PROLEPSIS

In the beginning there was/is; and at the end there was/is?

It was 21 Feb 2020, when hypernothing was made manifest to me in no uncertain terms! I had suffered a blood vessel rupture, and because I was on a blood thinner for my irregular heartbeat, I was losing blood like crazy. It finally took 4 units of blood to keep me going. In other words, I was unconscious and dying. I am naturally not aware that my wife, Masumi, had called the rescue unit, until they started hooking me up to all kinds of wiring which would furnish them with all kinds of readings concerning my condition. About this time I regained partial consciousness and strongly resisted all those claustrophobic wires which I tried removing as quickly as they attached them. I remember that I was tremendously confused and I was attempting to make things normal by understanding that one plus one equals two. That is true, I was really trying to work out that equation, but no such luck. Evidently I finally was overcome and they got me to the hospital, where I once more regained partial consciousness. But this time it was very serious. Masumi says she saw my eyes starting to roll back into my head, and she knew I was dying.  I also remember this time period, but my memory is different. I was on a slight incline, and was slowly sliding down towards a black abyss (“Slip Sliding Away”). This abyss was death, and I was aware of that. In other words, I knew I was dying. And it would only take one more slip, a fraction of a second, on that incline, and it would be all over for me. But I could hear voices telling me to hold on and other such terms. And standing out from those voices was Masumi’s voice, telling me to hold on. I listened to her voice and tried to find something to” hold on” to. But my physical body did not exist. I had no arms with hands which could hold onto anything. I nearly gave in and let slide the rest of the way. It would be so easy. Just don’t fight it and it’s over. But instead I tried to mentally hang onto Masumi’s voice. And then I remember nothing until I regained full consciousness. Masumi’s voice had kept me from slipping into death just long enough for the staff to bring me back. Masumi is my wife, who kept me alive.
I saw death for what it really was, TO ME. It was an abyss like the darkest night. There was nothing to grab onto, either mentally or physically. It was not threatening or scary. It was just a totally peaceful zilch. It stirred no emotions of any kind. It was nothing of which to have any fear. I saw no bright light telling me to go back. But each person may have a different experience, maybe depending upon what they expect.

In other words, what I experienced was more or less what I expected to experience at the point of death, but which also is a life’s conclusion, end of it all, which I do not favor. Does that then meet some of the requirements which with some other conclusions, start satisfying some of the goals for this paper? As far as the goal of the original writing of this paper was concerned, that is, some understanding of death and the hereafter, it does for me. But each person must reach their own conclusions when it comes to a near death experience. What this person expects is not necessarily what that person expects. And for all we know, there is not a common experience for all to share. What we are trying to do with this paper is gather information which seems logical to most people who have somewhat of a shared interest in some of these and other unknown questions which surround us. The envelopes, within which we confine ourselves with the knowledge we have thus far acquired,, should not be sealed small spaces, just special for us to escape to in order to protect ourselves from further acquired, “unwanted”, knowledge. They should become enlarged spaces as we gather and surround ourselves with more and more knowledge, even if some of the new acquisitions disagree with that knowledge we already possess.. We can’t bust out of our envelope in a sudden big bang, without an effort on our part, to increase our knowledge and understanding of some answers to our questions. That increase is the result of time and study, which gradually expands the inside of our envelope to include that “expanded” knowledge.

The original paper referred to here was written many years ago and was something I wrote concerning what a tesseract looked like. It was, I believe, the first paper to so identify the make-up of a tesseract, since at the time there was not a single description of such a figure to be found within GOOGLE. At that time the word “tesseract”, as a diagram, was not even accepted as a word.  It was the very beginning, those several years ago, of all the sections which follow, except the section dealing with the TAO. (The original study for this paper started with the study of religions, decades prior to my learning of the word “tesseract”. The time finally came to put all those sections together, and see if they make as much sense as I intended, when, in the beginning, in the mid 1950’s, this work was started.)

There are basically two kinds of logic, philosophical and numerical. Philosophical logic is using the mental faculties with discussion and reasoning to reach what seems to be a logical conclusion. Numerical logic, is more accurate when it is explainable and properly used to seek and solve the problem at hand. Unfortunately, its use is frequently beyond the mental faculties of what most of us must rely on in our comprehension of the expressed final conclusion.

My purpose, for this paper, was to use philosophical logic, which could only be argued against by using other philosophical logic; and even though it was argued against, the original premise could not be defeated. Only by completing this paper will I know if the effort was successful. In other words, we don’t always need pages of mathematical equations to accomplish what may be accomplished by just plain reasoning. However, when the numerical logic of mathematics itself is used as just plain logic, (1 + 1 = 2 is logical; 1 + 1 = 3 is not logical), then numerical logic, correctly used is irrefutable; whereas, philosophical logic can most generally be debated. Our goal is to attempt to make philosophical logic so convincing, it will be acceptable by most, and, if not acceptable, at least worth consideration.

But, we must also understand that what is philosophical logic to one person is not necessarily philosophical logic to others. Case in point; Japanese logic and American logic are not always the same. (Interpretation of case in point—American logic is frequently based on the most reasonable solution leading to the conclusion desired, whereas Japanese logic frequently has to do with not choosing a solution which would bring dishonor to the family.) So it will be easy for a person whose main goal for reading this paper is to find their own philosophically logical interpretations so they can lambast this entire paper. This cannot be helped. There will always be those who will refuse to accept any concept other than their own. Another case in point being: those individuals in my own field of endeavor , which is history, and also those with certain religious affiliations, who will absolutely refuse to accept any new historical or religious interpretations, no matter how much proof is offered. And again, another one or two cases in point–The earth is still flat, and was created 4,000 to 6,000 years ago, no matter what proof is offered to the contrary.

Before going further, there are a few definitions we must be explained and then we will return to tesseracts and the fourth dimension.