TriumphantGeorge Compendium (Part 6)

POST: Shifted to a New Awareness/View of My Cats?

[POST]

This is long. Sorry! Well.... Over the past few days I've realized that Triumphant George had posted many gems of information both here and on another site, Oneirosophy, that I had not yet thoroughly read. So, last night I began reading through a lot of these and really pausing to give each one some deeper thought (for instance, the Hall of Records, the Imagination Room, and the wealth of ideas here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Oneirosophy/comments/2r39nc/overwriting_yourself/] - and in several other posts). I was aware of some sort of deep change in my perspective as I kept reading these (although I've experienced plenty of "changes in my perspective" already!); something really seemed to "take hold" as I pondered and mentally experimented with some of these new techniques and ideas. The first thing that happened after this, that I recall, is that - still on the computer - I did some web browsing and encountered several synchronicities in a row that startled me a little (although I'm pretty used to synchronicity and "magical happenings" that come and go,) and the content of them was so important to me that I wrote them down. Honestly, I would share them here, but I've found that sometimes another person's "startling synchronicity" just isn't read as such by others. Maybe I've spent too much time on GITM (silly me) where the main idea seems to be to "shoot down" every poster's "glitch" ;-/ but I feel it best to keep the details to myself, since those aren't the "main event" in this post, anyway. Before I proceed, as an explanation I need to say that I live on a rather busy street, my cats never go outside, & part of my small-ish home is really not in use right now so my livable space is reduced from what it used to be. Also, those of you who have had cats know that if I just "locked them up" in a room at night, they would meow, yowl and howl pathetically all night! Which would hardly be restful for any of us. ;)
Sooo, it wasn't too late but I was very sleepy. I left the computer and went upstairs to sleep. Now - I have 5 grown cats. They've slept with me for a long time, but until about 3 1/2 years ago, I was in my double bed and there was plenty of room for 1 human and 2 or 3 cats. Now, however, I actually sleep on a sofa (I won't go into why at the moment,) and the cats kept getting, from my perspective, needier and needier and more and more invasive. So for at least 2 (more like 3+, I think,) YEARS I've been trying to sleep with one cat draped about my head, chewing on my hair, pawing at my face, another cat sniffing at my nose and tickling me with her whiskers, and another cat pawing at my feet.... You get the picture! The obvious result was much disturbed and thwarted sleep, and me feeling a lot of irritation toward my poor kitty cats. My oldest cat has never been a lap cat or very "touchy", but at the elderly age of 15 last year, even she decided to become a lap cat and now insists on sitting on my lap for 1/2 hour every evening before bedtime. Anyway, so - on to my point. I had read all these articles and posts by "TG", seemed then to feel some sort of inner shift... then experienced a rash of synchronicities, and then went up to "bed". Last night, I didn't do "two glasses" or anything really deliberately, but I sort of felt... filled with love, or... I dunno! As I sat with my cats, (a couple of whom also do things like race about madly, scratch up the sofa, and get into "tiffs" with each other,) I was led or drawn to appeal to their Higher Cat Selves. I remember petting them very lovingly and thinking that I was appealing to the "Magnificent Heart" of each of them. In this "appeal" I wasn't really asking for anything too specific, but there was a very silent, (sort of deeply hidden within me so that even I was not very aware of it,) INTENTION: peacefulness - goodness -. I hope this is sort of clear. Seems hard to express. So, during this "petting" time of about 1/2 hour, at one point my big orange cat, Sam, raced over and began to claw (with great gusto - you'd have to know Sam!) at the sofa I was sitting on. I sort of just... thought about his "Magnificent Heart", his Higher Being, and he stopped right then in mid-scratch, jumped up on the back of the sofa and began to snooze! I just thought, "Gee" or some such. I finally lay down, very tired. William, my other male cat - big, orange & white, and fluffy - jumped up onto the pillow above my head. He chewed on my hair and did his usual annoying tail-swishing, etc. One of my female cats had taken some of the cover off my feet. In this somewhat uncomfortable - and perfectly usual - state, I began to drift off to sleep, still with thoughts of some of TG's writings in my head. I was still slightly awake when William jumped up suddenly from the pillow he was sharing with me, and down onto the floor. Sam also got off the sofa, as did Annabelle (little cat at my feet). I didn't think too much of it as they will go to the food bowls or to get water at night, but they always, always come back. I just snuggled down to enjoy my very temporary (I thought) Sole Occupant of the Sofa status, since every single morning I awaken in some more or less uncomfortable position, basically "covered in cats". I usually sleep very poorly and wake up several times at night due to cat-related discomfort. Except this time, I didn't. They weren't there. (!!!) This may seem like a small thing, but when my alarm went off and I realized there wasn't a single cat with me, and I was awakening from a very peaceful, undisturbed all-night sleep, I was stunned. It seemed that, when they left the sofa as I was drifting off to sleep, they stayed off. I sat up, and after a minute, slowly the cats came in from the other rooms, one by one. I was going to write that I have no idea how tonight will play out - when Sam (my most "in your face", high strung kitty,) jumped onto my computer desk and did something he has truly never done before. Instead of sitting or standing in front of the monitor, blocking my view, and meowing insistently in my face, he has politely lain himself down off to the side so I can still see the whole screen. I have seen what seems to me to be an extreme change in some cat behavior that was totally entrenched over a period of about 3+ years, and I hardly know what to make of it. All I know is, I FEEL "shifted". And I didn't DO anything. I just assimilated & allowed new perspectives in.

[END OF POST]

Q1: I just said thanks to n8dawg189 & BraverNewerWorld for not calling me a fruitcake! :)
And I wanted to follow up just a bit. Last night I fell asleep with a kitty (William) by my head, and this morning I woke up - once again "sans cats"!!
I just don't know....Also, another change (big change, in terms of my state of relaxation vs irritability,) is that my cats were not "under my feet" either last evening or this morning. For quite some time, (years, that is,) I haven't been able to go up or down the stairs, walk from the living room to the kitchen, etc. without having cats - especially William, Mary and Annabelle - "accompany" me by racing ahead of me and then stopping in front of my feet. If I go to my small bathroom, the pattern has been that 2 or 3 cats race in there ahead of me, throw themselves down on the floor and roll around, etc. (Yes, they're cute! :-) - but, convenient, it isn't. There's hardly any room for me! lol)
Well, this morning I went up to the bathroom and William walked BEHIND me up the steps (unheard of, I swear,) and then he didn't actually go into the bathroom, at all. He sat in the hallway for a while. All my cats, (except for the oldest, Claire,) are behaving very differently. I'm trying not to misread modes of behavior that were always there, but just unnoticed, as new. Trying to be logical and honest with myself about what's going on. However, over the past couple of days, there are behavioral changes in my cats that I just can't deny. I sort of feel as if I have...well, (gulp) different cats, somewhat. I'll just relax and try to be observant without losing all my common sense.
Edit to say: I'm at work so not really in "Dimension Jumping Think mode". I wanted to clarify that I don't really believe it's a matter of actual "different cats", but rather....shifting to a state of consciousness where I - well, I've created them to be different! (I'm truly something of a solipsist these days, I think.) I've created changes in the past with thought alone, but 1) not on purpose; 2) still, in such a focused (though unintentional) way that I was able to look "back" and see very clearly exactly how I did it. Nice to find myself doing it with positive intention. In the long run, I just want comfortable me - and comfortable, happy cats!*

Not different cats as such - but maybe different cat patterns, eh? :-)

Aha, a secret is revealed! To shift patterns one must love seamlessly whichever pattern is present and silently intent/reveal/flow with the heart into the desired pattern. It has to feel as if you almost aren't doing anything at all, only allowing what you really want to happen by appealing to a Higher Authority in a humble, unobstructed trust. Hmm, very cool. Thanks to everyone involved for helping me think this out :)

The "higher authority" part, I would emphasise, is simply you providing yourself with an excuse to not interfere with what you've already done via intention - to let it unfold without re-intending again due to doubt. Once you have intended something, the new deterministic experiential path is set!

You are the only intelligence, everything else is a "dumb pattern".

Meanwhile, since intention has no specific sensory component (you don't "do" intention so much as "shape-shift" to a new state where the intentional pattern is prominent), there is no sense of effort. You didn't do anything; you-as-experiencer became something. In OP's case, they intended-that they would read some "active metaphors" and allow themselves to be re-patterned by them. And at that point the new pattern was fixed and the subsequent experiences determined.

(As with all of those things, it's much easier to do some experiments and know it, than it is to discuss it intellectually and try to "understand" it!)

Q1: Yes, it certainly is a challenge to discuss "things of the spirit" from an intellectual perspective. Sort of makes me think of, "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life". Also, while I'd like to avoid mangling things up with a new "slant", there was definitely a sort of trance-like element to the way I was feeling the evening the change occurred. Have you ever had a dream, read a book or watched a movie that "caught you up" so much that you were sort of floating around, not quite grounded in your "real life" for a bit? That's not a perfect comparison to how I was feeling, but somewhat. I think the "shift" actually may have occurred while I was reading and so deeply contemplating those new concepts. By the time I went upstairs and spent time with my cats before sleeping, I was already mildly "entranced", immersed in the ideas I'd been reading about - and the brand new thoughts about my cats, such as their "Magnificent Hearts", just came to me out of nowhere. Not planned, at all. As TG has noted somewhere, my viewpoint had already switched - and I provided myself with a path to the recognition of the new viewpoint. (Ha! sounds so complicated.) When I "got in touch with" my cats Higher Selves, by the way, I sensed them, not as something like Big Noble Cats, but more like...very benevolent royal Beings, with their spirits "equal" to my spirit. It was interesting. I really, really appreciate this sub for being a place where such experiences can be shared and discussed! You guys are great. By the way, that "change" was Wed night, and it's now Friday night. My cats are still shifted/changed/different - and believe me, while I can write all this High & Mighty, got-it-together stuff, there is a very earthbound side of me that finds this very freaky!! I've had brief moments of staring at them like, "Who are you??" and wondering if I should rush them all to the vet! (lol) - They are fine, actually. I'm pretty sure.

They are probably the finest they've ever been! But it's interesting, isn't it, that having an actual experience is a bit more destabilising than one might expect in advance, no matter how enthusiastic one has been about contemplating "such things" beforehand. You can see how some people intuitively sense that perhaps they don't really want the miracles they are hoping for, since the price you pay is possibly a re-evaluation of the nature of things at a fundamental level.

Q1: Well, I'm sure everyone is sick to death of me posting about my cats, at this point, but I just have to post this. If anything would convince me that some change has actually occurred, and I haven't simply gone cuckoo, THIS (oddly, perhaps, but that's just me...) is it. I adopted Sam as a tiny, abandoned, bright orange (so cute) kitten in 2004. Once he started eating cat food (he got kitten formula for a short time,) he was strictly a fish or turkey guy. He would not eat chicken in any form, to my surprise. He wouldn't eat any kind of cat-food chicken. My sons and I tried giving him home cooked chicken, fried, roasted, braised, store-roasted chicken, KFC chicken, white meat, dark meat.... It didn't matter. He would look at us as if we were nuts to offer him something that was clearly inedible, and he would walk away. So, I seldom eat any chicken any more, at all, but yesterday there was a party at work and a ton of chicken tenders left over, so I brought some home. (Hey, free food....)
So, this morning for a snack I'm having some chicken and Sam wants some. I remove all the mildly spiced breaded coating and give him some white meat. He gobbled it up!! I am not kidding. He just ate a bunch of chicken. (Now he's meowing. I wonder if his tummy hurts.)
omg. It seems I have to get used to cats with a whole new set of "stuff"! (I need some chocolate immediately. lol) Jeepers. This is SO weird. In fact, it's so weird, I just have to try it some more. :-D
Edit to add: This is certainly the last time I'll post on this specific topic. (Enough is enough. :) I think everyone who finds it possible to "believe" is now aware that apparently I've had some kind of "shift" and may continue to see small bits of evidence of it as I "move forward in time".
Of course I'll post again if I perceive some totally unrelated, truly significant "shift"! Um - That is, I'll post again if reddit exists in my awareness after I've shifted (should I "shift"...)! Thank you for all your comments! Wish I could meet you all for coffee or something. :)

Good stuff. It's always been a concern with this subreddit that there has been a distinct lack of cat-related material - which, as we know, is the true mark of success on reddit and the internet at large. No longer! I just hope your cats are inclined to play along nicely with owls... :-)

Q1: Ha! I was going to stay off this thread, but... Yes, I probably should have included links to cute pics of my cats. Would've gotten "Gold". OWLS - I didn't even do the owl thing, just read through it. Yet I see them all the time. Decided to walk a different route to my bus stop Friday morning, and there was a car parked by the curb with a big stuffed owl on the dashboard. Last night (Saturday), I was looking at pics online of a home for sale, and in the living room of that home there was a large owl figurine on the coffee table. On and on, owls everywhere. I want to apply it with something far less popular, such as snails or hippos, and see what happens. :) Fun. You are my primary mentor at this time, TG. I have (just for the moment,) set aside Neville, Kidest, Fred Dodson, Bashar, all my New Thought folks, et al - and am diving in to study and apply the info in your writings. I wonder if you ever think of putting out a small book (?).

This is one of those threads where if you keep tugging on it, you find a whole sweater! Or a whole sheep! :-)

So, all the people you listed do, I think, give you a different starting structure that provides a path or "formatting" by which intention is filtered. Neville Goddard, with his references to Blake, is slightly more direct about it all, but regardless, what's actually important is realising the nature of experiencing. That's really the ultimate aim. If you realise that - infer the context of experiencing vs the content of experiences - then you don't need a mentor or a structure at all. As your post indicates, if you allow yourself to be fully formatted by an idea of "how things work", a metaphor, then you will have experiences "as if" it were true. Realising this, you just pick your metaphors wisely, choosing the most flexible. I really think that if we fully commit to directly experiencing ourselves as the "open awareness" which formats itself by imagining-that, there's nothing else to learn. All descriptions about it are merely parallel constructions in thought, inside it.

POST: I would love to hear your feed back on this video - is he accurately describing DJing as you understand it or experience it? OR is your experiences with DJing different than he describes? If so, how are they different?

Just to start: I don't think it's very helpful to define a "reality" as every change in experience (which is essentially what he does), because it makes it kind of a meaningless concept. However, if we define a "dimension" as a particular "state", meaning a set of world-facts from which follows a deterministic set of moments, then we've got something more manageable. In this view, when we deliberately intend a change, or imagine-that something is true until it becomes fact, then we have shifted our state (really: our-selves). Our subsequent experiences then arise spontaneously from that state. From there, it's not so much that you have to "start acting like the new dimension you jumped into is really there" - rather, you have to not obstruct or react to the sensory experiences that arise, including the experience of apparent physical movement. If you oppose the moments that then appear in your awareness, then you are in effect re-intending against them - and hence shifting state again. In summary then, we're really talking about:

• Adopting a new state and then:
• Not accidentally intending against that state.

For this to make sense intellectually, though, we really have to reconsider what we think of as "me", which leads us to philosophical idealism or non-dualism. You are not a person in a world doing magick or attracting things across time and space, for instance.

Honestly - you seem to be drawing VERY subtle distinctions between your understanding and what Bashar is saying. I'm not sure I even see a difference or even understand the difference you're highlighting....but I'll think about it, meditate on it and try to understand what you're saying. But regardless of all that - I don't want to sound ungrateful so thank you for your reply.

Well, do remember that this is not an understanding of something that independently exists as such. So there's an element of "whatever works for you" to all this. The only thing that truly matters, is that we recognise the distinction between the nature or context of experience (fundamental truth, you might say) and the content of experience (relative truth). Everything else is up for grabs, potentially. "Very subtle distinctions", then, are worth attending to, because how we conceive of the world shapes the structure of our experience. The benefit in drawing the line of the definition of a "dimension" at this point - of a world-state rather than something akin to "what I am grossly experiencing right now" - is that it logically follows that you can have effortless experience with occasional redirects. It's more obvious that you do not need to maintain anything, and so on.

Also: no aliens! [1]
__
[1] Unless someone particularly wants aliens, of course, in which case they can totally go for it. :-)

Q1: "Very subtle distinctions", then, are worth attending to, because how we conceive of the world shapes the structure of our experience.
This is exactly why I said I wanted to think on this further because I'm not afraid of subtle distinctions - but sometimes they're a distraction. It's the old analogy of you can't see the forrest because you're too focused on the trees. I had originally been thinking this thread would address the differences and/or similarities between DJing and Bashar's ideas but something about your response is making me think much deeper about all this.....which is actually quite fun for me so thanks. I'm not not nearly "up to speed" on all of this so it'll take me a while to process.

Yeah, it can be easy to get lost in formulations for their own sake, forgetting they're about constructing something useful rather than discovering something. (The exception being the discovery of our direct experience of ourselves.)

The subreddit overall is intended to be fairly concept-agnostic - hence the idea of "active metaphors" referred to in the sidebar and links. The underlying idea is that there is no particular "way things are". All changes are basically the intentional "patterning" of our experience/ourselves - to different levels of granularity. So, "dimensions" and "frequencies" and "grids" and "states" and "facts", they're all potentially useful as self-formatting patterns; none of them are inherently true. Anyway, thanks for kicking off the discussion.

Q2: Not accidentally intending against that state.
Could you please give a few examples of accidental intending?

