Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger

Chaol, your response evoked a lot of big feelings. When I originally went to respond, I actually answered a lot of my own questions.



Absolutely, on several fronts. Fear instilled by many aspects of "past experience;" which are constructs of "The present" and thus not particularly valid.



I intended to ask "why even dig if the crystal isn't there until it is; how does one know if the crystal is there at all?" The answer is pointed to in the desire of finding the crystal itself, as far as I can tell from where I an now. The desire is a representation of the thing, which is a representation, of course. "Digging" is the logical means to perceive the "crystal," which of course exists because it perceived to. Very cyclical! A self-fulfilling prophecy.




This is addressed, in my perspective, best by teachings à la Neville Goddard. I "need" to experience it physically because I am not satisfied with my "current" reality; a perspective of "lack" which, somewhat "counterintuitively," affirms and perpetuates the "current reality" (forgive the excessive use of quotes). The "current" is my perspective which should be accepted if it is to be changed. Translations, approximations, of course.



I understood(stand) this, but couldn't logically bridge how to get it to go inreverse. Time keeps marching on one-directionally (seemingly), but that brings me to a new line of questioning:



The Ec chart/algorithm isn't one (two, three?) dimensional, is it?

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 12/25/2021 08:32 AM

The person you had a great experience with and that you've been looking for for 4 years, for example, might now be an interesting building. When you interact with the building it may 'unlock a door', so to speak, with that person making a sudden re-appearance and the building somehow disappearing or becoming uninteresting.

Your conscious mind would then be saying, "The best way to interpret these relationships is as the person that I met before" and so its personhood would become more relevant

Forgive me for barging into someone else’s assistance but I am another ‘latecomer’ currently experimenting with a few iterations of Genius models. One is meant to reinterpret someone from about 10 years ago into my ‘present’ perspective and I think I could use a nudge akin to knowing how to tell which ‘interesting building’ is the right one. The person that I miss is currently the phone charger by my bed. They have been for a while and aside from being oddly comforted by the presence of this phone charger, I don’t think I have made much progress.

This reminds me that I would love to know if there is anything more you can say about Feng Shui. Some of these discussions make me think about parallels and it has always struck me as one of those things that works despite being fundamentally understood as to what is actually happening.

.

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 05/03/2022 03:14 PM

.

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 05/03/2022 03:14 PM

A last question: if everything is re-presentative, does it matter which of our demons we face when it comes to "fiction" vs "reality?" The same thing is re-presented whether it is in the "reality" of cyanandrethals or in the "fiction" of the house of Lanister. Does it functionally matter which is reckoned with in order to "move forward" and experience the "dream world?" Or can one experience the dream world by drawing the parallels purely through "fiction?"




Some "choose" to engage in the reality of "fiction," some "choose" to engage in the reality of "reality" that is determined by cyanandrethals; is one more or less accurate since they're re-presentations of each other?

I'll be creating neuroicons based on the logic outlined in my above posts, thanks for making things more clear:)

Why shouldn’t it be compared? Is there much difference between the Bible, what is said on these threads and the words of a three year old describing the moon?


I don’t know about the Mandela effect but a huge theme in these threads are ‘moving’ through ‘alternate universes’ lol



Are these concepts/representations really ‘alive’ on their own? Are they outside your perspective?

I'm not saying these threads shouldn't or can't be compared to the Bible, they obviously can be, just that I was not doing so in the complete religious context. The only reason I brought the Bible up was because of its being associated as "a living text," which is a phrase I believe applies well to these threads. Probably better than to the Bible. Everything is re-presentative of everything (else), so of course anything can be compared. Then again, I never said it couldn't or shouldn't, just that I wasn't (didn't mean to, directly).



All I was referring to bringing up the Mendala Effect was that the only evidence of a past alternate reality is in the memory of those who experienced a different reality, but what is true "now" will have always been true. I remember the thread differently than it is now, but, from here, the thread has always been as it is now.




I already gave context that "living text" means a text that takes on new meaning depending on the context/ perspective within which they are read. I was saying that these threads seem to take that to a new level in that they literally (seem to) actually change in content depending on how one interacts with them.

Of course they are not outside of my perspective, I never said they were. Nothing is. I didn't even say they were alive on their own, I said they "seem to have a consciousness all their own." As in a consciousness possessed by the representations that are reactive to interaction. Which they do, because "consciousness" is, in actuality, the geometry of relationships, and, as I have a relationship to the content, it has relationships, and thus a "consciousness." The "consciousness" of this particular content just seems to be particularly advanced.

