Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Stars In Our "I"s?


"Every man and every woman is a star."
- "The Book of The Law", by Aleister Crowley.

Visual metaphor: Imagine an opaque, hollow sphere, it's surface covered with billions of holes of various size and distribution. The holes are not static. They open and close and move around. There is a single source of light. This light is everywhere and goes on forever, outside the sphere.

This image came to me years ago, as a way of visualising the identity of the One and the many. The light represents infinite awareness, or the One, (God by my definition). As the light, or awareness, passes through the holes of the sphere, it perceives itself in the form of all the other light-emitting holes. In this way, the One becomes the many. Each of the holes provides a unique perspective on the whole. The light passing through a hole corresponds to the experience of individuality.

Today, I was pondering what stars are, not so much physically, but in the sense of energy and awareness, which are probably the same thing. It occured to me that the above visual metaphor could be taken in an interesting new direction. The sphere's interior, when viewed through a hole, would look exactly like a clear night sky. (Please note that this is a symbolising, right-brain exercise and I am not suggesting that we really live in a physical hollow sphere.) Maybe the stars we see, are our real bodies, and this world, as well as the forms we appear to inhabit, are virtual simulations. Perhaps the entire simulation is generated by one star, the one we call Sol. Maybe this is not the only simulation we, as stars, participate in. Maybe our star-selves can visit any or all of the star-generated virtual worlds...

8 comments:

  1. Just for fun:
    "Shining Star"- The Manhattans
    "Shining Star"- Earth, Wind and Fire
    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Psychegram. On the subject of stars, do you think our Sun could be in a binary relationship with Sirius A? The arguements for it on this site sound plausible to me, but I'm not an astronomer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi 13,

    No, that's bullshit. Sirius is much too far away for our star to be in a binary relationship with it.

    Now, that doesn't mean their precession arguments are incorrect. They actually make a pretty good case. Another - more likely, I believe - possibility is the 'Nemesis' hypothesis, in which the Sun has a binary brown dwarf (or super-Jovian gas planet) companion way out in the Oort Cloud, too small, cool and thus dim to see ... except with the Wide Field Infrared Explorer (WISE) mission, whose second data release will come some time next year, I believe. If there is such an object, WISE will find it (whether we're told about it or not, is a different story.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you very much!
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey, a degree's gotta be good for something....

    (And all that said, I do appreciate the Sun-Sirius binary hypothesis, especially given my other nom de guerre ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Psychegram. I really appreciate having someone to ask whose opinion I trust. I heard the Sun-Sirius theory in an interview on Red Ice with Santos Bonacci. (He makes a lot of other mistakes as well.) My first reaction to his assertion that the sun and Sirius A are a binary pair was that it couldn't be right. But then I checked and found that Sirius is one of the closest stars to ours and in the same arm of the galaxy, and I thought ,"well maybe". Distances on that scale are hard to even get your head around if you're not used to them. It's like economists talking about trillions of dollars, most people just blank on numbers that big. So again, thanks very much.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice post. I just saw this video that at the end referenced the Book of the Law, and when I googled, I found this post.

    This is the awesome video, and your post is a nice addendum. :)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWtEAgA_hhE&feature=player_embedded#!

    ReplyDelete