So, one form of that would be you reacting against an experience that arose as part of the state's path to your outcome - either because it seemed unpleasant, or because you can't see how it fit in, or you were trying to "make" things happen by directing them in a more micro way. For example, perhaps as part of the sequence towards my outcome, circumstances force me into meeting up with someone who I find intimidating, and then they are intimidating, but my spontaneous response (rather than my reaction) is to stand my ground and say something out of character, and that resolves that situation and leads to my outcome in an unexpected way because that person has direct access to what I want. Throughout all this I have to trust that the deterministic path, the path that has been created as part of my outcome-focused state-shift, is heading in the right direction, despite my fear and discomfort. I must do this even though I can't know it in advance exactly what will arise along that path, because I can't "pre-expereince" my experiences and it's never possible to think it out. In exchange for that faith, I benefit from the entire "world-pattern" having reshaped itself as a coherent whole around my intention, in a way that could never be planned using my basic thought model of the world. However, to benefit from it I must surrender to it. Any resistance to what then unfolds in my senses is an intention against my current moment, but also the whole state. Since your state or "world-pattern" is a continuous whole - like a blanket of material with folds in it - to intend against one part - to tug on one fold - is to shift the entire world. (However, I'd suggest a strong outcome intention will not be completely mangled by a minor counter-intention that isn't directed at the specific outcome itself.)

Q2: it's never possible to think it out
What exactly is "thinking it out"? And how would thinking it out be different from not resisting the sensory experience that arises as thought itself?

In this context, the manual construction of a parallel structure in thought, which is then used as a plan for what needs to be done to reach one's goal. Perhaps "work it out" or "calculate what to do" might have been better ways to phrase it. The basic idea is, you can't "understand" the world enough to choose the correct action, but the information is there so that you can "know' what to do towards something you've intended - because it is the movement already occurring within you.

we might even just call it perseverance

Although for some people that word can imply struggle and effort and pushing, perhaps? The best words are probably "trust" and "faith" and "confidence", if we can put aside any religious connotations they have in the context of action in the world (not necessarily a bad thing, since that's where the concepts probably came from originally, but just associations that are unneeded). Maybe a blend of both.

Q2: Although for some people that word can imply struggle and effort and pushing, perhaps?
Yeah i intended it to come across more as "overcoming challenge," which probably blurs into struggle... for some people.. maybe. but i think if you know or have faith, trust, confidence etc, that you get to your end outcome, then it seems to make it more about upping the quality of that experienced moment and the implications following, which can mean struggling if struggling means-that your results will be, overall, better. Maybe not though, struggling could just be struggling.

I suppose we might suppose two levels for convenience, something we often have to do when discussing these topics. There is the "experience of struggling" as content - really just part of your sensory adventure - and then there is "resistance struggling" as context - which is when you-as-experiencer push back against the sensory adventure itself. For example - using a retro film reference - if we were Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark and we had decided we were going to find the Ark of the Covenant, then we might experience many struggles along the way, but those would be part of the "sensory adventure", and in fact our outcome would already be assured. However, we are simultaneously the actor Harrison Ford, and if we as Harrison Ford struggle against the unfolding of the adventure, of the script that is arising in our theatre, then we might derail that outcome, or at least (more likely) make the path longer and more punishing.

Q3: I must surrender to it.
Like Jim Carrey in "Yes Man"? :) But isn't there a limit to what we can say "yes" to? I'm ok with tackling a challenge that forces me to face my fears, making me stronger... but what about "deal with the devil"/"indecent proposal" kind of situations, that force us to violate our moral code? Should we embrace those too? Can we intend a different path without changing the destination?
a strong outcome intention will not be completely mangled by a minor counter-intention
How do you know whether or not your path has been completely disrupted by a negative reaction and is no more headed in the right direction?

Haha, no, it's not a Yes Man type deal. It really simpler and more basic than that: to give up micro-controlling in the sense that you think something "should" unfold a certain way, and to not let your fear lead you to avoid things. We might draw the comparison with body movement more generally: you don't actually need to control your body muscles "manually", and actually doing so tends to bring about inefficient and tension-producing results, because you can neither know what your body "should" be doing, nor consciously make it do such subtle co-ordination. Instead, you should intend the outcome (e.g. getting up from the chair; catching the ball) and let your body move by itself. However, until you've had that experience - there there is a movement that arises spontaneously in response to situations - then this probably doesn't make too much sense as a recommendation. Without a certain confidence or faith, there's the temptation to intervene and try to "make" the result happen - which has based on your crappy limited idea of the world. (In the specific case of body movement also, many people are constantly asserting their current position, and then overcoming it in order to move. So when they "stop interfering", they can feel sort of stuck for a while because they haven't "ceased asserting". We might wonder to what extent we continue to assert aspects of our world-state.)

So, what we're talking about here is the larger version of that - not just the experience of body movement, but of world movement. As far as disruption goes - I'd say that the outcome is never fully de-incorporated, but by asserting something that is counter to that outcome, you have at least reduced its relative intensity, its relative contribution to your future experience. If you feel you've lost your way at some point, then re-intend?

when we are learning a new movement (dancing, sports, etc.) we have to control our muscles "manually"

Obviously we've talking about intending other sorts of outcome here, but when we learn a new body movement, I would still say that we don't have to move our muscles manually really, as such - and that attempting to do so gets in the way, actually. We still direct ourselves towards outcomes. We shouldn't be trying to co-ordinate our muscles directly ever, I suggest - largely because we can't. We have no access to them in that sense. If we try to control muscles directly, what we in fact do is generate an experience of "controlling muscles", rather than generate an experience of "body moving as I'd like". Approaches such as Ideokinesis and the Franklin Technique for dance, or the Michael Chekhov approach to acting, or the Alexander Technique for general movement, follow this route - using intentional imagery or merely outcome-intention in order to bring about movement. Neurones don't have much to do with it (in the sense of what "we do" or what "they do"). If you haven't checked out chapter four of the Michael Chekhov Handbook: For The Actor yet, it's worth a look if you want to do some body movement experiments using intention: see here.

Since we can't know in advance exactly what will arise along that path, it seems to me that we have no GPS for manifesting.

Why do we need one? This assumes we need to progress step by step, as if we are walking across rocky and uncertain alien terrain. The is the opposite of how we want to go about things! Once the landscape is set - the deterministic path of moments is chosen - we don't need a "GPS". Again: the path is already set. We just need to not derail what we've done. If we are in doubt, we might periodically assert the outcome, but we shouldn't be "checking ourselves" (even just because of what that implies). You are not navigating a landscape, you are the landscape - even though you only perceive a slice of it in your senses at any one moment - and your intentions work by changing the contours. If you stop fiddling all the time by intending stuff constantly due to doubt and reaction, if you stop "thrashing your world", then you don't need to keep correcting yourself. The moments of the landscape "move through you" as the-perceving-space; you don't go anywhere. To use another metaphor, we might conceive of an intention as inserting a particular scene later in our script - and by the magick of movies, the script from now to then immediately rewrites itself to lead us there. So long we we don't do another rewrite, we just need to let the movie play out. We don't "do" our character, we experience it.

...claims that sometimes he gets error messages from the "ethereal software" he uses to heal or manifest

As for ethereal software and error messages, all that's doing is adding another layer of "how things work" on top of something that is, in fact, super simple. Sure, you can have experiences "as if" that's how the world is structured - but you're still just intending something extra you don't need (namely, that there is such a thing as "ethereal software" and that it gives you messages). Why not just go straight for the outcome and let it play out?

EDIT: I get that you might want to "check" the outcome, but I'd suggest that since there is no way to do this independently (the intention behind the action implies an outcome in itself), it's probably still better to continue to intend the outcome if you have doubts.

So, I'd maybe summarise this as:

• When you intend something, you are directly updating your "landscape" of upcoming moments with a new fact, incorporated into your existing patterning.
• All intentions are basically of the form "let my experience now unfold as if 'this' were true".
• The 'this' might be an event ("let experience unfold as if 'I get the job' is true") or a general fact ("let experience unfold as if 'there is such a thing as ethereal software'") and so on.
• It's up to you how much "mechanism" you explicitly or implicitly introduce into this; but there is no real mechanism behind the scenes. There is no "how it works"; intention operates "before" that sort of structuring.
• "Checking" is also potentially an intention to have a certain experience. Are we then going to check the checking? And so on!

To emphasise: We have experiences "as if" certain facts were true, but no fact is fundamentally true. There is no way to get outside of this and be an independent navigator or checker.

Body Movement Experiments

But it's ineffable.

We are, here, at the boundary of what can be discussed! Once you have the experience, it makes more sense. So, visualising (visually or kinaesthetically) is also a result of an intention, really. The intention itself isn't "anything", because it is the change in state. Or to be clearer: the "intention" is the potential pattern that you are increasing the intensity of; "intending" is the name we give to that act of intensifying. Anyway, putting that aside, you got some minor twitches. Something to check, then is that you are not also simultaneously asserting your current position as you do this. In other words, are you holding onto your current position so that you can move from it, instead of fully committing to the target position? It is very easy and common, I think, to end if "wishing" the target state and "wishing" your current state at the same time - to "ask" to both move and stay still simultaneously! The actual experience is more of a releasing into the target state. One idea which might help, is to conceive of yourself as containing all possible positions simultaneously - it's just that your current position is "brighter" than the rest. You are therefore permanently in a state of elastic potential, primed for movement in any direction, and it's not a case of deliberately moving in one of those directions, so much as ceasing to obstruct yourself in that particular direction. Meanwhile, another way to stop yourself getting stuck in a "visualisation as cause" trench, is to do something more basic. Every day, just lie on the floor. Then, having decided that your body will get up, do nothing at all. Importantly, don't engage in staying-lying-down either. Just let whatever happens, happens. Eventually, your body will stand up, effortlessly and perhaps in a manner or sequence you could not have predicted, "by itself". At this point your recognise that intention is perhaps best thought of as "inserting facts into the background", which later arise in your sensory theatre. It just so happens that we have become used to thinking of only intentions associated with immediate results as being "us doing stuff" - in addition to confusing the result of muscle tension with the act of intending.

Checking For Results; Feedback

[Checking for result] I don't understand what you mean by "independently".

If you have done something which you have decided or intended means-that a future event will occur - there is no way to check whether that event will happen without interfering with it. The act of checking implies something, because it has meaning. For you, the act of checking now might mean-that it is doubtful that the event will continue to be true then.

With Chekhov's exercises, for instance, you actually have a feedback.

Yes, because you are intending something whose sensory result is within the current moment, more or less. Beyond that - when intending a future event - you would be seeking sensory feedback for something that has no sensory component in the current moment! (Although the exception to this is that there can be a subtle background felt-sense of your overall state.)

This is where doing that lying down exercise might assist, because you will have the experience of having intended a future event ("standing up"), doing nothing about it or to interfere with it, and then it happening "by itself" in a later moment. You probably need to conceive of your situation differently here. One helpful analogy: your ongoing experience can be thought of as a deterministic landscape or sequence of "sensory moments" across which your "sensory attention" scans. When you intend something, you shift that landscape. If the part of the landscape you are changing happens to be the part you are looking at, you will "feel yourself doing it" because the result will be visible in the very next moment. However, if it is a part of the landscape you aren't looking at, you won't have any sensory feedback until you get to that moment - minutes, weeks, months later. It is true now that the result happens then, it's just that you aren't experiencing then, now. (Whew!)

Asserting For Outcomes

Well, you should know the answer [whether it is best to just assert the outcome], or you wouldn't have created the Two Glasses method... :-P

Haha, well, I'm me, y'know? :-)

Yeah, "how to assert/intend properly" is the key, but as we're noting here, it's not actually something that can be described in words. It's like "shape-shifting" - it's not something you do because it is the movement of your entire self, rather it is an act of "becoming" a new state. That's why instead we use a cheat. In Chekhov's case, the cheat is that we imagine-that there is such a thing as the imaginary body, and then this implies-that doing something with it will lead to a result. What this actually does, is shift our focus away from intending the movement, to intending the feeling-image which then implies the movement. We've dodged the question of how to intend the movement, and distracted ourselves from the issue of how we intend the feeling-image! The generalised version of the cheat is: find something you are already intending, then attach your desired outcome to that. This is how the Two Glasses exercise works. Everyone knows how to intend writing labels and pouring water, so we take that and piggyback another intention onto that.

Not-so-triumphant moments?

Everyone is omnipotent, but that doesn't necessarily mean jumping off a building results in a flying experience, for example. The movie always matches your script - by definition! - but you are not starting with a blank page here. You are in a state and that state is effectively the present draft of this movie script. This current state is the sum of all previous intentions and their logical implications (see handy visualisation). Altering the relative contribution of those patterns or facts is what "intending" is all about. This means that having outcomes which are "unlikely-seeming but plausible" is relatively straightforward, since it amounts to simply overlaying a pattern on the existing landscape. Having outcomes which break your model more, however, requires an amount of "ceasing and releasing" (stopping implying your current state, as with the movement examples above) and intending alternative deeper patterning or formatting. For example, the purpose of the three main metaphors in the sidebar is to provide just such an alternative formatting. If we are looking to come up with a feedback mechanism to inform our approach to change, then the sense of resistance on encounters when asserting that those metaphors are "true", is a good start. Extending this, we can also sense there resistance when we assert other facts as true, be they general or specific.

Should resistance occur, how does one cease resisting? Practicing surrender/faith?

I say: just leave the sensory experience of resistance alone, allow it to be there rather than try to push against it, and instead hold the intention.

so as i see it now, pushing against it is like reasserting it correct? fighting it/not allowing it thereby asserting the underlying truth of its existence? I just dont know, sometimes i feel like the resistance that arises comes out of fear, and i wish i wasnt afraid, but i am, sometimes i think i have been so consumed by fear all my life that is like a fish swimming in water, not knowing its environment, but ultimately needing it to survive.

That's how I see it. So, there is your intention and there is whatever the intention implies. If we resist something, we are implying its existence and also whatever we think that thing means. The only way around it is to "be okay with whatever is happening". Which doesn't mean we can't change things via intention, but intention shifts things "underneath" (or that's one way of saying it); we can't grip onto sensations directly and they are non-causal anyway.

(An intention always involves a complete shift of everything to an extent, since there are no "parts" to a state, and being a whole means things must be coherent and self-consistent, at least as a landscape if not as story.)

Fear: Totally normal. I have been an extraordinarily afraid person, almost afraid of simply existing, in times past. But fear is a sensory experience, and it's actually the squirmy resistance to the sensation that's the bad thing. If we can accept the experience as it is - "be okay with the moment" - then it becomes just an experience (albeit one that might contain useful information about our state or situation). That's where the whole "be the open space" thing comes in very useful, and that idea of "being an ocean rather than a glass of water" - because the ripples of fear are nothing to an ocean. That kinda thing. This loops back around to the "ceasing" again; that's how we are able to allow ourselves to open out.

Q3: are you holding onto your current position so that you can move from it, instead of fully committing to the target position?
I suspect so.
One idea which might help, is to conceive of yourself as containing all possible positions simultaneously - it's just that your current position is "brighter" than the rest.
Interesting. I've noticed that if I quickly alternate between the actual movement and the imagined one (to see if I can profit from the residual "after-image" of the target), my arm seems more willing to follow its phantom twin, albeit partially. It starts raising, as if pulled by a force field, falling back after a few inches. This "magnetic" sensation has made me remember another freaky "arm moves by itself" exercise. Perhaps, physical explanations aside, the pushing-against-the-wall might be seen as a rough way to set the target intention...
The movie always matches your script - by definition!
Where are unwanted experiences coming from? Are they just unforeseen side-effects of our wishes coming true?

I think you make a good observation about the pushing-against-the-wall exercise being a rough way of targeting intention - the action implies-that it will happen, plus perhaps that it triggers the ceasing of downward resistance which might have been opposing upward intention. Which segues nicely into your last point: where do unwanted experiences come from?

"Unforeseen side-effects" is probably not a bad way to put it, but we should be careful we don't think of those side-effects as being in any way deliberate or specified or even created as such. The world can perhaps best be thought of as a "dumb patterning system", with each intention being the equivalent of intensifying a particular pattern into prominence such that it is "relatively true". [1] However, the world is also a coherent whole - it always "makes sense" because it is one cloth - and therefore if we make one fact "true" then that logically implies other facts are true, within our specifications. There are different versions of this though, and not all fit into "stories": For example, if you intend "I will have good posture", then that implies your body will shift shape, tension will release and your body will elongate. Logically, all your trousers might now be too short and you'll have to buy a new wardrobe. Meanwhile, if you intend "I will meet Jim next week", then logically that implies you and Jim will be in the same location at some point, which also implies that, at the point of meeting, there will be an apparent plausible history that "explains' that meeting. You are defining more than just the meeting, in other words. Now, these two examples make sense in terms of there being a "story", but the way they come about is not a story-based structure; it is more like an abstract patterning system. I quite like to use the example of moire patterns for this:

[QUOTE]

Moiré pattern
In mathematics, physics, and art, moiré patterns or moiré fringes are large-scale interference patterns that can be produced when a partially opaque ruled pattern with transparent gaps is overlaid on another similar pattern. For the moiré interference pattern to appear, the two patterns must not be completely identical, but rather displaced, rotated, or have slightly different pitch.

The fine lines that make up the sky in this image create moiré patterns when shown at some resolutions for the same reason that photographs of televisions exhibit moiré patterns: the lines are not absolutely level.

A moiré pattern formed by two units of parallel lines, one unit rotated 5° clockwise relative to the other

[END OF QUOTE]

• Say there's something I want, let's call it A. This might be an event I want to happen or a fact I want to change. In any case, something I want to bring into my experience, a particular "pattern" I want to see in the world.
• Meanwhile, we've got the world as it currently is, which we'll call B.
• Now I intend the new pattern, A. By doing so I activate that pattern, in effect overlaying it on the world, B.
• From this I get the overall result, C, as my new world - see this illustration [missing].