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 12/24/2021 09:18 PM

Brilliantly worded. Makes me wonder how much time you have spent reading/digesting the threads lol. Have you tried showing anyone in your personal life? How did it go?

Around 6 months, but time is relative ;)

I've tried showing my significant other, but he's been very resistant to it. That's frustrating, considering he's probably the most intelligent person I know and could probably figure out how to structure and apply Ec more effectively than I've so far been able to, but c'est la vie. Extra frustrating considering he already accepts premises such as 'nonexistsence isn't possible as one would would have to not exist in order to experience it, making "experiencing it" moot,' which an interpretation of 0 in Ec/the perceptual model.

Interestingly, he's the reason (when I trace this "journey" back) that I found the threads in the first place. Funny how it all works out.

I did find a friend on reddit that I was able to show these threads and he's caught on quick, but we live on opposite sides of the globe so it's been difficult to coordinate communication, especially since experience in my slice of perspective has been rather chaotic lately. Also c'est la vie!

How about you?

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 12/25/2021 09:40 AM

I have tried and as anyone would guess, it was met with resistance.

Thinking over this some more, I see how it's not necessary as the "subconscious" fills in the "gaps" of the definition anyway. Nevermind!

What was this? Think I missed it

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 05/03/2022 03:15 PM

[link to neuronics.one (secure)]

Am I going to have to whip my old Neuronicons charts out?

When did you come across THIS?? Very interesting, I'll be taking my charts out as well. Though, I currently have them out and am re-reading the original neuronics thread at the moment. Coincidence? Probably, lol.

I actually came to this thread to ask Tony/Maria about neuronics, but I'd like your thoughts if you've got 'em: how do adjectives work in ec? I've got basically how to determine the symbol and input/output of a word/feeling/concept in ec, but I can't figure out adjectives. If a [ball] that [is sitting on the ground] is, for example, SI, how does one specify a red or green ball?

For colors, I have either that the input is representation or interaction (photons interacting with color receptors), but I can't figure an output. And I don't know where to begin with size. Would a large ball sitting on the ground, instead of SI, be +SI as it's physically a bigger representation or S+I as there's more ball to interact with? Or, if it's large enough (like maybe a statue of a ball or one that's super heavy) be S-I since it's harder to move? How to communicate football vs baseball vs basketball etc. etc.?

With that approach, it heavily depends on what the subject is, seeing as it's not necessarily any more or less difficult to interact with a person that's smaller or larger, for example.

I guess the question would be, do adjectives get their own ec symbol or are they incorporated into the high/neutral/low bit of the matrix? I suppose it could be either or both depending on what's being communicated. It's just difficult to figure when there's no standard for ec (yet, hopefully there will someday be)

I suppose I should specify that this question is in relation to shifting one's perspective to something that doesn't currently "exist" in the physical or that doesn't necessarily have an established model. Maria said in the original thread something to the effect that 'ec is used alongside the natural languages,' and I can see how that would work. I could say "this is a baseball, and my perception of it in ec is communicated by +S+I, because the ball represents the sport which is an activity I participate in so is highly symbolic in my perspective and is an object that has led to many important interactions with my family and team." In that case, specifying that it's a small, white ball with red stitching isn't necessary as the person you're communicating with in English probably already has an idea of what a baseball is, but the exercise is to explore the perception of it. The person you're talking to can then use +S+I in relation to the baseball to bring that perception more relative to their own perspective.

But let's say I'm thinking of an object that hasn't been created and the only person I'm communicating to about its (perceived) "existence" is myself. Say it's a 3ft tall cube made of bronze that I want to have sit in my garden with its east-facing face to be teal. How would I go about expressing that in ec?

It seems as though you're busy working on the aforelinked neuronics page (super exceited!); Any chance there's a "magic mirror of chaos" project coming up as well? Super bummed that that never seemed to pan out

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 01/05/2022 09:36 AM

It's been a minute since I thought about it, BUT...

lets pick up from my last post from Feb 8, 2013:

"In my opinion:
the language is meant for personal use. It is to see how you define things and how they change definition as you interact with them more.
I imagine that when Chaol describes the genius and being open to new symbols. That if you were thinking in EC, the symbols that you find would match up to your EC definition of what you place its value as.
For example, if your originally defined a genius for something like better headphones (it should be random, this is just a bad example) and its value was:
Low Symbol, Low interaction — low interaction, high possibility
To me: headphones are a low symbol because it is not very relative to how I normally hear (whereas speakers might be a neutral symbol) and I don’t use them often (low interaction)
Also I don’t interact with them much (low interaction) but they allow me to connect with a myriad of sounds that are not normally within my perspective (high possibility).
—-
Then one day you are walking around thinking in EC and you stop when you see a bike rack and think:
I don’t see that as very relative because it is a symbol on the sidewalk all the time and i barely notice it because it blends in (low symbol) and I don’t bike much to use it (low interaction)
and though I don’t bike much (low interaction) these racks are everywhere and i can park a bike at them and can get around much faster if I take a bike, I don’t but the option is there for me (high possibility)
It is likely that how we are currently relating and interacting with symbols is vastly different when you think in EC. Headphones and bikeracks seem completely unrelated, but in EC may be like the numbers (36 and 72) and are just related in a way you would not normally think.
If you think in EC i would assume the genius would become easier because you would know the values to pay attention to, and would be more likely to recognize."

Now this is a godless individual and your words are what a godless person would say…just pure word vomit.

I'm not so sure the language is so much a tool for communication vs a tool for understanding how you come to perceive anything.

I would think this is more of a way for communicating with ones higher-self similar to certain other techniques like automatic writing or remote viewing. In remote viewing one practices and practices with unknown targets until the viewer develops a language in picture form. A wavey line with 3 humps may be discovered to always represent a river.

So Neuronics would be more a system for the metaphysical self. A way of seeing the core of something no matter the way it is represented or a way of seeing more subtle aspects of your reality that you may not have otherwise noticed. Though this is true of defining and giving language to any phenomena.

In my honest opinion the original Neuronicons language was HALF-BAKED, it's usefulness besides its ability to create and make new words easier than English was never elaborated. Chaol even later said it was just an exercise and never had any real function, which I bitched him out for.

At this point you are better off just making up words for things that you want to experience more and then use that word.

Neuronics is more for something like seeing how the wind blowing over a sign in 1962 is the same thing as the piece of mail that fell behind your desk.

Well, the first sentence has to be fulfilled somehow

I see what you mean and where you're coming from.

The language itself I wouldn't say is half-baked, or even that half-baked-ness can apply to a language. Language is never complete, try as we might to standardize it. It's as much a virus as anything else, and mutation is in its nature. Chaol did fail to explain how to fully apply it. Though, I'm not sure "fail" is the correct term; I suspect they were purposefully vague in order to encourage skepticism. Same maneuver as was used in the original thread when chaol offered pictures and then changed their mind. If all of this is legit, skepticism from others serves at least two functions: a) it makes the content more relative to potentially more people, doubt is much more stable and spread-able than belief and b) it separates those who want the message and those who want the messenger. A figure-it-out-yourself approach separates the wheat from the chaff, in that regard (not to call you or anyone else chaff, of course, I'd also be chaff). If this all isn't "legit," then skepticism is part of the entertainment.

I do know to what you're referring when you say Tony said that Ec was an exercise and didn't have any function, but personally that's not how I took it. I don't have the quote on hand, but if I recall he was referring to it as an exercise with regard to better knowing himself and that it no longer served that function, for him. I don't think at all that that means it serves no function at all or for anyone else. Obviously it doesn't mean nothing to him, considering what appears to be a new neuronics site in the works. A new exercise, maybe, but the function probably comes from whatever functions are given to it.

I actually answered my own questions in large part by asking in the earlier post in this thread, and I'd agree that Ec is entirely a personal language (especially without any standardization), but honestly I think that's it's biggest asset when talking about using it for communication. Large-scale communication? Not as things are right now, obviously, but between two individuals (who both have an understanding of the values in ec)? Invaluable. Which I think is the point, at this stage (if there's a point at all, besides a decade of entertainment).

At any rate, how would you assign value to a ball vs a red ball vs a green ball in ec?

If I had a Prosper for every half-baked idea Chaol has pitched on this thread I'd be rich. I'm not hating on his process, only the idea that every inaccuracy or mistake he makes is purposeful and part of a higher meaning. That kind of thinking, to me, is dangerous. On the other hand Chaol is slightly ahead of me enough in certain areas of knowledge that I have a strange competitiveness I feel with him.

The issues with adjectives is the subjective preference of the intended communication. I like Blue balls and I see Blue as full of possibility, but you despise the color Blue, so you would never refer to it as a high possibility. The language allows us to communicate how each of us sees reality differently but does not help to actually communicate that the ball is Blue.

So then you need a shared adjective that you also give a subjective denotation.

