A theory put forward by a man who is mentally ill.

Pataphysics is a branch of metaphysics that try’s to study irrational information. It is often thought of as a parody of the scientific method. I took a break from writing my novel and decided to write a essay on the nature of meaning from the perspective of one of my characters who is a pataphysician on the fundamental nature of meaning. It was written as a humorous exercise but i accidentally made the point that the meaning of the word meaning is completely reliant on the context of its position in a sentence to have any meaning by its own definition. So i came to the conclusion that whether god is is real or not life has no meaning not by any limitation on his part but that of the language we use to understand him. So whether your a scientist or a preacher life as something that can be expressed Is nothing but fragments of our limited language to describe a experience as a idea. While ideas can have meaning, a experience can only after it has ceased. Meaning our life can have meaning after it has ended but even then only so that the living can have meaning in relationship to something that has ended that can now be understood as something more then a experience. But to the living meaning is as relative as time and space, which is to say while not obviously so we can not rely on it because our understanding is based off of language as apposed the reality it is describing. But the irony is that our only hope for meaning is god but by life never ending for a eternal being then by its definition meaning is void by having nothing to measure it’s self by because life would continue to be a experience as apposed to a idea thus life has no meaning by its own definition of the word meaning.  There is a variation on a old zen saying that I have come up with "emptiness is form, and form is substance."  and what I meant when I said that, was there is no difference between style and substance.  And the theory behind this statement is how we will begin this irrational tirade.  First lets start with definition of meaning, shall we. meaning noun 1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word. 2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion? 3. Linguistics. the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of a linguistic form; expression. linguistic content (opposed to expression ). adjective 4. intentioned (usually used in combination): She's a well-meaning person. 5. full of significance; expressive: a meaning look. Lets break down the meaning of meaning systematically so we can understand that their is no practical relationship between it and the reality that we experience. definition 1 presented above a completely reliant on definition 2. definition 2 is reliant on are ability to know how time ends. definition 3 can be manipulated by the vary rules it relies on to define itself completely void. 4 is assuming that the ultimate nature of reality had a predetermined message to be comprehended 5 is wholly reliant on 1 and 2 which have already been invalidated. meaning as i idea is only valid in relationship to what is being measured. so lets talk about the broad strokes of life in this universe. in the beginning there was ether something or nothing. in the end all we can rationalize is that there was nothing then there was something this first thing was ether a "i am" aka god. or it wasn't aka the known universe. /v\/ before we go any further a goal mus be set if only for me to understand exactly what i am trying to get at. if we go to heaven there has to be the potential for us to lose the ability for us to go too hell. if we on the other hand arrive in hell then we must lose the the potential for us to lose the ability for us to go to heaven. if not then the gospel of Thomas was right and heaven and hell exist right now. in a thoughtless state we all experience realty with the same perspective even if we don't share the same perception. we have only lost the universal perception of commonality when the ego reminds that it is not a illusion by reminding us that we are we share the same name of "i am ." it is the memories of what we were that gives this i am a identity. and the hopes of what could be that lets loose the anarchy of hope. hope is the foundation of hell and the enemy of heaven. if there is hope in heaven then it would not be nirvana and if there was no hope in hell it would be reality. the fundamental problem of god is that when we ever get to heaven or hell he ceases to be god. there is no reason for a i am to submit to a i'm not. you don't control power it controls you. the nature of the universe is that you can not experience it all at ounce in it finite infinite nature past present and future. beginning and end as one experience. if you could you would be stretched so thin you would cease to exist. i can here go in my head now whisper in her sexy voice "yeah but can you control the weather?" and the rain hits my window as i say with pride "no, but i have more style." if you could reach a state of enlightenment that destroyed even your own great i am you would not be able brag about because then you would have to observe and who are you to observe anything. i am a competently self educated pataphysician, this is the only warning you will have before we proceed. their is a argument that good and evil can not exist without god aka a great i am, the problem with this is that by being able to predict or predetermine the nature of god is that he ceases to be the great i am and is only just one interpretation of reality rather then a force of it. /v\/ here is a thought experiment a women is kidnapped raped and tortured for years. when she is finally killed by the perpetrators she goes to heaven. for her to exist in a state befitting of heaven her past is taken away and she is only with her i am. for her pain to be taken way it would have to be that she couldn't remember it or be reminded of it, you could even say that it never happened. the problem with this is that the distinction between being worm food and a eternal child of god is not measurable beyond the point that if she said "i am." that it could be distinguished between any other being saying i am. now things get interesting when this is brought into the perspective of the cross for the cross to be sacred it has to mean something but as i have already show meaning has to be relative. but if the cross means god lost his ability to do whatever he wants then he would cease to be god. if the cross doesn't mean anything on earth then it doesn't mean anything at all. if the woman could not rely on Jesus when she needed him. then how can god rely on something that does not exist aka the victim and her ability to distinguish herself from god so that she could worship him. anything that can destroy you, you must give the highest form of respect. the problem is can god have a i am as a Omnipotent being from which all things originate and still be worshiped. since the foundation of every faith is worship. how can a omnipotent being from which all things originate remove his identity, from his creation. since the whole expression of it originates from his i am. if there is a omnipotent being with a i am can we say what he is not, can he even say what he is not would the very nature of that remove his status from being god? and if god says he is not does that prove or disprove that he is. by having free will he would have a i am. by saying he is not responsible for hat he created is he proving he has free will aka a i am, or is he proving he is flawed by ether taking credit for what he did not make or renouncing what he did. what i have just proven is not there is no god but that if he is real then there is no meaning to life only the experience of it. and if we came from nothing and will return to nothing then the i am that is you dear reader can only tell me what life means to you before we return to the great unknown from which we came because all we are is matter and though you can tell me what that is you can not tell me what I'm not thus "emptiness is for and form is substance" and finally our only question and it's answer: if I'm an idiot you cant prove it (at least not in the reality i experience). or maybe god made the universe the same reason i wrote this essay it validates the ego while proving it irrelevant.