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

So, I"m much greater because he's a value in my perspective? Aren't I also a value in his?

Hmmmm, there must be things irrelevant to my perspective because there are things I'd like to change. Chaol said to make the things you don't want, irrelevant but I know ignoring something doesn't work.

Relating differently seems to something seems to work to make it irrelevant but for me, it's usually a slow process. I'm still catching on.

Reject the option of something being irrelevant?

To make something irrelevant, shouldn't you make it illogical? How can it relate if there is no logical way of it relating to 'you'.

Not-Chaol

Well, yes, that would work. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to make it illogical. I do better at relating to it differently, at least so far.

Btw, isn't relating to something differently changing the logic?

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/11/2013 07:27 PM

But relating to something differently, only requires that you change the logic.

Not-Chaol

U3,

IF there is something outside what you would consider worth perceiving, that doesn't make it not a possibility, just irrelevant to your ever perceiving of it.

Therefore you are OUTSIDE of perspective, because your totality is not contained within experience.

-----

For example:

Would you choose no perception at all (can't be thought about because so irrelevant, but for the sake of argument) or the unitary experience of only losing, only suffering, only pain.

Or another way, what part of yourself does having forgiveness make irrelevant?

You cannot ever experience the sum of your existence if you value something. Because the value implies the rejection of something else.

But if you value nothing you are not alive.

----

But since you have experienced things you enjoy, aren't suffering always, that from the mere moment of existence coming into existing that you had already won.

The source is nothing, but if fear were irrelevant what would it be that exists?

If you were afraid to perceive you wouldn't, but you do perceive, so I think perception and love and winning are all very similar.

Why would you want to trade winning to experience infinite fear and suffering in the unity of nothingness "truth" (though you wouldn't experience anything, which could maybe be worse that the worst suffering that you could experience)

We resist the truth because we have values, something worth fighting for, something worth believing in, something worth hoping for.

Just a rant of thoughts, not necessarily a good logical connection ;)

OK! Got it! Heh! Thanks. I still haven't gotten certain things out of my perspective, but I have changed several.

I want my wife to be happy and feel love

Those things dont exist in unity/0/nothingness

Existence itself is fabricated upon a lie.


But it is a good illusion, this should maybe make you feel more comfortable that existence will always be a distortion. Because it is distorted for your happiness.

----

Unconditional Love resists nothing, but also resist the MOST unconditional love which is unity, because there is nothing to be had there.

So you are resisting no thing, and nothing... which then brings more love into perspective for forever and ever and ever and ever.
----

I like it, it works for me

I really enjoyed this, Lok. It gave me a lot to think about.


Have you found a place inside you that fears non-existence or nothingness? I can't find nothingness. I've tried and tried.....but I also know I fear it.

I really like this, Lok....

"But since you have experienced things you enjoy, aren't suffering always, that from the mere moment of existence coming into existing that you had already won."

I like it too. Very much.

But, I have a question. Is our only choice to live with fear of non-existence?

U3

A few years ago when I switched from catholic to atheist I went through a lot of fear associated with fear of non-existence.

The thing that finally helped was a quote that went something like

"I never was much bothered by non-existence before I was born and I doubt it will bother me much after I die"

There is nothing to experience there. There is no fear associated with it because there is literally nothing to fear.

You don't fear what it was like living before you were born because it is irrelevant, you have already been born.

If you are experiencing fear of non-existence (something that YOU can never experience) it could also be said that you REALLY LOVE existing and perceiving.

Since you can't ever not perceive non-existence that fear is also irrelevant. But you are perceiving now, and you get what you focus on. You have choice on what you focus on and perceive.

So the only thing to fear IS fear itself (because it just draws more fear)

But if your most fundamental logic is that existence and perceiving itself is positive and there is nothing to perceive in Nothingness/nonperception then let go. There is nothing to do, because you already have what you want (to be alive, to be able to experience, to be able to give and feel love)

Now the only "task" it perceive more of what already is.

-------

This was graffiti on the back of the dumpster by my apartment, I don't ever go behind it, but did to hide my key one day...

