Name’? Is there really so little beyond this world that such trivial affairs concern us into the beyond? Estimations suggest that approximately 109 billion homo sapiens will have died on Planet Earth, as of year 2020. The dead well and truly outnumber the living, but the presence of ghosts, alike their actions are not commonly detected. Despite some surveys suggesting that 42% of Americans believe in ghosts (The Harris Poll, 2013).

A great deal of interest and belief in life(?) after death comes from spirits and ‘unusual activity’ affiliated with haunted areas, who or which reveal themselves, to be seemingly bound to specific locations (for seemingly indefinite periods of time, if not vanquished, smudged, exorcised, ceremonially/ritualistically cleansed such as the Tibetan Exorcising-Ghost day ‘Gutor’ ༼དགུ་གཏོར་༽ a ritual of spiritual cleansing, or simply just persuaded to leave).

Many individuals who experience hauntings of various severity suggest that the haunting within of itself, is a means of willful sentient communication. Unique and targeted towards various individuals with differing enthusiasm, depending on the (psychic/spiritual) sensitivity of the victim (or countless other factors), or ‘energy’ of the spirit(s). More often than not, the will of said apparition is perceived to be, “get out”, “you’re not welcome here”, “I hate you”, threats, insults etc. Leading many individuals and cultures alike to believe the noticeable acts of a poltergeist, be them visual apparitions or physical interactions (moving objects, banging walls) are efforts to inspire fear in the living to achieve an end result. Weaponizing fear to either scare the living into staying away, inflicting harm through psychological duress, or because they gain somehow through the ordeal/connection (emotional/psychological energy absorption, etc).

It’s often suggested that the behavior (often malevolent) and the implications of such on the living are a means of the dead perpetuating an existence by proxy. Subject A) is biologically alive, Subject B) is the common understanding of a ghost or even an imaginary entity. If subject B) implicates A) by any means whatsoever (paranormal event/erroneous hallucination) B) exists, to some degree, through A). Essentially a parasitic form of existence, riding on the coat tails of another being’s bond with reality.

According to interpretations of Tibetan Buddhist concepts, an entity that gains its existence very similar to this parasitic method, is called Tulpa (སྤྲུལ་པ་). A ‘being’ formed entirely from the mind of a living mortal, that through careful meditation, cultivation, imagination, and possibly no small amount of psychic/supernatural ability, a spiritual (ghost-like) manifestation is willed into existence. Are there an infinite supply of ghosts scratching at the inside of our imaginations, slowly being willed into reality with every second glance, with every skipped heartbeat when we hear a muffled whisper in the dark? Slowly (and literally) creating our own incorporeal assailants?

Tulpa is a concept in mysticism and the paranormal of a being or object which is created through spiritual or mental powers. It was adapted by 20th-century theosophists from Tibetan sprul-pa which means “emanation” or “manifestation”. Modern practitioners use the term to refer to a type of willed imaginary friend which practitioners consider to be sentient and relatively autonomous.”


The popularized sentiment of ghosts haunting their previous homes, territory, property, treasure is rooted in an idea that these deceased individuals desire(?) or seek to perpetuate a form of “ownership”, ‘control’ over the mortal world, into the afterlife. But the concept of ownership, proceeding mortal death (regardless of whether or not ghosts/spirits exist) is also implying that ghosts not only retain consciousness/sentience but despite the death of the mortal body, the ego remains (or attempts to sustain a part of itself).

“Physical materialism is the belief that possessions can bring release from suffering. They may bring temporary happiness but then more suffering in the endless pursuit of creating one’s environment to be just right.”

—Chögyam Trungpa, Lords of Materialism, c. 1970

Could a ghost’s desire to retain ownership over something in the physical world act as an anchor to simply linger on? I still own this place, the place exists, I haunt the place to assert my ownership, therefore I exist. Could existence, even achieving the faint echo of such, be the motivation? An eternal defiance of loss, standing on the other side of the doorway, attempting to fake it until they make it? Holding on to the memory of life, because it’s simply better than nothing, or the only other options presented to the dead?

“The underlying motivation for materialism is finding happiness based on the mistaken notion that one’s ego is inherently existent and a valid point of view. That is incorrect, and therefore the materialistic approaches have an invalid basis to begin with. The message in summary is, “Don’t try to reinforce your ego through material things.” The point of religion is to show you that your ego doesn’t really exist inherently. Ego is something you build up to make you think you exist, but it is not necessary and in the long run causes more suffering.”

—Chögyam Trungpa, Lords of Materialism, c. 1970

Is the desperate, seemingly futile motivation toward ownership, influence over the living (commonly through fear) merely attempts at retaining ego (self), because such creatures are actually holding onto the notion that ego “is something you build up to make you think you exist, but it is not necessary and in the long run causes more suffering.”—Chögyam Trungpa.

“To live is to suffer.”

―Friedrich Nietzsche

From what most are led to believe at least from the popularized sentiments of ghosts and their common demeanor, is it possible that under certain circumstances, death (like life) is suffering also?

Unfinished business, may be the desire to hold onto the memory of the individual self, to simply suffer a little longer. Before letting go of the illusion of life itself.

“All men want, not something to do with, but something to do, or rather something to be.”

―Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

A ghost may be, simply because it has but two choices:

To be, or not to be.


