“Was not their mistake once more bred of the life of slavery that they had been living?—a life which was always looking upon everything, except mankind, animate and inanimate—‘nature,’ as people used to call it—as one thing, and mankind as another, it was natural to people thinking in this way, that they should try to make ‘nature’ their slave, since they thought ‘nature’ was something outside them” — William Morris

Wednesday, December 11, 2013


I like this theory. I just do, and have done for years. It's funny to see it on the front page of the Huffington Post. Just in time for Yule?

OOO doesn't tell you how many objects there are. We're not the object police.

But this explanation really fits with OOO. There is a withdrawn entity whose sensual manifestation is the universe with its dimensions, gravity etc. These things are illusion-like, yet inseparable from the withdrawn entity whose manifestation they are.

Of course it also fits with Vajrayana! The universe is Vairocana. A small piece of the universe is Vairocana. A collection of pieces is Vairocana. And so on. Just as a small piece of a rose hologram is also a rose.

When you visualize in Vajrayana, you are supposed to see the deities as holographic. The Tibetans used reflections of inverted thangka paintings in water (surrounded by candles) to achieve the correct rippling-with-nothingness effect. And the deities have tiny tiny deities in them emanating out of every pore etc.

I like the headline: "Shock." It's a Kantian shock. There are phenomena, and there are things, and you can't quite tell the difference. It's also nice after all the months of "shocks" about the NSA etc. etc.

And I can't help liking David Bohm.

No comments: