Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.

Would it have been better to tell the seller he hopes to have the car by Nov 17 then? He is keeping his focus on the car. He's doing visualization exercises. Seeing himself driving it, the look on his wife's face when he gets it, etc;.

Last Edited by ERE3 on 11/10/2012 11:59 AM

:) Got it, thanks.

So when I see/interact with my symbol, am I not to think of the initially established intent behind the model? Would that be assigning meaning to the symbol?

For example, I find myself looking at my symbol and wanting to re-mind myself that its value is "thriving career" or "being exhausted from a day of hard but fun work" or whatever.

Not sure if that's my mind not trusting my "subconscious" to know what the symbol represents? Or if this act of consistent labeling of the symbol is part of birthing that intended experience into my perspective.

Thanks always.

PS: Deliciate? Awesome word :)


---
*choco-mint

The interaction will be as follows: I will place the object in a high-traffic area of the classroom that will force passers-by to see it and wonder, "What is THAT thing??", "Who put it there?",and make it highly likely that they will pick it up for more direct interaction. Also, it will naturally be interacting with in a newly unnatural way with its natural environment. Also, it will be interacting in entirely new ways with my home environment on the days that I take it out of the technical room...plus the car ride, backpack and every where in be twixt.

The danger is that one or more of the instructors will throw it away.

Chaol, what do you think about this interaction?

It seems that the consciousness research group is something that was to be formed after each participant received $50MM USD, whereas

the website (regarding prizes) is something that is along the path to $50MM for each.

If this is the case then in the former, there is appears to be a hole in the logical narrative. The question I would ask is how likely is it that each participant would have $50MM to donate to the research facility?

(Actually, I think that the desired result was mixed up with the Logic in [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] )

The latter seems to be more logical on the path to $50 million USD for each participant.

It can be consistent throughout, to keep the same narrative (and thus what would be called a shared perspective).

Although some focus is on the car there is what "seller" represents.

A seller is, of course, someone who has something to exchange for something else of value. But when this exchanged-for thing is thought of as money we may be overlooking what other things can be exchanged. Experience, for example.

The car was never meant to be purchased. It is a gift.

The 'deal' (as can be said now that most of the possibility has passed) was for the car to be brought back to its former glory by the giftee and entered into a contest, sponsored by the gifter.

Yes, it was close (though still not over). However, the confusion lay in 2 possibilities being presented.

One possibility, a dead end so to speak, is the intent to purchase a car that is not really for sale with money that is not there. The "seller" is looking for something that money cannot buy.

An other possibility is to excite possibilities in the owner's mind about what the car is (could be) if only it was in the right hand. (Something that would have happened if the model car was in hand, and unveiled, while talking with the gifter.)

"Would it have been better to tell the seller he hopes to have the car by Nov 17 then?", is not a focus on the possibilities of the car itself, which is the intent from what I understand.

Last Edited by Chaol on 11/10/2012 12:22 PM

I see what you're saying and agree. Thank you. I 've not been specific enough.



I do think about it, often. I wonder if I'd have to "die" or get(pretend to be?) mentally "insane" in the objective perspective to obtain what I am looking for. I am feeling out a good balance of subjective "inter-dimensional" travel and living a "normal" life. I'd like to allow my wife (a devout atheist) and family(christian based apatheists) to remain relevant. I do see them slowly changing perspective as I do (since they are values of myself)... and where they had previously said I was misunderstanding reality, they're beginning to show a glimmer of understanding.

Hi.

You can think it, of course, but don't force it.

It would be like ordering something from a top Michelin-starred restaurant and, after a few minutes of waiting, bursting into the kitchen to add your own ingredients.

Just trust that the Genius (your sub-conscious) knows exactly what it is doing, and don't try to assign meaning to something that you only think you know about.

Sometimes a fish is not a fish. But your Genius all ways knows what it is.

Excellent, thanks :)

No need to define how it will interact. Just with what.

Keep in mind it uses the space of Potential Energy so the more you pre-determine its interactions the more you may be sub-consciously limiting your results.

So, Interaction: with classroom, car ride, backpack, everywhere in be'twixt.

Keep in mind that this element is the most important, because the Symbol develops a relationship with your perspective here.

It doesn't matter if the symbol is thrown away by an instructor because it still counts as an interaction. (Interactions are neutral.)

hope this helps!

So would it work if we developed several symbols and just left them around different places? And we need to define those spaces before leaving them there? Or just take it with us and leave it wherever we go?

Last Edited by ERE3 on 11/10/2012 12:49 PM

Chaol,

Would it be better if the possibility for all of our symbols regarding the shared $50MM was not a space but was a different type of possibility such as trust or happiness (emotion)....hope?


A possibility that each of us can share more easily.




