IT

When we talk about "IT", what do we mean? From infancy, we grow to learn that what we see simply exists. We don't know why, we have no clue as to what IT is we are seeing, we don't know how we see IT, just simply, we see. We learn to identify, over time aspects of what we see as parts of our physical body, and things that are not. The things that are not are what we call our external world. Then we are simply told that this is our reality and what we learn in school tries to explain IT when even the scholars don't really understand what IT is, but simply that " It " exists and that we are apart of "IT". Is it any wonder that anyone understands anything at all?

Perplexing as it may sound, its not that "It" is beyond our comprehension, but that we need to learn how to look at "IT". To form a coherent approach to viewing what we see in a way that slowly pieces together various forms and aspects that define what we mean when we say "IT".

From the moment we are born, we begin to absorb in some mysterious way, what is around us. Slowly over time, we accept basic precepts about what we see as truth, and reality and all those terms that seem to validate that what we see is real. But do we really understand what it is we are involved in? Do we truly know how it is all this "reality" came to being? Does our knowledge explain the fundamental reasons why we are here?

Religion evolved primarily to respond to all those unexplainable uncertainties that we define as our reality. It tries to explain that our reality must have been created by some more powerful being, which most religions define as a reflection of our own form, then turn around and say that we were created in "His" form. That a higher being may even be described as a "being" largely is a concept that religion needs to present in order for our brains to accept.

How then should we approach this? By what manner of reasoning should we use to slowly build our understanding of what all this is that we are immersed in? Let us begin by throwing out all our preconceived notions about why we exist, what we are here to do, what purpose we have to be here. If what we see is real or not. Let us start by building a new foundation, a new approach for asking questions.

Journalists usually begin by asking the five W's: what, why, where, when, whom, Scientists explore the facts of nature, and define scientific facts in terms of the independent reproducibility of results over and over again. They conclude if certain experiments can be reproduced, independently, that they must form the basis of some scientific truth. That is noteworthy since they recognize that they are beginning from a point of non-knowledge, and build upon what can be done over and over again if the conditions are set by certain parameters. Theologians on the other hand view reality differently. Their claim in belief, divine revelation, and tradition, provide a concrete basis to formulate fact. They claim scientific approach simply conflicts with those concepts. But there is another way to approach all this. One that is simpler, and more importantly relies on the persons own instincts, free from cultural, religious, or scientific influences. This way can be learned and applied to almost any problem.

The basic question should be. Can we ever know what IT is in its entirety? Why do we need to know what IT is, and what is it that we can know about what IT is? As absurd as this all sounds, some western thinkers see it absurd when Eastern Philosophers simply refer to " IT" as "THAT".

When a Scientist or a Doctor, rooted in western thinking would be asked to explain a patient who claimed a life after death experience on the operating table? How do you think they would explain it? Would they approach it as say simply that the patient experienced part of the true nature of IT, or of THAT? . Would they acknowledge that some things are unexplainable to Science and leave it at that? Perhaps it's a miracle of some unexplainable proportions? Perhaps some would. Others would say, well! I think the patient didn't really die; our medical science, and instruments are not capable at this time to measure life at that level. When the heart stops, the brain ceases to produce waves. Yet obviously the brain, at that level of beginning deterioration, releases endorphins that may cause the patient at that level to experience some sort of hallucination, that when revived is remembered as a white light or some kind of tunnel, or the presence of those loved ones in their lives that have already died. That all sounds so logical and reasonable. But, does it really explain the patients' experience?

Logic itself is not enough to lay claim on the truth. Logic is an apparatus that is part of the nature of this world, and this plane of existence. It is a good method to define reality on this plane, but it does nothing to define other kinds of realities that may exist, if they exist. In order to discover if other realities exist one must be open to their possibility, and one must go beyond logic, and dispense with even that trusty tool of understanding.
Again, one must start from the beginning and formulate a new way to question what It, What That, what we all are involved in on this earth.

What follows are proposals for consideration on the nature of many subjects. It will start with the fundamental questions and build upon them slowly and consistently to some kind of way to reason and approach what it is that we may all be involved in. But in the end it must be the reader who puts it all together into a coherent format of understanding and a useful tool to use for approaching any problem or task they may find in life. No one can spoon-feed you. It is your life, and your task to understand and solve your own questions, your own problems and your own issues that you may face life. Others may help and it is always useful to talk to others, who you trust, about what your thinking is because when we tend to try and only solve our problems internally, we tend to regurgitate the same solutions over and over again. Its in talking to others, we trust and respect, in reading the credible insights that others have had, that we ourselves gain new insights into our own thinking and a level of understanding. It is each person's responsibility, and no one else's.