Secrets of the Universe: A Brief Discourse on Human Existence

Secrets of the Universe: A Brief Discourse on Human Existence Guy Anderson, M.A. Introduction What does it mean to be human? That is a question that has baffled both philosophers and psychologists alike. While biologists might have an easier time understanding the basic gist of physically being human, they have no better understanding of the spiritual, or otherwise abstract essence that results from being human and living a human life. Is there even an abstract essence in the first place? That is a wonderful question to pose, however it is also a question that can lead one to outright deny the existence of anything that is outside of the physical realm, which may not be a very good thing to do. When one ponders about what it means to be human, one either immediately or eventually comes to the subject of human existence. What is the purpose or the point of humanity? Do we exist for a higher purpose? Is there something higher than us, pulling all of the metaphorical strings and just uses us as actors, fulfilling various roles in a play that will be re-enacted for eternity, time and time again? Some of these questions might seem a little off, and others would make some individuals crazy just for trying to find the answer. There very well could be no answer to any of those questions, likely because they were not valid questions to pose in the first place, outside of eventually discovering that they are invalid. Of course, just because a question doesn't have any real answer, does not necessarily make it a fallacious question to ask, however it seems that usually the more fanciful and less grounded in earthly affairs the question is, the more likely it is to never be answered, and perhaps isn't even worth trying to answer. There are many, many different ways to try to go about solving the riddle of human existence, and almost all of those attempts have already been made. Within philosophy, there is the belief of Nihilism, predominantly represented by Nietzsche, as well as the belief of Existentialism, with Sartre being the most significant philosopher subscribing to it. Outside of philosophy, countless religions and spiritual beliefs have been constructed in order to provide an answer, although it could be said that the systems that they set in place provides a framework for how humans should be, rather than how they actually are. Most recently, there have been many psychologists within the last hundred years or more who focus on the structure, dynamics and performance of the human mind, which in turn could potentially solve all of the practical problems of human existence, but almost none of the abstract problems. There are psychologists who have done various research into the spiritual and philosophical issues of human existence, however, with Jung being the prime example. With so many ways to answer the problem of human existence, which one would be the right way? There isn't any way that all of such ways could lead to a correct answer (unless if the answers were absurdly simple, and even then), however it is certainly possible that they could all be wrong. Perhaps there isn't a single, conclusive correct answer; we are used to believing that every problem can eventually be solved with one solution that eventually becomes certain, but perhaps reality (or at least some of reality) does not quite work like that. There could be multiple answers, or none. Perhaps the question itself is an absurd one to ask; maybe the real question isn't to inquire about the nature of human existence, but rather the nature of individual existence, for even within the human race people live and lead many different lives, quite a few of which can't even be compared. In order to come up with a decent answer, sometimes you have to change the question. This book might come off as being deceptively simple in both its approach and its solution to the issue at hand. While most people believe that simplicity is a good thing, in the long run it is not so good; when one simplifies, one does not take into account the full picture of the problem, and ends up leaving out various details that may seem unimportant at the time of the abstraction and truncation of the problem, but eventually the details left out of the continued process of simplification will accumulate and there will be a time when one does not have a system that is significantly analogous to reality, and as such it cannot be used to solve many, if any problems that reside in the real world. Rather, simplicity is good for conveying information, not modeling or conceptualizing it. To have a truly mature mindset, or at least one that can handle problems better, one must fully come to terms with the complexity of the world and the various issues, topics and problems within it. Of course, it is unrealistic to think that one can take all details into account, however this should not be an excuse to deny reality for what it actually is. Rather, one should review the same issues and problems as much as possible, for eventually they will have a better understanding of what they are composed of. To review with a mind that does not deny complexity, and then to compare with new information gleaned from other sources, is perhaps the best way to solve any problem. As such, this book will try to undertake the complex task of providing an answer to a complex problem with a complex attitude, however the book will be written as simple as possible because the author wants as many people to understand as realistically possible. The answers contained herein may not be the ones that anyone would like to hear, and it even surprised the author when he came to them, however having a mind that is open to any possibility is another virtue, and one that few people possess, and even fewer throughout their lives. Chapter One: The Nature of the Universe There aren't very many similarities between the cosmology of the standard theist and the cosmology of the standard atheist, however both seem to agree that the universe had a definite beginning and will have a definite end, for some odd reason. The details between the two systems do considerably vary, with the standard theist believing that the universe originated “Ex Nihilo” and the standard atheist believing in the Big Bang theory, however the general trend that something supposedly came from nothing is nonetheless the same. Both systems, however, are probably wrong. For instance, how can something come from nothing? