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

I took the term "actor" from Chaol. He has termed "actors" all of us in this world.

For him to have the term actor in his mind, implying the existence of another term that is not an actor.

That "not an actor", I took it from a post of his, that pretty much says

"Going from A to B.
-If you have no idea about Ec, will take you from 6 months to 4 years
-If you have a very good command of Ec, will take you 3 weeks
-If you are the guy who wrote Ec, will take you nanoseconds."

Now, in the first case we all identify ourselves-the actors.
we follow specific attitudes/processes so that we can experience stuff that we want in 6 months or 4 years.

The expert follows a different process/attitude and experiences anything in nanoseconds.

Let's see the distances.
"nanoseconds" is faster than start replying to a question you heard that you already know the answer.
More familiar though, would be that "nanoseconds" is the distance that takes one to observe

Hence the term Observer. You can of course call it "interactor" as you say, or "relator". Names do not matter.

The reason I used these terms was more to depict (as I see it) the difference in the process/attitude followed. Not to invent a new point B ("i want to be an observer, because it will feel better") for me to start pursuing with the (whichever) familiar to me attitude. "Observer" is not a goal. It has been put instrumentally, so that I can understand what Chaol wants us to understand.

The difference (to me) seems to be the following:
The "actor" experiences the expectation of the arrival to or departure from As and Bs,
The "observer" experiences what he sees, because he knows how to experience what he sees. If he can see "everything", because "everything" is represented "here", then he can also experience "everything" at the speed of seeing.

The former associates experience and "event" (departure from A or arrival at B).
The latter associates experience and "process" ("seeing").

And if one has to "focus on the process rather than events" as you rightly say, what kind of attitude does an "observer" uses that make him an "observer" and which is different to that of an "actor"?

I would say (superficially) that an observer is one who states what he sees when asked, and talks of what he knows, consistently (because he sees no reason to do otherwise).

An actor sometimes does the above but also states what he imagines and talks of what he believes-things that doesn't know/opinions.

If by "pure" observer you mean somebody who is consistently consistent, that is he who always by default is focusing on the process/attitude, then yes, he has no relationship.

Would that observer can "exist"?

Possibly not, if what I have hypothetically attributed to the "observer" in my posts could not be claimed for himself by the expert in Ec.

Anything you post helps. And don't worry, none of us ever does :) That must be the name of the game I assume.

Sometimes we need to define what it means to "exist" before we can properly discuss whether something does "exist".

You are right on this

I think in defining it, you'll see what you're looking for.

Hmmm, I see that if one is looking for something to believe or disbelieve in, one is looking for meaning, so that he can relate it to his "reality" and accept it or reject it, make it relevant or irrelevant, useful or waste etc, etc

If one is looking to understand something, then one is looking for consistency.

It doesn't matter what one defines "existence", or "orange", or "yellow", etc. What matters for the understanding, is for the terms to be used in consistence. Not sometimes i say "red" and i mean "yellow", and sometimes i say "yellow" and i mean "orange", because that fits my arguments each time.

It is where i try to "manipulate" the definitions each time, so that they can fit in the big picture of my meaning that I want to convey (sell), so that others can believe into it (buy).

Chaol does not do the latter. Therefore in the rare occasions he has been inconsistent in his statements, makes me wonder (still does) why he did it. Especially when he doesn't have any (visible) reason to be inconsistent, since he doesn't try to sell anything, because he doesn't have to and simply wants to be understood.

Unless he estimates that in order to be understood he has to be inconsistent "sometimes".

But then again that would have raised more questions that answers (anyway, that is irrelevant at the moment).


Your marketing statement for ec is interesting and depending on what you mean by the individual words you've used, it may be useful and close to what we could agree is "true" (maybe the closest we can get to it?).

My "marketing statement" is an example of how Ec could be explained without using the non-existent to Ec terms "A" and "B". Not a claim of what Ec "truly is".

What Ec "truly is" can be stated only by somebody who thanks to Ec can experience anything in nanoseconds and who will not use the terms A and B.




