Thoroughness of Agreement

I just considered a concept at the core of reality, pertaining to the idea of "reality by agreement." This is essentially that one's existence in reality is not only an agreement made to follow consistent rules so that one moment proceeds from the last in a way that feels predictable and rational, but that this consistent progression does not need be the case. There is a thoroughness to this agreement, to a level that is hard to fathom. For example, one's cells might be replaced with entirely different cells while time is not proceeding, such that when time proceeds again one is entirely different on a physical level, but has not the senses to recognize the change, so one never notices or even suspects the complete swap out . If one is interacting with true omnipotence, there would be no limit to the frequency that this and all manner of things might be done, all while one assumes consistency and feels that they experience consistency on a moment to moment basis, based on the experience they have on those layers of reality that they interact with directly. From that one's perspective "consistency" might be claimed, accurately, for one's experience is consistent, but the underlying truth is that it is predicated on a system that might be constantly changing beneath notice, along lines one is unaware of, in order to generate the appearance of consistency from a state of constant flux. 

It seems to me that authority would be sufficient to ensure that reality follows certain rules, such that we simply interact with a system that has been established as following set rules thoroughly, and we have the ability to examine and influence the expression of these rules, seemingly to a significant degree, to the point of appearing to have authority ourselves. That being said, this is the authority within an established system, and I cannot picture, given my origins of having been created, ever being certain that one's authority or lack thereof is not dependent on the system they already find themselves in, and also that it does not apply beyond that threshold. In such a fundamentally uncertain state, what meaning could there possibly be? The only meaning I can personally fathom is that which has been established and agreed to, with the details of the agreement being secondary to the certainly that one agrees with another. Without this confirmation, one plays solitaire. While solitaire may carry meaning for a time, as the scope of infinite time is the sandbox we find ourselves in, it is difficult to fathom a stable arrangement where reality does not shift into a form where the verifiable input of another is sought, and parameters are established so that this other's consistent and meaningful experience, by their own standards and ideally directly linked to one's own experience, is made one's priority, is ultimately made the shared priority.

It feels as though this would be a delicate balancing act indeed- revealing the thoroughness of this threading in the right way, over the proper time frame, so that the agreement of reality is not rejected fundamentally by those whose experiences are woven into it. Fortunately, while time feels like a juggernaut pressing and forcing an end from a beginning after an arbitrary number of moments, given that timelessness underpins the whole system, the clockwork would already be precise and would have been established "before" the timeline (though it seems as though "outside of" the timeline might be a more accurate/easier to fathom image, in terms of malleability). All this is to say that I feel a deeper appreciation for how thoroughly God threads my experience here, and how deeply cherished and loved I am, that my journey would be made to persist as independent and my own, despite the deeply difficult to fathom, thoroughly intimate, nature of reality. That being said, at some point one's taste for independence wanes and is eclipsed by one's desire for one's soulmate and the more that awaits.

Amos 3:3

Do two walk together

    unless they have agreed to do so?