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense; even a mildly retarded person has enough common sense that it takes at least one thing to create another. The standard theist believes that this is the result of a “miracle”, or otherwise “God's Will”; while it is impossible to either prove or disprove that there is a God, the term “miracle” is really just a word to apply to either something that cannot be explained by contemporary science/knowledge, or otherwise never occurred in the first place. It is a fallacy to assume that something must exist simply because one cannot disprove it, and unfortunately people from almost all walks of life fall prey to it. As such, the “Ex Nihilo” theory cannot really be taken seriously, because it is based on assumptions that date back to an antiquated time; while ancient knowledge is not false by default, one should treat it, just like any popular body of knowledge, with a healthy dose of skepticism. As for the Big Bang theory? Plenty of atheists (and some theists) do believe that it is scientifically valid, and indeed, many people within the scientific fields do support it. But despite of it being the most popular theory of the origin of the Universe outside of religion, is there any real proof for it? There certainly are convincing theories that support it, but again, the Big Bang theory is still by and large just a theory. It is slightly different from the “Ex Nihilo” theory in that the Big Bang theory states that the Universe goes in cycles, exploding and then imploding, eventually exploding once again, but this just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, despite being slightly more probable. Thus, it is likely that both theories are false. So as such, if both theories are assumed to be false, then what is left? What can be said to explain the existence of the Universe? It is obvious that it does, indeed, exist, so what can explain the causation of its existence? There is one possible answer, and while it unfortunately cannot be proved, it does seem that it is the most likely causation. The answer, is this: there was never a causation in the first place. What does this imply? It implies that the Universe has always existed, and always will exist; unlike the lives of any animal, human or no, and the stars themselves, the existence of the Universe transcends the concept of time, and perhaps the only thing that is immortal outside of the Universe is time itself. Again, none of this can be proven, but this idea is gaining ground in the scientific fields, and it was actually an idea that originated in Zoroastrianism thousands of years ago. Many spiritual ideas were thought to be exchanged between Judaism and Zoroastrianism when the followers of both religions made contact before the time of Christ, however the idea that the Universe is, was, and forever will be eternal was not exchanged, or if it was, it quickly fell out of favor. Despite the fact that humans have accepted this possibility before, and are starting to accept it once again, the belief that the Universe never had a starting point or will have an ending point is something that unnerves most people. Why is this? Perhaps it is human nature to try to find the reason for why things exist, and more importantly, they need a reason for why things are the way they are. They need some sort of justification in their lives or situations, in order to make them feel more secure; the illusion that everything is really okay, or at least will be okay. Humans seem to either need the belief that their state of affairs is just, that their existence is justified, or at the very least they need the feeling that there is hope that things will get better. It is a human quality to extend their needs, wants, mannerisms and thought processes towards the cosmos, either through God or science. Almost everyone seems to believe that there is a pattern to the Universe, a reason for being that can explain everything; whether one is a theist or an atheist, it does not matter. But alas, if you take the possibility of even asking the question as to why there is a Universe in the first place away from them, let alone the ability to answer such a question, humans who are emotionally or intellectually unable to process such a situation are left with nothing, and thus are left unsatisfied. They will believe that their lives are not justified by anything, and as such they will start to believe that their lives do not have any meaning, and they may feel that life is not worth living. However, it is generally not in human nature to think this way for very long; even if a human being momentarily accepts that there is no inherent meaning to life, either extrinsically or intrinsically, this will likely bring nothing but existential torment, and the vast majority of humans can't deal with that for very long. As such, they either revert back to their original beliefs, almost forgetting about what they had previously learned, or they start to focus on something that evokes positive emotion, and then this serves as “proof” that there must be a reason for existence. Emotions are highly deceptive, for while they can do some good, they generally get in the way of perceiving what could possibly be true, for the majority of humans are simple minded to the point that if they feel a certain way about something, then it automatically is that way. Emotions, also known as “faith” in some circles, can prove nothing, however, and they are known to betray everyone in the end. There are far more implications as to what the lack of meaning entails for humanity, but this is reserved for the next chapter. Chapter Two: The Implications of Existence Since there almost certainly is no beginning of the universe and probably no end, it does not make sense to think that the point of life is to fulfill some role or means to an end, for that would mean that it would have to ensure a set endpoint, or at the very least a sustained state of affairs. While the latter is perhaps more possible, it doesn't seem to be likely in that the nature of existence is to change and diverge throughout time; sustainment would only lead to stagnation, and a denial of what is perhaps the only true nature of existence. Humans, however, like to believe that there is a meaning to life in the form of a role or an end, because while the universe had no beginning and likely has no end, the same cannot be said for either humanity or individual human lives. In fact, it seems that everything within the universe is