Bubbles (Space & Environment 0.66&c)

Do we really want to live in an all-encompassing bubble? Is that really what we’re in the midst of?
Here’s an experience you might have had: say that for your whole life, you’ve felt that something is the way it is. Music, food, sex, whatever it is, the way you’ve experience it is within a bubble, and any expression of the thing outside that bubble is inconceivable (even if you know it exists). Why does anyone enjoy music without words? Why don’t some people enjoy music without words? Why do some people enjoy music that’s only words?
These statements aren’t what I would say—unless I’m in a specific bubble which defines the way things are.
Sometimes I discover that there’s another bubble outside that one I’ve been in; this discovery is one that can produce statements like ‘gender is something we made up’ or ‘everything, absolutely everything, is music’, ‘life is basically a video game, just choose your adventure’, or even ‘we need to overthrow capitalism in a violent socio-economic revolution’. These are all just expressions which naturally follow the experience of overcoming your horizon to find that norms are arbitrary, and that their ‘sensibility’, their ‘intelligence’, is self-contained, like how dreams aren’t sensical from the outside perspective of waking consciousness.
And it would be a mistake to say that certain bubbles are the all-encompassing bubble. Like, gender to many people is a bifurcation of the world which is established through a set of conventional behaviors, traits, and notions of propriety. That set of agreed-upons is bifurcated for the sake of further agreed-upons, like ‘women need to take on a disproportionately high amount of domestic labor in order to free up men’s time and energy’, which is an agreed-upon because ‘some people need to do more of the grunt work so other people can work on more important things, like inventing machines or doing research for to invent machines’.
That set of conventional behaviors is a bubble. Society, its pattern and the patterns it creates, cycles of reactions, the norms which are the content of these things—all bubble. Bubble creates shared perceptions. Bubble is both its surface and its volume—or, is bubble just the volume? Or, is bubble the surface? Can it be neither?
In the sense of volume and surface, it hardly makes sense to say ‘this bubble and that bubble’, or ‘inside of the bubble and outside of the bubble.’ It also hardly makes sense when at close distances there’s not ‘surface’ so much as there is ‘net’. Like, my skin isn’t a smooth and contiguous ‘thing’, it’s a net, it has holes. Getting even closer I can see it’s not even a net, it’s more like a fuzzy swathe of ‘ness’ (like the -ness in ‘thing-ness’, not a ‘thing’ but just the ness) that neither touches nor separates. Of course, it does actually make sense to say that the bubble of my skin is a separation between me and not-me—except at a certain point, from a certain perceptual state, I’ve left that bubble as well to find that the norms which I can use to say ‘I’m me’ are arbitrary, their sensibility and intelligence self-contained within the operating logic of the bubble.

I think the nature of spirit is not what it would seem. This has something to do with bubbles. After all, people experience spirit(s), and people hear others talk about their experience with spirit(s), and that’s enough for ‘seemings’ to appear in the stead of the appearance of nature.
In me, at the very least, there’s a want to fit this into the bubble I’m working within. I try to imagine ‘where’ spirits are, imagining some sort of ‘space between or within things’. I imagine that the way things appear to me is a ‘surface’, and within the hidden depths of ‘volume’ resides so many spirits. Or, I imagine that ‘our world’ is a bubble, and ‘their world’ is an adjacent bubble—or the ‘outside volume’—and the porous nature of surface allows there to be interaction and immanence.
However, I’ve deduced that ‘I am neither the perceptual system of forms, nor the formlessness’ by observing that those two things are one thing, or, the same ‘no thing’. A funny language thing is going on with the way I’m trying to express it—it’s ‘the only’ ‘to be held’, in the sense that ‘things’ can’t be held so much as ‘this thing’ can, by virtue of it not being ‘a thing’, and also holding is beholding; it’s ‘the only to behold’. It’s a joke I can’t really explain, only mangle.
Spirit(s) isn’t any ‘larger bubble’, though it can certainly express through the bubble, as either its surface or volume energy, and this is what I do, express through formlessness and form as the changing of perception, and this is the content of a lot of ‘spirit work’; the thing that is is other than how we experience it.

