on the validity of two worlds ...

i walked to the back of the pizza parlor the other night to find preacher mike sitting in the dark by himself, finishing off one of his american spirits. i don't particularly like those things. they are hard to smoke, and i think the additives of regular smokes are far better tasting than the raw tobacco ... but i digress.

i sat down in the dark next to him, and we began to shoot the shit. i don't remember what we talked about. i don't really have anything in common with anyone, so talking to me is rather like talking to a wall ... except i am familiar with current events, sports, music and the weather, so i can often feel my way through the small talk.

i think we began to talk about the bombings, or something. that was thursday, so i would guess so. but it doesn't matter because at one point in the conversation, mike made a comment about the two worlds. he already understood -- i didn't have to explain a thing. most of the ones who pretend to be "philosophical" will quickly drift into science fiction (i.e. other worlds, alternate realities, multi-dimensions, and even crazier shit) as soon as you mention the two worlds.

i suppose if i would have done my reading in those philosophy classes, i might be able to reference old dead people who have made this point before me. but even in those classes, the people you would talk to were more concerned with theory than with metaphysics and their impact on our reality. well ... the truth is that i probably just was spending too many nights doing my philosophizing over a pool table with a pint in my hand. ... but again, i digress.

mike and i imediately began to discuss the different aspects of the two worlds -- about how our individual worlds were closer to each other than they were to the truer world, for example.

mike set me back that night though. he is probably a hippie or some shit. so really, how much can you really listen to? but i do remember my principle of charities, and that any person can be completely correct at any point in time.

i told him that i knew the truer reality mattered more than my own personal reality. and he asked how i knew. i told him that it was because my world was a temporary creation on my behalf to help me cope with being conscious in a living experience, and that it began with my birth and ends with my death. but at the same time, the truer world lives on to be experienced .

here i would note in this entry that in order to have the true reality be your reality you must be the atman. and i am defining atman as the complete collective of all that is part of the universe. nothing that is short of complete is the atman. it contains all, and though its contents adopt individuality, atman experiences nothing other than interdependence. if there is no being or consciousness to the atman, than nothing experiences the truer reality as reality.

mike quickly pointed out that there is no reason to assume that our realities do not have to end with our bodies. in fact, it is just as likely that are realities carry on. i am not too sure i buy that one. but i admit that my understanding of reincarnation has no dependency on consciousness or spirit. in fact, it's rather sterile and more dull than this already dull entry.

i do believe that you should not make conjectures about the events before your birth nor the ones that shall come afterward. and i think that expressed in that is a notion that the healthiest idea (both existentially and rationally) is to assume that this life is your one chance. and personally would put the likeliness that this is your one chance at life at nearly 99 percent. but that's just me.

so i guess the point is that i have found some validity in the two worlds. i am still trying to figure out semantics about the difference between the two, but whatever.

on another note, i did some reading about karl rove and the leaking the identity of a cia agent. these are my initial thoughts, none of them have supporting premises or even appropriate perspective in judgement:

• karl rove did not commit any crime. in that, he will be found innocent in a court of law if tried.
• karl rove will and should be fired as the sacrificial lamb.
• george bush was just as responsible for the leak, and his responsibility is an impeachable offense. thus the previous thought.
• the leak was revenge for a damaging op-ed story that i am not familiar with
• this is a political story, and does not affect me in any way
• if the wife was not an active agent, than this story is a total bust
• it is more ethical for a journalist to blow the whistle than to go to jail in the name of journalistic ideals.