Now, there is no sense in which I really chose that final pattern, and there's actually no way I could predict it (because I cannot see the entire all-space all-time pattern of the world at once), so in effect every overall result is an "unintended side-effect" of my intention. However, the intention itself is always guaranteed to be overlaid and appear in experience, so that's where we focus our attention. What's important, then, is that I specify my intentional pattern in such a way as it corresponds properly to what I actually want. If I just intend "owls" then the generalised pattern of owls will be overlaid upon the world without regard to space or time; it's like putting on spectacles with owl-patterns on. If instead I intend "owls on Tuesday in the city centre", then I have localised the intention to a particular part of the world-pattern. Beyond this, it's a matter of course correction as the larger world-pattern arises in the senses, moment by moment, as being becomes being-known.
__
[1] Here, we can refer back to our earlier notion of all bodily positions existing simultaneously but at different "brightnesses". Similarly, all possible fact-patterns exist eternally. When we intend, we are not creating something (if we can think of it, it must already exist!), rather we are making it a more dominant component of the world-pattern, thereby increasing its contribution to ongoing sensory experience.

So, we need to combine the intending/increasing-of-new-A with some kind of releasing/decreasing-of-current-B, as in the Two Glasses...

Well, I would say that Two Glasses is a level up from this in terms of structuring, since it is a content transformation - you have a defined situation you want to change - but the point about releasing is right, and the underlying notion is the same of course. If you are going to rearrange a rug, it's going to work better if you're not stepping on one corner of it at the time!

One difficulty in terms of thinking about it is that you can't "do" releasing - it's more of a "ceasing to interfere" or a "stopping gripping". Many people aren't even aware that they are gripping onto their sensory experience with narrowed attention. But anyway, it's really intending while surrendering to any shift, "being okay with whatever happens". In general, if you intend something into prominence then the logical implications of that pattern will take care of the contrary pattern. If you intend yourself into holidaying-in-Barcelona then working-hard-in-Arizona will tend to diminish itself logically anyway. In other words, there is no combining to be done really, since it's part of a continuous whole. There's a little bit of "do or do not" to all of this.

POST: Detachment

Really, there is no method or technique really. Detachment is something you don't-do, rather than something you do. It's like not writing graffiti on your walls. You don't need to do anything about not doing it, you just need to not do it. (Except in this case, thinking a lot about graffiti is a sort of graffiti all on it's own.)

So, you simply have to be willing to no longer hold onto yourself - you have to decide to "cease!" and then not go back tinkering with things again. Increased confidence through results can help, obviously, since you come to trust things. Alternatively, coming up with a description of how things work that you can "believe in" - purely so that you feel better about not interfering, not because it will be "how things really are". However - Something to play with, though, is to notice times when your spatial attention has become narrowed in general, and then release your hold on it. For example, when you are reading this text onscreen, perhaps you'll suddenly notice that you have super-focused your spatial attention around it - at which point you "cease"t that, and let your attention open out and become expansive. You don't need to deliberately narrow your attention in order to do something, you need only to intend it; you should leave your attention to move as it wants in response. This can be quite a powerful thing to realise, and can improve your moment by moment life substantially. Narrow attention can be like holding onto an electrical wire - it makes everything "sticky", including thoughts about your desires and actions. It's much easier to surrender to things when you are an "open space".

Why we are not taught this by our parents. I remember being with open attention in the kindergarten. Then everything went nuts. And I certainly see people enjoying their life managing it only with intentions and not control.

Our poor stressed-out parents don't know! Along with society at large, they think that narrowing attention is how you do stuff, and pass that onto us. This isn't helped by the fact that it's not really possible to describe "intending" in language anyway. You end up saying things like "wishing but not doing", which aren't very helpful until you've actually had the experience. It's been quite fun teaching my parents about this stuff, and them being in wonder at how easily they can move, catch stuff, do everyday tasks without effort or strain (quite apart from the more "unusual" aspects).

This open awareness has me asking since I was little kid "What is like thorough the eyes of others" in the meaning how they experience. Is my experience the "ultimate"? I can't help but wonder about this again since I am returning to this open awareness. I wonder how others feel. Especially this pleasure of just having open awareness, does others have it? This pleasure is still weird to me bc it makes me feel less of a person and I ask how other people are experiencing. I am feeling weird with that. I want to see through the eyes of others.

There's only one open awareness - just try and find the edges of it! So, it sort of doesn't make sense to talk of other people's experience of it. A person doesn't experience being open awareness; rather open awareness takes on the experience of being-a-person. That's not to say that you-as-awareness can't have the experience "as if" you were someone else, just as right now you-as-awareness is having the experience "as if" you were /u/Leewo. Surely the open awareness can take on the shape of any experience, since all potential experiences are dissolved within it?

Which leads us to say there is no "ultimate" experience, since there is no hierarchy to experience, no outside structure by which it could be organised. There is only "open awareness" taking on the shape of "this experience" or "that experience".

George do you garner all this just from a scientific stand point? I have come across similar ideas in the bhagavad gita but in a spiritual context. You always amaze me with your more logical ways of looking at things.

It just a difference of language, I guess. In modern times, we have access to streamlined analogies and metaphors that weren't available in the past. Whereas previously this stuff had to be discussed in terms of examples in nature or quite poetic language, now everyone is familiar with more abstract concepts and visualisations, so we can create more focused descriptions which are less likely to be misunderstood. It's only more "scientific" in the sense that we might use the same component patterns in our metaphors; the fundamental nature of direct experience remains the same as in the older traditions.

Is it best to just intend for a desired outcome a certain part of the day and just forget about it the rest of the day? I just use Neville Goddards method every night and try not to think much about the desired state throughout the course of the day. Is this most effective?

I think that's a good approach, having an "intending time" each day, and also some sort of daily releasing exercise you do daily. For the remainder of the day, just carry on with life - except with that extra bit: whenever you happen to notice you are spatially narrowing your attention, "cease" to do so, and when you are aware you're about to do something, do so by "intending" rather than by narrowing. (Ultimately, you want to stay open and spacious, with attentional focus shifting "by itself" within in that, in response to a larger act, rather than manually.)

When you say 'expanding' your attention, do you mean just trying to become hyper-aware, but at the same time, mindfully dismissing the minutia of existing?

More like, opening up the filter. If you were a room, and your attention was like an "intensity of experiencing" value at each co-ordinate in the room, then "expanding your attention" would mean to be more evenly aware by ceasing to forcibly narrow your attention into a small volume of the room. Rather, you'd release your hold on that value, and instead simply intend what you were doing, allowing the attentional distribution to shift by itself as was appropriate. For example, if you decided to look at one corner of the room, you wouldn't "focus your attention onto the corner" - instead you'd "decide-intent" to examine the corner of the room, and your attention would adjust in whatever was the more appropriate way. (Similar to how, when you move your body, you shouldn't manually manipulate the muscles - you should intend your final outcome and let your movements take care of themselves.)

I understand what you are saying in a basic level, but I think I should go and read that zen body movement book you recommended a while back, which is sitting on my bookshelf.

Definitely this is about experimentation, that's how it comes to make sense. Descriptions don't really capture it (largely because thinking is itself subject to the same issues). The Missy Vineyard book and the Peter Ralston one are both worth your time when it comes to the body movement stuff, since they combine clear descriptions with worthwhile exercises. Be interested to hear how you get on.

POST: another two glasses question? will i be gone from this dimension forever?

[COMMENT]

A1: In theory for what ive understood reading thousands of posts here but mostly posts of /u/TriumphantGeorge which has helped me alot and seems like a good helpful person and very expert, basically with two glasses (i did it 1 week ago and seems working i might post what i did and my results in the future) you dont really change dimension (probably it can also happen if you do it for something really big which would require a huge jump) but you basically create or edit a path in your dimension which will lead to what you wish for, basically you re-written some facts which in given time will lead to the desired situation. The world adjusts the facts by itself and you will see the results come at you sometimes also in a very blatant way. Basically you alter your reality facts for things that are plausible if very unlikely to happen.
i quote TG: "Potentially any change, although this method is going to generally produce results by "plausible if very unlikely" means. In other words, that's a pretty big discontinuous change for this zero-prep approach! Although you'll tend to get results of "some sort" anyway even for "impossible" things."
I think as the page says, its just a Demo excercise which is very helpful, but, i think to totally change the experience of living in a big way you should use the Mirror one or the others listed here, but that is too risky if attempted without experience. /u/TriumphantGeorge maybe can make it clearer for both of us, he is the expert here :-)
Sorry English is not my first language and its kinda late too.
Edit: im using a throwaway account for personal reasons.

[END OF COMMENT]

Yeah, that's about right. If you think about the Two Glasses, what you are doing is: you are asserting that a certain outcome or situation will be true from this point onwards (although evidence may take a while to appear). You are not changing the events that have accumulated so far, and you're not changing the basic "formatting" of your experience - you are exerting your influence without pushing out of your comfort zone. The results might be incredibly unlikely, but they will not "break the rules of reality" as you understand them. Which is why a simple exercise can accomplish so much; there is no resistance to the outcome other than your resistance to getting what you want or your subsequent tinkering. For more out-of-the ordinary outcomes, where the outcome contradicts "things that you know", the target pattern will need to be intensified more in order to make it "true" (and for everything else to shift in alignment with that). This likely involves confronting what you think you are and what the world is, reexamining your assumptions. Basically, everyone just needs to do some experiments for themselves and draw their own conclusions. :-)

It's definitely useful to keep experimental stuff on a separate account - if only because most people's default view is often that if you are exploring something you must necessarily be a believer in it, which isn't true at all. Especially here, where the whole idea is that you take nothing for granted. Always up for suggestions of how to improve things. We've kept it pretty free-form so far - partly because the nature of the topic is that things are "flexible" with no singular correct way - but I can see how, for example, having a flair for posts which are specifically about Two Glasses results or questions might help people better find them.

no one really buys owl related items here but i just realized that i have two little white owls statue on my desk and 3 in another room, weird lol.

Ha, that's a good one. Now you get to ponder: has it always been true that there were "two little white owls" there, or is it only true now that there were "two little white owls" there? (Do it without actually intending to produce memories for them, though; try and just see what is there in your mind already.)

Hence the thought-provoking name, The Owls Of Eternity ;-)

Q1: Haha yea well my suggestion would be to have flairs (images or words) for threads and for nicknames, so, who is new can use the flair Beginner or Yet to try and who has already done lots of expetiments or jumps can use the Expert Jumper one, also, maybe flairs with Mirror, Two Glasses, ImgRoom etc so you can put as flair which method you used. And yea also for posts so they are easier to identify when searching :) ( it could also be a two cup or mirror icon image) For the owl thing yea its crazy i swear i know what owls are but they are extremely rare where i live and for the last 20+ years ive only seen or really noticed around 3 or 6 and a few on tv or internet. Its not mainstream here... Now when i noticed i had two white ones on my desk i couldnt believe it because i remember it as just two white snowmen in a christmas contest near a christmas tree... Now i got two white owls with christmas red green hat and scarf which really makes no sense to me that a xmas related item would be snowmen in an owls shape next to a tree, lol. Its fun, indeed, and got me question as you said if they were really owls or snowmen. Btw the flair one is just a suggestion to make things clearer, its ok if you guys want the page to be as simple as possible ;)

I'm thinking we probably don't want to frame "jumping" as a sort of skill set that you become better at, since it's really about ongoing exploration, discovery and creativity. It's not really something you achieve (you actually can't get better at it, in a way, you just become more confident). Plus, it's more important that we come to understand how things are, rather than get results (although the two are sort of mixed in). But I do quite like the idea of a simple labelling for posts about a specific exercise. Thanks for the input, I shall mull it over! :-)

Yeah, having owls with christmas hats and scarves next to a tree does seem a bit... unlikely, doesn't it? :-)

honestly the mirror method seems a little like self hypnosis. EX: In order for some people to stop smoking some people try hypnosis to have certain thoughts put in their pysche (like cigarettes are gross and whatnot) to achieve the goal of actually quitting smoking.

I suppose that, if you were to discover that your "self" was in fact basically "the world", then all so-called "reality shifts" could be described as a form of "self"-hypnosis - i.e. lowering resistance to change and then modifying patterns via intention. The difference would be that you would now realise and accept that "experiences are apparently local but intentions are actively global", and your intentions would likely increase in ambition and commitment accordingly.

POST: Butterfly effect

Just as a pedantic point, I'd probably not call this the "butterfly effect", since that implies that there is a sort of "causal ripple" or chain of events that arise from an intention. That can be a misleading image, because an intention isn't an act which sets off a series of happenings. It's an instantaneous shift in the "world-pattern", out of time. With that out of the way...

It's not necessarily true that an intention necessarily leads to further obstacles - but it is true that making any change inevitably implies other changes. Using the oft-invoked metaphor of the "blanket of material": if we think of our world as a single continuous pattern on a piece of material, then adjusting the shape of a fold in that blanket will by its nature mean that you will be tugging on the material and therefore reshaping other folds. This simply follows from the continuous nature of the material, which is a metaphorical way of saying that the world must always "make sense" as a whole between intentions. (Again, the reason I don't like to call this the "butterfly effect" is because the whole world shifts instantly, like a rebalancing; there is no ripple effect involved, in time)

Now, although these "collateral shifts" might be caused by the intention in the sense that you moved the material, they are not necessarily logically connected to the intention in terms of "objects in the world". For example, you intend to have success in a business meeting, and an extra tin of peaches appears in your parent's kitchen cupboard. Furthermore, even the collateral shifts that are logically implied by your intention aren't directly caused by it as such - it's more like an "autocomplete" based on existing patterning or plausibility. For instance, your success at the meeting logically implies that the other party in the meeting was less successful, which implies that he is less well prepared, which implies that something distracted him from his preparations. Even though you intended success the morning of the meeting, it will become true now that he stayed late at a party with his wife last night and so he didn't prepare - or whatever. So, I suppose that's a long way of saying that change always implies change! The world is a single pattern, so altering the contribution of one pattern always shifts the pattern as a whole, self-consistently. To expand on another point sometimes made: you are not generally "shifting all the time", inherently anyway I'd say, but any deliberate intention you do is a rebalancing, no matter how insignificant. With something like "dimensional jumping", we are choosing to make a larger shift than we would normally do - simply because we recognise that there never were any baked in barriers to the world, and we are comfortable enough to stop re-asserting those barriers. We are, like, making a year's worth or a decade's worth of changes in one shift. Inevitably, then, what would otherwise be minor collateral changes occurring over a long time, now occur in a shorter space of time. This can feel dramatic. You could end up having to "grow up fast" as your circumstances suddenly shift, without the usual acclimatisation period. This is not a reason not to do it, but it is a reason to choose your outcomes carefully. An extra thought is, you can always incorporate the intention that things will turn out for the best, more broadly. However, you cannot intend against the discomfort of change, since that is to intend against change itself.

==I get it now.

But what about having intended to connect with a person and that said person having sprinkled leg the next day? In that line of thoughts this person could lose his leg the next time I intend. (just to make the point) And it's as likely as not given the concept of rebalancing. What about when rebalancing is done the change affecting something/someone negatively, logically related or not to the intention? Is it all "it wouldn't happen if it wasn't to happen anyways in time"==

I guess what you need to do to deal with this, is come up with a model of responsibility that satisfies you. I'll outline one below that you might use, though: The implication of this "blanket" metaphor is that the whole world-pattern is dissolved within you. It is in effect your own "private copy" of the world, fully defined as space and time pattern, but all available all-at-once. However, that doesn't mean that you "know" the current state of the world. I'd suggest that you can only take responsibility for what you know, and what you intend deliberately. It is meaningless to draw causal connections between intentions and subsequent experiential content that was not the content of that intention. Those experiences may have already been there and been unaffected, or been improved. If the (hypothetical) link is outside of your sensory experience, if it cannot be experienced in advance, it is "does not compute" to speculate on it. You would be worrying about an idea about causality - and being skeptical of "ideas about" things is one of the main foundation of this approach. If you intend to connect with someone and you meet in the street because they sprained their ankle and had to stop to rest - well, you could hypothesise that maybe it was already "patterned" that they sprained their ankle, and what changed is you went down that street. Or the sprain changed date and location. But you would just be making up stories, since there is effectively no longer any "how it was before". Something to consider too, is: There is effectively no "how things are" until you've experienced them in the senses. And strictly speaking, the only definite "how things are" is the content of your sensory experience right now. Before you intended to meet that person, subsequently encountering them with their sprained ankle on the street, perhaps they had actually been patterned as "died in a car crash five years ago"...

How come they could have been patterned as "died in a car crash rs ago" given the concept "how things are" (your sensory experience right and only every now) when I saw them the previous day and every other day. It is mind blowing what I've got from your post.

Well, for the sake of the example, I was actually assuming that the person was someone you hadn't seen for years! Basically, I'm saying that you just have no idea of how things might be patterned before you intend or before you encounter facts relating to them in the senses, and how dramatic the shift might have been in a good way.

Ok got it. Till the next time I don't understand something. I feel a little bit foolish. Thanks. Does this thing works for depressed mood (currently nofap but just came off depression). And is it okay to use the two glasses method as often you want for different purposes? Like one day one thing and the next other. (Or two times a day) What would be more direct way and with the same efficiency? Dammit it's hitting me bad.

Well, I could have been clearer!

I was trying to emphasise that while things are still unobserved, you have no idea what the implied patterning might be for those things. The extent of a shift could mean a shift from an upcoming "reading in the paper tomorrow that your friend Bob died five years ago" to an upcoming "grabbing a coffee tomorrow and bumping into your friend Bob". (Meanwhile, there is a side discussion to be had about the extent to which having observed something means it is "fixed fact" from then on. It is not, necessarily, but that "fact" does become a strong contributor to subsequent experiences, so re-patterning it would involve quite a rebalancing. However: Mandela Effect or Glitch reports about someone you thought was dead years ago, still being around, etc.)