"Those who are skilled in combat do not become easily angered.
Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid, thus the wise WIN before the fight, while the ignorant fight to win.
-Bravo"

You know, I was thinking just today, I don't feel fear when I wake up in the morning and don't remember a thing, lol! It's as if I don't exist when that happens.

I probably just like having a fear because it makes me feel alive, ya know?

Thanks for sharing all your thoughts. You are appreciated and have a unique slant on things! ;o)

Thank you. But I may be distracted by the process. I feel quite connected just typing at the computer.

I estimate that the first of 4 PDFs would be ready by November or so.

It's quite a lot of material.

I don't think everything is permitted, as that would be contrariwise to the law of energy conservation.

Ecsys holds that "truth" does not exist. But I agree that both are irrelevant beyond the usefulness of their context.

You raise a good point in saying that, "It's that EVERYTHING exists and the "illusion" we perceive is constructed by the logic we use to interpret the "EVERYTHING" (everything is true(existing) in the proper context(perspective) and we can only perceive within a "limited" perspective(logic)." But I would add that the logic and the construction and the interpretation is the same thing.

In that way, "nothing" and "everything" would be the same thing, and both irrelevant to perspective.

But where it really concerns our reality is how the illusion is illustrated.

So, as you have quoted, It's not whether something is "true" or "existing" it's whether something is "useful" or not. Useful in this way being "relative". The more relative it is the more useful it is.

The illusion need not be "true", only relative.

And the illusion is the ultimate truth (that can be experienced) because it is that which takes the least amount of energy to be used. And our now experience is that which takes the least amount of energy to be experienced.

Interesting thoughts about nothing-in-particular.

I know it would not be a popular thought, but perhaps the universe is not infinite?

In a way, it would be like numbers. There are 10 numbers in our current system. However, if you wanted to you could make these numbers "infinite".

In the same way the entire universe is in our perspective. Neptune need not exist because it is not relevant to your current perspective (only in name).

So then if you explored the universe it would appear infinite but only because your "now" would be filled with your imagination.

What we don't see are those things that are not relevant. And this probably comprises 99.999999% of our "universe" (so to speak).

So then we see that there is always something relevant and then think that there is infinity, when actually we are just refashioning what was already there.

Just a thought.

Yes, it's interesting. (Though I don't think this guy is speaking for anyone.)

We often forget perspective. So "the winning numbers" would most be seen about being something that happens, or comes from outside it.

The "winning numbers" would be as much of your perspective as the fork in the kitchen tray.

It's a useful point that reality shifts to a condition where the winning numbers are chosen, as long as continuous perspective is kept in mind. (Always being in a state of shifting, so to speak.)

Wow! I didn't dream it would take that long. I thought you were using software to gather and compile the material. And didn't you say somewhere it's just 2 of the threads?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to it whenever it's ready. Thank you.

We start with the assumption that our subconscious wants anything.

If it does not, then it 1) is free to "give us" the reality that is relative to us; and 2) means that we are our subconscious

How can we find out what we really want?

Perhaps the question is, How can we find out what is really relative?

The compilation is the easy part. And much of the information will be left out of the first PDF. The first will focus on the basics, as an introduction.

I am working to make the information more accessible, with 2 or 3 layers of logic (as Chaol sometimes did when replying here) so that different people can understand things in a way that is relative to them.

I am working on making my own proxy that will act on my behalf. This is/will be a person that I 'create' in order to make a few changes in the prevailing reality. I do not myself seek fame or such, but I can see where being a public figure can be effective. I program the logic and release it into perspective as a value. Perhaps it won't work, but I will try because I am interested to see how it can be done. This person will reference Ecsys by a different name. (Ecsys will die, but this person's words will live on. Perhaps his name is "Osbios". A mixed-race man of 20 of unknown origin with words as sharp as steel.)

Though it is unlikely that we will ever meet 'in person', we may know each other in other ways.

Last Edited by Chaol on 06/12/2013 02:19 AM

I would encourage you to be more specific than this if you want to prove it to yourself. Make it detailed but make it relevant.

In what scenario in your life would trying on a red top hat make sense?

