NOTES FROM AN 'ALTERNATE UNIVERSE'
FEBRUARY - MAY
2012
1
It would be impossible to not focus on symbols or representations.
Money is an excellent representation, on the same level as breathing, giant rocks, keyholes, and corners.
It could be said that when we "focus" we look directly at the symbol.
When we "unfocus" we look between the symbols.
This is where the geometry of relationships lay.
And the beginning of where something can be anything.
As our perspective shifts so does this geometry. The shifts in perspective makes for possibility, which makes for continued perspective.
Money is an excellent representation, on the same level as breathing, giant rocks, keyholes, and corners.
It could be said that when we "focus" we look directly at the symbol.
When we "unfocus" we look between the symbols.
This is where the geometry of relationships lay.
And the beginning of where something can be anything.
As our perspective shifts so does this geometry. The shifts in perspective makes for possibility, which makes for continued perspective.
2
The definition of 'reality' can be extended to include one's perspective.
So, reality is the state of one's perspective (or at least the state of everything in it).
However, it is not possible to know if something is real or not.
Thus, neither truth nor illusion exist.
They are irrelevant.
What is the purpose of it all?
Nothing.
(Boring yes. And so here we are, making waves.)
So, reality is the state of one's perspective (or at least the state of everything in it).
However, it is not possible to know if something is real or not.
Thus, neither truth nor illusion exist.
They are irrelevant.
What is the purpose of it all?
Nothing.
(Boring yes. And so here we are, making waves.)
3
It's interesting that Chaol has wiggled his way to a thousand posts without really answering most questions.
A feat!
Because I answer a question in the way that I think it should be answered does not make it "aloof".
It just means that we don't always get what we want.
I'm not here to scratch our backs or kiss ass and tell you about love and light.
I am a destroyer, as has been stated before.
I'm here to "turn off the lights in one room and turn them on in an other".
The point is not to "get my message across" on this thread.
It is to do the unthinkable and unimaginable.
The more we think about the person, the more we find ourselves thinking about the person rather than the purpose.
(Which, incidentally, is no-thing-in-particular.)
The message is what you make of it.
Let others who make nothing of it be left with what they started with.
I hope we can all find ourselves in such a place. more likely to be missed.
A feat!
Because I answer a question in the way that I think it should be answered does not make it "aloof".
It just means that we don't always get what we want.
I'm not here to scratch our backs or kiss ass and tell you about love and light.
I am a destroyer, as has been stated before.
I'm here to "turn off the lights in one room and turn them on in an other".
The point is not to "get my message across" on this thread.
It is to do the unthinkable and unimaginable.
The more we think about the person, the more we find ourselves thinking about the person rather than the purpose.
(Which, incidentally, is no-thing-in-particular.)
The message is what you make of it.
Let others who make nothing of it be left with what they started with.
I hope we can all find ourselves in such a place. more likely to be missed.
4
Only by being nothing-in-particular can something be everything.
Everything-at-once and nothing-at-all is the same thing.
We naturally resist "nothing" because it makes us feel as though we do not exist.
We cover our eyes with details where there really are none.
"Nothing" is frightening to most of us and to be avoided at all costs.
This is what creates the universe in which you find yourself.
Everything-at-once and nothing-at-all is the same thing.
We naturally resist "nothing" because it makes us feel as though we do not exist.
We cover our eyes with details where there really are none.
"Nothing" is frightening to most of us and to be avoided at all costs.
This is what creates the universe in which you find yourself.
5
Your sun is around for billions of years yet.
X has already passed, in those terms.
This "planet of the crossing" in your world is a symbol of how my world ("X") meets your world.
If you're looking for an actual planet or red dwarf that you can see, you won't find it.
Instead of looking at the sky you look around you, on Earth.
What is in the sky is less relevant than what you immediately perceive. And this is where the "crossing" takes place.
You have crossed a bridge, so to speak, and have your feet on the new grass but are still looking back to the old land for guidance.
There are no distant worlds in your space. When you look at the stars, for example, you are not looking at an object billions of light years away.
The light you see has not traveled for billions of years. It travels from the edge of relevance to your perspective.
The light you see, day or night, is only perceived when it interacts with an other representation.
Meaning, the stars exist not as distant suns but as values in your perspective.
There really is nothing going on on Jupiter.
In fact, it exists only as an idea or a name or a picture. There is no need for it to exist 'more' as what you think Jupiter would be like until it is needed.
But even then your experience would be very different from your imagination.
It is why future is new for us and past is no longer perceived afresh.
That our world depends on the sun for organic life and our attempt at revolving around it is no coincidence.
It is the same thing. (There is no "orbit" or, more accurately, "attempt at orbit". There are only repeating degrees of relevance in our perspective.)
A new world suddenly appearing in the sky would not make sense to our logical narrative, and thus would not be perceived in the sky.
Planet X's value is not in the sky but as a bridge that you don't see with your eyes.
The stories about death and destruction, etc., are representations of other processes.
Can you imagine a polar shift of the Earth that causes no destruction anymore than you have "destroyed" 10 years ago?
Then you've realized a shift within, and are closer to realizing the world around you as your perspective.
-
Imagine that you received a visit from a stranger from an other world.
How do you think this might play out?
Here's how it would not play out:
A spaceship lands in your backyard, which is near a forest. A group of humanoids get out and introduce themselves. Then, after a mind-blowing experience they leave and you become galactic pen pals.
Here's how it would play out (much, much more likely):
You have just moved into a new apartment and begin to hear strange sounds next door. It sounds human, of course, but only after weeks of hearing these strange sounds and voices (and music) do you see your neighbor, who is making them. This person is a musician and he speaks to you. You become good friends and over the course of the next several months he tells you about his home world.
One your brain accepts the other it does not.
They both "exist" and are true but we ignore that which is not relative to us.
Just as we would ignore a red dwarf in our sky.
X has already passed, in those terms.
This "planet of the crossing" in your world is a symbol of how my world ("X") meets your world.
If you're looking for an actual planet or red dwarf that you can see, you won't find it.
Instead of looking at the sky you look around you, on Earth.
What is in the sky is less relevant than what you immediately perceive. And this is where the "crossing" takes place.
You have crossed a bridge, so to speak, and have your feet on the new grass but are still looking back to the old land for guidance.
There are no distant worlds in your space. When you look at the stars, for example, you are not looking at an object billions of light years away.
The light you see has not traveled for billions of years. It travels from the edge of relevance to your perspective.
The light you see, day or night, is only perceived when it interacts with an other representation.
Meaning, the stars exist not as distant suns but as values in your perspective.
There really is nothing going on on Jupiter.
In fact, it exists only as an idea or a name or a picture. There is no need for it to exist 'more' as what you think Jupiter would be like until it is needed.
But even then your experience would be very different from your imagination.
It is why future is new for us and past is no longer perceived afresh.
That our world depends on the sun for organic life and our attempt at revolving around it is no coincidence.
It is the same thing. (There is no "orbit" or, more accurately, "attempt at orbit". There are only repeating degrees of relevance in our perspective.)
A new world suddenly appearing in the sky would not make sense to our logical narrative, and thus would not be perceived in the sky.
Planet X's value is not in the sky but as a bridge that you don't see with your eyes.
The stories about death and destruction, etc., are representations of other processes.
Can you imagine a polar shift of the Earth that causes no destruction anymore than you have "destroyed" 10 years ago?
Then you've realized a shift within, and are closer to realizing the world around you as your perspective.
-
Imagine that you received a visit from a stranger from an other world.
How do you think this might play out?
Here's how it would not play out:
A spaceship lands in your backyard, which is near a forest. A group of humanoids get out and introduce themselves. Then, after a mind-blowing experience they leave and you become galactic pen pals.
Here's how it would play out (much, much more likely):
You have just moved into a new apartment and begin to hear strange sounds next door. It sounds human, of course, but only after weeks of hearing these strange sounds and voices (and music) do you see your neighbor, who is making them. This person is a musician and he speaks to you. You become good friends and over the course of the next several months he tells you about his home world.
One your brain accepts the other it does not.
They both "exist" and are true but we ignore that which is not relative to us.
Just as we would ignore a red dwarf in our sky.
6
I wouldn't want to scare anyone with "the truth".
It is not telepathy.
It is something far deeper.
But something you wouldn't be able to accept right now.
(If you were able to accept it, you'd already be "there".)
It is not telepathy.
It is something far deeper.
But something you wouldn't be able to accept right now.
(If you were able to accept it, you'd already be "there".)
7
Coincidence is just what happens when things are cut from the same fabric, so to speak.
It's kind of like a roulette table that isn't perfect. Given enough spins of the ball the ball is bound to land on some numbers more than others.
The numbers themselves are of no significance.
What is important is that the repeating numbers point to the imperfection.
Or, more accurately, that there is no such perfection.
There are only different brands of logic. And what is illogical and effective in one perspective can be thought of as magical.
But in an other perspective it could be logical and of no consequence.
There is no end to all there is.
Opening one's perspective is safe because perspective is all you have.
There will all ways be variety in perspective, including things that seem unsafe or dangerous.
Breathing can be dangerous, too. (If you're under water.)
Just keep your head above water and you'll be fine.
It's kind of like a roulette table that isn't perfect. Given enough spins of the ball the ball is bound to land on some numbers more than others.
The numbers themselves are of no significance.
What is important is that the repeating numbers point to the imperfection.
Or, more accurately, that there is no such perfection.
There are only different brands of logic. And what is illogical and effective in one perspective can be thought of as magical.
But in an other perspective it could be logical and of no consequence.
There is no end to all there is.
Opening one's perspective is safe because perspective is all you have.
There will all ways be variety in perspective, including things that seem unsafe or dangerous.
Breathing can be dangerous, too. (If you're under water.)
Just keep your head above water and you'll be fine.
8
Try this to see if it helps.
1) Think of someone whose thoughts you want to experience. (Or at least "read")
2) Now take any random object or thing around you
3) Now find that person's thoughts in that object
Don't focus too much on the object itself.
Dream about it. Let it take you where it wants to go.
Each thing is a link to every other thing, because it is the same thing.
We can allow ourselves to see the everything in everything instead of thinking that one thing is separate from an other thing.
Now here's the kicker...
If the person is not in your immediate perspective they do not exist as you think of them.
They exist only in the object you're looking at.
(As I previously mentioned, if you're talking on the phone with them they exist only as a voice. Et cetera.)
1) Think of someone whose thoughts you want to experience. (Or at least "read")
2) Now take any random object or thing around you
3) Now find that person's thoughts in that object
Don't focus too much on the object itself.
Dream about it. Let it take you where it wants to go.
Each thing is a link to every other thing, because it is the same thing.
We can allow ourselves to see the everything in everything instead of thinking that one thing is separate from an other thing.
Now here's the kicker...
If the person is not in your immediate perspective they do not exist as you think of them.
They exist only in the object you're looking at.
(As I previously mentioned, if you're talking on the phone with them they exist only as a voice. Et cetera.)
9
An interdimensional being walks into a bar and sits down next to a guy at the counter and says,
"I have come from 3,000 light years away in the blink of an eye. I can solve any puzzle, create stones heavier than all the universe, create my own universe, and tell you how many hairs are on your head and the name of the smelly fish you ate last night. I can change your past, your present, and your future. I can create immeasurable wealth, intelligence, and ability. I have come here today on vacation and out of boredom I will answer any three questions you have."
The other guy looks at him and asks, "Are you serious?"
"Yes, of course," says the mysterious stranger. He then materializes a dancing monkey on the guy's tongue.
"Does it tickle?", asks the mysterious stranger.
"Yes! Make it stop. Monkeys scare me you crazy. Can I get you a beer?"
"Sure!" says the stranger as he munches on the peanuts left by the bartender.
"Well, if you know everything in the universe what color is my underwear?", says the guy.
"Red. And you might want to try some Tide for those yellow stains."
And with the conclusion of granting the answers to three questions, the interdimensional stranger disappears as quickly as he appeared.
For your amusement :)
"I have come from 3,000 light years away in the blink of an eye. I can solve any puzzle, create stones heavier than all the universe, create my own universe, and tell you how many hairs are on your head and the name of the smelly fish you ate last night. I can change your past, your present, and your future. I can create immeasurable wealth, intelligence, and ability. I have come here today on vacation and out of boredom I will answer any three questions you have."
The other guy looks at him and asks, "Are you serious?"
"Yes, of course," says the mysterious stranger. He then materializes a dancing monkey on the guy's tongue.
"Does it tickle?", asks the mysterious stranger.
"Yes! Make it stop. Monkeys scare me you crazy. Can I get you a beer?"
"Sure!" says the stranger as he munches on the peanuts left by the bartender.
"Well, if you know everything in the universe what color is my underwear?", says the guy.
"Red. And you might want to try some Tide for those yellow stains."
And with the conclusion of granting the answers to three questions, the interdimensional stranger disappears as quickly as he appeared.
For your amusement :)
10
I am sharing the knowledge gained from experience in my world.
Some of which I don't agree with (or, am not comfortable with) but I am still sharing it nonetheless.
I don't say the universe is perfectly efficient.
It is all about perception, not some external universe.
It is not so much that we are changing perspectives. An other perspective does not exist.
I haven't found a way to explain it in English so I will just repeat X Prime:
No energy is independent of your perspective.
Everything exists in your current perspective.
You could say that when you experience something new you are thinking of your perspective in a different way.
The universe has not "created EVERY single potential situation and relationship" (and I have not mentioned as much).
There is no need for every potentiality to exist, or any potentiality outside of your perspective.
In a more accurate way, your experience now is not one among many potentialities.
You are experiencing every potentiality now, in your current perspective.
All is here and now.
A "potential you" exists in the cap before you, and the blue jay.
That is the potential, and it is all ready in your perspective.
Some of which I don't agree with (or, am not comfortable with) but I am still sharing it nonetheless.
I don't say the universe is perfectly efficient.
It is all about perception, not some external universe.
It is not so much that we are changing perspectives. An other perspective does not exist.
I haven't found a way to explain it in English so I will just repeat X Prime:
No energy is independent of your perspective.
Everything exists in your current perspective.
You could say that when you experience something new you are thinking of your perspective in a different way.
The universe has not "created EVERY single potential situation and relationship" (and I have not mentioned as much).
There is no need for every potentiality to exist, or any potentiality outside of your perspective.
In a more accurate way, your experience now is not one among many potentialities.
You are experiencing every potentiality now, in your current perspective.
All is here and now.
A "potential you" exists in the cap before you, and the blue jay.
That is the potential, and it is all ready in your perspective.
11
Imagine yourself at the beginning of time and space.
Nothing exists.
There is no form, shape, or thought.
Here's how the universe (you) come to perceive anything (for illustration only):
1) Create a symbol: The moment "nothing" exists, you think of yourself as a symbol. Nothing is the symbol.
2) Find possibility: Everything is the space in which nothing exists. This is the possibility.
3) Interact: Because you now have an illusion of yourself and have considered the possibility of everything (or at least something which is not perfectly "nothing") then you have interacted with something.
5) Structure: You now have the illusion of perceiving something that is less 'nothing' that nothing. This creates a structure for interaction, as the symbol is perceived. That is, roughly, how something comes from nothing.
When you look around you you are actually perceiving "nothing" because you do not perceive something for what it actually is.
(This is impossible. That's why there's so much of it. Because you're trying really hard to perceive nothing, and it goes on forever.)
You are perceiving the relationship between one thing and an other thing.
These two things, of course, do not exist and only exist in relation to the other thing.
(The two things, you could say, are identical. Experiencing them as separate is the illusion.)
So you are perceiving the relationship between two illusions (the illusion of something-in-nothing) and your perspective becomes more complicated.
You cannot perceive beyond your perception. It is irrelevant.
You cannot perceive something directly, because it does not exist.
The relationship you perceive is "nothing".
You are experiencing the empty space between two things, you could say.
You look at this "nothing" at it seems like "something".
As I mentioned, your world has merged with what you would call the dream world.