Orbs of mass, shaped by the will of the universe adorn what we might call the beyond. Estimations suggest the number of planets in our universe exceed 1024. These many orbs (oblate spheroids) formed by the gravitational rotations of time, the laws of nature. The rules imposed upon the behavior of matter and energy, seemingly conjured during some intrinsic union with time and space, essentially during the juncture at which reality as we perceive it, began. Assuming things like our ‘common reality’ can/could truly have a beginning.

It’s when we try to imagine something, anything or even nothing, before what we consider ‘the beginning’, that things start to become convoluted. Something that has been profoundly influential to me (regarding this topic), is something my childhood self stumbled upon. A coping method I came up with during difficult times. Initially, I would practice allowing myself to imagine an alternative to this reality. I would start by imagining the solar system, only the third (planetary) orb from the sun was gone. (Effectively psychologically eliminating all possible conceivable fears/problems, because all concerning trivial affairs not only no longer existed, but had no conceivable connection to the history of said theoretical universe).

Steadily, I let my minuscule understanding of the universe dissolve, and my imagination made its way to something close to what physicists might describe as ‘heat death’ or the fate of the universe. Only there was no mass, no time, no space. At around eight years old, what was once a coping method had become a pastime. A literal passing of time, because I’d discovered a way to mentally check out of reality. Now the challenge was no longer ‘allowing’ myself to imagine this, but attempting to force my mind to believe this was a reality, somewhere, somehow. I could zone out for an hour or so with ease, utterly oblivious to the passing of time.

Only there was something wrong, even in that conjured void, there was ‘something’, that doesn’t belong in nothingness. There was contemplation, a veiled recollection of self, an anchor and a lifeline back to reality. Strangely, even at about 10 years old, with no knowledge at the time of neuroplasticity, I began to understand the thought exercise and pastime was becoming detrimental. So I abandoned oblivion and essentially lost the means to even put myself in that state of mind. The overall experience, and the concept of an individual truly allowing themselves to believe something radically unconventional about the nature of their own reality (or its replacement with another), would later be the inspiration for a book I wrote called, The Book of Madness. (An exercise, that too, proved detrimental.)

When entertaining the concept put forward by René Descartes, “Cogito, ergo sum. ‘I think, therefore I am’, we realize how alone we truly are in our interpretation of this reality. Descartes further explained this sentiment with, “we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt.” To doubt suggests the existence of some ‘thinking entity’, even if literally everything else is false. But is the fractured mind that harbors multiple personalities capable of truly believing that suggestion is even more substantial than doubt, because the ‘personality’ (or artificial intelligence) doubting their existence, in some rare instances, might actually be right. Existence, by proxy.

Our world is an enigma. You may not think so now, or even any year soon. But for some of us, a time will come when we look over our life, our existence and wonder, “why did I come to be?” Why did our common genetic ancestry forge its way from the Australopithecus afarensis (bipedal ape) to its current state? Immersed in cycles, all creatures behaviors bound to the repetitions, rotations of this world, of our sun. Even with the noticeable changes in the human world, advancement in technology, we continue, time after time, to repeat the same mistakes of history.

It is entirely possible that what we might call ‘meaning’ applied to this reality, is entirely a human superimposition. It is equally possible, that that is not the case at all. Someone once told me the greatest paradox in life, is that the more you come to learn and understand, the more you realize there is, that you don’t know or understand. But what value does a secret hold, once it’s spoken aloud? How much intrigue does a riddle inspire after it’s been solved? As a species, the bulk of us have chosen to spend out our lives here, the blip that it is, pretending as though it all makes perfect sense. Eat, sleep, defecate, procreate, pay your taxes, rinse and repeat. But then there are those, compelled to ask “why?”

If I had to give the briefest explanation to what this blog, ᵀᴴᴱ ORBIS is about, I would say, “a collection of questions (from various aspects) pertaining to the validity and common understanding of our reality.”

On the 27th of July, 2019, I remember hearing someone say something to the effect of, “silence is for the dead, while you’re alive, you might as well speak”. At that juncture in time, the sentiment resonated with me, enough to inspire me to go ahead with plans of pushing myself to attempt to write more publicly. So I decided to go about working towards some sort of writing hub, a blog, I didn’t particularly care what it was. For a title, ᴬᴺ ODD ᴡᴏʀʟᴅ and ᵀᴴᴱ PLANET EARTH ARCHIVES were on the cards, momentarily, but I eventually landed upon ᵀᴴᴱ ORBIS.

ᵀᴴᴱ ORBIS; orbs, rings, rotation, discs, the globe, the earth, the world. Something all encompassing, but singular. Our world, ᵀᴴᴱ ORBIS, is an enigma. Is it by chance alone that the 3rd planet from a sun in the outer spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy is teeming with life? Or has there been machinations underway regarding the purpose of our world, long before our species ever existed? God(s), Extraterrestrials, Ultraterrestrials (inter-dimensional beings), or is it all purely the result of (seemingly) chance random events?

Whatever the answer actually is, all variations are equally incredible, but in my opinion, the strangest concept of all, is that we live in a universe, that by ‘chance’ alone, everything we’ve ever imagined can just, come to be. The mere passage of time and natural processes can achieve what we attribute to supreme sentient beings? That concept isn’t taking away from the majesty and reverence that religions and mythology have offered toward our reality, it’s saying the contrary, life is preordained.

