TriumphantGeorge Compendium (Part 10)

POST: Isn't this too good to be true?

[POST]

So you're telling me that I can just jump to another dimension whenever I want to change something. Isn't that sort of cheating? And how could it even be safe? I don't think we were supposed to be able to jump between different universes

[END OF POST]

Basically, the theory is that your subconscious mind is creating the universe that you perceive.

Well, not quite.

What exactly is a "subconscious" and why would it need to be convinced of anything - what power can it have to manifest things in your "reality"? I think it is worth considering that the idea of "the subconscious" is a needless conceptual filler: it is never actually observed, its introduction does not actually explain anything, and it has no link to our direct experience. It also presupposes some sort of division between "you" and "the world" and an intermediary or "mechanism" that operates in the background, unobserved. It's not clear that this is justified.

All of this is conjecture of course.

Yes, that's the theory - and nicely described, too! But then, to what extent does it connect to our actual experiences? Isn't it just a placeholder or conceptual connective tissue to join up what is experienced sensorily? That is, is it perhaps more of a "story" or a "language" than it is an accurate explanation of our actual experiences - particularly for our current topic of discussion: experiencing changes in the world which apparently break our standard description of it as a "place"?

The number of "observational touch-points" that connect the idea of the subconscious to our lived experience seem few, to the extent where it might be better not to invoke it at all, especially when it takes the form of a pseudo-computer-programming analogy (as it tends to do these days).

I guess I'm saying that I see no reason to believe in the concept as "true", although one might find it a useful way to talk about things (while remaining aware that it is not what is "really happening"). It's the crossing of that line that I find perhaps unhelpful - again, particularly in the current context, for various reasons. It all hinges on what exactly you think "you" are, and what the relationship between "you" and "the world" is, of course. For example, I'd suggest that we can't simultaneously invoke a psychologist's idea of "the subconscious" and also the law of attraction type idea of "the subconscious", since they would require different notions of "you" and "the world".

Sort of related: I quite enjoyed this article about Freud recently. An extract:

Freud believed that all cognitive processes are unconscious. What we call ‘conscious thought’ is just the brain’s way of displaying the output of unconscious cognitive processing to itself.

Now, from that I'd probably suggest deleting the notion of "the brain" or "processing" (these are never observed), and simply say that conscious thought is. All the rest of it comes about because we make the error of thinking that all experience must be expanded out into objects, or it isn't there. Unconscious thought - or "the subconscious" - isn't unconscious at all. It is here, now, in experience as an "awareness context": but you might say it is enfolded or "dissolved" into and as the background, rather than unfolded or "expanded" into the foreground. However, that means it doesn't "happen" or "process" anything or do any thinking - it is more like a static landscape or state with sensory experience an aspect of it, with nothing outside of that, and it is not personal.

POST: Did the Two Cups Intention Method Last Night... and Woke Up Today Filled With Negative Emotions and Hostility

You're overthinking this, I'd say. And "spiritual contracts" and "negative vibrations" have nothing to do with this - or, at least, you should very carefully consider what those concepts have to offer in terms of a useful accounting of your experiences, rather than simply accept such ideas at face value. If you've performed the two glasses exercise, then the only result that matters is whether, at some later time, the intended result arises within your experience (or not). It is problematic to attempt to attribute any other experience to the exercise: it can quickly lead to all sorts of superstitious type thinking, since any reasons you come up with are inevitably going to be completely ungrounded in actual experience. That is, you'll probably just be free-wheeling all sorts of vague ideas based on whatever you have previously read, but never actually experienced personally. For instance, do not assume that this exercise is based upon occult ideas or multiverses and the like.

My suggestion: follow the last instruction, let it go, and deal with any specific outcomes as they arise, and not before.

POST: Superhero Dimension

[POST]

Alright this is going to sound stupid. Is it actually possible to jump to a dimension where superhuman actually exists? If so, is it possible for me to gain Superspeed in that dimension?

[END OF POST]

Q: No, it's 99.99999999999999999999999999999% likely that it isn't possible.

How are you calculating "likeliness" here? What model are you using to obtain your result? Or do you really just mean "I really strongly feel that's not possible, but not for any specific reason"?

While I certainly appreciate you chiming in here and there, it's not much use to anyone if you are going simply be dismissive (and in some previous cases antagonistic), without going into why, exactly you believe what you do. One of the main points of the subreddit is to dig into the thinking behind views.

Anyway:

The standard answer to this question is that you can create "persistent realm" in a lucid dream, which can be returned and which to all intents and purposes behaves as if it is as "real" as this waking experience. In that sense, it is 100% possible to "jump to a dimension where superhuman actually exists" and to "gain Superspeed in that dimension".

What is the difference between this and apparently "really" jumping dimensions? I'd suggest that the only difference is that you "wake up" from a persistent realm, but do not "wake up" from daily life - yet, at least. If one switched one's experience to a persistent realm and then never resumed this experience, though...? That would be what OP is asking for. Although such an experience might not actually be much fun "in reality", I'd say.

Here you go again typing an entire paragraph of "words" in "quotes"... he wanted to REALLY jump somewhere fast

Haven't you heard? "Quotes" are the new CAPS!

Expanding on that:

The reason I put things in quotes - other than when literally quoting a comment or someone else's terminology - is to highlight that the word or phrase is not to be taken at face value, and that its usual meaning or underlying assumptions are perhaps one of the things under investigation. Your glib comment about being "realistic", for instance, would make a good example. Because how, exactly, are you defining or judging what is "realistic" versus what is not? What's the difference between "really" jumping somewhere fast and having an experience as if they are? Etc. As they stand, in the context of this discussion, your comments are basically meaningless.

One of the points of the subreddit is to engage in some philosophy and unpack these sorts of things. This seems to have gone over your head.

As suggested in a previous comment:

Ultimately, you are led to confront your assumption that you are a person-object located within a world-place. That is, whether the standard concept that "the world" is a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'" is in fact a completely accurate description of your ongoing experience.

(With apologies for multiple levels of quotation marks.)

POST: This sub feels like what /r/lawofattraction is trying to be

I do think that, as things currently stand, the ultimate perspectives of the two subreddits are quite different, even though from a surface glance they seem similar - and that's why the content differs. They're both seemingly just about trying to change your experience. But here, that's not quite what the underlying purpose is.

Firstly, it's largely about investigating whether experience can be changed, by conducting experiments in order to check our usual assumptions. It just so happens that a good way to do this is to try and get desired results - and this has the happy benefit of you getting something you want, if the result is a positive one. Nothing is to be taken on blind faith. You do have to do the exercises, or there's no point! (Talking about how "likely" something is, for example, is a waste of time; you'll only know how likely something is if you check.)

This is the "practical" part.

Secondly, this subreddit is also careful about taking descriptions and explanations for granted. Specifically, it's cautious about the nature of "descriptions". In LOA-type forums, often we see lots of posts and links about "how the world really works" and various techniques and methods. These are sometimes greeted with enthusiasm as the next "truth". But there is an underlying assumption hidden that there even is a "how things really work", and that a description can get "behind" experience and capture that. That's not necessarily the case; descriptions can be seen as just yet more experiences at the same level (the experience of: "thinking about experiences"). Parallel constructions in thought. This also brings the idea of a "method" into question, and highlights the risk of conflating "conceptual truth" (a self-consistent description who's apparent truth is really structural coherence) and "direct truth" (a fact about experience that you can apprehend directly, such as finding location of "you" in this moment of experience).

This is the "philosophy" part.

Finally, we do have to make a distinction between people "talking within the framework" of the subreddit, and having blind faith about any particular aspect of it. If you are going to take a line of investigation, you do have to put aside caveats and pursue it fully for the duration. For example, "is this-idea-for-an-outcome possible?" is both a practical and a philosophical question. It doesn't necessarily means someone "believes" something in the manner of faith without proof; they are exploring possibilities and thinking through the implications.

Meanwhile, from a relevant thread yesterday:

Treat this as an investigation into the "nature of your experience" (and of "descriptions"), consisting of experiments and subsequent contemplation of the results. You're meant to reach your own conclusions, really... Ultimately, you are led to confront your assumption that you are a person-object located within a world-place. That is, whether the standard concept that "the world" is a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'" is in fact a completely accurate description of your ongoing experience.

No matter what conclusions are drawn, at least from that point onwards the investigator will be living their lives based on an understanding of their experience that has been tested and confirmed, one way or the other.

I find that this sub has a large difference between what the sidebar says its about and what people make posts about. I read the sidebar when I first came and it resonated with what I had been doing, so I subscribed and check it frequently looking to find people into similar things. I rarely find posts here though that are, Imo, anything to do with what I interpret the sub as being about. It's a shame. Tbh I think the name of the sub is misleading and attracts people that believe they're Dr Samuel Beckett. Do you know of any other subs that may be more of what I'm into?

I think the main content of this sub happens in the comments really, as part of an ongoing discussion. The actual posts are mostly a starting point for that. And it's "moderation by contribution" here mostly, so other than the sidebar-linked posts and the overall perspective, there aren't any "official" posts or views. We think that works better for an open-exploration type format.

The subreddit name: Yeah, in a way it can be misleading if taken at face value, and to an extent it's a historical artefact, but it should really be taken as a provocation, I'd say - a challenge to investigate. Posts based on assumptions about the name sometimes lead to good unpacking-type conversations. If I were setting up a new subreddit, though, I'd choose a different name (although probably not one that was much more straightforward).

Like most public subreddits, it's inevitable that it doesn't get to stray too far from a certain introductory level because of new arrivals and the difficulty in developing a strand of thought over a prolonged period (see: /r/luciddreaming and so on, similarly). So this place is always likely to be a transition between one thing and another - but that's fine, I think.

There's also the issue that, in fact, after a certain point there's not really much more to say. To quote Alan Watts slightly out of context, there's an element of: "If you get the message, hang up the phone." The "posts as seeds" and the level of ambiguity here is actually one way of allowing the perspective to shift around, and different angles to be taken on the same underlying insights and concepts.

Anyway, as regards other subreddits to check out, depending on your angle, /r/oneirosophy is one possibility and, for a more curated experience, perhaps /r/weirdway. If it's a more formal philosophical discussion of this you're after, or something more about metaphors and mental processes in terms of perception, there's nothing I've found that's particularly great.

Care to expand on the themes of "what I interpret this sub as being about" and "what I had been doing"?

I don't want to call acceptance of these principles "blind faith," but I'd suggest that contemporary empiricists have acknowledged that accepting these principles largely uncritically allows us to ask more interesting, and more sophisticated questions, by standing on their shoulders.

Indeed.

It's not "blind faith" - or should not be - though, because one isn't really proceeding as if the principles were "true' so much as they are useful. If they stopped being useful, you could just ditch them. And there is no reason you can't simultaneously use other principles, even ones which directly conflict with the favoured set, if that works for a particular circumstance (drifting more into Paul Feyerabend here than Popper, I guess).

Conceptual frameworks might be said to be largely "castles in the sky" - more self-consistent than they are actually consistent with direct experience, other than a subset of somewhat artificial elements we call "observations". These "observational touchpoints" are the threads which link description to experience, but even the formatting of linkages is itself an abstraction, a set of hidden assumptions - ones which potentially pre-filter lines of enquiry, if we are not careful. And so:

Science is perhaps better viewed as a loosely overlapping collection of frameworks and strategies, rather than a single "knowledge" or "method" - even though it is rarely represented as such in everyday, even professional, discussion.

And, very loosely speaking, the sort of "meta-strategy" that this implies is the (ideal) overall angle of the subreddit, with perhaps one addition: that the nature of observations in terms of the direct experience be included. That is: "truth"?

POST: I'm so confused

I read that it's [dimensional jumping] some type of metaphor. So if you dimension jump from 'poor' to 'wealthy' would that just change your state of mind to work harder to get wealthy? Or would your whole reality change and you will automatically be getting more money?

It's a metaphor in the sense that it's a particular concept for describing an experience. That is, you might have experiences so discontinuous that they are "as if" you have "jumped dimensions". In that case, the experience is literally true, but the description is a metaphor - since you don't actually experience "dimensions" as such. It's just that the experience is consistent with such a concept; other descriptions could equally apply to those experiences too. In other words, descriptions are never "what is really happening". They are, in a way, also experiences: the experience of "thinking about experiences".

