Can something exist if it isn't perceived? Does a memory of something render it existent? If all memory of something fades, did it ever exist? Can something that had previously existed be rendered having never existed? If you are not thinking of a memory, does it exist (active memory timeline)? An object without a connected memory is a relic of a memory.

-

Can you perceive being perceived without senses?

-

Can the comprehension of one thing negate the comprehension of another thing?

-

What hurts more, ideas, or the idea of separation?

-

If you don't remember committing a crime, are you still guilty of it, and should you be held accountable?

-

Let's tap into the emotions of a time in history. We look for meaning and importance - therefore with the absence of turbulence we hitch a ride on a distant time of turbulence. Is it important to build values and principles based on historical events? Turbulence is often associated with societal conflict - is this something we should historically bring to the present, whether or not it may be out of fear of reoccurrence? Ironically, it may keep that thing alive, or bring it back in a different form.

-

The mind is a map that is partially undiscovered. You have no idea where the map begins or ends, therefore its size is a mystery. You unlock areas of the map as you confront circumstances that cause you to feel new feelings. A small child has a mostly undiscovered map. The moment that child tastes chocolate, or their first candy, they have illuminated an area of their map.

-

If you think you are sad, you are sad. Can you think you are happy when you are truly sad? Will that render you happy?

-

Simplification of thoughts through spoken language or inner monologue ruined the trajectory of evolution. Be aware of the thought before it is explained in the mind with language.

-

People of great insight into areas of study that have never been thought up, like string theory, are dreams made up by the one and only. They go beyond comprehension, because to the one, that’s what they are: something to assign repute and admiration to false people (created people) - a created idea to look up to, and perhaps make the world seem larger and complex. If the one is the creator, and that one does not know they are, that must be by choice. Perhaps a world created is a lonely place. To be exposed to unfathomable ideas of ability and skill and wisdom in others may cause the world to feel as though full of creators, others with high levels of perception, gods in their respective fields. You, God, are falsely believing to be living among other gods. You are up against yourself if your goal is to find the truth. You must also understand, by pursuing the truth, you are going against your own intuition, given the blindfold that has purposely been placed over your eyes.