As I mentioned earlier, the laws that govern our universe for whatever reason, by whatever means, were in effect the moment time and space ignited. Meaning, if what happened in our universe occurred an infinite number of times, perhaps in other universes of the theoretical super universe that contains our own. Or even universes that exist in theoretical dimensions separate from our own. How many times would it be theoretically possible for a planet IDENTICAL to Earth to form? Entirely by chance, the nature of physics (which may vary) how many times could have I written this very same text?

Is there some grand unifying theory?

Your guess is as good as mine.

I remember explaining to someone, the premise of a unified theory (specifically) regarding paranormal phenomenon (or the interpretations of such, made by an individual), and was asked, “what does something like déjà vu have in common with a poltergeist sighting?” I replied, “what is déjà vu, if not the ghost of a memory? A phantom recollection, that causes one to do a double take within their mind’s eye, just as one might investigate a room after they witness the appearance of a specter or apparition.”

I suppose the link with all things paranormal, high strangeness, synchronicity, events that by all rights, from what we know of ‘reality’ should not occur (or statistically less frequently), is that they make us question what we know, or think we know about this world.

The catch is, eventually, if you truly desire to know the truth, the anchor and the lifeline back to who you were before, will have to be abandoned. Once you make that choice, nothing will ever be the same again.


(Animation from GIPHY.com)

I was falling asleep on a train, drifting in and out of consciousness. The cascading droplets of rain against the glass would momentarily catch my eye. The realest, truest thing in the world to me, in that moment, was the cold of the glass against the side of my forehead, the ice-cold collision came with the words of my inner-monologue, reminding me “don’t fall asleep”.

With each thud of my skull against the train window, with each jolt to my slipping consciousness, I found myself remembering, reliving similar moments. Different trains, different destinations, different times, different understandings of self. The blur of the outside world and the cascading droplets, rushing and colliding down and across the glass. Like the water droplets that form as one when they collide, when memories are so similar, the mind (under certain circumstances) might momentarily lose its bearing on exactly where, when, or (in some extreme cases) even who it is. A cascade of consciousness, altering, questioning the perceivable reality.

It’s like waking up in the middle of the night, and not knowing where you are. You’ve changed houses, changed beds multiple times but the subconscious mind can be caught off guard. Driving for five hours, with almost no recollection of how you actually got to your destination. For one moment, it’s as though a former self, by some miraculous means has taken the helm of a future/current self, bewildered by the changes that have come to pass. Until better senses return and you are living in the moment, once more (some of these experiences can be caused by serious conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, Dementia, Amnesia).

In my experience of human cognition, the mind doesn’t always want to live in the moment. Sometimes it seeks to traverse memories past, conjure events yet to come, or entertain some things that may never unfold in this reality. At this juncture in my existence, I’ve forgotten a great many details from my own life, let countless memories slip through the cracks of time. Even some of the chaotic, (relatively) cataclysmic moments, carelessly discarded. Yet strangely, sometimes I truly wonder, am I still falling asleep on that train to god-knows-where, soon to come to my senses, when my head next collides against the glass?

The ghost of a former self perpetually drifting in and out of consciousness?

Are we all essentially amalgamations of our many former selves?

To illustrate my point, you might ask yourself the following question:

Where are you right now? At this very moment?

You might tell yourself a geographical location, along with a juncture in time. But the relative geographical location, is fixed upon a planet that is moving (Earth orbits the sun at approximately 67,000 mph/107,000 km/h. 365 days for a full orbit. The sun and the solar system appear to be moving at 200 kilometers per second, or at an average speed of 448,000 mph/720,000 km/h —Space.com). The time you refer to, is also quite relative to where you are in this entropic universe. In fact, the relative time it’s taken to read to this point, the answer originally proposed, has already drastically changed.

Then there is the philosophical element, when asked where and when you are, your future self perpetually shed to join the amassing former selves, as every moment passes. Are the former selves, which for all of us, inevitably outnumber the current self, merely doomed to be lost to oblivion for all eternity? Outside of memory, outside of the physical implications, the footprints left behind, does/can anything truly last forever? Or is everyone, everything we’ve ever known like the particles of chalk temporarily marked on a blackboard, inevitably wiped astray?

As previously suggested in ᴛʜᴇ ILLUSION ᴏғ TIME, ᵀᴴᴱ WORMHOLE ᴬᴺᴰ ᵀᴴᴱ TIME PARADOX, TIME TRAVEL ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇ 2ɴᴅ ʟᴀᴡ ᴏғ THERMODYNAMICS, I’ve slowly found myself veering further and further away from such an absolute, ultimately universal declaration.

So putting philosophy aside, putting psychology aside, removing the concept of a former-self “theoretically” returning (purely in the mind), due to some memory impairment etc. Is the past, the physical elements comprising what we consider to be a “past reality”, including our former selves, truly lost to oblivion?

Theoretically, no.

“Approximately 13.8 billion years ago, our comprehensible universe in its entirety existed in a fraction of time and space many, many times smaller than a single atom. Some have theorized the existence of parallel universes, a direct ‘shadow universe’ (connected/veiling our own and connected by gravity since and attributing to the beginning of our universe) and an entire multiverse linking/spawning universes and or dimensions. One theorized means of connecting two isolated points in space and time, universes, or junctures throughout the multiverse are naturally occurring ‘wormholes’.”


