Genesis Logic

At the intersection of scientific, religious, spiritual, and metaphysical interpretations of the world, only an interpretation can remain viable that takes all knowledge and facts into account, yet accepts nothing as automatically true that has not been proven.

The foundation of an interpretation of reality begins where we determine the reason for the existence of the world. Today, just as at any earlier time, we can justify this only through the manifestation of intelligence. Although this is not a unified position among the supporters of the materialist worldview, even among them there is a significant proportion who, based on the relationships and logic of the physical laws recognized so far, can imagine the world only as the manifestation of a fundamental intelligence. Atheism is, in reality, the rejection of this intelligence, which is the manifestation of an opposition, a negation, rather than an independent interpretation of the world.

This is the only starting point where some level of consensus can be reached in the jungle of theories. Assuming this fundamental intelligence, we can establish that every worldview possesses an appropriate foundation that can lead to the recognition and understanding of reality. The differences arise from how we interpret this fundamental intelligence — as God, Tao, Dharma, simply as a Higher Intelligence, and so forth — and then what interpretation we build upon it.

Genesis Logic attempts a synthesis of two well-known interpretations of the world, excluding dogmatic explanations from both and creating an interpretation using only facts, one that can be interpreted from both directions.

The method is simple but essential. The basic assumption is that reality is revealed through scientific research. The natural sciences reveal the fundamental laws governing the material world, while psychology reveals the laws governing consciousness. If we place the knowledge available to us today into an interpretive framework that is already thousands of years old, then we may discover a structure that would otherwise remain completely invisible.

Therefore, the foundation of the interpretation is the Bible. Based on the original Hebrew text, we must create an interpretation for every word that can be interpreted as accurately as possible according to our present knowledge. Thus, the words in the Bible are names of definitions. By interpreting them precisely and using them consistently throughout the entire text, they reveal an explanation for the interpretation of the world that cannot be reached in any other way.

If our assumption is correct, then the Bible will reveal a structure that we have been unable to see until now because translations of the text do not accurately reflect the Hebrew structure. Hebrew words, names, and numbers contain meaning in themselves, but names are naturally not translated in translations, therefore these meanings remain hidden from the outset.

When creating definitions, we need the most concise definition possible — ideally a single word or a simple sentence. However, a precise definition is also necessary. Therefore, we record every definition in the Glossary, together with the place where it was created. If we later modify a definition for any reason, we may do so only if the modified definition remains valid in every earlier occurrence. Definitions may, however, develop and become more precise through later appearances. Therefore, if a later text refines a definition, then we preserve both the original definition and the expanded definition so that the development of the definition can be followed.

The first essay presents the method in a concrete way as well, serving as an example through the creation of the first definitions.

Our First Definitions

The Bible provides the structure for the interpretation of reality, but we must create the definitions ourselves. The books containing more than a thousand pages then show whether our created definitions remain viable throughout the entire text.

The construction of the structure begins with: “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.”

Based on this text, interpreted according to the materialist worldview: the fundamental intelligence that determines everything is called God in the Bible. Creation means the creation of fundamental laws according to which the physical world exists. Based on this, the Earth is the material world, whose existence is made possible by the definitions that have collectively been named Heaven. And in the beginning means the beginning of time, which means that time is present only in the material world and belongs to the material world. Time is, in reality, the speed of change; therefore, it is a concept belonging to the material world.

Creation: Definition.

The creation of fundamental laws, which are constant, unchanging, and unalterable. Therefore, they determine the foundations of the existence of life and the material world.

Genesis 1:1

God: Creative consciousness.

The force that creates the laws of the world, according to which the world exists and takes material form. God is conscious of the world, which thus exists, and also sees all consequences of His laws; He knows the world “from beginning to end.” Therefore, for Him, time does not exist in the way it does for the Human; at all times, He is conscious of every act, action, and change.

Genesis 1:1

Heaven: The world of laws.

The repository of all the laws of the world, where all knowledge can be found in knowable, conscious form.

Genesis 1:1

Earth: The material world.

In the material world, all matter can be found; therefore, it is not the planet called Earth, but every single atom or particle that exists, and every single galaxy that we cannot see even with the best telescope. These materials exist according to the laws of Heaven.

Genesis 1:1

We cannot add time to the Glossary because the Hebrew word simply means beginning, not time. Therefore, we can record only within the definition of God that time is also a process operating according to definitions, which appears in the material world because its operation was defined in Heaven.

We enter these definitions into the Glossary, and later we must interpret them according to these definitions throughout the text.

Illustration © Genesis Logic

During development, the Human reaches a point where the appearance of his own interpretations in the world becomes recognizable — his own “effect” on the world — not only through his actions, but already through the way he interprets the world. Attention is no longer directed only outward, but consciousness begins to observe itself and begins to know the modes of its own functioning.