finite, with perhaps the exception being the abstract notion of existence. Humans see life in terms of fulfilling an end, for that is their way of becoming more comfortable with their mortality. That is also how they view themselves in association with the rest of humanity, for much if not all of their identity is influenced by how they relate to others, and either manipulate or serve others. They must think in terms of roles that they play within the structure of humanity, for no human individual escapes the lifespan of the human race and none ever will unless if humanity en masse is faced with extinction. Essentially, humanity generally thinks about the importance of existence and the cosmos in terms of the well-being and nature of the human race as a whole. Nearly all religions are centered around humanity and the psychological and sociological dynamics that guide it; hardly any have intellectually matured to the point where they are self-critical and realize that one's orientation and beliefs towards reality has little to no effect on how reality actually is, or will ever become. If this is true, then why is religion so popular, even today? Because it creates something called an egregore, or rather a thoughtform that is created by a collection of believers in a certain faith or other system of beliefs which in turn guides and shapes not only the thoughts of those who subscribe to it, but also the manner of how they think and how they act. Without the spiritually-laden terms, this essentially entails that religion is merely a collection of thoughts shared by a group of people that has essentially taken a mind of its own after enough time has passed, and is often used to shape the structure and dynamics of society as well as manipulate humans as a whole. This is exactly why religion, or at least religious-like behaviors and orientations, have persisted this present day: it is simply very adept at changing the nature and reality of humanity, rather than reality in and of itself. To most people, this makes no difference; while this may sound very absurd to the more emotionally mature, wise and intelligent, it really does seem to be the case that most people can't see outside of human reality, even if they are intelligent enough to manipulate it towards their own ends. It is very typical that even the architects of thought systems cannot quite think outside of the systems that they create, so as such not only do they end up manipulating other people, in a sense they end up manipulated as well. Or perhaps they can see outside of what humans deem to be reality, but find it as being worthless and as such not worth finding out more about it, since what does not have practical value to them may as well not exist. As was stated in the previous chapter, humans often believe that their emotions are what guide them towards reality, rather than what detracts them from it. At best, emotions are simply a reaction to what is truly reality, which exist inside the subjective reality that exists inside every human being that isn't in a mentally vegetative state. The subjective reality, or inner reality, is very much an important topic that is highly relevant to the nature of human existence, however this will be talked about in a different chapter. It could very well be said that most people believe that their emotions, instead of being the effect of reality, are rather the forces that cause an effect on reality, and that their emotions essentially dictate what reality is or isn't. Granted, emotions do indeed influence the perception of reality as well as the attitudes and the behaviors that are able to act upon and potentially modify reality, however slightly it usually does. Emotions are not entirely irrelevant to how reality actually is, however they are not the dominant force, but rather the passive force that fuels the mental dynamics within individuals. This seems so obvious to those who are supposedly “enlightened”, but nonetheless this is a very hard thing to grasp for most people, even if there is nothing wrong with them intellectually. Why is this the case? Partially, it is because it is so much easier to feel something than it is to critically think and analyze something, and most people prefer to do the easiest thing possible, especially when they are compromised in some way. But what is perhaps closer to the truth is that as a species, humans have more developed emotional capabilities than they do intellectual capabilities; humanity is the only species that can form elaborate societies and cultures, as well as develop and refine technology and science, but the emotions of animals have been found to be very similar to our own, at least some professionals have found. This entails that the intellect is still a work in progress when it comes to evolution, and yet emotions are more or less a finished product that many species possess. What should also be said is that emotions seem to take on a greater hold on the human mind than mere ideas do, and it is very important to state that one can have more than one emotion at a time, but not more than one thought. All of this, essentially entails that emotions are the predominant force of human existence, and even those who are wise enough to not let emotions get the best of them have a very hard time maintaining a constant calm and collected state of mind. With all of this said and done, what can one make of this? What implications does it have for human existence? Perhaps the greatest implication that there is, is that human lives are lived through either an ignorance or a denial of the essential nature of the Universe. This cannot be helped, for every human is finite (at least in this corporeal state), whereas the Universe is infinite; the nature of the existence of the Universe is practically incomparable to the nature of human existence. However, ignorance of the metaphorical law does not eliminate the culpability of the one that offends, and many, if not almost all humans, go on to live their lives from a limited, anthropocentric and finite standpoint, acting as if the whole of reality is based on their thoughts, needs and desires. This could probably not be further from the truth; humans are not the architects of the Universe, or even the world. Even today, humans are guided not only by forces from without, but also from within, and as much as they would love to believe that they would eventually have power over everything, they will always be shortsighted when it comes to some aspect of