Every Two Glasses session is a fresh session. So, you can do it for one situation. Then, another time, do it for another situation. Every time you do it, you are connecting different states to the glasses and water, and performing a different shift. Doing it for mood is actually a good experiment to do, but: decide in advance that you won't oppose or fiddle with any mood shifts that happen. (Another experiment: just sit quietly for a moment, and then "intend" to "feel really happy" - and see what happens.)

I fell into deep meditating state. All is good now. Immediate changes were my internet connection dying since I wrote the previous comment and having no more flatline (nofap). I guess that's what we call a jump.

That's an interesting combination, for sure!

More weird was what followed (see Derealization if you haven't).

Just glanced over at it. If you are still feeling a disconnect, maybe try directing your attention towards your lower abdomen - not focusing on it so much as including it in your "presence" or "sphere of awareness" or attention. Then, gradually include other parts of your body space. You may have ended up being "over here" while the rest of your sensation are "over there"; this would dim everything down and make you feel kind of remote. There's a difference between everything being dreamlike (which it is), with feeling separate from it (which you are not). Generally, relaxing into the dreamlike feeling is a release of attention, an opening out, and feels present, good and "alive". Don't be afraid of just "intending" that sort of thing, just as you did with the mood, after deciding how you want things to be. You can tinker with it until you get something you like.

POST: WARNING - Please heed - Horrible result from mirror jump - family member suicide due to demonic possession

It's always hard to deal with the loss of a family member. That's never an easy thing to go through, and it's inevitable that we will go looking for reasons and answers afterwards. However...

There are no "evil demonic spirits", and people should be wary of obsessing about whether they "caused" something bad to happen when the connection is very vague like this (generally speaking anyway, and definitely in this case). If you didn't explicitly intend for something to happen, then any connection you make between your action and subsequent events is pretty much just story-making. It pains me to say it, but for a change this may actually be confirmation bias!

So, your post should serve as a warning - not about exploring the topic, but about being specific with intention and being quite ruthless when drawing connective lines between experiments and outcomes.

On Believing in Things

If you believe in things - by which I mean, if you fully adopt the conceptual framework or pattern of a particular worldview - then you are certain to have experiences "as if" they are true. This applies to spirits, souls, dimensional jumping, alternative realities, alien beings, norse gods and... just being a person hanging out on planet Earth leading a boring life. None of these things, including mundane life, are fundamentally true as context; they are relatively true as content. Note, I am not saying that those experiences are psychological or that they are "not real". Rather, I am saying that the only thing that is consistently real is the fact that you are having an experience (that you are a "consciousness"), but actual the content of the particular experience depends on what ideas you have absorbed. In other words: all experiences happen on an "as if something is true" basis only. Dimensional Jumping depends upon this. It is the fact that if we strongly adopt a specific intentional pattern, we can have experiences consistent with that pattern. (And that, by implication, our everyday world is noting more substantial than a pattern which we happen to have adopted and accepted unwittingly.)

So there are no alternate realities as such; there are just discontinuities in our experience "as if" we had switched reality. There are no "evil demonic spirits" , but we can have experiences "as if" there are such things. You can test this for yourself, by selecting an arbitrary pattern and then fully committing to it. For example, deeply decide to pretend that the weather is controlled by spirits who listen to your mood and adjust the sky accordingly. (Seriously.)

On Intention & Responsibility

I'll keep this one quick, because it has been expanded upon in the links below. The summary:

• If you did not intend something specifically, then you are not responsible for it.
• Responsibility is dependent on knowledge. The only knowledge you have is of the content of your specific intention.
• Responsibility for things outside of that intention, would require knowledge of what was going to happen before that intention, knowledge that it changed after that intention, and that it was your intention that specifically caused the change.
• None of these apply in your case. You didn't even intend anything! You just had a spooky experience!

Basically, I think you are probably just suffering from a mixture of fear and guilt - perhaps exacerbated by a religious upbringing - and are attaching meanings to events accordingly. Perhaps you associate exploring these areas as "bad" or "forbidden"?

Most problematically, you are mixing differing worldviews. The worldview that leads to "dimensional jumping" is by definition one that does not include "evil demonic spirits" as beings with independent agency!

In summary, then:

• You are not responsible for the events that occurred. (For starters you didn't do anything that would lead to change, and if you had you still wouldn't have "caused" the outcome since it wasn't specified).
• You do not need to worry about evil spirits and so on. (Well, unless you really like worrying about them, of course. That's up to you.)

Related Links: You might find the conversation over at The Butterfly Effect post worth a look too, for this. See also: the Kirby Surprise interview about synchronicity that is linked in the introductory sticky, for quite good examples on the "as if" thing.

I suspect this is what lies at the heart of why things like servitors or tulpas work. If I convince myself that entity X causes Y to happen, then I just need to continuously assert that entity X exists for Y to happen seemingly naturally, right?

It's at the heart of how anything works, really, but those are definitely good examples. It's all about your intention and the implications of your intention - where I'd define intention as "thinking the fact of something being true or existing" or "increasing the relative intensity or contribution of a pre-existing pattern". (I say "pre-existing" because you should consider all possible facts or patterns to be eternally present and always contributing to your ongoing experience; what changes is their relative 'brightness".)

POST: Owls say go for it but everything else says to give up.

I think you are kind of mixing up models here: that of direct patterning (the owls) and "messages from the universe" (your interpretation of the numbers). The fact is, the more you imprint yourself with 555 and 999, the more those numbers will appear in your experience, regardless of any meaning - just like the owls. So our thinking then goes to: how can we pattern the experience of "getting together with someone", using the same principles that are behind the owls? In general, I wouldn't worry about "the universe" and what it has to say, except as a reading of your own previous intentions. Which isn't to say that you can't structure yourself such that you experience "having insight via symbols" if that's what you like, but it seems a very roundabout way of handling something you can likely do more directly.

POST: Can I use the two glasses method to get a girlfriend?

If there's someone you like, ask them out. If there isn't, just start keeping an eye out. A sip of water in the meantime will, at the very least, keep you hydrated in preparation for the fun ahead. And if you're doing that anyway, putting a couple of labels on the glasses isn't much bother. ;-)

you'll get a girlfriend but end up in a universe in which you also die of cholera

Um, that does seem a little bit extreme! :-p

I was exaggerating...

...your monkey doesn't just have paws, it has talons laced with teen-specific biocide!

Are you saying I am a teen? Well, thank you very much for that compliment. Haven't heard that in over 40 years. Anyway, I wasn't being mean, I could have used anything else as an example but many people here on reddit don't get subtlety. So I thought, go and say something easy to understand. How is this being taken the wrong way? [Seriously].

On my end, I was just entertained by your example of a "monkey paw" effect being so extreme, promoting mental imagery of a particularly savage occult revenge monkey - the "teen-specific biocide" was because our OP is only 17. Although I'm sure you are young at heart too. ;-)

I think others may have misread your response as being dismissive, though, just because without a smiley to denote that it is well-meaning, the interpretation of it is vulnerable to whatever mood the reader happens to be in when they encounter it.

POST: Half a year ago, I jumped. Here is my final update.

It's a shame the header is the same number, but I believe that it should be a longer number (6+ digits) so that smaller jumps could be noted as well, and not just planet-changing ones. Maybe I'll make a website with a long dimension number for dimension jumpers to use

It would really make no difference, because: a) dimensions are not literal of course, but also: b) if there are an infinite number of states, then there are an infinite number of different states with the same number, no matter how long that number is. This is why the sidebar emphasises that the header number should be views as "an emblem of change and a symbol of potential rather than an ID".

The longer the number, the more likely it is that during the creation of the website, a different number was generated, hence, it would allow one to detect more minute changes.

I don't see the logic in that. You'd have to lay out why, exactly, it would be more "likely". The creation of a website is a static event - it is true now that the result will be this - within a particular state. The creation does not "happen" in time. There are an infinite number of states which have that same result. Furthermore, there is no necessary link between the number and the rest of the state. Literally every other part of the state could be different, and yet the number could be identical - even if that number was infinite. This is because the number is not a hash, or summary, of the state; it is merely another pattern of fact within it.

There is no indication that the header number on this subreddit will change either, but if it does - it will be irrefutable proof for the individual that they did jump. The number will be randomly generated and parsed through multiple more time randomly, which should, in theory, give a different result in each dimension since even small changes result in random number generators having different outcomes.

Indeed: a change of state doesn't necessarily give rise to a change in number, but if a change in number were observed then for the observer that would be proof of a change (whether in the world or in their memory of the world). Again, though, given the background concept of a shift, it just doesn't necessarily matter whether the number is randomly generated, multiply parsed, and so on. None of that actually "happens" as such, in this model. The number as it is, was - in narrative terms - already randomly generated by the entirety of all history, but really the moment, now.

We seem to have different ideas of how dimension jumping happens. In my interpretation, you are switching places with yourself from an alternative timeline as such, their past might have difference to your past. Hence, if the past was different, the outcome of the random number might be different and that would eventually change the number displayed on the website.

So - that's not the concept, really, as I see it. There is no "other you" and there is no past as such; there is just an ongoing now-state which has a patterned personal memory. If you update a fact in this now-state, the whole state will shift coherently, but it is not the same as going back in time to make a change or there being a parallel timeline that you are jumping to. There are no timelines, other than as a narrative fiction to help construct or describe intentions; "dimensions" fall into the same category. If I modify my current state, then, there is no reason why the number should change unless it is entangled with the fact I am modifying. Not entangled in terms of a history, note, but in terms of a logically coherent world at this moment. For example, being silly for a moment, if I shifted my state to one where the number "9" was written differently, then the number would have to change visually to be consistent (although: I could also subsequently encounter a plausible story about it being a stylised choice, or an error, which "explains it"). So it doesn't actually matter what the supposed mechanism by which the number is generated is; that process never actually "happens" anyway - the mechanism doesn't really generate the number in the way we normally assume - and if you make a change to your state it definitely doesn't "happen" again as some sort of replay. Your state could change such that the evidence, now, for your past is completely different, and still the number could be the same - especially if it is an supposedly random number (because then it has no logical link to the rest of the state at all). What we need, then, is something which absolutely dependent on the rest of the state, that must be different whenever the state is different. The only thing that fits the bill is your own global sense of state - your felt-sense. Other than that, the way to know whether you've "jumped" is by observing that the experience you have intended, has now become your experience!

That's an interesting explanation! I was basing this idea off the fact that many people reported seeing slight alterations in history when they jumped, so I thought that those changes tend to have a Butterfly effect on the rest of history - inevitably leading to different outcomes for random situations. Since, dimension jumping is still an unexplored concept, I will follow through with the website idea. Who knows? Maybe there is only an ongoing state of things, or maybe there is a parallel timelines in the sense I intended. Thank you for your input, it is much appreciated!

Yes, as I see it: "alterations in history" in the sense of the past changing is an interpretation. What is actually observed, is a discrepancy between what you see now and what you remember, also now. Once a fact has been changed, then all subsequent experiences will be in alignment with that fact "as if" it were always the case - the world always "makes sense". However, the world did not get "replayed" from some historical point. The entire pattern of the world is always now. There some additional factors that come into play to do with how we conceive of events, but the essential idea is: you can't rely on the replay of a process in your test, because the world merely has to be self-consistent as a pattern; it doesn't have to actually unfold in time. Anyway, yeah: don't let me discourage you from playing with stuff, because if nothing else it encourages us to think things through. However, I would point out that one of they key underlying ideas in this subreddit is that there is a difference between thoughts about experience - "parallel constructions in thought" - and the experience as-it-is. Have you ever observed a "timeline"? Or is it a diagrammatic convenience that exists only in thought? This is a general point about the reification of abstractions, and it is worth considering no matter what your overall position on this. This even includes ideas such as the world apparently being a "spatially-extended place unfolding in time". That's why the sidebar has a section on "Active Metaphors".

Thank you for providing me with an interesting read, I will definitely think about this. All dimensional jumps are really hard to have experiments conducted on, as they are not falsifiable. I hope to merely bring another possible anchor point on which people can maybe build more concrete data as regards to "jumping". Your replies have been very enlightening, thank you.

Basically, ideas like "falsifiability" are pretty much meaningless here, since you are no longer modelling things using the "objective world" container concept. Even our usual description of ourselves as "a person in a world of objects" no longer applies; we have to shift to a direct observation perspective, and reconsider the "nature of experiencing" itself. All of which is, of course, why this is such an interesting avenue to explore! The "results" are actually secondary, in the end; that's just the hook really. Thanks for the enjoyable discussion! (And if you like that article, you may also find this Quanta article [https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/] and this Nature article of interest [https://www.nature.com/articles/507421a].)

So, I mean, are you just essentially going back to the Bill Hicks 'joke'?: Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Myself, I'm getting to the stage where I'm becoming more...adept at jumping and jumping into realities where life is substantially different to the 'human' experience. Jumping itself is easier, jumping into a substantially different 'reality' is more difficult although I feel like I'm getting to that point rather quickly. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. :)

Well, maybe. I do like the phrase "we are the imagination of ourselves", though; that nicely captures it, eh. It avoids any "stuff" or labels but gets to the essence of the experience. There's no perfect description though. I quite like:

• "What you truly are is 'awareness', whose only intrinsic property is being-aware, and which 'takes on the shape of' states or experiences, such as the experience of being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person".

However, I just can't get it to work in my stand-up routine, for some reason. :-)

George... during our chat today I mentioned the same Bill Hicks quote. Although, I have a feeling that isn't the first or last time it's been quoted here lol.

It does seem to have been "quote of the day", today!

POST: An experiment with the two glasses method

Well, the whole thing is an exploration of "the nature of experiencing", so treat it like an investigation, I'd say, and feel free to try anything. Having said that, 2G is not designed to be "world-breaking" so much as "world-shifting" - it typically involves results that fall within "plausibility" even if situationally completely improbable. So I would generally start with things like outcomes you want to happen in life, introducing patterns into your ongoing experience, stuff like that, and do this repeatedly until the idea of it being a coincidence become ridiculous. Then you can push it further, and contemplate what it means. Until then, lacking a sense of why the exercise is designed the way it is and how the results come about, efforts to "prove the validity of the methods" can sometimes miss the point. Even the phrases "validity of the methods", "strengthen one's belief" and "strengthen the ritual" are somewhat loaded with assumptions - assumptions which might turn out to be incorrect upon further examination. Think: what are you testing, exactly?

Q1: The way you explain things is the master of craft i would love to experience. Phenomenal work TG, and may i ask: " do this repeatedly until the idea of it being a coincidence become ridiculous." So just keep repeating the same thing day-by-day even if it fails? How does feeling intake into these assumptions/experiences?

I guess I mean, that if you keep deliberately intending for results (using your narrative of choice), and you keep getting them, then over time "it's a coincidence" or "it's confirmation bias" will not be tenable. In other words, you don't have to force a "rule-breaking" experience in order to be convinced; simply continually getting what you ask for can be sufficient. Although in fact, the manner by which outcomes come about will tend to become more outlandish, the more you continue. But only you can do this, personally, by intending; nobody can demonstrate this for you. Of course, if you don't get any results at all, ever, then you can feel free to dismiss the whole idea that there is anything unusual going on also. Not sure what you're asking, regarding feeling. Care to expand?

Q1: I completely agree as i've have experienced this to a certain extent, beginning with average cars such as a corolla S 2016, to a Maserati. Now speaking about the feeling, in the sense towards manifestation itself. You know acquiring ownership of the coincidence that often manages to follow you as you proceed with the intentions. Since this matrix is all mental based on feelings as some would say. So instead from seeing it day-to-day basis where ever you go, To having it, being able to use it, etc.

Hmm, so I'm not sure I'd agree that what we're dealing with here is "all mental based on feelings". Feelings are certainly things that can arise as aspects of our ongoing experience, parts of the pattern, and there can be a general felt-sense that is like a summary of our current state - but regardless of whether we feel like we are the world, or feel like we are a little person, we always are the entire thing. Meanwhile, I'd say we have to be careful of the desire to want feel ourselves "doing" things: intention is not a "doing" and has no particular experience associated with it. To focus on wanting to, for example, "feel powerful like a God", can be more of an impediment than anything else. Better to simply recognise the true situation, and from that recognition will flow experiences which support it. Having said that, spending a moment to assert that you are "the space in which, and as which, sensory experiences arise" can give you that sense of a shift in your perspective, placing the world and the person you apparently are in proper context. The experience is sort of like waking up and realising everything is inside you (and that there is no outside to it). Maybe that's a way forward?

POST: Is it possible to jump and change things for another person? If so, please help me.

Forget the idea of gurus or prodigies, it's all down to your own experimentation, but I can think of a few things:

• Try the "boundary" exercise described in this post [POST: Jumping for remission of mental illnesses] (you may find some of the other exercises in that thread useful too);
• Try reframing your experience as you being an open space in which sensations arise (this changes your sense of self relative to others);
• Experiment with "asserting" that the space you occupy is friendly and polite, by reaching out and filling the space around you with that "atmosphere".

Most importantly, though, you have to cease preparing for or defending against impoliteness, because doing that implies the fact. For as long as you keep doing that, you will continue to maintain that patterning in your experience in one way or another, I suggest.

A1: you can start by deciding you are not a victim. There is no inherent "negativity" of others. There are only other people talking or taking actions, with or without the intent of manipulating you emotionally. It then is your choice as to how you view and react to their blah-blah. You are currently choosing to view them as "being negative" and then "getting you down". Imagine if you were viewing them on TV doing their blah-blah. Would you make the same choices based on what you saw? So choose otherwise. Stop with this "impervious to negativity". Negativity is not a "thing". It is a decision in your mind.

POST: It worked in ways I couldn't imagine.

Dimensions aren't "places". You are assuming that the world is a "simple, single, shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time" and that people must "go somewhere", but this isn't necessarily true. Keeping it simpler, though:

can see the post from your previous, "unhappy" universe (the one where you wrote that you are going to jump), which shouldn't exist in your "happy" universe.