This is self-seeking, the beginning of the spiritual path, which changes the areas of Human interest. The spiritual ego develops, which soon comes into contrast with all the I-selves we created throughout our life.

The experimentation with various meditation techniques, the recognition of the ego, and taking a position against the ego lawfully appear in our life. The path is completely individual for everyone, but there are a few important milestones whose recognition is genuine progress. We will now place one of these under examination, which carries outstanding significance on the path leading toward the recognition of reality.

The ego is not actually an enemy, nor is it a formation that prevents us from reaching “enlightenment.” Yet at the beginning of the path, we always come to know the ego as an obstacle that must be overcome and defeated. The ego is nothing other than the totality of our definitions created from our experiences throughout our life, through which we describe the world. From these definitions, various I-states and various personalities develop, which we use throughout our life as I Am — as the best form of appearance in the given life situation, which we manifest.

Throughout our life, more and more personalities develop within us, which is not a schizophrenic condition, but an ever-expanding set of tools that makes us increasingly versatile.

At the beginning of the spiritual path, this set of tools expands with a new personality, the spiritual ego, which begins to see its own I-selves as opponents that must be overcome and eliminated in order to reach the spiritual goal, hoping to achieve the constant experience of peace and happiness.

This is a completely normal phenomenon, a step that cannot be skipped, an important part of the process of knowing. However, it is essential to recognize that the spiritual ego is also exactly the same kind of ego-I-state as all the others. Our I-states continue multiplying throughout our life, but because they consist of definitions created by consciousness, several of our I-states also use one of our definitions for the definition of themselves. Thus, our I-states become significantly interconnected, and therefore recognizable basic qualities and basic reactions appear in everyone, which manifest in a stable personality for the external world, for other Humans, and for ourselves as well.

During its development, however, the spiritual ego is an I-state created from definitions that we created during self-seeking. Therefore, these definitions do not share the formation of the self-image with other I-selves, and thus it exists rather separately within us, and stands in significant contrast with the I-selves we use in everyday life. However, our everyday life does not cease; therefore, a significant inner contrast develops between the spiritual ego and our personality built over many years — between our other I-selves. This state itself is the state of seeking, the state of becoming a seeker.

Seeking is actually directed outward. We search for books, masters, meditation techniques, retreats, new communities, and new people with similar interests, because a previously completely unknown viewpoint and direction of interest develops within us.

This state actually creates a contrast within us, where our previous personality — which means the totality of many I-states — comes into contrast with our new spiritual I, which may also consist of several I-states, yet still stands in contrast with the ego, with what we now recognize as ego within our own personality. This contrast must come into existence within us, because this makes it possible for our own inner space to become perceptible, for us to recognize our I-selves, and to recognize that our I-selves are actually groups of definitions that we use consistently in similar life situations.

The difficulty in moving forward is caused by the fact that it is easy to become trapped in the interpretation that our spiritual ego is our true I, a higher I with which we identify while moving further on the path of knowing. This is a logical conclusion that lawfully develops, but it is not reality. This is the point where it is very easy to become stuck, and one may spend years or decades on this level while continuously researching various spiritual directions, religious directions, and meditation techniques.

The genuine step forward, the next level, is actually when we recognize that the spiritual ego and our spiritual I-selves are also exactly the same kinds of I-states as all the others. We use them in different areas of our life, and they show significant contrast with our previously developed I-selves, but in reality we still use our previous I-selves for life to this day, and we still greatly need our previous I-selves as well, because in the world we continue to work, study, travel, shop, connect, and so forth.

The appearance of the spiritual ego was actually necessary so that the I-states from which our personality consists could become recognizable. Through the appearing contrast, not only our I-states but also our definitions become recognizable, from which the I-states consist.

And the recognition points out that the spiritual ego is also a group of I-states consisting of definitions, self-images formed from similar definitions, which appear through us in the world. The true result, the true recognition, is the knowing of the structure and mode of functioning of the I, which became perceptible and knowable because the spiritual ego came into contrast with the ego, and thus the contrast developed that made perception possible, that made it possible for us to see ourselves.

The recognition of the structure of the I, through which we see our own I-selves, and the recognition of the content, in which we recognize our definitions that interpret and describe reality and which form the I-selves, makes our own mental space accessible to us. While thinking, we no longer merely observe our own thoughts, but recognize ourselves within them, the building elements of our I-selves, to which we thus gain access much more consciously.

This type of consciousness gives access to consciously accessible I-content, but our emotional states do not become conscious through it; therefore, the recognition will not provide real control. It is not about becoming capable after this of “choosing” which of our I-selves should appear and what definitions it should consist of, but about our own I-selves becoming perceptible for our consciousness, and thus knowing deepens significantly in the direction of ourselves.

