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

I recently read an article about how the discovery of the outer planets - Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto - changed the consciousness of our civilization. We named some lights in the sky that seemed to move in a predictable manner, thereby affecting the awareness of our society.

Now, Pluto has been kicked out of the sisterhood of planets in our solar system. Pluto has been re-categorized. A new generation of kids will see Pluto differently than the rest of us who still relate to Pluto as a planet.

In this same vein, is the idea that the orbits of the planets move around the sun as if on a plate, or like the hands of a clock. This is being blown to bits by the new idea that the planets actually move in a spiral around the sun. I suppose it will be awhile before this new idea trickles down into the educational system, but the generation that is taught the spiral idea will be an entirely different generation than the one who sees the orbits of the planets in a flat, 2-dimensional style.

Their realities will be different.

In playing around with un-naming things, "I" notice that there are activities that I do automatically, and they're all tied to the body. How does a body know how to correctly pick up a cup so that the contents do not spill out? How does the body know how to move itself across a floor by picking up its feet and laying them down in a rhythmic manner? Why does it reach for the door handle instead of just walking through a closed door?

The defined items that we see around ourselves seem to be connected with the body, and the body itself is a definition. We have defined ourselves as this body. There is an entire environment that goes with it.

Maybe a baby is doing the same thing while learning about its environment. The more it names and defines things, the more present it is in this environment.

Or so it seems to me.

How could there possibly be? "this reality" is "one's interpretation".



None save for a newborn knows what a newborn does. Not even if we could remember being a newborn.

However, from day 1 it is safe to assume that the newborn already is beginning to represent. (Especially after being exposed to language, sounds, expressions of emotion, etc., inside of the womb.)

There are a few scientific articles that show that a newborn does not perceive the world as we do. Up until about ~2 years old, I think. This may explain our general lack of memory of ourselves when we were babies, as the representations would be very different than the kind that we now formulate.



Can you name one that is outside of your perspective?

If not, then the only "natural law" is perspective.

hehe.. Thanks



Redefine what a wall is and it will no longer be what you've come to believe.

However, when you see the wall as something you could walk through you're not doing anything but further solidifying the ideal of the wall as something that needs to be overcome.

The way to walk through a wall is not sexy. Make the wall irrelevant and it is not there to begin with.

I know you're talking about walking through a wall but it sort of defeats itself. You have to first set up the reality of the wall as that which is to be overcome. Your purpose may be quite confusing to your perspective and you'd end up with that which utilizes the least amount of energy... frustration or a bruised head, for example.

On an other hand, you are already walking through a wall you did not know was there simply by having made it irrelevant to your perspective. It's not cool or sexy but neither is real teleportation.

Ask yourself, how would walking through the wall be logical to your perspective?

Most attempts to do such a thing are not, and thus are met with frustration.

If (somehow) it were logical to your perspective, most likely you'd find that the wall becomes irrelevant and you probably would not perceive of the wall at all.

Your body is a representation of the source of perspective. Without some kind of focus there would be no perception.

However, the body does not pick up the cup.

The contents are not there to spill.

The floor is not there to move feet across.

There is perspective. By nature we create relationships that do not exist in order to try to perceive ourselves. This infinite geometry of relationships is the fabric of our existence. In order for the illusion to sustain itself it must be in constant motion and thus we are in constant motion through our perceptions. We must all ways be doing something and have some kind of relationship, even when apparently not doing anything.

The body does not pick up the cup because the body and the cup are illusions within this geometry.

The only action is a constant and pervasive moving of the illusions. When the illusions interact a reality is created because the relationship between the illusions is real.

And this is everything you've come to know.

quite important, by the way, for the curious.

It is the nature of existence itself.

So then, exactly what is it that is happening when you stare into an other's eye (or into your own via a mirrored reflection) and everything fades to naught?

Can you please clarify your question?

Thanks.