Theoretically, it would only take one single accessible ‘wormhole’ (located anywhere in this universe), even if it was only stable for a fraction of a second, for a highly technologically advanced being/machine to potentially have access to every single second of this universe, not excluding every moment that ever passed comprising the history of this planet (and your entire lifetime). If you could successfully get back to a starting point, the natural linear progression of the passing of time could be replayed over and over to access a certain event in history.

Such a wormhole could be a connection of time and space within this universe from the distant future, to the distant past (formation of earth). Or it could be a wormhole/portal naturally forming or technologically created connecting this universe (prior the formation of earth) to another dimension, where time as we understand it, may not exist.

The existence of inter-dimensional “portals” that have a constant or fixed entry point connected to a momentary conjuration in our universes history that collapsed in seconds, would still be a theoretical fixed portal to a very specific juncture in time (though problems would arise, if multiple objects arrive/exit at the narrow window of time output).

A highly advanced being/machine (some speculating UFOs to be traveling through time and dimensions, not just our atmosphere or space) may at some stage (or currently) possess the capability of creating dimensional portals at will, to travel through both dimensions and what we perceive as time relative to this universe (and beyond).

Immediately, traversing both dimensions and time would cause all kinds of theoretical temporal paradoxes to arise. The grandfather paradox, does an action committed by a (future) time traveling entity in the past, change the future from whence the traveler came? Does the Multiverse theory, allow for the possibility of so many (infinite) variations of universes/dimensions indistinguishably close to our own, that every single conceivable variation, is playing out in unison?

It’s so far removed from our understanding of time and reality, we come up with all sorts of answers to the paradox. If you travel back in time and assassinate yourself as a child, some might suggest you would immediately “vanish” or cease to be. But the physical being that committed the murder had to exist for the murder to take place. Perhaps, if time is a linear structure, played out like a game of chess, going backwards, every single time, has consequences that ultimately change the version of reality the time traveler left. Ultimately changing the arrangement of the pieces on the (shared) board. Meaning, while the individual entity of matter, and instrument of time alteration is unscathed in the past (now relative present), the future/time-line from whence the traveler came, no longer exists (connected to the current linear trajectory of time).

Aside from theoretically disconnected dimensions of the multiverse, there is also suggestions of a theoretical shadow universe/mirror universe, intrinsically linked with our own:

“If mirror matter is present in the universe with sufficient abundance then its gravitational effects can be detected. Because mirror matter is analogous to ordinary matter, it is then to be expected that a fraction of the mirror matter exists in the form of mirror galaxies, mirror stars, mirror planets etc. These objects can be detected using gravitational microlensing. One would also expect that some fraction of stars have mirror objects as their companion. In such cases one should be able to detect periodic Doppler shifts in the spectrum of the star.There are some hints that such effects may already have been observed.”

—R. N. Mohapatra, Vigdor L. Teplitz “Mirror matter MACHOs”, 1999

Right now, this very second, whenever that second may be, when whoever you are might be reading this. Is there currently, within this universe, a portal (naturally formed, or synthetically created) that leads to another dimension?

There isn’t currently, an authority on this Earth that could in all honesty give you a definitive answer to that question. But perhaps you could search yourself for the answer, in the form of yet another question.

Is there a limitation fixed upon infinity?


(Animated by Pi-Slices)

“Compartmentalize your mind. Doubt what you know, know what you doubt. But the very moment you’re truly certain of anything, they’ll have you.”

—The Agitator, Deviation, C. M. Johnson

You finish buying an assortment of products online. Hours later you open up a different browser, an advertisement appears listing products similar to those you just purchased. Even though you might have opted out of data collection services, it isn’t a stretch of the imagination to understand what might be going on. So you go about your business.

You finish a conversation about a certain topic. Later on, recommendations, feeds, advertisements display the content of the topic of that very conversation. You’re very much aware that you possess (possibly many) devices that have the potential to monitor speech and correlate the recognized terms and phrases with what is virtually presented to you. But surely such a feature would only function if it were activated. You’ve grown awfully attached to said device(s), far too attached to want to entertain the thought that there are seemingly invasive agendas working behind the services they provide. So you put it out of your mind and you go about your business.

But every so often, you might find yourself wondering, in lieu of any restrictions, what WOULD an unscrupulous agency do, IF it had the means?

If you are of the inclination that this is already a reality, you are far from alone. In fact, the number of people harboring such a suspicion has been steadily growing across numerous countries as the value of data continues to rise (previously mentioned in ᵀᴴᴱ SYSTEM).

“According to a new survey by Nixplay, 60% of millennials think their phones are listening to them and then tailoring ads precisely to those conversations. Overall, 55% of Americans think that smartphones are spying on them, collecting data to customize ads.”

—John Koetsier, Forbes.com, 2019

But for some, their suspicions about the algorithm do not end there.

You have a spoken conversation, (to your knowledge) far from any technological device(s). Two (or more) organic lifeforms verbally exchanging information. Yet when you return to your device(s), again, there are indications, that the private conversation, far from the microphones, far from the cameras was seemingly heard all the same. In some instances, both (multiple) parties discovering that the topic of their “private” conversation, far from prying eyes and ears is somehow intrinsically linked with each their data-flow algorithms, on a number of digital services.

