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

Remember Chaol reminded us of the movie, Inception? And that just before physicality fell, there was music...or shall we say noise? It hasn't been that long since people around the world were reporting strange noises.

This is going in my blog, MM. Thank you.

So I guess we are always a metaphor for who we have ever perceived ourselves to be and who we are continuously morphing into?

And if Not-Chaol opens up, I think we will all learn a lot. I'll work on that part of my perspective, heh!

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/19/2013 04:14 PM

Okay, then why did you say it's not as relevant for us to fly in this reality? What I'm trying to get at is we live within shifting worlds all the time. Why can't we make it logical to do things in one world that we do in another? Is it just the separation we accept that makes the difference?

Btw, a few days ago, several of us were talking about our toilets on this thread, lol! Just thought I'd let you know, I fixed mine. I wanted to test it several days before saying anything!

You made me smile. I love this thread, too! ;o)

I am trying to make the new perspective more relative. I'll get it eventually, lol! I did find that by relaxing, I'm able to find another space, without the challenge. I'm basically chopping away at it, little by little. Thanks for going into this with me.

Btw, Chaol said that the Genius won't work unless we think new thoughts and become someone else. That's why he told us to do things like copy the next animal you see and things like that.

It seems the underlying "lesson" is to continuously expand
perspective...to carve out perspectives within chaos.

Some top notch Chaol in this old version of the ecsys.org site:
[link to web.archive.org]


Missing the graphics unless Neo.Chaol still has them archived but it's good stuff (Chaol, please, if I've overstepped and posted too much lemme know, this stuff isn't "live" on line anymore and deserves to be consumed)

The following is all from the (NOW NONEXISTENT page "Ecsys Questions and Answers: Consciousness and Reality" from: [link to web.archive.org]

What Is Perception?

The most fundamental force of the universe is neither physical nor quantum. It is consciousness. Consciousness is perspective.

The way our consciousness works also has a lot to do with how we perceive things. Our traditional 5 senses as well as our sense of time, space, and thought are rooted in a kind of forgetfulness. We forget how we sense anything. What is truly interesting about representations is that we quite often mistake an object or thing with its representaiton and forget that we did just that. This "forgetfulness" is rooted in the brain's deeper cognitive processes.

When we see a sunset we are not aware of the complex neural processes involved in creating the sensory experience. To be aware of the process is to be aware of overloaded, fragmented, and pretty much sunset-less noise. That all these stimuli are representations of "sunset" escapes us. We have no choice but to mistake the map for the territory. It all seems real because we have no choice. We cannot 'see' beyond our own perspective.

Take a look at the graphic on the right. Looking between the black squares you see a circle. The circle you're looking at is white. However, the circles you're not looking at are off-white, grey, or black depending on how far they are from the one you're looking at. So what color is the circle? (Answer: there is no circle. There is only an ever-changing relationship between representations. Sometimes it appears white, sometimes it doesn't.)

It's not something else that changes. It is your perspective that changes. (There is only you, re-member?) When your perspective changes then your relationship with everything else also changes. From these changing relationships we get a sense of time, space, and physical change.

Physical change is simply a representation of changing relationships that follows a certain pattern. We've experienced this pattern since we were babies so we call it "physicality". Though physicality is only an illusion, it is no more or less real than your thoughts are. The only thing "real" is the representation's immediacy to our senses (making it seem real). If we were using a different method to perceive then the things we see using that method would seem more real to us than anything else. We place so much importance on just one of our senses (sight) that we forget a guitar can be represented in a myraid of other ways, only a few of which can be perceived with our other senses. The reality we create is based on our perspective. When we say we walked around the table we're not talking about deflecting its electromagnetic energy into II-tubes. However, we could choose how or why to interact with the table because of our perception of those non-visual relationships.

This multi-worlds phenomena presents a kind of paradox. Something can either be true, or it can be perceived. It cannot be both. We can be aware of something but not be aware of the truth of what it is. When the totality of something cannot be grasped in our perception, it appears infinite (such is your reality, seemingly infinite in every direction).

Our mind creates representation to expand perception (increase consciousness). For example, the words we use for something affects how we perceive it. 47 words for snow*** allow Eskimos to perceive distinctions in snow that most English speakers cannot. We use language (a representation) to create physically-based perceptions. The representations change how we perceive. (Another representation, the physical brain, also affects how we perceive.) Using specific metaphors allow for specific perceptions.