There is an exercise, of sorts, that enables one to see past the illusion. By staring intently into an other's eye or into your own eye when looking through a mirror, certain 'levels' can be reached each succesively moving through the illusion of existence until an area of no thing-ness is reached...an event horizon; and, perhaps THE event horizon.

I do not understand the mechanics, nor do I understand the significance or even the possibilities that [this exercise entails]. I was hoping you could help us to figure this out.

I see what you're saying. Thanks for pointing this out. Now, I won't waste energy pursuing that direction.


Yes, I consider this. The "train going through my living room in an alternate dimension" concept.


Logic is something that I work on. You have made enough comments about logic that I understand that there are many varieties. I see how magic can occur by simply tweaking one's logic.

Disappearing a wall reminds me of your "how to make a table disappear" post. I have scratched my head over that ever since you posted it. The instructions are clear enough, but I have yet to make anything actually disappear using those instructions.

But, then an object is still there because of an existing relationship, right? The same thing with a wall.

I know that I have work to do. I keep on keeping on.

Thank you for your reply. I anticipated it simply being "There is no newborn!" :)

My question is then, how does "one's interpretation" develop and build upon, unless there is a frame of reference or anchor point stemming from "this reality"? Is it a random interpretation, born out of nowhere? Or is there on some level a [shared] "construct"?

In my "solo" trip of my reality, did I make all the interpretations up? If the newborn is exposed to some influences in the womb, as you mentioned, then there must be a pick up point somewhere. A sort of "shared meme".

Please, bear with me, while I am trying to understand, as I find this thread quite valuable.



Let's say that the poor newborn hits a wall. None knows what he thinks and how he interprets the wall... However the mother sees the newborn cry.

At this point, the options I can think of at the moment, are:

1 - The "mother" is on a cosmic schizophrenic trip, believing she has a [nonexistent] crying baby, who just hit the [nonexistent] wall.

2 - The newborn has no interpretation of the wall, which to him does not exist, so he crawls through it [creating an alternate reality split]. To the mother, however, the wall does exist, so her logical step is to see the baby crying in her reality.

3 - Each point of perception (individual) uses a shared framework to create their interpretation. In the case of this Planet, the shared framework is dense physicality, where a wall is just solid, and when you hit it, it hurts.
The mother does not know what the baby is thinking, nor how he sees the world. But the baby is crying, because they are sharing the same "construct", and the wall is there for both of them.



Does it need to be outside of my perspective?

If I am merely observing a consistent, coherent, regular pattern, which appears to have the characteristics of a "natural law", the observation alone has now made it part of my perspective, but that does not change its nature as a general pattern.

The question is, was gravity already there as a building block of this construct (physicality on this Planet), or did I make it all up because there is no construct at all? If so, how did I come up with it?

In any case, I would say that the law of conservation of energy is outside my perspective, because it is what defines my perspective.

I am bound and condemned to perceive only what takes the least amount of energy to perceive. I cannot perceive otherwise, no matter how I wish it different. I can only go to perception-gym and gradually create logical steps, which consume the relative least amount of energy in incremental fashion. You said that the contrary is a universal no-no. Which implies that there are universal/natural laws.

Thank you Chaol for more clarity on this. :)

Oh. I was considering the body as being an element of the environment. That the source was elsewhere. That the perceiver is...everywhere?

I adapted this understanding after a dim comprehension of this:

The illusion of a wheel turning
Is the complexification of its central source.
Yet the source cannot be perceived.
For the source is nowhere specific.

I cheated. I've begun re-reading this thread from the beginning.


Other possibilities begin to branch off from the nexus that is "well beyond the limit of what the symbol can support".


Chaol, you told us that there was a substantial nexus point last September 26. It appears that at least a few of us on this board are enjoying good times, to our surprise and delight. My guess is that we have splintered off from the larger nexus and are now on our ways to something else. There would be other splinters too, of course, which are experiencing different flavors of the "big daddy" nexus.

So what you're saying is that there is an exercise that allows you to perceive beyond your perception?