Finally, you think your private thoughts, as you often do. The mutterings of the inner-mind, utterly disconnected from the physical world beyond the cranium. Or so you would have thought, only you begin to notice that the same algorithm which once manipulated results from keystrokes and physical inputs, seems to now show indications that the private thoughts in your mind, are somehow being read. But that’s nonsensical. Absolutely impossible, isn’t it?

Surely it’s coincidental, or the correlations are misinterpreted, bouts of apophenia? Is this the evolution of ᵀᴴᴱ NOÖSPHERE?

“Facebook has assembled a team of 60 people, including machine learning and neural prosthetics experts, to enable such a system. Facebook is currently hiring a brain-computer interface engineer and a neural imaging engineer. Its goal? To create a system capable of typing one hundred words per minute – five times faster than you can type on a smartphone – straight from your brain.”

—Olivia Solon, The Guardian.com, 2017

Where there’s a will, there’s a way?

Such a brain-to-device concept would require localized hardware and technology, years of advancement from the currently available methods?

Not according to some.

Over the last few years, the belief in the (apparent and evident) invasions of privacy has begun to spread and increase so severely, that it has given rise to a concept known among some circles as, REMOTE NEURAL MONITORING (a means of electronic harassment/privacy invasion). There is a publicly available .pdf of the U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI, Nov 10, 2018 (court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency) pertaining to the governmental use of such “mind reading technologies”.


“Why did dozens of U.S. Embassy workers in Cuba hear loud sounds and suffer neurological symptoms in 2016? There’s a new, Cold War-era microwave explanation for the mystery.

The Havana-based diplomats reported hearing loud, strange sounds and feeling movement in the air around them. Those affected went on to experience months of concussion-like symptoms, including cognitive impairment, balance issues and tinnitus (ringing in the ears). And as recently as February, researchers reported that they couldn’t tell what caused the problems, but they ruled out the most common early explanation: sonic attacks.

‘Sound in the audible range (20 Hz to 20,000 Hz) is not known to cause persistent injury to the central nervous system,’ they wrote in the journal JAMA.

Now, those same researchers have told The New York Times that microwave weapons may have been the cause.

Allan Frey, an American biologist, showed in the early 1960s that microwave beams can create the sensation of hearing noises when they hit the brain’s temporal lobe. The Times reported that Soviet researchers took a keen interest in the discovery after it was announced, going so far as to invite Frey to speak and then bring him to a military laboratory.”

—Rafi Letzter, LiveScience.com, September 04, 2018

On October 17th, 2017:


“The state department has still not identified a culprit or even what weapon mysteriously injured 22 American government workers on Cuban soil.”

The Guardian.com

December 7th, 2017:


—Tia Ghose, LiveScience.com

As suspicions and speculations have grown, so too have the numbers of individuals believing to be victims of various forms of electronic harassment.

Electronic harassment, electromagnetic torture, or psychotronic torture is a conspiracy theory that government agents make use of electromagnetic radiation (such as the microwave auditory effect), radar, and surveillance techniques to transmit sounds and thoughts into people’s heads, affect people’s bodies, and harass people. Individuals who claim to experience this call themselves “targeted individuals“. They claim they are victims of gang stalking and many have joined support and advocacy groups.


Sadly, as the gap between technology and imagination narrows, individuals afflicted with various forms of paranoia (often undiagnosed) can become consumed by this very idea, that minds are being invaded. Where once such a claim could be easily dismissed as impossible, with technological warfare the likes of the (alleged) voice of god (long range audio producing non-lethal weapon, developed by the U.S. military) and sonic warfare, dispelling fears as impossible is becoming increasingly difficult.

Unfortunately, as ways of life change and as new technologies are developed (or refined), once inconceivable dangers WILL emerge. Systems of control/surveillance that we might currently consider dystopian, immoral or terrifying may very well become a reality.

Could our global future be a new world, fighting one of the oldest battles to be fought, time and time again, throughout the ages. The struggle for freedom from tyranny. Sometimes it can take people quite awhile to realize their freedom is under attack, but when they do, they start to understand how valuable it truly is.

Until then, perhaps the invasion of minds has only just begun?


(Illustrated by Maria Clemente)

The Vampire; a work of fiction, a metaphor for primal lust, an ancient fear of the dead, a figurative embodiment of evil, or perhaps something far more tangible. Something rooted in highly strange, albeit entirely ‘human’ behavior.

Across countless cultures throughout history, the vampire, or beings of a similar nature (comparisons further elaborated in ᴛʜᴇ DARK ORIGIN ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ VAMPIRE) appear in myth and legend, time and time again. But how long ago were such vampiric superstitions actually taken seriously? You might think of isolated communities across the Balkan Peninsula, maybe several hundred years ago, but in truth, such superstitions, much like the theoretical “vampire” itself, simply refuse to die.

With the use of TROVE, an initiative of research groups and the National Library of Australia, it isn’t a difficult endeavor to search how very often the term VAMPIRE, actually appears. Something that should be mentioned, however, is that the title of ‘Vampire’ was often applied to a variety of lascivious, lecherous, perverse or macabre individuals. For instance, the French ‘Vampire of Reuil’, was not actually believed to have been a literal creature of some sinister supernatural origin. But a man of abhorrently deplorable behavior, due to his penchant for sexually assaulting women in the dead of night (news article of the ‘Vampire of Reuil’, 15th of May, 1949 included below).