However, the illustration of the Genius has not changed because you are still learning to work within it.
At the time it was explained before it made little sense to most of you. Now it is beginning to make more sense.
Once you are more comfortable with the dream world I will show you how you are using the Genius now, to experience your perspective.
(This is why I saw there is no need to learn these things because you will learn it automatically. However, you have all ready been using these things since time began.)
(Please note that what you considered "physicality" is also an aspect of the dream world. It is a dream within a dream, so to speak.)
So how do you change your reality?
As you cannot perceive something directly but only in relation to something else (both inextant), you change your reality by changing its relationship with other things.
(There is only one perspective of course, but this is illustrated thusly to explain the process.)
How do you make the table disappear when it does not exist to begin with?
"Look beyond the table."
You change the relationship of the values 'around' the table in order to make the table disappear.
Why focus on the table itself to make it disappear, when it is not really there?
It interacts with the light and the other things around it or that are relative to it (none of which exist
independently from an other).
Focusing on the table is a waste of energy.
Find out what interacts with the table then change the interactions in order to change the relationships.
The table is not 'a table' but a value in your perspective that exists on the same level as your thought.
All thoughts are physical, and all express physical properties.
Thoughts, like light, have physical properties.
"Physicality" is what you call something when it is most logical to your perspective.
If you miss your husband dearly but you do not see his body, for example, your husband's physicality will exist in the things around you. Your husband stays within your perspective (as does everything else, to some degree).
Your television will no longer be the television you purchased. It will be a television with properties of your husband.
(This is explaining it in a crude way, but I hope you get the idea.)
This is pretty much the same process I use to 'travel' to your world and also to experience different places and times (as you would call it).
It is all here now. We have only to know that we are all ready experiencing it.
Nothing exists.
There is no form, shape, or thought.
Here's how the universe (you) come to perceive anything (for illustration only):
1) Create a symbol: The moment "nothing" exists, you think of yourself as a symbol. Nothing is the symbol.
2) Find possibility: Everything is the space in which nothing exists. This is the possibility.
3) Interact: Because you now have an illusion of yourself and have considered the possibility of everything (or at least something which is not perfectly "nothing") then you have interacted with something.
5) Structure: You now have the illusion of perceiving something that is less 'nothing' that nothing. This creates a structure for interaction, as the symbol is perceived. That is, roughly, how something comes from nothing.
When you look around you you are actually perceiving "nothing" because you do not perceive something for what it actually is.
(This is impossible. That's why there's so much of it. Because you're trying really hard to perceive nothing, and it goes on forever.)
You are perceiving the relationship between one thing and an other thing.
These two things, of course, do not exist and only exist in relation to the other thing.
(The two things, you could say, are identical. Experiencing them as separate is the illusion.)
So you are perceiving the relationship between two illusions (the illusion of something-in-nothing) and your perspective becomes more complicated.
You cannot perceive beyond your perception. It is irrelevant.
You cannot perceive something directly, because it does not exist.
The relationship you perceive is "nothing".
You are experiencing the empty space between two things, you could say.
You look at this "nothing" at it seems like "something".
As I mentioned, your world has merged with what you would call the dream world.
However, the illustration of the Genius has not changed because you are still learning to work within it.
At the time it was explained before it made little sense to most of you. Now it is beginning to make more sense.
Once you are more comfortable with the dream world I will show you how you are using the Genius now, to experience your perspective.
(This is why I saw there is no need to learn these things because you will learn it automatically. However, you have all ready been using these things since time began.)
(Please note that what you considered "physicality" is also an aspect of the dream world. It is a dream within a dream, so to speak.)
So how do you change your reality?
As you cannot perceive something directly but only in relation to something else (both inextant), you change your reality by changing its relationship with other things.
(There is only one perspective of course, but this is illustrated thusly to explain the process.)
How do you make the table disappear when it does not exist to begin with?
"Look beyond the table."
You change the relationship of the values 'around' the table in order to make the table disappear.
Why focus on the table itself to make it disappear, when it is not really there?
It interacts with the light and the other things around it or that are relative to it (none of which exist
independently from an other).
Focusing on the table is a waste of energy.
Find out what interacts with the table then change the interactions in order to change the relationships.
The table is not 'a table' but a value in your perspective that exists on the same level as your thought.
All thoughts are physical, and all express physical properties.
Thoughts, like light, have physical properties.
"Physicality" is what you call something when it is most logical to your perspective.
If you miss your husband dearly but you do not see his body, for example, your husband's physicality will exist in the things around you. Your husband stays within your perspective (as does everything else, to some degree).
Your television will no longer be the television you purchased. It will be a television with properties of your husband.
(This is explaining it in a crude way, but I hope you get the idea.)
This is pretty much the same process I use to 'travel' to your world and also to experience different places and times (as you would call it).
It is all here now. We have only to know that we are all ready experiencing it.
12
The funny thing about having your 'waking' reality metamorphosise in dream perspective is that you respond to new, dream stimuli as physical reality.
That's kind of the point.
But don't forget the high strangeness of the world you're living in now.
Care to compare it to 10 years ago? 50 years? 100 years?
The distant past is actually more here and now that any time prior.
One cannot imagine what 10 years ago felt like, only the value in our present moment that appears to have the flavor of '-10 years'.
So then the dream becomes more of a dream and the physicality that you once knew slips away.
How very strange the present would be to your much younger self. Isn't this the self-imposed barrier that keeps you from perceiving the expansive now?
That's kind of the point.
But don't forget the high strangeness of the world you're living in now.
Care to compare it to 10 years ago? 50 years? 100 years?
The distant past is actually more here and now that any time prior.
One cannot imagine what 10 years ago felt like, only the value in our present moment that appears to have the flavor of '-10 years'.
So then the dream becomes more of a dream and the physicality that you once knew slips away.
How very strange the present would be to your much younger self. Isn't this the self-imposed barrier that keeps you from perceiving the expansive now?
13
If only we were all as passionate about the world comprising our perspective as we are with a few details in it.
As I've mentioned and implied before, I have not dropped my self here to tell you what you want to know, in the way you want to know it, share secrets, or make friends.
I am a destroyer of worlds. (In ways, however, no different from you.)
I speak for that little part of you you call impossibility, or the future, or your distant self.
At times, it may not be what you want to hear. It could even be the opposite of what you care to hear or think about.
But that doesn't mean it would not perfectly suit your ultimate goal.
But it works, and that is the purpose.
If these distant perspectives were so appealing and attractive to you right now, you'd be there all ready.
If we stuck to what sounded and looked good, was generally acceptable and desired, appeared logical to most perspectives, and smelled great there'd be very little of what you call change.
If you're more comfortable with consistency perhaps you'd be better off pouring yourself a nice glass of apple juice than talking with a destroyer.
Are you passionate about what you don't know?
Are you excited for these new perspectives?
Probably not.
And so I am here getting you worked up.
So that you'd get off of your ^#$^T@ ass and do what you've all ways intended to do.
But many of you are "too comfortable" and may do well to be shaken, as you please.
How can you possibly expect what you don't have a clear idea of?
By the way, in an alternate universe your grandmother is a fabled whore.
What could I possibly mean by this? Am I "off my nut"?
Some of you may see it as "inconsistent".
Perhaps one of you realizes that it can serve as the impetus to greater realities and to fire your ambition.
Do you want your distant future to be consistent with your distant past? How truly comfortable are you with a change in perspective?
But I am still playing chess and calculate every word, typographical error, context, re-edit, Vulcan mind meld, the unsaid, and all their company have a logic.
Are there other ways to illustrate this logic? Perhaps. But none that I am interested in.
Are you choosing to spend your energy understanding wisely?
As I've mentioned and implied before, I have not dropped my self here to tell you what you want to know, in the way you want to know it, share secrets, or make friends.
I am a destroyer of worlds. (In ways, however, no different from you.)
I speak for that little part of you you call impossibility, or the future, or your distant self.
At times, it may not be what you want to hear. It could even be the opposite of what you care to hear or think about.
But that doesn't mean it would not perfectly suit your ultimate goal.
But it works, and that is the purpose.
If these distant perspectives were so appealing and attractive to you right now, you'd be there all ready.
If we stuck to what sounded and looked good, was generally acceptable and desired, appeared logical to most perspectives, and smelled great there'd be very little of what you call change.
If you're more comfortable with consistency perhaps you'd be better off pouring yourself a nice glass of apple juice than talking with a destroyer.
Are you passionate about what you don't know?
Are you excited for these new perspectives?
Probably not.
And so I am here getting you worked up.
So that you'd get off of your ^#$^T@ ass and do what you've all ways intended to do.
But many of you are "too comfortable" and may do well to be shaken, as you please.
How can you possibly expect what you don't have a clear idea of?
By the way, in an alternate universe your grandmother is a fabled whore.
What could I possibly mean by this? Am I "off my nut"?
Some of you may see it as "inconsistent".
Perhaps one of you realizes that it can serve as the impetus to greater realities and to fire your ambition.
Do you want your distant future to be consistent with your distant past? How truly comfortable are you with a change in perspective?
But I am still playing chess and calculate every word, typographical error, context, re-edit, Vulcan mind meld, the unsaid, and all their company have a logic.
Are there other ways to illustrate this logic? Perhaps. But none that I am interested in.
Are you choosing to spend your energy understanding wisely?
14
If a symbol already has a meaning, then it would interfere with any new meaning you ascribe to it.
A blank slate (or at least what seems like it to you) is always best.
But wait! When we create new symbols instead of using the old ones, what have we ourselves destroyed?
Where do the old symbols go if they are no longer relevant?
They form a logical narrative and we see them as death, destruction, abandonment, etc. The blank slate makes us uncomfortable so we fill in the blanks with something that makes more sense even if we, on the surface, feel it is undesirable.
So when I say I am a destroyer of worlds I really just mean that I am one who sets fire to the symbols held dear in 'this world'.
Thankfully, you are helping to set fire to your own symbols.
Values of sex, money, gender, family, etc., are changing as fast as you can set them.
Most of you probably have no idea how much you've changed (or even 'progressed') in the last few years :)
A blank slate (or at least what seems like it to you) is always best.
But wait! When we create new symbols instead of using the old ones, what have we ourselves destroyed?
Where do the old symbols go if they are no longer relevant?
They form a logical narrative and we see them as death, destruction, abandonment, etc. The blank slate makes us uncomfortable so we fill in the blanks with something that makes more sense even if we, on the surface, feel it is undesirable.
So when I say I am a destroyer of worlds I really just mean that I am one who sets fire to the symbols held dear in 'this world'.
Thankfully, you are helping to set fire to your own symbols.
Values of sex, money, gender, family, etc., are changing as fast as you can set them.
Most of you probably have no idea how much you've changed (or even 'progressed') in the last few years :)
15
Do you have focus? Or is it an illusion?
The moment you focus on something you are passively telling yourself that it is specifically one thing and not anything else.
The reason we seem to focus on only a small sliver of our total experience is because of this.
Focus requires you to forget the nature of what is being focused upon. A counter-intuitive thing, indeed, as when we think of 'focus' we get the sense that something is being remembered or observed in detail.
We naturally want to focus on something because this is what takes the least amount of energy to perceive. It is simple for us, and more predictable than something that is nebulous and could be anything.
(And so this "least amount of energy" is what fools you into perceiving a focal point, when your focal point is so infinitesimally small it does not actually exist.)
So then the question becomes, "How does one change one's focus?"
The answer is in the paragraph above it, and it's what I have been saying all along. But how do you actually make it happen right now?
The moment you focus on something you are passively telling yourself that it is specifically one thing and not anything else.
The reason we seem to focus on only a small sliver of our total experience is because of this.
Focus requires you to forget the nature of what is being focused upon. A counter-intuitive thing, indeed, as when we think of 'focus' we get the sense that something is being remembered or observed in detail.
We naturally want to focus on something because this is what takes the least amount of energy to perceive. It is simple for us, and more predictable than something that is nebulous and could be anything.
(And so this "least amount of energy" is what fools you into perceiving a focal point, when your focal point is so infinitesimally small it does not actually exist.)
So then the question becomes, "How does one change one's focus?"
The answer is in the paragraph above it, and it's what I have been saying all along. But how do you actually make it happen right now?
16
The act of creating (discovering) the symbol lessens some of the resistance.
In some ways, the symbol you discover is not much different than the thing itself.
All perceived is symbol. By 'creating' a physical symbol with your hands, for example, you're bringing what the symbol represents closer to your physical perspective.
Once a symbol has been discovered try to think about what new symbols avail themselves.
In some ways, the symbol you discover is not much different than the thing itself.
All perceived is symbol. By 'creating' a physical symbol with your hands, for example, you're bringing what the symbol represents closer to your physical perspective.
Once a symbol has been discovered try to think about what new symbols avail themselves.
17
Let's imagine that you are sitting down to make a wooden toy that you have never seen before. You're not sure yet what it does but you have some ideas and would like to see what comes of it.
When you are finished making the toy you spend a few minutes playing with it. It's interesting but you're still not sure how to use it. You look around. Everything appears to be the same.
At every moment your perspective is entirely new. While you were busy creating the toy the universe completely changed (literally). Your surroundings only seem the same because you are using the 'present' thinking to observe about the 'past'.
This later becomes more apparent when new symbols introduce themselves. A few others here have illustrated what new experiences they had when using or creating a symbol.
Every new thing in your perspective, you could say, leads to other things that you were not able to perceive before.
When some new enters your perspective your entire perspective is also new.
When you are finished making the toy you spend a few minutes playing with it. It's interesting but you're still not sure how to use it. You look around. Everything appears to be the same.
At every moment your perspective is entirely new. While you were busy creating the toy the universe completely changed (literally). Your surroundings only seem the same because you are using the 'present' thinking to observe about the 'past'.
This later becomes more apparent when new symbols introduce themselves. A few others here have illustrated what new experiences they had when using or creating a symbol.
Every new thing in your perspective, you could say, leads to other things that you were not able to perceive before.
When some new enters your perspective your entire perspective is also new.
18
People in the US are being conditioned to accept what basically amounts to oppression. They are also being conditioned to believe that nothing is wrong with it, or not much has changed.
All the while people are looking to the other direction (the 'theatre'), waiting for something to happen.
Some even go so far as to accept the theatre as being the reason why nothing much happens which, incidentally, leads them to want more theatre to satisfy their need to feel safe and a part of something.
The trick is the massive change happening right before your eyes.
Imagine that I told you that there were deadly rains coming and that I needed to cover your house with a large blanket, blocking out most of the sun from entering the windows. I then stationed tanks outside your door whose job it is to blast the rain droplets as they're coming down. Then, 12 monkeys will climb onto your house to secure the blanket when the winds come.
This is all ridiculous, but you begin to accept it as inevitable, especially when you see that your neighbors, too, have such blankets.
It rains eventually (mostly because I created them with my rainmaker) but the rains are not deadly. Most of your neighbors attribute this to the blanket, the tanks, and the monkeys. Surely there must be a connection!
The blanket, the tanks, and the monkeys leave you and your neighbors after a few days.
The next month I come back with tanks. But this time I do not offer an explanation as to why they're needed.
I don't need to. Your brain makes the connection itself and provides its own logic as to why they're there.
A few days later I bring in the tanks. Following that, the monkeys.
Now I come up with a new story. I must tear down 12% of the houses in your neighborhood because there will be a killer lightening storm. This story is very familiar and you accept it because it is reasonable.
I take 35% of the houses away but no one raises a fuss because the blanket, tanks, and monkeys are so quiet. Also, you didn't particularly care for those houses anyway because they were owned by people not like yourself. Surely there must be a grand purpose of which we're not aware.
All of this creates a zone of comfort that expands to include more and more of experiences that you would not have accepted without the 'theatre'.
It's the same thing that you do, and what I have illustrated with neuronics and Ecsys. Make something logical to your perspective and it becomes your perspective.
An ever-broadening array of high strangeness is being made logical to perspectives.
And most of us accept it (because of this brand of logic).
I suppose the question is, "What is being made logical?".