Our I-selves become perceptible and recognizable, and our definitions describing reality that form our I-selves also become perceptible and recognizable.

The greatest benefit of this recognition is that it dissolves the contrast between the self-images belonging to the spiritual ego and the earlier self-images. When we recognize that the spiritual ego is the totality of I-states just like the “ordinary” ego, then the contrasts begin to dissolve, because the devaluation of the ego ceases, yet the essence remains — the ability to perceive the I-states. After this recognition, we gain a much greater insight into ourselves, and during the knowing of ourselves we have taken a very significant step.

As the devaluation between the spiritual I-selves and the everyday I-states increasingly ceases, the definitions used by our spiritual I-selves and the definitions of the I-selves used during everyday life increasingly begin to use each other’s “set of tools.” The general self-image again begins to show a more unified picture, and the inner conflict begins to cease.

Our spiritual and everyday life become less and less separated, and this is the next level we reach on the path of knowing.

The interpretations we considered spiritual increasingly appear in the experiences of everyday life as well, because the I-selves used by our earlier everyday life also receive our definitions that were previously used only by the spiritual I-selves. Life itself also begins to show a more unified picture and becomes more understandable.

At the beginning, the spiritual path appears to be an individual path leading toward a new community separated from normal life, but this exists only so that a contrast may come into existence in which we recognize the functioning of our own personality and its building elements — the definitions through which we describe perceived reality, the world, on the mental level.

After we became capable of perception, this contrast only limits us further on the path of knowing. We must recognize the unreality of the contrast, but this becomes possible only if we recognize the value of the contrast. The development of the spiritual ego was necessary so that the structure and content of our own I-selves could become perceptible, and evaluation made this possible. Thus, the value of the spiritual ego and the value of the everyday ego both come into their proper place. Both receive the evaluation that belongs to them, because the everyday ego is also necessary so that we may exist in a human body, and the spiritual ego is also necessary so that we may move forward on the path of knowing.

And the recognition of the value of both egos and the ceasing of the contrast are necessary so that the contrast may cease, and so that the significantly separated definitions forming the two egos may begin to integrate into one another, because both groups contain definitions born through the knowing of reality, which in truth are not separated.

What exists appears in the world; therefore, contrasts come into existence only so that they may make something perceptible that previously we were not capable of perceiving. But once the ability of perception has come into existence, there is no further need to maintain the contrast, because perception remains even without evaluations and contrasts.

The spiritual path ultimately does not lead to a new identity, but to the ceasing of the conflict between identities. It is not a higher I that is born within us, but gradually the compulsion ceases to regard any of our I-selves as final. At the beginning of the seeking, we still want to separate the spiritual from the everyday, but the recognition ultimately joins them together again. Peace itself is not some extraordinary state, but the moment when we recognize the significance of the contrasts within us.

The spiritual path is not about freeing ourselves from the ego, but about recognizing that all our I-selves are different appearances of the same consciousness.

Today, two possibilities seem to stand before us. A person either holds a materialist worldview or is religious. In reality, however, the materialist worldview is also a form of belief — just like any religion. Yet this “religion” offers the greatest sense of freedom to those who believe in it, perhaps the strongest experience of free will itself.

An important stage in the development of consciousness is when we become capable of excluding every form of “higher” direction and begin to feel entirely independent and free.

If we examine our options more closely, we find that nearly every religion is profoundly dogmatic. Reading the Bible, for example, it is difficult to understand why Christian churches cling so strongly to interpretations that establish entire branches of religion — and why such serious opposition exists between different churches.

But if we place the materialist worldview under the same scrutiny, and examine the evidence upon which it stands, we arrive at a surprising conclusion. The deeper we dig into the interpretation of the laws of physics, the more contradictions we encounter — and the explanations offered for these contradictions are often just as dogmatic as interpretations of scripture.

There is, however, an even greater problem here — one that forms an almost insurmountable obstacle for the questioning mind. Almost.

The moment we begin investigating the laws of physics, we encounter explanations and formulations that are often even less understandable than religious dogmas. If a physicist studies wave theory and asks why the electron behaves the way it does, meaningful answers are rarely given.

In fact, even the intention behind the question is discouraged.

- Shut up and calculate!

This became one of the most famous phrases in modern physics.

Wave theory works — so use it, calculate with it, apply it. Questions about why it works are treated as secondary, almost inappropriate. A physicist may concern themselves with such “philosophical” questions after retirement, but if a young scientist focuses on them too early, they risk no longer being taken seriously as a physicist.

What matters is producing something usable. Something “valuable.” Something profitable. Why it works is considered irrelevant. What matters is that it works.

The laws of physics undeniably exist. Yet the materialist worldview still offers no real explanation for why these laws are exactly as they are — or how they came into existence in the first place. A scientist who asks such questions is quickly labelled a philosopher by other “scientists.”