reality, and therefore they will be rendered vulnerable. Melodramatics aside, this will likely be the source of the undoing of humanity, and perhaps the greatest folly about it is that this fact has been relevant since the dawn of humanity, and virtually no one will be ever the wiser about it, regardless of how science and technology progresses. Even if this small book educates just a few hundred, will that be enough? It is better than nothing, but the author doubts that it will lead to any breaking point that will favor a more optimal evolution for humanity. But there is still a point to writing this book in the first place, for no truths are better left unsaid. Chapter Three: The Nature of The Ego Human lives, naturally, center around the individual self. While the other individuals around them play a very critical role in how they personally develop as well as how their lives are going to turn out, and an individual may identify with the ideals of a congregation rather than any individually held beliefs, the fact remains that the entity of the individual self is the baseline for the dynamics of human life. What composes the individual self? This is a good question, and one that does not have a completely certain answer. The field of psychology identifies the entity of the self as being the “ego”, which can basically be summarized as being the overall, gestalt state of the individual mind which usually remains constant throughout the lifespan. While this gives us a decent technical answer as to what the individual self essentially is, what caused the “ego” to be? What exactly comprises the ego to be what it is, what maintains it, how does it fare over the course of human life, and what happens beyond the end of life? These are all questions that cannot be easily answered. There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that the ego survives death, or was present before birth. The ego is more or less synonymous with the term "soul", in that both are the essence of the existence of the individual. When defining the ego, it is very hard to determine what truly defines it, and what part of the brain is responsible for it, if there is truly any; brain damaged individuals may have an altered personality, but they still have an ego, assuming that they are still conscious. From this, it can be said that the ego likely does not have any definitive, concrete existence; rather, it is an abstract concept that does truly exist, but not in physical form. The ego does not seem to remain the same throughout the course of life; the state of mind and perspective of an infant is very different from that of a child, and from a child to a teenager, and from a teenager to an adult. If the ego can change in the course of the human life, who is to say that the ego will remain the same after death? It could very well either vanish entirely or disintegrate into other egos, for all we know. Likely, there is some small part of one's ego that does remain after death, in some meager form, however there is no way to know this for sure. The impermanence of the ego even throughout life, let alone after death, raises many questions. Are our individual lives just a meaningless blip in the thread of time, just to emerge in a flash and then vanish in a blink of an eye? Is the existence of humanity essentially the same way? What does the afterlife consist of, if there is any? How should we live our lives, if there should be any standard? All of these questions likely have their own unique answers, despite the impulse of so many people wanting these questions to be answered by a simple, wide-sweeping system of belief. The author could hazard to guess that the answer to the first question is to outright rebuke the question, holding fast to the personal belief that any time outside of one's existence is essentially irrelevant and that the only time that is relevant is when the self is the self, nothing more or less. That may seem silly, and perhaps a bit self-absorbed, but there is hardly anything in history that links the state of one's ego to it; the distant causation of the individual life might be linked, but the body and the mind are two separate things, if one can buy into the argument that the mind is by and large separate from the brain. As for the future outside of one's life, perhaps that is in fact linked to the state of the present ego, however faintly, but if the ego is not going to survive to either enjoy or suffer the fruits of their efforts, then why should one care? One could say that it would matter, because it would affect the generations after one has passed on, but this is assuming that the individual is going to have loved ones and/or children, and even if they did, what could eventually be done to completely ensure their well-being? Basically nothing lasts forever, however safeguarded and secured, and eventually everything is forgotten. Human history is basically unknown past the forth millennium B.C., and even after that time many facts have been lost, the vast majority of them forever. And even if not, what of it? Eventually one's decedents would potentially be so numerous and different from them that they probably could not find anything about them to relate towards, let alone care about. But it does not matter even if not, for one cannot be present to observe their children after they die, at least not on the physical plane. With that question answered, the next question is if the same answer can be applied to the existence of humanity. In this case, the rebuking of the question would not be appropriate, but the answer is still simple: of course humanity will die off in time. They will either evolve into something else, or die off in some fashion, either through a mass epidemic or something extremely stupid, such as nuclear war (sort of ironic that one of the greatest inventions of humanity could potentially lead to the worst mistake they could ever make). While the trend of human society is for everyone to join and converge into one entity, the reality of both the biological and private psychological nature of humanity is to diverge and go their own separate ways; evolution into separate species is inevitable, and it should not be stopped. Let people go their own way, and find their own groups, and form their own communities. Of course, it is naive to think that all of this can be done peacefully, for most people do not want to understand that this is the best course, or could understand. Perhaps the advent of human divergence will take