On one hand, what you would call slavery is being made logical. (Abject slavery wasn't that profitable after the various revolts, so industrial slavery became more popular. But the slaves are revolting again, so a new type of slavery is required.)
On the other hand, the dream world is being made logical.
You're in the dream world. But you still don't know you're dreaming because your experience will always seem like reality.
You would laugh at the kind of world that most of you will live in in 15 years, and think it impossible. But, just as you might have thought the same 15 years ago, you're living in it already.
All the while people are looking to the other direction (the 'theatre'), waiting for something to happen.
Some even go so far as to accept the theatre as being the reason why nothing much happens which, incidentally, leads them to want more theatre to satisfy their need to feel safe and a part of something.
The trick is the massive change happening right before your eyes.
Imagine that I told you that there were deadly rains coming and that I needed to cover your house with a large blanket, blocking out most of the sun from entering the windows. I then stationed tanks outside your door whose job it is to blast the rain droplets as they're coming down. Then, 12 monkeys will climb onto your house to secure the blanket when the winds come.
This is all ridiculous, but you begin to accept it as inevitable, especially when you see that your neighbors, too, have such blankets.
It rains eventually (mostly because I created them with my rainmaker) but the rains are not deadly. Most of your neighbors attribute this to the blanket, the tanks, and the monkeys. Surely there must be a connection!
The blanket, the tanks, and the monkeys leave you and your neighbors after a few days.
The next month I come back with tanks. But this time I do not offer an explanation as to why they're needed.
I don't need to. Your brain makes the connection itself and provides its own logic as to why they're there.
A few days later I bring in the tanks. Following that, the monkeys.
Now I come up with a new story. I must tear down 12% of the houses in your neighborhood because there will be a killer lightening storm. This story is very familiar and you accept it because it is reasonable.
I take 35% of the houses away but no one raises a fuss because the blanket, tanks, and monkeys are so quiet. Also, you didn't particularly care for those houses anyway because they were owned by people not like yourself. Surely there must be a grand purpose of which we're not aware.
All of this creates a zone of comfort that expands to include more and more of experiences that you would not have accepted without the 'theatre'.
It's the same thing that you do, and what I have illustrated with neuronics and Ecsys. Make something logical to your perspective and it becomes your perspective.
An ever-broadening array of high strangeness is being made logical to perspectives.
And most of us accept it (because of this brand of logic).
I suppose the question is, "What is being made logical?".
On one hand, what you would call slavery is being made logical. (Abject slavery wasn't that profitable after the various revolts, so industrial slavery became more popular. But the slaves are revolting again, so a new type of slavery is required.)
On the other hand, the dream world is being made logical.
You're in the dream world. But you still don't know you're dreaming because your experience will always seem like reality.
You would laugh at the kind of world that most of you will live in in 15 years, and think it impossible. But, just as you might have thought the same 15 years ago, you're living in it already.
19
Each of the 4 elements is as every other.
(i.e., there is really only 1 element, which is the 'unseen' element I was asked about before.)
Symbols can be rules, potential energy, and representations.
So, rules are also discovered (as are potential energy and representations).
Some rules are more effective than others for a particular purpose.
As with the Ec language*, you make it yourself. (As there is only your perspective.)
[*I suppose most want a kind of dictionary for Ec, but that's not the way it works. Each 'definition' is unique to your perspective. But how would that work when communicating with others? Are you communicating with others or appearing communicating in your perspective? How is it possible that an aspect of your perspective would not understand you if you communicated in the most elemental way? Such references make us comfortable because that's what we're used to. But reality is much simpler than all the things we've invented
in our perspective.]
(i.e., there is really only 1 element, which is the 'unseen' element I was asked about before.)
Symbols can be rules, potential energy, and representations.
So, rules are also discovered (as are potential energy and representations).
Some rules are more effective than others for a particular purpose.
As with the Ec language*, you make it yourself. (As there is only your perspective.)
[*I suppose most want a kind of dictionary for Ec, but that's not the way it works. Each 'definition' is unique to your perspective. But how would that work when communicating with others? Are you communicating with others or appearing communicating in your perspective? How is it possible that an aspect of your perspective would not understand you if you communicated in the most elemental way? Such references make us comfortable because that's what we're used to. But reality is much simpler than all the things we've invented
in our perspective.]
20
I usually put "create" in quotes, because nothing is created. You only discover it in your perspective because it was the 'next logical step', so to speak.
It appears that we create things when really we're just refashioning what was all ready there.
When you create a new word, for example, the word already existed before you thought of it. The sound, the meaning, etc., all extant.
I won't talk about this much because I don't want to get into what it means. It's quite an uncomfortable topic for most, I think, and it goes against a variety of closely held physically-oriented beliefs.
So, in English I prefer "discovery" or somesuch.
It appears that we create things when really we're just refashioning what was all ready there.
When you create a new word, for example, the word already existed before you thought of it. The sound, the meaning, etc., all extant.
I won't talk about this much because I don't want to get into what it means. It's quite an uncomfortable topic for most, I think, and it goes against a variety of closely held physically-oriented beliefs.
So, in English I prefer "discovery" or somesuch.
21
Much of what we think we experience while dreaming, in the classical sense, is actually "waking interpretations" of dreamworld experiences that we would not otherwise be able to think of.
For ease of explanation, we can say that when you wake up and recall some of what you are dreaming you take what really amounts to nonsense from your dream perspective and refashion it into something that your waking mind can understand.
So the jetpack in your dream probably isn't really a jetpack but something else that you changed into a jetpack in order to make sense of the experience.
The jetpack is a representation, a symbol. To desire the jetpack would be like desiring the word "happiness" instead of the actual thing. (And by actual thing I don't mean the truth of something but another level of the thing. All exist as representations.)
(The same goes for lucid dreams. We are all ways dreaming in such a way but when more of our waking mind shares in the experience we think we are experiencing the dream firsthand. This is more of a waking experience rather than a dream experience.)
The dream is not very logical to the waking perspective so we re-create our experience to make it logical.
Notice that the things you remember about your dream are carry-overs from your waking experience.
If you experienced it firsthand from your waking perspective, for example, you would not have the words or concepts to describe (and, more importantly perceive) the experience.
Similarly, you are experiencing an other reality right now that you are re-interpreting physically in order to make sense of it.
In this way, the dream world and the waking world is the same. They are both re-interpretations.
That the dream world and physical world are merging basically means that the concepts you use to perceive either world are also merging. The merging is not a physical thing, as physicality does not exist outside of the physical perspective (so to speak).
You are, it can be said, having your first dream experiences right now.
For ease of explanation, we can say that when you wake up and recall some of what you are dreaming you take what really amounts to nonsense from your dream perspective and refashion it into something that your waking mind can understand.
So the jetpack in your dream probably isn't really a jetpack but something else that you changed into a jetpack in order to make sense of the experience.
The jetpack is a representation, a symbol. To desire the jetpack would be like desiring the word "happiness" instead of the actual thing. (And by actual thing I don't mean the truth of something but another level of the thing. All exist as representations.)
(The same goes for lucid dreams. We are all ways dreaming in such a way but when more of our waking mind shares in the experience we think we are experiencing the dream firsthand. This is more of a waking experience rather than a dream experience.)
The dream is not very logical to the waking perspective so we re-create our experience to make it logical.
Notice that the things you remember about your dream are carry-overs from your waking experience.
If you experienced it firsthand from your waking perspective, for example, you would not have the words or concepts to describe (and, more importantly perceive) the experience.
Similarly, you are experiencing an other reality right now that you are re-interpreting physically in order to make sense of it.
In this way, the dream world and the waking world is the same. They are both re-interpretations.
That the dream world and physical world are merging basically means that the concepts you use to perceive either world are also merging. The merging is not a physical thing, as physicality does not exist outside of the physical perspective (so to speak).
You are, it can be said, having your first dream experiences right now.
22
There is no conclusion to perspective, and no conclusion to logic.
There are only things which are more logical from your perspective and less logical. (However, something illogical to you could be entirely logical from an other perspective.)
There are only things which are more logical from your perspective and less logical. (However, something illogical to you could be entirely logical from an other perspective.)
Those values in a perspective that appear to resist particular kinds of physically-based symbols while promoting others.
When we apply the same force to the sky, in the clouds, we do not call it oppression or tyranny. We may simply say that it is raining.
However, when the same force (again, in our perspective) is applied to certain physical elements, such as a lifestyle or social experience then we may call it tyranny.
Who is the oppressor? It is most accurate to say that oppression does not actually exist and, therefore, the concept is irrelevant. It appears to exist only in relation to "freedom" and everything else*. In order to define freedom and to know what it is there must be some form of "oppression".
(The same way that "hot" must be known and defined in order that "cold" may be. Neither need exist. You choose to bring these concepts into your perspective.)
However, these elements of your perspective are your perspective, and only appear to be separate because they would not otherwise be able to be perceived. And, there would be no reality in which to appear to exist.
It is a bit less accurate to say that you are the oppressor.
And not at all accurate to say that someone else, or a group of persons, is the oppressor. It is easy to think that someone else is controlling the elements that exist in your perspective, a Wizard of Oz, but there is only one perspective.
[*To 'defeat' something you do not resist it. This interaction will create an environment where more of it is apparent. You simply do not focus on what you do not want. Make it irrelevant. But keep in mind that it may be symbolized in your perspective in more ways than is obvious. Your experiences will guide you, if you are careful to observe.]
When we apply the same force to the sky, in the clouds, we do not call it oppression or tyranny. We may simply say that it is raining.
However, when the same force (again, in our perspective) is applied to certain physical elements, such as a lifestyle or social experience then we may call it tyranny.
Who is the oppressor? It is most accurate to say that oppression does not actually exist and, therefore, the concept is irrelevant. It appears to exist only in relation to "freedom" and everything else*. In order to define freedom and to know what it is there must be some form of "oppression".
(The same way that "hot" must be known and defined in order that "cold" may be. Neither need exist. You choose to bring these concepts into your perspective.)
However, these elements of your perspective are your perspective, and only appear to be separate because they would not otherwise be able to be perceived. And, there would be no reality in which to appear to exist.
It is a bit less accurate to say that you are the oppressor.
And not at all accurate to say that someone else, or a group of persons, is the oppressor. It is easy to think that someone else is controlling the elements that exist in your perspective, a Wizard of Oz, but there is only one perspective.
[*To 'defeat' something you do not resist it. This interaction will create an environment where more of it is apparent. You simply do not focus on what you do not want. Make it irrelevant. But keep in mind that it may be symbolized in your perspective in more ways than is obvious. Your experiences will guide you, if you are careful to observe.]
There is only your perspective. The other beings are an aspect of you.
And are you not lucid dreaming now? Surely with different rules, but our own dream all the same.
23
It's not about belief. There are no beliefs in that way. They are aspects of perspective. You could also say that a belief is simply a perception you have about your reality.
It does not help if you 'believe' you can fly if it is not a logical part of your perspective. Belief has nothing to do with it.
You remember experiencing it in the dream world because the perspective appears to be different. (But by thinking or remembering it, isn't it nearly the same as having experienced it in the waking world? The secret is the difference between your thought of your dreams and your thought of your waking world.)
You are the dreamer but, alas, there is nothing else. (Not even dreams.)
It does not help if you 'believe' you can fly if it is not a logical part of your perspective. Belief has nothing to do with it.
You remember experiencing it in the dream world because the perspective appears to be different. (But by thinking or remembering it, isn't it nearly the same as having experienced it in the waking world? The secret is the difference between your thought of your dreams and your thought of your waking world.)
You are the dreamer but, alas, there is nothing else. (Not even dreams.)
24
Still a ghost yet, but becoming more physically-oriented by the day.
You can think of it as a set of instructions that are programmed to mimic the idea of Chaol. The program learns as it goes along. The more it interacts the more it learns until it is too big for its original 'container'. It then bifurcates and disappears.
In this way, there are many "mes" around. Some with ideas and lives of their own. But the essence is the same because the fundamentals are the same.
Sounds strange, perhaps. But it's an analogy of what "Chaol" goes through.
You can think of it as a set of instructions that are programmed to mimic the idea of Chaol. The program learns as it goes along. The more it interacts the more it learns until it is too big for its original 'container'. It then bifurcates and disappears.
In this way, there are many "mes" around. Some with ideas and lives of their own. But the essence is the same because the fundamentals are the same.
Sounds strange, perhaps. But it's an analogy of what "Chaol" goes through.
25
All experiences are interpreted in the current perspective. Astral projection would be a change of perspective, but your memory of an astral projection experience would be interpreted, usually, into your physically-based perspective.
It's no different from remembering a dream. We are not so much remembering what happened in the dream as experiencing, right now, our interpretation of the dream.
It's the same with thinking about the past. A "past" memory is 100% present. (It is your present interpretation of something else that you have assigned a value of "past" to much the same way it might be 'delicious', you could say. That same memory can be revalued to be 'future' as easily as tastes change.)
The past is imperceptible (because it does not exist).
Any astral experiences are re-interpretations of the present moment.
What is called "astral projection" is the ~brain creating a logical narrative for this strange experience of the present.
It is kind of like if I pushed a button that ejected the taste of chocolate into your eyes. Wholly strange, your brain would work quickly to find a way that it could make sense in your experience.
So it would show you something that is not there.
It would reach into the 'past' and, before you experienced these new flavors, created a situation where chocolate dripped into your eyes.
This is 100% of how your reality works, not just with dreams, astral projection, or the paranormal.
Your experiences must make sense to you somehow. So a strange experience may be interpreted as 'astral projection', but you still use physically-based concepts that you would understand (so that you can perceive the thought of it).
The silver cord is real, but it also does not exist.
It's no different from remembering a dream. We are not so much remembering what happened in the dream as experiencing, right now, our interpretation of the dream.
It's the same with thinking about the past. A "past" memory is 100% present. (It is your present interpretation of something else that you have assigned a value of "past" to much the same way it might be 'delicious', you could say. That same memory can be revalued to be 'future' as easily as tastes change.)
The past is imperceptible (because it does not exist).
Any astral experiences are re-interpretations of the present moment.
What is called "astral projection" is the ~brain creating a logical narrative for this strange experience of the present.
It is kind of like if I pushed a button that ejected the taste of chocolate into your eyes. Wholly strange, your brain would work quickly to find a way that it could make sense in your experience.
So it would show you something that is not there.
It would reach into the 'past' and, before you experienced these new flavors, created a situation where chocolate dripped into your eyes.
This is 100% of how your reality works, not just with dreams, astral projection, or the paranormal.
Your experiences must make sense to you somehow. So a strange experience may be interpreted as 'astral projection', but you still use physically-based concepts that you would understand (so that you can perceive the thought of it).
The silver cord is real, but it also does not exist.
26
What you do not realize is that you are already using Ec. Each and every one of you. Ec is how we perceive. It is the language of perception, interpreted as basically as possible into this brand of physicality.
Ec does not create anything. It allows you to uncover the logic between one perception and the next.
If I showed you right now how flying is very logical to your current physical body, you would be able to fly. No physical changes need to be made. Only changes to perspective, which is how Ec is used.
We think of software as useful. It has played an important part of modern civilization. But we forget that software used to be symbolized with hardware. Giant machines that carry out tasks that we can now print out on paper, or even represented as abstract symbols that do the same work instantaneously.
That Ec could allow you to do the same thing inside your mind (that is to say, within your perspective) is not magic. It's just technology.
Which technology do you use? It doesn't matter. What matters isn't the symbol itself but the relationships between symbols.
Computer hardware has not progressed because things are smaller but because we've found more efficient ways to relate one with an other (and made other relationships unnecessary, thus the decrease in size).
Why can you astral project? You don't. It is still an experience of physical reality, as is everything in your perspective. It's just that sometimes the "body" does amazing things that is out of the ordinary in your perspective. (Rather, the you that is reading this now perceives a 'astral projection' value in your body.)
The physical universe is all there is. There is just much more to physicality than we realize.