However, there can quite easily be a "universe" where she posted an unhappy post, and then things magically turned around. The truth is, that the concept of a "universe" is just that: a useful idea. It implies there are a set of "places" with an unchanging fact set, and this story jars against that, but it is just a concept. In your actual experience what happens is that the content of your experience shifts. You never really experience going anywhere; that's just a description that is sometimes useful to help us conceive of change or grasp experiences. Anything that you think about experience that involves an unobserved "outside" aspect is immediately "wrong", just useful narratives. This includes "dimensions", "universes", even "objective worlds" or any other version of an "external environment" idea. So, to argue about whether someone's changes are because they "jumped dimensions" or something else, is really an argument about categorisation rather than about what "really happened". What really happened was: the content of their experience shifted.

Q1: What really happened was: the content of their experience shifted.
But if your concept is right, there is no "their" experience, because they are just a part of my experience. And in my experience, you say, literally anything can happen, breaking any laws of physics and common sense. I could end their existence by shifting my experience, shift it so that they never existed. Would it end their first-person experience too? The world isn't shared at all, it seems. That's a cool concept of course, but i'm not getting lucky with any of the techniques. Even with the owls.

Indeed. Although to pick up on a couple of points:

• You can't end "their" experience because, as you note, it is "your" experience, which in turn means there is just "experience" really, with no ownership, only experiencing. The Hall of Records metaphor tries to provide a simple way to think about that sort of thing, but of course in truth it is literally unthinkable. Conceptual thought is "too late" when it comes to trying to grasp the nature of experience. You can't think of what is "before" division and multiplicity and change (= objects relating to one another in a mental space), because thought is already chopped up into objects. Thoughts never get "behind" experiences; they are themselves just experiences.
• The "laws of physics" and "common sense" aren't rules in the sense of being a solid independent structured substrate upon which events occur. Rather, they are the "codification of [a subset of] experiences to date". (The "subset" part is because what gets included is already pre-selected by a conceptual framework, particularly the "container concept" of an "objective world", which relatively recent). So, we must remind ourselves that: the observations restrict the possible valid models, the models don't restrict the possible valid observations.

But yeah, all of that is fair enough and fascinating to ponder, and it can help you somewhat grasp the nature things as it is, but to really know it you'd want to actually produce experiences on an "as if" basis that goes beyond your usual assumptions. So, the owls should be a nice easy entry point. There are some things which might get in the way of making any changes, though. For example, something to check for yourself: When you go about your day, do you tend to "grip onto" your attentional focus? Or do you tend to assert your current bodily position and current experience? Are you "in control" from moment to moment, moving your body deliberately and with focus? As opposed to, "directing" yourself to do something and then allowing your body, thoughts and attentional focus to move "by themselves" towards your goal. As you read these words on this screen right now, is your spatial attention narrowed down onto them? Are you "using your eyes" to see this paragraph? Or are you "open and spacious" and allowing the world to "come to you" instead?

The reason for asking that is that continually intending everything, never releasing experience to just flow, can essentially amount to a constant re-assertion of your previous or habitual state, in opposition to other intended changes. This is why we say that doing the exercises should require no effort and no particular sense of intense focus or doing (because it "fixes" you in place).

Q1: This is why we say that doing the exercises should require no effort and no particular sense of intense focus or doing (because it "fixes" you in place).
Sounds like having concentration problems and bad memory would help, lol. How should one achieve the state of being "open and spacious" if concentrating on it would be an obvious mistake? I'm doing blank mind meditation every day for about a half an hour. Doesn't seem to help.

Ha, yes, people with poor memories might be getting everything they ever intend always, effortlessly, but ironically they never get to appreciate it. :-)

Alright, I'm now going to type out whatever occurs to me on this topic - So, it's not about having a blank mind or whatever. Rather, it's about reshaping your experience so that it is formatted with a different perspective, and you then don't narrow again. A key thing to realise is:

• Events are apparently local; intentions are actively global.

Which is to say, that although (for example) when you move your hand, the sensation of that occurring seems to be localised spatially, the intention or "wish" that triggers that experience is not localised - it is "unlocated" and "unbounded". It is a shift in the subject, not of an object. This is why you don't need to concentrate your spatial attention on your hand in order to move it, and if you do then you are intending something additional (narrowed attention and tension) rather than doing something causal. This can be visualised as overlaying a pattern of intention upon the current pattern of experience - like moire fringes. The intentional pattern has no boundary, it is equally everywhere, however it's combination with the current pattern results in a localised experience. Now, how does this apply to being "open and spacious"? In two ways:

• To become "open and spacious" one simple decides to be open and spacious.
• Having become "open and spacious" one now allows one's sensory experience to simply unfold unobstructed, without narrowing down or gripping it, having realised that intending does not require focus or indeed any "doing".

The phrases which may help describe this formatting of experience are:

• What you truly are is an awareness, a non-material "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiences. Or:
• You are an open mind-space within which your ongoing experience spontaneously unfolds. Your main strand of experience of "being a person in a world" can be conceived of as a particularly bright, stbale, 3D-immersive, multi-sensory thought.

Finally, a little exercise can help give us a direct experience of what it means to be the subject to all experience, to recognise that we are not an object and that we are "unlocated". We might close our eyes and try to:

a) find the "edges" of your current experience.
b) find where "you" are in your current experience. and:
c) investigate what your current is experience is "made from". finally:
d) think about yourself, and then note the location of that thought and what it is "made from".

The conclusions of this are the facts of your experience - the only actual facts, really; everything else is transitory. It also lets us realise why narrowing down or forcing change tends to backfire, because it is a restrictive deformation of your current experience, which obstructs other intentions. In short, you want to cease interfering and adopt the stance of being rather than doing-controlling, at which point your intentions are minimally obstructed. Otherwise you are effectively intending two things at once: you are intending your current situation and your target situation simultaneously, like trying to get up out of a chair by focusing on "being sat down" while intending to shift to "being stood up"! (Lots of people do exactly this. It is a worthwhile exercise to experiment with standing up effortlessly without "doing" it. The same principles apply to both the mundane and the exotic.)

Q1: In a stupid simple takeaway from this, isn't this why a "assume the wish fulfilled" is a helpful technique? Effectively replacing your reality that way you aren't forcing anything anymore?

Yes, although I think that phrasing can sometimes leave people with no way into it (depending on their background). So equivalently we might say that we would "think the fact of something being true", where that "thinking" involves attending to an unbounded, unlocated, non-object thought. An intention, basically, which is: the pattern that you wish to make more prominent in your ongoing experience. When engaging in that, there is no experience associated with it as such (unless the intentional pattern has implications for your sensory experience right now), because there is no object present only a "dissolved pattern" being increased in its intensity, however there is a knowing that you are intending.

do you mean more discontinuous, less plausible intentions?

It was more to do with the spatial and temporal "co-ordinates" of the target outcome vs your current experience. I mean that you never actually experience "intending", you only ever experience the "results" - as in, the resultant content of your state. So if you intend something that doesn't affect this current sensory moment, then there's no reason why you should experience anything while doing it, other than "knowing" that you are intending. If you intend an outcome that takes place tomorrow, or a fact that only affects a situation in Sweden while you are in Toronto, there's no "result" for you to experience right now, even though your state has shifted. (Note: you might sense a "shift" but that's not necessarily the case.)

Q2: /u/triumphantgeorge now this just occurred to me: since i've been looking for anyone who could possibly understand me to meet, and any scenario i choose can be experienced - then couldn't i meet you? i imagine it would be like the "(you) speaking as i'm thinking" verse i saw in the caitanya bhagavatam. and if i wanted you to do something - wouldn't you?

It's an interesting idea. However, if you have already "patterned" me as a quite independent, purposeful character in your experience, then it might not be so simple as simply "wanting", because my "definition" might be contrary to that. You might have to change me first. As in dreams, you'd probably be better intending a new, fit for purpose character, rather than adjusting an ingrained existing one in an attempt to make it responsive.

Q2: As in dreams, you'd probably be better intending a new, fit for purpose character, rather than adjusting an ingrained existing one in an attempt to make it responsive.
but ultimately it would only be my decision, wouldn't it. as with everyone in the entire cosmos - only i decide everyone's fate and behaviour....

...and your new decision is added to the accumulation of all your decisions to date, as an amendment to your present state.

so there are no "fixed" characters

No fixed anything, only things that you keep intending or implying. The "implying" part is the tricky one, because sometimes it is implied by a more abstract pattern than an individual fact, perhaps. For example, intending a movement implies a location implies a coherent continuous space, and so on. Whole world dynamics may be associated with a particular fact or outcome, therefore. So one might need to keep in mind the "granularity" one is dealing with - attend to a more global fact, in order to better tackling minor or local facts subsequently. (The only thing that is permanent and fundamentally true is the fact of "awareness".)

/u/triumphantgeorge so couldn't i just make you appear somewhere at my choosing?

I don't see why not. But then, what I see or not doesn't really matter. Can you see a "why not"?

the only impediments I see are recognising your form and the 'story' by which i see you

...within you.

...

A1: I don't care if I jumped or if it's all coincidence. My life is better and I'm happier. Your skepticism is real downer though.

POST: Changing the past?

What you are really after, is to shift your ongoing experience such that it behaves "as if" the past were different. Neville Goddard has a nice discussion on that in one of his essays - see the links in the relevant post, perhaps.

POST: Get off your ass and do something about it.

However - if the purpose of the exercise is ultimately to conduct an experiment, to give yourself an experience that provides an insight into "the nature of ongoing experience", then your post is missing the point. Putting that aside though, if we were staying focused on outcomes it would probably help if you describe how, exactly a person goes about "making it work out". You can encourage people to "do things", but you have to say what exact things people should "do". Meanwhile, any description like that has a set of hidden assumptions, an underlying philosophy. Since in the end that's the deeper purpose of this subreddit - to reveal hidden assumptions, and use that knowledge - then laying this out would be helpful. Like, your theory of why "fate is more likely determined" by what you choose to do other than "2 fucking glasses". What if you choose to do two glasses?

Otherwise you're literally and unhelpfully saying: "hey, don't do that thing, instead do... um... y'know... something else".

What a person should do obviously depends on the situation he is in? I'm just saying take an active step to ameliorate your predicament.

Of course! But the difficulty can often be in knowing what that active step should be. You need the world to "move" and a path to open up. Just "doing stuff" often doesn't produce that; it just produces "being busy" without any accomplishment. In fact, your own behaviour is also part of the result of performing the experiment. The reason the final instruction in the exercise is to "carry on with your life" is because the overall movement towards a goal also includes your own bodily and mental movements. It doesn't say "now sit and wait for the championship trophy to be delivered by FedEx".

Example: Perhaps what might happen is, the day after the exercise you would feel the urge to call a friend, and in your conversation he might mention he just met a great coach that was doing free sessions, and you would find yourself feeling enthusiastic about that so you'd go along, and the new coach has a special method he uses which lets you master certain moves really quickly, so by the time the tournament comes around you are totally ready in that particular area, and then in the tournament the moves that come up happen to be the exact ones you've just mastered in such a short time - the trophy is yours. You get the idea. Although in practice it can be both more or less "logical" than that, more or less pushing against the boundaries of apparent likelihood, depending. Ultimately, the whole thing is recognised to be a sort of "patterning" of your ongoing experience.

POST: I'm interested in the idea of jumping - help me test it

The simplest way to demonstrate that there is "something to this", is to perform the exercise repeatedly over an extended period for many different outcomes, until eventually the idea that it is "coincidence" becomes ridiculous (or doesn't, of course). This then leads you to examine your assumptions about the "nature of experiencing", and things progress from there. Beyond that, if you are looking for "proof" of something, though, you should be clear about what, exactly you are looking to prove. What do you mean by "confirm if something happens". What precisely is the "something" that you are trying to confirm "happens"? What does the term "jumping" mean for you, basically?

Of course, it is not the pouring of water as such that produces an outcome. And the outcomes from that process tend to unfold as "seemingly very unlikely, but still borderline plausible and non-reality-breaking" narratives. We demonstrate to ourselves that something is going on, and then we move onto examining the nature of that "something". I think your two suggestions might be skipping ahead too much, before you've really thought deeply enough, and so might neither prove nor disprove anything as they stand.

POST: Is this a stupid concern?

Nobody has jumped yet. We all want to jump dimensions but there hasn't been legitimate proof that anybody has jumped to a radically different dimension yet. That's what we're all hoping for - real evidence of that but there hasn't been anything. It's like everybody comes back here empty-handed. No worthy proof of any sort of real Dimension Jump.

This... isn't how it works, Roril! I thought we'd already worked through this previously?

If someone says something about their experience to you, then that experience of "someone saying something about their experience to me" is an aspect of your ongoing experience. There is no "outside" to that. This means that any "external" proof of a change is actually just your own experiential content. It's like being in a dream and waiting for someone to tell you it's a dream. If someone did tell you it was a dream, then it would actually be you telling yourself that it's a dream! The idea that one of your dream characters wakes up, discovers it was a dream, and then returns to your dream to tell you about it, would be ridiculous.

No we're the dreamers, though!

You are the whole dream.

Johnny Deep.

Mister Literal!

POST: Dimensional Shifting in a nutshell

Let it be said first that, you are ALWAYS shifting. You are shifting multiple times as you read this comment.

I'm not sure this is necessarily the best (by which I mean most useful) way to look at it, since it conflates "current sensory content" with "current state", potentially. It is, I think, much more useful to conceive of a "state" as comprising the current set of pattern-facts that are contributing to your experience, and a deterministic set of "moments" corresponding to that. That way, a "shift" or "jump" can be defined as an intentional change from one state to another, and a "dimension" is basically a state consisting of a particular set of world-facts. "Time passing" is then considered to be a static pattern associated with a particular state. This doesn't necessarily affect your overall descriptive scheme, though; it's just a point of clarity. (The same consideration also applies to the Infinite Grid and Hall of Records metaphors linked in the sidebar, which cover similar ground.) However, it does lead to another important aspect to this:

At this moment shall we say, at 3:01pm, I am at point A.

In what sense are you "at point A", though? What is this "I" that is there? Related:

Again, we humans are limited.

In what sense are we "humans", if "being human" is actually just a particular type of experience associated with a point in a configuration space? Surely you are having a "human-formatted experience", rather than actually being human?

Thanks for the clarification G! :) Yes you're right, our body (human-formatted experience) is inside our consciousness not the other way around (consciousness being inside our body). I still have the habit of considering our temporal selves as a reference point haha.

Right. It's a bit counter intuitive, because we can't actually think about this, since we are talking about the subject to all objects, and words and concepts only deal in objects - but it's beneficial to point it out. The primary benefit of noting this explicitly, I think, is it makes it clear that all content and formatting is a "modulation of awareness" - including the metaphors we've just been discussing. It's all "patterning" and none of it is fundamentally true, only relatively so. This reminds us that the only thing that is unchangingly true is "awareness" (or "consciousness"). And it's not even "our" consciousness, because it is "before" division and multiplicity; it is simply the property of being-aware, independent of any particular content or structuring or apparent perspective. Basically, it underlines that all aspects of experience, even very basic aspects, are on an "as if" basis only. This leads nicely to a consideration of the "how" of shifting, which might be usefully described as a shape-shifting of oneself, as awareness, to another "as if" form.

Q1: In what sense are we "humans", if "being human" is actually just a particular type of experience associated with a point in a configuration space?
but where do people - yourself included - exist in relation to me?
people have mass and location despite the content of their 'personality' and 'experiences'
if I assume my experience of my body incorporates the totality of the cosmos1A 1B 2 then 'finding' people shouldn't be so mysterious
presently I feel i have to cut all the bonds of speculations of matter being existential separate to awareness and in that regard, people would be as objects too
Rupert Spira - Consciousness Is Not Produced by the Brain [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icBYIUTZ5gI]

Although, really, "mass" and "location are ideas, concepts we use to describe our experience; we do not actually experience them as such. People are essentially sight, sound and texture within mind, and everything else is inferred.

Could you explain what you mean by "division and multiplicity?" I'm a tragically linear thinker and none of this will ever work for me until I iron out these details.

I just mean that the fundamental state is undivided, has no property other than being-aware. So in that state there is not "many things", but also not "one thing" either: "things" and "numbers of things" are just meaningless when talking of that state. It is the "subject" that takes on the shape of apparent objects ("division" into objects and "multiplicity" because immediately we are dealing with "countable things") but is not itself an object. It's hard to describe (impossible, in fact), because thoughts and concepts immediately involve dealing with objects, but we can always point to the fact that the context of our experience, our experience right now, is always that subject, which is us.

POST: Theoretically, could you jump to a fictional universe/ a world you created in your mind?

How can you tell that your current experience isn't already a fictional universe that you created, perhaps accidentally, in your mind? How could distinguish between this being a "real place", and a "persistent realm" that you'd set in motion while forgetting your experience prior to that? (I mean this seriously: look around, what are the actual signs, if any, that could tip you off? And consider: are those signs not just a part of the "fiction" of this experience?)

It seems a very depressing prospect.

I don't think it is, though. Although in that comment I'm presenting it as "hey perhaps you did this unwittingly", in actual fact the concept lends itself to a positive interpretation, that of great possibility, great potential and freedom once it is grasped. And for people who are kind of "down on death", it's surely a prettier picture. Remember, in this description a "hard reset" couldn't be done to you from the outside (because there is no "outside" in this view). It's something that would occur due to ignorance or deliberate choice. The former, we can address. Is that not hopeful, rather than depressing?

Could the patterning model be intrinsically anti-entropic?