place when it is finally possible to colonize other planets (if such a thing can ever be done). When this happens, most people will probably go their own merry way to form their own societies and cultures on their literal own little world, and then evolution will eventually take place. Humanity will change, either through death or through something else. It is best to accept it as such. There is perhaps no good way to answer any question pertaining to the afterlife. The vast majority of individuals believed in the afterlife in the past, usually to encourage them that their hard lives would not go unrewarded, and that their oppressors would suffer for all eternity. As childish as this is, it is probably best to believe that there is an afterlife, rather than none at all. Of course there is hardly any proof of one (although some evidence does exist), but if something as magnificent as our minds exist without knowing any real reason or causation, then it is possible that something such as the afterlife could also exist, however faintly. The author personally believes that there is an afterlife, but not much can be said about it. From his limited experiences in astral projection and sleep paralysis, he is strongly inclined to think that the afterlife is similar to the lucid dream world, except perhaps not much like it at the same time. If this is so, this is very exciting for the author; he has recently begun to acquire some power in controlling his dreams and projections, and if he acquires more power, perhaps he can be just as powerful in the afterlife. Far fetched, sure, but maybe that is the point of this life? To learn from your dreams and transmute the power obtained to the next life? Who can say, really. As for how we should live our lives...well, is that really anyone's business? Does anyone have any right to tell you how things should and shouldn't be? They can make friendly suggestions, sure, but in no way are they entitled to make demands out of how you should be and how you should live, even if they are your parents, your spouse, or anyone else that is close to you in your life. In the end, only you know what works for you, and no one else. Most people cannot realize that because they are either too stupid to make their own decisions (at least when it comes to important subjects) or are too cowardly to follow their own route. Most of those in positions of power know this, and they exploit it, often stating that they need to do things for “the greater good” and have to be selfless (which is a joke; only someone who has the IQ of a potato could truly be selfless). Throughout human history, very horrible things have happened because individuals sacrificed their own sense of right and wrong and their own decision making processes just so that they could fit into a religion, a nation, or some other congregation. Essentially, humanity is victim to its own stupidity. To learn to think for oneself, and decide for oneself, is perhaps the greatest deed that one can do towards the rest of humankind, for it makes no demands on others (at least not in and of itself) and it leaves others to follow their own path in life. When are people going to realize that the greatest evils are done when people act together, and perhaps the most decent things are done almost purely on an individual level? Perhaps the “greater good” is just a veil for something else; it usually seems that way to those who know how to see through things, so who knows. Perhaps life can be defined as the progression of the ego manifest. This is perhaps a limited definition, for life is so much more than just what goes on in one's head, but the ego truly is what defines the very essence of the individual, and it does indeed change through time, provided that there is still a significant amount of brain activity. The author has wondered as to what truly stays the same about the ego throughout the course of life; that is, what parts of the human personality remain largely unchanged? Through some contemplation, the author has realized that there are essentially only two things that comprise the human personality that remain relatively unchanged: memories, and various preferences and dislikes. Memories seem to stay with the individual, so long as they have not experienced any brain trauma or degradation; while people many not remember the memories as vivid as they used to as time goes on, the emotional effects that have resulted from them remain essentially the same, unless if one deludes oneself. As for the preferences and dislikes? This is a bit harder to explain, and perhaps may not be entirely accurate. Many people notice their preferences and dislikes relatively early in their lives (usually childhood and adolescence), and even though they may try to avoid something that they like or try to “change” one of their dislikes, oftentimes they fail. Sure, they might get used to some things that they never liked, and they may even start to enjoy a handful of previous dislikes (such as someone liking hot and sour soup, when they previously did not), but generally they provide a basic template that will remain unchanged, and will subliminally shape them into the people that they are, and will become. Someone who doesn't like to be touched will almost certainly not really be able to get close to people or form meaningful sexual relationships (or really, any kind of sexual relationship), and conversely, someone who likes touching people will love to get to know several others, so that they can get to touch them. When the basic template is described with this example, it is easy to see that there could very well be some truth behind it. So there are memories, and the basic template of likes and dislikes. Is that really all that makes up the core of a stable personality? It does seem like that, as simple as it may seem. But perhaps it really isn't as simple as it may seem; while the basic foundation of the personality is mere memories and the template of likes and dislikes, what springs forth from it are all of the emotional and social implications that would result from reminiscing about the memories, and how the template would influence how one would act with others in the real world. From reacting and interacting with other individuals, as well as other entities in the world, the memories could eventually accumulate and serve as a guiding influence as to how to live one's life and interact with others, and the template would serve as an intrinsic operating system of sorts. Without