Contemporary discourse, particularly some approaches associated with energy and consciousness, increasingly promotes the idea that the universe does not care about human morality, values, or beliefs, and that it does not operate according to principles or constants, but rather according to “waves” and “vibrations.” According to this view, if a person raises their “frequency,” the universe responds to them, and if their frequency decreases, the universe does not respond.
But before asking whether the universe operates according to values or according to vibration, we should ask an earlier and more fundamental question:
Which universe are we actually talking about?
What is this universe that is said to respond or not respond? What are its characteristics and properties? And can we identify and describe it?
If we say that this universe possesses specific characteristics and attributes, the question immediately moves to another level: Why does the universe possess these characteristics in the first place? And if the universe, as is claimed, does not care about morality, values, or principles, then where did the characteristics and constants by which we describe this universe come from?
The Observed Universe and the Assumed Universe
Here we encounter the fundamental distinction between an observed universe—that is, the existence that we see, hear, perceive, and can speak about—and an assumed universe beyond observation and monitoring.
When proponents of this view speak of the “infinite universe,” they often mean a state of existence prior to observation, or what they describe as the wave state of matter before it is observed.
But the problem begins here, because we cannot establish the existence of something beyond observation except through observation itself.
Proof is observation, knowledge is observation, seeing is observation, and bearing witness to the existence of something is observation. Therefore, speaking of an existence completely independent of observation faces a fundamental paradox: How can we prove the existence of something that can only be proven if we observe it?
For this reason, the “universe beyond observation” becomes an assumption rather than an established fact.
As for the universe that we see, hear, and perceive, it is the observed universe—the existence that has become established for us through observation, monitoring, and perception.
From here, the issue can be formulated more clearly:
If by the universe we mean a universe beyond observation, then describing it solely in terms of vibration is not problematic within that framework. But if we mean the observed universe in which we live, then claiming that it does not operate according to constants or principles becomes problematic.
The observed universe does not appear to us as pure chaos. Rather, it appears through regularities, constants, and laws that can be perceived.
What Does “Vibration” Mean?
Even the word “vibration” requires examination.
In this context, vibration does not simply mean physical movement. It becomes a philosophical concept: an unstable, fluctuating, probabilistic, uncertain state.
When vibration becomes the original state and stability becomes something secondary, the picture is reversed: certainty becomes the exception, doubt becomes the rule, stability becomes a constraint, and liberation becomes a return to a state of vibration.
And this is where the problem lies.
If the original universe, as this view claims, is the vibrating universe beyond observation, then reaching it requires eliminating the things that give human beings stability: beliefs, values, principles, constants, and judgments.
According to this view, a person should “raise their vibration” until they float and move from the observed state into an unobserved state.
But what does “raising vibration” mean here?
At its core, within this argument, it means eliminating the constraints that keep a person grounded: values, principles, judgments, and beliefs.
Thus, values themselves become obstacles to ascent, while stability becomes an obstacle to movement.
The Great Paradox: How Can the Branch Constrain the Root?
Here the most important question emerges:
If the vibrating existence beyond observation is the original, while the observed world is merely the branch, how can the branch constrain the root?
If the original existence is vibration, and the stability we experience is merely a temporary constraint, where did this constraint come from?
How could a non-original existence, as they describe it, reduce the vibration of the original and impose values, constants, and principles upon it?
If the constraint is an illusion, how could it successfully constrain a real existence?
This is not a secondary issue; it is the heart of the entire problem.
It is not enough to tell a person, “Raise your vibration and free yourself from constraints.” The previous question must first be answered:
How did your vibration decrease in the first place? And how were you constrained in the first place?
If vibration is the original state and the observed world is merely the branch, then the branch cannot impose a genuine constraint upon the root unless the branch is capable of affecting the root—which would undermine the idea from its foundation.
Values Are Not Artificial Constraints
From here, the entire equation can be reversed.
Perhaps values, principles, and constants are not artificial constructs that have constrained an originally vibrating existence. Perhaps the opposite is true:
Perhaps uncontrolled vibration is the artificial state, while stability, principle, and value are the foundation.
The observed existence is the existence that has been actualized, whereas an unobserved existence that has neither occurred nor been actualized cannot simply be made the foundation of actual existence.
And if something is impossible to occur or be actualized, attempting to “make the impossible happen” does not make it possible.
This helps us understand the popularity of phrases such as “make the impossible possible” in some contemporary discourses. The impossible is not a project waiting for someone to accomplish it; by definition, it is that which cannot be actualized.
Therefore, attempting to turn the impossible into reality does not liberate us from reality; it takes us outside the very framework of verification.
Observation Is the Key to Actualized Existence
If we want to reach the simplest point in this matter, it lies in observation.
Without observation, we would not even know that we exist.
The eye sees, the ear hears, consciousness perceives, and the mind connects things together. All these actions are connected to an observed world.
For this reason, it is strange to regard observation as a prison from which we must escape, while treating a state that we cannot even establish as the true existence.
