The Source

Man has posed 2 theories regarding the origin of all he sees:

*That something came from nothing. 

*That something was always here.

A possible reason that he can never find a conclusive answer to these questions is because he believes he is looking at literal things, i.e. leptons, onions, and stars, when in reality all that he can see is his thoughts ABOUT these things; in other words the only thing a man can even properly address, is thinking.

In this special, and indeed rare context, if one position in consciousness (a thought) observes the transition into the next position in consciousness (the next thought) he may sensibly observe that something does come from nothing AND that something has been here all along.

The only visible use of such observations has been either to get tenure and respect for having said them, or else to drive oneself bonkers and die insane. (Or else verbally paint oneself into a corner from which he cannot escape; kind of makes you wonder what a "he" is anyway, 'eh?")

So how is it that both the corner, AND the "he," somehow converge on the same point at the same time?

How can a man separate himself, from his "philosophy?"

Routine thought believes this is possible and actually the norm. "There's 'me,' and then there are the thoughts 'me' has." And he is thus embroiled in the eternal BBQ which makes him believe that he is he, that there are things apart from such which need to be solved, and that a man can actually possess "knowledge," about anything.

The ONLY thing that is actually possible, and which incidentally happens 100% of the time, is that one memory (a thought) distills another seemingly discrete memory out of itself.

So is such an example of "knowledge" of a thing which cannot possess knowledge about anything?

Does something come from nothing? 

Or does something come from something? 

Yes, yes, yes, the plot only thickens, 

as it gets thinner, and thinner, and thinner.

(from a collection of unpublished papers circa 1998 but still relevant today)