WHO AM I?  WHERE AM I?

WHAT AM I DOING HERE?

 A TEXTBOOK FOR LIFE, LIVING, AND REALITY

Section 1 - Chapter 1 -- In Search of a Start

What is a beginning?  It is a point of reference or focal point that sets a starting limit or boundary.  It is a designated position in linear time and space in the reality of physical matter and/or the physical and tangible limits of the human senses and it includes intangible thought. It is a point of recognition beyond which nothing like it, ever existed, or a stand alone independent unit.

Now, if you agree with that statement and definition, we have a problem. Remember, linear time or reality is based upon preceding events. Per our definitions above, a beginning is something that never existed before. Hmmm! Maybe a starting point is a creation of existing things or points that achieve something new or different. Meaning, that it may be a tangible or intangible position of a previous point from which to build, by adding or subtracting something to create a new or different result.

Surely, when talking about physical reality and life, there are tangible limitations of a beginning and ending. Isn’t that what life is all about? We are born, we exist or live, and then we die. We experience a beginning and ending in physical reality terms. Our reality is everything around us or it is our conscious realm as it relates to a physical entity. Yet, at the same time, we seem to be experiencing something here of at least a dual nature of the tangible and intangible. So, we acknowledge that we have a  physical starting point in physical reality, but we can not acknowledge any known intangible mental points, because our physical conscious life form is composed of  and relates to the tangible by observation, in linear time and space.

 When talking about non-physical intangible forms of thoughts and ideas, there may be no way to prove or identify a beginning or starting point as there is no way to identify specific intangible thoughts and ideas. The only thing that can be proven is the results in tangible forms because thought cannot be recognized by the physical senses. and thought  is not composed of tangible matter; therefore, it is not easily understood or identified as having the same characteristics as a tangible physical manifestation.

In our physical reality life is both tangible and intangible, physical and non-physical. Both states of being exist side by side in separation or co-existence. Life has a beginning or starting point for physical matter. On the intangible level of life, there is nothing that can be seen to exist and or end.

With the progression of linear time, physical matter grows or expands, so to does the intangible position of that physical being and from it or because of it, ideas, or concepts are taught and learned from other existing part or parts of other already existing thought forms.

When talking about the non-physical, intangible world of thoughts and ideas recognition only exists in the eye of the beholder. It can not be accumulated like physical tangible matter. If it is not recorded in physical reality, is basically not recognizable and can be considered non-linear because it is not commonly shared or accessible with other life forms; therefore, there maybe no way to identify a beginning or thought. Meaning there is a relationship with the individual rather than the beginning point itself. 

It is with that crystal clear understanding and/or confusion that we begin to explore the purpose of this book, our reality, and the area called intangible thought or consciousness. What is life? Is there more to physical life than we are capable of understanding? Do we only live in a physical reality, or do we make our own reality? This book is intended as a guide in the formulation of one's reality and its relationship to behavior. It is with this intent in mind, that we begin this book, and what a better way to begin a book, than to ask another question.

What is reality, or physical reality? Well, that’s a stupid question, because everyone knows what reality is. That is, everyone experiences reality every minute of every day. Right? Therefore, to know something or experience it, there should be no need to question it. At the same time, just to propose, entertain, or acknowledge the question means that there may be doubt that all is not what it appears to be. Life is full of interesting questions like this. Questions challenge our imagination and reality and that makes life exciting. Questions involve choices.

Our lives are full of choices and that makes choosing or selecting the proper course, our actions, or life experiences, interesting and sometimes difficult. Why? Because the element of control to chose our reality or what we want to experience seems to involve something beyond our our capabilities. Are we acting or reacting to forces in our reality or are we choosing what we want in our lives? Are we victims of circumstances beyond our control? Just to propose the question, provides the answer. There is a question or doubt. That involves separation

Doubt stems from the root word double and that involves more than one. That means choice and selection. That also brings up the question, can something which doesn’t exist in our reality effect our reality? And if that something is not taught or learned how can it effect our reality? Does that mean that reality is what one decides is right or correct for ones self regardless of circumstances or is it a collective choice? This book is full of stupid questions and answers like this. But, as stated, maybe there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers, or is it stupid choices?