Anyway, the ultimate point is that the direct experience is primary; descriptions do not "cause" experiences and are not "how they work"; descriptions are secondary. However, it might be observed that intending something in terms of a particular description might "pattern" your experience to be consistent with that description. (This is still not the same as the description being "true", however.) This can only be explored through personal experimentation, though, so you must begin by doing the exercises in the sidebar, and see what experiences you have.

At this moment now, you might say that you are having an experience consistent with or "as if" you are a person-object located within a world-place. And you generally think of that "world" as being a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'". But also you might say that this is not actually what is happening.

What is happening - you might consider - is that you-as-experiencer has "taken on the shape of" the experience of apparently being a person in a world - that you-as-awareness has taken on the shape of a 3-dimensional, multi-sensory "moment". The description of what that moment is and its content, that is in parallel or simultaneous with that sensory moment: it doesn't get behind it.

And so, again, the description is a metaphor, but the experience is literal. The description is a metaphor because it is a conceptual construction, as a parallel experience, which tries to replicate certain elements of the experience to make it thinkable, but that doesn't mean the description points to just a "state of mind" (in the way you mean it anyway). Part of the fun of the experiment is to explore how valid your everyday descriptions are, in the face of the direct experiences you can generate!

This includes your descriptive ideas of "your own perception", "other people" and even the broader concept of "reality". You may find that all of those terms have hidden assumptions which will need to be unpacked, as you progress. For example, you might consider in what way "other people's reality" is actually experienced by you. And, in fact, to what extent you truly experience "a reality", given that this concept sort of implies a "place" that is somehow external to you. Do you experience something external to you? If you think so, then in what way exactly? And so on.

Meanwhile, perhaps try out this little exercise for fun, to give a sense of what a shift in perspective would be like on this:

Feeling Out Exercise

... 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 direct facts of your experience - the only actual facts, really; everything else is transitory. Whatever you think about your experience is also another experience within this context. You can never get "behind" or "outside" of this, because it has not edges or boundaries; there is no behind or outside. (If you think otherwise, then pause and notice that your thought about this is also "within" and "inside".)

Q: Do you experience something external to you? If you think so, then in what way exactly?
What attitude/mindset do you suggest as an alternative to the natural materialistic "modeling of things (to better predict their behavior (and profit from that))"?
When you can't control something (i.e. - when you observe a mismatch between parts of what you're experiencing and what you'd prefer to experience), what's your first thought? How is your perspective different from the classic "there are those things out there, beyond my fingertips, I can't directly govern" ?

So, the possibility of control is a secondary thing, really.

That is, that noticing that the entire moment of experience is "made from" you, is within and as you, is the primary thing, the basic aspect of your experience. It is the only fundamental property of it: the property of being-aware or "awareness", the context to all experiential content. This noticing can be direct (look and see that it is so) or can be approached indirectly (by participating in exercises and finding that your standard description, involving a "you" and "world" separation, is inaccurate, and following where that leads).

Now, this fact suggests that your experience is better thought of as "patterned awareness", because it is the case that there are no inherent parts to you-as-awareness, no inside or outside and so on. This is true regardless of whether you can effect change or not. Even if your current main strand of experience just continued "on rails" and could not by adjusted, it would still be true that it was not external to you. It's not "beyond your fingertips" because you don't have fingertips, you merely "taken on the shape of" the experience of apparently having fingertips and there being things beyond those fingertips.

However, it is worth noting that the "you" we are talking about here is not the personal you. Following from the above, the personal you is actually a formatting of experience. You are not a person, you are that which takes on the shape of an ongoing moment of experience which is formatted "as if'" you were a person. Right now, you-as-awareness have "taken on the shape of" this 3D multi-sensory moment of apparently being "over here" and the room being "over there", but quickly you can perceive that it is all "you". So, when you move your arm, you are not a person moving an arm - rather, you are patterning you-as-awareness wth the fact of "my arm is lifting" and subsequently that is unfolding as a sensory experience, with the entire sensory moment being "you".

This leads to difficulty discussing "causing change", of course. Because you don't really cause change, so much as "become" a new state or pattern which consists of the desired experience as an aspect of it or implied fact within it. And there's no "outside" to you - no separation between you and result, no "doer" and "done to" - so you (as patterned awareness) either have changed, or you have not. (Note that this "state" isn't describing just the sensory moment, it's the entire set of facts within that moment, which imply all subsequent moments - until you shift state again.)

You can't try to change state, for instance, because that would just be patterning yourself with the experience of "trying". This might be taken as a suggestion that, if you don't experience the outcome that you wanted to experience, then you did not in fact intend for the outcome, but instead intended for something else. You might have thought that you were intending for your outcome, but further investigation will show that you did not.

A mundane example: you want to improve your posture, but instead of actually intending to "have relaxed ideal posture" you instead in fact intend to "tense my neck upwards and push my shoulders back" because that is your conception of what "good posture" was. Another: you are in an arm-wrestle, but instead of intending to "have my arm be over there in the winning position" you in fact intend "to tense my muscles and thus generate a feeling of power and effort", which actually opposes the movement towards the winning position.

So, getting to the conclusion at last: one way to think of apparently lack of ability to control is that you are tending towards intending or re-implying your misconception of the world - intending your inaccurate description of experience - rather than actually intending the outcome. Which is why there are no "methods" or "mechanisms" to suggest for this, and it's ultimately actually all about exploring and unpacking one's own patterning?

But, you're actually changing a situation in your own reality right?

It's a bit of a tautology, that. If you are changing your own ongoing experience, then you are changing "your own situation in your reality" - because what is a "situation" or "reality" or "experience" anyway? They are the same thing. It is only the use of particular concepts that introduces the idea of a separation between those things. You never actually experience a separation as such.

As for whether you are "actually" switching dimensions, the thing to consider is: how would you differentiate between having an experience "as if" you switched dimensions (that is, an experience consistent with a description using the concept of "dimensions") and an experience of "actually" switching dimensions?

This is why the subreddit ends up being an exploration of both the "nature of experiencing" and also the nature of descriptions about experiencing. We take a step back from it all, and consider what we truly mean by these things.

To an extent, the name "dimensional jumping" is somewhat of a provocation. It asserts the idea of "dimensional jumping" and challenges you to have experiences consistent with that idea. If you then do have experiences consistent with that idea, does it mean you "actually" jumped dimensions? Or does it mean something else, something more fundamental? Does it perhaps imply something about your everyday notions about what "you" are, what "the world" is, and the relationship between the two (and if there is two)?

Or would you be able to plan things to happen for yourself by doing dimensional jumping?

The short answer is: there are no answers, other than just doing it (in the spirit of exploration and experimentation).

POST: Two glasses - Tell me about your experiences...

In the spirit of digging into things for increased clarity:

I actually did not intend it to make me change universes, merely re-pattern me to be better an manifestation

What's the difference between "re-patterning" and "changing universes", though?

And: how do homeopathy and "vibrational medicine" work, and how is the two glasses exercise related to that? What is "energy/intention" stuff exactly, in that context?

There's a risk, here, of bouncing phrases around without connecting them properly to the actual experience, or perhaps reusing metaphors ("universes", "energy" and so on) that are sort of "too late" when it comes to accounting for these experience. That is, assuming that concepts which are foundational in the "standard" or even "new-age" descriptions, which are not in fact foundational to our actual ongoing experience, given fresh experiments and their results here.

For example, most of those descriptions do in some sense still assume the model of being a person-object located within a world-place (where "the world" is a "stable simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'). I'd say that one of the first assumptions to fall under suspicion should be the "I am an object located in as space" one, and with that removed, you have to approach everything not in terms of content, but in terms of overall context.

Triumphant George, may I ask you something... If you do not want to reply on list and just to myself, that's cool. But do you believe that things can be made to change? I am talking about can into dog or Nissan into Mercedes type change (and experienced by sane people not schizo's), and not in a forward looking "my cat will die, my Nissan will be stolen but I will be given a dog and a Mercedes" kind of way, but in a reality breaking/bending/rewriting kind of way, weather it is retroactive or a "poof" there it is?
Because if you are of the opinion, even covertly, that "jumping" is only good for soft or future changes, things that are not classed as paranormal and are at best unexpected, then we are talking at cross purposes. Because I can't really work out if you are so connected to conventional reality you don't think these paranormal changes are possible and your philosophy is more of an attempt to turn the practice into a therapy, or if you are totally the other way and are so disconnected from material reality that you think anything is possible. Maybe if I had read more of what you have written I could answer this clearly, except if you are being covert about it, maybe not. You have what seems like rationality that I would expect to find in a skeptic, but the view of a mystic.

Not therapy - although of course anything that clarifies might also be therapeutic as a side effect - and it's not about "believing" things. Rather, a rational investigation into the "nature of experiencing", and also the nature of descriptions about experiencing (or just "descriptions" in general). But pursued from the ground up. That is, all assumptions fall under the wary eye, be they "standard perspective" ones or "mystical" ones. Direct experience, then build out (but noting the context if experience not just face value content).

The notion that we are a person-object located within a world-place, for example, might fall under investigation sooner rather than later given some results, but it is not then replaced with another description of the same type: swapping "people and places" with "consciousness and energies", and taking them literally, is perhaps to repeat the same mistake - and so on.

The subreddit itself deliberately takes no official view. First, because it's all about personal investigation. Second, because that turns out to be a somewhat nonsensical phrase (an official view wouldn't have much to say, in a way). Instead, it adopts a "meta" perspective where nothing is taken to be fundamental - except, implicitly, the basic fact of experiencing (that there is experience). I'll try and reply to your other extended comment soon, but meanwhile: in terms of exploring the context of experience rather the content (this doesn't just mean "sensory content"), and considering where a "meta" perspective might fit in, this silly little exercise is worth playing with and then pondering. Note that actually doing it is different to thinking about it, though, and in fact that is part of the point.

Q: But how do you know it's a mistake? I appreciate it might be your philosophy, but how do you know your philosophy is correct?

But how do you know it's a mistake?

It's a mistake in a different sense than you probably mean here:

I appreciate it might be your philosophy, but how do you know your philosophy is correct?

It is not "correct". No description is.

Descriptions are merely useful. As a framework within which to discuss experiences, or they point the way to an insight or experience. Or they don't. Beware the "reification of abstraction" and all that. Descriptions aren't true. That is, beware taking concepts as external things, specifically assuming that descriptions or philosophies "get behind" experience, rather then themselves being experiences (the experience of: "thinking about experiences"). Implicitly, that would be equivalent to saying that the description "causes" the experience. For example, that "gravity" causes things to fall down, rather than being, loosely speaking, the name of a description of - a codification of observations of - "things falling down".

Now, even though it might be suggested (subject to experimentation) that adopting a description in a certain way may lead to experiences "as if" the description were true - something we might call "patterning" - those descriptions themselves never actually "explain" experiences. The description still wouldn't be "what is really happening".

I think the little exercise makes the distinction clear, as a starting point anyway. One thing that is important here is that we don't just get lost in little "castles in the sky" that lack many "observational touch-points" - that is, self-consistent thought structures which are coherent but don't actually connect to direct experience, except very minimally. We need to distinguish somewhat between models and things which are vague and therefore operate more like a narrative or language. (I'd suggest that, as generally used, concepts like "energies" falls into the latter category.)

=But you said mistake, I just asked how it was one? The point I want to make and which I would be interested to hear back from you about is that I believe that a group of people doing this together might, whether for energy/intention or psychological reasons (not feeling it is all on them alone) be more powerful than doing it alone. I also think that having the memory of when it was that way should make it easier to re-establish that pattern and shift much as I believe occurs with flip flops in the Mandela Effect where these are things that people tend to be dramatically more absolutely certain how things are and yet a shift back to how it used to be still takes place. So even in your understanding of how this works, shouldn't this be a novel and likely enhanced method?=

It's a mistake in the sense of taking a conceptual framework as being literally, independently, causally true - taking a description as being "what is really happening". (Unless I've lost the thread here. I interpreted your question as asking me why adopting "consciousness and energy" as a description would be the same mistake as adopting "objects and places". The mistake is to take either as being fundamentally actual or true.)

