Self, Spinoza's God, DMT, and Other Pompous Philosophies I Adhere To Therein (Part Three)

Andrew Eidson (Section 9)

Word Count: 569

Self, Spinoza's God, DMT, and Other Pompous Philosophies I Adhere To Therein (Part Three)

With all this dabbling in the occult in my life, I've been thinking about quite a number of things on a simpler basis. 

I know there is a physical existence because I can see it. I know there is a spiritual existence because I can feel it. 

However, as a perpetual doubter I find myself contemplating other possibilities. 

In the movie, The Matrix, we are brought to the idea that the world we live in might just be a simulation forced upon us by our robot slave overlords (whom I duly welcome!) What if this world isn't real, but is one created for us to simply pretend we exist in?

I suppose this could be explained with another nod towards Spinoza's God to whom I hold so dear. If we are all part of God's collective nature, but our nature is to think we are individuals could this not be an analogy for what is proposed in The Matrix? 

It's like a short science fiction story I read where the robots became so smart they believed that they created the humans. Who are we to say, as Gods, that we did not create Him of our own volition? 

There is a quote from an old Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi:

“Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, a veritable butterfly, enjoying itself to the full of its bent, and not knowing it was Chuang Chou. Suddenly I awoke, and came to myself, the veritable Chuang Chou. Now I do not know whether it was then I dreamt I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man. Between me and the butterfly there must be a difference. This is an instance of transformation.”

Who are we to say that we are not Gods dreaming that we are humans? Are we just a dream upon God's eternal Sabbath?

To make it even simpler, consider Jean Baudrillard's book “Simulacra and Simulation.” Everything we perceive is a series of symbols and signs. Essentially, it writes about a singularity of copies. Eventually things reach a point where everything is so diluted by symbols, copies, and signs that it is impossibile to tell what is genuine anymore. He guesses that we've hit a point, or will soon hit a point where everything will be so 'manufactured' that the lines will start to blur. 

I read it, and all I can think to ask is, “How do we know what's real?” Simulation upon simulation upon simulation could be the penultimate truth. I stop trying to make sense of reality, and just concede that we are all just copies, shadows, images pressed upon images, or holograms projected from the opposite end of the universe (An anecdotal theory I heard long ago). 

At the end of the day, I don't know what is real. I don't know if I'm real. I don't know if you're real. I'd like to believe we are part of “The All.” Nodes of a greater, more singular yet all-expansive entity. 

All I can really say with any comfort is that I what I perceive to be real, is real to me. There are probably things I can't perceive, that are real as well. I also accept that there are things that I will never understand. I will still always question, I will still always doubt.