That is how I understand it too (except for the last sentence, which I dont get it :) )


Jesse, what do think is the difference between "perception" and "conception"?
If you could re-read the whole thread by replacing these terms between them, would that helped to your understanding or complicated it further?

Your posts have been really fun to read. Thanks!

I was just attempting (I guess poorly) to wrap up my babbling about defining what it means to "exist". Orange being the experience of red to yellow and "existence" being the experience of A to B.



I don't know. If perception is simply observation and conception is an observation which is "conceived", the latter seems to have additional implications not housed in the former? I don't think (because it seems knowing "this" is beyond my "current" experience) that it matters which term is used, but it seems that perception is "more" accurate than "conception" because maybe we're perceiving something that has been pre(lol)-conceived?

I'll add my 2 cents :)


Conception is something becoming

perception always is.

As an alternate view point, it may be useful to assume time to time that Chaol's thread is a "trap." To keep one in thought.


If we "know" there is no A and B, then any thought is a "conception" but perception comes before conception.

All suffering, lack of joy, etc. is because of expectations, and thought forms that contribute to belief systems, giving away ones power to outside "things"

For example: If you are driving down the road, and change your frame of reference for what it might be like to a cave man, you could hype yourself up so much by being astounded that you are traveling in minutes what would take hours. That you are going 70 mph, listening to amazing music. And then be so hyped you can't help but scream in excitement....DAAAAAA ;)

The only reason we aren't blissed out from this experience, is because we are holding beliefs that there are better things, that there is something outside more "worthy" of getting joyful about. That there are things at all.

But if we are truly grounded in the "now" with no thoughts, we are only tending to the presence of perception itself. You are simply being, appreciating the "is-ness".

Its like being in the Theta state of your sleep schedule, through meditation. You are not thinking thoughts, but you are consciousness in a very dream like state, you are only attending to consciousness itself. There is nothing outside of yourself, there is just beingness.

So I think the trick Chaol is trying to get us to "think" about. IS focusing our attention on not focusing. By attending to no thing. Not having thoughts that cloud and distort the more true reality of simply being.

That is why a famous practice is reapeating to oneself "I AM" to loop that in your mind so that you are only focusing on the fact that you are present at that moment and nothing else.

unfocusing, and focusing on no/thing in particular I think are what Chaol would advise us to do.

Perception is "what comes to you", that is the everything.
Conception is the process by which you put concepts in what you perceive "each time" (and you are free to put any concepts you like).

My long shot would be that, if you add all the conceptions of all the people at all times (that is, since the invention of the tool that allows this process to take place, and this is the "word"), you will get the (one) perception (the "I know everything").

But it is impossible for one person to conceive everything at all times.

Therefore a new tool (word) will be needed, so that he could.

I guess this will come when everything that could have possibly been conceived by all of us has been conceived (said), and therefore will come the end of this word as we know it.

@Lok

If we "know" there is no A and B, then any thought is a "conception" but perception comes before conception.

If there is no A or B is because we dont have (or don't use) the concepts to depict them, therefore any thought is "pure" perception.
As you said,
You are not thinking thoughts
because thoughts come with concepts. No concepts, no thinking (you do of course something else, which obviously cannot be expressed in words/concepts :)

What if the "conceptions" of "all the people at all times" is nonsense? What if it is a construct from your current viewpoint as a logical convenience (that which takes the least energy) to support the structure of your "personal" perspective?



What if one person (You personally) IS "conceiving" everything at all times? The appearance of "other people" and their "conceptions" allows for an easy narrative for you to attain the perspective you've queued up for yourself. Just as your computer you use to post here, research there and entertain yourself is an extension of yourself, other "people" and their "conceptions" provide a similar function within perspective.



Old Chaol (I think) had it right, it's not that anything is "created" or "conceived" it's that it's already represented within perspective and the act of "conception" (or creation) could be more accurately be assigned the term discovered (or found or uncovered). Like you've personally noted here, we're unable to perceive something that we've no way of representing. So it could be that "conception" is an uncovering of the logic that allows the possibility of the representation to interact( be perceived)?

I'm reminded of the following post:


Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 06/17/2013 09:19 AM

Unfortunately, no new Ecsys.com website this year or next that I can see.

