Once were a time where I obsessed over relevancy. I guess in some way I still do but somehow, my perspective has shifted where I no longer attribute relevancy to the effect that objects have on people. Objects as concepts or paradigms influencing our thought process. Not that I don't think that common acceptance of knowledge is a good determinant of the way society continually constructs itself but rather that I believe that associating relevancy of matter to an ever-changing perspective of social conception automatically categorizes your proposition as trivial.

So, if anything, in the process of achieving the refinement of an apex creation, the basis on which it will be regarded cannot seek to be relevant in the way that it will speak to people. This is therefore not a quest, neither is it an original idea but more so a point of referral.

We must then start with a fair bit of definition.

The point of this object is to reconnect fundamental truths about the human condition. Condition because it is as much an enigma as it is a joke, and an open-ended one at that. Condition because it is conditional. Human is human solely on a supposition. We, for the sake of usefulness and movement, have supposed that this thing we have rationalized as "human" the concept of this being that feels consciously apart from the rest of the world. Only, it is not so obvious that our environment is not also human in its presentation. For example, we know that the physical world is mostly empty. The space between atoms being immensely larger than the atoms themselves force the perspective that we are not interacting with matter but rather with energy. And energy is nothing but waves of information. Information then becomes a language which can be decoded by as many ways as there are different decoders to receive it.

Take the image of a ladybug. As, you conceptualize the redness of it's carapace, its very distinctive roundness and pattern you come to realize that the dog sees a different thing. As we know, the dog has less types of visual cones in its retina which lets it see a lesser range of color wavelengths than we do as human beings. The bat, on the other hand is virtually blind though it would probably be the first in the room to notice the bug.  And what does it conceptualize? It certainly doesn't see the cute and harmless insect you had in mind. To it, it's a reverberation of sound, of all things, and when interpreted, much more indicate an easy meal than something to contemplate. The point is, as the universe manifests itself, the dog, the bat and you will have incomprehensible distinctions in their interpretation but find themselves in the impossibility to undermine the perspective of the other two as a lesser construction of what there is -- to the degree that there is no good way to interpret everything.

It is not the role of the fabric of physics to be interpreted. We do it because it is useful to us but the cells that organized themselves to use the sun as a power plant, to deconstruct the minerals in the earth, never asked to be referred to as plants. The flow of water that is streaming in a river is never constituted of the same molecules or drops of water but we feel as though when we come back to find the river still in its beach that its the same river. It is not. It is a human interpretation of a complete and all-related wave.

And this wave is all happening within you. Basically, what seems to be happening outside of you is merely a reflection of the synapses that are constantly firing in your brain. So when you observe a tree, you are not seeing the tree for what it is. You are merely associating language to the human version of that instance. It then becomes a human-tree, or a human-reflected tree.

But if everything becomes human as it's derived from the sense that we interpret the Universe in a fraction of what it offers, a humanly consumable fraction, then there's nothing to refer to as apart from the viewer and then all this scene falls as some kind of illusion. It's a Big Act. But what for?

To me, it becomes obvious that the Universe is self-inflicted. We are choosing and programming certain parts of our environment in order to interact with them and let them become actors in a scene we call life.

So conditional? Yes. But if conditional then also self-serving.

See this as an argument that constructs the world in a reality that is exclusively relative to the the viewer.

There is this phenomenal idea in Hinduist philosophy of the Atman. Basically attributing the fabric of existence, of godliness, to the breath within. Something of the kind that doesn't dissociate God with its creation. And without having to plunge to much into religion and the many ways to politicize it's role in our society, there is something to that idea that hits the right note for me. To situate the sentient being as the very border between creature and creator I believe is a more correct viewpoint or at least a better start to a definition of what the human condition is. In a first sense because by balancing on an infinitely narrow thread, to be human imposes a leaning towards one of the two identities.

You can either continue the Works by exploring the infinity within and manifesting the Artist that God is acting out through you or you can play out the the different narratives that have been laid out in front of you and therefore act as a creature to the Game we are playing together.

[To be continued]