Man is an interesting creature. He rules the physical world and dictates the course of human events and nature to a great degree. He relates to all things. Yet, he questions everything about him. He even questions simple things for which he should know the answer, such as our first question above about what is a beginning. Why should this be? Simple things should need no explanation. Maybe nothing can be explained or everything can be explained to a point where the answer really doesn’t matter or relate to our question any more. Maybe reality is one of those words. Well, our book sets out and claims to be a textbook on life, living, and reality; therefore, maybe we should answer that question to the best of our ability to remove all doubt. Maybe we should seek to establish some kind of starting point from which to build a full proof basis for establishing our world and our physical reality and this book.

It is this thing called reality in which we exist and which is the question before us. Our world or reality is supposedly composed of physical or solid matter and everything in it obeys laws based upon this matter in a cause and effect relationship. Now, there is one more thing which we have left out of this explanation, and that is time and space. Reality is base on a time space continuum or a linear progression of time and space. That means that everything we see and experience is in a process of change or progression of what comes next, based upon what came before. Since no one has supposedly witnessed or proved anything different from this statement, we take this as true about our reality.

That doesn’t mean that other realities or time can’t exist at the same time on alternate planes of being real, but it does mean that we do not recognize these patterns of possibilities as being real. Could they exist? Yes! Do they exist? It cannot be proven based upon our current scientific method; therefore, we do not acknowledge that such is even possible, because these other realities supposedly have no know effect upon us as individuals or our environment. Until they do affect us, there is no yardstick or constant to measure or compare; therefore, man basically ignores any possibility of other realities and man takes the attitude that what you don’t know can’t hurt you. However, the opposite is also true. It also can’t help you.                                                                                                   

 Maybe this proof of our reality needs a little more clarification. Let’s look at what the dictionary says about reality. It says “the quality or state of being real. The quality of being true to life; fidelity to nature”. Whereas real means “existing or happening as or in fact; actual, true, objectively so. Also, it means authentic; genuine, absolute, or essential, not imaginary. Existing objectively. All of the above words represents or uses human intangible terms of evaluation for the determination of what is real or tangible and these terms are not very finite. In more simple relative terms, there is no solid matter or evidence to identify any known or predetermined qualities that you find in physical tangible matter.

The above definitions use the individual as the tool to evaluate a relationship quality of that which is in question. A single individual living alone maybe able to determine or make that judgment about reality; however, in a group environment, that is very questionable. Why? Because whenever you have a separation of a single unit, you have choice or doubt and that can produce different results or contradictory results. You may ask if that is possible. The answer is yes. Why? Because all knowledge is subject to interpretation and everyone does not define or relate to intangible words the same way and maybe in fact they may not actually experience things the same way. But, do these differences affect our reality? The answer could be both yes and no. That is, in either case, there maybe a mental unconscious agreement to witness something different and yet interpret it the same. Then again, people may actually see and view everything differently but mentally agree to a neutral interpretation of that which is in question. It is hard to believe such discrepancies are possible and even harder yet to believe differences can be shared and mean the same thing. So which is right? Or does it really make a difference as long as there is agreement?

I saved one more definition for the word reality last because it is different from the others. Maybe this last definition is a better explanation of our reality, because it comes the closest to defining reality beyond a doubt without the need for interpretation. It says “of or relating to an image made by the actual meeting of light rays at a point. This also sounds like the definition of a hologram and that definition takes the individual out of the equation and maybe our alternate planes of reality, unless you question the interpretation of visual images.

This last definition is good for physical objects in a cause and effect world of physical matter; however, it still leaves certain events open to interpretation, especially the inter action or relationship of humans to one another. This definition also brings up another thought, if man chooses what he wants to experience, does another, except when it comes to the meeting of time and space. Maybe even there, man can choose the reality of time. But then again, the word “relating” in our last definition puts the human factor back into the picture. It would seem then, that man is the constant or yardstick for determining our reality.

So, how does man determine his reality? Primarily man depends on his five physical senses to interpret energy forces or forms of matter or vibration. These senses are the ability to see, hear, touch or feel, smell, and taste. Each sense has a limited range of measuring, interpreting, or relating to our environment. The feed back or reactions of what these senses tell us makes up the above statements and/or definitions of just what is our reality. Now, something interesting just happened that you may not have been aware of and that is, we just explain something that did not use one of our five physical senses.

Interesting isn’t it? How can you explain intangible thoughts of human mind as that which determines or recognize one’s tangible existence? Where does that fit in to the description of reality or man?  Based upon that knowledge, shouldn’t the mind be considered a sense organ? But if it were considered as such, what does it do or what is its limit? It’s a dumb question, but how does the mind function to determine if something is real. Is the mind a passive interpretation sense or is it an active creating sense. Does it do both? Is it capable of nonlinear time recognition?  Maybe the mind has a sixth sense or seventh or who knows?

