This is the thought that rolled into my head today:
Thoughts are insane, knowledge is sane.
The more layers of thoughts you stack on top of each other the further you fall from reality. Even if those thoughts are based on some logic, and have only the mildest invisible gaps, the end result can be something that feels unreal.
Here's an unreal thought:
----------------------------------------
When nothing exists, the implications of existence become either sharp or vague. Vagueness validates most. Sharpness shaves that which is un-necessary.
So now that we have throw away the existence we knew of, we have only the pure void. that which isn't even itself. Even ideas to wrap the purity of the void of nonexistence fill it with the filth of thought.
The opposite would be everything. That can be and can't be. Even the impossible, the paradoxical, the unthinkable must now be.
The unthinkable void that eats everything is now just as real as that which it cannot eat. That is. What I think our existence could be.
If something exists, why not everything. If there is 4 dimensions, x y z and time. why not infinite? And if the infinity of unthinkable things exists, surely we have our own pocket in there somewhere.
The idea of infinity itself develops a idea form hologram of our existence. Which, to that which resides within the hologram, cannot separate from real reality. And it doesn't need to.
Unauthorized duplication: this narrative has been taken without consent. Report sightings.
We are, the set of all sets.
Now that we have the ground rules for existence, we know for sure it is absurd, paradoxical, and must make sense, for sense we make of it.
Paradox isn't the anti-thesis of thought. It is the inevitability of it. The more you think, the more paradoxical you become. Paradoxical might be complex or simple, or perhaps both at once. Paradox as an idea is a paradox.
We that float the chaotic void that is our surrounding, must cling to another. For if we float isolated, we never existed to begin with.
Neutrality, is that which doesn't interact with the other. Neutrality is the lie, the false. True neutral, is the unthinkable void. For, if you interact not, with that which is around you, your existence might aswell not be.
What is the difference between that which doesn't need to be, and that which isn't to begin with.
This would imply, existence needs to be, for surely it is? Maybe the idea of the void, and the lack of ideas, just needed that which could.
And, If we have infinity in any format, we have immortality, for the chance of you becomes 100%. Eventually you will be reborn, every version of you, and every moment.
The one argument I find against all this, is the continuity of consciousness. Why am I still here?
----------------------------------------
All the is in this thought is to me logical. But I know for certain, I'm missing something important, otherwise that last sentence wouldn't be a question.
Others might just accept this as the reality that presents itself to them, and continue on with their current task, but to me, that is the inconceivable.
How are you able to ignore that paradox that spends it's every moment with you.
On the other hand, that thought, is neutral to our current existence, unless we bother ourselves with it. It is a pseudo falsehood. That which exists only when you think of it. But no less real because of it. Similar to the modern myth of god I've seen in a lot of stories. It only exists if there are people who believe in it.
In a sense, that would make only things you believe, a reality. Funny, when the common thought is "I'll believe it when I see it," yet the opposite is also true, you'll see it, when you believe it.
Our reality, now a placebo.