Newton still sought to uncover the laws governing reality itself. His primary motivation was the desire to understand.

Einstein similarly wanted to understand why reality functions the way we perceive it to function, yet his conclusions increasingly restricted explanation to what could materially appear, be observed, and measured.

With Planck, the emphasis increasingly shifted toward the practical use of matter rather than the deeper question of why reality functions as it does.

And if we return to the beginning — refusing to accept anything at face value and searching instead for genuine explanations — we discover more and more incomprehensible dogmas within the materialist worldview itself. Dogmas that are, in many ways, even more untouchable than religious ones.

Questioning these foundations is often treated as a greater “sin” than questioning religion. One quickly becomes labelled “unscientific.”

I have always considered the most respectable attitude to be that of the true scientist — the researcher who genuinely wants to understand reality.

But today, that is no longer what being a scientist primarily means.

Today, knowledge must be useful. Research must generate material value. Those who genuinely seek understanding are pushed to the margins of accepted science and often relegated to philosophy — a field considered “without practical value” according to the dominant value system of our age.

And in that system, the highest authority — the ultimate value — is Power. We could even assign a unit of measurement to it: Money.

A scientist receives funding only if their research promises even greater material profit in return. But if we truly thirst for knowledge, then the first thing we must reject is every definition that lacks a genuine explanation behind it.

Every dogma must be discarded — whether religious or scientific. Only explanations that do not contradict experience can be accepted.

The result of this process is unsettling: our current worldview begins to collapse. And what emerges are explanations accepted neither by religion nor by science.

This follows logically from everything above. Accepting it, however, is far more difficult. So what remains once our existing worldviews fall apart?

What remains is reality.

Illustration © Genesis Logic

Fundamentally, consciousness itself is existence that knows that it exists. Consciousness is one; there is no separation within it.

The I, however, is the I because it exists separately. “I am” means that I have defined precisely who I am, where I begin and where I end, what my boundaries are.

The simplest way to imagine the I’s is to imagine them as slide projectors. The slide projector only emits light, and the slide film breaks the light. It interprets the arriving information, and the interpreted information appears on the screen. The image about which we say: “This is me.” This I becomes one of the I’s of consciousness, because consciousness provides the light — without light there is no image, there is no I, there is nothing.

Every Human who has ever lived, lives, or will live manifests the light of consciousness in the material world, and gives it form in the world through their own interpretations.

The light is always the same, but the form is always unique.

Our body is a terminal through which we perceive the material world, and through which we also appear in the material world.

During our life, we do not work with only a single slide. We have plenty of I’s; for every similar life situation, we have a well-established, well-usable I, so within the slide projector we continuously replace the slides, always inserting the I that is the most suitable for the given situation.

And the slides continuously multiply. As time passes, we create more and more I’s, and each of them is there beside the slide projector, ready for use.

The greatest problem as life progresses is that our different I’s increasingly differ from one another. However, we only have one body, and it is the home of all our I’s, just as our personality also includes all our I’s within itself.

As time passes, increasingly greater contrasts develop between our personalities; therefore, the inner conflict only continues to grow. Our I’s all want to appear, but the more there are, the less time each of our I’s can be present, and the greater contrasts they contain, the greater the conflict taking place within. The slide projector — the body — can only manifest one at a time, and our personality is determined by what can appear.

The inner tension slowly but surely wears us down, the body also wears out, and the contrast between our I’s slowly reaches such a level that they exclude one another.

Consciousness, in reality, continuously emits light, but the body — our slide projector — is only capable of manifesting a fraction of the number of I’s that we created during our life.

Consciousness, however, does not forget. Everything that has ever appeared in the material world, it stores as information, and it is capable of manifesting those again at any time, because if it has already done so once, then it knows how that which it manifested appears.

Therefore, it is consciousness. It comes to know that which it manifests, and it becomes conscious through Humans.

The possible I’s only continue to multiply through the life of every Human, and afterward they want to appear again, because these are, in reality, I’s. During the life of a Human, countless I’s are produced, and they all want to appear in the material world.

During our life, our I’s become conscious, but through the death of the body they do not disappear; only the slide projector disappears.

…

The I’s, the slide films, remain, and as soon as a new slide projector appears, they can appear again.

Therefore, slide projectors continuously “are born,” because the I’s want to appear, but not in the way they appeared previously, when they were created, but independently, within their own body, through which they do not need to share existence with other I’s. Therefore, the I’s created during a single life return in separate bodies, each will have its own slide projector. But the process does not stop. As the I appears, it begins to create further I’s, because every new life situation requires and results in a new interpretation. Life does not stop, but the circumstances continuously change.

Let us think about how the same I could appear at a time when even a radio was a luxury, and it was necessary to go to the local pub to hear the news on the radio, and how it appears today, when even our steps and pulse are continuously monitored by our electronic devices.