I agree that having a memory (or any conception really) of something can make it easier to establish or re-establish that pattern as prominent in subsequent experience. It's necessary, even - or at least, if it is no directly conceived of, it must be implicit in what is conceived of.

However, the problem with "a group of people doing this together" is that there aren't any people, and that you aren't a person either - in the sense of being a person-object having an experience. There is a person-formatted experience happening, but that is to say a different thing. Since there are no independent people in the sense of beings, and they have no separate power or intention of their own, then talking of a "group of people" doing anything - doing anything - is ultimately meaningless. Except in one sense:

It would be possible to have an experience "as if" you, as a person, get together with other people and do some sort of ritual and then experience an outcome that is much more intense than that which accompanied your experience "as if" you were a single person doing this alone.

Still, though, the entire experience of this group activity would in fact still be "awareness" just "taking on the shape of" the experience of apparently being a person in a world, with other people, doing this ritual and getting results. In actuality, the entire experience would be a "result", and all the doings and activities merely a sort of "sensory theatre".

Aside - The lesson from that exercise is that there is not "an awareness" or "the awareness" or "awarenesses". There is just "awareness" - unbounded and without inherent structure, which "takes on the shape of" situations and, therefore, moments of experience. (It is "before" division and multiplicity; those are also patterns taken on by awareness; this is why it is not solipsism.) You can notice right now, directly, that this entire moment is "made from you" and that there is no outside to it, or an inside for that matter. Furthermore, you can't find you-the-person anywhere within experience, and any thought you have about the experience or being-a-person are themselves simply further experiences, within-and-as "awareness". The ultimate point being, yes you-as-awareness might taken on the shape of being-a-person-in-a-world-with-other-people-and-doing-stuff-together, but it is a sort of "patterned image", with the all the content of the image being a "result" from the perspective of the context of it. This context is the only "cause", and even then it is more like a "self-shaping" than a cause-and-effect type cause.

But isn't that just your conceptual framework?

Not really.

First there is a direct noticing of what the fundamental fact of experiencing is - and that is primary. Everything else is just an attempt to convey the implications of that.

Which is why I take pains to say that conceptual frameworks are themselves just further experiences. Basically, you cannot think about this. It is literally unthinkable, because we are talking about "that which thinking is 'made from'" - or indeed, that which structures or patterns are "made from". You can't use conceptual structures to talk about pre-structure. However, conceptual structures can still be useful.

It is inherently the case that there are not experiencers (note the plural and the implication that there are objects having experiences). However, there are indeed experiences. There are just not simultaneous, or sequential, or parallel experiencers or experiencees. Hence ending up phrasing it as "experiencing", and so on.

Now, what difference does that make to the person-formatted experience? Mainly, it means that the patterning of that experience is not fundamental, that there is no world "out there" as such, but most importantly it means that nothing in the content of your experience is the cause of it.

And since you are trying to cause change, that may be relevant.

And what does a "persona formatted experience" really mean different to being a person? Wouldn't it be mostly the same thing?

In content terms, mostly yes. But it means that the concept of a "person", a thing located within a "world", is not an accurate representation of your actual situation, and so that ideas built upon that will also be inaccurate. You may make all sorts of "discoveries" as you have the experience adventuring about in the world, including "transformative" experiences with "other people", but you'll never be uncovering anything deep - just more experiences.

Note that I am not disparaging that! That is what it's all about!

However, since this subreddit isn't just a "self help" forum for generating happy experiences, and we tend to spend time unpacking descriptions and concepts to see how the relate to the nature of all experiences, I'm obviously going to spend some time unraveling our perspectives like this.

The whole last paragraph, you say what I can find, but honestly I have not found any of that, maybe I could, but none of it speaks to me as a self evident truth.

Well, you have to examine your experience, now, directly. Rather than either just think about it, or pay attention to the content of it. It's not an easy thing to convey, and I'm not really trying to persuade you of it - I'm just suggesting that this is something you can do and notice, and that the direct fact of your experience somewhat re-contextualises the content of it. Anyway, just put that on the back burner for now perhaps.

I am at a loss as to how any of this is proven, why it is necessary, or really why it is useful

It depends on what you're after, of course. The ultimate aim of it would be to cease to be delusional about one's circumstances. (That is not meant in a negative way!)

So while I find your ideas interesting, nothing really beats results, and there is one thing I know from fringe physics research, theories be damned when the experiments disagree!

Quite so. As mentioned regularly, success of a "jump" is to be judged by having the outcome you intended subsequently arise within your experience - nothing else counts.

However, that is the start and not the end, because typically (after some experimenting) the results seem to rather break the "standard world" model. And not just in a simple way that can be adjusted for easily - it breaks the model of there being a "you" and a "world" at all. And no fringe physics can save it.

Anyway, you'll notice that the subreddit itself doesn't really offer conclusions, it just sets up a couple of exercises to act as the starting point for personal investigation. The two exercises are designed to potentially offer (eventually, when considered and pushed) two insights into our experience (albeit ultimately two aspects of the same insight).

Let me emphasise though:

This discussion isn't meant to dissuade you from trying out "group experiments" or anything else. We're just spending some fun time unpacking the assumptions implied within that idea.

when I first arrived one guy who followed you for about a year gave up, and I have seen a few others who are frustrated.

Nobody's meant to be "following" anyone! Primarily, because this ends up being about unpacking your own experience, and noticing that the idea of independent "methods" and "techniques", or even a specific "how things work" or "mechanism", doesn't quite stack up. But that is to jump ahead: this is a forum for experimentation and discussion, the only extra bit is this tendency to be doubtful about descriptions vs experience - that "meta" perspective thing.

your philosophy is a total rewrite to reality and not just a fundamental plot twist

Everything stays exactly the same, except for a shift in context.

it says more about what it isn't than what it is

That in the nature of it. It's like:

There's a piece of paper. The paper can be folded in any shape. Now, what shape would you fold the paper into, to represent the piece of paper itself? Actually, the only way to point to the paper itself is to indicate how all the different folds one can make from the paper, are not the paper (while simultaneously they are all the paper, confusingly).

Similar metaphors include: trying to make a sandcastle which communicates the fact of both "the beach" and "sand".

It it wasn't like this, then everyone could just read a book or follow a step-by-step method and become "enlightened" (or whatever you want to call it).

it removes useful tool to talk about things and useful concepts.

No, it simply recognises those tools and concepts for what they actually are.

Side question: In your view, if someone wanted to, could they rewrite reality to the point of arbitrarily redefining the structure of the atom? Not just bending but rewriting physics to however they willed?

Well, physics is easy to rewrite: it's just a collection of descriptions, based on a subset of experiences which were abstracted into "observations". The world is not made from atoms - although "the world" (a particular idea) is made from "atoms" (a particular conceptual framework). Just have a few fresh observations, then make up some new descriptions! ;-)

You need to be more specific when you use the word "reality". It's probably laden with assumptions. Do you mean "the direct fact of this moment of experience and its content", or do you mean something like "this particular conceptual framework". Reality, I'd suggest, is this moment right now. Anything beyond that, is storytelling...

Anyway, it might be beneficial to separate out into strands: this sort of conversation and separately your own experiments and results. (Perhaps better to call them "outcomes", actually, since it's a less loaded term.) Because this stuff we're talking about can be a distraction, perhaps, if gone into too early.

Just bear in mind, though, that "getting results" doesn't necessarily confirm a "this is how things really work fundamentally". That is, the nature of the experience of the results. Always follow any apparent causal chain right down the line, right up to: "referring to my direct experience, how did I cause the raising of my hand in order to wave the magickal wand in this ritual". And keep in mind this notion of the context of all experiences.

After playing with that for a bit, this and the other conversations may not be so jarring, because there will be a better sense of where they are coming from (note: that doesn't mean you'll necessarily agree with them of course!).

POST: [THEORY] Why I think we REALLY aren't getting results

What, exactly, is the "will of nature" though?

Isn't it, ultimately, a fictional construct being used as a black box explainer for describing "why I didn't get my outcome according to my assumptions"? Isn't it essentially a replacement for the "will of God" concept. There, too, we'd end up by asking the question: what is "God"? Here, we might ask: what is "Nature" and how does it relate to "me"?

The risk, here, I guess, is that we end up proposing entities which do not exist fundamentally. We may have experiences consistent with the concepts, in a broad sense, but forget that the description itself is not existent or causal apart from that.

Similarly, what is "human intent"?

If the human experience is itself really just a particular structuring of "awareness" (or "experiencing"), then it makes no sense to talk of "human intent" - because "human" is a certain formatting of experience and a certain description of that experience. "Human" is not a being - and that which experiences and intends is itself not human. It loops back to questioning the more fundamental assumption of being a person-object located within a world-place, which the "will of nature" concept implies again.

Now, taking a step back, it is certainly true that our ongoing experience is structured. It's not just a random whirlwind of disconnected multi-sensory image fragments. What is the nature of that structure though, and to what extent is it fundamental? If one supposes that there is a thing called "Nature" and that it has a will independent of you-as-awareness, then one must consider what the nature of that "Nature" is. What it is "made from" and how it interacts. More importantly, what is the evidence of it in direct experience?

We risk swapping one (alleged) superstition with another, except labelling one description as "really what is happening" compared with the other (even though neither is more fundamental). The very idea that there is a "what is happening" behind the scenes at all, as it were, is potentially open to question. In which context I would add:

But the claim is made that we are outrageously free and in principle can have anything that we desire, that only our beliefs or the action of our subjective minds holds us back, that all possibilities are out there, and all you have to do is call them to you.

This seems more like a summary of the "law of attraction" concept and not what is being explored here, surely. That's the sort of thing that is being investigated, not claimed.

All the important questions are functional ones, having a bearing on shaping results.

The problem with sticking with functional questions, is that the very nature of "doing" is also under investigation.

So, in essence I'd still say that you are simply describing the fact that one's ongoing experience is structured, is "patterned". I would not disagree with that. That is certainly true in direct experience.

However, introducing the concept of the "Will of Nature" doesn't add anything further to that observation, I think. If the properties of the "Will of Nature" are simply identical to the observation that "experience is patterned", and that simply "wanting" something doesn't instantly modify those patterns, we aren't gaining anything in terms of insight. Except, because of the implications of the term "Will", the notion that there is an independent "power" or "purpose" which shapes our experience. This is something more than saying it is patterned.

What is the functional, the practical use of that description?

Note: I definitely agree that descriptions in and of themselves are not necessarily valuable. But it is not clear that the concept of the "Will of Nature" goes beyond that either.

I no longer think those are actually much useful as questions.

They are useful because they unpack the relationship between descriptions and the nature of (as distinct from the content of) our ongoing direct experience. More importantly, they force us to examine the relationship between ourselves and our experiences - if indeed there can be said to be a relationship, even.

You are still left with a particular structured description, implying the actual existence of something called the "Will of Nature". Now, it may not be your intention, but implied within you description is the concept of "you" being in some way embedded within some sort of a structure, a structure which is independent of you and imposes itself upon you.

Is that what is actually experienced?

In my opinion, the will of nature exists fundamentally... what I am calling the actions of nature.

In what sense, though does nature "act"? By saying the "Will of Nature" is fundamental, are you simply trying to convey the idea that some of our experiential patterning cannot be modified?

Therefore patterns act upon us which are not malleable simply by a change of notion in regular states of consciousness.

But - is this not just a restatement of the idea that you can't change the more abstract or factual patterning simply by "wanting" or "wishing" (whatever those are, exactly)?

We'd then ask: What is a "state of consciousness" in this regard and why would it make a difference? What is a "deep technique" or "remote state": deep relative to what, remote relative to what? How do these relate to the "Will of Nature"? Is it a battle of wills, a power wrestle between entities? Without asking those questions, then our concepts aren't functional, because they don't suggest anything to "do".

If you contest this, show me someone able to conduct a conversation without a heartbeat.

How does this connect to the idea of the "Will of Nature", though? That still suggests it is a black box explainer for "anything you cannot immediately do".

I think there is a false binary that we are free to change things or we are not. I think at a very deep level we may be free to do so, but I don’t think that level is trivially accessible.

So, I didn't see a false binary there, because that wasn't being asserted (that we are free to change things or we are not).