Representations are how we remember, perceive, and think.

A perceives B in a context relative to the AB perspective. The nature of what you perceive affects how you perceive it. Your perception of a beam of light, for example, is very physically-based. That same beam of light may manifest in your dream as a sound or another representation. Contrariwise, the beam of light would not "perceive" your physical representation if it were shining on you. Your body would be something else to it much the same way other entities manifest as clouds in your experience.

We can observe photons of light in space where no real space exists (nor photons, until we perceive them and the need for the representation to manifest arises). The "space" is simply an illustration of gravitational attraction and repulsion. All internal phenomena. Two objects next to one-another may be physically close (say, in perspective A) but not psychologically (in perspective B). In perspective B the two objects may be as distant as stars. A star may be distant from us from one perspective (requiring much physical fuel) but very close from another perspective (requiring no fuel).

You could never perceive the sun as it truly exists right now. The apparent light from it is several minutes old, taking "time" to travel through "space". But it is not physical distance that ages the light. Rather, this "8 minute" variable illustrates how attracted the representation is to us. If the representation were more physically relative it would be perceived as being physically closer. There is a representation that is much closer to our perspective and that is, of course, our bodies. But of this, too, we are not able to perceive it as it is "now". Light also takes some time (albeit a very, very short amount of time) to get from our toes or arms. We can never see ourselves as we are Now. We are always experiencing an illusion of ourselves. A representation.

Thus, the act of perception is like looking into the void and measuring it. This of course cannot actually be done but we try to do it anyway. This creates representations of the void (or so we think) that we can then interact with. [Ecsys-speak on the right.]

Something's perspective is its relationships with everything else. The meaning of something is in its perspective, not in how it is perceived by another.

[***Note: The Eskimo language actually takes what would be for us be under-utilized phrases for snow and represents those phrases with singular concepts, or nouns, that are not had in English. The representation of a concept makes all the difference in the perception of it.]

And:

How Do My Thoughts Become Reality?

Ecsys holds that you do not think your thoughts but perceive them. (You choose to perceive them, if you will.) Thoughts are sensations, like smells or visual stimuli. It's kind of like drinking milk with your eyes closed. Everything in your environment says that you will perceive the sensation of milk in your mouth. Similarly, everything in your perspective enables you to perceive exactly the next thought you will have. Your thoughts are the result of the relationships in your perspective. Test it out for yourself by observing a change in thought as your perspective changes. (This doesn't mean that your thoughts are dependent on external variables and you have no control. You are your external variables because they exist only in your perspective.)

Along with our traditional 5 senses we have a sense of thought. We internalize "distant" stimuli or relationships and make it a relative part of our experience. Distant thoughts are like smells you no longer smell because your environment does not dictate the perception of them. A thought is another kind of representation.

Similar representations tend to group together and become realms of consciousness and experience. The closer a representation is to a grouping the more powerful is the realm's affect. (From the graphic to the right, an "emotional" representation can become more attracted to the physical realm and take on physical properties. A physical representation can be attracted to —or repelled by— the microbial realm and take on —or discard— microbial properties, etc.)

But what does that mean for us?

Imagine a distant object as a thought which has not taken on physical attributes and a near object as that which is relative to our physicality. You could say that the distant object is indeed a physical thing. In theory that would be true. It is not really, however, in your physical realm of experience and is to your perspective somewhere between physical and not-physical. (The moment you begin to observe it to prove it is physical is the moment at which you bring it closer to your physical experience. And so then it becomes more physically real. Touch it and it will become even more physically real. This is why no kind of particle is the most fundamental element of creation. They're not there until we need to perceive that particular representation. Perspective is the fundamental element.)

Thoughts take on physical form as the thought is expressed more physically, changing your perception of it. Bring the thought into your physical experience and you will experience it physically. This could be as simple as drawing a picture of the house you want instead of just desiring it. You are physicalizing the thought, re-representing it.

Reality does not have 3 dimensions or 20. It has one: perception. When you re-create a thought physically you are introducing attractive and repulsive forces to it. The physicalization of the thought may mean that it can build stronger connections with other things in your experience (attraction) or has less of a need to manifest emotionally (repulsion).

What we think of as motion is not something moving by itself, but the relationship of something changing with its environment. There is no physical movement through space at all. You do not move from point A to point B. You simply shift awareness from A-ness to B-ness. There is no motion in space because space exists only in the 1 dimension of perception. (The futility of imposing an abstract concept, the 1st dimension, onto physical space notwithstanding.) "Motion" is you changing your perspective, not moving through three dimensions.

What we think of as "now" is not something that we have never experienced before. It is a kind of space that exists between our structuring and unstructuring of perspective. Past and future are as much 'in the now' as we think 'now' to be. For example, if you recall a memory from 10 years ago is that a past memory or a present one? Are you able to import the past memory completely unaffected by your current perspective? Are you actually creating it anew? When something is more structured (and has less potential energy) we think of it as Past. When something is less structured (and has more potential energy) we think of it as Future. If we provide structure to a "future" thing we will seem to experience it in our Present before it seems to go to the Past.

Consciousness triggers manifestation. If a non-physical thing becomes related to our physical experience, then we will experience it physically. When representations are interacted and associated with more, you are more likely to experience it in space/time.

Your dreams can become physical reality simply by interacting with their representations more.

And:

Dreams: You In Another Reality

All of the trappings of physicality can be experienced in your dream state. We may think of our waking state is persistent and our dream state as chaotic, but that is not the case.

A table may appear "solid" to us but most of the table is actually non-physical. There is about as much space between its particles as there is space between heavenly bodies (proportionally).

Our physical experience is like the graphic on the right. With our physical senses we sense only physically-based experiences. Thinking back, we remember only those experiences that are relative to the apparatus we are using to remember. Our physically-based mind does not show us the other realities in which we exist, or the other perspectives we are partaking in at this very moment.

We continue to experience physicality when we are dreaming. When we awaken from our dreams we do not cease to exist in our dreams. We are still dreaming. Our dream state never stops. It is only our perspective that changes.

The particles that compose your body are not static. They are in constant "motion" between other perspectives and time-experiences. In a similar way, neither is your dream reality static. In between those physical moments we are processing our waking life in our other states of mind. We also process our dream experience in our waking state. Our dream life is so intertwined with our waking life, it could be said there is little difference between the two experiences. Both states are persistent and have a "solid" reality. The atoms and molecules that make up our physical world also make up our dream world. We are just as physical in the dream world as we are in the waking world. Which is to say, not much at all.

Using your brain to recall something your brain does not experience doesn't work, however. Its "memories" are very heavily influenced by physical reality. You will project the structures of the waking world when trying to perceive the dream world. Dreams make plenty of sense when you're experiencing them, but not when you project unfitting representations onto them upon awakening.

During wakefulness we sometimes receive dream stimulus. But we are sure to make this stimulus a part of waking reality in order to ensure continued wakefulness (and perhaps sanity). We interpret this dream stimulus as sudden knowledge, déjà vu, intuition, etc., in waking experience. It is similar to how you will probably incorporate a loud sound that happens in your room into your dream experience if you are dreaming, in order to ensure continued sleep. (The interconnectedness of waking and dreaming states can be observed by paying attention to the events in the dream right before the sound occured. For example, how did your dream state know there was going to be a sound?)

Sometimes the sounds in our room penetrate more easily into our dream reality. Conversely, sometimes we are awake and experience strange phenomena like see ghostly forms, hear voices, or do extraordinary creative works or physical feats.

We simultaneously experience all states of mind (beta, theta, etc.) but each is aware of its own and, to some degree, others like a focused light shining in a particular section of a dark room while other sections continue to exist and function (and may be partially illuminated from your perspective).

Imagine spacetime as your tongue with 6 areas. Instead of bitter, salty, sour, etc., you have physical, ultraphysical, metaphysical, conscious, sub-conscious, dream-aware. Each physical experience actually exists in the 5 other domains simultaneously (but may not be simultaneous from a different point of reference). But there is no need to know about those 5 others because it has already been translated into your experience. The apple has but one taste interpreted several different ways.

An experience that occurs in one domain is translated into another domain. For example, your physical experiences are translated into dream experiences and vice-versa. But it could be that a dream experience you will have tonight is occurring "simultaneously" with a physical experience 5 years from now.