Fundamentally, it is "before" the idea of entropy, because even "things change" is a pattern. Or more specifically: "time passing" is a pattern, an experience, rather than a fundamental thing. So "eventually" one is bound to realise rediscover one's power. You are eternal "being" but you are not doomed to endlessly repeat, because you are not a finite mechanism. There is no "logical reason" at all, then, why the whole thing can't just drop away, right now, and you switch to a state of infinite abstracted possibility - free from that crappy hellishness. The issue is, perhaps, that it must occur to you to ask - or in some way end up implying - this. I guess that if the same power that moves your arms and legs (or rather: takes on the experience of apparent movement) also moves mountains, it's no good if one doesn't actually attempt to use it in that way, with commitment?

So, what reassures you that this is not a problem?

It's inherently not a problem, though, right? Unless you are still identified with being a particular person (or person-pattern). Once you realise your actual situation - if you are identified, instead, with the property of being-aware - then it isn't. This occurs in a couple of ways, in fact. First, you don't mind the idea of things shifting in the sense of it being an existential problem. Second, you know that if you want you could establish a context to experience, a context that is independent of its content.

Nonetheless, there are things outside our direct control. Things that happen to us, apparently without our deliberate choice (sometimes against it).

The issue, perhaps, is what exactly one means by "control", "us" and "choice"?

Arms and mountains are identical in nature and their shifting is identical in nature, is the point. Coming to that conclusion, I'd say, is the "purpose", after the fact, of exploring these things (if we should call it a "purpose"). Namely, coming to a direct understanding of the "nature of experiencing" and, secondarily, being able to leverage that in order to summon desired experiences.

But synchronicities like this one seem to suggest a not-so-controllable "what you focus on, expands" type of "mechanism", instead of a neat "what you decide, happens".

I'd phrase it as, that the way in which one changes one's ongoing experience is by "increasing the relative contribution of a fact or pattern". In effect, one shape-shifts oneself to a new state. There is no "way" or "method" or "mechanism" for doing this; one simply adopts the new "shape". Any apparent experience of cause and effect are actually both "effects"; all experiences are "results" and no moment of experience "causes" another moment. Pondering - This means that the devil's in the details somewhat when it comes to things like "decisions". If we translate "decision" as "asserting the fact of something being true", then we're on the right track in terms of a description. This is different to some interpretations of "decision" - and indeed lots of other words we try to use to point to this - most of which maintain a separation between "decider" and "world", for example. The changes we're talking about here are literal and direct, with no medium or intermediary. If you ponder this - and you must do so from a 1st-person perspective, because there is no other - then the result can be even a slight feeling of claustrophobia, because you can't "get outside" of this. Attempting to "take on the shape of" the experience of capturing the idea of "taking on the shape" is conflicted. However, the attempt to do so, and the giving up of the attempt, is often an nice way to cut straight to the insight. (See also: that feeling-out exercise, elsewhere.)

I have no way to know if the right interpretation is the idealistic one... "Oh wow, I'm awakening to my true nature!", or the materialistic one...

It doesn't really matter. All your experiences are you "taking on the shape of" an experience; all your thoughts about experience are you "taking on the shape of" the experience of thinking about experiences. All interpretations are incorrect - simply because they are interpretations. We might recall the metaphor of the sandcastle: It is not possible to build a sandcastle which captures, in form, sand and the beach, even though the sandcastle is both sand and the beach. If we build sandcastles and call them "sand" and "the beach", they will both represent and not be, sand and the beach; the interpretation will be right in the sense that it is what it is interpreting, but it will be incorrect as an interpretation. (This is just another way of saying, "the 'awareness' that can be spoken or thought of is not the true awareness".)

Could you please help me understand this with an example?

So, if one is identified, say, with a particular location in the body space (many people identify "me" as a small sphere somewhere behind the eyes, for example), then when experiences arise which imply that location is no longer there, your "me" content will disappear also. However, if one deliberately "takes on the shape of" being, say, an "open aware space within which all sensory experiences arise", then you've brought into play, identified with, a foundation which is independent of the usual world content. What you actually are is "that which takes on the shape of" 1st-person experiences, so that never dies. However, if you do want to maintain a particular sense of identity, a continuity of experience, then you must bringing to experience a persistent aspect such as that, to which you can attach a "me". To get a feel for the larger point, stand up and put your arms out into the space around you. Now, imagine the your arms are extending into space, somehow in all directions, such that the entire moment of experience is your body. Note: you are the moment and its context, you are not "the environment" in the sense of a "place". Then, imagine that you are a "shape-shifter", but instead of just a body space which shifts, the entire space is you. You are "non-material material" which shapes itself into experiential states, then.

"choice" : intending an increase of the relative contribution of certain facts or patterns

So, now we have to be very specific about what "intention" is, in the sense that it is literal. That is, if "an intention" is the pre-existing pattern one is bringing into prominence (along with its logically-implied extended pattern), and "intending" is the shape-shifting act of doing so, then there is no actual "doing" of it. For example. If one is sat down and then stand up, one either stands up or does not. Here, the "intention" is the pattern being-standing-up, and if one fully intends it, it is true: the experience of "standing up" arises. Now, why is it that one does not experience being-sat-down in one moment and then discontinuously being-stood-up in the next? In this description, it's because there is already an entire world-pattern, structured in a certain way, aspects which is associatively triggered by the intention "I am going to stand up" or "it is true now that I will be stood up then". There is also the issue that people don't actually specifically intend discontinuities; they intend fact-patterns which are overlaid of the existing world-pattern, rather than deformations of it.

Why, then, arms obey every whim and mountains stay still?

Your arms don't obey your every whim, though, do they? Your intentions are incorporated into your experience, and your arms and legs follow certain patterns plus that intention. If you don't address the world-pattern in order to change that, or don't specifically intend discontinuity in your experience (perhaps be re-considering your idea of what "the world" is, and asserting a new perspective), or don't completely release the current pattern temporarily but absolutely, then that's how things unfold. It's also worth noting that your idea of "you" is a pattern which might place certain apparent limitations. This is what I mean by intention being direct and literal amendments to your current state. Meanwhile, though, it's worth noting that, if you pay attention, things like mountains do move all the time. Both in the sense of the apparent fact of where they are, but then in the seemingly cheating sense of when you apparently move your head, or blink, or turn away, or change location. (I say "seemingly" because it's not really cheating - it's a worthwhile path of contemplation. In what sense is a mountain in a particular location, anyway?)

POST: Is it possible to travel to a fictional universe already made/fanfiction?

Do a search for "fictional universe", since this has come up a few times over the last couple of months, and the previous discussions cover a lot of ground I think. For example, /u/dungjames posted about this, and another post a couple of days ago, but there are more in-depth conversations previously involving "persistent realms" and so on.

Dreams to me are more complicated than rocket and physics combined, i mean if i just slowly grasp something in my mind i can understand it and eventually do it but my own mind is against me because it just having a hard time while my body does is smile and do what it can to enjoy the day

The issue with dreams is, there is no "how" to them, other than fully deciding and keeping in mind that you are going to dream. There not really anything to "understand" at all. There is no complication, because dreams are "made from" visuals, sounds, textures, and so on, and felt-knowing. There is nothing "behind" the dream to learn or work out. You simply... dream.

Then my dreams are so unstabled because of the amount of information going to my head and emotionally issues

You can overcome that, though. Something that helps, is reading around the topic a bit more, so that your idea of "dreams" becomes more stable. (Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self by Robert Waggoner is worth a look, in my opinion.)

I also really recommend spending some time just not bothering to think - to "cease interfering" with your experience. A daily 10 minutes is good: lie on the floor in the "constructive rest position", cease interfering with body, thought and attentional focus, just "let whatever happens, happen" with no aim. Over time, you'll find yourself naturally levelling out and opening up, as "stuck thoughts and incomplete movements" unravel themselves. The clarity that comes with this will help your thinking, emotions and dreaming.

POST: I tried to jump and my dietary preferences drastically changed

I'm not sure I really followed that... much at all! In terms of an overall description rather than the parts, that is. How can you be "close" (or indeed any distance at all) from "the source energy you draw power from"? The "pain and indifference associated" with a meat product isn't your pain; in a description involving "3D cross sections of timelines" the idea of a pain external to you is meaningless. Finally, surely it takes no time at all to "get through time" - by definition. There is, however, definitely something to be said for not obsessing about synchronicity (particularly if you are prone to being attracted to the "messages from the universe" type idea) because it quickly escalates and deepens, becoming distracting, especially if you try to "work it out".

Let's take this a step at a time.

Every action you do in the 3rd dimension creates infinite 4th dimensions...

What leads you to believe an action in the 3rd dimension creates anything at all? Are you not inclined to think that all things are eternal, pre-existing? In which case, a "3D experience" is a selection of experience - as visual, auditory, textural, etc, moments - not a creation. And if that were the case, what would this "energy" be, exactly? Other than a word for "the stuff of which experiences are made" - which is to say, nothing at all, other than the property of being-experienced. Beauty, then, would not be something that was "created" by veggies and plants (for example). Rather, it would simply be the recognition of the nature of experience, rather than the content of it. Your 1st-person experience (being all there is) would be inherently pure, regardless of its present "shape". Meaning that 'light" and "dark" would be, fundamentally, illusory - a fiction in description, and not actual.

Q1: Hi, I'm interested in what you've written about synchronicity. Do you think synchronistic events are symptoms of 'dimension jumping?' I have been reading things on this sub for a couple of months and it fascinates me, but I have never set a specific intention to 'jump dimensions' before, as it's written about here. I have, on the other hand, become very interested in the concept of synchronicity in the last year, and I think these such meaningful coincidences/synchronicities have happened to me on a number of occasions in the past year. I have done research into Carl Jung's work and read the book about synchronicity, and I think about it a lot. With this in mind I'm interested to know how you perceive synchronicity and how it relates to dimension jumping? It was a pleasant surprise to see it mentioned on this sub!

So, I don't think they are a symptom of "dimensional jumping" exactly, so much as an indication of how our ongoing experience works anyway. Our standard description of our situation is that we are a "person", an object, located in a "world" which is a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time". This makes accounting for things like synchronicity, and many other experiences, quite problematic. However, when you actually attend to our experience as it is we find that, loosely speaking, what you truly are is an "open aware space" within which experiences arise. We can conceive of this space having all possible structures "dissolved" in the background, but with a particular set of those structures being relatively dominant at any time. That is, contributing to ongoing experience. We are "patterned"; we are in a particular "state". Although we think of our experiences being "out there", they are actually arising within us. Synchronicity, then, is a product of our present "patterning". This is true of all of our experience, however synchronicity sticks out because, unlike other content, the synchronistic experiences are not fully defined in time and location. In a sense, it feels as if there are images that are somehow "overlaid" upon our perception; they have been "drawn on top of" our unfolding world. This is actually not a bad way to describe it...

Hence, we can summon owls and we can conceive of ourselves as a self-experiencing context rather than as objects within places.

POST: I'm lost. Need answers before jumping.

I so disagree. ;-) What's a "vibration"?

...In a sense, yes, it can be semantics - but I think it's important to step back and recognise the "meta" context to the various descriptions used. (Interrogate what semantics themselves are, in a way.)

In other words, you can have experiences "as if" it were true that there as such things as "vibrations" and branching outcomes, and you can have experiences "as if" there are "dimensions" and you jump them - but actually those things have no causal power, they are essentially descriptive frameworks, concepts only, which don't really describe anything. Parallel constructions in thought. That is, they are ways of formulating intentions, rather than "what is going on". This might be important, because if you have this the wrong way around - if you think that frameworks describe what is behind the scenes in terms of "fundamental truth", rather than being conceptual building blocks from which "relative truth" can be constructed and brought into experience - then it's easy to end up chasing your tail, unwittingly creating muddled patterns of experience... And thus end up adding all sorts almost "superstitious" additions, in pursuit of "how it works", when in fact there is no "how it works" or method or mechanism underlying experience. Hence lots of "here is my improved two glass method" suggestions, which mostly add more sensory theatre, and perhaps obscure what the whole thing is possibly meant to point to.

I think that you yourself are caught up chasing the tail with your endless questioning!

"Endless questioning" is exactly what we should be doing, though?

The point is to explore and investigate both experiences and descriptions, to experiment and interrogate to get to the bottom of them. Otherwise we're just picking stuff to "believe", with no basis - we're fantasising.

I think you need to do as you say, pick one perspective and keep experiencing your world through it.

I don't say that, though, necessarily. Why pick one perspective and follow it? At least, if one is going to pick a perspective, then it seems to be a good idea to choose it knowingly - to have a handle on what "a perspective" is. Chasing your tail arises when you try to use concepts that, while they are internally consistent, don't have an underlying foundation - castles in the sky. Carefully examining those perspectives (endless questioning!) is exactly how we avoid chasing our tails!

You should help then find their own perspective through yours, not force yours.

Nobody's forcing anything?

How does anybody "find their own perspective", if there's no discussion and challenge (by which I mean: in the sense of picking at the underlying ideas, not in the sense of fighting to be "right" or to win an exchange). There are other subreddits where people can embed themselves in fluffy concepts and wishful thinking - this, generally, is not one of those. The focus is more on experimentation and examining the descriptions used, to see what (if anything) makes them tick. Although, of course, engaging in that is optional, I'd say it is the way forward in terms of making progress. Fuzzy thinking and "leave my perspective alone!" gets us nowhere.

I'm talking about saying things like "lol not true "

Well, I've definitely never said that!

but you are taking it way too far, and it is uncomfortable... You should foster conversations, not confront no stop.

Fostering conversations is generally what happens, though? My "so disagree" was playful, the "what's a vibration" was an opening gambit to start things off. (It wasn't intended to be confrontational.)

I think it needs more openness.

It is quite open. However, it is also not just another /r/psychonaut or /r/occult or /r/lawofattraction, because what would be the point in that? There is a fairly specific idea underpinning it, as articulated in the sidebar and the links in the introduction. Which is, really, to also dig into the idea of "understanding", as well as views of understanding.

I only want to clarify things by adding new ways to understand the same thing.

Of course. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but what I was fishing for when I said "what is a vibration?" and then...

In other words, you can have experiences "as if" it were true that there as such things as "vibrations" and branching outcomes

...was really, what is the nature of a vibration, and how exactly does it lead to a shift in experience, rather than just the surface concepts and phrases. It wasn't meant to be a "stop". For example, you say:

So, the more you ''fake'' a feeling, the more that feeling is part of you, the more it is part of the world.

Okay, but what is "the world" and what are "you", if that's the case? Obviously it can't mean a world as in a "place" (that is, a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time") and the "you" can't be an object in an 3D environment. That's what I mean by digging deeper. It's "endless questioning", but with a purpose, rather than just tail-chasing. "More openness" isn't the same as "avoiding examining what is meant by something, in detail" so that people don't feel "uncomfortable", I'd hope! Because, I'd suggest, when we really unravel this - our assumptions about this - it is an uncomfortable thing, although ultimately worthwhile and beneficial.

What do you think of the theory about the many yous? For example, there is the 3D you, the 4D you, guiding the 3D you.

It's a little like JW Dunne's idea of The Serial Universe, which was basically a diagrammatic representation of multiple levels of "observer", as a means of wrestling with different states and change. I think the error in it, though, in terms of linking it to the properties of actual ongoing experience, is that it assumes that the "observer" (or better: experiencer) is located - is an object, has a boundary and a restricted content. But in actuality there are no levels or hierarchies; what you are is not an object; this structuring is just an aspect of thinking, not of experiencing as such. So, I think that it is better to consider the "you" as the starting point, as the non-object subject of all experience, which is then said to "take on the shape of" particular states and experiences. Obviously, this is no "you" in the sense of being a "person", but rather that-which-experiences - with one of those experiences being to take on a shape (as state) that is "as if" one is being-a-person-in-a-world. In such a scheme, the only fundamental property - the only unchanging truth - would be the fact of the property of being-aware or "awareness". (That is, before even any notion of division or multiplicity or change.) Everything else would be relatively true only, on an "as if" basis. In this case, "dimensional jumping" or any other conceptual framework for modifying one's experience, would just be a structure to assist the formulation of a desired change and adopting it fully. The "cause" of the change wouldn't be "energy" or any other idea or indeed experiential content - the only cause would be the context, the context of you-as-awareness, which would shape-shift into a new state and experience, a new set of relatively-true patterns or facts.

The benefit of this view is that it dissolves the boundary between "what I am experiencing" and "the description of what I am experiencing". They are both experiences (with the latter being "the experience of thinking about 'experiencing'"). It also highlights that there is nothing "behind" our experience: it is a pattern of and as "awareness". Intending change, then, is a matter of taking on the shape of an idea of experience (a shift in itself), and then taking on the shape of an idea as experience. Unfortunately (as you can tell!), this is very difficult (in fact, impossible) to put into concepts and language, because that will always be "inside" experiencing, and "parallel to" the content of what we might call the sensory moment. So we tend to get into verbal tangles that are intellectually unsatisfying, even though they point to (and are "made from") the direct truth of the matter.

To recycle a previous metaphor:

• The Beach: The metaphor of the beach - about metaphors. It is not possible to build a sandcastle which captures within its form both "the beach" and "sand". However, the sandcastle is both the beach and sand. You can certainly label one part of the sandcastle "the beach" and another "sand", but the properties of those parts, being of form, will not capture the properties of the beach and sand themselves, which are "before" form. If you forget this, and start building ("thinking") further sandcastles based on those labelled parts, all further constructions and their conclusions are immediately "wrong", fundamentally, even though they may be coherent structures ("make sense") on their own terms.

When I was asking "what is a vibration?", therefore, it wasn't that I was challenging your description and suggesting there was a better one, one that I preferred and which was preventing me being "open" to yours. Rather, it's that I was pulling into the discussion the whole idea of descriptions as being "right" or "true" at all, when it comes to this subject, and when it comes to experience generally.