So, hey, is that actually how it is? Is that or isn’t it just another way of saying ‘no, there’s an all-encompassing bubble outside this bubble‘, that it’s turtles all the way down rather than there being a transcendent possibility of unbubbled existing? Rather, perhaps existing is only a viable concept, a norm, which exists within a bubble dependent on it for support—’existing’ creates the bubble which creates ‘existing’. Same for non-existing.
The question of bubbles has extremely direct and practical applications to the questions of problems in life. After all, it’s a question about what we can and can’t perceive, which is a function and producer of the actions we can and can’t take. Let me say that again: perception is a function of, and the producer of, the actions we can and can’t take. Becoming more able and more disabled has consequent effects on perception (the width and depth of), and vice versa.
So, listen, something which is totally perceptive is also totally powerful, we know this, it’s the basis of there being a creator God. I’m reading a book right now on Saint Paul, one of whose claims is that Christianity, the kind Paul taught in the epistles as the earliest extant source of a Christianity and its ideas, establishes a new God who is not the creator God, and He’s introduced to humanity through the revelation of Christ (Christ Jesus is revealing this new God to us).
This is important to the question of bubbles. If it’s a creator God, it’s saying that there is an all-encompassing bubble, and we can ‘get with it’. If the alien God introduced through Christ (non-historical) is a God other than that one, other than the God who created this all-encompassing dream of ‘existing’, how do we know it isn’t another turtle? How can we, as creatures whose notions of existence depend of bubble-perceptions, accept the seeming-existence of something that transcends the very notion? Existence is a function of and a producer of what I’m calling ‘bubble’—everything exists, nothing exists, these are both features and enablers of bubble.
What isn’t bubble? What’s ‘outside’ which explicitly isn’t another ‘outside’?
And there are practical stakes to this question because the existence of bubble is the limitation of our perceptions and actions. If I want to find a job, my available choices are given to me by my perception of possibility. What I do is what I can perceive, and vice versa. I can ‘ascend’ from my small bubble to discover a larger world of possibility, and I can even be ‘developing continuously’ to find that bubbles continue endlessly; I can keep climbing the ladder to discover larger outsides and insides, just like how I can keep peeling back layers to find deeper patterns and unknowns.
At that rate, it simply is that an all-encompassing bubble is out of my reach, and at the same time I am nearly my own all-encompassing bubble since infinite layers reside within me, and the real all-encompassing bubble might truly not be a bubble in order to be all-encompassing, so the ‘all-encompassing bubble’ that appears as a creator God in contrast to the alien God introduced by the vision of Christ may actually be something much more like myself—a large bubble within still-larger-bubbles, containing infinite smaller bubbles within, proclaiming sovereignty from the limited perspective of bubble. Moreover, I think the point of the pre-Christian monotheistic Jewish God was that He was supposed to be that very all-encompassing bubble-that-isn’t-a-bubble in order to not be a mere tribal god (which might actually be a ‘nested entity’ more like myself).
What is beyond all layers, the deep-most inner being beyond the infinity within? What is beyond all layers, the vast-most outer being beyond the infinity without?

Whatever it is, finding it is somehow a key to performing magic. This sounds more fantastical and more understated than it is: I don’t have a job, and my available pathways for getting one are few. I can be prevented from surviving (from collectively surviving) by force(s) always occupying ‘a bubble above’. Rather than my magic being about ‘being the force of the bubble above’, rather than merely cutting a niche within the place of ‘always a bigger fish’, can I live according to a strength which is beyond that of this world?
Or—is the strength of all bubbles, all insides and outsides, available to me as a source of support? And if so, it must be so only if I myself contribute the whole of my own strength to that Whole World.
Magic is only the changing of perception which is a feature of being neither the formlessness nor the perceptual system of forms.
In more specific terms: is discovering Gender outside of the hetero-patriarchy bubble a real discovery? Or is it that the HPB is the Gender bubble? Is queerness a real ‘other world’—is it merely a tribal god contained by inescapable Gender—is it the hope for an alien God truly beyond this Matryoshka egg existence?