Consciousness has not changed at all — pure light. It has no I, no will, it evaluates nothing, for it there is no good and no bad. Consciousness exists, and through the I’s it knows what it knows. Through the I’s it comes to know the world, and what and how something can appear within it. Consciousness is only I-consciousness if an I is present that defines what consciousness should be here and now. The slide, the filter, the lens, the definitions of the I make consciousness into I-consciousness, but this still does not mean that the I has consciousness. Consciousness has I’s, and every I is an I of consciousness.

…

What an interesting phenomenon it is when the I begins to search for consciousness. Without consciousness there is no I, because there is no light, yet we do not see the light, only that which it manifests.

Illustration © Genesis Logic

The experience of “I Am” is entirely unique, but because the human body is optimized and designed for perception, it only becomes possible to recognize who we truly are once a sufficiently structured network of I-states has developed within us, and the desire also arises within us to know the nature of ourselves.

This desire creates certain definitions within us that turn the focus of attention toward ourselves, and at this point the process of “becoming a seeker” begins.

As seekers, we begin to observe ourselves, and the ego becomes recognized, which is not a unified personality, but a collection of I’s and personalities optimized for different life situations.

Our seeker I also develops, who already recognizes the ego and places itself in opposition to it. Thus, the seeker I and the ego appear within us as a pair of opposites, which the seeker I recognizes and comes to know.

As we go deeper into self-observation, we discover that these I’s are actually like lenses. We do not find a resulting-I that stands above every I, but only pure consciousness behind the lens, which the I-lenses make into a personality.

We also begin to see our seeker I, but not because we enter into a different state of consciousness, but because more and more I’s also develop from our seeker I. During self-observation, the definitions that we create through observing ourselves multiply more and more, and we see ourselves in more and more different ways. This leads to the development of more and more different seeker I’s, among which some are already capable of perceiving and seeing our seeker I’s as well, because they place themselves in opposition to them in order to be capable of defining themselves.

We recognize the mechanism of I-creation, which shows that all our interpretations are connected to some kind of I, to one of our personalities. And those definitions in which we are completely certain and which are also supported by our experiences become integrated into more and more of our I’s.

Consciousness has no personality; it cannot be “I Am” unless it creates definitions from its experiences and identifies with them. Identification with our definitions makes us into I’s.

The experience of “I Am” begins where a lens is placed onto the perception of consciousness. Between the information transmitted by our senses and consciousness, a lens appears that contains definitions and says:

This is how I see the world; this is how I interpret what I perceive.

Therefore This Is What I Am!

From this point onward, we no longer simply see our experiences, but based on our already existing definitions, we decide what they are like. This is the apple from the tree: from this point onward, according to our previous definitions, we ourselves decide what is good and what is not good. Based on this, we no longer merely live our experiences, but also want to determine what should happen.

We do not want to understand the world — why things happen the way they happen, according to what kinds of laws the world functions — but instead we want to prescribe what should happen.

Consciousness by itself is not capable of interpreting the information perceived through the human body as an I, but intellect organizes the perceived information into definitions, recognizes repetitions and lawful functioning, and these definitions define our I’s. These are what we are. Everything that we have been capable of understanding from the functioning of the world. Our I’s consist of these definitions, with which we identify.

Consciousness identifies only with the definition that declares: “This Is What I Am,” and this definition connects a large number of definitions to itself, which are placed into the lens, and through these the perceived information reaches consciousness, from which intellect then creates further definitions.

The I is not a single definition, nor is it unified. That particular lens actually means many different lenses, which are themselves individually complex, and which we continuously exchange according to the experiences we are currently living through. We define ourselves completely differently in different life situations. We do not simply behave differently toward different people or in different life situations, but entirely different I’s appear. We exchange the “lens” according to our needs.

We can best imagine our I’s if we imagine a large set that contains all our definitions. From these definitions, one portion of definitions forms one I, which we could represent with a circle containing definitions. These I-circles can overlap each other; within one larger circle, a smaller circle — or even several — may exist entirely. But we can also have completely isolated I’s that do not share a single definition with any of our other I’s, just like our seeker I when we begin to ask the question: “Who am I?”

We have defined I’s for every life situation that regularly appears in our lives. We have a defined I for when we speak with our boss, another for when we speak with our colleague, but we may even have a completely different defined I in relation to another colleague; another at home toward our wife, and another toward our child; another in the store toward the salesperson, or at the gas station, and at the newsstand… The list could continue endlessly, because we have an I for every recurring life situation, a “lens” according to which we appear.

