How can there be any existence at all? Surely what could be, is that there could be nothing at all.

Who is to say that a thing exists, or doesn’t exist? As we see a thing come into being that was there before, do we say it was once non-existent and now it exists. Yet even this is only upon the perception of our experience of time, and without such an experience is there nothing non-existent, nor anything existent, and both non-existent and existent also existing. Without time, all things must exist and not exist simultaneously or neither the experience of it, or the reality of it is true. Knowing that we can comprehend the reality or non reality of its true or false, must therefore be an observation of what exists or doesn’t exist, or what is doing both, which is further evidence of an existence of an observer – and also while observing notates the observation beforehand didn’t exist until noted and then even the observation now exists though the observer of it existed before the noted observation.

Even if time is experienced as an expression of NOW alone, with no past, nor future, does the absence of a past and future take into the existence of a nonexistent idea which does exist. Once observed, noted or considered, is it then a reality wether true or false for in no way can it not be a reality if it can in fact be comprehended as an experience, rather than just considered as a theory- YET, no idea can be considered without a relative basis of experience for which to generalize the definition of said concept. Therefore mere theory itself becomes a living thing that once to our perspective did not exist, but now considered it does exist, but since time is relevant and irrelevant simultaneously (in this subjective and objective consideration) must we agree that the said theory existed before we considered it for the first time in order for us to be able to consider it at all, for wether there is time, past present future or even if there is no time at all, must we still agree.

Therefore how can we consider, theorize, or even create a thing that from our awareness of it did not exist before our awareness of it even if it is a thing we ourselves created that we had never seen, heard of or had ever been known on earth at all? For our perception not only of the thing itself, but also of the time, and also of the notation of our awareness all conform to the same basic reality that it could not be, and also could be, and it is not and it also is not only in our perception of time, but also always. It exists and it doesn’t exist or time itself is immaterial, yet it also doesn’t exist and does exist simultaneously otherwise once gain, time is immaterial.

If time is immaterial – even in concept, must time itself actually be immaterial and material otherwise time itself cannot exist and does exist also simultaneously. As time itself cannot escape the realm of the concept and experience, must it also be a thing that is and isn’t, and also is not and is at the same time and also in the past, present and future of itself. If time is material, is it rather clear also that it is only so within a certain dimension of existence and not others.  Does that make it an experience only?

Who can say time does not exist? Who can say time does exist?

For in every area of what can be true and what can be false and what can be existent and what cannot be existent, all having to be true and false equally, are we once again bound to the conscious awareness of the experience of a thing we ourselves did not design, nor construct, but discover and label and name so that the idea of it can be understood between lives, though it is already experienced and not experienced between lives even before defined and agreed upon as that name and definition to be a certain thing. If but a mere discovery (by definition) than we must agree it existed in order to discover it, which places upon our heads the omnipotent idea that more exists than we have yet to discover, realize, consider or theorize. Knowing now that any of those 4 cannot exist themselves without the existence of the thing beforehand being true – must we also accept somehow the notion and idea that they didn’t exist also simultaneously and that they do not exist even in proof, for such a proof cannot be greater than our awareness and experience that we can prove within our limitations.

SO can we say awareness does not exist, and observation which brings about awareness does not exist? Who can say that it does? For even these things both, considering again outside of time, must be and not be, and both be true. And if such a thing is possible to consider, must we therefore ask the first equation – is it a discovery or revelation already inherent that we simply did not define?

Who decides what exists and what does not exist? For to be both in existence requires the notion of both existence and not, establishing a must-need force greater than and before the limitation of both if indeed a before and after are material to the force which created the origin of a thing that it would exist.

And if there is an existent thing, and an observation of an existent thing and the notation of the discovery and time of the thing made aware with the understanding that it existed before noted and also does not exist in theory and concept of non-existence AND that we are aware, that we are aware, of the awareness we have of these very laws working together as a thing we ourselves also noted as law and defined and were made aware via discovery and sharing of our naming of things…. are we again forced to ask the question of WHAT decided there would be existence at all? WHAT decided there would not be? WHAT decided that instead of nothing at all existing there are things existing?

And knowing ourselves as considered to ourselves sentient and of the high order of thought and awareness and life – to which we assign ourselves the notation of “who and whom” between each other – must we also agree in terms of being mere discoverers of the existence of things. even when we ourselves create them, so that there must be a greater awareness and consciousness WHO decided that there would be existence or not. For we ourselves in our lowly state can consider such matters, must it clue to us the reality of the existence of such matters – for once again there are no matters at all if nothing exists, to which we could not even consider for we ourselves would not exist to consider it. Begging once again the question of the Higher order of Thought, Life, power, energy, will, desire or purpose set the whole ball in motion in the first place?  And let’s not even get into the paradox of “motion” in this rambling!

SO I summarize this… that for there to be existence and non existence, and discovery of existence and not existence and awareness of existence and not existence, and observation of our own awareness of our own awareness – must there be absolutely no limit at all to existence.  And anything that could ever be dreamed, thought up, considered, questioned, asked, wondered, or theorized already exists before we consider or observed it, or discovered it, for it to be non existent before we do such notations would put the matter of WHO CHOSE to make it exist into our hands answered that WE DID. And if we are the creators of things inside and outside of time, knowing that even a theory itself is just another discovery of an existent thing which is a thought defined as theory – are we ourselves inside and outside of not only space, time and matter – but we ourselves exist and not exists in the reality which encompasses time of before, after and now (maybe not NOW) and also the reality which is without time at all. If not such an answer can be made – then we are relocated to the notion of another WHO that decides and that places us once again squarely answering the question of the idea of GOD.

GOD – who by the way – is the very notion of ALL these matters and even defined in every way that we have put forth in the question of existence itself hitherto described. If everything already exists and it is only a matter of “time” for us to discover it all – then at great length and such time must we also escape out of the matter of “time” and BECOME the very thing we ourselves have discovered. So that rather than be merely the observer of the awareness of things – and the awareness of time and not time, space and not space, existence and not existence, would we expand and expound in the limitless and omnipotent expression of God, existing and not existing both inside and outside of all things as beginning and end, at THAT time which the ancients noted in conception of as becoming a “child of God” or “The sons of God”, and sharing that realm with God, (even as just an idea of God), becoming also God, for that would be God.

Would it not?

And to think, this is just the beginning of the matter, and limited within the realm of physical man and not spiritual man.

AHHH – Insomnia, how you’ve bested me again!

Ryan o0o