What you are saying - a useful insight though it might be - still seems to be little more than "we observe that experience is patterned and we also observe that we can't simply update the broader patterning by just wanting-wishing". I think the introduction of the "Will of Nature" and the other stuff simply clouds this. Why go beyond simply saying that there is a "patterning" to experience, and that some patterns seem more easily modifiable than others?

The questions would then be:

What is the nature of "patterns" and "patterning" (what does that concept point to)?
What is the relationship between "patterns" and "the world" and "you", and:
Why are some patterns seemingly more easily modified than others?

Ultimately, then, probably my main issue with your concept is that it doesn't actually explain why someone "really" doesn't get a (particular) result or finds they apparently can't change their experience instantly; it simply restates it in different language whilst potentially introducing something that implies additional entities and relationships that can't be tested (or more: aren't required or useful).

...

So, I'm struggling a little here. After all that, I still don't think you've added anything to the basic statement: "experience is apparently patterned and some patterns seem remarkably persistent". Except, perhaps, with the addition of the idea of a "cosmic agency" or "will of nature" that you must in some way be "aligned" with in order to make significant changes. But then, that itself would just seem to be a synonym for the patterning of oneself as "that which takes on the shape of states of experiences". (When I say "oneself", I of course don't mean human self, since "human" here would just mean a certain patterning of experience: "human" isn't a being, it is formatting of being, in such a description.)

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here, though. And so:

To try to get us on the same footing - because it may well be we are sort of talking about the same overall concepts, and I actually feel we almost are in one particular way, if I could get you to articulate it more concisely - in your description, or indeed in your experience:

What is "the world"? What are "you"? What is the relationship between the two? And:
What is the relationship between the "will of nature" or "cosmic agency" and that? What is the relationship between your direct experience right now and that?

Without this, to me, it feels as though there's a nice phrase, something somewhat attractively romantic even - the "will of nature" - without anything actually behind it, that we can connect usefully to direct experience.

Q: So, I'm struggling a little here. After all that, I still don't think you've added anything to the basic statement: "experience is apparently patterned and some patterns seem remarkably persistent". Except: Perhaps with the addition of an idea of a "cosmic agency" or "will of nature" that you must in some way be "aligned" with. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here, though.
Correct. The very reason that they are "remarkably persistent" is that they are extending from an agentic source that is not empirical "you."
To try to get us on the same footing - because it may well be we are sort of talking about the same overall concepts, and I actually feel we almost are in one particular way, if I could get you to articulate it more concisely - in your description, or indeed in your experience: What is "the world"? What are "you"? What is the relationship between the two? And: What is the relationship between the "will of nature" or "cosmic agency" and that? What is the relationship between your direct experience right now and that?
I really don't know why you would feel that asking and/or discussing questions like that are going to help you achieve results, given that I've already said that any actions we undertake from the waking state are likely to be minimally effective from the get-go. Discussing, defining, philosophizing etc are all "waking state centric" activities, and therefore, imo, the very things likely to have the least possible effect of all activities one could undertake. I sincerely believe you are likely to have more success dancing wild around a campfire at midnight dressed as a stag...and I mean this, especially if you are in an ecstatic trance. Indeed, this is not new of course. Practitioners of magick (who have been doing for hundreds of years what LOA practitioners etc appear to believe they invented recently) have said for ever and a day that altered states of consciousness are the key to the efficacy of magical action. So in OPERATIONAL or FUNCTIONAL terms (sorry to keep carping about it) your questions are literally not the right ones, or the important ones. The kind of questions that are the important ones shift register, and take on shapes such as these. Q: what can I do in a profoundly altered state to make sure that I can at least retain enough memory or control to remember my intent...without destroying the state itself and returning it towards the waking state? Q: How can I most effectively attain such a state in the first place? Q: How can I work with specificity in such a state if I appear to no longer have a "self" there"? And so on. THESE are the kind of questions that matter!

Okay, great - with that stripped down a bit, I'm now a little clearer on where you're coming from, and can probably articulate my perspective on it a little better, in way that will make more sense to you. (More later)

I'm not sure it's a case of "not making sense" to me. Many potential views about reality (or the lack of it) can "make sense" in a self-consistent way, but at the end of the day, I reckon some of them are just more likely than others. That 'empirical you' is the only source of agency is, for instance, extremely unlikely imo.

I agree about the self-consistency point, as regards descriptions. However, I really meant it more in the sense that some of your prior responses, particularly the more general responses, suggested to me that I hadn't gotten across what I had intended to. For when I pick up on this, could you clarify what you mean when you use the term "empirical you"?

Q: So I have a sense of myself as a limited being grounded in a world. That being has boundaries to its nature and its actions which I can't dispel just by wishing them dispelled. I can't point to the Empire State Building and have it take off like a rocket, for example. I can't grow another arm if I lose one in an accident. This inertia in the system is not explained if you are the only agency, and are entirely free. If I declare myself to be entirely free, and yet I still find myself NOT to be entirely free, then something acts upon me. Therefore there is something other than "me" and which might as well be called the World, or the will of nature.

So, let's pick this up again. At the outset, though, I'd suggest that your original post perhaps slightly misunderstands the nature of the subreddit and what is meant by "dimensional jumping" in this context. But that doesn't necessarily matter for digging into what we are discussing right now - we can come round to that later, since it'll follow (ahem) naturally.

In short, it is conceived of as an investigation rather than a method or literal description - which is why the demo "exercises" are labelled as such, rather than as "techniques". This is also why discussion like this are prevalent, rather than just "what is the best way" - because ultimately the very idea of there being "a way" or a "how things work" doesn't entirely hold up to scrutiny. And in fact, the very notion of a "description", and its relationship to one's experiences, falls under scrutiny too of course! (The link I included in one of the earlier responses was intended to clarify this: this isn't meant to be a "law of attraction" type of a deal.)

Anyway, on we go:

So I have a sense of myself as a limited being grounded in a world.

Can you describe that sense of yourself as a limited being more clearly? What leads you to draw the conclusion that you are a being (which I'm interpreting from your language as describing a sort aware observer or person-object located within a world that is like a place-environment)?

That being has boundaries to its nature and its actions which I can't dispel just by wishing them dispelled. I can't point to the Empire State Building and have it take off like a rocket, for example.

What do we mean by "wishing" in this context? I'm not sure that there's necessarily an expectation that "wishing" can bring about changes. Do we mean something like "wanting" or "willing"? And again we'll have to be clearer about what we mean by this. When one "wishes", what are we actually doing? (And there's the problem, too, that people tend to mean different things by words like "willing" and "intending" and so on. We'd benefit from clarifying this by articulating the actual experience of these.)

This might seem to return us to the idea of "functional" - this 'wishing" doesn't always work so what does? - but we'd have to be careful because it's not clear that any action is a cause of an experience. The experience of "wishing" - and indeed anything else that seems like an act or "altered state" experience, that you sense "me doing this" - might be just another result, another experience. While an act may or may not be followed by a desired outcome, it's not clear that the outcome and the act are causally related, other than within whatever description we have adopted. And: what causes the act, since the act is itself another outcome?

If I declare myself to be entirely free, and yet I still find myself NOT to be entirely free, then something acts upon me.

Not necessarily. That presumes that "declaring" (or what you mean by "declaring") has any causal attributes, rather than itself simply being a result, an experiential outcome, of... something.

Therefore there is something other than "me" and which might as well be called the World, or the will of nature.

My problem with this, is that when I go looking for a "me" in my actual experience, I don't really find one. For sure, there are various sensations and suchlike, and the occasional thought, and the sensations and thoughts that appear most regularly I might refer to as "me".

However, the only thing that actually persists is the fact of "experiencing" or "awareness", and not any of those sensations or thoughts. This "me" of experience seems to have no particular location, it's more like a sort of unbounded void-presence which "takes on the shape of" my experience - including the experience of a perspective, with some sensations apparently "over here" and the room apparently "over there", but all of it me-as-awareness. And so, in fact, "me" and "my" is essentially meaningless now, in this context.

And I don't find a "world" either, in the sense that it is normally conceived of, for the exact same reason. There is a "world" in the sense of a certain description or conceptual framework consisting of varies ideas about this main strand of experience, but it is itself an experience - the experience of "thinking about experience". And it is at the same level; it does not get "behind" my main strand of experience and explain it in some deeper sense.

In fact, it turns out there is no place for any "me" or "world" to be, as described in the usual standard description, because there is no "outside" to this experiencing.

Hence, to talk of an "empirical me" other than as a conceptualisation, and a "will of nature" acting upon it, whilst perhaps useful for conceiving of, say, intentional change, is not good for pointing at the nature of that change of of experience. Unless carefully understood as such (a useful pattern which might be overlaid but is not fundamental), it involves introducing fictional entities that not in fact experienced - although one might have experiences "as if" they are true. (This final point, in fact, is the real problem: adopting a certain description and intending in terms of it, tends to bring about experiences consistent with it.)

So, in case that got a little meandering, I'll bring out the key points as being:

Direct experience does not support the idea of a "me" located within a "world" or a "will of nature" imposing upon it.
The idea that "wishing" or "declaring" should bring about change - and that it not doing so is indicative of some external agent and/or a division in experience - is problematic unless we are clear about what "wishing" actually is, in the context of direct experience.
Introducing the concept of "will of nature" tends to obscure the nature of experience and change rather than clarify it - unless it is simply a romantic rephrasing of the observation "some patterns seem more persistent" and is recognised as such.

Aside - You brought up "altered states of consciousness" in a previous comment too, but I've set that aside for now because I think it fall into much the same format as the above, and unravelling will tend to give insight as to the other. While we might talk of "functional" approaches, if it turns out that there is no "me" or "world" in the sense of independent objects, then the idea of an "operation" that one can perform upon the world is already "too late", at least if we are viewing it in terms of so-called tools or techniques. The meaning of "functional" will not be the same after such a shift in context. Similarly, the idea that the phrase "you create the world" is meant in a personal deliberate way also changes - removing the requirement that there be some independent external being or entity deliberately creating things because "hey, I didn't do it". The situation is more like an eternal landscape that is "made from" being and which occasionally shape-shifts into different state-topologies (all metaphorically speaking), rather than a spatiotemporal environment where objects are explicitly invented by beings.

I've come to the conclusion that "reality" is closer to how those who follow Pantheism see it. Everything comes from, goes back to, is a part of/expression of one universal creative "is-ness". And as different as we all are, we're all just bits and pieces of it...having our own experiences, viewing reality from various vantage points. So, you aren't "God"...rather, "God" (if you even want to use such terms) is you. There is an actual fundamental difference between the two ways of thinking.

So, I'd take the general idea of Pantheism but push it a little further than is normally the case. There, one tends to conceive of it suggesting a world which is still 3-dimensional and extended, containing objects, and those objects are "parts of", what you might call "God", and they are having experiences. (I know this is a matter of debate often, but I still find it to be the default impression: a half-step been panpsychism and non-duality.)

I'd take this a step further and say that it is experiences that are "made from" God (or whatever). Not objects and spaces. Again, too, this isn't quite the same way of thinking.

And then:

"God" is you and you are "God", but only in a very particular meaning of "God". We are not talking about an entity God here, not a being. Rather, simply "being". The experience of apparently being a person is "made from" God, but there is no "you" that is an object, a being, that is God, nor is God a sort of being which has taken on the shape of an object. Rather, "God" is what experiences are "made from".

And so, we end up saying best-effort things like (excuse pasting from a previous comment for efficiency) describing "God" as a sort of "non-material material":

[We might say that the] only fundamental, permanent truth is the fact of being-aware - or "awareness" - with everything else temporary patterning on an "as if" basis. Rather than a person with a subconscious who is sending out requests into the world, you are more like a "non-material material whose only inherent property is being-aware or 'awareness', and which 'takes on the shape of' states of experience, states imply and define all subsequent sensory moments". Right now, for example, you have "taken on the shape of" apparently (on an "as if" basis) being-a-person-in-a-world. Meanwhile, this means that any so-called "magick" is, despite any theatrics that go along with it, a self-shaping of oneself into a new experiential state. All apparent entities or techniques or other causes that are experienced are just aspects of that state: moments as "results".

