The Destruction of Destruction and Creation

Creation is destruction. To create a building is to destroy our supply of brick and mortar. The pile of supplies was there before, but isn't there now, so it was destroyed.

Destruction is creation. To destroy a building is to create a pile of rubble. The pile of rubble wasn't there before, but IS there now, so it was created.

The key is change. And nothing is constant. When there is change, the instance can always be described as both destructive and creative. All it takes is for something to be different from one instant to the next. But if nothing is constant, then there is constant change...

If change = creation = destruction, and the universe constantly changes, then you can say: At any instance of the universe's existence, the universe is being destroyed and created simultaneously because everything constantly changes. Even if it changes to just a small degree, it still changes.

Now, we know that creation and destruction are one and the same, change. So what about the beginning of the universe, the big bang theory? If the universe was "created" at some point, then couldn't we just as easily say it was destroyed at that point? From our understanding of creation and destruction, it would seem that the universe after the big bang is a creation of parts before, but also the destruction of what was before. Since there is no creation or destruction, then there was simply a change. And if there was a change, then that suggests some existence beforehand, which creates a contradiction: the universe existed before it was created.

Down the rabbit hole. What if I told you that what I just described in that last paragraph sounds a lot like every second of life? Every moment there is change, and every moment there is existence before and after that moment. It seems like our description of the big bang is just like our description of every moment we live. What if our intuitions about the beginning of the universe simply come from intuitions about our present, reinterpreted on a larger scale? What if the big bang really does happen every moment?

I'm suggesting a lot here, but I don't really believe what I'm saying. Based on everything we think we know, based on traditional thinking, everything I have stated above is totally true and valid. But that includes the contradictions. So what's really going on here? The problem is the words. It's that traditional thinking. The problem is that we're trying to capture the nature of all existence in a box, when we know that nothing can be properly defined if it is constantly changing. It's our attempt to define, control, and categorize the universe. We've shown, using obvious, everyday intuitions, that change, creation, and destruction are the same thing. So why do we have 3 different words for them? I think that whatever the intention of those who conceived the words, it wasn't to change our idea of reality. The fact that our understanding of them makes them all the same indicates some kind of misinterpretation. Either they were talking about something else, or the words have 3 different linguistic lineages. Our ideas about creation, destruction, and change are our way of trying to figure out what the words mean. We created a word to represent something, and now we're trying to reinterpret that word to figure out what we were representing. It's a useless and pointless effort. We'll never know exactly what was meant, with just the words. But we don't need to--we have the present. Reality is right here; whatever we were talking about is right here; we don't need the word.

In trying to reinterpret these words, we're trying to figure out what parts of reality they're talking about. Through a little thought we've realized they have to be talking about the same thing. The idea of the big bang, I think, comes from us trying to figure out the very thing we have created--a structured and malfunctioning set of words and ideas attempting to explain the consistency of something that is obviously inconsistent. We're trying to make sense out of the system we've created, which tells me that the system is fundamentally flawed from the get-go. In saying that the universe is created and destroyed in every moment of existence, I'm not saying that's the truth, I'm illustrating the absurd reality that these words (and this system) would suggest if they were taken seriously. The scary thing is, people do take them seriously. Many philosophers have written volumes and volumes about a few words, instead of about reality. Countless people believe with astounding confidence that the universe was CREATED, just because of the words and what they've been told. People think the universe was created simply because they have an imaginary idea of creation and destruction, beginning and endings, conditioned into their minds. Our minds. So it's only logical to assume, if everything is created and/or destroyed, that this very universe was created. Once again it's scary: people have such confidence in the words that nobody ever realized how this universe could just as easily be a destroyed universe as a created one, based on what this traditional thinking says about creation and destruction.

What I want you, the reader, to take from this is an understanding of how dangerous your confidence in words, definition, control, and categorization can be to your connection to reality. There is no destruction or creation as we know it. It's a flawed concept based on nothing. We are all lost in this way of thinking to some degree. Break out. You're reality is here right now. Embrace it. You don't have to live in everyone else's box. This is your existence, and nobody else's. This is OUR system of thinking, so why not change it?!

Now, keep in mind that every theory listed here about the big bang and the nature of existence may be true. But the proof for it listed here is based on the words--not reality--, and is therefore invalid. If those assertions are true, then the only valid proof is in reality itself. The proof is in your very existence, right in front of you.

Exispeculation

It is possible that the only way you know you exist is by the existence of other things. You would not feel your existence were it not for other existent things to reflect your own force back to you, or maybe you could say, were it not for other things to reflect your 'existence' back to you.

Does this mean that you truly are your environment?

Also, this suggests that your existence is much greater than your environment. If the only parts of your existence that you are aware of are those parts that interact with other things and reflect your forces back to you, then that means there could be other existent parts of you that you are not aware of, simply because nothing else can sense them.

Taking this one more step further, if humans truly are far more capable than we have been led to believe, perhaps it only takes being around a more 'enlightened' individual to become more deeply aware of your existence. If he is aware of his existence on levels that you are not, and he can interact with you on those levels, then just being around him will make you aware of those parts of your existence, parts you had never known before. To speculate, this could be how prophets, miracle workers, Jesus Christ, etc, could have healed and done wonderful things for people. Perhaps they were just exposing the people to the part of their existence that could fix the problem. The problem is, as soon as you're away from one of these enlightened individuals, you're back to not feeling your existence in that sense again. However, if we all shared an existence on these deeper levels, why would my deeper level not interact with yours all the time, and thus make me aware of it? Maybe at that level we have a choice to interact, or 'forces' are reflected in unfamiliar ways.