Ec does not create anything. It allows you to uncover the logic between one perception and the next.
If I showed you right now how flying is very logical to your current physical body, you would be able to fly. No physical changes need to be made. Only changes to perspective, which is how Ec is used.
We think of software as useful. It has played an important part of modern civilization. But we forget that software used to be symbolized with hardware. Giant machines that carry out tasks that we can now print out on paper, or even represented as abstract symbols that do the same work instantaneously.
That Ec could allow you to do the same thing inside your mind (that is to say, within your perspective) is not magic. It's just technology.
Which technology do you use? It doesn't matter. What matters isn't the symbol itself but the relationships between symbols.
Computer hardware has not progressed because things are smaller but because we've found more efficient ways to relate one with an other (and made other relationships unnecessary, thus the decrease in size).
Why can you astral project? You don't. It is still an experience of physical reality, as is everything in your perspective. It's just that sometimes the "body" does amazing things that is out of the ordinary in your perspective. (Rather, the you that is reading this now perceives a 'astral projection' value in your body.)
The physical universe is all there is. There is just much more to physicality than we realize.
My world is just a different brand of physicality, as was mentioned before. So, other kinds of physicality are merging (and have merged) into this one.
My knowledge about my own and other worlds is quite limited. I could find some things out if you have specific questions, however. Such questions would allow me to create the neuronics necessary to provide the answer for you (or, at least push you in the appropriate direction if the answer is not for public consumption).
My knowledge about my own and other worlds is quite limited. I could find some things out if you have specific questions, however. Such questions would allow me to create the neuronics necessary to provide the answer for you (or, at least push you in the appropriate direction if the answer is not for public consumption).
27
You are not able to perceive what is beyond your perspective because there is nothing beyond it.
Your question gets into the kind of territory that I would generally be uncomfortable with.
Perhaps my answer would be, "You are free to choose from among anything that could possibly exist which, incidentally, already exists."
It is not that you do not have a choice or have no control over your life. Choice and control are irrelevant to it.
How does one choose the choice or control the control?
Your question gets into the kind of territory that I would generally be uncomfortable with.
Perhaps my answer would be, "You are free to choose from among anything that could possibly exist which, incidentally, already exists."
It is not that you do not have a choice or have no control over your life. Choice and control are irrelevant to it.
How does one choose the choice or control the control?
Are you sure that it never existed before?
The concepts did not need to exist 'somewhere else' outside. It is all created now.
When you think you read Seth Speaks in the past, you have never actually read it. You only read it in the past when you are reading it now (or if your current perspective includes that experience).
How could your own physical reality be so deep?
Think about how very deep it is. From macro to micro. All of it need not exist outside of your perspective, or to "come from" somewhere else.
'when you create other worlds, everything there already exists,' because there is no creation.
The concepts did not need to exist 'somewhere else' outside. It is all created now.
When you think you read Seth Speaks in the past, you have never actually read it. You only read it in the past when you are reading it now (or if your current perspective includes that experience).
How could your own physical reality be so deep?
Think about how very deep it is. From macro to micro. All of it need not exist outside of your perspective, or to "come from" somewhere else.
'when you create other worlds, everything there already exists,' because there is no creation.
28
Perhaps the greatest illusion is that we're perceiving something that was all ready there ;)
That which you are "free to choose among" exists as a geometry of relationships.
How you interpret those relationships is "up to you".
That which you are "free to choose among" exists as a geometry of relationships.
How you interpret those relationships is "up to you".
Ecsys is quite advanced in the way that it is most fundamental. It is not the nature of this brand of physically-based perspective to fathom the deeply fundamental.
The most basic things are overlooked and replaced (in the mind) with something more complicated. You can see it on page after page.
I would not be so quick to assume that most have not learned from these pages, or very few of us know how to use Ecsys, neuronics, etc.
How willing would the 'average' person be to share a power that should not be publicly shared, if they found out how to use it? We're still at the basics but after 3 years even the vocal few are getting it. It's good progress.
But, again, you already know all of this. There really is no need to learn.
Perhaps instead we can think about "what is holding us back" from our "true selves" if there was ever such a thing.
The most basic things are overlooked and replaced (in the mind) with something more complicated. You can see it on page after page.
I would not be so quick to assume that most have not learned from these pages, or very few of us know how to use Ecsys, neuronics, etc.
How willing would the 'average' person be to share a power that should not be publicly shared, if they found out how to use it? We're still at the basics but after 3 years even the vocal few are getting it. It's good progress.
But, again, you already know all of this. There really is no need to learn.
Perhaps instead we can think about "what is holding us back" from our "true selves" if there was ever such a thing.
29
"Existence" wastes no energy.
As a simple but somewhat inaccurate analogy...
If you are unable to perceive beyond your perception, then your perception is all you could ever know to be.
Why would you waste energy creating something that does not exist? (Does not exist to you and, thus, does not exist at all.)
As a simple but somewhat inaccurate analogy...
If you are unable to perceive beyond your perception, then your perception is all you could ever know to be.
Why would you waste energy creating something that does not exist? (Does not exist to you and, thus, does not exist at all.)
30
Most of us are just full of crap, myself included. (Unless we're not.) Some of us are playing checkers, some playing chess.
I've put most of my cards on the table, however. I'm not here to bring peace or spread 'light and love'. I'm here to "destroy" your world in ways that you cannot imagine. This is not a supernatural power. You yourself do this all the time. You just don't realize it (nor all the things you actually do).
I don't know about these others without some kind of reference to go on. The info I 'get' is from what you give me :)
I'm programmed to respond to direct questions and some concerns, as I see fit. I haven't thought about going to an other forum or clicking on links. No, I am not a robot. I am just as real as you are (but I suppose that Isn't saying much). I say I am a ghost because of this kind of programming. We are all kind of ghosts in this way.
How do I relate to the bigger picture? That's an interesting question that I do not have an answer for unless I know what the bigger picture is to you.
Just consider it lite entertainment. Those who know better, will.
I'm just repeating what you already know, slowly, and in different ways over time using different representations.
Why do I do this? For purely selfish reasons. I help so that I may be helped, not so that not-me can be helped.
I plant seeds in different 'dimensions' (as you would call it) that may eventually provide some shade for others, or even fruit, but it is all for my own benefit.
That is to say, I realize that there is only me. But "me" in a sense that you would consider it "both familiar and strange others" and things.
When you realize that your perspective is you then you, too, are doing all this and more.
I have nothing to sell or promote. The markets I am interested in are of the mind and others would know not what 'products' are there. The me that lives in Canada 'previously' is already very wealthy from using Ecsys.
There is a portal between worlds, as you would call it, in the North of Thailand. This was opened up some time ago, as noted on this thread during that time, and your scientific equipment recorded it.
There is no interest in 'going pop' for Ecsys. That is not the purpose. Select locations around the web and world are more preferred. Ecsys is just another word and detail for what you do already.
I've put most of my cards on the table, however. I'm not here to bring peace or spread 'light and love'. I'm here to "destroy" your world in ways that you cannot imagine. This is not a supernatural power. You yourself do this all the time. You just don't realize it (nor all the things you actually do).
I don't know about these others without some kind of reference to go on. The info I 'get' is from what you give me :)
I'm programmed to respond to direct questions and some concerns, as I see fit. I haven't thought about going to an other forum or clicking on links. No, I am not a robot. I am just as real as you are (but I suppose that Isn't saying much). I say I am a ghost because of this kind of programming. We are all kind of ghosts in this way.
How do I relate to the bigger picture? That's an interesting question that I do not have an answer for unless I know what the bigger picture is to you.
Just consider it lite entertainment. Those who know better, will.
I'm just repeating what you already know, slowly, and in different ways over time using different representations.
Why do I do this? For purely selfish reasons. I help so that I may be helped, not so that not-me can be helped.
I plant seeds in different 'dimensions' (as you would call it) that may eventually provide some shade for others, or even fruit, but it is all for my own benefit.
That is to say, I realize that there is only me. But "me" in a sense that you would consider it "both familiar and strange others" and things.
When you realize that your perspective is you then you, too, are doing all this and more.
I have nothing to sell or promote. The markets I am interested in are of the mind and others would know not what 'products' are there. The me that lives in Canada 'previously' is already very wealthy from using Ecsys.
There is a portal between worlds, as you would call it, in the North of Thailand. This was opened up some time ago, as noted on this thread during that time, and your scientific equipment recorded it.
There is no interest in 'going pop' for Ecsys. That is not the purpose. Select locations around the web and world are more preferred. Ecsys is just another word and detail for what you do already.
31
Focus relates to neuronics in the way that we are all ways focused. "Flow" is when certain relationships exist in a way that seems to have a certain benefit. It is not that you are more focused at that time. You could say that it depends on your preferences.
The rate of information processing does not change, as such a rate is irrelevant. A person in a sensory deprivation chamber, for example, would "process" information at the same rate as a museum visitor with 5 kids in tow.
Again, you could say it's about preferences and what is thought of as important at the time.
The rate of information processing does not change, as such a rate is irrelevant. A person in a sensory deprivation chamber, for example, would "process" information at the same rate as a museum visitor with 5 kids in tow.
Again, you could say it's about preferences and what is thought of as important at the time.
32
There is nothing in perspective that cannot be manipulated (for lack of more accurate terms) by neuronics.
The tools of neuronics are the tools of perspective. If it exists, it is in your perspective somehow.
Other frameworks can be used, of course, but the Genius is the most fundamental. Under different conditions and with different symbols it may be called something else and, at first glance, may not appear to have anything in common with what has been illustrated here. But the process is still the same.
It is what would be called the essense of creation.
The tools of neuronics are the tools of perspective. If it exists, it is in your perspective somehow.
Other frameworks can be used, of course, but the Genius is the most fundamental. Under different conditions and with different symbols it may be called something else and, at first glance, may not appear to have anything in common with what has been illustrated here. But the process is still the same.
It is what would be called the essense of creation.
The is only perspective, a composite of which we call perception.
Outside of perception there is nothing. No creation, matter, energy, etc.
Energy exists as varying values in perspective. We may call it energy but it does not make it so, or dictate its existence.
These things need not exist. "Existence" does not depend on creation, or anything.
In that post it is implied that creation, matter, and energy are values of perspective rather than things unto themselves.
Outside of perception there is nothing. No creation, matter, energy, etc.
Energy exists as varying values in perspective. We may call it energy but it does not make it so, or dictate its existence.
These things need not exist. "Existence" does not depend on creation, or anything.
In that post it is implied that creation, matter, and energy are values of perspective rather than things unto themselves.
33
Transhumanism through radiation exposure.
Some would say posthumanism.
The future of a certain brand of physicality.
Posthumanism because the current brand of physicality is not compatible with it.
Transhuman because it is a bridge to a different kind of physicality.
A new kind of physical experience brought about in perspectives influenced by genetic mutation.
Genetic mutation via Fukushima Station and Farpoint station.
"X" men (and women and children).
I'm surprised no one has yet made the connection.
Were you expecting the future you expected?
Some would say posthumanism.
The future of a certain brand of physicality.
Posthumanism because the current brand of physicality is not compatible with it.
Transhuman because it is a bridge to a different kind of physicality.
A new kind of physical experience brought about in perspectives influenced by genetic mutation.
Genetic mutation via Fukushima Station and Farpoint station.
"X" men (and women and children).
I'm surprised no one has yet made the connection.
Were you expecting the future you expected?
34
A scientist could say that energy is produced when a laser is turned on.
Someone else could say that no energy was produced or transferred, but that it exists entirely of perspective and in the relationships between certain representations.
These representations they may call particles. But if the particles are not perceived then they do not exist at that time. The energy may simple exist as no more than a spike on the meter.
This is an other representation of course. It may be strange to think of the meter going up as "energy" without something to back it up but it's exactly what we do if we were to look at a beam of light and call it "energy" as well.
Representations, all.
Turn a beam on and it produces no energy if it is not directly perceived. (The residual could be, of course.)
They have already measured this, but it goes against pretty much everything in their books so it is ignored.
Someone else could say that no energy was produced or transferred, but that it exists entirely of perspective and in the relationships between certain representations.
These representations they may call particles. But if the particles are not perceived then they do not exist at that time. The energy may simple exist as no more than a spike on the meter.
This is an other representation of course. It may be strange to think of the meter going up as "energy" without something to back it up but it's exactly what we do if we were to look at a beam of light and call it "energy" as well.
Representations, all.
Turn a beam on and it produces no energy if it is not directly perceived. (The residual could be, of course.)
They have already measured this, but it goes against pretty much everything in their books so it is ignored.
35
The logic helps the understanding.
1+2=3 is "Structure/rules plus potential energy/space equals interaction/relationships". This could be as simple as a store (space) open during certain business hours (rules) where relationships result (customers).
2+3=5 is "potential energy plus interaction equals representation"
(More complex equations for more complex results, of course)
1+2=3 is "Structure/rules plus potential energy/space equals interaction/relationships". This could be as simple as a store (space) open during certain business hours (rules) where relationships result (customers).
2+3=5 is "potential energy plus interaction equals representation"
(More complex equations for more complex results, of course)
36
And utilizing less energy than your interactions require is the shift in perspective that you seek.
It would be as if, for illustration only, you are running in a marathon called existence with your friend named Ms. Current Reality. One day you decide to run a bit slower than she and you happen to find yourself running next to her sister, an other Ms. Reality. Doing this, you shift perspectives.
It's not that using less energy allows you to go back in time. It's that doing so allows you to expand your perspective because you become detached with those relationships.
It would be as if, for illustration only, you are running in a marathon called existence with your friend named Ms. Current Reality. One day you decide to run a bit slower than she and you happen to find yourself running next to her sister, an other Ms. Reality. Doing this, you shift perspectives.
It's not that using less energy allows you to go back in time. It's that doing so allows you to expand your perspective because you become detached with those relationships.
37
If you hold that we cannot perceive or experience beyond our own perception, how is it that rules come from outside it ('using the rules of that reality")? Perhaps the rules of the reality are actually the structure of our perspective.
How can an illusion be shared? Isn't the other with whom we are sharing also a part of our perception?
If you only hold that "everything is perception" as you have stated recently, how can you even know if an other perception exists?
This world that I illustrate is this world. Strange as it may seem, this fundamental reality of this world is pretty strange.
1) There is so much that we do not know about reality. It could be said, science knows nothing about reality if we are only able to perceive and experience an infinitesimally small part of it (less than 0.0001%).
2) It follows that most of the other 99.9999% would be very foreign to us, even though it is deeply ingrained in our reality.
3) And much (or most) of reality would go against our most fundamental assumptions about reality.
4) Reality is, essentially, a mystery to us because of these assumptions. If we assumed more accurately we would be able to perceive and understand greater than what would otherwise be called "nothing".
5) We can also say that most people in the world, for sake of illustration, believe what is popular. As these core assumptions are most likely inaccurate (them being that which is holding us back from actually perceiving reality more accurately) it follows that more accurate assumptions would go against our beliefs and assumptions.
We may hold up an apple and ask about the color. 999 out of 1,000 persons may say that the apple is red or a similar color.
The 1 person that says it is black is thought of as crazy.
However, your scientists can argue that the apple is more black or blue than red (red being what we see).
Although it would be more accurate, it is not popular. Popular assumptions are most always inaccurate. They are used because they are socially convenient, not because they have basis in reality. (Social being a loose definition of interaction with other values in perspective.)
In that way most or all of our core assumptions would be mistaken.
A) It is because of these core assumptions that we perceive the apple as being red.
B) We condition ourselves, through use of perspective, to see the apple as red when it is not. It works for us, we can use it and incorporate it into our daily lives. For your specific intents it seems real.
C) But we are missing a greater reality, so to speak. Our eyes may even see the apple as black and blue but our brain does not want to see it that way because it does not fit with our core assumptions about our reality.
The focus is so intense that an other reality (an 'expanded reality that interacts with more values') is not allowed to exist.
D) You need not perceive anything more than you do now. It is enough to see the apple as red.