In this case, we don't have multiple "beings" having different experiences, and nor do we have a single being having multiple experiences (the idea of a "single being" is nonsensical here anyway). The only thing that is ever "happening" is this experience right now, and we can't really talk of simultaneous experiences or sequential experiences from different perspectives, because an experience does not occur in time (time is a patterned aspect of an experience).

Interestingly, we end up here trying to construct descriptions which avoid saying things that are incorrect, rather than trying to capture the truth of the matter as such (because "non-spatial" and "non-temporal" things can't actually be conceptualised).

POST: What does this sub think of DMT?

A1: Having a lot of experience with dmt and minimal experience with 'jumping' , I thoroughly believe it could be used as a powerful tool for this purpose. How? That I can't tell you. I've been doing a lot of work/play with mirrors and psychedelics lately and I can't help but think thead experiences are related.

A2: I think it relies on the theory that consciousness is the fundamental stuff of nature. This concept has been pointed to by ancient philosophies, such as taoism and buddhism, as well as certain interpretations of modern quantum mechanics. The idea that all is made up of waves, existing at certain frequencies, isn't new. We know certain patterns of vibrations compose atoms. Further, it seems 4% of the universe is made of our periodic elements - the rest is labeled as "dark energy" and "dark matter." Which we know nothing about. If all is vibrations, frequencies, and interactions, then it would make sense that the brain is a receiver of only a narrow range of frequencies. In fact, we know this to be true in some regards: we see only a narrow range of frequencies of light, giving us our visual spectrum. From this, could it not be possible that our brains can temporarily tune into different frequencies of consciousness? This is the idea, anyway.

I think it relies on the theory that consciousness is the fundamental stuff of nature.

I think we perhaps have to delve a little deeper than that, to make the necessary connections. We need to make a distinction between a "view from nowhere" description of the world (a fictional 3rd-person picture), versus one which links to direct experience. So:

It is not so much that "consciousness is the fundamental of nature", in the sense of it being a material from which three-dimensional worlds are made. Rather, it is more that there is consciousness (or "awareness") and that this consciousness "takes on the shape of" states of experience. A state of experience being a full definition of all contribution facts and patterns to ongoing experience, all implied moments, now. A "dimensional jump" is really a change of state, not a move to another place, and you are not an object, although you might take on experiences "as if" you were.

So, "brains" don't do anything, because there is no such object really; and things are not made up from vibrations, frequencies and interactions. We might have experiences which are consistent with descriptions constructed from those concepts, but the experiences themselves are simply "consciousness". (And in fact, descriptions are themselves just experiences: the experience of "thinking about experience".)

From a previous comment in response to a post about astral projection, magick and the subconscious:

Meanwhile, this means that any so-called "magick" is, despite any theatrics that go along with it, a self-shaping of oneself into a new experiential state. All apparent entities or techniques or other causes that are experienced are just aspects of that state: moments as "results".

A DMT experience, then, is simply another experience. The reason it seems noteworthy isn't to do with the experience itself as such, more that it clashes with the assumptions and properties of our usual description of "the world". That is, that we are a person-object located within a world-place, where "the world" is "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time". This, however, is never true; it's just that we are rarely drawn to notice the inadequacy of that formulation, or are dismissive of experiences that don't fit into it (because we treat the description as primary, and our experiences as secondary, even though the description is itself a sort of experience at the same level, as noted above).

None of this is intended to be dismissive of the DMT experience. It's simply to highlight that its value (other than enjoyment) is to draw attention to our flawed assumptions about everyday experience, rather than because it is, say, some sort of "higher consciousness" special experience. (It is not: consciousness doesn't have "levels".) The same can also be said of "void" experiences, "enlightenment" experiences, and the like.

Q: Off-topic but, what do you think about non-duality? let's say Advaita Zen and the like

So I'd say that most things, in some way, point to the same insight, even though the descriptions then tend to get mangled later. That is, everything is patterns of you-as-awareness, and although you might have an experience of division ("as if" there were division), experience itself is not divided. And "non-duality" is perhaps a better pointer than most, being somewhat more modern with less cultural baggage than some.

However, it sometimes seems that some strands tend to get bogged down in language contortions, particularly the "neo" stuff, in an attempt to avoid saying anything wrong. Personally, I think that embracing things like metaphor as a part of and shaping of experience, doing so knowingly, is a better approach than avoiding it. That is, as part of our investigation into the "nature of experiencing", to also tackle explicitly and head on the nature of descriptions. That frees us up, I think; it makes it more experimental and playful.

Ultimately, it's the case that there is no description or method or technique or even a "how it works", so it is in some ways pointless to feel around for the best approach, or compare approaches. I kind of like to think that the angle this subreddit takes admits this from the outset - and benefits from that by taking an explicit "meta" view on experiences and descriptions, so that no one experience or description is taken to be "it" (but rather, experiences within and as it).

But of course that, although perhaps not initially, easily becomes the very problem it is trying to avoid, if it is accepted unquestioningly.

POST: Astral projections meditation/ findings on my studies into the practice

Some brief thoughts:

the shortcuts have potential dire consequences as the forces you would be dealing with are often beyond your control.

Scare-mongering, surely? (Albeit perhaps self-scare-mongering.) What are these "forces"? If you aren't in precise control of every detail (as some sort of conscious deliberate architect of the minutia), why would that necessarily mean that the gaps filled in would be with "dire" content?

Also, your subconscious mind has to agree

What exactly is a "subconscious mind"? Where is it and what is it made from? Does it operate independently, make decisions and do things separately? I suggest it is a conceptual fiction only.

as well as rituals such as spirit cooking and concepts black vs white magick I have decided that these practices are not safe and without properly trained people in your presence can really put you in a bad spot.

More scare-mongering, surely?

This subreddit is not about "magick". Or at least, it's only about it in the sense that all such topics seek to capture something of the "nature of experiencing", aspects which our everyday assumptions and descriptions do not recognise, and draw attention to them. However, I feel that much of what you are saying is simply swapping one limited description (that the world of a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time") with another one (the world is a "place seething with hidden forces and dangers independent of you, and you need to try and persuade your subconscious to help you out"). I'd extend this view to any romantic notions about "higher selves" and "spiritual growing" too, really.

Here, then, we're not only investigating "the nature of experiencing" (with "results" a target and excuse to do so), we're also pushing back on the nature of descriptions about experiencing. Doing so leads to a "meta" perspective that somewhat recontextualises many of the things you are talking about. In essence, it is not just the specific content of your experience which is driven by "patterning" of yourself (yourself as you-as-awareness, that which "takes on the shape of experiences", rather than you-as-person, a particular "structuring" of experience), but the broader formatting also. All your entities and levels of mind and so on, then, are as much "results" as any event-based outcome; they are all just yet more experiences, at the same level as all other experiences, on an "as if" ("as if something were true") basis only.

The only fundamental, permanent truth is the fact of being-aware - or "awareness" - with everything else temporary patterning on an "as if" basis. Rather than a person with a subconscious who is sending out requests into the world, you are more like a "non-material material whose only inherent property is being-aware or 'awareness', and which 'takes on the shape of' states of experience, states imply and define all subsequent sensory moments". Right now, for example, you have "taken on the shape of" apparently (on an "as if" basis) being-a-person-in-a-world. Meanwhile, this means that any so-called "magick" is, despite any theatrics that go along with it, a self-shaping of oneself into a new experiential state. All apparent entities or techniques or other causes that are experienced are just aspects of that state: moments as "results".

As for the intention of the subreddit itself, this previous comment highlighting the difference between this and the LOA sub perhaps has some relevance.

Truth is that it seems much more plausible and even accurate that maybe actually we ALL (as everything else in that current moment of existence) are the state itself ?

Yes. I think you are assuming that when I say "awareness" that I'm meaning an awareness or the awareness, like it is an object or thing, or a personal awareness. That's not quite what I'm getting at. Nor am I saying that the world is "your" world, like a personal world.

Instead, it's more like "awareness" is a non-material material that is in a particular state, and that state fully defines the world. And that "world-pattern" also fully defines all the people in it. However, the people aren't beings, they are patterns. The only "being" is awareness, and that is the only thing that ever "happens" or has "experiences".

So, right now, the experience you are having isn't an experience of you-as-person. Rather, it is you-as-awareness which is experiencing being the entire eternal state or world-pattern, with one particular aspect of that unfolded, the you-as-this-person perspective. The "person" is a pattern, and when that pattern is unfolded, that corresponds to a "person experience".

But, as you say, "we are all the state" - in the sense that the state defines all of the people-patterns. However, what you truly are is always actually awareness, shaped into whatever experience you having at the moment.

So there are no "people" at all in the sense that it is usually meant: independent beings having independent experiences. However, there are of course "people" in the sense of their being experiential content that is apparently from the perspective of being-a-person. But a "person" is a patterned experience you might have, as awareness, and not something that you "are".

All the poetic phrasing tends to be required because we are usually starting from the idea that we are a person, and then trying to describe the actual situation relative to that. I think it's probably more efficient, and leads to a more coherent overall description, to step back from that from the outset, and assert the alternate perspective. Then we can avoid "higher selves" and "forces" and "entities", because we can view them in the correct context from the beginning, and see everything from the viewpoint of "awareness".

That is, there is being, but there are not beings or independent objects. When we think of the world, we shouldn't think of it as a spatially-extended place scattered with objects like a sort of sensory moment except out there somewhere - but rather as a sort of eternal non-spatial "pattern" dissolved into the background of awareness, from which we might unfold experiences, including person-perspective-formatted moments of experience, with only one experience happening at a "time".

POST: Could this be a sign? Seeing owls everywhere again

[POST]

I recently tried jumping twice for 2 separate this and I have started to see owls everywhere again. Which is a common occurrence with me and others it seems. Well anyways I saw this on Facebook and it really stood out to me, and it's just an ad so it's pretty random. Do you think this could be a sign that's saying to like choose my awareness/consciousness wisely? Part of me feels that I'm just reaching but it's too much of a coincidence and way to clear of a message to be I think.

[END OF POST]

A1: Owls are just owls, they are not signs from the universe or anything like that. The Owls of Eternity exercise is more a demonstration of patterning than anything else.

As the other commenter says, they are best not interpreted as being "signs" from anything. What could they be signs from, even? Rather, you might more usefully view it as an insight into the nature of your experience.

Ultimately, you should consider that your usual description of yourself as a person-object located within a world-place is perhaps not entirely accurate. And "the world" is not in fact, as usually assumed, a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'". For example, that you-as-awareness has "taken on the shape of" an owl pattern - as if you were a landscape with "owl" scribbled all across it, with it becoming clearly visible when an appropriate context arises.

POST: The name of this subreddit annoys me.

Dimensions are a way of measuring space.

You are assuming that the specific "physics and mathematics" use of the word "dimension" supersedes other, more common and pre-existing usages. Poetic usages, you might say, which are actually more fitting for the subreddit's broader concept. Using terms like "realities" and "universes" brings baggage, a tendency towards certain specific literal interpretations, which wouldn't be as appropriate.

This is something that works both ways, of course. For example, people assuming that a "law" in physics is something like a legal law that must be "obeyed" by the universe, or that a "theory" is just an "idea" - or worse, that a physical description is an explanation of "what is really happening". This unpacking of terms and the nature of descriptions is in fact part of what this subreddit is about. So the subreddit name is in a sense a meta provocation in that regard.

POST: My final post

Well, certainly nobody should be getting obsessed with me! So I'm glad you got over that! :-)

As the sidebar emphasises, "Never believe something without personal evidence; never dismiss something without personal evidence". The main underlying idea here is, ultimately, to explore our assumptions about the "nature of experiencing" and the nature of descriptions about experiencing, and to draw our own conclusions. In particular, to be skeptical of narratives. But I'd hope that nobody approaches this as a "believer" - rather, as an investigator and philosopher.

I definitely agree with the attitude of, if you're not getting anything out of something, then explore something else instead. Particularly when it comes to this topic.

I probably disagree with quite a bit of what you've said in your post, though. Not because it is particularly "wrong" as such, on its own terms but because it perhaps - it seems to me - takes some concepts at face value that I would not, although mostly because it perhaps drifts away from the "meta" philosophical perspective that a lot of this subreddit is written from. Experience is what it is, but descriptions... less so!

Quite a few things seem to be implied responses to things that I don't think anyone has said, or at least not that I've encountered as being said, in the way you seem to be interpreting them.