There is always that which we are not aware of.

So if this is mystery, then I suppose so.

There are a few ways to answer this.

In one respect, realities change.

In another, reality does not change.

In yet another, there is no reality.

Where realities seem to change (here, in this reality) it is not about desire but what is relative.

We can desire all you want, but we experience what will take the least amount of energy to experience from our current perspective.


People are introduced into our perspective quite often. You may meet someone new tomorrow that you have never considered before.

Flying is quite a change from the current human condition, and from my condition.

But making the 'next' person I meet something special takes far less effort.

"Decisions" are only useful inasmuch as something is made more relative by them.

One would not decide to change the logic of the body. The 'new' logic would be more relative. I know nothing of immortality, but if the dreamworld is anything to go by then things are as immortal as they need to be.

If the nature of perspective is anything to go by, you are already immortal because you would always have your perspective, even if certain physical perspectives pass.

I believe Chaol says that death happens to others, not to you (for the reasoning in the last paragraph).

"Logic is free of representations on that scale," means that we interpret logic, or an order, in whichever way is most convenient (or efficient) for us to.

To you the letters "FIFE IH WOHO JWIVH" may represent something different than they would to someone else.

You may see "The Netherlands" but it does not mean that it is "The Netherlands" to your subconscious. It is possible that it is only the idea of what that country represents, not the actual travel or life there. I don't know if there is any good way for you to know what it is for sure.

But, as you've said it, "...but I don't have to move to NL for the new perspective." (possibly)

Fundamentally, Logic and Representation are the same. But in our reality, Logic does not care how it is represented. We add the dressings ourselves, but they may belie the shape.

I see. I guess we actually do this all the time.

I'm really hoping to figure out a way to make flying not so difficult.

There is only you. But how vast you are.

Is everything from you? From nothing. No direction, no origin where the center is everywhere. The beginning is everywhere because it is irrelevant.

You are greater than Chaol because, as he's said, he is part of who you are. He is a seed that may grow or wither, and is one of many seeds in your experience. For some of you the Chaol seed grows, but it is still growing in your perspective and will never grow beyond it.

Besides that, Chaol wanted you to understand how to be greater than he.

You will do all these things and more, as he's said.

You are very welcome :)

Without the input of you and everyone here we would not be as far along.

Thank you.

Yes, we are immortal already. But Chaol said we may overcome death.

I'm really interested in how the logic works either in overcoming death or in how our logic works for a lifetime. I'm also interested in Chaol's statement that we are "here" because we forgot the logic.

I'm just trying to understand logic from every angle I can. To me, logic manifests the representation.

I didn't know he said this. (Sounds just like something the Jesus figure said.)

The best magic is not that which goes poof! but that which works within the reality we have fashioned but still makes us exclaim "of course!".

And sometimes the best way for a wizard to appear across town is simply to walk there. And when the time comes where it makes sense to, to appear there instantly.

Wouldn't it require less energy to just stop eating what gives you pain?

You may see resistance as not eating the food, when it may actually be that you are resisting your physical nature by consuming the food.

Perhaps there is something else you're not considering?

It is primal because we "are" this nothing-in-particular.

It could be inaccurately said that this is our source. So, as primal as could possibly be.

Resistance = existence.

Without it, there would be nothing.

We don't need to be aware of all we resist because they're just illusions anyway. They have no real value other than that assumed.

They are all represented in your perspective.

What isn't a value in your perspective through representation? But your examples are values because you have used their names, and have related them to something else.

But the utility comes in how relative those values are.

I am not sure how much of this I should speak but in one way, Thing X is a value in your perspective because Chaol has introduced it.

At least a few things have been made (much) more relative because he introduced it into perspective.

Teachers say such things sometimes, I guess.

I think that's probably closer. ^^^^^^^ For example, I don't think I really want to be here. I couldn't eat for the first month of my birth. And there are other things that from observation, would make this my conclusion.

The trouble with not eating certain foods that seem to start the pain is, in many cases, it's inconsistent. I can eat something one day and not the next. The things that are consistent means I have to read labels, question waiters if I go out to eat.....it's a constantly having my mind on food.