Yes. The perception is there because of the relationships.

Change the relationships and it becomes less relative to your perception.

The same thing with anything.

I hesitate to answer these kinds of questions because of their implications. But I will do so anyway. Perhaps we are more ready than we were before.

One's interpretation does not develop and is not built upon. The interpretation is the geometry of relationships, and all have an equal value because there is nothing actually there.

There is no evolution, no change, and nothing is actually happening.

A thought experiment, if I may...

Imagine that you are in a one-dimensional, empty room. It is completely dark and there is nothing to perceive. Let's call this room Geniisys. Boom! You have named it something, creating the first relationship. This thought, this possibility, creates the second dimension. You write the name, Geniisys, in the air as you name it. This outlines a space. You now have three dimensions. You utter the name into the space you have formed, creating farther varieties of relationships. This goes on ad infinitum until all the stars, dust, light, culture, and tricycles are created. You are simply creating relationships out of something that does not exist, and this is endlessly recursive.

The above is an illustration of perspective. You take two things that do not exist to form a relationship that "does" exist (or at least one that you can perceive). You do not perceive of the things directly (because they do not exist) but only your relationship with them. This relationship does not really exist, either, but the value that seems to be created from the relationship is something that we can use, and thus seems real.

That which exists is true and cannot be perceived. It is beyond perception and without perspective.

So in a way we are experiencing our relationship with that which does not exist. There is an infinite variety of these experiences and perceptions because it is impossible for us to define this relationship.

Although these relationships seem to change it all happens simultaneously (as it is an illusion). It is your perspective that seems to change, not the relationships.

That is the nature of perspective.

So instead of evolving or building upon something you are perceiving the next logical relationship, so to speak. This does not happen in time. It seems to happen in time because you are experiencing these relationships at the speed of perception.

Independent of the illusion of time there is neither change nor evolution.

All of these things, you could say, are hitting you at the same time. You are simultaneously in a distant star 40 trillion years into the past (5 billions years by your measurement) and here and now eating cereal. However, you are only able to perceive one relationship at a time. You naturally perceive what is most related to an other perception.

This "one" relationship could include countless other relationships. You could be perceiving 500, 5 trillion, or 5 relationships right now, but it would still be a single relationship.

But you perceive it as one relationship, and it is perspective.

In this way what we consider evolution or building upon something is including more relationships into this geometry (what I call an expanded perspective, although that is a misnomer).

Right now we are surrounded by things we have represented. They may seem to appear separate from us, because we have made them so through our representation and logic, and thus interaction and potential energy.

When we "un-name" something and take away the representation we realize more of this nothing and instead of perceiving a relationship with it we absorb it into our perspective, so to speak.

That is to say, instead of it being perceived as being separate from us and something with which we can have a relationship we realize we are that thing.

In this way we build upon it by absorbing it into who we are (taking away the relationship). But at this point it cannot be perceived and we cannot know about it.

The more you cannot perceive something the more it is the source of who you are.

There is no shared construct. It is there but it does not exist. (Apologies, but English has its constraints.)

There is no newborn unless you are the newborn :)

Your perception of the newborn is the newborn's total existence. There is no need for further values to exist unless they need to. This would be a waste of energy. When you are not perceiving the newborn crying, baby does not. If you are talking on the phone with someone who has a newborn, neither the newborn nor the person are there in physical form. They exist only as they need to in your perspective (a certain range of what you'd call the audio spectrum, for example).

We perceive that which is most relative, yes. But we also do not perceive that which is not relative. The bottom of your foot may not be relative to your current experience. If you're not looking at it now, for example, it need not have color, texture, etc. (There is no need to render it, as one person on this thread has suggestively illustrated.)

The potential for the "shared construct" is there but it is always unused and does not exist. When you perceive of something else you are actually perceiving of yourself (because it is your perspective).