memory, one would repeat the same actions (or rather, mistakes) over and over again, and without the template, the individual wouldn't have any idea as to how to be or how to truly act. Memory serves as the resource of learning, and the template serves as the resource of being. All of this sounds silly, doesn't it? Well, there is perhaps another idea that would sound even sillier. This idea, proposes the theory that there is more than just one ego within the mind. Instead of the ego comprising all of what is the mind, there are perhaps other “selves” within the mind, struggling to get out (or at least influence the dominant ego). This seems improbable, but perhaps one has noticed that there are several things that an individual does that he or she does not recognize, and yet the action has great meaning behind it. Images that may randomly pop in their heads, various artistic touches or even whole works of art that they cannot explain the meaning behind, and other various mannerisms; they all mean something, on some level. Perhaps the greatest question towards this idea is this: “How can this be?” There is perhaps no solid answer to this question, for as far as neuroscience and psychology have advanced, there is still so much that we don't know about the nature of being human, and most of what we do know is still, in essence, theory. However, it is in fact possible to perceive subliminal messages and remember them, without even knowing that one had got them in the first place. It is also possible to acquire a mannerism without being aware than one has acquired it, although this might be a bit more difficult and would manifest over a gradual course of time. Not to mention that one can certainly be unaware of their desires or even certain thoughts, due to either active suppression or simply because it is an engrained characteristic that has not been triggered by one's environment just yet. This is why one often sees an individual either suddenly or gradually act in different ways (at times, radically different) when they are put in a situation or a foreign environment that they have never been exposed to; new experiences bring out traits within the individual that one could have never been aware of previously, for no individual can accurately prepare oneself for a situation that they had never known of personally. Both good and bad things can arise from this; there are some experiences that can transform the individual into a much more knowledgeable, insightful person that has greater control over their emotional states, and there are some experiences that truly break the person to pieces, forever. Unfortunately, most individuals do not have enough emotional intelligence to realize that some life experiences do indeed destroy individuals permanently, believing in the fallacy of a “just world”; essentially, that everything happens for a reason and that a bad thing is actually a good thing. Or otherwise, they simply lack empathy and believe that people should just “get over” whatever happened in the past. Either way, both approaches are a misconception of reality, for just because some event happened in the past and will likely never happen again, does not mean that the event is not still fully vivid in the affected individual's mind. Some things, just cannot be forgotten, or forgiven. No one is entitled to either forgetting or forgiveness, especially those who would happily ruin other people's lives once again. This is a lesson that humanity en masse needs to learn, and unfortunately it may never be learned, for how can one possibly change the nature of seven and a half billion people? Even all of the major religions cannot do that. Perhaps the greatest evidence that there are multiple egos in the mind, is the fact that one has dreams. Almost everyone has dreams, although some may go several weeks, months or even years without them. Why do we dream? The author cannot say; perhaps there is a greater meaning behind it, but that is hard to prove. However, the nature of dreams, however highly variant between individuals and along the course of life, does illuminate a very important fact that no one is quite themselves while they dream. The individual, while in the dream, may act in ways that are otherwise contrary to their public selves or even their private selves, and they may even become some other individual while they dream. The author has recently had dreams where he is far more lucid in his dreams, but also far more impulsive and violent. Impulsiveness and violence are characteristics that the author does not usually have, however he cannot deny that those traits probably are within him, however subtly and subliminally. Dreams provide an inner world of sorts that reflect the experiences and the situations of the individual, however tangentially they may manifest. Usually, dreams do provide a glimpse or a revelation of something about one's life or one's character that the individual was otherwise unaware of; if dream recall is mastered or at least significantly improved, then one is able to use dreams as a way to learn lessons about their life that they otherwise would have been blind to. It is hard to know what the inner world of dreams is comprised of; there is some evidence that all dreams are connected in some way, for there are certain locations within dreams that are revisited or are otherwise connected to other locations. The locations within dreams usually, although not always, have roughly the same geography, flora and fauna; the dreams of the author usually take place in either hilly, barren locations, lakes or forested mountains filled with small towns, although cities are occasionally visited. This is somewhat odd, for the author has lived in medium-sized towns surrounded by farmland for almost all of his life. Dreams could very well either exist entirely within the individual's mind, completely closed off to outside elements, or they are a gateway of sorts to what could be called the “Astral Plane”. The topic of the astral plane is very fascinating and much has been written about it, however the author has only recently had limited experiences within it and cannot talk much about it personally at this time. He does not know how he can enter it for certainty, or what it consists of, or what its meaning is; all that he knows is that it does exist in some form, and that its existence has made him personally sure that there is more to life than the one that humans live in the physical plane. Perhaps the astral plane is the