For example, to pick a few, randomly:

I think "enlightenment" is an actual thing, not just an "experience."

I don't think it's been suggested that "enlightenment" is an experience. Mostly the opposite point is made, I think.

That is, that people often report having had amazing and unusual experiences, referring to them as "enlightenment" experiences - encouraging others to engage in practices in order to aim for such "transcendental" moments. But those amazing experiences are just more experiences. "Enlightenment" is not an experience; it is the recognition of the nature of all experiences. Meditation may or may not end up accidentally giving you that insight; and amazing experiences or a experience of "being a void" may trigger that; but enlightenment itself isn't any one experience. That's why it's often said that there's nothing you can really "do" to get it (and that it's not a thing you can have).

"Enlightenment" is not something one can have by just doing a two glasses exercise. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not sure anyone ever suggested that it was. However, pushing back against your assumptions, via exercises and contemplation, might lead you to an insight as to the nature of yourself and your experience. And so in that sense, it might. At the very least, doing this shines a light on your unexamined thinking up until that point, particularly if you produce experiences which conflict with your usual world picture. Again, it wouldn't be any particular experience that would be an "enlightenment" experience; it would be noticing something, perhaps as a result of breaking down an assumption.

But still, if you want to be an enlightened being, you probably do have to meditate 10+ hours a day

That kind of depends on what "enlightenment" is, and what "meditation" supposedly does. Without unpicking either, it's hard to say. What is it that doing more meditation gives us? Now, I wouldn't say that meditation is worthless in a general sense. For a start, it's not just one thing of course; there isn't a one activity called "meditation". More, the idea being challenged is that: meditation => enlightenment.

I just don't think that this world is a subjective idealist universe that one can bend to his/her will.

I'd note that this is not necessarily the "recommended" conclusion. The framework of subjective idealism suffers from similar problems to the "person-object located within a world-place" framework, simply be being a framework. A lot of this is about pushing back against all frameworks, even the notion that there is a particular "how things are" (that can be conceptualised anyway).

If you had some technological device that dramatically improved the processing power of your brain, memory capacity, concentration capability, ability to visualize, etc that would probably dramatically improve your ability to manifest things...

Of course, one might then ask what the relationship between "brains" and experiential content actually is, and why the properties of brains would have any affect on the ability to change the world... and what is a "the world" and what is "powerful" and what is a "soul" and what is "you" and what is meant by "God". And so on.

Anyway:

I'd stress, I think, that what's important here isn't necessarily any particular result (even though I think most people get something, an inkling to start them off, despite the exercises basically being everyday actions).

The quest for results is really the entry point to challenging our assumptions, our descriptions - descriptions based on concepts like the ones you are using above. It's about being very picky and very clear about how such descriptions relate to direct experience (if indeed they do). And if that amounts to "dangerous ideas", then we'd have to say how, exactly they are dangerous. The "meta" perspective, you might say; the opposite of "belief".

But I still don't view this as enlightenment... Enlightenment is realizing what we truly are.

Basically, it amounts to the same thing, I'd say.

What is there, other than experiences? You might respond: that which has experiences! But when you look for that, you can't find it, and then perhaps starting thinking that "you" and "experiences" are identical...

We might say that this recognition is really a recognition that what we are is not a thing. It is "wondrous and mysterious", but we have to be careful that the poetic words don't get in the way of what we are after, since poetic words do tend to imply types of experiences, when what we are after is what is "beyond" any particular experience. The sense in which it is "mysterious" is that it cannot be conceptualised, therefore cannot be understood - it can only be known. And it's "wondrous" because it is not of any particular structure, while being all structures, etc.

But that there, that's getting caught up in a description about it, which is a distraction of the thing itself, of course! Anyway, I think you get the idea.

But I basically think that all of this is a simulation.

If the brain is the material manifestation of the mind, then what is "the brain" made from, and what is "the mind" made from? Where are they located relative to one another? And if they are of different types of material, how does one cause the other? Etc.

Now, we can dig away at the simulation-style approach for ages, picking apart its different aspects, but ultimately I suggest:

If you follow it all the way through, you'll eventually be forced into drawing the conclusion that: there is only one type of "stuff"; this that "stuff" is non-material and has no inherent structure; its only inherent property is being-aware or "awareness"; it "takes on the shape of" states of experience; it is self-shaping and self-causing; nothing ever "happens" other than this self-shifting; this "stuff" is what you actually are and you've just "taken on the shape of" the experience of apparently "being a person-object located within a world-place".

That is, you'll end up throwing away the whole notion of a simulation, because after you realise there can't be any boundaries of type, it all collapses into one idea, the idea of "patterned awareness". Which isn't of course an entirely accurate concept either, however it is the description which has the "least wrong" about it. And, in fact, that's mostly what we end up doing here I suppose: removing what is "wrong" until we're left with the most basic, self-consistent, version.

I am still not convinced that we can do absolutely anything and everything we want in this reality just by intending it.

And that would be fine, right? You're not meant to be convinced by reading stuff other people write. Although, it's still worth digging into why, exactly we might not be convinced - and then picking apart that explanation too, until we get right back to the fundamentals (of the self, perhaps?). I would say that the devil's in the details here. For example, if for simplicity's sake we say that "the world is made from mind", does that mean we should expect to simply flap our arms and fly? Why so or why not? (Noting that, mostly, people who say things like "why can't I just fly?" have never actually attempted it when you ask.)

In your post, you mention things like "rules". We could rephrase that as, our experiences are certainly structured. In other words, we are not coming to this as a void; we are already "patterned". Otherwise, of course, all we'd be experiencing are random disconnected sensory image fragments or the like.

The real question, then, is: is that structure fundamental?

And from that: can pre-existing patterning be modified?

I'd suggest that it is "interesting" to pursue the answers as "no" and "yes", respectively.

Now, since "intending" is essentially just a synonym for "self-shaping" (following on from the description of the self above), we might want to be careful with phrasing like "just by intending", because it might be obscuring quite a bit of detail, I feel. For example, if you "intend" for your arm to be in the air, you'll typically have the experience unfold of your arm moving from down here to up there. Why doesn't it just "appear" up there? How does the "just" play into this?

But then, does this apply to situational outcomes successfully, which are not so obviously "reality-breaking"? If someone has had outcomes arise in that area - repeatedly, of course, to confirm there is "something going on" or not - then what's the difference? Having explored that, can one apply what was done there, now in a "meta" way, such that we can feed the experiment back in on itself?

Those are the sorts of things I'd tend to ponder, anyway. (And "pondering" and "investigating" are definitely the right words to describe the appropriate approach, I feel.)

As I said TG, I will not be spamming your sub with my skepticism. So I will contain all of my doubts in this thread.

It's a good thread. Unpacking this stuff is partly the point. I should add that it's not "my" sub in the sense of being intended to promote a particular worldview of which I'm a proponent; it's more meant to be a place where things are picked apart, with my contributions just being one particular angle, perhaps somewhat variably. The exception to this being, the general "meta" approach of it.

I think there are still rules, that can perhaps be overridden...

If they can be overridden, then they aren't rules in any meaningful sense; they are malleable patterns...

Surely we are meant to be continuously learning?

Learning what, exactly? And about what? (Putting aside the idea of being "meant" to be anything or doing anything.)

We are continuously having different experiences, and that includes different thoughts and ideas about experiences. That's endless. But the "meta" point would be that none of those experiences ever actually get any "deeper" into experience itself. Just like (cheesy metaphor incoming) how it doesn't matter how complex the ripple pattern, it doesn't really tell you anything more about the nature of "water" or "ripples" in general.

So you might have "in-world" learning, as experiences, but that doesn't apply to the "meta" insight, which you have been calling "enlightenment". Not getting this, is perhaps why people become endless seekers, looking for the experience or the understanding, but...

Surely the human mind/brain cannot understand all the answers to existence.

Setting aside the assumptions implicit in "human mind/brain", this also assumes that existence is structured in a question-answer format. Actually, "questions" and "answers" are "made from" existence. Existence, if you like, "is" mystery in that sense. There's nothing at all to understand about existence, because it's not a thing, and has no inherent structure, it can't be "explained". Mostly what you end up doing (what we've ended up doing) is picking apart how various understandings fail to capture existence, rather than how they explain it.

But more and more, you seem to be saying the same thing over and over again.

Bah, such is the way of things, really. Well, the metaphors change and evolve and suchlike, but ultimately we're all just saying the same things repeatedly in slightly different ways. I'm not sure what you expect. The answer is - the idea is, really - to make up your own stuff.

I'd stress again, though, if my angle on things isn't helpful, then don't waste your time with it. It's not remotely "special". There are plenty other ways of describing and exploring available; and I'm not even pushing my own approaches as particularly great! Remember, too, it's not about it being "true". Experience is true, but descriptions are like parallel experiences: they used to point at other experiences and provide ways to talk about them. If they're not doing that for you, then pick another one. You should be synthesising your own ones, of course - after all, the idea is that this is your own exploration of yourself.

It should also be noted that other people's anecdotes really don't matter. They might give you ideas for things to try, or different ways to think, but beyond that they're largely irrelevant.

but I am not sure if the results were mere coincidences and I have not been able to replicate them.

Replication is definitely the key, as you say. Repeated "coincidence", across different situations, with a particular approach (not quite the right word) being the common factor. "Results" may not always be quite the same as "successful outcomes" in the manner of a pass/fail format, though.

As I've linked before, there is a slightly difference in concept between the LOA sub versus this one. That is, this subreddit isn't focus around getting results as such. Not about leveraging any supposed "mechanism" or law, anyway.

But, definitely, the two exercises are intentionally structured to "encourage" experiences which illustrate two main principles (which actually turn out to be the same principle really), from which one can extend outwards. Definitely in terms of philosophy, and hopefully experientially. In either case, "doubts" shouldn't matter (if we're interpreting that as a form of passive "belief"). If, that is, there is "something going on".

What does matter, I think, is that the these things aren't viewed as "techniques" or "methods". Better as, perhaps, "exploratory strategies" structured around patterns. In terms of how far that goes, it's deliberately left open-ended, as is what constitutes "success". It kind of has to be that way, because (as we were saying), this really amounts to an exploration of the structure of self. Otherwise the sidebar and intro stuff would be written in a quite different way, of course. (It's quite specifically written how it is, to distinguish it from a LOA or magick or psychonaut type thing.)

All of which can sound a bit vague, but I think that comes with the territory a little. How do you even talk about the idea of reformatting your perspective, for example? You can't really describe "how" to play with "becoming the background space", for instance... because there isn't really a "how". You just have to get a couple of hints of a similar experience (e.g. owls type experiments), and then dig into it.

In your words, what do you think would the best and most efficient way to maximize the possibility of getting the specific result you are intending? It seems that too much of this stuff is being left to chance. We're all just hoping to get lucky. What is your success rate? Does 50% of the things you intend, come about? 70%? 100%?

When you say that stuff is being left to chance, what do you mean by that?

When I intend, it seems that whether or not the result I'm intending for actually happens is left to chance, like a lottery. You play and you have chances to win, but the chances are very low. It seems like that a lot of times.

So, as I said above, I think you have to be wary of thinking of things in terms of them being a "method" or "technique", and there being some sort of "mechanism" that you are tapping into. Although the structure of language can be a bit confusing on this sometimes, "intending" isn't an act, remember, it is not something that "you" are doing to "the world" - it is itself the change in state.

In that sense, then, there is no ultimate "way". The "ways" are themselves aspects of your state.

So, very specifically, the two exercises in the sidebar (for example) aren't described as methods, bar the occasional slip of the tongue. For that reason. There are always "results" from intention, but that's not necessarily the same as immediately "getting the exact outcome I planned for", because you are pre-patterned, and intention is an adjustment, not a reset. This means that the outcomes of intention shouldn't be viewed through the perspective of "pass/fail", but rather as information - feedback on your current state. You are probing your own shape. There's "luck" involved only in the sense of "mystery": that you don't know your previous condition, specifically and explicitly, except by how it adjusts with intention.

