FOREWORD

Published 18.03.2018 | By Йосиф

Post Views: 143

For centuries now, mankind has traveled a path of mental development. A basic method in this process is logical analysis. This analysis is a conditional division of a single conscious entirety into segments, to enable easier examination and consideration. It is a mass practice has led to a mass mistake. Almost everyone forgets that the division is conditional, thus making it difficult for them to perceive the reality as a united whole with all the consequences, which that entails. This practice therefore, has deprived people from an impartial assessment of the reality.
This missing synthesis of the human thinking is the subject of this book. The oneness of all existing, the objective laws that determine this oneness and the consequences that are often missed from one’s attention. Many people will probably demand proof of the existence of this oneness. I don’t think that it’s necessary for me to give proof – I cannot understand why so many people just wait for somebody to convince them that they should think about the basic problems in life. In this case, the Universe oneness is well founded by Einstein.
The truth is that while I was sharing the thoughts described herein with different people, I notice that many of them had serious difficulty in apprehending them. Analyzing the reasons for this, I came up to the following conclusions:
The problems in apprehension are by no means connected to one’s mental and intellectual capabilities. The problems in fact come from mental inertia – even logical thinking prefers to take a well-trodden track. It is necessary then for the brain to develop a new approach for perception of reality. The formation of such a new approach is to enlarge your consciousness. For clearer apprehension of what is written herein it is better if it is taken as a hypothesis. Even if it seems fantastic and crazy, don’t rush in judgment of it, conclusions should be drawn over a period of time. Since the world began, the main difficulty in apprehending the new and the different has been the absolution of the truth. One should never forget the maxim “Every rule has its exceptions.” Only if you remember this can you handle the enormous number of contradictions that will appear in your mind. One of the main difficulties in the development of human thinking is the deep belief that most things in life happen accidentally. When we believe that something has happened by ‘fortuity’ we no longer look for other reasons. But if in the Universe all the processes are interconnected, isn’t it absurd to accept that something could happen by chance? What about the conclusion that something happened by chance? Isn’t it an excuse for mental laziness, for insufficient knowledge, for misunderstanding the reasons? Therefore, let everybody who wants to stop satisfying themselves with skin-deep explanations of the reality, forget the word fortuity. Only in this way can they sharpen their watchfulness and during their grey every day lives, be able to find things that could completely change their way of thinking. It is another matter that many people are consciously afraid of the change – lets call it primary fear of the unknown. But if somebody starts to think, they will find out that as they start to study the unknown it becomes more and more understandable and less and less scary. Very often the fear of the unknown is manifested as an intellectual laziness. “I don’t want to be involved with this problem”, “I am not prepared”, “I am not interested in this at present”, etc. The main reason that makes apprehension difficult is the emotional, not the logical approach to the unknown. Everyone, who respects their own knowledge and skills, when encountering the unknown that they cannot understand, gets the initial symptoms of an inferiority complex. The only reaction in such cases in order to keep one’s high self-respect is the “ostrich” type. The easiest way is to deny the existence of the problem: “All that is nonsense!” “Fantasy!” “Charlatanism!” etc. For people thinking logically, who can overcome the dictate of emotion, meeting with the unknown is always connected with the necessity to carefully study the problem from all sides. They would definitely beware of hasty and categorical judgments, because they remember that human knowledge is limited. For many people a problem in apprehending the unknown is, for example, the habit for putting the mental furniture in order. Everybody, according to his needs and understanding, usually sorts his knowledge on the principle of analogy in “subject piles”. This “putting in order” gives problems in realizing the interconnections, even in one limited subject, so what about the understanding of the interconnections between the different subject piles? To develop a global overview of things it is necessary to put in extensive purposeful volitional effort and much patience, because it takes years to achieve that goal. Of course, for all of that, one needs a new view of life – the realization of the Universal oneness. When we look at knowledge from this angle we should take up the world as a gigantic puzzle with huge number of interconnections between all of the different components. The formation of such understanding for the reality is quite difficult and my advice is – firstly, to rid yourself of the habit of jumping to conclusions the instant that you read something – this engages the greater part of your attention and makes apprehension of the multilateral meaning very difficult. Especially unapproachable becomes the meaning “between the lines”. The last thing I would like to suggest with regards to the difficult apprehension of the unknown is that you should try to read what I have written here, again, for example, after a year. This is a necessary period called “distance of time”. I think that you will discover many things you didn’t during the first reading. As I have mentioned already I prefer not to follow the well-trodden track of tradition. That’s why I discarded the quotes that I had collected with care from so many different sources. I suppose this will fill with indignation those who are used to making their conclusions based on the bibliography at the end of a book. But I had the following choice: 500 pages with hazy content but supported by authority names or less than 100 pages with emphasis more on the logical order than on proof. As I have mentioned above, for many people the content is difficult to apprehend and that’s why I decided that it is inadmissible to water it down additionally with quotes. The following reasons led me to this decision:

Language has limited capabilities for communicating a definite meaning because people have limited capabilities to follow more that one thought at a time. Due to this reason people pay no attention to the content that is ‘written between the lines’. That’s why it is possible for one and the same quote to have different meanings to different people and why I could understand something completely differently to what the author had in mind. Often, quotes are manipulated. This may be done on purpose or may be just a misinterpretation. Many of the quotes I have collected touch on the subject I am working on, but because it is not popular, only indirectly and therefore they’re not strong enough. Besides in the past they have been interpreted rather badly – so in this instance I’ve decided not to hide behind popular names. People who are used to putting more emotion into their thinking will start looking for my position towards definite categories in order to associate me with certain schools, tendencies, sects, etc. As this has already happened to the popular authors, if I quote them, I automatically will be announced as follower or opponent of their ideas. As I am trying to describe the multiplicity of life and the Universal oneness I don’t want to be associated to the already know categories – if they touch the subject it is too cursory. For a certain type of people even the authority opinion means nothing compared to their own abilities. I have reached the conclusion that it is necessary for everyone to find his own pros and cons for each statement. One’s own efforts are the most convincing proof.
The next very important matter I want to stress is that I am not an author of what is written here, in this book. My part could be defined as the person who has interpreted, updated, and systemized knowledge that has existed forever, no matter the human development stage. Also it is necessary for me to underline: I am not a religious person – i.e. I don’t profess any religion and I am not a member of any sect. Even this declaration has slight chance of stopping the hasty, sorting type of people from saying that I am a sectarian. That’s why I must make it clear that what is written here is a philosophy – my understanding of the nature and meaning of life. Every religion starts as a philosophy in the beginning but after dogmatism of its sources it loses its living actuality. I have no pretensions to anybody as to what to believe or not to believe. Examining life I came up to the conviction that God exists as an objective physical reality. I came up to this conviction by way of thinking not by accepting somebody’s opinion on trust. That’s why I will advise you not to believe me – regard that as a fairy tale – it could be truth, it could be false, who knows! In general man has tunnel vision focused towards reality, but the truth is always multidirectional. Language cannot express a multidirectional meaning, how then, can I have the pretension that it is within my ability to describe the truth.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply