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

Would you prefer a different experience?

Perhaps I can be of service.

Very much!
I am curious as to how you could be of service.

Chaol ole' chap,

Can you touch on specificity.

Let's say I want the lottery, so make a genius for a stranger giving me millions.

Is there a fail safe so that The stranger doesn't hit my mother with a car and offer me millions to not report it?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

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)

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

This is awesome.

I have a dear friend who's a struggling single mom, having recently extricated herself from an abusive man. She works very hard but is still scraping by, paycheck to paycheck, as often happens after a divorce wipes you out, and you are getting back on your feet.

As I was reading this post, she was just telling me she has a $2500 emergency. I would like to do a genius on her behalf - not just that she finds the money for this current emergency, but for future emergencies too. Nobody works harder than this friend, and she deserves the peace that comes with financial self-sufficiency.

The most efficient way is for her to get a raise. And, she's up for one right now - not just cost of living but a merit raise. So this should be a slam-dunk, right?

So let's try this out. Anyone want to help? Interact away...

by influencing your reality.

The wheels are already in motion, simply by your previous response.

It's not something that I 'start' to do, just something that happens and I see happen.

The only way to not participate is, unfortunately, to not respond in this thread.

But of course I encourage you to continue exploring your perspective.

I hope to find a better way in future, but for now that is what it is.

Do you prefer your drink mixed, shaken, stirred, refilled, sipped, or replaced?

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.

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.

Oh Jesse!! You "sound" upset.
I didn't expect my fun posts to be upsetting to you.

Anyway, I said it was a long shot. I take your post to be an invitation (rather than, say, bollocking :) to connect the dots )
I hope I' ll be able to do that soon.
"that which takes the least energy"'s willing, of course.

In the meantime, if you could tell me the "then that" to the "what if"s of yours above, would be genuinely helpful and appreciable.

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 [quoting Chaol].


Could a logic that is free of meaning relate to perspective by something like choice? If the logic is inherently meaningless, then we choose how we relate to it in order to make new relationships. Would these new relationships then be more of what we chose to relate to the logic?

By resisting no thing, but getting what you want out of all things by how you relate to them?

If structure leads to relativity then by structuring the meaningless logic with meaning are we make that meaning more relative.

Chaol what is relative to you?

What do you relate to?

Neo...or anyone else, I still have another lingering question. Why don't we just visualize the geometery that changes our perception rather than the elements of Ec or the Genius?

Wouldn't it be less removed from reality since that's what we really see?

Yes, I've heard of them. I got the idea Chaol was speaking of something else, though. I've never heard him use the term.

I know normal languages don't apply during the application of Ec, but does anyone think the acquisition of a secondary language (French, German, whatever) to fluency, to where you're thinking in the form of concepts directly to that other language, helps with learning and using Ec? In that your brain is getting accustomed to thinking in something that's not a language you've used your whole life. Would this increase your ease of use and understanding of Ec?

Thanks.

I agree. I studied old languages and I did not find a connection with the way generic languages are constructed.

To me it feels like normal languages are like the HTML, PHP of speech; whereas Ecsys is the assembly, the machinecode of the brain.

Anybody heard of Glenn Beck? Most of the people in Europe haven't, I guess.
Here he is announcing an event that sounds pretty darn big. Without revealing much he suggests there are some announcements being made the next few days that 'will change your world overnight'.
Though he is very american centered I can't help but think this has to do with the Odrama (haha! Geddit?) that chaol announced some time ago.

Thread: Glen Beck UPDATE on Major Announcement Coming -June 13th 2013

Drudge is using strong words as well in describing the next days...

Thread: Drudges last 2 tweets very ominous

something's up!

Interesting times!

Thread: NSA Director Admits - We Can Track Your Thoughts And Actions And Predict Future Acts

Is there any evidence suggesting that an ancient civilization upon this earth developed a language attempting to serve the same purpose as Ec?

Thanks.

So, how's everyone doing?
Me, I just want to leave home.

Any remarks on Obama visiting Berlin? He'll be there June 19th, apparently giving a speech from Brandenburg gate.
[link to news.yahoo.com]

This is possibly where I get confused.