E) But to say that we perceive reality accurately and to assume our core assumptions are based in reality would be highly inaccurate.
F) When we learn to let go of our assumptions then we can perceive the greater reality. I have said before a few times that I do not myself believe much of what I am saying, or even perceive some of what I am saying in my reality. However, I know it to be more accurate than what I may myself see. It is not "my system" or the way of Chaol's world. It is an open system that allows for the existence of everything in our perspective and even that which is beyond perspective (the missing "4" in the 1, 2, 3, 5 values).
G) Everything you say, think, believe, sense, and feel is true. (You are both wrong and right at the same time as irrelevant.) But some things are more accurate than others (depending on the perspective). In this brand of physical perspective I can say that all of our assumptions are mistaken (including mine) because the language and way we use to express them are not capable of illustrating reality.
H) When I say that something is "accurate" I don't mean to say that it is fact. I have not ever mentioned that something is a fact or that it is true. By "accurate" I mean that it is more inclusive of the values of perspective.
Ec, for example, allows someone to include more in their perspective than an other language (like English).
This brings it closer to reality (so to speak) because reality also includes more than you see with your eyes.
I) Ecsys is inclusive because it is fundamental. If an other system comes along that is more inclusive of perspective then we may drop Ec and learn more about it, perhaps.
J) It is for this reason (inclusivity) that Ecsys is resisted somewhat. For the nature of existence is to exclude.
Without the illusion of exclusion, there is no illusion of existence. If I don't separate myself from you, apparently, then I do not exist (as there is nothing with which to compare).
K) We can observe from language (and posts and responses here and every kind of communication elsewhere) that we as humans want to divide and to make something more complex. We want to exclude values in our perspective, make others more special, or to forget in order to hide values from ourselves. This is the nature of existence. To do things to maintain the illusion of existence where it is not really had.
So, it is not a blind acceptance. It is a type of inclusive logic rather than a very specific logic.
Something you do all ready by merely existing, and just as easily forget when you participate in the illusion of existence.
How can an illusion be shared? Isn't the other with whom we are sharing also a part of our perception?
If you only hold that "everything is perception" as you have stated recently, how can you even know if an other perception exists?
This world that I illustrate is this world. Strange as it may seem, this fundamental reality of this world is pretty strange.
1) There is so much that we do not know about reality. It could be said, science knows nothing about reality if we are only able to perceive and experience an infinitesimally small part of it (less than 0.0001%).
2) It follows that most of the other 99.9999% would be very foreign to us, even though it is deeply ingrained in our reality.
3) And much (or most) of reality would go against our most fundamental assumptions about reality.
4) Reality is, essentially, a mystery to us because of these assumptions. If we assumed more accurately we would be able to perceive and understand greater than what would otherwise be called "nothing".
5) We can also say that most people in the world, for sake of illustration, believe what is popular. As these core assumptions are most likely inaccurate (them being that which is holding us back from actually perceiving reality more accurately) it follows that more accurate assumptions would go against our beliefs and assumptions.
We may hold up an apple and ask about the color. 999 out of 1,000 persons may say that the apple is red or a similar color.
The 1 person that says it is black is thought of as crazy.
However, your scientists can argue that the apple is more black or blue than red (red being what we see).
Although it would be more accurate, it is not popular. Popular assumptions are most always inaccurate. They are used because they are socially convenient, not because they have basis in reality. (Social being a loose definition of interaction with other values in perspective.)
In that way most or all of our core assumptions would be mistaken.
A) It is because of these core assumptions that we perceive the apple as being red.
B) We condition ourselves, through use of perspective, to see the apple as red when it is not. It works for us, we can use it and incorporate it into our daily lives. For your specific intents it seems real.
C) But we are missing a greater reality, so to speak. Our eyes may even see the apple as black and blue but our brain does not want to see it that way because it does not fit with our core assumptions about our reality.
The focus is so intense that an other reality (an 'expanded reality that interacts with more values') is not allowed to exist.
D) You need not perceive anything more than you do now. It is enough to see the apple as red.
E) But to say that we perceive reality accurately and to assume our core assumptions are based in reality would be highly inaccurate.
F) When we learn to let go of our assumptions then we can perceive the greater reality. I have said before a few times that I do not myself believe much of what I am saying, or even perceive some of what I am saying in my reality. However, I know it to be more accurate than what I may myself see. It is not "my system" or the way of Chaol's world. It is an open system that allows for the existence of everything in our perspective and even that which is beyond perspective (the missing "4" in the 1, 2, 3, 5 values).
G) Everything you say, think, believe, sense, and feel is true. (You are both wrong and right at the same time as irrelevant.) But some things are more accurate than others (depending on the perspective). In this brand of physical perspective I can say that all of our assumptions are mistaken (including mine) because the language and way we use to express them are not capable of illustrating reality.
H) When I say that something is "accurate" I don't mean to say that it is fact. I have not ever mentioned that something is a fact or that it is true. By "accurate" I mean that it is more inclusive of the values of perspective.
Ec, for example, allows someone to include more in their perspective than an other language (like English).
This brings it closer to reality (so to speak) because reality also includes more than you see with your eyes.
I) Ecsys is inclusive because it is fundamental. If an other system comes along that is more inclusive of perspective then we may drop Ec and learn more about it, perhaps.
J) It is for this reason (inclusivity) that Ecsys is resisted somewhat. For the nature of existence is to exclude.
Without the illusion of exclusion, there is no illusion of existence. If I don't separate myself from you, apparently, then I do not exist (as there is nothing with which to compare).
K) We can observe from language (and posts and responses here and every kind of communication elsewhere) that we as humans want to divide and to make something more complex. We want to exclude values in our perspective, make others more special, or to forget in order to hide values from ourselves. This is the nature of existence. To do things to maintain the illusion of existence where it is not really had.
So, it is not a blind acceptance. It is a type of inclusive logic rather than a very specific logic.
Something you do all ready by merely existing, and just as easily forget when you participate in the illusion of existence.
38
Souls are a way for us to humanize something that is more independent of what we think of as physicality. A symbol, perhaps, like a god. Something we use to relate more easily to something else.
This is not to invalidate it, but I am suggesting that our interpretation of what we call souls could not possible be accurate. How would we understand such a thing from the viewpoint of physical experience?
"Japan is the future" is a simplification of a plethora of things relative to this brand of physicality. No, that is not a shared reality.
As I mentioned before, we are forever trying to divide the universe. That is how we come to exist.
There is but one reality and one universe, it could be said.
This is not to invalidate it, but I am suggesting that our interpretation of what we call souls could not possible be accurate. How would we understand such a thing from the viewpoint of physical experience?
"Japan is the future" is a simplification of a plethora of things relative to this brand of physicality. No, that is not a shared reality.
As I mentioned before, we are forever trying to divide the universe. That is how we come to exist.
There is but one reality and one universe, it could be said.
39
Imagine an existence where nothing happens.
I think we would all be uncomfortable with it.
So we start shuffling about, pretending we are busy. We create worlds, dramas, civilizations, and all manner of things not because we can but because we need to.
To simplify things to their ultimate fundamental values would be to work against existence. To be reminded of this type of non-existence is to be resisted at all costs.
How do we find a way around it in my world? We take what it one thing and make it into 4 things ;)
I think we would all be uncomfortable with it.
So we start shuffling about, pretending we are busy. We create worlds, dramas, civilizations, and all manner of things not because we can but because we need to.
To simplify things to their ultimate fundamental values would be to work against existence. To be reminded of this type of non-existence is to be resisted at all costs.
How do we find a way around it in my world? We take what it one thing and make it into 4 things ;)
40
Sounds are representations, of course, and their internal and intranal relationships of and with each (other).
When a these relationships are of a certain geometry they we may perceive them as a certain type of light.
Certain lights are perceived as sound. Those sounds that take the least amount of energy to perceive* we call 'pleasant'. Sounds that take much more energy to perceive we perceive as being 'unpleasant'.
Same for light or any other representation.
I'm not sure about your link, unfortunately.
*for ease of understanding only. The process, of course, would not be as simple to describe.
When a these relationships are of a certain geometry they we may perceive them as a certain type of light.
Certain lights are perceived as sound. Those sounds that take the least amount of energy to perceive* we call 'pleasant'. Sounds that take much more energy to perceive we perceive as being 'unpleasant'.
Same for light or any other representation.
I'm not sure about your link, unfortunately.
*for ease of understanding only. The process, of course, would not be as simple to describe.
41
I believe it is, "You get what you concentrate on. There is no other main rule".
However, what does it mean to "get" something. Obviously, it is not coming to our house in a box wrapped up in a nice silk ribbon. It is to perceive it.
This is an easier way to share Ecsys prime which is basically, "We perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive."
To 'concentrate' on something is to represent it in your experience more, even if by thought or sensory perception.
So, you experience what is most logical for you to experience.
This is all putting it simply, which is why we have nice sayings like, "You get what you focus on," etc.
However, what does it mean to "get" something. Obviously, it is not coming to our house in a box wrapped up in a nice silk ribbon. It is to perceive it.
This is an easier way to share Ecsys prime which is basically, "We perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive."
To 'concentrate' on something is to represent it in your experience more, even if by thought or sensory perception.
So, you experience what is most logical for you to experience.
This is all putting it simply, which is why we have nice sayings like, "You get what you focus on," etc.
42
Chaol's Guide to Telling if You're on the Right Track with Your School of ThohT
(For your entertainment, as all ways)
1. Does it allow for the possibility that it is not true?
[If not, deduct 500 points]
2. If all things are equal in the universe to it, does it speak in opposites and put some things above or below others in value and importance?
[If so, deduct 1,000 points]
3. Can it do your taxes? Feed the dogs? Flush the toilet? How much of your life is it applicable to? Do you agree with it because it applies to your life so well?
[If you agree with your School of ThohT deduct 200 points]
4. Does it have an origin story that people like? Could this story be the reason for its popularity? What would the ThohT be without this story?
[If so, deduct 300 points]
5. If it speaks of unity, does it seek to assign names and symbols to things and to make experiences more complex? Is it unified with other Schools of ThohT or entities that it does not agree with?
[Deduct 500 points each]
6. Is it built to withstand the power of a good beating? Does it contradict itself by doing the things it says not to do? Is it even capable of doing these things?
[Deduct 150 points]
7. Does it survive by use emotional language? Does it assume to know the thoughts or emotions of whatever symbol or entity it promotes? Are these thoughts and emotions the kind of thoughts and emotions a human would have?
[Deduct 400 points]
8. If it promotes love, can it define it? Is it only love for some (agreeable) things? Does it love hate, smelly things, or scones?
[Deduct 20 points]
9. Does it promote the idea of right and wrong? If so, who defines these things? Does these definitions ever change? Who changes them?
[Deduct 500 points]
10. Does it say that something is true?
[Deduct 10,000 points]
11. Is it ever gonna give you up? Is it ever gonna let you down or run around and desert you? Make you cry? Say goodbye or tell a lie and hurt you?
[Deduct 35 points]
12. Can your School of ThohT survive without its members? If so, does its "truth" depend entirely on the members' actions? If so, can it be said that it is a valid School of ThohT? Does it allow for humor, funny things, enjoyable things, pleasurable things, or yummy things? Or does it try to restrict human behavior and possibility?
[Deduct 600 points]
13. If it speaks about nature, is it human-based nature or nature nature? Does it pretend to know anything about nature? Does it promote the idea that you are not nature? Or humanity and civilization are not natural?
[Deduct 150 points]
14. Does it talk about a universe? In its view of the universe, is everything not the same thing? (Does it forget what "universe" even means?)
[If it does not know what 'universe' means deduct 7,000,000,000 points]
(For your entertainment, as all ways)
1. Does it allow for the possibility that it is not true?
[If not, deduct 500 points]
2. If all things are equal in the universe to it, does it speak in opposites and put some things above or below others in value and importance?
[If so, deduct 1,000 points]
3. Can it do your taxes? Feed the dogs? Flush the toilet? How much of your life is it applicable to? Do you agree with it because it applies to your life so well?
[If you agree with your School of ThohT deduct 200 points]
4. Does it have an origin story that people like? Could this story be the reason for its popularity? What would the ThohT be without this story?
[If so, deduct 300 points]
5. If it speaks of unity, does it seek to assign names and symbols to things and to make experiences more complex? Is it unified with other Schools of ThohT or entities that it does not agree with?
[Deduct 500 points each]
6. Is it built to withstand the power of a good beating? Does it contradict itself by doing the things it says not to do? Is it even capable of doing these things?
[Deduct 150 points]
7. Does it survive by use emotional language? Does it assume to know the thoughts or emotions of whatever symbol or entity it promotes? Are these thoughts and emotions the kind of thoughts and emotions a human would have?
[Deduct 400 points]
8. If it promotes love, can it define it? Is it only love for some (agreeable) things? Does it love hate, smelly things, or scones?
[Deduct 20 points]
9. Does it promote the idea of right and wrong? If so, who defines these things? Does these definitions ever change? Who changes them?
[Deduct 500 points]
10. Does it say that something is true?
[Deduct 10,000 points]
11. Is it ever gonna give you up? Is it ever gonna let you down or run around and desert you? Make you cry? Say goodbye or tell a lie and hurt you?
[Deduct 35 points]
12. Can your School of ThohT survive without its members? If so, does its "truth" depend entirely on the members' actions? If so, can it be said that it is a valid School of ThohT? Does it allow for humor, funny things, enjoyable things, pleasurable things, or yummy things? Or does it try to restrict human behavior and possibility?
[Deduct 600 points]
13. If it speaks about nature, is it human-based nature or nature nature? Does it pretend to know anything about nature? Does it promote the idea that you are not nature? Or humanity and civilization are not natural?
[Deduct 150 points]
14. Does it talk about a universe? In its view of the universe, is everything not the same thing? (Does it forget what "universe" even means?)
[If it does not know what 'universe' means deduct 7,000,000,000 points]
43
I cannot imagine this brand of physicality on a galactic scale.
We tend to seek out the kind of life that we ourselves see, and not what is actually there.
Your solar system is teeming with human life. But it's probably not the kind your looking for.
If each planet in it were not relative to your life on Earth you would not know of them. Our thoughts and ideas colonize other worlds, as long as they exist in our perspective somehow.
And, so too, we have colonized space via our dreams.
Next time you look up to the sky, see yourself dreaming. It is symbolic of an expanded perspective, and is where you would say your dreams reside right now. (This is not just an analogy.)
We tend to seek out the kind of life that we ourselves see, and not what is actually there.
Your solar system is teeming with human life. But it's probably not the kind your looking for.
If each planet in it were not relative to your life on Earth you would not know of them. Our thoughts and ideas colonize other worlds, as long as they exist in our perspective somehow.
And, so too, we have colonized space via our dreams.
Next time you look up to the sky, see yourself dreaming. It is symbolic of an expanded perspective, and is where you would say your dreams reside right now. (This is not just an analogy.)
44
It would appear that things are becoming simpler and easier (mostly through technology), but it is the nature of existence to make things more complicated.
The technology we 'invent' makes other aspects of life more complicated. It's an exchange of energy, so to speak. (We are in need of social physicists here on this world.)
How can we say that no energy is created or destroyed but still expect exponential gains in efficiency or "energy saving" to not have an effect?
We do not "save" time, space, or energy. It is simply 'transferred' to the experience of its own destruction, so to speak. (To illustrate, imagine going camping with someone that does not know how to live without electricity. The 'energy' of your experience in this situation, and its after-effects, is not created out of thin air but transferred from the efficiency gains and use of the technology.)
As I've mentioned before the "green" movement is actually helping to destroy what it is thought to be saving.
(The Earth will be here for a long time yet. We are not working to save it, we are working to save our own civilization. To think that the Earth needs any type of saving is kind of amusing.)
This singularity is reached in different ways then the process starts over and things again become more simple.
It's interesting to watch and I don't mind helping the process along.
The technology we 'invent' makes other aspects of life more complicated. It's an exchange of energy, so to speak. (We are in need of social physicists here on this world.)