How can I become another person and think new thoughts if I always have to be aware of these challenges?

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/17/2013 10:21 PM

Even if the Chaol seed withers, he has said he will always find a way to communicate with us. I feel I have seen him throughout my life but just not in this particular representation. I guess he represents the part of me that wants the best for me.

Yes! And this is one reason I see him as separate from me. He has taught me things I had no idea about. He says he is playing chess. Everything he does is strategic. So, there are reasons for the things he introduces that I probably can't even guess at.


I'm not sure why you wouldn't speak of this, but you probably know something I don't know, too!

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/18/2013 02:08 AM

Rio de Janeiro 17/06/2013 - [link to i.imgur.com]

[link to www.nytimes.com]

This is an example of something impossible to happen in the minds of many brazilians 1 year ago.

Interesting times...

10 days ago you said you felt pretty normal.

are you feeling normal now? ;)

Well I held in mind to do things I would not normally do.

So a few nights before I dreamt I took up getting a Phd degree (which hypothetically I could, having a masters degree, which I got some 20 years ago). The night after that I dreamt living in my student's apartment again, fully aware that I am a lot older now.

That's when it struck me I never did anything with my study again since graduating; now I have started teaching myself again. I don't know how long I will keep being motivated, but it's a start.

Tensions at home are very high, no fun.

Discovering the Most Efficient Way to Shape your Reality: Part 1

As I mentioned a few days ago, when I first started to "feel the power" of whatever it is that I am and was experiencing when I first began to explore Ecsys, I was thinking about flying.

Flying is "cool" but it is not something our physical bodies find easy to do, nor our reality because of it.

Learning about the importance of the law of energy efficiency and how it relates to my perspective has led me to some rather unique experiences.

That is when I thought about why I wanted to do something like that. What would the purpose be in my reality if I could fly?

Because it was more interesting than useful, it is perspective-inefficient. Flying served no real purpose other than to satisfy a curiosity and perhaps making myself feel good in the process. If my reality found it efficient to fly instead of walk or use some other way of getting from one point to another then I would be able to fly.

But in the process of coming up with a flight plan, with Genius elements, I reminded myself of what I have learned. And that is our next experience is relative to surrounding experiences.

So instead of flying I thought about dematerialization and rematerialization (or 'teleporting' from one place to another). This is less interesting and perhaps more confusing than flying but it can probably be more useful to me and my experience.

I began to think of the most perspective-efficient way to get from where I am to someplace else. Really, from where I seem to be to someplace else.

The result? I have managed to teleport myself across the house.

I begin by selecting my starting and ending rooms and making both dark. I then place two identical objects outside of each room. In each room I have a different song playing at low volume. I carefully inspect the identical objects outside of the rooms carefully. Entering the first room I hear the music and close my eyes. I then imagine that the song changes to the song in the destination room, and the shape of the room changes to it. There is a giant sucking sound and a strange sense of physical vibration but after about a 40 seconds of this I find myself in the second room.

Over the past few days I have tried this again and again, and it usually results in what I can only refer to as teleportation. I have done everything but lock the destination door in an attempt to foil myself or catch myself in sleepwalking or some other trickery of perception. But I am now convinced that I can change my physical perspective in moments, simply by linking the two rooms.

I'm not sure why I experience a physical vibration but I do not think of it as de-materialization. It is an actual change of perspective, although slight because I have made the two rooms very relative to my perspective. During this time I am kind of convincing myself that the easiest way to get from one room to other other room is simply to be there. (Or, more to my thinking, to experience a transition of one room.)

It does not work when the lights are on or I don't have something to link the two rooms (identical objects or music). I have not yet discovered why but I am assuming it is because the values represent a kind of perspective wormhole linking the two spaces in my reality.

It does not work (yet) for locations outside of my home, though I have been experimenting.

My next post will talk a little more about this and explore how we can use this method for any kind of experience.

Discovering the Most Efficient Way to Shape your Reality: Part 1

Let's think about how you can make anything you want more relative to your experience by following the below example.

Imagine there is a tree in front of your house that you want gone because you're planning to build a pond somewhere and its location is ideal.