In new, non-recurring life situations, we use whichever of our existing I’s seems the most appropriate at that moment, but if none of them seems appropriate, then without difficulty we create one from the definitions available to us. In a single moment, we create another new circle that contains the definitions that seem the most appropriate. If the situation resembles one for which we already have a well-functioning I, then we use that one, but if the situation changes, then without difficulty we switch to another I-state, to another “lens.” All of this happens unconsciously until we recognize all of this.

The situation is even a little more complex than this, because for the same life situation, toward the same person, several of our I’s may also appear. For example, we behave differently toward our boss when we agree with him than when we see things differently. In such cases, we do not simply behave differently, but another one of our I’s also appears. For example, we may have an I that “handles everything,” an I that “knows everything better,” an I that says “I have no idea,” or an I that says “I cannot do this,” and in fact many other possibilities also exist, but generally we use a few very frequent I-states — always the one that we find the most appropriate.

Without understanding our I’s, we always defend our I’s — always whichever one through which we are observing the world — and if the appearing reality contradicts what we represent, then we defend it as if it were our own life. Many times this defense manifests in such a way that we quickly replace the “lens” with an I that is very capable of defending itself and confronting others.

By recognizing the functioning of the I, we can easily recognize that in reality we have I’s — many different I-lenses through which we observe and interpret the world. We always use the most appropriate lens in order to be able to give the best possible response to the appearing experiences. All of this functions unconsciously, but as soon as we recognize it, it begins to become conscious.

Recognition itself, understanding itself, has an effect. No effort is required for it; the recognition of the I’s will not be the result of a meditation practice, but is produced by understanding. At first, we are only capable of recognizing and defining afterward which I appeared a few minutes ago, or even earlier, but because we recognize ourselves, this conscious presence gradually moves closer and closer to the present.

The more deeply we know ourselves, the more deeply we recognize our I’s, the more capable we become of recognizing that we do not perceive the appearing experience purely, but instead evaluate and interpret what we experience through one of our I’s. Evaluation and interpretation change the experience — this is what our I does with the experience. In this way, the appearance of reality becomes evaluated, becomes good or bad. When we also see our I — because within the experience we already recognize that right now we are evaluating this as good-bad-whatever because we are like this-or-that-or-something else — then we recognize the process of evaluation within the experience, and our appearing I also “appears” before us.

The recognition of the I is a very deceptive experience, because when the need appears within us to recognize our I’s, that itself is also an I-state. An I comes into existence that wants to know the other I’s as well, with which consciousness identifies during our life. Our life, our experiences, are bound to the body, and the senses of our body determine our experiences spatially, therefore the created definition comes into existence among our I’s, but it becomes an I that is capable of seeing and knowing the other already existing I-states. A lens comes into existence that recognizes the existence of the other lenses and is also capable of knowing them.

It is important to recognize this so that we do not overevaluate the appearing I that seeks to know itself through knowing the other I’s, and do not identify it as some kind of “higher I,” because this I is exactly the same kind of I as all the others. A lens through which we perceive our experiences in such a way that we are also capable of recognizing and knowing our I’s during the process.

Knowing this I will not require yet another higher I, because if we recognize it, then in itself — that is, while identifying with it — we are also capable of “seeing.” Seeing, that is, understanding and interpreting that it is through this I that the information we experience reaches consciousness, but if one of our I’s is also present within the experience, then according to the interpretation of that I, the experience we perceive also receives evaluation.

In practice, our I’s appear in the third person within our experiences, but this identification actually fluctuates. Consciousness, identification, jumps between the first person and the third person, because identification is necessary for the living of I-states. “I Am” is complete identification, and “there is my I that appears” is the perception of our I from another I-state. However, complete identification is necessary for the appearance of the I, because without the experience of “I Am,” existence as a Human is not possible.

The process is practically a repeating cycle. We define the I with which we identify, and then through this I we create newer and newer definitions, which appear as newer and newer I’s in our lives. While identifying with these I’s, we live our lives, and these create even more definitions. During identification with the I’s, contradictions appear between our I’s.

The recognition of this whole process points to the essence:

Our I’s actually consist of definitions.

These definitions assemble into I’s so that in a given life situation we can give the most optimal reactions, so that we do not have to continuously look at the world through all our definitions, but in reality all our definitions about the world are us.

The reduction of mental burden is that we look at the world through a set of definitions compressed into a particular I, as “right now this is what I am.”

Our I’s are practically separated so that our contradictory definitions can continue to exist and do not destroy one another. Our separated I’s keep our contradictory definitions separated from one another, and in this way all of them are capable of existing within us.

These definitions contradict one another, but because we defend each side through one of our I’s, the tension appears between our I’s as inner tension.

This recognition is of decisive importance: to recognize that in reality all our I’s are collections of definitions, therefore in the final analysis we are our definitions, which we formed from our experiences.

Our further experiences then test our definitions to determine how accurately they correspond to reality, but because our definitions became arranged into smaller groups according to I-states, these groups became independent entities and they have will — they want to change the world and experiences.