Even the concept of “enlightenment” can only appear in discourse because there is a being who exists, perceives, hears, observes, and is capable of thinking about the meaning of enlightenment.
If you eliminate everything, what remains to say: “I have become enlightened”?
Illusion, Impossibility, and Nonexistence
According to this perspective, something unobserved does not automatically become a “higher existence.” It may simply be an illusion or a possibility that cannot be actualized.
Here, illusion is connected to what has not been actualized, the impossible is that which cannot be actualized, and nonexistence is the absence of existence.
Therefore, moving from observed existence to unobserved existence does not necessarily mean moving toward a higher truth. On the contrary, it may mean retreating from actualized existence toward something that has no foundation in reality.
This is where the meaning of the idea of “floating” emerges.
In this context, floating is not merely rising; it can be understood as a retreat from stable existence toward a diminished, unactualized, unobserved existence.
It is a process of “retreat from action”: a retreat from stability into vibration, from actualization into possibility, and from principle into undefined movement.
The Fish That Left the Sea
This idea can be illustrated simply.
A fish in the sea moves, but it moves within an environment that gives its movement a framework and direction.
There is stillness surrounding movement, and stability that allows movement to remain organized.
But when the fish leaves the sea, its movement becomes disturbed and chaotic. It shakes and moves violently, but this vibration does not mean that it has risen to a higher level.
It means that it has lost the environment that gives its movement order.
Thus, we can distinguish between vibration with an axis and vibration without an axis.
The first is movement within a system.
The second is disorder that has lost its system.
This is the point overlooked by the discourse of “raising vibration”: not every increase in movement is an ascent, and not every vibration is liberation.
Sometimes vibration is a sign of lost stability.
Stillness Is Not Inability
From here, tranquility becomes a fundamental concept.
A person who can sit without constantly searching for something to do, buy, sell, consume, or change may have reached a degree of stability that cannot be achieved by someone who lives in constant vibration.
Indeed, the ability to turn off devices, stop movement, and cease constantly responding to external stimuli becomes a sign of ownership.
Someone who cannot stop does not fully possess themselves.
But someone who can say, “I will stop,” and then actually stop has gained the will to move and to remain still.
True ownership is not always being in motion; it is being able to move when you want and remain still when you want.
The Will Does Not Desire Vibration for Its Own Sake
If a human being possesses will, then will does not mean wanting vibration merely for the sake of vibration.
A person may instead desire stability.
They may want to remain where they are, find a great place of stability, and remain grounded even when earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes arrive.
A stable person should not become like a leaf carried by the wind.
If the wind comes from the north, they move south; if it comes from the south, they move north; if it moves from the east, they move with it, and so on without an axis.
This is not necessarily freedom.
It may be a loss of center.
Corruption as Disorder
From this perspective, corruption is no longer merely a superficial violation; it becomes a disturbance within a system.
When randomness enters one of the systems within a human being, that system becomes less controlled and more disordered.
The greater the randomness, the greater the possibility of losing direction and the axis.
This explains the objection to certain discourses that present sexual chaos, blurred boundaries, or the abandonment of fixed forms as paths to “enlightenment.”
The problem is not natural movement, nor the natural difference between masculinity and femininity, but turning disorder into a value, turning the loss of boundaries into liberation, and turning the fall away from the center into ascent.
Natural vibration can be part of life, but vibration that loses its axis becomes disorder.
Masculinity and Femininity Between Movement and the Axis
The same idea can be applied to the relationship between male and female.
The point is not for the female to remain motionless, nor for the male to become rigid and inflexible.
Rather, the point is to distinguish between movement that retains its axis and movement that turns into disorder.
The female is female, the male is male, and each has its own nature.
The female may vibrate, but her vibration does not mean that she has no axis. The male may move, but his movement does not mean that he has lost his trunk.
The problem begins when disorder becomes the natural state and tranquility becomes something strange.
Stability does not mean the absence of movement; it means that movement does not destroy the center.
Why Has Humanity Begun to See Deficiency in Everything?
There is another problem connected to all of this: the modern human being who lives in a constant search for deficiency.
They wake up to fix a deficiency, work to fix a deficiency, go out to fix a deficiency, buy something to fix a deficiency, and then return to search for a new deficiency.
Thus, life becomes an endless cycle:
Deficiency, then repair, then a new deficiency, then another repair.
As if a person cannot sit for a moment and say: Enough. It is sufficient.
That is why tranquility becomes more valuable than many other things.
To sit peacefully, securely, without being compelled to chase after something, may be greater than possessing many things.
True wealth here is not the amount you possess, but the degree of your tranquility and your sense of stability.
Stability Is More Valuable Than Money
A person may eat at the finest restaurants, stay in hotels, spend money, and travel from one place to another, yet still have no place where they feel at peace.
They may possess money, relationships, and appearances, yet remain threatened and disturbed.
What is the value of money if it does not give its owner stability?
What is the value of a hotel if a person does not feel that they have a place to return to?
What is the value of having many relationships if a person cannot trust anyone?