We might think that we can use the Genius to move the tree for us. Some of us might be quick to think that if a Genius model is made then the tree would simply disappear one morning.

A disappearing tree would be magic. However, the Genius uses logic.

So instead of wanting the tree to disappear (using visualization or whatever), Chaol has taught us to not focus on the disappearing tree but on the reality surrounding the tree no longer being there.

By itself the tree has no value. It is only there (or not there) in relation to its reality. So in order for the tree to disappear in our reality we must illustrate, logically, how this condition manifests. The surrounding relationships must also change.

Using the Genius we may find a piece of rubber to represent the tree and think of some random logic for it, following all of the steps of the Genius.

We need not be obvious with the intention (to make the tree disappear) because the reality of the tree is not obvious to us. The disappearing tree is more than just the tree. It is the ground, the neighbors, the street, even the birds. The Genius is the common denominator between all of these values and shapes reality to our intention.

.. and it also unveils the way for the most perspective-efficient way to make the tree disappear.

But if we're only looking at the tree it will not be obvious to us. We must "close our eyes" and sense the common denominator that we our subconscious is aware of.

The rubber, for example, that we thought had nothing to do with a tree may actually represent the process by which a city bulldozer comes to take it down. The random logic that we made up might be perfect for a storm where lightning strikes the tree. The possibility element we chose may relate well with the tree's roots.

It is not so much that we are sensing what these elements are (for example, that we are psychic enough to pick up on the logic of lightning) but that we are shaping perspective when we use the Genius.

I used to think that the statement that we are re-creating the universe at every moment was pure nonsense. But now I see and understand that it is the most energy efficient way for existence to illustrate itself. Not to use what has been done before but to make everything anew and give it the illusion of history and future potentiality.

It would be like a writer having a choice between writing a story that she was once told and creating a new story. Although we may think that the first choice is easiest because the writer knows the story, it is actually the second choice that the flow of nature can take its course.

And so the Genius makes us authors of our perspective. With it we can do anything that we can imagine, experience anything, and feel anything because we are experiencing our imagination.

"Perspective" is then misleading if confused with perception, or of sense. We are not perceiving anything. We are experiencing the geometry of the relationships of everything in our imagination (the values).

With the Genius we are changing the relationships of the things in our imagination (and thus perspective). And, by this, our reality changes.

But I believe Chaol did not want to use "imagination" because of how little it is valued and because it is not thought of as being real. So I will continue to use "perspective", but define it as 'sensing the reality of our imagination' in this way.

By the time we imagine the relationship the reality already exists. We have only to navigate the relationship in a way that makes it as relative as we need it to be in our reality.

So in our tree-moving example, we have two choices (for simplicity):

1) Imagine that the tree disappears

2) Enable a value in our perspective to move it

When we consider the logic of the second option we realize that the first option would actually require more perspective-energy because it is not logical to our perspective.

This is the key.

Which of the following is more perspective-efficient?

You want to win the lottery. Do you 1) make a Genius for the winning numbers or; 2) make a Genius for a total stranger giving you millions? (In this example, it is more logical that you would meet a total stranger who gives you millions than it would to discover the winning numbers ahead of time)

You want a new car. Do you 1) make a Genius for finding a lost loot of cash or; 2) make a Genius for getting an amazing financial deal?

You want to find a long-lost friend. Do you 1) make a Genius to find that person or; 2) make a Genius to run into their best friend?

You are hungry for chocolate ice cream. Do you 1) make a Genius for ice cream to appear in your freezer or; 2) make a Genius for a neighbor to give you a gift of ice cream

We should always think the way our Genius thinks. What is the most efficient way for X experience considering the current conditions?

Sometimes the most efficient way is not to make things "materialize" but to leverage something in your reality to make it happen. Your reality is there to be utilized, not just perceived, because it is you. You would, in essence, be helping yourself.

Hope this helps some.

Would you prefer a different experience?

Perhaps I can be of service.

The Chaol seed is meant to wither. But what it influences reaches far and wide.

Time will tell :)

We are not teleporting, but rather bringing the 'new' surrounding to you.

Not-Chaol