The LowPossibility-LowIneraction-Blue Ball

A half-baked idea is much different from a "half-baked" language, the latter I was pointing out can't really exist as there's no such thing as a completely-baked language. Actually, the former doesn't really exist either, since an idea is, of itself, a preconception of something else. So, wouldn't a "completely-baked" idea be an idea that starts as a conception, such as a thought, and is seen through in action until the original conception is irrelevant?

It could be thought of that way, but where does conception start and relevance end? Following, where does an idea begin and end? The idea of a mobile phone was conceived by someone who had knowledge of computing, which was conceived of through the existence of interactions between a) manual computing and b) certain metals and other materials as well as through the b) existence of manual computing, a) having been conceived through the existence of mental computing, conceived through the existence of numbers and b) having been conceived of through the use of metal, conceived through the discovery of metal, conceived by the observation of metal in its natural state. Can go on forever in the conception direction. Can go equally as forever in the other direction. Say we replace mobile phones with direct neural interface with electronics in order to communicate. Yes, mobile phones themselves become irrelevant, but the idea of them does not in that the idea was instrumental to the development of the new technology. Ideas cannot become irrelevant, but less-focused-upon.

Of course, I'm just having fun with my own half-baked ideas here.



Dangerous as compared to what kind of thinking?

Of course every inaccuracy and mistake made is part of a higher meaning, to him. What that higher meaning is is irrelevant, but it's there in some form or another. One can choose to search for such higher meaning, or not. Chaol mentions that they expect to be long gone by the time neuronics has reached any kind of popularity and that they are in no rush. Our impatience or lack thereof doesn't add or detract to that, but rather should point to the idea that the concepts should be explored by us. The innacuracies of the messenger don't detract from the message, or shouldn't if one pays any attention to the art of argumentation.




Competitiveness with oneself is how one defines existence. Focusing on the competition, on the inaccuracies, on the drama is what is traded for under-standing, however. Neither is better or worse, just an equal exchange.



It only doesn't, at this point, "help to communicate that the ball is blue" because there is no definition yet for "blue." Which is why I'm asking! If you and I set a definition for blue based on an agreement for the perception of "blue," then you and I absolutely can communicate something as being blue in ec. Then so can anyone else who reads our definition. Language is, after all, an agreement on meaning.

So, to you, blue is a [color] that [is full of possibility]. Blue is a [symbol] input and [high possibility] output. Let's say your entire room is blue and you notice blue wherever you go, bringing it to [high symbol] input. So then blue, to you, is +S+P (ee).

Then let's say I do despise the color blue. I despise it because it viscerally reminds me of my mother, whith whom I used to have many terrible interactions. It is a [color] that [reminds me of my mother ...]. Because the association is visceral, I'd place that as a [high symbol] input. Because I don't often see my mother these days and don't otherwise really think about blue, I'll say it has a [low interaction] output. So blue, to me, would be +S-I (o).

Then, you and I compare notes. We can explore why we each perceive blue the ways we do. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but for the example's sake let's say that it's +S for you because it's your favorite color and you have it everywhere around you, and it's +P because it can be applied to so many representations (the ocean, the sky, eyes, flowers, calmness, peace, serenety, sadness etc. etc.). You tell me this, and I tell you the bit about my mom, and now we each have an expanded perception of blue. You can now see how blue relates to (a negative view of) interaction, and I now see how blue relates to (perhaps a more positive view of) possibility.

Because there's no standard right now, we either pick one of the two to continue communicating with each other about blue, or we make a new symbol that better reflects the combined perspective. Let's say we do the latter: we both agree that it's +S, so we keep that input. For the output, your view is more broad and likely to impact my perspective than mine is yours, so we go more towards your initial definition and settle on neutral possibility for the sake of continuing to communicate between the two of us. "Blue" is now +SP (b), for the sake of communication. You and I can still have our initial definitions, but we can now effectively communicate "blue" between the two of us. That's no different from the use of the word "blue" now: each of us generally knows that "blue" refers to the color on the spectrum between green and violet, but it means something different personally to each individual.

Once we start communicating blue as +SP between the two of us, those who read it after us will learn to associate +SP as blue in context without having to know why that symbol was chosen, and then communication of "blue" as +SP becomes standardized! Thus, our dictionary is born.

Blue as being +SP is just for example's sake, I'd personally go with S+P.

It's not that Ec can't be used to communicate, its just that it hasn't yet. We could start to, or we could focus on the seeming inconsistencies in Chaol/Maria/Tony's presentation. Neither is better or worse, just another equal exchange. It's like how reading all about the experience of diving, the good, bad, and everything in between, isn't the same as feeling the water yourself