Yet aside from this use of the term as a means of condemnation, scattered throughout the pages of history, a far more conventional ‘vampire’ appears. I’ve gathered a small sample of historical reports that once made their way to Australian shores, telling tales of ‘vampiric’ activity. Stretching from 1906 to 1954, events pertaining to unusual torment and the consumption of blood. Keep in mind, news stories were just as likely to be falsified or misunderstood in the past as they are today. Also the concept of the vampire was popularized in the media, with the success of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula, and the subject matter of many films (Nosferatu, 1922. Dracula, 1931. Vampyr, 1932. Horror of Dracula, 1958. etc).

Claims of ‘Vampiric’ Activity:

7th of July, 1906

The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 – 1931)


An extraordinary case has just been heard in the Viennese law courts. The daughter of a rich merchant accused her husband, an artist’s model, of hypnotizing her. She declared that he was in the habit of hanging her up naked by her feet for hours, in which position she was hypnotized. The husband never took his meals in the ordinary way, but consumed oranges and milk in the course of the day. When he returned late at night he used to satisfy his hunger by sucking her blood, which he obtained from a wound in her neck.


4th of August, 1906

Evening News (Sydney, NSW : 1869 – 1931)


An almost incredible story of a child bloodsucker comes from Sweden. A clergyman in Nassjo, a small village in that country, was in the habit of educating a number of boys, among whom was a clever, but morose and dreamy, lad, who shunned all company, and took long walks in the woods alone. One day the clergyman’s favorite dog, a small spaniel, disappeared. It was believed that he had been stolen by gypsies. Shortly afterwards a peasant in the village lost a valuable sheep dog, and several cats, chickens, and a lamb. Suspicion fell on the boy living with the clergy man. One day when the boy returned from a walk it was found that his white sailor jacket was covered with blood, for which he was unable to account. After that he was “shadowed.” He was seen to enter a hut in the wood, and after he had been there several minutes, an agonized scream, evidently from an animal in pain, was heard. The watchers burst in the door. On the floor of the hut sat the boy, holding in his hand a shrieking black cat, from the neck of which he was sucking the blood. In the hut were found the carcasses of a number of dead cats, dogs, a lamb, and a chicken. The peasants tried to lynch him, and he was only rescued with difficulty.


15th of May, 1949

Truth (Brisbane, Qld. : 1900 – 1954)


PARIS, Sat. — Detectives who set out to catch the “Vampire of Reuil,” arrested police constable Eugene Henry. The vampire has been responsible for many attacks on women in the Paris suburbs. The detectives saw a man who was wheeling, a bicycle accost a woman. They arrested him and later confronted him with several of the women who have been attacked. Henry is said to have made a statement confessing to the attacks.


3rd of July, 1951

Daily Mercury (Mackay, Qld. : 1906 – 1954)


The terrorizing legends of bloodsucking vampires are just legends— right? Not to credulous burghers of Dusseldorf, it seems. A rumor that vampires were in the city kept the Chief of Police and his assistants answering frantic phone calls from thousands of citizens for three days and nights. Newspaper and radio denials of the rumor eventually helped still the alarm.


29th of November, 1952

Daily Examiner (Grafton, NSW : 1915 – 1954)


MANILA, Thursday,— A vampire woman was caught on Tuesday in the Central Philippines town of Ilono. A 35-year-old woman had just caught a small child, hit his head against the concrete pavement and bitten his face to suck his blood when townspeople rescued the boy.


13th of May, 1953

The Armidale Express and New England General Advertiser (NSW : 1856 – 1861; 1863 – 1889; 1891 – 1954)


MANILA, May 12 (A.A.P.- Reuter). — A “Vampire” mystery is baffling Manila police. The most bizarre case in police memory began on Monday night when an 18-year-old girl was held in the women’s detention cell on a vagrancy charge. The girl began yelling that she was being bitten by a flying human being with big bulging eyes and wearing a black cape.” Other women in the jail made such a noise that police investigated, took the girl out, and held her for observation at police headquarters. About midnight as the police lieutenant held the girl’s left arm, she yelled, “here he comes again.” Police reporters saw nothing around them, but saw the girl begin squirming in the police officer’s grip. As horrified police and reporters looked on, eight human bite marks surrounded by what looked like saliva, appeared on the girl’s left arm. A police medical examiner said the bites, by now also showing on the girl’s right arm, were unmistakably human. As the girl cried in pain and terror, more bite marks appeared. The girl told police she had not encountered the “Dracula” apparition before she went to the jail. It did not resemble anybody she had met before. The chief medical examiner of the Manila police said the girl was an epileptic and the wounds were self-inflicted. But his assistant was still disputing his diagnosis. The girl was taken this afternoon to the Philippines Government Psychopathic Hospital for observation.


23rd of May, 1953

The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 – 1954)


Australian Associated Press MANILA, Fri. — A former dancing girl, who claims that a Dracula-like invisible “thing” bites her, startled watching police here tonight when she went through the motion of fighting an invisible being in her detention cell. Police claimed that when they opened her clenched fists they found hair she claimed she had pulled off the “thing.” A laboratory analysis showed that the hair came from a dead man, police said. Earlier, local United States Methodist Church ministers exorcised the devil in the girl’s body, but were surprised when another girl, in an adjoining cell, began yelling, claiming that she was being attacked, police said. The new girl also exhibited bite marks on her arms and legs.


