“Do dead people or creatures ‘exist’? The question is confusing in itself. But let us say this. Our minds are, in a variety of direct, demonstrable ways, intimately involved with the dead. And what I want to say is far simpler than answering the question.

Suppose that rather than speaking to or with the dead, the ‘medium’ is actually speaking to all of time and space »through that lens — and that it just so happens to be an incredibly appropriate and intelligible lens — for human beings, hearts, and minds?

( because, perhaps, rather than being the creature that knows (we know) about representations, we are homo thanatos, »the creature that knows ( or is »made of) the dead. perhaps it is we who are confused about this fact with which our ancestors were somehow intimately familiar. }

Whether or not the dead actually ‘exist’ somewhere else, whole and intact, it seems fairly obvious that, in the same way everything around us is and informs aspects of relational intelligence… so too, everything we are and may become… »arises as results and embodiments, echoes, extensions and developments… of the dead.

What if ‘talking to the dead’ is an adept way of addressing timeSpace itself as intelligence?

Did you invent language? Science? Ideation itself? No. These are the dead. What if »our minds are »comprised of compexly entangled relationships with (and thus AS) the dead? And we have simply conceptually denied and forgotten this…

Suppose that talking to a dead person ( or place, or being ) is one of the best and most accessible ways to reframe and talk to everything there ever was or will be, as if it were familiar, adored, transcendent, and brilliantly intelligent?

Suppose the nature of intelligence itself emerges from death and our relationships with it?”

— overwritten