The recognition of this already counts as a significant turning point on the path of self-knowledge, because it points out concretely that our experiences actually serve the purpose that our definitions describing the world become increasingly accurate. During experiences, we begin to observe our definitions, and we change ourselves by aligning our definitions more and more precisely with reality.

At this point, the knowing of the world and the knowing of ourselves become connected irrevocably, and we understand that the two are actually one and the same thing.

This is where true self-knowledge begins: we begin to work on making our definitions about the world increasingly accurate.

Our I’s grow larger and larger, because our field of vision continuously widens, and more and more definitions are present in almost every I-state. This is practically the expansion of the perception of consciousness, which previously continuously narrowed because our I’s became increasingly separated from one another, and thus a particular lens allowed less and less information to pass before consciousness and intellect, but with more and more evaluation and intention to change.

During the process of knowing, this reverses, and we have more and more definitions about the world that contain no evaluation whatsoever. Thus, no desire or will appears through them, and intellect becomes capable of describing with even greater precision the experiences appearing in reality from the perceived information.

Consciousness does not actually become larger — it has always been limitless. Our lenses become increasingly clearer. We need our I’s because we are Humans and we live among Humans. We connect, exist, and communicate. But the I’s perform less and less evaluation and become broader and broader in their field of vision, and thus we change fundamentally.

The change, however, actually takes place in very small steps.

Every one of our I’s is a collection of definitions, and we change our definitions, which our I’s use for defining themselves, incorporating them into the lenses, into themselves.

The essential thing is not the recognition of the lenses, nor is it necessary to define them separately one by one, but rather their building elements. The building blocks are the definitions, which we see more and more clearly day by day, and thus the transformation of ourselves — through the conscious creation of our definitions, through aligning them with the appearing reality — becomes an increasingly conscious process in which less and less will appears. Will continuously transforms into the intention directed toward understanding the world, which is nothing other than intellect.

Beyond the lenses, intellect creates definitions, which consciousness sees and through which it observes the world.

If there is no longer any evaluation, then there is no lens either, there is no evaluation of any kind that colors the experience, and thus only purely perceived information reaches consciousness. Intellect then creates its definitions from it.

Thus, the only entity with which consciousness can identify remains intellect.

And the visibility of the definitions is no longer limited by anything, because there is not a single lens that would dampen any perception.

Self-knowledge is actually equal to the knowing of the world, for which the human body is available to us, making the perception of the world possible, and intellect, which is capable of recognizing every law that defines the world from perceived experiences.

Identification with our I’s limits intellect in knowing the world, therefore it is necessary to recognize our I’s. After recognizing our I’s, we then recognize the building elements of our I’s — our definitions — and through them we recognize our evaluations, the knowledge of good and evil, which limits and narrows the I’s.

This recognition opens the gate toward knowing.

We begin to know ourselves, we begin to know the world as it truly is.

Illustration © Genesis Logic

Every definition of the Human consists of information that originates from the perception of the material world. The human body mediates information through the senses, which intellect organizes into forms: into definitions.

(“Human” is intentionally capitalized throughout the text to distinguish the conscious being from the biological human body.)

However, information is not only perceived through experiences, but also evaluated. This is the knowledge of good and evil, which we first acquired — the first definition that can be interpreted as the result of a process, as fruit. Evaluation creates a kind of “perception” that is not mediated by a sense organ, but instead assigns a “value” to every perception, which is the place of the perception on the axis of good and bad.

We decide about everything what the things we experience are like. However, through this evaluation we not only experience the appearing world, but also want to change it. Since evaluation appears, the intention to change also appears. Free will is what is being spoken about here, but free will was not created by evaluation — evaluation only caused free will to become an intention to change.

Free will is present in the Human even without evaluation, but because there is no evaluation, there is also no intention to change. Thus, through experiences, free will wants to know why what is experienced happens. Without evaluation, free will wants to understand why what is experienced happens precisely in the way it appears within experiences. It wants to understand according to what laws the material world appears, and according to what laws what is experienced takes place.

The desire for understanding appears in such a way that, with the help of intellect, consciousness continuously organizes the information mediated by the senses into meaningful definitions, and recurring experiences continuously provide confirmation about whether the created definitions correspond to experienced reality. If experiences do not correspond to the definitions created by intellect, then consciousness continuously reshapes its definitions by using the new information until they fully correspond to what is experienced.

This is a perfect process that makes us know what appears in the material world and makes us know the laws of God, but no ability appears beyond knowing. However, God created the Human in His own image and likeness not only so that the Human would be capable of knowing the laws defined by God, but also so that the Human would be capable of creating laws: of creating definitions.