This prior condition (the fact that you are not in a void state) means that "owls" and "two glasses" don't lead you to suddenly appear on Mars or whatever. However, the principles involved in the structure of those two exercises, tell you all you need to know about intention (which is the only true cause). And they also tell you that "mechanisms" are themselves patterns which can be intended. So that's where you start in your investigation to "get better": you might say can go go "meta" and experiment with "voiding" patterning and/or intending "formatting", and also not re-implying patterns by intending outcomes that are based on them for their structure.

You can see, though, why this "meta" aspect means that nobody else can really tell someone what or "how" to do, because that's the exact thing that's being unpacked: your own condition. This isn't about a specific technique that's promoted or even a specific description to believe in. And that's why this isn't LOA or a subreddit of that type.

But of course, this is just my way of talking about it. The subreddit frames itself as a starting point for investigation, not as the result of that!

And lastly, what is "meta"?

Heh, that a completely fair question, right enough! Generally, something is considered to be "meta" if it is about the subject, one step removed. For example, "metadata" is additional data about the data: metadata within a photograph is data which describes aspects of the image. A "meta" reddit post in a subreddit is a post about the subreddit itself. In this conversation, if we were talking about "content patterns" of experience, then a "meta" perspective might be one which applies to all content patterns, a pattern about all patterns.

In the context of our discussions, keeping a "meta perspective" would mean that as we discuss the world and ourselves and so on, we remain aware of the nature of our discussion: that is, we are exploring "ideas" and remain mindful of what ideas are, what "discussion" actually is, and don't conflate ideas and discussion with somehow getting "behind" our experiences.

["mechanisms" are patterns too] Is that, for example, how things like rituals come about?

If you think about the Two Glasses exercise, its "mechanism" is basically an invoking of existing patterns of experience, such as "level", "intensity", "transition", "transformation", "translation", "identification", "association". They are abstract generalised patterns, to which one attaches other content, and thereby (or so the theory would do) alters it.

But this is really just a version of everyday life stuff, I'd say. When you intend to have your arm wave in the air, then you are bringing the extended pattern associated with "arm in the air", the meaning of that idea, into experience. When pouring water from one glass to another, you are similarly bringing into experience the entire meaning of "moving stuff". So we're basically talking about meaning and metaphor, realised. The distinction between literal and metaphorical collapses!

"voiding" patterning and/or intending "formatting"

Well, it's just the idea that - according to our little Patterning Model here - all that there is, is awareness in a particular "shape" or overall pattern or "state", which itself consists of all possible patterns eternally, just at different levels or "intensities" of contribution.

Now, it's patterns all the way down, but some patterns would be "facts" (like: the red ball is on the lawn) and others would be "formatting" (like: the senses, spatial extension, moment sequences, etc), and so on. Although these categories are just for convenience when discussing this, of course; they aren't organised that way particularly.

The idea of "voiding" a pattern would be reducing its intensity of contribution to an effective zero. The idea of intending "formatting" would be to change the apparent structure or perspective of moments, rather than just the factual content. It's "meta" all over again!

For example, right now you probably feel as if you are sort of located in an area somewhere in your head, looking out. This moment of experience has a formatting of apparently being "over here" and the room being "over there". Note that this is different from the perspective of the experience; I'm talking about the sense of "being this part of the experience, not that part".

However, you could instead adopt a change in the formatting of this, such that you are the "background space within which the whole scene arises". If you do this, you feel that you are "everywhere", as a sort of observer-container, rather than being identified with just that one sensation in your head area. (The next step one could take would be to identify with "experiencing", that is you would be "that which the experience is made from": identifying with awareness. That is a change from "observing" to "being".)

As always, of course, these descriptions are just alternative thinking-structures, in parallel to the main strand of experience. Experience remains what it is: experience, not "patterns" or "formatting" or whatever. The fact of experience is true; the descriptions themselves are only true as that: descriptions (or: the experience of thinking descriptions). However, by seeking the most fundamental description that can capture the basic structure of a "1st-person" experience, we're freed up creatively in terms of what can be conceived of and discussed, and what can be experimented with.

...

Life can easily pass one by while waiting for miracles to happen.

Definitely, I think one should never do this. Particularly if one is prone to:

I am thinking that serious meditation is one way one can improve's one life. So it's a win-win situation, assuming one meditates correctly, and seriously.

That sort of thinking, if not done cautiously.

Which is, thinking that if you are just "logical" or do something "correctly" or "seriously", it'll work out. That can be a version of "hoping", just with with some broader more plausible sounding words swapped in. It can be a bit like, "this next thing sounds good, particularly while I don't know much about it yet and can project my hopes upon it - all I need to do, is do it 'right'".

That's how people spend their whole lives being "seekers". Putting their hope into the unknown, checking it out superficially and perhaps being disappointed that it's ultimately a bit boring and a slog after the initial excitement - too much like homework, surely not what they real things would be like! - and moving on. So that's the second thing to never do, I suppose: waste life by always just looking to the horizon.

serious meditation is one way one can improve's one life.

Perhaps it might (there are certainly nice effects, depending on what exact meditation and so on, and the possibility of insight), but it's important to be more specific in the doing, otherwise it'll just be making the same error again. If the aim is to "improve life", it might, but actually if done "properly" it might also result in some grim experiences as things unfold, just as even the "daily releasing exercise" does (where you are lying on the floor in the constructive rest position, letting go). That is, that looking for the "magic action" that'll make everything great, rather than treating things as an experiment, usually leads to superficial experiences and possible endless seeking. If the outcome is judged simply on whether it feels good that time, or a "pass/fail" outcome, then one never really changes. Particularly because, the ideal outcome being sought is, I'd say, not a particular experience or feeling or whatever (although those can be good), but a change of perspective. That improves life most, I reckon. So it comes back to that thing of approaching things as an "investigation", without really having a fixed expectation as to the outcomes, or even the type of outcome. You might then find out useful things for improving life, but that's unproven until you've really dug in - so in the meantime, it's important to improve life using the tools you've already got, rather than waiting for some new amazing-super-tools which you may or may not get a grasp on.

Six months meditating (in a specific way, etc) does sound like an interesting experiment to try.

...

One can also meditate for decades with no results at all, or, can even go psychotic during the process, so I agree with you that this mode of thinking can also be dangerous if not approached carefully. This is why I'd only be willing to try it for six months to a few years. But, really, what do you think of the Jhanas and the Siddhis u/triumphantgeorge. I have done loads of research on this, spoken to many people with actual attainments. They've showered me with love, and some have even read my mind (although somehow, they manage to leave room for "plausible deniability.") But it was very impressive nonetheless! And they no longer need to sleep or eat, because they have advanced through the various jhanas, which provide joy and bliss that is thousands of times more pleasurable than one can experience through orgasms or drugs like heroin-----all through meditation. Of course, one can meditate for decades without experiencing the first Jhana. This is why I am approaching this in a logical, result based manner. One guy I've communicated with also strongly hinted to me that he has recollected his past life memories, and possess all kinds of abilities that one would consider as supernatural. He just never go into detail about them because he asserts the most important thing is enlightenment and transcending the human realm of existence. So to me, right now, it seems that the serious meditators have more "clout." I don't think anyone has attained these abilities through dimensionaljumping or lawofattraction. Most people don't know if they can experience a bliss 1000x more pleasurable than heroin/sex just by sitting somewhere. And more and more, it seems to me that existence is hierarchical. I started to believe that there were no such thing as higher beings, and higher realities, but I'm starting to think this is just untrue. The angels, demons, gods, extraterrastials, etc all exist. The universe teems with life. These beings aren't illusory. Just as humans will probably this century, create conscious artificial computers that are vastly smarter than humans, it makes sense that perhaps in our own universe or a higher reality, there are beings that are vastly smarter than us. And some of the accomplished meditators have had genuine communication with these entities. There was even a redditor here on reddit, u/absolutus, who seemed to have attained some of the Jhanas. He would probably be very confused to know that all of the hard work he spent meditating and working hard was entirely unnecessary. All he had to do to have the life he has right now was merely intend it, if what this subreddit is about, is true. So, I'm really curious on your thoughts on all this. Have you experienced the Jhanas? Do you think they aren't worthwhile? If you cannot read my mind in this very moment, why not? And why can another guy read my mind and not you? One person has told me things about myself, that I didn't know. Do you still sleep at nightt? Why do you do so, when another guy doesn't need to sleep? Why eat? I know you don't like talking about your personal life, but you will find a lot of people on youtube describing how they no longer need to eat or drink water. And they have their face and voice on camera. I am not trying to put you down u/triumphantgeorge. I am just curious.

So, this sounds like you're somewhat falling into the "gurus and teachings" narrative template (or "pattern"). And the way you use the term "intention" - or "just" intention and its use in contrast to "hard work"- suggests that we're not referring to the same ideas here (intention is not an "act" and it is not in-world). I feel that this applies also to many of the concepts in your original post, and to the way you are using the term "universe" - and "existence" and "entities" and "meditation" - in this post. That is, you are talking from a position that is already "too late" in the discussion, so we are talking at cross purposes. Meanwhile, you might consider that there is a reason why, in your research, you'll have heard the siddhis referred to as a "distraction". This reason is to do with the context within which all of these concepts and experiences reside - that is, the "meta" perspective for all of this stuff.

Ultimately, it's the same reason that the subreddit isn't about a "teaching", but an unpacking of "teachings" and descriptions - and it's not about any particular experience, but an unpacking of experiences and the conceptualising of them. Similarly, the sidebar deliberately refers to "exercises" rather than "techniques" or "methods", and in discussions we talk of experiences being "as if" something is true rather than at face value, and so on. All because it's trying to shoot straight for the insight - rather than there being a "path" with a "teacher" and developing "powers" or whatever, all of which can turn out to be slightly nonsensical later (other than being an experience).

So, rather than tug at one piece and then another here and never really get to the foundation of this, I think later I'm going to write a response from a "ground up" perspective, and then you can pick at that.

I would still like to know why you can't read my mind, but some of the "gurus" can.

It's potentially a quite meaningless question. A more appropriate formulation of the question would be: why are you having an experience of this person "reading your mind", and not that person "reading your mind", and so on? From which we have:

It's completely up to you...

Oh well, perhaps not then! :-p

If I may just say - you seem sort of weirdly "offended" somehow. Like you were promised something in particular, and you weren't given it by this subreddit? Or that me, as a moderator here, has taken on the role of a guru or teacher, and not delivered to you what you aspire to? That's not really the setup though, and this subreddit isn't founded on a promise of quite what you seem to be assuming - for a reason. Which is, that none of that stuff matters much, when it comes to the underlying thrust of this, about examining the nature of "experiencing" (and of descriptions about experiencing). In fact, it's more likely to make you fall into a little dream instead. Anyway:

Now, when I say "guru and teachings" pattern, I might equally have said it was a "journey of discovery" pattern, or similar. It amounts to the same thing. By saying this, I'm not disparaging such experiences at all; there is nothing remotely wrong with having these experiences. I'm just trying to articulate a wider point, which encompasses all of this. Which is that they are "just" experiences.

It's like looking at the forms made by ripples in a puddle. And then imagining that there is some "world" behind those forms, going off on a big adventure where you discover the meaning of those forms and that world, encountering fascinating characters along the way, learning new powers, battling with entities, maybe being able to summon objects and circumstances, reaching great heights of achievement - and then:

You notice that all of that was still just differently shaped ripples. And:

You are the water and the ripples. And even the experience of apparently being a person-object in a world-place at all, is just a particular ripple within you - and actual-you are not an object or indeed anything particular, other than having the property being-aware (that is, having the experience of however you are "rippled").

Basically, the thing I feel that you are missing, is that it doesn't really matter what experiences you have, including all these experiences of "flowing love" or meeting "people with amazing powers" and so on. That's just more ripples, just yet more experiential content. It's all that the same level, with no one experience actually being more special or getting behind things than any other experience. What actually matters, I'm suggesting, is to notice the context of the experiences.

That is, to notice "that which 'takes on the shape of' all these experiences", the nature of all experiences rather than the content of any particular one. The "material" of experience, if you like - that actual, non-personal "you" which becomes those moments of apparently being a person in a situation ("as if" it were true; consistent with the idea of it, but not actually the true nature of it).