When you are dreaming your dream world appears as "reality". When you are awake your waking world appears as "realty". Consciousness is interaction. And interactions are just as real in one as they are in another.

AND:

The Nature of Time

Time is a narrative illusion that we make for ourselves in order to make particular sense of something that cannot be perceived. Spacetime is the algorithm of our physical experience.

If you observe three clocks on a table for several minutes and each keeps the same time as the others, down to the second, it cannot be said that each clock has the same "experience" of time. Imagine that instead of three clocks we have three sleeping persons whose biological clocks are 'set' to rise at 6am each morning. Observing each for several hours until approximately 6am we see that each person awoke within minutes of one-another. However, we cannot say that one of those persons did not experience an extra few hours (or days) from their perspective. However, from our perspective each person (and each clock) has their time synchronized.

In a more obvious example, two people can live exactly the same amount of time yet have a completely different experience of time. But scientists would say that these two persons experienced time the same (especially if they were always next to one-another). In time experiments scientists look at only the most obvious example of a difference in two clocks placed far apart because the same cognitive process used to perceive the spacing of the clocks is used to perceive the time on the clocks (or vibrations in them). You cannot use the same cognitive tool for both your control clock and your experimental clock because the result would show only part of the picture.

Scientists know that time is relative to the observer and is not universal because of physical distance of the observer. Ecsys extends this theory to include the perspective of the observer. Physical distance is irrelevant when time knows no physical bounds.

ANDAND:

The Beginning & The End

Imagine, if you will, an apple sitting in a void. Nothing else was around for as far as the eye of the apple could see. This apple was quite lonely because there seemed to be nothing else. Not only that, it could not know of itself and did not feel alive because there was nothing else to relate to. So after some deliberation it decided to do a very wise thing. Cut itself into pieces. (It does not do this in a literal way because it doesn't have a knife and there is no need to. It simply creates a apple-protein that makes each apple-slice forget that it is part of the whole.)

The simple act of dividing itself up created the core of its existence. For each slice was then able to perceive of other slices. For the first time in its existence it could see its own existence. The very moment when it sliced itself was when the apple universe was created. Time, space, and all the trappings of a satisfactory existence. (And, of course, consciousness.)

Only representations exist in the universe because the actuality of what the universe is is beyond perception. We have an infinite variety of representations (things, possibilities, elements, energy, thoughts, perceptions, etc.) because the entirety of It cannot ever be fully illustrated.

What we see is the universe, interpreted in a way that we can readily perceive.

But we do not live in a physical universe. Neither do we live in a spiritual universe. Anything can be expressed physically, spiritually, emotionally, politically, although in an incomplete way and one relative to the agent that is used to express it.

We are indirectly discovering more about the 100% of the universe that isn't physical as our ability to think abstractly expands through the use of computers and networks, games, books, and other media. We are now more involved in abstract mental exercises than ever before. We are traveling through "self" as we travel in time and space.

Astrobiologists look for (organic) life elsewhere in the universe, bypassing the intelligence in our own clouds and geosphere. More importantly, we overlook the capacity for human intelligence to become entirely different than anything we've seen before.


(There is so much more on that incarnation of the ecsys.org, I strongly recommend it.)

Last Edited by MutantMessiah on 06/19/2013 11:42 PM

Thanks for posting. It's good stuff :)

Thank you :)


It sounds like it might work much better. Let us know how it goes.



I sometimes wonder if we are already specific before we even know what, specifically, we want. Perhaps our subconscious is aware of the specific reality that would be best-suited for us?

Was your intention with your previous Genius model (for your dream home) general or specific?

Chaol mentions that a specific intention is fine but not to intend the result directly.

So, as you have illustrated with your G1, to intend around it: finding the perfect ad you've been waiting for.

And of course there's nothing wrong with making another Genius (for how you're going to pay) once you've found the ad.

Regarding specificity for G1, I think it depends on how much detail we are giving it. For example, we can A) give detail about the bulldozer taking away the tree; or B) give detail about neighbors coming over to ask why the tree is gone.

In A since our intention is to make the tree disappear we are providing too much detail about how it happens. Allow your Genius to figure that out. So then we leave the possibilities open. Instead, we can make a model for B. And since our intention is related to the tree disappearing (and not the neighbors) this would make it far more likely to occur in our reality, I think.

So specificity is fine as long as is it indirect specificity.

(When we are specific about something directly, the reality is already satisfied in our detail about the thing, as Chaol mentions.)

hehe.. your question has the answer hidden in it.

We forget because they don't matter. I suppose you could say it is "temporary" and only good for one purpose.

If a particular Logic is like your life now (for example) then we forget in order to move onto the next life. (Not implying that there is such a thing as past lives, of course, but for convenience of explanation.)

In order to pretend to be "B" we forget that we are pretending to be "A".

A corollary of this, in practical terms, would be if you were 15 and making your plan for the next 10 years.

You could be specific and say that you want to get a Master's degree in Civil Engineering with a 3.8 GPA, have a steady boyfriend who likes rock-climbing, a silver Ford Mustang GT, and become expert at playing the violin.

The more specific you are the more energy it will take to get there. The plan above is achievable but highly unlikely, and again unlikely to be experienced without expending plenty of energy to carry it out as you had planned.

So, perhaps, instead you could be indirectly specific with your goal: knowledge and understanding of civil engineering, an adventurous boyfriend, a car that you like, and lots of time to practice the violin.

In the former we are presuming that we know better than our own Genius (subconscious) and know the best way to get there.

In the latter we are influencing the values that make up our perspective in such a way that we may very well end up with what we then want.

Hi.

I would hope that our understanding is always changing/evolving and, with it, the ways by which the new understanding is influenced.

One can only assume that this "change" was intentional and part of the plan.

He mentioned a few times that this thread was at the very basic level, and that the 'teachings' would change as our understanding does.

Regarding the 'surgery' in your statement, I am not sure. This would imply an external force interfering with the natural course of something or someone. Although you can say that this interference is everywhere and in all ways, what is being done here doesn't seem to be much different than what happens naturally anyway.

But I think here it is more obvious than, say, the surgery that you perform in your life each time you sleep.

And if it were not for knowing of Chaol in these threads you may not have thought of a Chaol performing surgery. (Meaning that it probably happens quite often but we're only aware of it when we see it at work.)

Chaol is a part of you, always.

Have you ever represented Chaol physically? Perhaps like making a Genius for the idea of Chaol closert to your reality? (I don't mean you making one for getting to where Chaol is, but something more relative to where you are now today.)

There is much, much more to all of this that I have seen and I see pretty much every night or every other night in extraordinarily lucid dreams. I can only assume that this is the process, or whatever, of what is occurring here.

Without going into detail, it is basically:

As Chaol has stated:

-This physicality shifting to more dreamworld physicality. (I believe this may have been the 50% threshhold, or standing in the doorway that he spoke about, and of the crossing of "X" or Elenin that everyone thought was insignificant.)

-The breakdown of Western civilization in 2013 and of the old physicality

-The realization that we are in the dreamworld, and everything that comes with it. (Not an instant realization, but an extremely significant change.)

As I have already stated:

-The death of "Ecsys", which is just the crumbling of the bridge to the dreamworld. This is not an event.

-The rise of what Ecsys influences. (I don't know what this is exactly. But I have seen it and it is absolutely amazing. I am trying my hand now at 'creating' this but I am not sure if it's a person or an idea or whatever.)

Well, I guess the moral of our story is that it's okay to resist whatever.

Resistance is natural. Without it, there'd be nothing.

Yes, it may be difficult to take all that you want into your next perspective. That illustrates just how tightly our grip is.

Would I risk losing all that I know and love in this world to realize my next one? In a word, yes.

I would realize that there would always be people I dearly love no matter what reality I am in, things I love, a life I love, and always be quite comfortable with my own thoughts and day-to-day existence.

...so that means I would probably never be willing to let go.

But that is not to say that I would end up with a reality that I do not learn to love, some or all of the people I loved before would not be there with me, and I would be unable to have a reality that I wanted.

Chaol has often stated that his (my) girlfriend is the reason he is here. He worked to bring her into his world, so to speak. (I hope that he is including me, too! lol)

In order to do so the surrounding reality must also be changed.

If you cannot bend a spoon without 'bending' its reality (and surroundings to accommodate the change in value) then he would not be able to bring her into the dreamworld without changing the world she lives in. And so, the "selfishness" of these posts is explained. He is lifting all boats in order for the 1 boat he loves to be able to drift to shore.

He is literally moving mountains and more if this is the case. I suppose that if someone could do anything within their power for love, why not? Even if it takes planning, dedication, lots of time, and who knows what else.

But for the rest of us I suppose some trust in ourselves is needed that our 'next step' is one that fills out our circle of life that much more and makes us more complete.

Thank you kindly. I will definitely incorporate and expand on that in my document.

To that, I would add that "we" are everything in our perspective.

I don't want some people to get the idea that they are the center of the universe.

Your "I" is everything and not-you-in-particular.

Perhaps I'll discover a better way to explain it.

When our bodies (minds?) are vibrating like this, we are still physical but of a different kind of physicality.

I wonder what things we can do while in this state?

We could say that we're physically different at this time and realize that our own bodies is the key to the new world.

(Your last line sounds like a song or the title to a book. "When it pops, I'm there!" lol)

We haven't made machineless flying relative to our current physicality yet.

Once it's more relative we're halfway there. (This might entail us being able to fly 3cm off the ground, for example. But we're not there yet.)

Our sense of physicality is quite strong. Strong enough to ignore most of what physicality is. We see light, but see only an infinitesimally small part of the visible spectrum. We hear sound, but again, ignore most sound. We ignore most of physicality and have a very strong idea of what physicality should be, how it should be, and how it relates to what we can and cannot do.

We need only to make "flying" relative if that's what we want. To begin incorporating the parts of physicality that we have been ignoring into our physical narrative. (The parts where walking is irrelevant, perhaps.)

When we change realities we are certainly becoming someone else. But, more accurately, we become someone that we already are.

Chaol has said that you are not the same person you were yesterday. You have become another person, yet are still the same person. Your reality has shifted along with your perspective. Yet, we do this all the time.

Using the Genius effectively requires a change in perspective. But it's something we know already, subconsciously. We represent everything in our reality, and everything in our reality is a representation that we interact with, that has rules, etc.

By using the Genius in a way that works it requires thinking new thoughts and becoming someone new because we are changing our perspective.

But I would add to this that the new thoughts are not forced, nor do we force ourselves to become someone new. We simply let go of the old perspective and be open to possibility, letting our subconscious (Genius) "guide" us.

LOL! OK, then I was reading too much in it.

What about when we write a Genius and don't do the logic?

And in our experiments, where we are the Genius, how are we using logic?

Interesting! Thanks NeoChaol.

Chaol always told us to integrate the new perspective and we are half-way there. To me, we've done that so I've been curious to see what else might be needed. It's not actually something I'm working on right now, but it seems to me I learn by looking at things a lot of different ways.

Just found this. It's a link to about 20 pdf's, of the Jane Roberts,' Seth books!

[link to esotericonline.net]

I'm not sure I understand. How can you make a Genius model without logic?

Logic structures perspective, 'resulting' in reality.

That's wonderful. Thank you!

By the by, I noticed that when I eat certain foods it's much harder to shift my reality, and my thinking is somewhat different (and clouded). I must then go back to eating what I normally do for 1+ day before I feel "myself" again and able to do 'magical' things.

Although a list of suggestions won't follow here, we can consider the effect of things we put into our bodies (food, drink, and everything else) and how they may hinder our physical evolution.

Chaol has mentioned things like fluoride in the water but I would also add GMO foods to the list. (And in the West, pretty much everything has GMOs.)

I could only assume that certain values in our perspective want to hold onto the old physicality, and so introduce these elements as a way to do so.

lol.. we have conspired against ourselves to keep us "comfortable" and not evolve our own physicality.

When I read it I cannot believe that my fingers typed all of that in a coherent way.

But at the same time, as soon as I read it I completely understand it (or at least I think I do).

I suppose I am re-membering what I have forgotten in order to represent it in a way different from the one that has caused it to be remembered.

Last Edited by Chaol on 06/20/2013 03:30 AM

OK...so, let's figure out how to un-conspire. Any suggestions?

Btw, I'm eating mostly vegetables....small amounts of fruits, nuts and protein and very little grains, but all our food is a mess.

Last Edited by ERE3 on 06/20/2013 03:54 AM

You tell me. You're the one that is experimenting with "being" the Genius. Where was your logic in the teleportation experiment?

No, I haven't made a Genius for bringing him closer here. I do have one for meeting him in the Dreamworld. Although, I do talk to him and also address trees and poles as if they are him.