(You can skip to the headlined part if you want to avoid the discussion.)

I am trying to give additional perspective, and you wanted to be playful...

I don't see the problem, frankly? We can talk vaguely around the surface of the subject, or we can get straight to the heart of it, which is confusing initially. Of course it is! Otherwise there would have been nothing to discuss or have a subreddit about in the first place.

I suggest you be a bit more stable and less ''ready to set things straight'' all the time.

Do you mean: avoid addressing underlying points or having a discussion that is worthwhile, and instead having one that feels nice rather than has a chance of going anywhere useful? ;-)

This implies that something is having the change. The idea of experience comes from somewhere! It implies the thing having the awareness had the concept that there is more to it.

The "thing", though, is not a thing. It is not an object, although it "takes on the shape of" the experience of apparent objects. The clumsy wording is an attempt to avoid suggesting a division between an experiencer and the experience; they are the same thing. (And it's why we invoke lots of metaphors and imagery such as "the beach", "the blanket" and so on.)

That's the point, and why...

There is no knowledge of the inner workings, which makes it as satisfying as science two hundred years ago, as you have no real tools to measure anything!

While for intellectual satisfaction we naturally feel the urge to want to understand "experience" and therefore "jumping" conceptually - that is, mental objects connected to and having effects upon other mental objects, representing supposed "real" objects - and come up with a "how things work", ultimately we cannot in this case, because this is the "stuff" that all such concepts are "made from". In other words, this particular relationship cannot be thought-about. There is no deeper underlying "how it works" or mechanism to this, in the usual sense. Any apparent "how it works" is itself a pattern in experience. There are no inner workings in the usual "methods" sense of it. But there are patterns, and ultimately "dimensional jumping" is about "patterning" experience. The two glasses exercise is derived from that: the leveraging of pre-existing patterns based upon a direct view of the nature of subjective experience. And the concept of "active metaphors", as described in the sidebar, is about patterning your experience using different concepts and noting how your experience subsequently falls in line with that.

People need answers, and this is confusing.

One issue is that the answers are best uncovered by conducting experiments and getting results that break down your assumptions, and get a direct experience of it. You can't really give people a full-proof method for anything - the method is the seed for a custom, personalised investigation; it's basically an exploration of your own patterning, and unravelling that.

I do not mean to start endless debates, I want to start new opportunities for growth.

I understand that, and that's exactly what this sort of exchange is about. We can't "start new opportunities for growth" if we are just doing the same thing over and over again - rearranging the furniture rather than leaving the room. So we get a bit philosophical and metaphysical.

I think you need to put WAY MORE emphasis on the being ''in trance, in meditation'' aspect of the whole thing.

It's mostly pointless, that's why I don't. It's not really much of an aspect of it at all (although being relaxed in the sense of allowing movement to happen unobstructed, basically non-interference, is always something to aim for). Suggesting that we focus on that, is like suggesting that someone who has lost their keys looks for them in their well-lit house, even though they lost them in the forest.

Being Practical

In terms of being practical, though, I'd say it's best to be "direct" about all this. So, you attend to your experience as it is, directly, by examining it using things like the Feeling Out Exercise or similar. This gives you a sense of your ongoing experience as it is, rather than merely how you think about it.

(It also highlights the whole problem we have when it comes to thinking about experience: we're just creating more experiential content rather than actually getting "behind" or under-standing anything. But then, the very fact that we can generate "thinking-about" experiences does itself give us an insight. How do we do that?)

Other than that, the two exercises in the sidebar, plus the notion of creating metaphors which can be used to pattern experience, are basically it. There is nothing else. But the exercises have to be treated as loose frameworks for experimentation and contemplation, rather than "methods", because the whole idea of a "method" that operates based on a "mechanism" eventually becomes problematic. While that can seem frustrating for someone who wants "answers", the fact is that the whole idea of "answers" and "causes" leads us to miss the point, because the insight we are after is "one step back" from all that. We can end up like someone trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle where the problem pieces are attached to their own hands, but they don't realise it!

POST: My Method (Two Glasses)

Q1: So, basically the same old two glasses with some new age stuff added in? I think I prefer the simplicity of the original.

Q2: I can see why one would say that; this is better for people like me that need more clarification and instruction. I also like this method better because it puts more emotion into it which I feel many lack during the exercise. The first ten or so times I tried the original it did not work because I was so full of questions. When I spoke with Andrew (and I've spoken to a few others) this seems to be a recurring theme with the original method. This is not meant to replace the original, just to help those that need it. The original is like the Mini Cooper, this is like the Mini Cooper Countryman.

Although, if the underlying purpose is to get to the heart of things rather than necessarily to "get results" as such: how much of this is effectively "sensory theatre", derived from unexamined assumptions and concepts?

Good point, but maybe that sensory theatre helps people like me get results.

Maybe. But is it the sensory theatre that makes the difference? Is sensory theatre causal? Or is sensory theatre itself a result? And if so, what is it that causes change? It's worth considering this, otherwise we might be in danger of descending into a sort of superstitious behaviour, due to not realising the "meta" aspect to it all (something that I think ideas like "the law of attraction" can and has fallen into).

Unfortunate Cats & Causality

I guess it's like the age-old saying, "there are more ways than one to skin a cat."

Or, it could be that there is one way to skin a cat (or indeed, to produce any change in experience), but there are many different stances one could adopt while doing so, some which might feel more comfortable than others. Still, it will always be the act of "movement" that will skin the cat, not the particular stance - and in fact the stance is also an act of "movement". (Not a great analogy, that, but you get the idea.)

And so we ask: well, what is this "movement" in the more general sense, for this topic? There's no real way to say it because it is "before" concepts (the thinking of concepts is itself an outcome of "movement"), but we could call it "intending" or "shifting state" or "becoming a fact" or something like that.

Imagining-That

In the Imagination Room metaphor we introduce the idea of imagining-that. This awkward phrasing is to suggest the concept of "imagining the fact of something being true", with any sensory experience being an aspect of that fact-pattern. This, in turn, leads to imagining the fact of properties - see, for example, the blue sphere example:

So, first imagine a sphere in front of you - say, a blue sphere with no particular detail, just floating there. Okay, now imagine a sphere in front of you, identical in every way to the first, except also imagine that this sphere is imbued with the special power to make the room filled with joy. But do not change the sensory aspect of the sphere in any way when you do this. This is basically "imagining the fact of something being true" abstractly. That is, that an object, or your ongoing experience more generally, has a property, without actually visualising any sensory aspects to that property. Instead of doing all the "sensory theatre" of picturing stuff, in an effort to associatively trigger the fact or as an excuse to do so, you can just directly do intending-asserting of the fact into greater prominence. Finally, after taking a pause to clear yourself out a little, instead of using the sphere image, simply directly intend that the room is filled with joy, and experience the result of that. That is, wordlessly intend the fact of: "it is true now that this room is filled with joy". And, um, enjoy.

And so this imagining-that is another way of talking about this, which highlights that the content of sensory theatre is not causal. But then, how so this, we might ask:

Why Did It (Or Did It Even) Help?

until I started reading other's experiences and putting what works for them together that I came up with this and it's worked insanely well thus far.

This brings to mind when people first hear about the idea of lucid dreaming, and spend lots of time immersing themselves in books, articles, and personal accounts of lucid dreaming, pondering the nature of lucid dreaming and imagining what it would be like. The result: they "spontaneously" have a lucid dream, even though they didn't "do" anything to get one. Subsequently, they focus on trying to have lucid dreams using techniques, and they struggle. I suggest this is due to immersion and commitment, the shaping of themselves according to those ideas - basically, they have patterned themselves (in the sense of you-as-awareness rather than as a person) and the content of their ongoing experience subsequently is (because it is inseparable from it) from that new state or formatting. So you were "reading other's experiences" and accepting what they say worked and dedicating yourself, in a committed way, to coming up with something that worked. But it isn't the technique that works, that has made the difference - it's the fact that you focused upon, and assumed with full commitment either directly or via implication, a particular patterning. This is why it "worked insanely well" for you - and why although others might get a brief boost from something fresh, they probably won't get the same outstanding outcome.

There is something more to be said, though:

Two Glasses & Patterning

The original instructions for the Two Glasses Exercise, which are stripped down to the minimum required for a reason which should be clear, leverage an existing abstract pattern which is fairly universally shared, while also minimising the possibility of undoing the shift that is produced. Actually, it's really two patterns: that of shifting amount-intensity-location (modifying the relative contribution or existence of a quantity), and that of association-overlap-identification (creating a handle onto pre-existing states or patterns).

This is the "cheat" involved. However, having gotten results - which is greatly existed by, as the instructions suggest, following the instructions as written and then carrying on with your life without over-thinking it or putting effort into it - and then having experimented with different and increasingly unlikely outcomes which obviously cannot possibly be related to a literal pouring of water or labels, the more general notion and prevalence of patterning becomes apparent. (Particularly when considered alongside the Owls of Eternity exercise, the metaphors linked in the sidebar, and the notion of "active metaphors" more broadly.)

I'm interested in your reply to this - do you use the original verbatim or have you tweaked it?

From the above, you get the idea: the method doesn't really matter, although it is a hook into and a platform from which to explore the nature of experience (which was the original idea of it: it shows "something's up!", and prompts: "what is the nature of this?"), after which you could experiment more directly.

Q3: Hey TG! Can you please expand on the following:
Actually, it's really two patterns: that of shifting amount-intensity-location (modifying the relative contribution or existence of a quantity), and that of association-overlap-identification (creating a handle onto pre-existing states or patterns).
Also, what is your opinion on the effectiveness of your emotional state in regards to all this? Would you say your emotions towards manifesting something you desire is irrelevant under the context of you-as-awareness? Is the connection between the two merely a perceived pattern?

Ah, by that I meant that we are not completely void emptiness before we do this stuff - we have patterns of all sorts, from the fact of the senses, to that of length and change, and ever more abstract ones (which can't really be conceptualised). Basically, the world that we are "makes sense", and that is because it is a set of patterns, as selected from the background of all possible patterns. And the two glasses exercise operates by, instead of having you having to intend an desired fact-pattern (outcome) from nowhere, piggy-backing on a couple of already-active ones. Specifically, the meaningfulness of "amount" and "location", and the explicit or implied assignment of meaning (the labeled-glass water levels are implied to mean the "intensity" of the current and target situations, become "handles" onto them). This not something you have to "do" as an act, I hasten to add, it comes for free with the "dumb patterning system" that you are - and in fact "trying" to do it tends to get in the way, since inevitably you use effort or bring to mind other patterns (and what is effort? usually just the production of a feeling of muscular tension, which has it's own associated extended pattern).

As for emotional states - I'd say that emotional content is just like any other content, a sight or a sound or a smell. It is tempting to treat it as special because it can't be articulated well, seems all-encompassing because it is not so clearly located as other sensory stuff. However, I'd treat it as part of a moment. For sure, by associative triggering, deliberately holding a particular emotional state is like selecting out patterns associated with that state versus others, but I don't think it's a great approach overall. It's a bit like, again, going back to visualising something ("a blue ball") without the intention ("picturing this blue ball means-that my exam will work out great"). The intention - the explicit or implied statement of something being true - is the actual pattern that you are seeking to make more dominant, everything else is sensory theatre and non-causal (which you are, ironically, triggering by intention as well: "it is true now that I am perceiving this image"). Of course, it's difficult to make broad pronouncements here beyond the basics, because we're all dealing with different initial patterning, different extended patterns associated with things like (for example) "a blue ball" or "the feeling of being melancholy" or whatever. Hence, the encouragement to experiment and explore, because there is no method or mechanism as such - for they, too, are patterns, with nothing solid and permanent underlying them. ("Active metaphors" being the concept of coming up with "formatting" which you then adopt to pattern a "how things work", rather than just a "what's going to happen".)

POST: Ideas for a group jump

There's potentially a problem with jumping as a group, due to a possible lack of "other people".

I know what you mean, but then again nobody can prove it.

We have to ask, though: prove what, though, and to whom?

If there is no difference between having an experience "as if" something is true and it "really" being true - and I suggest there is not - then it comes down to the content of your experience, and the nature of it. You can only demonstrate things to yourself, whether there "really are" other people or not. You can notice the variability in content, and you can examine the "meta" of your experience, how it is rather than what it is formed into currently (as an apparent first-person perspective).

This life experience could be the result of my mind creating this whole reality and you guys don't really exist except for me.

I think the flaw in that description, potentially, is in what you are talking about when you say "my", "me" and "you guys". The sense in which we might say that there are no other people - that is, individual consciousnesses "inside" bodies - is that there are no people at all, including you. You are having a being-a-person-in-a-world experience, but fundamentally you are not a person. You are an experiencer which has taken on the shape of an experience, a structured or patterned moment. You'd be better described as "awareness" having "taken on the shape of" the apparent experience of being-a-person.

Note, I don't say "an awareness" or "the awareness" (or "consciouness") - just "awareness". That is, there is not even one awareness, because it is "before" countable objects, hence saying something like "our combined awareness" doesn't mean anything. (The Feeling Out Exercise and the discussion in the link is meant to draw our attention to this, although I'll add that it's important to actually do it rather than just think about it.)

All of which is to say, you could quite possibly have yourself an experience "as if" a group of people all get together and make a change in the world, but all you'd "really" be changing is the content of your own sensory experience (that is, the shape of you-as-awareness, which happens to be structured currently as an apparent you-as-person). That's good enough, maybe, but in terms of understanding "what is going on" more deeply, there are some things we should bear in mind regarding our assumptions, perhaps.

You can keep telling yourself that you are god controlling an avatar, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

That's not the sense in which it is meant, though. It is more like saying that what you truly are is a "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware (hence "awareness") and which takes on (or has taken on, and perhaps not deliberately, in the sense of "after deliberation") the shape of patterned states and, therefore, experiences. It's not like being a God, as it's usually conceived of. The person you seem to be isn't an avatar. The "person" is an idea or thought you have from time to time; you never actually experience being a person as such, only sensations and perceptions "floating" in and as you-as-awareness.

There could an objective reality and you would have no way of knowing the difference.

If you don't know the difference - if it is not possible to experience the difference - then the concept is meaningless? The notion of an "objective world", it is has been said is construct of convenience with no evidence:

It’s said that in earlier civilizations, people didn’t quite know how to distinguish between objective and subjective. But once the idea of separating the two gained a toehold, we were told that we have to do this, and that science is about the objective. And now that it’s done, it’s hard to turn back.

If you think about an "objective world" now, what form does it take (it is a thought-experience, surely?) and where is it (within and as awareness, surely?). If you attend to your direct experience, now, as it is, there is no place for an objective world to be, other than inside awareness (loosely, "dissolved into the background" of the present moment), which means an "objective world" is in fact a subjective thing. And that's just the thought of an "objective world"; the actual objective world would not even be a conceptual object, or an object at all. The notions of "objective" and "subjective" both logically collapse into something like the above, as intuited from direct experience: there is just patterns within and as awareness. Basically, we're saying that all things are within the "subject" - and the subject not being an object, having no edges, boundaries, division or inherent properties, there is "not even" one of them, and from this it follows that there is no "objective" world, because there is no room for boundaries of "type" (which is required for an objective world to be able to impinge upon a subjective world). If there were an "objective world", then, it would have no interaction with, and therefore no effect upon, your subjective experience whatsoever!

Maybe there is a real reality out there and you can't see it and/or comprehend it but it would still be there and exist.

But if you can't tell, in what way does it exist for you?

And as we've noted, directly examining your experience (which is not just the content of your senses) leaves no place for an "external" or "independent" reality (which is basically what we mean by "objective"), because it has no "outside". Returning to the "meta" of all this: when you think about "an objective reality", what exactly is your experience of doing this thinking? And that experience, that thinking and the content of it, in what way does or could that correspond to a "real" reality, one that is not subjective? Are you not just making "sandcastles" in the manner of these metaphors?

The Beach

The metaphor of the beach - about metaphors. It is not possible to build a sandcastle which captures within its form both "the beach" and "sand". However, the sandcastle is both the beach and sand. You can certainly label one part of the sandcastle "the beach" and another "sand", but the properties of those parts, being of form, will not capture the properties of the beach and sand themselves, which are "before" form. If you forget this, and start building ("thinking") further sandcastles based on those labelled parts, all further constructions and their conclusions are immediately "wrong", fundamentally, even though they may be coherent structures ("make sense") on their own terms.

You have to take a step back. The "objective world" concept is only addictive, only "seems right", in terms of a particular structure of thought. If you step back from thinking, though, you can see that this structure is just a "castle in the sky", a self-consistent conceptual pattern which is just floating there without an actual foundation, no grounding in direct experience. (Besides, that is, the experience of "thinking about the ideas of objective and subjective".)

In a way that feels real enough when I feel pain or hunger.

But that's got nothing to do with "objective". (After all, you can have pain and hunger in lucid dreams. When Johnson says "I refute it thus" to Berkeley's subjective idealism, he does not actually refute it - he illustrates it.)

When it is said that there is no world external to you, it doesn't mean there is no world external to what is labelled "the person" (by which I mean, a particular set of sensory patterns and concepts that are a subset of the world); there's just no world external to the experiencer.

Well, look, I read Descartes and the part about "I think therefore I am" did change my life.

I meant it more in the sense of noting that descriptions are themselves just experiences, and so they never get "behind" the nature of experiencing. The idea of an "objective" world never gets "behind" subjective experience; it is meaningless when it comes to tackling the nature of experience itself. It's a little different to saying "the only thing I am certain of is that I exist", because it takes the next step and examines what it means to think of existence at all (and whether it can be thought of - I say not).

That being said, there is no way for you to differentiate between a reality that you created with your thoughts or one that really does exist.