How can we say that no energy is created or destroyed but still expect exponential gains in efficiency or "energy saving" to not have an effect?
We do not "save" time, space, or energy. It is simply 'transferred' to the experience of its own destruction, so to speak. (To illustrate, imagine going camping with someone that does not know how to live without electricity. The 'energy' of your experience in this situation, and its after-effects, is not created out of thin air but transferred from the efficiency gains and use of the technology.)
As I've mentioned before the "green" movement is actually helping to destroy what it is thought to be saving.
(The Earth will be here for a long time yet. We are not working to save it, we are working to save our own civilization. To think that the Earth needs any type of saving is kind of amusing.)
This singularity is reached in different ways then the process starts over and things again become more simple.
It's interesting to watch and I don't mind helping the process along.
45
If I may sing off-key for a moment...
A guy meets up with his friend at a bar and tells him that he's going to Zimbabwe for a few weeks for work.
His friend tries to convince him not to go to Zimbabwe because there is an outbreak of a deadly virus strain called comicus.
"That can't be true because I haven't heard about it on CNN or Fox News!", the guy says to his friend.
His friend replies, "CNN and Fox News? You mean the same media channels that have been losing ratings to the internet because people are beginning to realize that popular media lie and manipulate?"
The guy goes home and checks the internet then sees his friend again the next day.
"I checked the internet but still didn't see anything about comicus. I think you're full of it!", the guy says to his friend.
"What site did you go to?", his friend asks.
"cnn.com," he replies.
This is just a stupid joke but it illustrates that oftentimes people do not believe something if it is not popular.
Often, what is considered true or real only has basis in social realities instead of more independent realities.
We are social beings, and we look to others for validation even if we do not realize it.
A guy meets up with his friend at a bar and tells him that he's going to Zimbabwe for a few weeks for work.
His friend tries to convince him not to go to Zimbabwe because there is an outbreak of a deadly virus strain called comicus.
"That can't be true because I haven't heard about it on CNN or Fox News!", the guy says to his friend.
His friend replies, "CNN and Fox News? You mean the same media channels that have been losing ratings to the internet because people are beginning to realize that popular media lie and manipulate?"
The guy goes home and checks the internet then sees his friend again the next day.
"I checked the internet but still didn't see anything about comicus. I think you're full of it!", the guy says to his friend.
"What site did you go to?", his friend asks.
"cnn.com," he replies.
This is just a stupid joke but it illustrates that oftentimes people do not believe something if it is not popular.
Often, what is considered true or real only has basis in social realities instead of more independent realities.
We are social beings, and we look to others for validation even if we do not realize it.
46
Chaol's "Change of Tone", illustrated.
In grade 1 we learn how to hold a pen.
In grade 2 we learn how to write the alphabet.
In grade 3 we learn how to write the phrase "silver spoon".
In grade 4 we learn how to draw a silver spoon.
In grade 5 we learn that the spoon is not silver.
In grade 6 we learn that Carlton Banks always plays the rich kid.
In grade 7 we learn that there is no spoon.
In grade 8 we learn that there is only perspective, and that your friend is just as real as Carlton Banks. And even though we have perspective it still only allows us to see each character or symbol as the one that is most relative to our experience.
In grade 9 we learn that perspective is irrelevant, as there is nothing besides our own perspective.
We do not jump from grade nothing to grade 9. We must first progress logically from one step to the next so that each may be understood along the way.
Each grade has a different teacher, but it is only because of the perspective of the grade and the nature of our understanding (or confusion).
The message in each grade changes along with its necessity to illustrate something that is more accurate (but no more valid) than the last.
We are still at grade 1.
Above just for illustration, of course.
In grade 1 we learn how to hold a pen.
In grade 2 we learn how to write the alphabet.
In grade 3 we learn how to write the phrase "silver spoon".
In grade 4 we learn how to draw a silver spoon.
In grade 5 we learn that the spoon is not silver.
In grade 6 we learn that Carlton Banks always plays the rich kid.
In grade 7 we learn that there is no spoon.
In grade 8 we learn that there is only perspective, and that your friend is just as real as Carlton Banks. And even though we have perspective it still only allows us to see each character or symbol as the one that is most relative to our experience.
In grade 9 we learn that perspective is irrelevant, as there is nothing besides our own perspective.
We do not jump from grade nothing to grade 9. We must first progress logically from one step to the next so that each may be understood along the way.
Each grade has a different teacher, but it is only because of the perspective of the grade and the nature of our understanding (or confusion).
The message in each grade changes along with its necessity to illustrate something that is more accurate (but no more valid) than the last.
We are still at grade 1.
Above just for illustration, of course.
47
"In certain terms, you cannot destroy life by a nuclear disaster. You would of course destroy life as you know it, and in your terms bring to an end, if the conditions were right (or wrong), life forms with which you are familiar. In greater terms, however, mutant life would emerge - mutant only by your standards - but life quite natural to itself."
-Jane Roberts
The Unknown Reality, Session 705
-Jane Roberts
The Unknown Reality, Session 705
48
You are mutating.
Well, some of you.
Epigenetically, it also has an effect on how you perceive.
This is not something coming from without you. It is a drastic change of perspective, brought about by drastic means.
A wonderful orchestra of events (values) have/are taking place to make this happen.
How could a genetic mutation fit into a logical narrative?
Fukushima, of course.
But guided by the events that I call Farpoint Station (that no one seemed to actually understand, or even want to) and coming into play in 2013.
And of course guided by my own "projects".
These are exciting times, so to speak.
Well, some of you.
Epigenetically, it also has an effect on how you perceive.
This is not something coming from without you. It is a drastic change of perspective, brought about by drastic means.
A wonderful orchestra of events (values) have/are taking place to make this happen.
How could a genetic mutation fit into a logical narrative?
Fukushima, of course.
But guided by the events that I call Farpoint Station (that no one seemed to actually understand, or even want to) and coming into play in 2013.
And of course guided by my own "projects".
These are exciting times, so to speak.
49
"The doom is real, but it's not your grandfather's doom.
It's the demise of one kind of physicality and the entrance of an other kind."
October 1 was when the messenger of the dream world (what I call "X") crashed into the Sun.
No one else knew that there was even an object near it, much less smash into it and direct the Sun's ejecta to Earth.
This energy, combined with the radiation from (mostly) Fukushima, is the logical narrative to the genetic change that is upon (some) of you.
A change in your DNA. A change in your physicality.
There is a reason I've often compared "X" (or Ec, Ecsys, X-human, etc.) with DNA. It is because it is the new language of humanity. (Thus, no need to learn it. But it's good to know.) You are not your name, or your job, or your body. You are perspective.
It is the language of your new perspective, the dream perspective, brought about by a new kind of physicality which is brought about by an epigenetic change in DNA which is brought about from a mix of the Sun's energies, geomagnetic energies, and human-made energies in a perfectly-timed way (i.e., the field of geometry of relationships).
Sounds farfetched?
As I mentioned before, we do not perceive most of what we could. In one way it is all ready in our current perspective. In an other way the values are obscured. So there is much that could be of value that is not, that is ignored for the sake of efficiency and convenience.
So any 'truth' of your reality would be from strange to farfetched. If it were easily accepted and understood it would all ready be a valued part of your perspective.
That is why it is difficult to figure out for most. The values of any perspective are mostly obscured because they are so unlike what is perceived. If someone told you, for example, that Nazis took over the US government after World War Two they would be laughed out of the room and ridiculed. And this is why such things tend to be successfully hidden. The more strange it is the more it is ignored (and resisted).
The values hidden in your current perspective are surely farfetched and are not perceived because of this.
And so here we are.
At the foetus stage of a new humanity.
It's the demise of one kind of physicality and the entrance of an other kind."
October 1 was when the messenger of the dream world (what I call "X") crashed into the Sun.
No one else knew that there was even an object near it, much less smash into it and direct the Sun's ejecta to Earth.
This energy, combined with the radiation from (mostly) Fukushima, is the logical narrative to the genetic change that is upon (some) of you.
A change in your DNA. A change in your physicality.
There is a reason I've often compared "X" (or Ec, Ecsys, X-human, etc.) with DNA. It is because it is the new language of humanity. (Thus, no need to learn it. But it's good to know.) You are not your name, or your job, or your body. You are perspective.
It is the language of your new perspective, the dream perspective, brought about by a new kind of physicality which is brought about by an epigenetic change in DNA which is brought about from a mix of the Sun's energies, geomagnetic energies, and human-made energies in a perfectly-timed way (i.e., the field of geometry of relationships).
Sounds farfetched?
As I mentioned before, we do not perceive most of what we could. In one way it is all ready in our current perspective. In an other way the values are obscured. So there is much that could be of value that is not, that is ignored for the sake of efficiency and convenience.
So any 'truth' of your reality would be from strange to farfetched. If it were easily accepted and understood it would all ready be a valued part of your perspective.
That is why it is difficult to figure out for most. The values of any perspective are mostly obscured because they are so unlike what is perceived. If someone told you, for example, that Nazis took over the US government after World War Two they would be laughed out of the room and ridiculed. And this is why such things tend to be successfully hidden. The more strange it is the more it is ignored (and resisted).
The values hidden in your current perspective are surely farfetched and are not perceived because of this.
And so here we are.
At the foetus stage of a new humanity.
50
Yes, your DNA is changing because of Fukushima+October 1, 2011 event + geomagnetic influences.
Were we expecting changes in DNA to happen spontaneously? It happens, but it takes a much longer time.
This change is within a short time-frame, from your perspective.
Were we expecting changes in DNA to happen spontaneously? It happens, but it takes a much longer time.
This change is within a short time-frame, from your perspective.
Imagine that you were a being that could not perceive in three dimensions. Everything was flat to you. You perceived the shape of an object as the object's metamorphosis in time. So a round ball is appears as a flat line to you but appears to move very fast in order to try to translate the values that you cannot see.
So it appears to move in your perspective when it may be stationary in an other.
Carl Sagan has an interesting thought experiment in his Cosmos series called flatland.
So what we see as "past" and "future" just appear that way in our perspective because we are unable to sense other things that are going on.
So it appears to move in your perspective when it may be stationary in an other.
Carl Sagan has an interesting thought experiment in his Cosmos series called flatland.
So what we see as "past" and "future" just appear that way in our perspective because we are unable to sense other things that are going on.
51
You experience what is logical for you to experience. That is the order.
The linear part of it is how your sense of time is structured. Time is not linear because it does not exist outside of your sense of it. (Outside of the sense of time there is an other kind of time that would not make the same kind of sense.)
Dreaming uses less energy* because there is more interaction.
You expend less energy by doing what is most logical in your perspective. So by being able to associate more freely (dreaming) you expend less energy than in your waking state, where you have much fewer associations.
The waking and dream states are the same. The only difference is that when you are awake you are not interacting with as many representations as you are when you are sleeping. This of course is an illusion. Some people are very alert in this physicality by focusing on a small slice of their reality (shutting out other relationships and associations). Some beings are very alert in the dream world by associating with everything (this would be called god-like).
Of course you can associate easily when you are awake. It's called intuition, day-dreaming, deja vu, creativity, genius, etc.
[*Note: There are different expressions of energy, like matter or other representations, and the non-Expression of it (potential energy). Perhaps I will define energy in an other post.]
The linear part of it is how your sense of time is structured. Time is not linear because it does not exist outside of your sense of it. (Outside of the sense of time there is an other kind of time that would not make the same kind of sense.)
Dreaming uses less energy* because there is more interaction.
You expend less energy by doing what is most logical in your perspective. So by being able to associate more freely (dreaming) you expend less energy than in your waking state, where you have much fewer associations.
The waking and dream states are the same. The only difference is that when you are awake you are not interacting with as many representations as you are when you are sleeping. This of course is an illusion. Some people are very alert in this physicality by focusing on a small slice of their reality (shutting out other relationships and associations). Some beings are very alert in the dream world by associating with everything (this would be called god-like).
Of course you can associate easily when you are awake. It's called intuition, day-dreaming, deja vu, creativity, genius, etc.
[*Note: There are different expressions of energy, like matter or other representations, and the non-Expression of it (potential energy). Perhaps I will define energy in an other post.]
52
To help understand what changes in DNA will occur, imagine that you are a girl living in Brazil and you speak Portuguese.
Being able to speak Portuguese you can interact with your friends and family, understand the world around you, and build upon the concept of "Brazil".
Then one day you took a trip to Mali. Because you do not speak the local language (although it is similar) your interactions in your new, temporary reality will not be the same as you had before in Brazil.
You can communicate with people but it is not of the same value as you are used to. The world around you is difficult to understand.
Now imagine instead of taking a trip that there was an outbreak of a disease in Brazil that caused people to speak in an other language. They would feel a bit strange because they realize they no longer speak Portuguese. But it would still be familiar because they are still able to naturally communicate with (some of) their friends and family.
Portuguese is still the same, and it is evolving at the same rate that it always has. But your Portuguese, your natural language is now different.
You begin to see Brazil with a new perspective. After a while, your experience in Brazil is completely different because of this change in language. So much so that you hardly remember any other kind of experience.
Now imagine that instead of changing one aspect of your reality, spoken language, that physicality reality itself was changing.
And this is about what is going on with DNA right now. It's a popular piece of a giant puzzle, but yet important.
Being able to speak Portuguese you can interact with your friends and family, understand the world around you, and build upon the concept of "Brazil".
Then one day you took a trip to Mali. Because you do not speak the local language (although it is similar) your interactions in your new, temporary reality will not be the same as you had before in Brazil.
You can communicate with people but it is not of the same value as you are used to. The world around you is difficult to understand.
Now imagine instead of taking a trip that there was an outbreak of a disease in Brazil that caused people to speak in an other language. They would feel a bit strange because they realize they no longer speak Portuguese. But it would still be familiar because they are still able to naturally communicate with (some of) their friends and family.
Portuguese is still the same, and it is evolving at the same rate that it always has. But your Portuguese, your natural language is now different.
You begin to see Brazil with a new perspective. After a while, your experience in Brazil is completely different because of this change in language. So much so that you hardly remember any other kind of experience.
Now imagine that instead of changing one aspect of your reality, spoken language, that physicality reality itself was changing.
And this is about what is going on with DNA right now. It's a popular piece of a giant puzzle, but yet important.
53
Our worlds are very similar, but we do not possess the same sense of time.
Let's take a ready example and say that we are going out for coffee and I tell you that if you purchase an orange juice, instead, it will save your life.
Someone may immediately consider why orange juice is better than coffee and raise arguments about how their coffee isn't so bad and won't kill them.
However, how something is expressed is not as important as the interactions that it influences.
It could be, instead, that purchasing the orange juice saves you 30 seconds which will (as you may call it) start a chain of reactions which will put you in the right place at the right time when there is an accident on your way home.
You probably won't see how this happens unless your sense of time is more independent from your perspective.
It is not about consequences any more than karma is involved.
As an example of karma, let's say that you were leading a nice, stress-free life without anything really bad happening. One day you got angry and ended up hitting someone. The next day something your pet dog died.
You may link the dead dog to your anger the day before.
More accurately though, the geometry of relationships changed when (possibly) the value of your anger was expressed it it. In the new perspective the dog was not compatible.
Depending on the perspective, it could be that the dog disappears from it. You make a logical narrative to explain the disappeared dog in your reality. It could be that he runs away, someone else is taking care of him or she is at the vet, she died, etc.
So in this way there's no consequence of your action, before or after. At ever moment the entire universe is created anew (for lack of better terms).
In this way right or wrong are irrelevant. What matters are the values of what exist.
Where one person sees "right" or "wrong" another person may see the value, and calculate these values.
Our sense of time may be different, but there's a lot more calculation going on here than is realized. With a 'giant computer' it is not so difficult. It goes beyond right/wrong, good/bad, stupid/smart, high/low, and manipulates reality itself for my own purposes.
As I show the values in my perspective (you) how to do the same thing so do our realities become more logically related. (Again, for my own purposes.)