It's quite difficult to grasp that one, for most. "Of course my friend exists! I just spoke with them!" But you do not know of your friend outside of your current perspective. In fact, there is nothing you could have perceived outside of your current perspective. Outside it, there is nothing.

Gravity is not there. Only some effects of what you would consider gravity. If you're not measuring light at this particular instant, for example, it has no speed. When you want to measure light then the speed will become relative to your experience and you will see a value. (The speed of light is actually the speed of physical perception that will change in a bit, but that's an other story.)

You came up with the idea of gravity because it is logical to your perspective. Things are relative to the ground you walk on, usually, so things tend to stick there. Gravity is the same as living where you do, or thinking what you are, etc. It is an effect of perceiving things that are relative. The same force that attracts also repels. (It doesn't do either, but only seems to.)

The law of conservation of energy is not actually outside your perspective nor does it define it. It is the only method by which we perceive. That is to say, 'perception' and this law is the same thing.

In this way you are bound to perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive. But it does not mean you are limited. It means you have only to make something relative to your perspective in order to experience it.

You are actually experiencing all things simultaneously, right now. But you do not perceive it. The nature of perspective is this energy conservation.

The moment you begin to perceive, you could say, is the moment when you perceive what is nearest to you first. Looking "over there" first is for the curious and is certainly possible, but it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so. (It's not a law, but you'd most likely give up long before you experienced results.)

Yes, you can only go to perception-gym and gradually create logical steps. But, 2 things:

1) If you can figure it out, you can relate one thing to an other, seemingly unrelated thing

2) You have all the time in the universe *lol*

Personally, I don't think I'm very patient. That's where Ecsys comes in.

Keep in mind that everything contains everything else (so to speak, even though most things are not fully-realized) so it's just a matter of finding that thing (or experience, whatever) in what is most relative to you now.

The table you're sitting at has all of the properties of the newest spaceship. You just have to find them :)

The "central source" is Nothing.

Things move because we make this nothing complex (so that we can perceive it, or at least have the illusion of perceiving it).

This nothing cannot be perceived, because it cannot be represented.

The perceiver is only where it needs to be.

The environment is an element of perspective, as is the body.

Hope this helps.

Last Edited by Chaol on 10/14/2012 12:05 AM

There is all ways a 'larger' nexus, but it's certainly possible.

A sister nexus, incidentally, is on October 15, 2012.

These are just points that values of perspective gather around and where the potential energy increases substantially.

...where things have the possibility to become more relative to your experience.

Anything could happen (personally, etc.)

It allows you to see past the immediate illusion of what we consider to be real...as in "reality". Perceiving beyond your perception is impossible, right?

Amazing post, Chaol!

I've finally bridged the gap between ecsys and physics :))
This clarifies a lot!

From what you've told us though, I can't help but wonder if you are using a shared construct. I have a vague idea of what it might be.. just thinking 'out loud.'

Chaol you are an inspiration! Thanks for bending/twisting my brain the way you do lol
It is highly appreciated

Chaol,

As I try to think of how to write this post I am laughing because it is interesting that when I first started reading this thread I couldn't understand what you meant when you were saying you couldn't say what you wanted to say with our crappy language. It seemed so foreign, but now it seems like I can't put any of these complex thoughts into written language. In fact I declare that all of this sentence and what follows akjrb5kwjqbtda04w59234tajdlns045wry slkDJBT13 QWEI346[139GHV-ASE436QAWEA dflgjw3p represent a future possibility where I create a better language with new symbols so we can all finally start expanding our minds easier.

Haha, until then tell me if this sounds right....

Because nothing exists outside of our perspective, if something is within our perspective it contains everything we are not currently perceiving because we perceive everything at once but only interrupt them certain ways. Thus to make a relationship to perceive the thing we want we must have to make a NEW symbol.

If time does not exist and a symbol already exists. Time is only a means of trying to explains an illusionary difference in the same symbol. The intrinsic value of these symbols does not change even if the relationships we make with it changes.