More questions, but this time, no answers. Modern man has adopted the scientific method of study that states that physical proof must exist before anything can be proven in physical reality. Man has been taught that intangible thought or thought that can not be proven does not exist or does not exist on the same plane as our physical reality. That is, it is outside the limit of our five physical senses; therefore, it is not real or part of our reality. That must also mean that the mind or mental capacity to reason is not real. If you believe that, then you should not continue reading any further, because life does not exist as you/we know it. Outside a reality, based upon time and space, the concept of a mental human evaluation for determining reality has some interesting ramifications.

As previously mentioned, maybe we are all different from one another, but we are experiencing or relating to things in the same way? If we aren’t, why aren’t we? If we are not experiencing the same things, then we must still be aware of other realities or events happening around us and that means that we can dictate or choose what things we will accept and/or reject as real. Maybe that’s why we, as a society, make up so many laws and rules to govern ourselves. Interesting isn’t it! That kind of logic also leaves us an out or possible answer to one of our earlier questions about the mind. Perhaps because society dictates laws and rules means that there are exceptions to reality, which it in turn our society may not tolerate. Maybe these laws and rules are similar to a computer program, but work on a subconscious level.  To acknowledge that thought means that there may even be exceptions to everything in our reality or linear time. Very interesting!

Now wait a minute. You know that this is gibberish, even though it may make some sense. Why? Because and again, no one acknowledges contradictory events, or if they do, they are not acknowledged as real, because the majority of people say it is not so, or it is not authenticated by a so called expert. A good example of this is the question, are UFO’s real? So now there is another equation to our puzzle.  Who is an expert? That answer is determined by the dominate authority or society. Does society dictate our reality? The answer is yes and no. Society or some form of mass thought is a determining factor in our reality. Notice that I said thought and not society alone, that’s why our answer is both yes and no. Society by itself only enforces or carries out that which has been accepted as real, it has already excluded all other possibilities. Society behaves similar to a reactive or passive form of thought. It does not determine future events to any great degree, because they have already been determined. Interesting! Are we talking about fate or prophecy? I think I am getting way ahead of myself in this book. I promise you that all of these questions will be answered in great detail later on.

What I had intended to do in these early pages of this book is to set out to find a starting point for this book to begin. That is, I wanted to find a point in space and time that we can all agree on, without any questions or doubts as to what is real and say this is true or absolute to serve as our yardstick or constant. To do this, let’s look at this question of life in a little more detail. Even if we admit that there is more to life or our reality than we presently are capable of knowing or understanding, we also acknowledge that we are still limited to a beginning and ending in time and space, known as physical reality.

Supposedly, there is no identifiable consciousness or physical substance to life before this point and no consciousness after this end limitation; therefore, using our rational thought and the scientific method that basically states that if something cannot be proven to exist it should not be accepted as real. Therefore if you can not prove a conscious relationship outside these limitations, it is not practicable to consider life beyond these points. Rather than to admit to other possibilities, the scientific methods rules such thought out completely. It doesn’t exist. That same rational thought also means that something which doesn’t exist within our limitations of physical reality can’t affect our reality. It seems then that we experience or are primarily concerned with the conscious being in this physical reality and those things which directly relate to that segment of our being in this physical state or form.

Interesting how we define life and our reality. First, there is no consciousness before life, then there is physical substance before we acknowledge consciousness and then there is no consciousness again at death, but there is still a physical body or substance. By our own words and earlier definitions then, we acknowledge life more as consciousness, which is intangible, than that which is of physical matter. A person who has died still maintains his physical form for some time; therefore, a physical body is no proof of life.

By that explanation, physical matter or life does not constitute life until another substance, which is intangible consciousness, enters the physical body. However, for consciousness to function in physical reality, it must relate to this reality on the same basis. That means to function in this reality and constitute life one needs a physical life form body. Man then is a mental conscious being that by definition must first relate only to the physical body and how this is done is that we limit our knowledge or acceptability of this reality to the physical senses, which are controlled by the tangible mind and intangible thought. To me, all of this sounds like a lot of double talk. What we just said about our physical reality was contradicted by our mental reality.