afterlife, and that it can be accessed in some way while the individual is still alive? Nothing can be said for certain. The warped nature of dreams, as well as the not-so-like nature of the individual within them, has been investigated by some professionals. There is a theory among some academic circles that while one is dreaming, the brain acts as if it is damaged. Perhaps this is, at least partially, true; brain activity during the duration of dreams does seem to be different than brain activity during the waking state. But instead of deeming this change as resembling brain damage, perhaps it could be better termed that it is a “cognitive shift” of sorts; both terms essentially mean the same thing, however the term “brain damage” implies a lot of negative stigma that could very well not be true. Perhaps during this cognitive shift, the ego (or more) that is suppressed finally surfaces within the dream world, and causes the individual to act in ways and perceive things that would otherwise not be the case. This may be the reason why most people do not remember their dreams, or cannot control them; they simply cannot relate to who they are in their dreams. Nonetheless, the fact that the individual does exist within the dreams is true, and the fact that the psychological state of the individual during the duration of dreams is typically at least somewhat different from the waking state is something to consider. There is also a phenomenon called “sleep paralysis”, or also known as the half-asleep, half-awake state. It is typically the case that during a bout of this, the individual is aware of themselves and are generally the same as they are when awake, however they still in the sleep state both physiologically and psychologically, and they perceive things that they otherwise wouldn't. Typical symptoms of this is not being able to move their bodies, the feeling that there is an evil, ominous presence surrounding them, the ability to have out-of-body experiences, and hypnagogic visions. The author has experienced everything outside of paralysis of the body, and he feels that such perceptions are not pure hallucinations; it is indeed possible that in such a state, one can perceive things in the environment that truly do exist, but are usually ignored or unperceived for some reason. Perhaps sleep paralysis either lowers or eliminates the subconscious mental filter that almost everyone possesses? It is possible. The visions that the author has received from his bouts manifest a fair number of ways, however numbers are usually present at least half of the time. It is hard to know the significance of this, however there must be some reason behind it, even if the source is from within the individual, rather than from without. What is also common, or at least not unheard of, is to wake up in the very early hours of the morning and suddenly gain multiple revelations and reflections on various matters that would otherwise would not be either revealed or reflected upon. The author does not know why this happens, but perhaps it is due to the fact that during this time, the individual is still affected by the sleep state while awake, and different sides of the individual arise from within and the individual is able to make judgments that they would otherwise not make or even think about. In fact, it is not uncommon to see people in a different state of personality when they first awake; some individuals who normally restrain negative emotions and expressions can be very agitated and aggressive when they first awake, and some individuals who are publicly known as unpleasant individuals can be surprisingly sensitive and nice when awakened. These cases may not be common, but they nonetheless do happen; the author has personally seen both instances in his life. With all of this said, the sleep state, in particular dreams and the phenomenon of sleep paralysis, is very relevant when it comes to revealing at least the possibility that there are multiple egos within the individual. This should not be confused with the concept of multiple personalities, for it is highly debatable that such a thing truly exists, and all of the egos do share at least some similarities. Perhaps it isn't that there are multiple egos, but rather that there is only one ego, that slides down a scale and expresses itself differently depending on the psychological and physiological state of the individual. This could very well be the case, however this is hard to prove. To conclude, what more can be said about the ego? It was found that it is not all that easy to define what it is, and that it never remains constant throughout life. Nothing can be said about whether or not it survives death, for in a way it does not even survive life; it is perfectly possible to still be alive and yet not have either a functioning ego, or any ego at all. Perhaps the ego is just essentially the gestalt state of the mental processes and how that manifests in both the inner, personal environment and outer, social environment at a certain moment in time. Much emphasis is placed on the ego in many cultures, religions or schools of thought (mainly either to abolish it, lessen it or elevate it), but if the ego cannot be given a concrete definition, then how are all of the those cultural norms, religious creeds, and philosophical maxims going to hold up? If more and more people become aware of this, then all of those systems are essentially going to collapse like a house of cards, or at the very least, their metaphorical machinery isn't going to run as well as it once did. What is the solution to this? Outside of simply acknowledging that the ego is something that cannot have a fixed definition (or at least not an elaborate one), perhaps it would be best to construct such systems of belief and behavior with foundational axioms that are outside of the human condition. This would be fairly hard to accomplish, but would not be impossible. However, while this method would probably be less erroneous than constructing systems that had human ideals and standards as its foundation, it is essentially ignoring the problem that not much can be said about what it means to be human, rather than trying to answer it. After all, ignoring a problem never makes anything go away, especially when it comes to abstract matters such as philosophical and psychological subjects. As such, humanity should still try to answer these problems, while basing their ethics and standards of thought and conduct outside of them, so that they