Somebody who is an expert in Ec knows (and tell to us who don't) that A and B do not exist in Ec reality (with, or without " ").

This somebody, also knows that for our type of physicality (as old Chaol would have called it),"The illusion is what matters, and point "B" is illustrated for you as a logical narrative so that a relationship is formed. (The relationship is an illusion, but it is "existence" for all intents and purposes.)"

Therefore, how come this somebody who knows that A and B do not exist, promote Ec as if they do?

- "Ec is a way to take you from A to B"

- "Ec can make things more relative by bringing it closer to your perspective and, thus, your experience."

(the words "bringing" and "closer" imply the acknowledgement of the existence of two things that are "brought closer").

Why does this Ec expert have to be inconsistent to his reality/truth (to what he knows, sees and experience)? Is it because "the illusion, [which] is what matters", as you say, takes precedence over consistency even to the Ec expert?

(because I cannot see the above for oldChaol, that is why I started my posts by saying that I am puzzled by this inconsistency-it had no reason to be there)

Please allow me the following hypothesis (because I am not an expert in Ec)
Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that

"as opposed to all other methods who promise you to make your wishes come true, mastering of Ec will render wishing irrelevant, because you will have no reason to wish (to imagine points Bs that do not exist anyway -and therefore neither do points As) for anything, simply because you could be able to experience everything that can be possibly be experienced by a human being at any "moment", rather than some-things in particular, at some times."

Would that be a legitimate claim for Ec? or am I still missing something?

Or, how else do you think one (expert) can state what Ec stands for, without implying the existence of A and B? (which is the "truth" of the other type of physicality that Chaol is talking about all these years)

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.

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.

[snippies]

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).[snappies]

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.

As previously mentioned before in various ways, what is happening now on the world stage is the breakdown of Western civilization and of traditional physicality.

What is happening now with NSA "leaks" (they are not leaks) are all about the old physicality trying to keep power in the dreamworld.

These interests think that if they control the narrative they control the story and how it is interpreted. This is basically how it works because language is how we relate to physicality.

What you are seeing is the unveiling of a military-industrial partnership that is unveiled by the same group of people that manage these systems. (Again, these are all values of perspective. There is no conspiracy.)

They think by doing this they will take humanity to "the next level" on their terms. Their own slice of the dreamworld that functions under the same conditions as in the old physicality.

Essentially, the goal is to:

1) Manage people more effectively
2) Take control of systems that will allow them to perform #1

Much of this has to do with the power of the internet. The internet is our gateway to the new physicality. It is no different than the churches trying to control that narrative when people started reading bibles instead of having it read to them. It is history repeating itself, and the "government" is trying to dictate the terms of the dreamworld renaissance and who gets what power.

They know a change is afoot, brought about mostly from people having access to information (greater relationships), but they simply want to control this narrative by any means necessary.

These are all elements of perspective. All of these are a part of you. It is, naturally, resistance ;)

This resistance occurs in every way imaginable, and is mostly focused on the changes that the internet has brought about. Adobe spies on your web activity to gather, categorize, analyze, and report consumer-based information to other companies, organizations, and governments. Microsoft, Facebook, and others do the same through their tools.

Akamai, Amazon, Apple, AMD, Facebook, Google, Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, cloud providers, anti-virus companies, telecommunication providers, media outlets, banks, airlines, hotel groups, "smart" whatever companies, etc., are all part of this narrative of resistance to the new physicality.

This is what is being played out and you're seeing resistance to the dreamworld right now. It's perfectly natural and welcome. But it will not survive the journey.

There are loads going on right now "behind the scenes". People are literally scrambling figuring out what is happening. Chaol was right in that no one knows what is really going on. We only know that something is happening. But what?

This process will play out, particularly in 2013. It is happening in waves, and the waves are eating away at this kind of physicality. These is a huge wave August 28th, but the dates don't matter so much. Neither do the particular events. They're just references to help navigate the process of what is occurring.

The internet is our bridge to the dreamworld. But the modes of the traditional physicality have no idea what they have spawned.