I would like to carry this thought process out further about consciousness; however, being physical myself, I am limited to what I have to work with. It seems to me that consciousness is an intangible energy force not connected to the physical world called reality, but recognizes its existence and does function in it. In other words, life is not singular, but consciousness is. In my opinion, an individual or human entity is a symbiotic relationship which is first mental and then physical. However, most people would not agree. That is because man functions as one in his conscious state and does not recognize or acknowledge a state of separation while in human form in physical reality. Separation or a symbiotic relationship is not even considered as being possible, because of this thing called consciousness and consciousness has no physical or tangible presence in our reality.

Even though what I just said is true, it is also false.  The universal laws say that something that is intangible has no physical mass or known force to affect our physical reality. It’s somewhat funny that we as individuals can not relate or explain consciousness in this reality until we consider it in tangible life form terms. The dictionary definition for consciousness is awareness of one’s self and everything around him. Therefore, something that can not be seen or sensed by our physical form is not normally recognized as real. Hence we have limited our reality to the physical sense, yet we deny that reality being controlled by ones intangible mental reality. Consciousness can be compared to that of a car. By itself, a car can not do anything until it is turned on and driven or controlled by and individual. The human life by itself can not do anything until the conscious mind tells it to do something. Now the car and the human body is physical and has presence, but consciousness controls both.   

Let’s take another look at consciousness. What is it? We know that it is not something tangible, but it effects or controls the physical tangible being or individual that we are. We also know that we exist in a physical reality and that means that we must conform or abide by certain universal laws that govern our physical reality. That means that we have weight or mass based upon density of molecules and we exist in time and space in an environment that is in constant change. This change is based upon cause and effect of stimulus – response, or action - reaction laws of the universe. Whereas consciousness acknowledges, understands, and recognizes these laws, but it is more than these laws. Consciousness has no known measurable mass or weight in the physical world, but the brain which controls ones mental abilities does have weight and mass. Therefore, although a physical location for the conscious mind can be determined, the thoughts produced by the mind have no physical substance. However, the mind does in turn affect the body which does have substance and must conform to the laws of the universe to survive in this physical reality.

Consciousness can not be seen, nor does it have mass, but it does control the physical body which does or can have both physical and intangible results on our reality. Consciousness provides us with alternatives or choices to use these laws or to select or work with or against these laws. Therefore, although consciousness has no physical presence in our world, it does have tremendous force to influence our physical world. At the same time, our consciousness is present or operates from a physical tangible body source that makes it subject to all things physical. As to the question of consciousness behaving or conforming to universal laws, I do think that one’s environment does influence one’s reality or behavior either knowingly or unknowingly. Therefore, the question of control of ones reality does seem to be confusing. Does man control his reality, or does reality control man? I think this is a matter of interpretation and it comes down to the question again of what is reality.

So what did we just learn? We learned what consciousness does, but not what it is. This is almost the same problem we have to explain what is energy or electricity. We know what it does but not what it is? Besides being intangible, what is it? The dictionary says in a variety of ways that it is the feeling or knowing or being aware of oneself. It also refers to consciousness as the ability or knowledge of thinking or that of a thinking being. It is the totality of one’s thoughts, feelings, and impressions or of one’s mind. Now, where are we? Again, we know what consciousness does and we know that it is intangible force of our physical being. We know that it is part of who we are, but what are we describing here, human life or consciousness? Is there a difference? 

Again, the question might provide the answer. Just to ask the question indicates doubt. Does life have to have consciousness to exist, or can consciousness exist without life? In the title of our book, we ask the question “Who Am I”? I don’t think the answer of consciousness may be good enough for us to be absolutely responsible for just who we are and/or how or why we are. Let’s go a little further with this word consciousness. We think we know consciousness when we see it and it is more than just a life energy force. We also know that consciousness is not just exclusive to humans. It is a life force that affects all living creatures; therefore, it is somewhat impersonal or neutral until you take something else into consideration. Consciousness seems to be a thought pattern or behavior pattern exclusive to the life form in question. That is, consciousness is a force which evaluates the universal laws against the physical form and/or needs of that life to exist in this physical reality. Consciousness can still best be described as awareness, but again, it must be related to life and our physical reality for it to be understood or considered as part of our reality.