“Hell is empty, and all the devils are here.”

—Ariel, The Tempest, Act 1 Scene 2, William Shakespeare.


(Animation by TraceLoops, GIPHY.com)

A mysterious flying object shoots across the Kentucky sky, strange creatures advance toward an isolated homestead, August, 1955. A shootout lasting several hours, to keep the beings at bay, witnessed by five adults and seven children (Kelly–Hopkinsville Encounter).

Several flying saucers hovering over a Melbourne, Australian school on the 6th of April, 1966, hundreds of witnesses look on in awe (The Westall UFO encounter).

Also, allegedly on the 6th of April, 1967 (some sources disagree on dates of event), in North Dade County, Florida, Crestview Elementary School, another large group of witnesses observe the hovering and landing of several flying saucers (The Crestview Elementary School UFO Incident).

The 13th of October 1917, large crowds (30,000 to 100,000 people) gather in Fátima, Portugal to witness the Miracle of Fátima. Many claiming the sun shined and spun with colours similar to those that would shine through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral. One of the largest gatherings of onlookers to witness a “miracle” in human history (declared “of supernatural character” by the Catholic Church in 1930).

Many people believe some or all of the (randomly chosen) events listed above, to be entirely true. Others see a collection of elaborate misunderstandings or fallacies. Then there are a great many who don’t quite know what to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, in other words, even if you yourself witness these incredible events, how could you absolutely, unequivocally, unabashedly declare such unworldly events to be definitively true (or accurately interpreted)?

You might think “seeing is believing”, but maybe you just haven’t seen anything literally ‘unbelievable’ yet?

Once witnessing an event that by all means could be viewed as a defiance of what you know of the laws of this reality/universe, would you be able to believe yourself? Or would you immediately seek out psychiatric help?

What if you view this incredible event in the company of hundreds or even thousands of others. Can everyone be mad (or rather deceived)?

(The gathering at Cova da Iria, Portugal, 13th of October 1917.)

Unshakable (speculatory or potentially baseless) belief can be quite a heavy burden to bear. I’ve known conspiracy theorists that have let their minds contort with paranoid delusions, eventually locking themselves in a prison of the mind, built of cynicism and fear. The self-fulfilling prophecy of one’s own growing distrust in their government, in some cases accurately predicting their own arrest or demise (Milton William “Bill” Cooper, May 6, 1943 – November 5, 2001). The path we take to avoid our destiny, is often the path that leads us to it.

I once knew someone, who in their desperate search for “answers”, found themselves involved with what was later revealed to be a cult, but not before this person (and father of two) partook in a ritualistic group suicide. Every so often, to this day, I wonder if he ended up learning what it was that he wanted to know so badly. Legally blame is placed on a specific guilty party, the fanatical leader(s) and so on. But in the end, was it the physical means by which his life was taken, that truly sealed his fate, or was it his unyielding dogmatic belief? A yearning to know the answers to questions the average person might live a lifetime and not even conceive, was that ultimately his doom?

One of the last conversations I had with this individual, before he vanished into the fanatical world, he was emphatically declaring events he deemed to be indisputable evidence of supernatural activity. I remember remarking something to the effect of, “these experiences are rooted in emotion and the interpretation of otherwise mundane happenings might be disregarded, unless the individual wanted to believe there was a governing will orchestrating the activities. But the same events could unfold even if such a will did not exist.”

Immediately, I knew he would never engage in another conversation with me again. And he never did. Shortly after, a series of unrelated events led to his dismissal from the company we were working for and the rest is history.

As time continues to unfold, what we call “strange and unbelievable claims” will continue to be reported. Perhaps you yourself will witness something that by all rights (governed by the current standards of normality), should not occur. Perhaps, you’ll experience something that will further solidify a belief that began to grow, a long time ago. Maybe you’ll know in the end, what you told yourself in the beginning, that it was nonsense, all along.

True belief is singular, regardless of how much any force attempts to influence and persuade otherwise. But in the end, outside of belief, outside of doubt, when there is no tangible evidence that an event ever occurred, where there is no physical proof that something ever existed, what are we actually left with?

In the end, in regards to the bulk of the paranormal, we are left with attempts to record or capture a moment in time. Experiences that echo throughout the ages, preserved in a collection of ink and shadows. You might not believe the letters marked in ink, as you might not believe the shapes that form in the shadows. Just as the ones who were there (or claimed as such) during those fateful moments might not have believed what their own eyes were seeing either.

Blind gullibility does not ascertain truth.

But neither does absolute doubt.


(Animation from GIPHY.com)

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

–Albert Einstein

That which is in accordance with fact or reality, must be truth, or so they say. But what happens when the “truth” of our reality in its entirety, comes under scrutiny? When even the variations of interpretation are no longer merely arbitrary (or misinterpreted, deluded) on an individual level alone, but if the same event was recorded by multiple devices. Each capturing a very different variation of the same event, each a seemingly different reality than the last. What would happen if logic, causality were no longer universally interpreted? The same message could be played, but individuals hear entirely different words spoken. A coloured shape could be displayed, but observers witness 1 of 5 different colour variations. What if these interpretational anomalies were going on all over the world, increasing in number exponentially as time progresses?