I wouldn't mind doing a Genius to bring him closer. I'm not sure what's meant by closer to this reality, though. It seems it would be easier to just bring him here. I was already bringing the Dream World here before I found these threads.

Thanks for the idea. I'll think about how to do it.

The rest you shared sounds exciting. Are you saying the bridge crumbling is a process? And is this what you meant by the seed is meant to wither?

I hope you'll say more about the rise of what Ecsys influences. What is amazing about it that you have seen?

Hi Chaol,

Even when much energy is required to realise anything that is beyond my current perception. I may still want whatever it is because of how much I value it.
1. Is it a good idea to set goals or bring about something that's beyond my immediate perception or should my life always be about the immediate reality?
2. If I were to persist in wanting what I want, how best do I muster the energy required to achieve it?

Bwah? Are we not "technically" the center of our own (the one and only) universe (perspective)?

When we say all that exists, does so within perspective. Then we say nothing need exist outside of perspective. We are kinda implying that all that exists is structured around your personal perspective with you like a fish eye lens at the center of it looking out into one of infinite directions all equally valid if only you could find the logic to perceive them.

When I think of the "I" it seems to me it may be defined as the difference between all representations within a given perspective. Or the no-thing-substance that fills the void between all things in perspective.

@MM - Jesse
Thank you for posting the Code of Ecsys and the other material, a great reminder!

@Chaol



The previous model was general, in the sense that I represented with a symbol my home in nature, without thinking of "how" I'd find it, or details about the looks. But it did intend the direct result, the home.

My understanding at that time, was that we create a specific symbol, to represent what we want in this physicality, as a "placeholder". Another Genius I made using this concept did work. (Actually, come to think of it, it may have been "around it"...)



I made a symbol, using a rubber ring with a bell attached to it with a string, inside a tiny ziplock bag.

Logic - once a day, I walk three times counterclockwise in the garden, around a veggie container.

Space/possibility - tiny ziplock bag

Interaction - In my bag, so it comes around with me.

Because I wasn't sure about the specificity when I made it, it was about "the perfect home making itself known to me", thinking that this would take care of multiple "hows".

This morning, I found myself with the "old habit" and holding the symbol while doing the rounds as if it was the placeholder/representation of the house itself... I may be creating confusion and wonder if I will have to make another Genius, or the original intention still stands.



Yes, I also remember Old Chaol mention that when we are too specific, we may carry resistance over that we may not be aware of, so it's best to move around it and be indirect.

I find this easier to apply regarding "situations", or desired general experiences, but more confusing with a specific physical thing, because of the "placeholder" symbol concept.

Regarding the Genius for the noisy fridge, I caught myself cheating on me (lol), because I realized that I indeed do want the darn appliance to magically fix itself!!!

I made a symbol for a correct repair (but in truth just for a silent fridge).
symbol - a small ball of my cat's fur, inside foil, with a strip of tape.
logic - once a day juggle the ball between hands for 10 times
space - inside a lantern over a cabinet
interaction - with everything else in the room, especially the mosquitoes that like that area...

Given the noise, it's hard to unfocus from that, so to speed things up, I sent a text message to the repair man (with the great intention to give him the chance to find the part). No reply so far.

Then, I recalled another method Chaol taught us, about creating a unique word to express a concept.

I tried this before, and it did work after some time!
So, in addition, I created the word "milabir" to express "I enjoy soothing quietness at home".

At first stuck the post-it note on the fridge in the hopes of giving it "instructions", then removed it and placed it elsewhere, as the concept is general and takes the fridge out of the direct equation.

Let's see what happens!



Yes, I do understand the principle. I guess the challenge is in trying to express a general concept around a specific desire, find a way to step back a little, and focus the values around it that would bring it forth.

Back to the house example, given that I already have something quite close to my desire, except that I am renting and there is less privacy than I'd like, I could focus on a situation that allows a huge veggie garden of my own and more privacy, the freedom of fixing the place as I please, the surroundings, etc, rather than the home itself.

I'll wait a bit with the current Geniuses, just to see how they go (as a way to learn from possible mistakes), then will apply the above to another symbol, if needed.

I hope that my practical issues about the Geniuses will help others, thanks to Chaol's input. However, I also enjoy and appreciate the other discussions going on!