So if there is no difference in the "shape/symbol" then our reality or "time line?" does not change?

Time only exists if shapes in space are arbitrary, but they are not arbitrary positions they are moves by the law of least energy. Or perhaps better put our perspective appears to move through time because symbols are changing based on the law of energy conservation / what is most relative.

Nothing exists outside of our perspective, it is impossible to perceive of something if we cannot form a relationship to add it to our perspective.

So by being human I suppose we have a unique chance to use our brains to logically create a new symbol which must create possibility because that symbol never existed before and now it does so whatever it was you wanted it to represent has just been brought into your perspective. And though it is a symbol, because everything already exists, inside that symbol exists the actual thing you want to represent. Then through our actions we can make the representation more relative until it becomes part of our reality? We just have to focus on the things that are most relative to that representation?

My question I guess is how can we find the thing or experience to make the things we want more relative?

Also what are your thoughts on sensory deprivation?

Thanks,
Dodec

Awesome response :) just joined this thread but very impressed by the conceptual scope thus far

An analogy would be how we experience a movie.

In a movie still images are put together in a logical order. The images are representations of something else, illusions.

A reality is created not from the illusions (images) but from the relationships between the illusions.

Now imagine all of these images lay on the ground in a random order. Your mind will automatically begin to relate some images together in a way that makes sense to it. (It doesn't matter where you start, like in a dream.) Your mind will then perceive a reality based on the relationships between the first few images. It will also automatically find more images that it thinks should come next. It may be a different kind of logic from someone else, but it makes sense for the narrative you're putting together.

The point here is that you're creating something that seems real by putting two or more things together (that are not real).

Chaol, thank you for another great post. Could you please elaborate in a way that is more relative to our(my) current understanding of what you've taught?

Just so that you do not have to repeat yourself, I do understand that we(I or perhaps more accurately "this"):

---experience that which takes the least amount of energy(or as stated previously, the least number of interactions) to perceive.

-and-

---can utilize the "genius" to call a particular flavor of experience into perspective by "naming" something "new" or seemingly "unrelative"(lol, which is funny because nothing is perceptible outside of relevancy) both in language and in physical terms (as physicality is the current (most logical) language of perspective), then allow that "representation" to interact with the representations that are already perceived (I understand that none of it "truly" exists, so any perspective is possible as none of it exists anyway). Once the desired outcome is relative, it will be experienced (yet it has been experienced all along).

I realize the steps one takes to "find" them are subjective, but it would be great if you gave some(more) advice on this.

Thanks a ton.

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 10/14/2012 04:25 PM

I have a theory that describes the unconscious mind and consciousness as antimatter. You can see a presentation on YouTube here:

[link to www.youtube.com]

and read my blog on

[link to crestroyertheory.com]

Hi. I watched your video and enjoyed it very much.

I hope that you read this entire thread. Perhaps it will assist you in fleshing out your theory.

There are also some other "Chaol" threads that you may find to be of interest. Search for that name in the "Advanced Search" feature on this website.

There is a summary of the basics covered in this thread at this website: [link to www.ecsys.org]

Glad that you could join us here. You have interesting ideas to share.

[link to www.jwz.org]

Thread: Faster Than Speed of Light

Keep in mind that although scientists can theorize about (and find evidence for) particles that travel faster than the speed of light, they can only perceive the results at or less than this speed of light.

An inch will be measured as an inch, even when it's not.

The instrument that is used for the measurement is rarely considered, but often they are observing the effects of the instrument rather than what is being observed.

You could say that the instrument is a reference of interpretation. Looking through an electron microscope we do not see electrons. We see the electron microscope.

If you invented a new gestalt spectrometer that is meant to capture light's oompa particles, you'd probably find them. You might even consider the oompa particles to be a new property of light. Others could then find the same particles (verifying your results) using the same instrument, but not other instruments.

So, while faster-than-light particles 'exist' they cannot be perceived.