Eerily, many of these “what if’s” are all part of the reality we currently exist(?) within. Even purely among our own species, we are all interpreting this reality very differently to one another. Our brains are making sense of things (often on a minuscule level) different to one another, but these variations add up, often culminating into very different interpretations. Concepts like this, mass erroneous memory, have given rise to popular theories like the “Mandela effect”. It was named so because a large vocal group of people, believed to possess the memory that Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s. When in actuality(?), he died on December 5th, 2013. Believers in the Mandela effect are so adamant the memory of his death in the 80s is genuine, that multiple theories have arisen to explain the alleged phenomenon. The most popular being a merge of two very similar dimensions/realities. Another somewhat popular theory, being that Mandela’s alleged death in the 80s was somehow a glitch or error in the representation of this reality. An event that was altered, possibly one of many, but was brought to light due to the popularity of the globally shared erroneous memory. As the Mandela effect has become well known across the global masses, more and more shared erroneous memories have been discovered. Large groups of people learning that their similar common shared memory of very specific past events, are false.

These occurrences, deviations in memory, some false, some accurate, don’t necessarily prove anything. It even makes sense (to me) that if a misinterpretation was made by one person, chances are they wouldn’t be alone. Perhaps a very popular news headline was shared around the world that was mistakenly interpreted by many English speaking people to indicate the death of Nelson Mandela in the 1980s. That misinformation, like the exchange of accurate information was spread and nested in the memories of people all around the world, waiting to be re-assessed, in the year 2013 when the prior false information would be confronted with new conflicting data.

After the Mandela effect, similar concepts have grown in popularity over the years since. A rise in sharing photographs capturing seemingly anomalous coincidences. For instance, several people in a line who look eerily similar. Footage of the alleged naturally occurring loops of activity in humans, traffic, animals. Many will outright claim these photographs, videos, topics of conversation are merely staged to amuse people. That is most likely how they come about, falsely produced to generate attention. But the point is, the popularity and the intrigue behind the doubt, the questioning of the legitimacy of this reality, is growing. The idea that the nature of our reality is somehow synthetic, disingenuous is spreading like a plague. It’s difficult to predict how such a train of thought could implicate the human race, but generally a growing belief that all things are the product of deception could not bode well for the stability of this reality. Legitimate or otherwise.

But on a singular, individual, personal level, what would it take for YOU to question the legitimacy of YOUR reality? To witness the seemingly impossible, the unthinkable? What if you lived the exact same day twice, accurately predicting each moment as they come and go? What if I were to randomly type numbers, that were identical to those appearing on your credit card? 5253 6053 4980 8658. The odds are so incredibly stacked against those numbers being your numbers, that if they were… you might think something very unusual was going on. Then again, perhaps deep down you know that you could quite easily rationalize a great many unusual things. After all, strange things happen all the time, that doesn’t necessarily suggest that reality in its entirety is somehow false. The unique thing about discussing the concept of the validity of reality, is that we have no other point of reference for comparison. To detect an imitation product, we use our knowledge of the genuine original and identify the differences. So why then if this reality is all any human has ever known does the concept of a ‘false reality’ continue to arise throughout history?

Heavily popularized during the age of enlightenment, philosophers have long pondered the nature of this reality. Cogito ergo sum (quote by René Descartes), I think therefore I am, the only thing we can be sure of, is the existence of our conscious mind on an individual level. Aside from that, nothing else is certain. Throughout religious beliefs, mythos and cosmogenic/creation stories from cultures around the world, many toy with our world being disconnected from a reality of some specific group of supreme beings or deity. Even one of the oldest human beliefs passed verbally among groups of Australian Aboriginals, speak of a ‘Dreamtime’. Something seemingly independent from time and space, considered as both the furthest distant past, but also the furthest conceivable future in which existence as we know it was formed.

“Life is but a dream, within a dream.”

—William Shakespeare

The word ‘dream’ is one of the most frequently used words by Shakespeare throughout all of his works. Shakespeare often mused with the notion of dreams and reality, “To die,—to sleep;—To sleep: perchance to dream:—ay, there’s the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come. When we have shuffled off this mortal coil” (Hamlet, Act III).

The belief that the “truth” will be revealed in death, is by no means unique. In fact almost every religion, across every culture insinuates toward (possibly the greatest) element of death being the final lifting of some all encompassing metaphorical veil. The curtain that sheathes the truth, the meaning of all things, conceivable and/or otherwise.

Maybe our instinctual drive, our lust for there to be “more than meets the eye”, is merely the result of our longing for meaning, for purpose. Seek and you shall find, but where there are no answers, no light to properly illuminate the darkness, our minds make forms from shadows. We create a story, behind the story.

Contrarily however, maybe there’s a reason those of antiquity, possibly even the earliest of mankind, just as many of us today hold an unusual thought at the back of our minds. A thought that niggles, scratches in the furthest depths of human contemplation. A voice that for whatever reason, for as long as our species has been capable of thought, instinctually whispers, “there is more beyond this.”

Perhaps, you’re reading this, in a reality where only you have ever existed and your own doubts, or a clue from the very system that deceives you are taking shape in the form of this verbose blog post. How could I ever prove otherwise to you? Perhaps you’ve spent your entire life, living in a world that simply never was.