Supposedly something that is unknown and can’t be proven to exist, can’t affect our reality. Perhaps a better definition of consciousness might be the concept of unlimited expansion; whereas, life can be considered the learning and experiencing of limitations of that life form. That is, one exists as an intangible life force whose position or origins are unknown but needs a limited environment in which to grow or become one with all there is. Human life as we know it on earth only exists in physical reality and linear time and this is determined by our conscious knowledge from our physical senses. Interesting! Something intangible that doesn’t have limitations limiting something that is physically tangible. Nothing or everything becomes something. A beginning! It looks as if we have found a starting point.

In finding this starting point, we have also inadvertently found that life and consciousness are different from one another. We have already attempted to explain what consciousness is, so what is life? Or better yet, when does nothing or life begin? In humans, this is an extremely controversial subject and should not even be attempt here and at especially at this point in the book, but let’s go for it. As we discussed earlier, all life forms react or behave according to universal laws of action-reaction and stimulus-response. That does not necessarily constitute conscious life; however, it does constitute a physical life form that does behave according to the laws of physical reality or a limited reality. But, is that life? According to our earlier thought process, physical life must constitute consciousness and a physical body in a symbiotic relationship. Unlike present accepted beliefs that life must be only a physical body, our explanation says it must also constitute consciousness.  The next problem is who determines what consciousness is? How can something limited determine something unlimited?

Again, earlier we said that consciousness is our determining factor for life in this reality. A human life form that displays or reacts to stimuli doesn’t necessarily mean life in this new definition. A newborn or a person in a coma is capable of life functions, but where is the consciousness? If one element is missing, is this still considered life? Proof of conscious life is only possible when that life form demonstrates behavior that does not necessarily react to stimulus, but can interact and communicate intangible thought. That means that physical life is a biological function; whereas, conscious life is primarily a form of unlimited intangible communication and creativity.

Currently, our society makes no distinction between conscious life and physical life and society will support all life forms physically, mentally, and spiritually but, according to what we have just said previously, that does not constitute conscious life, but it is how we recognize life. For a true life form to be present, there must be a form of consciousness at some level. In the absence of communicating consciousness, I think that each individual can/consciously relate to or recognize patterns or forms of communication and that will tell you that life is present. Is that a legal definition? No. Unfortunately there is no answer to satisfy with certainty any legal questions about life until man comes to grips with tangible versus intangible, life cannot be properly defined without a distinction between the physical versus conscious life.

So, where are we? I think we are back at our beginning, or what is a beginning. And where is that? We are still stuck with trying to define reality and life. We have reached a point which I mentioned a while back. We have defined words up a point where they have lost their meaning relative to the subject at hand. Rather than to go beyond that certain point in linear progression, we are caught up in a circle of non-linear progression where all things are possible simultaneously, but nothing is certain when viewed from a linear prospective. Non-linear time cannot be recognized or understood by man, because it is infinite and without limits. It is a point where our senses make no sense. It is a point where our thinking processes appear to be on overload and we can’t understand what is true or real according to physical reality standards. Non-linear is something like trying to watch a three ring circus where something is going on in each ring and you don’t want to miss any of it, multiplied by a 1000 or more times. One’s focus and attention are scattered, dream like, and therefore the physical reality mind tends to shuts down all the logical thinking processes that does not have limitations and one becomes a passive observer or receiver.

I am not one for giving up that easy on the questions of life or reality, but I think we have reached a dead end using logic at this point. I will again pick this up when a few more things are clarified. In the mean time, let’s try another approach at trying to explain life and our reality. Earlier, we said that man controls himself or his behavior by imposing rules and laws upon himself which are generally restrictive or limiting in nature. This behavior pattern is a designed form of conformity which is supposed to bring some stability and/or predictability to man’s relationship with one another. This type of behavior pattern is commonly referred to as the organization of man and creates the force called society. This is largely an unseen intangible force, but anyone who has ever seen or watched an ant colony knows and understands how a society works in a crude way.

In the society of man, these same basic group behavior principles and patterns are also understood. Everyone knows and is basically told either consciously or unconsciously what everyone else will be allowed to experience within certain limitations which for some reason we call freedom. This permission, in effect, is a form of mass consciousness or conformity. It is controlled behavior patterning for supposedly the common good of all in a physical tangible world of matter. Are these intangible forces then our mind set program or our reality? Is this another starting point? If it is, where do we start?