If there is no way to differentiate, then the question is meaningless, right? But there are assumptions in that sentence we could unpack. For example, are we saying that we are creating reality "with our thoughts"? (Aren't "thoughts" really results of something, of "intention"?) And is our definition of "really exist" just "something that isn't created by our thoughts"? (We'd have to nail down what causes thoughts first, I'd say.)

Even the word "reality" is a problem: what do we mean by that? It's a form of "zoning" of experiential content or of concepts. If all zones are still within and as "awareness", then our questions would be better formulated differently. How about this. We can ascertain directly that:

• All experience (including the experience of "thinking") arises within and as awareness.
• It seems that we can direct the content of experience to an extent: we can intend the "body" portion of experience and get immediate sensory change; we can intend thoughts and they appear immediately.

And then: Is our question not really simply that some aspects of our patterned experience seems easily directed (intention and sensory result are nearly coincident, spatially and temporally, everyday movement and thinking), other parts seem less easily directed (intention and sensory result less coincident, Two Glasses style), perhaps not at all (intention to reformat world facts?). So are we not unwittingly equating "inertia of intentional change", as seen through a descriptive framework of "world as a spatially-extended place unfolding in time", with "really real"?

Who wants to live in a world where Dolly doesn't have braces.

Well, I suppose Dolly might!

My point is that I would rather tackle the nature of reality instead of experience... You have no absolute truth.

The "problem" is that "reality" is just a concept you have; that that concept is just an experience (of "thinking"); and that all you actually have is experiences. The "absolute truth" is whatever is unchanging, and the only thing that is unchanging is the fact of the property of being-aware. However, I will add that when I say "experience" I don't just mean the current senses of visual, auditory and so on - I mean the whole "being state" of now, including that felt-sense summary, and all that stuff.

Again, even if we cannot with current technologies, maybe someday we will and you have no way of claiming that this assertion is false.

See, that doesn't help though. It's like saying that, when in a lucid dream, you might discover a machine which will let you distinguish between the content of the dream and the "real reality" - but the machine will itself be made from "dream", as will any experiences you have of uncovering the "real reality". The only reality is "awareness" (dreamer+dream), and every experience you have (dream content) is made from "awareness" (dream). You can perceive this to be true directly. No matter what the content of a dream, it is all "dream" and it never gets "behind" the dream. There is nothing "behind" awareness.

You keep referring to "as awareness". I get the "within" part, not the "as" part.

Related metaphor:

The Blanket

What you truly are is the "non-material material" whose only inherent property is awareness or being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiences. Right now, you-as-awareness have "taken on the shape of" the experience of apparently being-a-person-in-a-world. This can be conceived of as a non-dimensional blanket, within which there are folds (fact-patterns) which represent the world (world-pattern or current state).

So the "as" is to emphasise that it's not a case of you being awareness and then experiences are floating inside, with awareness "looking at" the experience. Rather, awareness has formed itself into the experience, so the experience is "made from" awareness. If you pause and "feel out" your present moment right now, you can notice that this is true, directly. The Feeling Out exercise, previously, is about realising that you-as-awareness actually becomes the whole moment. You find that, although you tend to assume that "you" are over here and the resst of the room is around there, when you actually try to locate yourself - locate where you are actually experiencing this moment "from" - you discover that you are the "over here" and the "over there", sort of everywhere and nowhere. You are the whole moment, the whole situation or state.

Can you make 50k appear in my bank account? These are just numbers in a thought simulation right?

Scratch the bit about "in a thought simulation", I'd say; that's another narrative that involves a sort of separation. The question is basically: if my state is "just" me as patterned awareness, why don't all my assertions instantly become true in my sensory experience - right?

Ok so now that we went down the rabbit hole in my other reply, consider this: why would you call it a "problem"?

By "problem" I was referring to a potential issue with the concept of "jumping as a group" - not a problem with looking for the experience of it. The phrasing meant that it's a "problem" in the sense of there being things to consider in the context of "dimensional jumping", not that it's somehow "bad".

You suggest it's pointless, but you could be wrong, isn't it true?

I didn't suggest it was pointless, though? What I suggested was that if someone pursues "jumping as a group" then they might not be doing what they think they are doing, and that there is a benefit in digging into that.

By saying there's a "problem", you managed to discredit my post and you got 5 upvotes. Good job!

The word "problem" hardly discredits your post, though, and the link provides the full context for my comment. Obviously, it was intended to prompt further discussion, such as we just had. This isn't about winning "upvotes" (who really cares about that, on a subreddit like this?). Perhaps the one-liner approach didn't come over quite as playfully as I meant it to, however!

POST: Can somebody please explain the owl method

It's one hundred percent confirmation bias.

Although, we should ask: what exactly is "confirmation bias" in this case?

If the term is taken to mean "noticing patterns that were already there in a three-dimensional environment (a place)", then the extreme experiences one can have often seem to conflict with that. If, instead, we expand the term to mean something like "selecting patterns into sensory experience from a non-dimensional environment (an infinite gloop)", then we've got a description that's more useful, perhaps. In the first case, "confirmation" refers to confirming ones prejudices. In the second case, "confirmation" is more in the sense of confirmation of a property of experience. In neither example, of course, do we have access to an independent external reference against which to measure the "confirmation". However, in the case of "dimensional jumping" and that exercise, we explicitly recognise this fact - and pushing against ("confirming" or not) the standard "world experience" assumptions is actually the basis of the exercise.

POST: My last post here and a golden nugget of advice for you

While I see all related meta-physical perspectives as ultimately the same one from different angles of viewing, I don't want to take away from that concept at the core of this sub or distract from it.

Well, that really is one the core concepts of the subreddit, rather than a distraction from it. That is, along with being hardline on the nature of the relationship between descriptions and direct experience, of course. And hopefully putting concepts like "you", "internal", "universal powers" and even "truth" under appropriate scrutiny - since often there is no underlying content when their meaning is unpacked. We can end up with buzzy stuff that amounts to “What is your why?” (awful movie, don't watch it). We have something that sort of feels good to read, but there is nothing really in it. It may actually be the case that you're not certain about the concept behind the subreddit, given the responses you've given elsewhere? They seem quite vague and fluffy and LOA-ish!

To clarify for new readers: As per the sidebar, "dimensional jumping" is set up as an example of a structuring metaphor, one which can be used to formulate intentions and generate "as if" experiences, rather than something literal or even something fundamental in a symbolic way. This ultimately leads to an examination of what our experiences are actually "made from": what the relationship is between "you" and "the world", as a sort of "practical philosophy" investigation.

Humans are the only ones who wrongly apply these petty, subjective judgments to things.

Although, to be fair, no other judgments are available!

Tech point: Deleting your Reddit account does not delete your posts, unless you manually go through and remove them. It merely changes the username against your comments to "[deleted]".

(Combining two responses:)

The words I've used are completely 'empty' on their own of course if you want to look at it that way, as all words are, but they are intended to get the brain cogs whirring as some kind of response.

Words are "empty" only in the sense that they are not aspects of the direct experience to which they (hopefully are intended to) refer. However, they are aspects of a particular thinking framework or description. The important thing is to elucidate the thinking framework as best we can, and be clear about how it connects to direct experience (or not). Otherwise we aren't saying anything, we're just creating little "castles in the sky" which kind of feel good, but have no grounding or utility beyond that.

You seem to be saying that what you deem to be 'within the realms of LoA' is not suited to be here. I see them as ultimately the same...

Yes, they are ultimately the same, but only in the sense that every moment of experience is ultimately of the same nature - and one may have "as if" experiences themed in the style of "LOA" or "dimensional jumping". To be clear, the main distinction would be that LOA takes its various ideas as literally true; "dimensional jumping" in this subreddit is seen as a structuring metaphor (amongst many; the sub just happens to be named after one of them) which is not itself literal. There are no "dimensions" in the same way that an LOA follower (or similar, this applies to any semi-realist approach) might conceive of "frequencies" and "attraction" and "energies" and so on. And therefore the use of the phrase "as if" refers to the content of one's experience being apparently consistent with a particular description, but that description not being a true explanation of the cause or form of the experience (the context). In a sense, experiences themselves are not taken literally, but the metaphors themselves are literal, in a way.

Trade 'universal powers' for whatever words you like really. I don't use that term myself but it's one I know others identify a certain understanding with, hence why I used it.

It's surely important to specify what exactly you, as the author, mean by "universal powers", rather than allowing others to "fill in the gaps" with whatever "certain understanding" they might identify with?

Otherwise there's a danger we are simply creating highly nominalised self-referential language which has no content, but has the apparent "structure" of meaning - in the manner of hypnotic language forms, for example.

My point was, you can choose to judge yourself as 'unworthy' of receiving any given thing for x, y, z reason/excuse, and can just as easily judge the opposite.

Doesn't your post just basically, in summary albeit in a roundabout way, say "you are worthy and the possibilities are limitless"?

Why, exactly, is someone "worthy" of receiving anything? Perhaps they are not worthy; we shouldn't just take it for granted that we are. And what leads you to suggest that the possibilities are limitless? And why does this matter?

Without being more precise, there's no discussion to be had. Especially if we're just going to end up saying the equivalent of "the words are whatever they mean to the reader, I myself never use these words"!

You get the idea. As mod, obviously I'm inclined to push back on potentially vague cheerleading posts, just to ensure we're engaging in some of the level of a philosophical investigation (with practical aims), rather than the equivalent of YouTube video buzz-up new-agery! Literal vs metaphorical; connection to direct experience; digging behind the meaning of terms; justifying assertions; etc. And it's one way to turn potentially off-topic posts into a relevant discussion.

(Resuming from earlier:)

because these 'frequencies' and 'energies' don't fit into your perception.

This, I think, is the root of our disagreement here - although disagreement probably isn't the right word: it's more like we're actually talking about slightly different things. And I think you've inferred that I'm saying that you are deliberately being obscure or misleading or deceptive, when what I really mean is that as it stands it's not clear how the description used connects to direct experience. It was not clear to me what you were saying.

And so: Let me set out some thoughts.

For clarity, I'm not talking about "perception". That word implies a perceiver who has a certain inherent form, and a perceived which is independent of that and also has an inherent form. It tends to smuggle in certain assumptions about "you" (being an object of some sort) and "the world" (being a place of some sort). This in turn leads us, not necessarily intentionally, to view everything as consisting of "things" that are "made from" stuff. To avoid that, I find it's probably is better to begin with just saying that there are "experiences". Now, we can have experiences "as if" we are "frequency" - that is to say, consistent with the description that "everything is frequency". We can also have experiences "as if" we are person-objects in a world-place, consistent with the current usual view of ourselves. We can also have experience "as if" were are something like void-awareness. And so on. But the only common thread is, loosely speaking, that whatever we are, is "that which takes on the shape of experiences". And any thoughts about something outside of that experience, are themselves just more experiences: the experience of "thinking about experience". There is no "outside", and there is no fundamental formatting, other than the fact of "experiencing".

In this sense, the possibilities are indeed limitless because it can be directly observed - following some experimentation - there is no persistent structuring. And also, more importantly, it can be directly recognised that everything is "you" (in the sense of you-as-experiencer or "awareness"). The direct observation, and the subsequent recasting of the nature of experience and of descriptions, is of course ultimately our main topic here. So, the above is an attempt to illustrate what I was getting at when picking up on "frequencies" and so on, and indicate the level I was thinking at. It seems that perhaps I appeared to be attacking the content of your statements, denying your experience or your formulation, but what I trying to push back on was the context of them.

Looping back, now:

You state this, and then dismiss any other possibility while implying my words and advice are shallow, because these 'frequencies' and 'energies' don't fit into your perception. I accept that your experience is different to mine.

Yes, no doubt the content of our experiences differ, and the concepts used to describe them differ too. Your post, though, seemed to me to present the concepts as being "true" at face value, and that's why I responded in a way that tried to pull at that a little. (Apologies for any apparent condescension; it wasn't deliberate.)

I'm not dismissing the possibility of any experience. But I am, I suppose, dismissing the possibility that the content of any particular experience or description represents something fundamental.

To conclude on the other stuff: If, as moderator, I didn't challenge a post when the meaning wasn't clear within the context of the subreddit's underlying concept, then we'd become just yet another content-free "inspirational" forum with posts consisting of "beautiful messages" followed by "thank you so much this is just what I need to hear right now" responses. The actual intention is that it is an investigation into the nature of experience and descriptions, within a certain framework which might be loosely described as an experiment-led variant on subjective idealism or non-dualism. That's why there's this pushback from a philosophical angle. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now!

My post was intended to be certain core ideas I wanted to put out there for people to dive into before moving on from this sub and the internet in general.

The issue was (and remains) that you haven't actually clearly laid out your core ideas at all - to the extent that it is not certain that there is a specific core concept to work with, other than a conviction in believing in "limitlessness". Certainly not in the original post, but also not in this or the other response. In and of itself that is fine, of course - but in the context of this subreddit's central themes or the previous comment where I asserted a particular view for you to expand from or contrast with, we've not got anywhere useful. Now, I love a bit of vague, shifting, comma-delimited, full-abstraction jousting as much as anyone, but in this particular forum it's important to push for some precision! You can't simultaneously claim to be describing core concepts as a seed for discussion, while also suggest that you can't control what other people's interpretations are and that anyway you didn't intend to lead readers in one direction or another. People can't "take in" information by "coming to it themselves", if you don't actually provide any information. Such post-hoc justifications might come over as, at best, disingenuous. But anyway:

If we are to continue, and thus bring the post discussion into relevance for the subreddit, maybe we could tackle one or two particular ideas from earlier, and build out from that:

__

In what way are we "frequency"?

From my experience, we are frequency.

In what sense are we "frequency", and what exactly is it in your experience which has led you to believe that this is the case?

The observations that lead to this might be either experiential content (experiences apparently of something), or an observation regarding the actual form of experience more generally that we might call the context. The latter I have previously referred to as "direct experience" to distinguish it from the description or narrative ascribed to experience (I think you may have misunderstood what I mean by "direct experience" earlier).

In what way are "the possibilities are limitless"?

I suggest possibilities are limitless because why wouldn't they be? Where is the line and who draws it?

Do you suggest that the possibilities are limitless, or do you conclude that they are limitless?

If you are concluding that they are, then there must be a particular experience or logical framework which has led to that conclusion. If you are suggesting it on the basis of "because why not?" only, then the statement is potentially meaningless.

__

Now, it may be you're just not interested in this sort of discussion. But I hope you are! After all, it is literally the underlying purpose of this subreddit - experimentation and philosophical unpacking - and what distinguishes it from other LOA-type or inspirational-style "reality" subreddits. And that's why we take the time to try and steer ambiguous posts into exchanges of this sort, rather than just moderate them out immediately, etc.

We are not dealing with mainstream, majority-accepted-and-approved topics. I can only offer a door, and I do. I can only tell you of my personal experience, which doesn't appear to be what you're looking for from me. You appear to be essentially looking for 'proof' from me to convince you to 'see what I see'.

What I have been looking for, is for you to write out a description of your "core concepts" (the ones you have previously stated you came here to communicate) and the experiences which have led you to reach them, so that we can have a collaborative discussion, and explore the topic together. Since you have resisted doing that, there can be no conversation or exchange of ideas - that is, our comments are indeed going to be contentless and of no purpose whatsoever! That is the source of the frustration in this process. Belief and proof had nothing to do with it. You are amongst friends here, as regards "non mainstream" experiences and ideas; this was a good opportunity to share and to be shared with, for ourselves and for the wider subreddit audience, and to correct any misconceptions that might have arisen from the original post. So, as an alternative entry point, I gave one possible description, that you might respond to, plus two subsequent seeds for exploration. But the response was, again, essentially word salad avoidance and self-contradiction.

This leads me to conclude that I'm afraid I am not the right person to debate this with you.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, I suspect that you are simply not a person to have a debate with, at all, on this topic - but alas, experimentation and philosophical debate is the exact purpose of the subreddit!

And so we never did manage to bring your post around to being on-topic via comments. We did try though, eh? All the best, in any case.

You have asked me questions I am happy to elaborate on, but have closed your comment with "there is no discussion to be had"......I always felt this was the place for this exact discussion! But you've shot it down before we got the proper chance.

Not at all! What I actually said was:

Without being more precise, there's no discussion to be had.

Which was an encouragement to continue and expand on discussion, by clarification.

I see now that you dismiss my perspective as being "fluffy", "empty"

No, not your perspective. Your description. And not exactly: I used the "fluffy" to convey a lack of clarity, and you yourself had used the word "empty" to describe the nature of words, and I responded. Genuinely, as it stands, I found it hard to discern what you were trying to convey with your post, and how it connects to the subreddit's focus, other than just being broadly encouraging that people can achieve their desires. Your comment here isn't very easy to pin down either, I find.

I cannot control how you read my words, only how true they ring for me at that point in time.

Indeed, but we can certainly clarify what we mean, and why we mean it. So let's unpack it!

(More later.)

Thank you for choosing to open up discussion again. I look forward to your further response. :)

It never closed...

...I do find this very frustrating. I feel exactly the same about your responses, to be honest. I did reread the entire thread earlier today, and it seemed to me to be the story of two people talking past one other (despite, one assumes, equal attempts on either side to not do that). To an extent, it's a clash between different types of language (spiritual-emotional-metaphorical vs philosophical-abstract-metaphorical, perhaps, or whatever). However, that isn't entirely it. I think I have genuinely failed to communicate to you what I have been asking, and then as a result you have then answered other things or made broad statements which weren't relevant to that, or only tangentially. Regardless, the upshot is that I never really managed to pin you down in terms of clarification, in connection to the subreddit topic in terms of its focus on the nature of experience and descriptions (as direct experience and as philosophical investigation), and you no doubt didn't get to engage in the sort of exchange you prefer either. That's life on/as beach for ya, I guess!