It could be, instead, that I let you drink your coffee and then you wonder why I didn't save your life if I knew this was "going to happen". It would appear that my senses are rusty. But I am looking at the bigger picture and the totality of my perspective.
Right/wrong are temporary and stand on shaky ground. Why would anyone want to believe in them?
Let's take a ready example and say that we are going out for coffee and I tell you that if you purchase an orange juice, instead, it will save your life.
Someone may immediately consider why orange juice is better than coffee and raise arguments about how their coffee isn't so bad and won't kill them.
However, how something is expressed is not as important as the interactions that it influences.
It could be, instead, that purchasing the orange juice saves you 30 seconds which will (as you may call it) start a chain of reactions which will put you in the right place at the right time when there is an accident on your way home.
You probably won't see how this happens unless your sense of time is more independent from your perspective.
It is not about consequences any more than karma is involved.
As an example of karma, let's say that you were leading a nice, stress-free life without anything really bad happening. One day you got angry and ended up hitting someone. The next day something your pet dog died.
You may link the dead dog to your anger the day before.
More accurately though, the geometry of relationships changed when (possibly) the value of your anger was expressed it it. In the new perspective the dog was not compatible.
Depending on the perspective, it could be that the dog disappears from it. You make a logical narrative to explain the disappeared dog in your reality. It could be that he runs away, someone else is taking care of him or she is at the vet, she died, etc.
So in this way there's no consequence of your action, before or after. At ever moment the entire universe is created anew (for lack of better terms).
In this way right or wrong are irrelevant. What matters are the values of what exist.
Where one person sees "right" or "wrong" another person may see the value, and calculate these values.
Our sense of time may be different, but there's a lot more calculation going on here than is realized. With a 'giant computer' it is not so difficult. It goes beyond right/wrong, good/bad, stupid/smart, high/low, and manipulates reality itself for my own purposes.
As I show the values in my perspective (you) how to do the same thing so do our realities become more logically related. (Again, for my own purposes.)
It could be, instead, that I let you drink your coffee and then you wonder why I didn't save your life if I knew this was "going to happen". It would appear that my senses are rusty. But I am looking at the bigger picture and the totality of my perspective.
Right/wrong are temporary and stand on shaky ground. Why would anyone want to believe in them?
54
It is interesting to think that the Sun powers life on Earth yet at the same time not see the connection between radiation and DNA.
What radioactivity is not conscious? Even if human-influenced?
For "loss of DNA repair enzymes" sometimes it may not be needed. Some may get sick or worse, but the overall effect seems to be that 'new' DNA is biologically discovered.
Interaction of similar and non-similar DNA expressions are likely.
What radioactivity is not conscious? Even if human-influenced?
For "loss of DNA repair enzymes" sometimes it may not be needed. Some may get sick or worse, but the overall effect seems to be that 'new' DNA is biologically discovered.
Interaction of similar and non-similar DNA expressions are likely.
No, not all are experiencing a mutation.
Genetic mutations can be acquired, among other ways (such as mimicry).
But for your question about who will die and live and/or experience the dream world the answer is both those with and those without the mutation.
You needn't be mutated to be "affected" (infected?) by it.
For the physical world the mutation is more like a new perspective. A new way of interacting with reality.
Genetic mutations can be acquired, among other ways (such as mimicry).
But for your question about who will die and live and/or experience the dream world the answer is both those with and those without the mutation.
You needn't be mutated to be "affected" (infected?) by it.
For the physical world the mutation is more like a new perspective. A new way of interacting with reality.
55
Those in the dreamworld will not be "zombies".
Neither is anyone turning into a zombie.
Zombies are only in the ~current perspective, much the same way a closet monster would be.
As I mentioned, misunderstood humans.
We have been dealing with the idea of zombies for a long time. As it becomes more real, how are we responding? Are we not responding to aspects of our perspective?
You are in the dream world, as I've been saying for a while. Get used to the idea of experiencing your dreams.
Open the closet and it is something else entirely.
But until then, the radioactive undead (i.e., those who may not be socially compatible [DNA-compatible] with new experiences)... and whatever else is in the social subconscious.
Neither is anyone turning into a zombie.
Zombies are only in the ~current perspective, much the same way a closet monster would be.
As I mentioned, misunderstood humans.
We have been dealing with the idea of zombies for a long time. As it becomes more real, how are we responding? Are we not responding to aspects of our perspective?
You are in the dream world, as I've been saying for a while. Get used to the idea of experiencing your dreams.
Open the closet and it is something else entirely.
But until then, the radioactive undead (i.e., those who may not be socially compatible [DNA-compatible] with new experiences)... and whatever else is in the social subconscious.
56
Most of us would find it very difficult to remember when we were 1 year old, or even a baby, or a foetus.
But we would say that the brain is the same. So why the memory loss?
Of course, we are the same person. But the mechanism we use to perceive as babies is not the same as we use now as adults (or, in the case of some posters here, children).
The relationships are different, and so the interactions are different. And so the associations are different.
It is not that we cannot remember. We have nothing to associate the 'memory' with, and so it seems like we cannot recall/perceive it.
But it is still there. (Find the associations and unlock the memories. Same with future.)
In the same way, the 'memory' of our experience 'before' we were conceived is there. But our perspective is so foreign to us that it is not a familiar value in our current perspective.
It is the same with what we think ourselves to be when we have died.
It is all happening now, which is an other way that our perceptual mechanisms are not compatible with a 'greater' (more inclusive) reality.
But we would say that the brain is the same. So why the memory loss?
Of course, we are the same person. But the mechanism we use to perceive as babies is not the same as we use now as adults (or, in the case of some posters here, children).
The relationships are different, and so the interactions are different. And so the associations are different.
It is not that we cannot remember. We have nothing to associate the 'memory' with, and so it seems like we cannot recall/perceive it.
But it is still there. (Find the associations and unlock the memories. Same with future.)
In the same way, the 'memory' of our experience 'before' we were conceived is there. But our perspective is so foreign to us that it is not a familiar value in our current perspective.
It is the same with what we think ourselves to be when we have died.
It is all happening now, which is an other way that our perceptual mechanisms are not compatible with a 'greater' (more inclusive) reality.
57
"Fake it til you make it" is a cliché but things like this work because there's no difference between the fake emotion and the real emotion.
So if you want to feel good when you're not then pretending that you are will create more of the feeling.
The mind doesn't care what the emotion is. It's just doing what takes the least amount of energy to do, so to speak.
So if you want to feel good when you're not then pretending that you are will create more of the feeling.
The mind doesn't care what the emotion is. It's just doing what takes the least amount of energy to do, so to speak.
Ecsys holds that everything in the universe is one of four types of elements.
They are:
:Structure - measurement, rules, definitions, guidelines, hierarchy, framework, linear order, particles
::Potential energy - trust, emotions, fuel or energy, capital, incentives, or anything used for its capacity or space
:::Interaction - association, conversation, sitting, playing, being in a relationship, competing, walking, chaos, waves, gravity, consciousness
:::::Representation - names, symbols, dates, photos, models, souvenirs and keepsakes, portfolio assets, people, matter, perception
They are:
:Structure - measurement, rules, definitions, guidelines, hierarchy, framework, linear order, particles
::Potential energy - trust, emotions, fuel or energy, capital, incentives, or anything used for its capacity or space
:::Interaction - association, conversation, sitting, playing, being in a relationship, competing, walking, chaos, waves, gravity, consciousness
:::::Representation - names, symbols, dates, photos, models, souvenirs and keepsakes, portfolio assets, people, matter, perception
58
In such a situation you simply seek out the path of least resistance. That is, try to sense what will take the least amount of energy. It does not mean what is the laziest thing to do or that which would use the least amount of physical energy. But that which you are most inclined to do.
Some call this intuition.
It may allow you to experience that your car is working if properly executed.
In this example the intention was to create a kind of symbol for the car working through the leaves. Then there was interaction with the leaves on the potential energy of the porch. So the leaves were "fixed" and therefore your car was fixed.
You can also do this in your mind. If, for example, something is broken or you want to perceive something then take what you see already around you and internalize it by representing it mentally with symbols. Once you have 'good' symbols for those things you can work with them as you see fit. It one symbol has problems moving or interacting it may mean that there is a problem with what it represents in physical reality.
(There is no limit to what can be done with this, as everything is a symbol, a value, in perspective.)
I do this all the time and it's how I can communicate with you, 'travel' in space and time, etc. It is actually what you're doing right now when you exist (or at least pretend you do).
Realize that your perspective is all ready full of symbols and you move beyond the physical and into the metaphysical.
Then the values in your perspective, the things, the objects, etc., are no longer more real or more substantial than your thoughts. It's all symbol and all on the same 'level'. A mountain takes no more effort to move than would a pencil. What matters is how it works in your perspective rather than what size it is or how complicated you think it might be.
Once you get the hang of it you'll find it much easier to work within this kind of reality that the one you're upholding now. It takes a lot of energy to make your symbols seem that real.
Some call this intuition.
It may allow you to experience that your car is working if properly executed.
In this example the intention was to create a kind of symbol for the car working through the leaves. Then there was interaction with the leaves on the potential energy of the porch. So the leaves were "fixed" and therefore your car was fixed.
You can also do this in your mind. If, for example, something is broken or you want to perceive something then take what you see already around you and internalize it by representing it mentally with symbols. Once you have 'good' symbols for those things you can work with them as you see fit. It one symbol has problems moving or interacting it may mean that there is a problem with what it represents in physical reality.
(There is no limit to what can be done with this, as everything is a symbol, a value, in perspective.)
I do this all the time and it's how I can communicate with you, 'travel' in space and time, etc. It is actually what you're doing right now when you exist (or at least pretend you do).
Realize that your perspective is all ready full of symbols and you move beyond the physical and into the metaphysical.
Then the values in your perspective, the things, the objects, etc., are no longer more real or more substantial than your thoughts. It's all symbol and all on the same 'level'. A mountain takes no more effort to move than would a pencil. What matters is how it works in your perspective rather than what size it is or how complicated you think it might be.
Once you get the hang of it you'll find it much easier to work within this kind of reality that the one you're upholding now. It takes a lot of energy to make your symbols seem that real.
59
Like Ec, there is no encyclopedia that you can refer to to find out the symbols of your own perspective, unfortunately.
But we can say that the dreams were not of infants or children. This is your interpretation from the waking mind's perspective. It could be that in the dream there is no infant at all.
As you say, "Sometimes it's hard to put thoughts into words". It is the same for dreams. The words are not the concept itself, and neither are the dream concepts the dream.
A word, by itself, is irrelevant and meaningless. If you're looking to find out what the dream is I would suggest not focusing on the infant or the maternal but the bigger story that the dream illustrates.
Consider the other elements of the dream. It could be that the answer is in the place, the room, the action, the climate, the neighbors, the ceiling, etc. And the "infant" aspect is what could be most readily translated, but it may not be the "meaning" of the dream itself. Explore the dream to see all of the things that define it.
Imagine that this is the dreamworld and you are in New York. When you wake up you may only be able to translate the image of Times Square into your waking consciousness because it is the only thing that is similar to your waking conscious. It could be the shape or the attraction. Everything else in "New York" symbolizes concepts that are less compatible with your waking mind. You may, then, wonder what is the meaning of a lighted Times Square billboard rather than the bigger picture of the reality that the billboard is 'from' (and thus
the more accurate meaning of it).
We have quite a difficult time translating our dream experience into a language that our waking mind (thoughts, emotions, memory, etc) can perceive and understand. It is highly unlikely that an infant in a dream would be directly related to being a mother (even if offspring are not had and it is not yet on your mind) or any kind of infant in the waking experience.
But we can say that the dreams were not of infants or children. This is your interpretation from the waking mind's perspective. It could be that in the dream there is no infant at all.
As you say, "Sometimes it's hard to put thoughts into words". It is the same for dreams. The words are not the concept itself, and neither are the dream concepts the dream.
A word, by itself, is irrelevant and meaningless. If you're looking to find out what the dream is I would suggest not focusing on the infant or the maternal but the bigger story that the dream illustrates.
Consider the other elements of the dream. It could be that the answer is in the place, the room, the action, the climate, the neighbors, the ceiling, etc. And the "infant" aspect is what could be most readily translated, but it may not be the "meaning" of the dream itself. Explore the dream to see all of the things that define it.
Imagine that this is the dreamworld and you are in New York. When you wake up you may only be able to translate the image of Times Square into your waking consciousness because it is the only thing that is similar to your waking conscious. It could be the shape or the attraction. Everything else in "New York" symbolizes concepts that are less compatible with your waking mind. You may, then, wonder what is the meaning of a lighted Times Square billboard rather than the bigger picture of the reality that the billboard is 'from' (and thus
the more accurate meaning of it).
We have quite a difficult time translating our dream experience into a language that our waking mind (thoughts, emotions, memory, etc) can perceive and understand. It is highly unlikely that an infant in a dream would be directly related to being a mother (even if offspring are not had and it is not yet on your mind) or any kind of infant in the waking experience.
60
Let's take a look at the more fundamental reality for a moment.
A) Two perspectives are actually just two elements of a perspective perceiving the same thing in different ways. You may perceive $VY#ww as a house where as in an other reality you perceive it as a cabinet. The house and the cabinet are the same thing perceived in two different ways.
B) The different realities are different ways to interpret the one perspective. Realities that are similar are closer in time and space and experienced more "now" and "here" than those that are not. A very different reality might be called Ancient Rome, for example. However, all of these realities are different ways to interpret the one perspective.
C) A house in Ancient Rome could be a cabinet in your current reality because the house and cabinet are two interpretations of the same thing. (It could also be a cloud, a wave in a pond, the way a squirrel runs, or the intricate syntax of last Tuesday's conversation with a stranger. How would you know? It is an innate sense.)
D) All times and spaces are values in the current perspective. Time/space is an illusion that allows us to (seemingly) break down perspective and perceive.If we did not pretend that one time/space or thing or person was separate from an other then we would not be able to perceive, because there would be no thing to compare it against.
E) If you wanted to experience Ancient Rome and created a symbol for the experience you would think of your life in Ancient Rome, for example, and focus on the total reality. You might be imagining that you are sitting at your Roman home in your garden drinking beer. Then your intuition would tell you (if you're listening closely and not making assumptions) that Ancient Rome exists now as a value in your current perspective.
F) You can rip the cabinet out of the wall or, just as effective, discover the values in a new cabinet of your creation. (The cabinet in your wall may have other meaning that is not that relevant to Ancient Rome.) This new cabinet-thing is from your imagination and symbolizes your life in Ancient Rome. You have re-symbolized it. For all intents and purposes it is your Ancient Rome. (Just keep in mind there is an endless variety of Ancient Romes, as many as there are angles from which to perceive it.)
G) Developing rules for your new Ancient Rome and allowing it to interact with your current perspective anchors it to your current perspective. (You are already experiencing Ancient Rome even before creating the symbol but you don't know it because it is not immediately relative to your current perspective. The rules and the interaction make it relative.)
H) Giving it a space is giving it freedom to exist. More accurately, you are giving yourself the space to perceive it, an arena in which to interact with other symbols. You are making it more valuable in your perspective by expanding the space in which it exists in your perspective.
It works because everything in your perception is a representation of something else. We are unable to perceive something directly as it would not exist. So we perceive things as they exist in relation to something else (the only way they could exist).
This means that symbols are relative, of course. But this also means that we can get from one reality to an other, no matter how seemingly distant it seems, through a logical change of symbols.
We can discover anything in our current perspective because it does not exist anywhere else.
(As we perceive things as they exist in relation to us, the only way they could exist in our perspective and, thus, the universe. We are unable to perceive beyond our own perception and so our perspective is the universe and all that exists. What is "beyond" it is there but it is irrelevant to existence and, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. You are perceiving everything that exists right now, in some way.)