It is with this crystal clear understanding and/or confusion that we begin to explore the purpose of this book and that area of thought that most people would rather not talk about. Indirectly, we are talking about morality. You would think that to go from discussing reality into morality is a long jump. Not really. Why? Because we are talking about different energy forces that influence behavior patterns or forms of communication that must be considered before action is taken. Man can either work with or against the physical universal laws for survival in this physical reality. If he continuously works against the laws, he will eventually lose. When it comes to morality, man tends to accept both tangible and intangible forces imposed upon him by other humans for the good of all and the privilege of co-existence with his fellow humans. If he does not accept these forms of communication, again, he will eventually lose, because these intangible forces will become tangible limiting forces.  

The forces of morality are primarily related through internal communications of an intangible nature and are not the determined by the physical senses. The unseen forces of communication are impose on man by himself and are a learned behavior not subject to universal laws of physics, but the laws of man. That means that man derives knowledge of two different realities or combines two realities into one through a pattern recognition system that relates to the physical senses and intangible forms of communications. Man’s tangible passive outside world or physical environment obeys specific laws in an action- reaction, or cause and effect relationship. Whereas, his moral reality relates mostly to active or intangible forms of communication that relate to life forms which inter act to both tangible physical forces as well as intangible stimuli. Interesting! Another symbiotic relationship.

To exist in our physical reality, one uses the five senses which communicates to the individual the relationship of physical reality to one’s being and this dose not require intangible communications as we know it. Morality can use these same five senses, but relies mostly on intangible forms of communication with other humans to determine reality or behavior. In society the element of control is supposedly shared with others over one’s reality, even though the individual has a choice. Physical reality relates more to the tangible energy forms of a passive nature and morality or moral reality relates more to the intangible thought forms of an active nature. Both realities relate to conscious patterns that supposedly organize our life in a linear fashion and create our supposedly total reality; therefore, even thought both realities are derived differently, they both affect our behavior and communications in the same way. Again, only the recognition pattern and the element of control is changed. In determining our reality, we acknowledge both forms of reality as real or one and the same even though they are recognized differently by the conscious mind.

Behavior or morality is a difficult subject to talk about rationally, because it is limited or restrictive in nature or our reality. That is, it requires us to follow certain patterns of recognition or acceptance to what is real. Again, we are talking about intangible thought forms and shared behavior patterns effecting or controlling tangible results. We are talking about a form or basis of mass thought that rules or regulates growth or behavior in a linear physical reality. As an individual, or one, we share intangible thoughts on both a conscious and unconscious level with many and this determines a growth pattern of acceptability in a specific direction. As an individual in non-linear reality we may experience many more thoughts or realities than one does en mass. However, on a conscious level, which is our chosen form of communications, we usually succumb to the accepted customs, traditions, of a society that speaks or communicates in the same language in a linear time frame.

In our reality nothing is quite as simple as things seem to be. One’s behavior and opinion is basically neutral in relationship to other people, until you or those people want something in return. That is, a relationship is a give and take form of communications of both tangible and intangible patterns on a conscious level in which the participant experience or share. Unfortunately, most physical reality relationships are based upon control and/or have something to do with gain or loss instead of sharing an experience from such a relationship. Man has developed into the dominate biological species on our earth and in so doing has also become a self centered entity that places himself above all else. That mental attitude or ego carries over to his own kind as well and there is a struggle for dominance or control over all external manifestations including his own species. The emotional need to be the center of attention or the dominate personality is a big factor that controls and motivates most behavior patterns in our physical reality.

As mentioned, the conscious mind controls the behavior of an individual and our physical reality in linear time. Within each individual, this behavior is probably a result of the consciousness of the individual to this linear environment and a struggle or internal conflict within oneself, regarding self interests and mass behavior. That is, on other levels of consciousness, one knows and understands this reality, but chooses to consciously control his behavior in order to manifest his will or growth in linear reality. This statement says a lot, but you may be unaware of it right now, because you are unaware of non-linear time and how the unconscious or super conscious mind works. For that matter, no one can prove such a statement as being true using the scientific method of proof, but that does not necessarily mean it is false either.

Rather than to go into detail on this question at this time, I will get to this statement again in detail later.

With the above statement, it seems then, that we have found what we have been looking for. It is another starting point. However, unlike our other definitions and explanations before, this one is more complete and a little more complicated. We may now have the true origin of our reality. And what might that be, you may ask? Answer. The element of control. Explanation, whoever controls thought or mass thought controls behavior and that determines our reality, within our physical reality. The answer must admit two separate realities, one a physical tangible position and one an intangible position of control. One relates to the outside level of consciousness and the other to an internal world of consciousness, both of which are or can be controlled by the individual.