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

I thought our worlds divereged by the time of industrial revolution

PS: Welcome back!

"No perception" in the way none of this "really exists"? Or "no perception" as in there is something to be perceived yet remains outside of our capability to directly perceive it? Or no perception like we experience memory, generating experience through imagination but where nothing is technically being perceived except a projection? Or "no perception" as in we cannot form memories to carry over information from one frame to next (each frame no longer relevant to the next)?

Hi.

Yes. I don't mean a couple of years before your 2001. It was some time before that (around the Industrial Revolution).

Nice to be back :)

The most ancient of secrets! :)

Oh, you tease.

It seems that without some mystery to ponder we may be like a ship too close to a dark foggy shore lacking a lighthouse. If I squint hard enough maybe Ill see it before the crash.

I really liked the idea. It was fun. Then I began learning the fundamentals. As I began, the idea was exciting and I felt enlightenment.

However,

Reading the language of ecsys and neuronics, the constitution example doesn't fit the teachings. It goes on to explain what positive and negative symbols are, yet provides a correct how it's written example that is false. Showing flawed understanding by the supposed teacher.

I will further try and learn the mechanics and report my findings.

It's important I note the theory and basis of thinking in a quicker language is potentially ground breaking and what interests me.

As from as percept..ing different realities, literally, has yet to be proven. I think this is yet another gross exaggeration of the truth. If everything was how I perceived the relationship then I would have full control and be alone. However I am not alone. We are all here fixed on this perception which is perceived exactly how all of us on earth have effected it over its history.

If I kill your brother, you're relationship hasn't changed till you find out. In your reality your perception stays the same until you find out what I did. Thus your perception lagging behind this reality that I just took control of. Without your perception knowing.

So we aren't really untrained beings with control of our perception to relationships. We are a result of cause and effect making perceived choices that eventually manifest into our world because we percieved the physical steps needed to take, to produce a wanted physical product.

I guess I'll play the skeptic on this one.

Just a bit of mho. All love. I will post my thoughts as I go. Please inform me if I'm not grasping. Discussion welcome.

I think the word you confused perception with imagination.

If not what is the difference?

Or maybe this was some sheep inception?*

Late night deception?

I claim Bullshit detection.

Why? No shill inspection ;)

Just checking in to say hi to everyone!

I've been offline for a long while. It's been very dreamlike lately... having to perceive the illness, agony and final departure of a friend's father, offering help to ease the situation, and at the same time learning to ride horses in a nearby ranch.

I've missed being on this thread and you Chaol, though I've often seen the white dot in the corner of my eye (that you mentioned a while back, as I recall...).

My first Genius symbol keeps working, even if it fell apart and sits quietly in my bag now.

Lots of pages to catch up on, I guess... It feels great to be back, and the dream goes on :)

With "the Genius" what techniques should one use to properly assign the meaning to the symbol? By what steps do we come to focus the logic and possibility space effectively enough to come to experience that which the symbol represents. It seems to me that my genius models have been entirely effective yet my ability to determine exactly what it is I'd like to experience via the genius is somehow off.

I used a genius symbol a while back to "expand my awareness". While considering the symbol I had considered "expand my awareness" to mean something far different from what I intended. My experience with the "expansion of awareness" seems to be of limited scope.

What is the right way to wish to the genie?

Is it by not wishing and instead intending with focus?

Is "the genius" a tool customized to focus our intent on a specific experience? If so, how is it that we come to obtain proper focus? Is that the purpose of ecsys? The words and symbols we've been using have infected us and although they work within the framework of the environment that supposedly generated them, they also limit us to it. By convincing ourselves that all that we perceive is represented by a rule set with the opportunity to explore the rules, we provide us an alternate way to define our frame of reference and in turn we experience an alternate frame of reference.

I still don't understand ecsys beyond that. I've found myself pondering whether I could just make up a few dozen characters in some (maybe even random) way and assign meaning to them that I currently cannot describe successfully with the language I've been accustomed to. By doing so, will I be essentially using ecsys to define my frame of reference? Up until we write our own language are we simply living in a world defined by others? If so, then an awakening could be interpreted to be shedding of the requirement to define perspective with the same terms that had been born by it.

Maybe our awareness that we are both a part of and apart from all of "this" allows us to move beyond it.



Glad to see you Ambra.

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 12/19/2012 06:53 PM

It's your ancient secret ("deep, dark", as it would be said).

It's one of those things that we don't want to think about. As it implies that we would not exist. Indeed, it is the thing we don't want to consider. Only in an abstract way, perhaps.

It's something I've covered at length so the basics are no secret for me. Only the practical applications.

If you cannot perceive of something directly then what are you actually perceiving?

It's a bit amusing to consider that I don't understand the own language I have illustrated.

Anyways, Ec is not meant to be used at this time.

As I mention in the post above (for something else) the basics are there and have been covered at length but the practical applications are not really discussed.

The enterprising mind will figure it out for one self.

If it makes you more comfortable to think it's just a random hoax that actually sits fine with me. It just means you weren't meant to discover it for your self.

I can point the way but you have to get there with your own two feet.

You'd be perceiving an inferential experience?

I think that that inference is made by our intent and is subject to the logic in the system by which we perceive. We are basically choosing what we experience at all times. It's just that on the most basic level we (as we currently can perceive our sense of self) do not exist. Am I off?

This one was a bit strange to me but I've since discovered that it is a sort of reconfiguration of the physical world.