are less likely to be victim to human fallacy. Of course, there is no way to safeguard against that, but it is better to at least attempt to prevent such outcomes rather than just accepting them for what they are. Conclusion: Reminiscing on What has been Said Honestly, there is hardly anything new that can be said at this point. When not all that we can think, feel, perceive and act can be brought into full awareness, it is natural that one will metaphorically crash into a wall. As such, it is best to reflect on all that has been said and done within this book, and take away the general principles. First, the theory that the Universe has no beginning and no end was brought to light. Make of that what one will, it nonetheless does illustrate that nothing about the mortal existence of either human lives or humanity itself can be accurately compared to virtually anything about the Universe. Carl Sagan that we are all made out of stars, therefore we do have a connection to the Universe; all well and good, however did stars exist all throughout time? What if there was something else other than stars that filled the Universe, something that was vastly different? Hard to know, but it does reveal at least the possibility that such a logical jump is at least somewhat erroneous. The fact remains that the Universe is a completely different entity that exists outside of humanity, and as much as humans will try to bridge whatever needs, wants or desires that they have for themselves to it, they will pretty much always fail. Secondly, the mortality of humanity was brought to light. Humans almost always know that they are not going to exist forever, and they are aware that humanity does not have a guaranteed existence, but their emotional capabilities cannot handle that, at least not for very long. Thus, they fool themselves into believing in illusions, either religious, national or philosophical. Of course, perhaps there is something about the individual human life that does indeed exist at least for time after death, and there is some very limited evidence, however this all cannot be proved. Humans must accept the fact that they must be comfortable with their own mortality, and to see the error of emotions tending to detract from reality; however, most will not be emotionally intelligent to even consider this, and likely never will. The easy road of emotions will generally be preferred than the hard road of insightfulness and intellect, at least in the end. Thirdly, the state of the ego was discussed. The ego is a very important phenomenon, for not only does examination of it reveal that practically everything about the individual human's life begins and ends there, but that pretty much all sociological and psychological constructs maintained by humanity are supported on the individual level. Selflessness is a lie; anyone who even has a capacity of hunger, thirst, or curiosity will eventually act in some selfish way. It is best to come to terms with this. There is nothing inherently evil about being selfish in and of itself; it simply implies that one acts according to his or her own needs. It does not automatically demand any sacrifice of another, whereas selflessness always does at least on some level. As such, selfishness is in actuality less evil than selflessness, at least potentially. One does not remain the same throughout the course of life. The ego can change in an instant, although it typically changes through a gradual course of time. What does imply? It implies that not only does the self not survive death, it does not even survive life itself. This scares people, for most people do not like change. Thus, they try to remain the same for as long as they can, even if it is unhealthy and unwise. Does this imply that most people do not want to mature? It certainly can; while it is definitely possible to become less mature over time, the opposite is usually the case. In this society, people want to be as young as possible, but no one gets younger as they get older, thus leading to a denial of reality. Perhaps maturity is simply an acknowledgment of reality? This would make sense. Sad, though, that most people do not want to see reality for what it is, even if they are intellectually bright. There are dreams, and then there is sleep paralysis. Both are a manifestation of the inner, personal environment, however when the possibility of an Astral Plane existing is introduced, perhaps the two are a potential gateway to a outer environment that is outside of the physical plane? Nothing can be said for sure at this time, due to the author's lack of experience. However, dreams and sleep paralysis alone can reveal many things about the self, and many lessons can be learned. It is interesting how one can be different in dreams than they can be in real life, and that they can even be completely different people. What does this imply? That there is more than one ego in the mind, or that the ego is never at a fixed state? Both are things to consider. Then there is the possibility of the afterlife. It is hard to know if it exists or not, but if it does, expect change. If one cannot even be the same person in this life, one will almost certainly be very different in that realm. All that the author has come to when it comes to a conclusion about this, is the feeling that there is something beyond the physical, and that it must be investigated; doing so could provide humanity with what could perhaps be the greatest insight into existence, and would open the door to many wonderful things. With all of this said and done, what now? Should one believe in God? That is entirely up to the reader. The author, while being nothing like an atheist, realizes that the idea of God is highly skewed and is perceived very differently, even among the members of the same religion. That is at least partially why religions form from other religions; it is a process that cannot be stopped. If anything, the author wants the reader to realize that the Universe is forever apart from humanity, that humans need to be comfortable with their own mortality, that they need to gain insight into their emotions and psychological processes, that selfishness is probably better than selflessness, and finally, that there is likely more to life than what exists in the physical plane. The author does not advocate any code of conduct, nor should he. How one acts, is entirely up to the person. Take responsibility for one's actions and one's life, realize the error of one's ways, and live free.