Perhaps you meet a friend on the street who whisks you away on a shopping journey where you are trying on outfits for a party in 2 weeks. You are in a fitting room helping your friend when the sales attendant brings a red top hat that your friend says would look stunning on you.

So you see you are not just making the experience detailed but, at the same time, introducing it into your perspective.



Certainly if you experience the same things again then it is a way to conserve energy in perspective. There would not need to be so much 'processing' of the information if you already have things that it relates to.

But in that way, isn't it a coincidence that you're the same person you were yesterday? It's not that there is a yesterday but your memory of "yesterday" is much like the reality today.

Perhaps synchronicities abound without you thinking of them as such? Your feet can walk on the ground, your body is made for the chair, your lungs can breathe the air. It only seems strange when there are new elements in the mix. But the same process is at work.

In this way "synchronicities" would be a logic that is not yet pervasive in other aspects of your perspective.

For example, you start seeing pregnant women at 5:02 outside your apartment. This begins to happen every day. But then you find out there is a Lamaaze studio nearby who likes to park outside your building.

If this happened to everyone it would be forgotten, like the synchronicity of sunshine.

Perspective is one thing working "together".



In this way our subconscious is no different than our conscious. Our 'body conscious' no different than our own thinking.

Many things coming together, acting as one when the individual actors are not aware of the aggregate being.

To understand a greater percentage of "the all" than we do now? No.

A different understanding than we do now, sure.

But where there is perspective, there is always mystery.

The joy, I think, comes when we cease thinking that there is something else that we do not see.

Last Edited by Chaol on 06/12/2013 11:14 AM

I could not get flying to work. It's too unlike the logic I have built up in this reality. But being in 2 places at once and acting therein would be a very interesting ability to have.



I would be interested to see such a quote, if possible.

I don't think Chaol "believes" in belief but rather, the power of Logic. (And we are often unaware of our own beliefs, as many go deep within our conscious thinking.)

The power of gravity does not come from belief in it but in the Logic. It's how our perspective is structured.

I think Chaol would say that there is no belief only an interpretation of logic. We can believe that something is true, for example, because we see how the logic is most relevant.

Chaol spoke about gravity being structured representation (matter that has been structured), or Logic. Logic is not about "belief" but a group of representations that have been organized in a way, which allows for relativity to take place.

With gravity there is attraction and repulsion, and with logic there is structure and unstructure.

Hi.

I just mean that it is represented in other ways, so we don't need to know about how the logic of the body changes as each moment. (It is reflected in our reality.)

For your example, just because there are some correlations with The Netherlands does not mean that there is something more to that, or that is where you will end up, or there is a message there. That's more about interaction rather than logic. Logic is free of representations on that scale.

"The Netherlands" is how you've chosen to interpret some of those values. You've chosen something (The Netherlands) based on what you have interacted with already. The interaction is not with the country but with the concept. And the concept is one interpretation out of a multitude.

There's perhaps no reason for it, other than it's something that makes sense in some way. Sometimes we try to extract meaning where none exists. The only "meaning" being a Logic that is free of meaning and exists because its a way to relate to something, and make new relationships.

In theory, yes.

But since you are the one asking the question, no.

Let's separate the two in definition.

Ignoring something is an active resistance when there is intent to ignore.

This is different than making something irrelevant. [link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

When Chaol uses "ignore" it's more about making it irrelevant to you rather than pushing it away.

You would then have conditions where that thing can no longer thrive or exist.

But of course, a thing is more than it appears.

"Relating to it differently" is more practical advice. A different relationship would mean a different perspective.

The thing you wanted out of your reality would instead be embraced, and become something else. (Meaning, instead of pushing part of your self away you would continue to accept all of your values, and simply change the values that are no longer relevant.)

Can you provide an example of something you want to make irrelevant?

For a lie to be, there must oppose or contradict in some way something that is true.

What do you feel is the lie of existence?

This "fear" of non-existence is more primal than something to worry about in human living, I think.

It is not the same as "fear of death" but more of a resistance of nothing-in-particular.

I'm referring to this:




Why do something that your subconscious can do far more effectively?

We don't need to learn the Genius, because we already know it and use it. We then have only to learn how to listen to it, and see what it is doing.

Quoting: Chaol