-

What is good and evil? Does it exist? We have perhaps a handful of best possibilities for our lives, paths that might be destined. Anything that detracts from that path is considered evil - not in the sense of intent. If solipsism is true, then the only way good or evil can come about is from within. In other words, your thoughts dictate your decisions, actions, feelings, and further thoughts. This is paradoxical. A thought that a person has that detracts from a deeply rooted desire (a piece of destiny) can be considered evil, and the ability to abolish that thought with another thought that promotes a successful outcome with regard to the desire can be considered good. Are we I or are we us? We are not who we see in the mirror. We are not immediately our narrated thoughts. We cannot be without being self-aware. If we are not self-aware, we are on a ride of self-automation. Our narrated thoughts, for example, can be a self-automation, or it can materialise out of true intent. This is only possible when you have reached true self-awareness. For example, if you see a rock, you may think "I see a rock, it is grey and it is not moving - I will walk around it". You may think this thought and immediately forget you had it. This is an automatic system that allows the biological body to avoid obstacles to survive. This thought is not an intended thought. To have an intended thought you must first question everything until you reach a point where you have no answer. Once you have reached that point, continue to ask yourself the question. By doing this, you are thinking for the first time, with intent. You will reach many answers by doing this. Right and wrong does not matter, because you decide what is right and what is wrong. You will reach a level of consciousness so far beyond what you had in the past, that you will forget you are made of solid matter. This is because you, who are driving, are thinking for the first time, outside of the bounds of the material world. The questions arise, what are you driving? Is your automated self still you? Can your body continue without an awakened consciousness? Your body is being led by your mind, awakened or not. You care deeply for yourself, but you believe you are your body. This is where many problems lie. The people around you are also not one, but two. However, like a person who has sailed the globe over a lifetime in a single boat and has built a deep connection with that boat as though it were a part of them, have we done so with our physical bodies. The boat will deteriorate and be gone, while the driver, or better, the consciousness of the driver, will remain forever. Do not grieve the cessation of existence of another person; grieve the separation - the inability to interact as you once did. Care for your body as you would care for another. You are its caretaker only for a limited time. Do we have a choice? Have you ever questioned yourself, why are you thinking a thing? Have you ever considered the biological orchestra that must play within you before a thought reaches your surface consciousness? If it is true that we are bags of chemical reactions going off at the behest of environmental cause and effect, do we really have a choice in the actions that we take? Delving deeper into this question, if I have a steak and it requires salt upon tasting it, what happened inside my head that lead me, not to this conclusion, but to this thought. A chemical reaction in the brain causes thought. In other words, tasting the steak caused a chemical reaction in my brain that triggered a thought. That thought triggered action - salting the steak, because there exists no action without thought prior. With this premise, can you say you have a choice in anything you truly do, or better, a choice in anything you think? The true question is, if there is no environmental cause and effect being perceived by a person, will that person still be able to have a thought? Granted, having a biological body is intwined with cause and effect, as we cannot continue to live without the effect that our organs have on our body - therefore, the cause being life. The conclusion may be as bleak as, we are energy and energy does not have the ability to think. however, cause may lie anywhere, especially in a dimension we do not understand. Optimistically, as energy our cause may be greater or of higher importance than us as biological individuals. If we are all energy, we are all a part of a whole. We have a greater ability for thought because we have broken out of our primitive existences and are now surrounded by a version of ourselves that has been stripped of its biological bounds - we are surrounded by everything - us - I - them. To contemplate the types of thoughts that may come to us when we are no longer biological, but just energy, is an example of intended thought. Auto pilot has been switched off. You are driving now. How to live this part of existence Once you begin to have intended thought, you begin to truly exist. The world around you reacts to your thoughts - not the other way around. There is an underlying structure to the way of the world - cause and effect - and this infrastructure exists for those who have not yet begun to have intended thought. These people will go through life, like many others, perhaps content, perhaps not, but they will never reach their true potential for this period of existence. We live in a sandbox world that we can control if we only just realise that we can. Society has built itself in a way that it is intentionally blindfolding us - they do this by implanting ideas and answers to those ideas. The cycle of thought - a question posed, and an answer given indirectly but just enough for our autopilots to react and reach that fed conclusion. We think we are thinking and choosing, but we are not. The system is aware of the way of the true world - and is taking advantage of its infrastructure. It is human nature to want to belong to a group. Perhaps this is because at the end of this existence, we will all be a part of a whole. This natural state of mind has been used against us. We form political parties and oppose each other. We segregate ourselves for endless trivial reasons. Competition is an inescapable part of society. Why do we follow others?

-

Perhaps it is possible that somewhere along our history, we failed by creating our primary method of communication – spoken and written language. Is it possible that we could have developed a more efficient method of communication, a skill we do not have now, that could further unlock areas of understanding we do not have? For example, what if we started using all our fingers for writing, simultaneously – perhaps a glove that have pen tips at the end of each finger, and vertically lined paper. Although seemingly impossible, what if we practiced daily for years. Eventually we would be able to write five lines at a time – we would have to be able to think words, thoughts, sentences, and structure – in a way segmenting thoughts but still thinking them all at once, not to mention the split motors kills that we would learn. If this skill was learned, perhaps a door to other skills we have no idea of may be opened.

-

In a similar vein, it is possible that the idea of the individual is at the root of all societal conflict. At some point in history we created this idea, that a person is separate to others. This creates the idea of property, competition, etc. This opens the door to social interactions that we know all too well today - deception, hierarchy, the creation of smaller communities. Ironically, small communities cause greater conflict than a sole individual does, because they act as they should, as one - and they think as one. But if a society does not include all people, then you have metaphorically individuals operating under what they operate under - deception, hierarchy, discrimination, etc. This actually seems quite natural, as differing thoughts, principles, values, seem unnatural because their existence renders the fact that there are people who believe you are wrong. Small (or large) societies think as individuals (think as one) and petty conflicts occur at massive scales.