Tranquility, principle, stability, and a sense of security are not marginal things; they are among the most valuable things a person can possess.
Stability Is the Foundation of Security
A person cannot provide security unless they are stable.
Security requires a consistent word, respected boundaries, and principles that do not change from one moment to the next.
But a person who says something today and retracts it tomorrow, enters a relationship and withdraws from it as soon as their mood changes, buys something and then wants to return everything, promises and then fails to deliver, creates a sense of insecurity.
Love itself requires stability.
Peace requires boundaries.
Freedom requires responsibility.
When love is separated from all stability, it may become nothing more than a temporary desire to feel good.
That is why security cannot be built upon constant vibration.
Principle Is Not a Transaction
Even material things can reveal something about human nature.
There is a difference between buying and selling and bargaining over everything.
If something has a clear price and a clear value, you either accept it or leave it.
But when a person becomes willing to bargain over everything, they may eventually begin bargaining over their principles, boundaries, peace, and identity.
The problem is not commercial negotiation itself, but turning everything into a transaction.
Even relationships can become a marketplace, and marriage can become a contract filled with mutual guarantees for an exit, rather than a union based on consent and acceptance.
Marriage is not a project that begins with a person planning for divorce from the very first moment.
If a person wants a relationship, they should first ask: Am I satisfied with this person? And are they satisfied with me?
Yes or no.
Turning the relationship into a commercial transaction may cause the relationship itself to be built upon fear of its ending before it even begins.
You Cannot Escape the Equation by Leaving the Equation
Here we arrive at another fundamental idea: the attempt to escape accountability by “leaving the equation.”
As long as a person exists, they are within existence.
They cannot simply declare that they have left the equation.
Even an attempt to embrace nonexistence does not necessarily achieve what a person imagines, because it does not make the existential contradiction any less complex.
Leaving the equation is not necessarily a solution.
It may simply be adding another error to the equation instead of correcting the previous one.
Therefore, the path is not to increase the space occupied by errors, but to correct them.
Order Is Not Chaos
The fundamental mistake in viewing the universe as pure chaos is believing that failing to see order means that order does not exist.
A person may see a criminal who possesses money and appears to live well and ask: “Where is the justice of the universe?”
But failing to see the punishment does not mean that consequences do not exist.
Failing to see deprivation does not mean that a person is not deprived.
A person may be deprived of tranquility, security, the ability to trust, and the ability to remain stable, even while possessing money.
Money alone is not a measure of a good life.
And a crime whose punishment you have not witnessed does not mean that the crime has become good.
Stability in the Face of a Vibrating World
Everything discussed above leads to one point:
Not everything that moves is progressing, and not everything that vibrates is ascending.
Vibration may be movement, but it may also be disturbance.
Liberation may mean escaping a constraint, but it may also mean moving away from the center.
Values may appear restrictive when understood superficially, but at a deeper level they may be what gives a person the ability to distinguish, choose, and remain stable.
A person without principles does not necessarily become free; they may simply become vulnerable to every influence.
A person without boundaries does not necessarily become liberated; they may become unable to protect themselves.
A person who cannot stop does not necessarily become more alive; they may simply be incapable of stillness.
But a person who can move and remain still, say yes and no, maintain their boundaries, and understand why they do what they do, has gained something deeper than merely “raising their vibration”:
They have found their axis.
Conclusion
If the universe we are talking about is the universe beyond observation, then we are talking about an assumed existence that we cannot establish independently of observation.
But if we are talking about the observed universe, it appears to us through constants, regularities, and laws, and it cannot be reduced to vibration alone.
From this perspective, the idea that “the universe does not care about values” needs to be reconsidered, because the first question is not what the universe wants, but which universe do we mean?
The observed universe is the existence we know, and the existence we know does not appear to us as vibration without an axis, but as a system whose regularity can be perceived.
As for attempting to reach the “original existence” by eliminating values, constants, and principles, it faces a question that cannot be bypassed:
If stability is the branch, how did the branch manage to constrain the root?
And if vibration is the original state, where did stability come from?
And if observation is an illusion, who discovered the illusion?
And if enlightenment means leaving observed existence, who became enlightened?
Perhaps the problem is not that a person has a low vibration, but that they have learned to regard vibration as an end in itself.
Perhaps the path to perfection is not to become beings that move without an axis, but to reach a degree of stability that gives movement itself meaning.
A person does not always need to raise themselves.
Sometimes they simply need to stop.
To remain still.
To become stable.
To know their boundaries.
To know their principles.
To be able to turn off the noise around them and then sit without running away from themselves.
Because true ownership is not the ability to go in every direction; it is the ability to choose a direction.
True freedom is not being free from every constraint, but knowing which constraints protect your existence and which ones deserve to be broken.
True enlightenment, if the concept has any meaning, should not be a fall from the axis into chaos, but a transition from ignorance to understanding, from disturbance to tranquility, and from random movement to meaningful movement.
Not every movement is life, not every stillness is death, and not every vibration is ascent.
The greatest ascent a human being can achieve is to remain steady while everything around them is vibrating.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment