All being is as

Introduction

I began exploring this framework after a very profound psychedelic trip. I knew I had come across personal epiphanies but did not have to words to lock them down or express them. Nevertheless, the trip sparked a deep desired within me to understand these revelations.

I was listening to a podcast one day (I would love to credit it, but it the details have since faded from my memory) that shared a claim that resonated throughout my entire being, from my intuition, my logic and reason, to my lived experience. The idea was simple, if you rounded up all the things that exist or could exist, everything and anything, that the totality of all would be equivalent to one. Everything and Anything exist within one singular, unified, interconnected whole.

This is the central idea that the framework unfolds from.

I've explored various ideas as they naturally branch from this claim. - If everything and anything are one, does "nothing" negate it's oneness? - Why does the universe exist within multiplicity rather than undifferentiated oneness? - One thing does not have the capacity to relate to itself in isolation, how does oneness cultivate anything and everything?

In a later trip (I had been abusing psychedelics at this point in time) I became fixated on "The Two." How all things within the one, held a dual nature to them. Opposition, contrast, and difference are ubiquitous, ever-looming and ever-present.

At this time, I stopped abusing psychedelics. I went into an intense psychosis and lost the necessary grounding to be able to maintain function let alone explore facts, claims, and theories about reality.

I spent over a year recovering from the psychosis, scared to tackle a lot of the ideas I got consumed by. However, this particular framework/idea has stuck, I frequently revisit it. Often overwhelming myself with "all the possibilities of what this could be" rather than focusing on the intentional structuring of a framework that can be anything I wish it to be (for myself at least.)

I came up with this metaphor to explain different relationships to " absolute truth", as that is what I am ultimately exploring. - You stand alone in a vast desert, nothing but sand for an infinity. Somewhere in this desert there is said to be a castle (representing absolute truth). There are different ways to come across this castle. ○ Dig: You can look underneath the sand and try to uncover what's been hidden from you. Essentially finding absolute truth through modalities that have already been established but are not directly revealed to you. This is the method of investigation, it assumes that ultimate truth is real and present and the task is removal or stripping away falsehoods. The risk is digging endlessly, never accepting anything as final, the more sand you remove the more that reveals. ○ Construct: You can carve at the sand or use it to construct a castle for yourself. Essentially instead of finding a preestablished truth, this method seeks to construct truth rather than discovering it. The risk is that you will mistake your construction as ever present and universal, rather than recognizing its temporality and finitude. ○ Recognizing: You can decide to see the desert itself as the castle. Nothing to search for, but not quite the castle you expected. It collapses the boundary between seeker and sought, rather than discovering or inventing, this modality simply shifts perspectives. The risk is that this version of a castle is to ineffable to fully know. ○ Wandering: You can wander the desert with no desire to find/construct/recognize a castle but rather just be content with the wandering. This is the modality of pure experience, freedom from the need for a castle at all. The risk is that you don’t deepen or expand any of that experience, merely resting on the surface.

Referencing this metaphor, I began my journey wandering, no deeper purpose to search for. I did psychedelics for the first time, and from the experience I had begun digging. I'd take in different things, ideas, perspectives and try to piece together the dots and read in between the lines. Trying desperately to understand what was ever present but hidden before our very eyes. This is what lead me into my psychosis, but also became the foundation for this framework (I will get into it soon, I promise.) From the digging I learned to recognize the desert itself as the castle, and simply enjoy being where I was, to bask in the fact that my existence, understood through experience was the only ultimate truth I could really grasp. From there I realized, I really enjoyed the experience of searching for a castle and that building one for myself might be just as fun. This framework is the castle I've constructed, the truth that resonates with my lived experience to give me shelter, when basking in the desert (recognized as castle) starts to burn.

The Framework

The structure/engine of existence: How reality comes to be, how multiplicity is the structural inevitability of oneness, and how relationships stabilize.

Unity 

Unity is a non-thing, yet the fact of things. The unified, interconnected field of existence which encompasses all in its totality. In an undifferentiated state, this is phenomenally equivalent to nothing. There is no distinction that allows things to be and be perceived. The modality of oneness is inevitable, but in its purest form is impossible and ineffable. 

Duality

For anything to exist, it must contain and also be contained within a dimension (a measurement of two). Distinction is necessary for things to be, without distinction all things would blend into one another, recreating the impossible and ineffable state that oneness is its purest form would but could not be. Oneness emanating its nature onto dual things, creates a dilemma. Two irreconcilable opposites that each possess the essence of being the absolute totality.  They must be opposites, because it they were the same they would simply be one. 

Unity must exist as a duality in order for it to have any phenomena, quality, property, or relationship. Without duality, unity is essentially null. However, this leads us to a new question. How can two things that oppose coexistence, coexist? 

Trinity

Duality is reconciled by a third thing. The relationship of the two, as a third thing in and of itself. The relationship is the sum of and greater than its parts. It holds two contradicting things simultaneously, without negating either. For the relationship to be, both parts are equally necessary and because of this hierarchy is irrelevant, neither is more necessary than the other. They are mutually sustaining, and do so through the medium of relationship. 

The trinity of two opposing forces and their relationship, creates a dynamic that reflects and affirms the unity that was originally posited. 

Unity, Duality, and Trinity when viewed as a whole, composed of independent but interconnected parts, work like the engine of existence, explaining how being is and operates. The movement between unity, duality, and trinity happens instantaneously and eternally in and throughout all moments.

The pattern of the eternal engine goes like this. Unity is but cannot be as it is, so it emanates into duality to maintain a necessary distinction that allows for it's being and is-ness. However, the duality constructs opposition that cannot be reconciled by either individually. So the two opposites require a third thing (the relational field of existence) to allow for anything to truly be. This relational field, unifying the two oppositions, reaffirms the original unity.

For the sake of creativity, I've decided I want to give each principle a different name. While I like what is established, it encompasses the idea solidly, I feel like it can be understood through different lenses and language that will allow for this be further expanded upon, as new perspectives often do.

I originally was going to make up words that sounded cool and meant something along the lines of what the concept/principle says. But merging those two goals was a little difficult, I couldn't get the meaning that I wanted and the cool style of word also.

I pivoted and decide to find the simplest words to express the concepts. This idea is what stuck.

"All" 

This is unity, the totality of all that exists, both everything and anything (even "nothing.") All includes everything, which means it includes "none" (Nothing, the negation of everything.) This leads to the impossible and ineffable state that is "All." How does it hold both so much and so little simultaneously? 

"Being"-"Is(ness)" 

These two words represent the fundamental duality that "All" possesses. "Being" and "Is" both reflect the fact of existence. "All being"  and "All is" are both facts that stand true but oppose one another. "Being" is the active, generative aspect of the fact, while "is" becomes the static, established aspect of the fact. Neither is greater than the other, and both are necessary for "All." "Being" in its not-yet determinedness and process orientation directly opposes "Is(ness)" which is the already determined, state-of-actuality orientation. 

"As" 

This explores the relationship between "being" and "Is(ness.)" "Beng AS is", and "is(ness) As being." "As" is pure relation. While "All", "Being" and "is(ness)" stand alone, "as" requires context. It doesn't add context it relates context. "Being" understood through its relationship to "is(ness)" and vice versa. 

"All" -> (emanates into) -> "being"/"is" -> (generates) -> "As" -> (reaffirms) -> "All"

In other words "ALL things exist through BEING and IS(NESS) AS relationship, which reveals and affirms ALL"