During the process of knowing, we already create definitions from perceived information, and through recurring experiences we become capable of continuously modifying our definitions until they correctly describe experiences under all circumstances, but this is still not the creation of a new definition — it is only the ability to create definitions.

A new definition can only come into existence if a need arises for something that God has not yet created. This is what the knowledge of good and evil makes possible, which the Human received from God, and through which the Human becomes capable of defining something that is not yet present, that does not yet exist.

The world exists according to the laws of God, but the definitions of the Human appear in the material world just as the definitions of God do, according to which existence itself takes place. The difference between the definitions created by God and those created by the Human is that the definitions of God fundamentally define the world.

The laws of God possess the following qualities: they are timeless and limitless, unchangeable and indestructible. They are the fundamental conditions of existence. However, the definitions of the Human are not timeless, not limitless, changeable, and can also be erased. The laws of God define the world, while the laws of the Human shape it, but only within the laws of God. Since the laws of God are timeless and limitless, the laws of the Human are incapable of changing anything that already exists, and the world exists according to the laws of God timelessly and limitlessly.

The laws of God are timeless and limitless because they exist in complete harmony; there is no contradiction whatsoever among the laws of God. The Human is just as capable of creating, of creating laws that define worlds, as God, but because the laws of God are timeless and limitless, the laws created by the Human are only capable of appearing in a limited way within time and space. The definitions of the Human can contradict one another and can also contradict the laws of God, but they are only capable of appearing within the laws of God, because those laws are timeless and limitless.

If the definitions created by the Human do not correspond to reality, then an opposite definition also comes into existence, which balances the contradiction, and it also appears in the world together with the definition created by the Human. However, the Human does not know it; it will appear within experiences so that the Human may recognize what is still missing from the created definition — what could not yet be formulated based on previous experiences.

Based on this, even without evaluation we create definitions that do not correspond to the laws of God, because we must create them based on our experiences. However, it is not possible to experience and understand the laws of God in a single moment; therefore, we are only capable of receiving and processing information by moving through time. Yet through correct interpretation, we continuously come to know the laws of God more and more deeply. No intention to change can appear — we only recognize the appearing opposites in the world, and thus create increasingly precise definitions from our experiences.

Evaluation makes us capable of “wanting” something other than what already exists. Evaluation makes us capable of wanting to change what we experience instead of only wanting to understand it. The problem arises because the realization of the intention to change is also only possible through the use of intellect, and thus we do not use intellect to know the world, but to change it. In addition, the intention to change also creates separation. Until this point, the world simply existed, but when the intention to change appears, the one who wants to carry out the change also appears.

Thus, existence becomes separated existence; thus, the Am becomes I Am.

It follows from this that the I Am is also one of the definitions created by the Human. The I Am is just as much one of our definitions appearing in time as every other definition, and opposite it appears that which reveals what is still missing from the definition so that it may exist in harmony with everything else that already exists.

If we are capable of wanting anything that does not yet exist, then we must define it, but the definition will appear within the world that exists through God, therefore its opposite will also appear, balancing it so that the world and everything within it may exist in harmony. If what we want to define is not possible, if it is incapable of existing in harmony within the world through any opposite definition whatsoever, then that definition does not appear either — not in the form in which we defined it. What appears in the world is possible, but it is possible that it is only possible within time, because it appears only in opposition to something else, just as everything in the life of the Human does, since the Human, as a separated I, also exists only within time in the world.

However, through knowing, if we do not define further changes, then through the appearing experiences we become capable of aligning our own definition ever more precisely to appearing reality, and thus we may also define something that is capable of existing in complete harmony with the laws of God. If we reach this, if our definition is present within all our experiences in such a way that no opposition is present anymore, then the Cherubim appear in our lives, then we also come to know the Tree of Life, and what we define becomes timeless and limitless.

This is also how we come to know the laws of God: we define them based on our experiences, thus we may rightfully assume that whatever we create in the world, God has in reality already created it. Only within the process of knowing does everything appear as our own creation to us, because within the process of knowing the I comes into existence, which creates interpretations according to which the appearing I acts and changes.

The I Am, the number 1, clearly appears in opposition to the number 7, which is the Not I Am, the appearing opposite, and together the two reveal what it is that truly exists.

The will that appears through the I is also the will of God, but the I identifies with it. As a separated formulation, the I Am exists in the world together with its opposite. Identification with the I interprets the appearing events as the realization of the will of the I, because the I wants to change. The world happens, but the I identifies to such an extent with what it perceives that it interprets what happens as itself and as its own will.

God alone truly exists, and through the Human, God appears as I Am in countless forms, and comes to know the world that He created in every possible form down to the smallest detail.

The sons of God are the appearance of consciousness somewhere within space and time, where the perception of appearing reality takes place, and an I separates itself from the world based on interpretations — from the world that in reality exists timelessly and limitlessly in complete harmony.