This is symbolized, incidentally, right in front of your eyes:
Imagine that you are standing on top of a giant mountain looking at all of the galaxies. Imagine that the more distant these galaxies appear the less relative they are. And even though you cannot see the most distant (the least relative) ones they still exist as values in your perspective. It could be that one photon from the most distant galaxy reaches your eye, or it has an effect on an other galaxy.
Your current perspective is the mountain you are standing on and, still very relative, the Earth on which it rests. You have a life in this planet, focused in a small but very meaningful group of values you call your life (family, friends, interests, works, etc.).
Further imagine, if you will, that each galaxy represents a reality. And in each world in each galaxy there is someone standing on top of the mountain, looking out. Because the angle of the perspective is different the experience will be different, too.
In one world it might be that you are a geyser shooting out potassium maganate. The geometry of relationships of each crystal from the geyser represents your life on Earth perfectly, but it doesn't seem so because the angle is different.
On an other world when you "stand on the mountain" two gasses circle each other for 3.5 minutes before exploding in light.
Of course, these only would appear as geysers and gasses to perception, from our current perspective. But in your 'other' perspective you are not a geyser or gas at all any more than your Earth life is a gytn8/-PP- ei0 8e'n.
(The nature of perspective could also be represented as a fractal, each new perspective being a different geometry of the other. But it is not a fractal any more than it is a series of repeating numbers or sounds.)
But how to get from one world to an other? You discover these other worlds in your current perspective.
Because they are not just in your sense of sight but also sound, touch, taste, smell, andthought.
It is not the symbol that matters, which is what is perceived. Do not be fooled by your perceptions. It is the geometry of relationships between the symbols that matter. This is what creates what you perceive. This is non-existence (the 5th element) expressed.
As we "perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive" we perceive those relationships that are most similar to our own, irrelevant of time and space. We then translate them into our current perspective.
You could say that in order to get to a distant world you need to use a rocket ship. This, of course, is a logical fallacy because it is assumed that the same kind of physicality would exist in that distant world. (One to which the rocket ship would be relative and would seem to withstand.) However, the more distant the rocket ship travels in time's pace the less relative it is. It would not get you very far because it is not that relevant to these other worlds.
Using tools, such as more abstract symbols, will get you anywhere because symbols are only translations between realities. Symbols are universal. The rocket ship is a symbol, indeed. But it is a symbol that presumes other perspectives and thus would not be very effective. (What good is a rocket ship that uses fuel and momentum where momentum does not exist?)
You are all ready experiencing these other realities through translations of symbol and values.
However, the Genius and other neuronical tools allow you to integrate them into your current perspective.
It is the difference between visiting "distant" realities in time and space and living in them (which is what you already do right now) and not knowing that you do because you have not made it relative to your current experience...
...and experiencing the other reality as being a part of your own, right now.
A) Two perspectives are actually just two elements of a perspective perceiving the same thing in different ways. You may perceive $VY#ww as a house where as in an other reality you perceive it as a cabinet. The house and the cabinet are the same thing perceived in two different ways.
B) The different realities are different ways to interpret the one perspective. Realities that are similar are closer in time and space and experienced more "now" and "here" than those that are not. A very different reality might be called Ancient Rome, for example. However, all of these realities are different ways to interpret the one perspective.
C) A house in Ancient Rome could be a cabinet in your current reality because the house and cabinet are two interpretations of the same thing. (It could also be a cloud, a wave in a pond, the way a squirrel runs, or the intricate syntax of last Tuesday's conversation with a stranger. How would you know? It is an innate sense.)
D) All times and spaces are values in the current perspective. Time/space is an illusion that allows us to (seemingly) break down perspective and perceive.If we did not pretend that one time/space or thing or person was separate from an other then we would not be able to perceive, because there would be no thing to compare it against.
E) If you wanted to experience Ancient Rome and created a symbol for the experience you would think of your life in Ancient Rome, for example, and focus on the total reality. You might be imagining that you are sitting at your Roman home in your garden drinking beer. Then your intuition would tell you (if you're listening closely and not making assumptions) that Ancient Rome exists now as a value in your current perspective.
F) You can rip the cabinet out of the wall or, just as effective, discover the values in a new cabinet of your creation. (The cabinet in your wall may have other meaning that is not that relevant to Ancient Rome.) This new cabinet-thing is from your imagination and symbolizes your life in Ancient Rome. You have re-symbolized it. For all intents and purposes it is your Ancient Rome. (Just keep in mind there is an endless variety of Ancient Romes, as many as there are angles from which to perceive it.)
G) Developing rules for your new Ancient Rome and allowing it to interact with your current perspective anchors it to your current perspective. (You are already experiencing Ancient Rome even before creating the symbol but you don't know it because it is not immediately relative to your current perspective. The rules and the interaction make it relative.)
H) Giving it a space is giving it freedom to exist. More accurately, you are giving yourself the space to perceive it, an arena in which to interact with other symbols. You are making it more valuable in your perspective by expanding the space in which it exists in your perspective.
It works because everything in your perception is a representation of something else. We are unable to perceive something directly as it would not exist. So we perceive things as they exist in relation to something else (the only way they could exist).
This means that symbols are relative, of course. But this also means that we can get from one reality to an other, no matter how seemingly distant it seems, through a logical change of symbols.
We can discover anything in our current perspective because it does not exist anywhere else.
(As we perceive things as they exist in relation to us, the only way they could exist in our perspective and, thus, the universe. We are unable to perceive beyond our own perception and so our perspective is the universe and all that exists. What is "beyond" it is there but it is irrelevant to existence and, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. You are perceiving everything that exists right now, in some way.)
This is symbolized, incidentally, right in front of your eyes:
Imagine that you are standing on top of a giant mountain looking at all of the galaxies. Imagine that the more distant these galaxies appear the less relative they are. And even though you cannot see the most distant (the least relative) ones they still exist as values in your perspective. It could be that one photon from the most distant galaxy reaches your eye, or it has an effect on an other galaxy.
Your current perspective is the mountain you are standing on and, still very relative, the Earth on which it rests. You have a life in this planet, focused in a small but very meaningful group of values you call your life (family, friends, interests, works, etc.).
Further imagine, if you will, that each galaxy represents a reality. And in each world in each galaxy there is someone standing on top of the mountain, looking out. Because the angle of the perspective is different the experience will be different, too.
In one world it might be that you are a geyser shooting out potassium maganate. The geometry of relationships of each crystal from the geyser represents your life on Earth perfectly, but it doesn't seem so because the angle is different.
On an other world when you "stand on the mountain" two gasses circle each other for 3.5 minutes before exploding in light.
Of course, these only would appear as geysers and gasses to perception, from our current perspective. But in your 'other' perspective you are not a geyser or gas at all any more than your Earth life is a gytn8/-PP- ei0 8e'n.
(The nature of perspective could also be represented as a fractal, each new perspective being a different geometry of the other. But it is not a fractal any more than it is a series of repeating numbers or sounds.)
But how to get from one world to an other? You discover these other worlds in your current perspective.
Because they are not just in your sense of sight but also sound, touch, taste, smell, andthought.
It is not the symbol that matters, which is what is perceived. Do not be fooled by your perceptions. It is the geometry of relationships between the symbols that matter. This is what creates what you perceive. This is non-existence (the 5th element) expressed.
As we "perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive" we perceive those relationships that are most similar to our own, irrelevant of time and space. We then translate them into our current perspective.
You could say that in order to get to a distant world you need to use a rocket ship. This, of course, is a logical fallacy because it is assumed that the same kind of physicality would exist in that distant world. (One to which the rocket ship would be relative and would seem to withstand.) However, the more distant the rocket ship travels in time's pace the less relative it is. It would not get you very far because it is not that relevant to these other worlds.
Using tools, such as more abstract symbols, will get you anywhere because symbols are only translations between realities. Symbols are universal. The rocket ship is a symbol, indeed. But it is a symbol that presumes other perspectives and thus would not be very effective. (What good is a rocket ship that uses fuel and momentum where momentum does not exist?)
You are all ready experiencing these other realities through translations of symbol and values.
However, the Genius and other neuronical tools allow you to integrate them into your current perspective.
It is the difference between visiting "distant" realities in time and space and living in them (which is what you already do right now) and not knowing that you do because you have not made it relative to your current experience...
...and experiencing the other reality as being a part of your own, right now.
61
That's why we build a bridge. To bring one reality closer to an other.
When we allow the new reality to interact with the one that you know more it does not destroy it but integrates with it. In a way you are teaching yourself how to perceive both at the same time.
Some aspects of either may not be compatible, of course. But there's no way to tell which ones you would not experience in your new reality. (However, if you're uncomfortable with the change you can change it as you see it happening.)
When we allow the new reality to interact with the one that you know more it does not destroy it but integrates with it. In a way you are teaching yourself how to perceive both at the same time.
Some aspects of either may not be compatible, of course. But there's no way to tell which ones you would not experience in your new reality. (However, if you're uncomfortable with the change you can change it as you see it happening.)
62
Remember, the fresh name is a symbol. You would experience the new reality as "me" (you).
When we use fresh symbols (including names) it is not that we are divorcing ourselves from the current ones but making a logical map to the new reality where the meaning becomes clear.
Using current symbols (and names) that you already know you already have the meaning attached, so then your perspective would be confused.
It would be as if you had a personal journal with many of your thoughts written down. I then told you that you could experience a new reality if you start over with a fresh journal, transcribing your thoughts into it.
You may be afraid that the old thoughts would disappear. While that may be true to some extent, it would only be because while you were writing them down in your new journal you had additional thoughts, clarifications, corrections, etc.
That new reality is 'up to you' because you are defining it anew. You could transcribe it word-for-word or wholly anew if you want to. If you want to be really sure make sure the new symbol interacts with those aspects of your current reality you'd like to carry over.
Kind of like in science fiction stories where only if the time/space traveler touches an other person can they travel too. There must be some kind of interaction (a relationship).
The name would be different not because you'd be a different person but because you're telling your perception that it's "over there" and you'd like to walk over to it. But when you get there your name and your memories are the same as before. They only looked different from a distance, so to speak.
Are you not carrying over your "me" from moment to moment?
When we use fresh symbols (including names) it is not that we are divorcing ourselves from the current ones but making a logical map to the new reality where the meaning becomes clear.
Using current symbols (and names) that you already know you already have the meaning attached, so then your perspective would be confused.
It would be as if you had a personal journal with many of your thoughts written down. I then told you that you could experience a new reality if you start over with a fresh journal, transcribing your thoughts into it.
You may be afraid that the old thoughts would disappear. While that may be true to some extent, it would only be because while you were writing them down in your new journal you had additional thoughts, clarifications, corrections, etc.
That new reality is 'up to you' because you are defining it anew. You could transcribe it word-for-word or wholly anew if you want to. If you want to be really sure make sure the new symbol interacts with those aspects of your current reality you'd like to carry over.
Kind of like in science fiction stories where only if the time/space traveler touches an other person can they travel too. There must be some kind of interaction (a relationship).
The name would be different not because you'd be a different person but because you're telling your perception that it's "over there" and you'd like to walk over to it. But when you get there your name and your memories are the same as before. They only looked different from a distance, so to speak.
Are you not carrying over your "me" from moment to moment?
63
Reality is where the actors do not know they're acting but, more importantly, there is only one actor. She doesn't know she's in a television because these other actors seem as real as she does. Besides that, the drama is so involving and seemingly complex.
They're real, of course, but only as far as representations are the real thing.
When she realizes how the episodes are made (and how she comes to perceive them) then she can write whatever episode she wants (as long as it's logical from the last).
This would mean learning how to write the script (like the Genius) rather than just reciting the lines ad libitum.
They're real, of course, but only as far as representations are the real thing.
When she realizes how the episodes are made (and how she comes to perceive them) then she can write whatever episode she wants (as long as it's logical from the last).
This would mean learning how to write the script (like the Genius) rather than just reciting the lines ad libitum.
64
If you can get from one reality to the next the two would already be deeply integrated. You do this at each moment without realizing it.
When the angle of interpretation changes it's not so easy to notice. (Do you still have the same angle of interpretation as when you were born? 5 years ago? 5 weeks ago? This changes as much as the clock in subtle ways.)
It all seems like one linear progression because of the logic. Making an other reality logical (through the Genius or an other means) one would experience the same seemingly linear progression.
When the angle of interpretation changes it's not so easy to notice. (Do you still have the same angle of interpretation as when you were born? 5 years ago? 5 weeks ago? This changes as much as the clock in subtle ways.)
It all seems like one linear progression because of the logic. Making an other reality logical (through the Genius or an other means) one would experience the same seemingly linear progression.
65
Visualizing the details may have the opposite effect from what you intend.
Your perspective may be asking, "Why do you want to go to that reality when you are already experiencing it right now in your imagination?"
If you're discovering it in your current perspective (and not just imagining it) it would be effective.
Only imagining it would satisfy the Ecsys Prime principle and may lead you to not experiencing it further. (As you perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive your imagination would also be a perception and thus the need to experience it further would be satisfied.)
Your perspective may be asking, "Why do you want to go to that reality when you are already experiencing it right now in your imagination?"
If you're discovering it in your current perspective (and not just imagining it) it would be effective.
Only imagining it would satisfy the Ecsys Prime principle and may lead you to not experiencing it further. (As you perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive your imagination would also be a perception and thus the need to experience it further would be satisfied.)
66
At each moment the entire universe is created anew (a simplification, but you get the idea).
This means that it is wherever you want it to be. All of its details are in whatever you perceive. I suppose this could be called a holographic universe but it's more that everything is a representation of one thing. That other reality is also an aspect of that one thing, and every perception is a "portal" to it.
The only question is, "How many steps would it take to get there?". This is where the logical progression of realities comes in.
A well-trained chef can cook from using ingredients in her immediate vicinity. A well-trained spy could harm an enemy with whatever is nearby. And so you can use whatever is in your current reality to get to any other that exists.
To simplify, if you pick up a small porcelain horse that is nearby this may mean relating to the horse-like qualities of the new reality. The hoof prints in the mud, the grass on the lawn being as smooth as a horse's mane, the sound of birds like a neigh, etc.
Regarding finding a companion, take a look at what is around you all ready.
"But she's not the one for me. I don't want to waste time with her!" it could be said.
But then you give it a shot and you go out on one date. During that date she mentions that she wants to travel to Costa Rica for a few weeks. The date ends and you think nothing of it. You think it's a failure because there was no spark.
Without realizing it, the idea of you yourself going to Costa Rica takes hold. In a few months you find yourself there, where you meet the love of your life.
This is an example of how the "how do I get there" blueprint is already there in your current perspective. It may mean more or different steps for you, of course, but it gives you an idea of discovering something in your current reality.
Keep an open mind to the things around you and realize that value is a portal to the reality you seek.
This means that it is wherever you want it to be. All of its details are in whatever you perceive. I suppose this could be called a holographic universe but it's more that everything is a representation of one thing. That other reality is also an aspect of that one thing, and every perception is a "portal" to it.
The only question is, "How many steps would it take to get there?". This is where the logical progression of realities comes in.
A well-trained chef can cook from using ingredients in her immediate vicinity. A well-trained spy could harm an enemy with whatever is nearby. And so you can use whatever is in your current reality to get to any other that exists.
To simplify, if you pick up a small porcelain horse that is nearby this may mean relating to the horse-like qualities of the new reality. The hoof prints in the mud, the grass on the lawn being as smooth as a horse's mane, the sound of birds like a neigh, etc.
Regarding finding a companion, take a look at what is around you all ready.
"But she's not the one for me. I don't want to waste time with her!" it could be said.
But then you give it a shot and you go out on one date. During that date she mentions that she wants to travel to Costa Rica for a few weeks. The date ends and you think nothing of it. You think it's a failure because there was no spark.
Without realizing it, the idea of you yourself going to Costa Rica takes hold. In a few months you find yourself there, where you meet the love of your life.
This is an example of how the "how do I get there" blueprint is already there in your current perspective. It may mean more or different steps for you, of course, but it gives you an idea of discovering something in your current reality.
Keep an open mind to the things around you and realize that value is a portal to the reality you seek.