Get Adobe Flash player
Chronicle Section # 123456789101112 13 Appendix

TIP: Before reading beyond this paragraph, click the tab: "word" (very top of the screen) and browse the main work found there. You will see it is not a quick-read. So, when you wish to relax from that study, free up your attention with the more personal and casual reading (below). This is the backstory about what brought the author to write the book and how his realizations evolved before, during, and after its publication.


Chronicle Section One:

ON SHAKY GROUND

The faculty we call understanding appears in mind even before language or word takes hold. When symbol (word) does become the stuff of thought, eventually a jargon of "self" and "not self" proves one's conscious standing as "separative mind" in an existential continuum called "separateness," and that remains an understanding rarely challenged in (y)our personal and interpersonal life.

Personally, in the psychedelic sixties, at age twenty-six, I would come to challenge that understanding with the experience of a sudden break in the continuum of "separation" and repair that break with "non-separation." The illusion of "separation" did not return before it left behind an additional discovery (an operative perspective) on how, if not why in reality, separateness "appears" to be the case.

Interpersonally, most of us neither intellectually nor experientially have even a momentary notion of non-separation, making it very difficult to communicate that perspective, since it explains separateness as a necessary yet illusory construct, impenetrable except by non-separative thought or experience. Thus, my audience at first read is not likely to penetrate "metasphere" without a sense of "metaspheric perspective."

My invitation to the reader is to allow your imagination to go beyond your presumed separative spheres of understanding to where you stand connected to everything. That place may be a more shaky ground than you can imagine, but don't let that frighten you for long. I can assure you from personal experience, the journey is safe, rewarding, and, most importantly, it is a journey of the heart not the mind.  

Intellectual acquisition is not at all what this is about. However, it is necessary to obtain a "new perspective" on things, and then compare and apply that perspective to all of the previously conceived pictures we have of reality. The process is discovered to be apparently threefold, or more accurately: The discovery is a threefold process, in which reality is parsed into observation, observer, and what is observed.

It's often said: "We each have a different way of looking at things." Well, are we sure that argument is valid? My discovery is that it's not the way we look at things that is different; rather we are often looking at different things. To use a "visual perspective" metaphor: "What is" at my "I" level of consciousness may or may not be "what is" at your "I" level. So, we are not likely to be talking about (or looking at) the same thing.

This quandary is ages old, dividing things (objects) of dissention from objects of consensus. So rather than do that, let's examine or "observe" the way we look at things, be they objects in space or things in mind. First, let's mention what is too small or too fleeting or unsubstantial to be observed. Physics, even metaphysics, has recently reduced those limitations significantly. But, there remain other limits.

Quantum science postulates the "Observer Effect" Where mere observation actually affects what is observed at quantum levels. Changes it, in fact. The question is: changes it from what, from truth? Is truth that the falling tree makes a sound in the forest even if no one is there to observe it? Perhaps, but is there a forest or any condition or event in reality where "observation" of some kind is not present?

Time and space fall into the unsubstantial realm of things. Consider the idea of space. An apparent separation called the "dimensions" of physical space seems obvious. Without hesitation one declares a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension of space. Yet, nowhere does the 1st dimension of space appear separate from the others and the 2nd never appears separate from the 1st, or 3rd.

It is the whole "triad" of 3-dimensional space that "arises" inseparably and at once, without any apparent genesis or observable stages in between. Yet, in what I call "metaspherical perspective", spacetime can be observed with the "1st / 2nd / 3rd dimensions" seen from a 4th position and respectively labeled as "a forward triad." Reflexively from the same position, "a backwardly triad" is also observable.

That reflexive, (and what will be defined later as) backwardly triad, is just as inseparable a set of dimensions as space: "past / future / present." Imagine the past corresponding to the apparent "after event" of "what is" arising as the 1st dimension, the future corresponding to the 2nd dimension, apparently arising before the 3rd, and all already presently the case with no "actual" interim of separation.

If I am not mistaken, such a "metaspheric perspective" helps one visualize (observe) an inseparable or non-dualistic reality existing within an otherwise dualistic reality or now commonly called: duality. If that got your interest, then all I need do is clearly explain "metaspheric perspective." Whereas, in the book I simply called that perspective: "metasphere," I now find the fuller expression more explicit.  

At the time I was writing the book, I was also teaching art and design. I quickly learned that students unaware of "visual perspective," are quite often startled even panicked to discover the laws of how that paradigm governs the appearance of objects in space. Equal surprise (even panic) may be experienced having to do with metaspheric perspective or how we observe ideas in and of reality.

Whereas most people have no need to learn either perspective, it is the artist who is required to discovery or learn the first, if [s]he is to be called a visual artist. To discover or learn the second is for people like myself who need or needed explanation of their real position in reality when reality itself or "what is" seems or seemed a shattering of the presumption of separate objects, self, and not self.  

Although different, I compare metaspheric perspective to visual perspective in my writing most simply because both paradigms can only be a personal discovery. The Renaissance was launched 500 years ago with one person's discovery of the laws of visual perspective, which began the age of "Realism." Before realism, no rules had been applied to the canvas of visual reality.

Existent for these few decades if only in my writing, metaspheric perspective will, I believe, take a place along side emerging quantumlogical and cosmological perspectives. The laws of metaspheric perspective have the potential to take us beyond realism, beyond reason even "beyond understanding" to install an age of "Convergence," rather than divergence of ideas and disciplines.

Given that non-separation and convergence is the exceptional view, the mentality of separation will most likely remain by default, the way reality is viewed by most, for the next millennia or so. But, given a "convergent era," personal, communal, and national isolationism will eventually vanish. What cannot be predicted is what my reader will do tomorrow about what they discover here today.

Among the personal implications of metasphere, for me, many were unforeseen at the time thus unintentionally left out of the book. With reality-checks over the years since its publication and with a collection of life's wisdom moments, I am now able to weave those personal and general realizations into a chronicle of modest length that my reader can consider the operator's manual for metasphere.

The foreword in the artifact [book] is really the conclusion, and I start backward from there with a pictorial history of what can be called masterpieces of "metagraphy." To read a "metagraph" is like trying to read a "paragraph" that is not in one's native language. So, leaving the language to be learned later or not at all, suffice it to say: many types of metagraphy are evidenced as remarkable, yet faulted perspectives on reality.

The book goes on to ask the question: Is there a type of metagraphy that can give one an unfailing perspective on reality? I believe that one has been discovered and I call that type of metagraph a "metasphere." Even in plain English, it too is difficult to read without knowing the conventions of the alternate grammar or syntax used in that expression. The rest of the book is immersion in those conventions.

Next Chronicle Section (2)