Why.

In every action of humanity, whether it be monumental task or passing conversation, there lies beneath a great and secret show. Watching the ebb and flow of a hundred million people, where the small is always a reflection of the large, where every minute detail has a counterpart on the grand scale, gives shape to a grand design.

It is difficult, or perhaps even impossible, for any of us to perceive the entire truth of all things, although we are uniquely qualified to perceive at least a portion of it. It is only through interaction with others that we may procreate a version of our own intimate design and send a modified copy of it out into the world. This need to interact in order to preserve our design virtually guarantees the sharing of thoughts and expression, allowing us, who can only see the world as it seems to exist, to gain perspective about the true reality behind what we think and how we feel about the world around us.

A living system, in which every part is connected to every other, cannot neutrally observe itself. The act of observation changes the system, and since these changes become incorporated into the mechanism providing observation, the best effort to define such a system can only provide a sort of rough ongoing comparison between the system as it exists, and how the system used to be. As such, it is only through the implementation of an infinitely stable and unchanging third-party rule set, that relative comparisons may be drawn between living, ever-changing systems.

I would suppose this is what accounts for the seeming need for any faith to compare itself to others, and even turn its eye inwards to those members who proscribe to any one particular methodology of faith. In our world, the dogma handed down by religion or self-discovered through spirituality is our attempt at constructing this third-party rule set, a standard by which we compare our lives, unto itself and to those lived by others. The saved and non-saved, the believers and disbelievers, the righteous and the accusers; all words used to describe those who try think and live according to a specific methodology of social interaction, and to describe those who disagree with that methodology.

There is most likely something within the nature of a human being which is universally applicable. After all, there is something distinctive about being human and not an ape, being human and not a lamp-post; people have argued the exact specifics of what it is that separates everything human from everything not for millennia. To claim to have an answer to these arguments would be both arrogant and ludicrous, but the mere fact that people have both created a distinction between human and not human, and are willing to argue about the nature of that division, suggests that at the very least a great deal of people seem to think that such a division actually exists.

To be fair, there is another group of people who do not believe in this division, that everything is Everything, and that the world and its universe are not composed of separate objects, but is in fact just one big gigantic structured Something. Everything is literally a part of everything else, and the lines we draw between one object and another are simply assumptions based on the perception of possible potential changes and the probability thereof in a near-infinite and heavily contorted energy field. It may surprise some to find that in terms of sheer numbers, this view, in some shape or form, is held by the vast majority of the world.

If you believe in the division of human from the not-human, you must believe that there is a universal trait or set of traits that define humanity. It follows then that every human being alive possesses these traits, and so it can also be assumed that by observing the product of this fundamental rule set, we can divide that which is inherent to the basic nature of an individual’s existence, from those things which are a result of that existence in an unknown or undefined environment. By quantifying that environment, by learning about a person’s past or present situation for example, we can separate out the objective psychology from the subjective, learn which things can be changed or modified and which things cannot, and then make use of this information in relation to our own actions and behavior in order to successfully relate to any selected individual. These relationships are intrinsically tied to our own understanding as to how these universal truths are affecting us, and so the quest for understanding others is often an attempt at trying to understand ourselves. When we reverse this equation, it is equally apparent that any effort made towards understanding ourselves better is done in an effort to somehow relate better to those around us, to whatever end that may bring.

If you believe in a unified existence, where even No-thing is something and everything is Everything, it follows then that what we choose to perceive as separate and individual beings are really just concentrated entanglements of whatever it is that exists. We are specific and unique phenomenon capable of interacting and producing results that affect other phenomenal centers outside of ourselves. As we are all unique, yet all one and the same, an exploration of ourselves allows us insight into the actions of others, as they are acknowledged as being a part of us, and the study of others allows us to gain a better understanding of ourselves.

The truth behind a truly humane existence does not rest in the separation of these two belief systems, or in discovering why this separation exists, but rather in the fact that the two theoretically opposing systems both yield the same result when applied to the observation of the human experience. This is the essence of the great and secret show, to hide behind that which is easily assumed to be understood. The real truths of the world are rendered invisible because they are as inherent to our observations as they are to our actions; you cannot look out to the world and see the inner workings of your own eye. We can only see the fundamental principles that guide all things in the actions and changes in the world around us, but never as an entity in and of itself.

My hope for immortality is in believing that the truth is in fact a part of us. That it is inherent to all of existence, all actions, all reactions. That in being a part of the Truth, we gain access to it simply by being; by removing the assumptions from our subjective consciousness from the reality of our objective existence. The closer one gets to achieving this goal, the closer and more apparent the truth becomes, until it is all things and everything. When I can finally see myself in Everything, then I can never die, for even if this body passes I will remain forever. I would expect that achieving this goal will be difficult; if one truly wishes to achieve an immortality of any kind, it seems reasonable to assume that one is going to have to do something to earn it. Here is my Something; more than Nothing, less than Everything. It will simply have to do.