The nexus effected all physicality, introducing far greater possibilities in the human dimension.

What does this actually mean? It sets the stage for the dreamworld-physicalworld experiences in 2013.

When something has more of the ability to do something it, of course, becomes more likely to occur.

Consider it an upgrade, if you will. (But no need to read into it further.)

Hi. 1) it has all ready; 2) you are; 3) it does at every moment and at every angle. But sometimes those 'angles' align and you get a big 'split'

When one relates only with what one knows the value of the relationships diminish.

The more we learn to relate with what is not "us" the more valuable those relationships become.

When you introduce new perspectives into your experience you are able to see your experience more clearly than if you had not. (Although some of us may not accept the new perspective and conflicts arise.)

Are not we all actors?

What would it mean?

Many of us will interpret the new physicality as being alien in origin.

The possibility of "alien" life on Earth (visiting, living, etc.) is a logical narrative.

It's just a way for us to make sense of it.

Most of what we see "out there" is ourselves.

The rest is still ourselves but less relevant.

Flowing rivers on Triton, inhabitable Earths just a short distance away, expanded UFO sightings and experiences... all part of the narrative.

Isn't it fun to see it unfold before your eyes?

Yes, my friendly and wise tour guide, it is.

Hi.

The question presupposes such a spirit exists.

Thus, I am unable to respond properly.

Perhaps you can define it a bit more?

Good to see you back, Ambra -I was wondering about you :)

You imply that happiness does not depend on relation?

All of your examples above are of you relating to something else (i.e., what makes you happy).

Love, happiness, etc., is much more abstract than, say, a chair because "love" can relate to many more things than a chair could.

If a chair was more universal then perhaps we'd have trouble defining it, too.

However, I'm not saying that "soul" does not exist. I simply do not define it the way that the questions regarding soul are set up. They are irrelevant to me.

We sometimes speak of soul as though it were somehow separate from what we are.

You don't need a soul to experience emotions or to feel. That's a myth. It does nothing but separates us from our perspectives (the rocks that feel, for example).

By the way, Sekhmet is more of a mediator between perspectives. It's a value in your own perspective, like the number 6 is. You can say that the number 6 has an evil history but it would be missing the point and making a symbol out to be something that it's not.

Good and bad feelings are up to you. They're not defined and universally applicable.

Just curious, though... How do you know if something is bringing you closer to who you are?

Clever ;)

I would say that it is not a decision but more of an illusion.

For we are still nothing.

The illusion is "everything" (with the implication that we are something).

Again, a discussion for an other time.

Did you perceive yourself?

Yes and no.

Yes in that you perceive something (or at least it seems like it).

No in that you do not really.

We don't need to perceive of something directly to seem like we exist.

That is the beauty of it all.

"Nothing" has changed yet "nothing" remains the same.

Perhaps. But there is no real or true perspective.

It is an illusion for which there is no observer.

Again, a discussion for an other time and when we're off of the basics.

Yes. Everything in your perspective is you (obviously).

But from what could be called an other perspective.

Your hand is more relative to what you are and you have developed a logical narrative (a persistent physical body) that keeps it around you in your experience.

But when you experience less relative values of your perspective (walking along the grass, for example) you think it is separate from "you" because it is not as relative as your hand is.

But you are as much the grass and you are your hand or brain, etc.

It's just a different way of looking at yourself. (And the relevance is only an illusion. "Nothing" does not actually separate itself.)

You're not that far off but I may confuse some by the responses on this page so I will keep it to a minimum. (As I will need to contradict my responses a bit for clarity when we get to more advanced Ecsys).

You are the inference.

You can say that you choose your experience by 'choosing' what you relate to. (Although there is no choice. It's more of a matter of the relations that you are focusing on. There is really no relation because the subject of relations don't actually change because they don't actually exist. And so we've reached the limits of the English language.)

There's a joke somewhere in there about the nature of the male but I will just say...

you came from now.

The rest is just a way to make sense of it, whatever story you wish to consider.

Last Edited by Chaol on 12/19/2012 08:05 PM

The meaning of "war" today is much different from the meaning of it before.

Many concepts we do not know how to accurately interpret so we give it names we all ready know and understand.

There's a whole universe of understanding right before our eyes that we don't see because the concepts no longer exists in our vocabulary ;)

@ Jesse [MM] and Marshwiggle


I'm catching up from page 175, my mind spinning again in excitement, so much still to read! Past 2 a.m. here, will try to meet all of you in the dreamworld, and hopefully be up to date by tomorrow evening.



Jesse, I don't know if this applies to your questions, Chaol will be of greater help, just quickly sharing my understanding. The Genius symbol acts as a placeholder, in other words it "is" your intended experience, under another form. You are already experiencing it "somewhere out there", but you want to make it relevant to your current perspective, where it appears that you are not [yet] experiencing it.

Once you have created the symbol with the attached value, and assigned a space so it can form relationships with your current values, and perform rules so it can have a logical expression, you now have the "condensed" version of your intended experience already existing in your current reality.

It is not a matter of wishing it into existence, or focusing on it (in order to not create resistance to it). It's simply a matter of bridging something that is already "overthere", into "here", until it becomes naturally relevant (the next logical step). Then, the placeholder is replaced by the "actual thing". Two faces of the same medal, they are the same thing in essence.

Rather than "bringing things into existance", or "creating" something, you are simply moving them from one world to the other (your current world/perspective).

I hope my late nite/sleepy brain reasoning will make sense...