Also if overlooked,

website idea can be found at:
[link to www.indiegogo.com]

The "I'd like to allow my wife (a devout atheist) and family(christian based apatheists) to remain relevant." part may be quite difficult, unless of course you're willing to change an entire world (this one) to bring them closer to your new one.

Or you can find a way to do it in ways that are relevant to them. Making it a game, for example.

Yes, that would work.

No need to define the spaces beforehand. Just be sure to create a new symbol should you change the space that it interacts in.

Thanks Chaol! A quick question: Interaction is the most important element, yet is also entirely neutral?

This occurred to me, too. I thought of how companies will have pens made up with their logo on it and give them away. Then that pen is disbursed to many places, interacting in many ways in many spaces. The only thing I was unsure of was the ongoing Structure around it. Nonetheless, we can see examples of successful "branding" everywhere. This may be different from the Genius, but mentioning it any way...

---
was *choco-mint
will now be:

---
***

You can try it but I don't think it is likely to work because it must be measured.

Otherwise, you'll end up with:

Symbol = measured when creating, through process of manifestation
Interaction = measureable
Logic = measure
Potential Energy = unmeasured

The space can be mental. But it must be defined.

If you can measure trust and happiness it may work. But then it would be more complicated than using an other type of space (like a room in a dream version of the Eiffel Tower).

My Wife and Family, as I perceive them "here" are already recurring characters in my outer-realm experience. Similar to the way the cast followed Dorothy to Oz(a realm she experienced in a spontaneous oob). Repeating patterns of relevancy seen through a kaleidoscope of perspective.

(thanks again Chaol)

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 11/10/2012 01:00 PM

Yes. There are no 'good' or 'bad' interactions.

The symbol should be neutral (as free of pre-extant value as you think possible)

Potential Energy is inherently neutral.

Logic is neutral because it does not matter what it is.

And Interactions are neutral because there's only the objective values created in relationships. (How these are perceived depends on perspective.)

Nice insight.

There is no where the Genius is not used.

Everything that exists is one of the four elements and "follows" the same steps that we here illustrate.

What if a non-profit consciousness research group is legally formed? Then is it logical?

Chaol, this'll be my last one for today. :)

Given your reply above (and all times prior) as to what symbols 'are' and 'are not' supposed to represent....would it not be better to just continually be creating symbols and the subsequent Genius Relationary steps without regard to any thing in particular. This way, someone like Gespenst, who can't consciously pin down any physical desires, can just start making symbols and steps and haphazardly (sub-consciously) fall into the exact thing he wanted without being aware of it before hand.

??? does my question make sense

Thanks again, Chaol. You're aces!

So I would create a new symbol for the bank, and a new symbol for the grocery store, etc:? And do I need to use the same symbol each time I go to the bank and each time I go to the grocery?

And could these symbols be created each day or do they need to be created at one time before starting interaction?

Last Edited by ERE3 on 11/10/2012 01:21 PM

If the intention was to enrich participants by USD $50 million, I don't see how it would make sense in different perspectives.

Care to illustrate how?

Yes, it makes sense. And it can be done.

The difficult part, though, is determining what the symbol is (loosely) for so that it could be discarded or interactions enhanced if need be.

Eventually, though, I'm hoping some of us will get to the point of creating the symbols on-the-fly (mentally) so this could be a logical path to there.

If your space used (Possibility) is the bank then the symbol would be different than that used for the grocery store.

If the symbol is something you take with you then just keep in mind that it needs a defined space with which to process interactions. (It could be a bag, for example.)

No need to create a new symbol each day. They can be created at any time in past/present/future.

Last Edited by Chaol on 11/10/2012 01:33 PM

I have asked the group to work with me. My symbol for earning >$5M per year for 10 years on the PGA Tour is a red arrow with an X for a tail. We are mentally placing it on the first tee box of golf courses so it can interact with all of the golfers that play the courses.

I must have misunderstood before when you made comments that the symbol was to be free of extant representation. For instance, when I asked whether it was better for my symbol to represent my new position, or the paperwork associated with the new position, I understood you to say that it should be free of any 'meaning'. Meaning that I should not have associated anything about any thing of the "position" or any part there in and just make a symbol (with the subsequent steps) and let my subconscious fill in the rest.

So now, I take it to mean that the symbol should be free of any conscious relation, but that it should have some semblance of what we were "intending" with the creation of the symbol (and steps) in the first place?

So that would mean that I shouldn't just start creating symbols (and steps) willy-nilly without having any semblance of what I was intending for each symbol to bring about [in my perception] in the first place?

Again, thanks so much for your input. THIS is really my last one I'll bother you with today.

May I ask, what does the arrow or 'X' represent?

... by all means, create symbols willy-nilly.

But keep to the steps we've pointed out here.

No need for semblance. It's better for there not to be. Your sub-conscious will take care of it. (No need to force the semblance, as it will just confuse things.)

By the way. I'm not at all bothered by your questions :)