This is what things like that Feeling Out Exercise are trying to offer a way into, and what the experiences triggered by the two demo exercises are intended to point to, - drawing attention to a couple of the key counter-intuitive aspects of actual experience (it ain't about "powers" as such), leading to an appreciation of this context. Keeping it simple and stripped down, too, by carefully noting that any descriptions are themselves just further experiences. Thereby hopefully avoiding falling into a self-perpetuating dream based on one (related: if you haven't already, check out the Kirby Surprise interview linked in the introduction post, as a nice illustration).

I hope that helped clarify somewhat where I'm coming from here. Elsewhere, you seem to muddle up the idea of "intention" with being a sort of in-world personal "action", and have a notion that an intended outcome would mean there would be no subsequent experience of bodily action - no "hard work" or "effort" - but I think if you think of that from the perspective above, it should be clear how this arises from a misunderstanding of what is meant by those terms.

Are you really a puppet master of the physical dream world?

I think that was probably a joke reference, actually! :-) Especially if it was in amongst some Nefandi-related banter. I'm actually fairly careful to avoid doing anything other that facilitate discussion or unpack descriptions and ideas, because (as the sidebar says here) it's not meant to be about any particular person and their experiences - ideally, "no teachers or teachings". (And there's this basic issue with that anyway, as I've pointed out, and which we'll cover again below.)

But reality doesn't work that way.

Your response there is full of assumptions, though. In fact, the exact assumptions that are being pushed back against and explored. In particular, the idea there are individual people which have minds, that all exist as objects within a shared place, and have intent as some sort of "power" which varies in strength, with a struggle to win.

In short, it's based on the description structured around you being a person-object located within a world-place, with "the world" being a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'". I suggest to you that this description is not accurate. Or at least, it is not fundamental. In particular, experience is not personal (even though it can be "formatted" in a way "as if" it was from a personal perspective).

Basically, you've answered with "reality doesn't work that way" to a suggestion that you are currently making incorrect assumptions about what "reality" is (you're using those assumptions to structure your response).

I'd also add: "intention" as some sort of personal willpower is not the sense in which that term is being used. It's not an act, or a wish, or a want, or a willing, because those would be things done as a person, an object. How could that even work? How could such a thing influence the world? Rather, it's supposed to indicate something more like a self-shifting of state, a "becoming".

As you say, experiences are meaningless.

They are not meaningless as experiences. Results are not meaningless as experiences. They are only meaningless in terms of some sort of aspirational descriptive framework where you "win the game" in a fundamental sense. However, experiencing is in and of itself meaningful, as a fact, independent of specific content. This same thing arises when the question is asked, "if it's all just awareness, then what's the point"? But that dry wording belies the fact that the only aliveness that there is, is awareness. All experiences being "made from" awareness, whatever you thought was the meaning of an experience in terms of a description about an experience, it was actually awareness itself that was meaningful.

You might even consider that our desire for apparent goals, including your inclination towards amazing powers and control, is actual a desire to resolve our patterning such that we have a clearer experience of simple awareness! So the very thing you are suggesting would make life meaningless, is actually the thing you are implicitly seeking now, that which is giving meaning to your actions!

You might ask yourself: so, what happens when you have an experience of being "all powerful"? Then what? Just more experiences. You don't "achieve" anything, ultimately. But that is fine.

EDIT: I suppose what you might take from this, is that no matter what adventures you have, you've already won. Right now.

Q: I've got a problem with the idea of not valuing some experiences above others. I have memories - I mean my best memories - places' I've been, emotionally intense times with friends - beautiful walks - those memories stand out to me as diamonds in my life, like, the times that showed me what life is all about, what it means.. I feel like there's ..some kind of meaning behind life that's..a glimpse of the higher dimension we come from maybe? I feel like ...there's levels -
Bottom level - unhappy times, fights with family, failures, times I felt bad, or bored and meaningless. I feel cut off from meaning, separate from this indefinable substance. Medium level - just taking pleasure or contentment in the day to day routine of life - walking to work on a sunny morning hearing the birds sing, joking with colleagues as I work, singing along to a song on the radio, just peace in feeling the sensation of doing something I'm competent in, getting lost in my body movements and focus (not necessarily intentionally - I did this before I'd heard "mindfullness" was a thing)
Top Special Level - the most intensely enjoyable or peaceful times - walks with people I love in a beautiful place, meetups with friends I love the company of, days when everything went right for me - I bought a book I was excited about, the sun shone as I read it in the park, intense romantic dates, amazing vacations to places with powerful energy (can't explain in scientific terms but felt it). I feel that some of these top experiences just shine out as..times I felt most connected to the meaning of life, times I knew what life was all about or who God was - that these people and places, these interactions, here now, are what life is supposed to be (even though the same people and places could feel commonplace in other contexts). Like they were times and places where the veil between me and God/meaning were pulled down. Having said that, I have a few problems (mild Autism, anxiety, and having grown up in a close-knit church community) that mean I've had more problems making connections than the average person, so maybe a person with average social skills would be more used to friendships and relationships - maybe some of this intensity was just me, as an animal, with instincts for human contact, hyper-focusing on the contact I did have because I had less of it than the average person. Maybe a person with the regular/average amount of friendships and romance wouldn't value some of the times I've had like I do.

Really enjoyed your comment. Some thoughts:

I've got a problem with the idea of not valuing some experiences above others.

That's not necessarily what I'm getting at, in this conversation. It's not about not valuing some experiences more than others. Some experiences are certainly more enjoyable, and experiences have different in-world meanings in the context of personal history and worldview. But that "pleasure" or "meaning" is part of the experience. (When I say "experience" I don't just mean the sounds and visuals of the moment.)

Rather, it's about recognising that all experiences are of the same type or nature: that is, they are all "shapes" taken on by awareness. Or metaphorically, you might say that they are all like ripple formations in a puddle of water. Now, some ripple formations may be more pleasing to the eye due to their association with other ripple formations, but from the perspective of the water/puddle, no ripple formation is "special".

Now, since when we are talking about "enlightenment" or at least recognising the "nature of experiences", we are really talking about that recognition that "all ripples formations are 'puddle' no matter what their shape", we can say that no experience is "special" in that context - hence, the idea of an "enlightenment experience" is flawed. The insight is not to be found in any particular experience, since the insight isn't about content, it's about context.

I'd add that the urge we all have to create descriptions involving hierarchies can sometimes make grasping this sort of idea quite difficult. Really, it has to be a sort of direct intuition as a result, rather than conceptual. (The problem with all conceptual thinking is it requires a division of things into objects, and relating them in "mental space" - even if not strictly a 3D space because there is "feeling-sensing" thinking - but here we are talk about something that is "before" division and relation.)

Your description of "Top Special Experiences", then, is interesting, because it moves towards that sort of "direct knowing" experience. I'd suggest, perhaps, that one way to understand why those experiences stand out isn't exact due to their content as such, but that in a way they are less cluttered, less rippled, and for a moment you are closer to experiencing (really: being) just the open water, or the implicit state of the water, unopposed.

This means that those experiences can be the most instructive (since they tip you off that your usual assumptions about the nature of "the world" and "you" may not be accurate), but I'd still suggest that they are not special in type. And it's not necessarily true that the experience => insight, so those who chase those experiences thinking they can lead to something, are potentially getting distracted, thinking of it the wrong way around.

...maybe some of this intensity was just me, as an animal, with instincts for human contact, hyper-focusing on the contact...

Maybe your tendency to hyper-focus, in this area and in others, actually works to your benefit - since unlike other people whose ongoing experience is a big splash-around of ripples and responses, you are narrowed down on a specific set of ripples at any one moment. And so when what you are focused upon just "clicks", becomes direct with no interference, then you're just there.

Now, that may not be "special" in the sense I've been talking about above - but it's certainly pretty damn good! :-)

POST: Do not doubt yourself

[POST]

I have been lurking here for fun for quite sometime. Whenever someone expresses their doubt, I am excited that at least some people here have some semblance of rationality left in their mind. However it does not last. Often the same people who express doubt quickly go back to trusting the words of the cult leader, Mr. George. Do not doubt yourself. If you started doubting, keep doubting. I don't know what motivates this man. Maybe he's running some sort of strange psychological experiment on you all. Frankly, anyone who takes these ideas here seriously needs to go see a psychiatrist. I have seen far too much madness here. From people claiming to "jump" to pokemon universes to people claiming to have changed their gender. People desperate to change their lives are often "easy targets" for religious conversion. This sub is no different from a religion such as scientology. Only difference is that you get your mind brainwashed here for free. You don't have to pay for it. Please, get on with your life. Spend less time on the Internet. Breathe some fresh air, get some exercise, and spend more time interacting in the real world. Your mind will thank you for it.

[END OF POST]

Well, I'd like to point out that the sidebar does specifically say:

An open mind combined with healthy caution is the correct mindset for all approaches targeted at the subjective experience.Never believe something without personal evidence; never dismiss something without personal evidence.

If you've read any of the more detailed discussions, you should realise it's about the exact opposite of something you're are meant to just "believe" in. The general idea, in fact, is about investigating the nature of experience, and also the nature of descriptions about experience - ultimately without taking any description as being "what is happening" (that is, avoiding the "the reification of abstraction"). Of course, beyond that "meta" perspective, there's lots to discuss, and many different views to explore. And so:

You'll also notice that the sidebar mentions the concept of "active metaphors", which should suggest something about the overall idea. (Hint: the "dimensions" of the subreddit name aren't "places", although one should note that "the world" isn't necessarily a place either, etc.)

Now, a lot of this should actually be relatively trivial as a perspective, for anyone who has considered the relationship between experiences and descriptions, be they everyday assumptions or scientific models (with the latter the idea that a description was "true" was traditionally seen as nonsense). But, here, we have fun knowingly exploring the implications of it - and perhaps finding out some interesting things along the way, maybe something more than that. Anyway - given that it's summertime, I definitely concur with your suggestion to live life, breath fresh air, maybe some exercise, and thoroughly explore interaction with "the real world" - whatever that is, exactly. And as moderator, I am grateful for you taking the time to create a user account on a Friday evening specifically to post this PSA; it should be a good seed for weekend conversation.

TL;DR: Do doubt yourself, but doubt everything else too, or at least don't not-doubt it.

If we're going to conversate, you will have to address the actual content of my arguments.

Hmm, I didn't notice any arguments.

Where is the evidence for believing that you can change your sex or go into a cartoon universe by looking into a mirror?

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of the setup of the subreddit, I'd suggest. It's an inversion of it, in fact. I think you are arguing against your own concept of this, based perhaps on the subreddit name, rather than the actual idea. As noted above, there is no encouragement to "believe" anything. Generally, the idea is that there are a couple of activities one might try out, and then contemplate the experience of doing so, from various different perspectives. Beyond that, there's no particular viewpoint advocated by the subreddit - except the "meta" perspective again noted above, of course.

This works both ways, though: although no particular "esoteric" view is specified, neither is the "standard description" pushed as some sort of corrective response. (Note that you have to make a distinction here between the content of the comments that myself or anyone else might make, the ideas that appeal to them and are being explored, and the "official view" of the subreddit.)

In fact:

If you do have an argument, it seems to be that, contrary to your rallying call to "do not doubt yourself", you are condescendingly suggesting that people exactly should doubt themselves! That is, they should doubt their ability to use their own critical thinking to assess experiences and information. Also implicit within this, is that it is somehow dangerous to explore interesting ideas, as if one might be somehow captured by them. That seems to ignore the possibility that one can play with conceptual frameworks - try them on and even have fun with them, see how they play out - without having to "believe" in them. This subreddit is meant to be the start of personal creativity, not the end of it.

EDIT:

I notice you added an extra bit about an "insult to your intelligence" after I'd already replied, so I'll append this:

I know it's a metaphor. But the metaphors stop there.

They don't, though. The metaphors don't stop there. Whatever a "metaphor" is, exactly. Which is one of the points, as regards the nature of descriptions and their relationship to ongoing experience.

Why not tell them it's all just psychological tricks that have no bearing on reality?

Because it's not a psychological trick. And it exactly does have a bearing on "reality". Again, what ever that is, exactly. And so on.

I'm not quite sure what you are angry about here - other than perhaps the idea that some people might not agree with you, or aren't to be trusted with reflecting on their assumptions, or something like that. Regardless, it does seem a bit patronising, and not based on a close reading of the subreddit.

You are consciously evading my questions. Why do you allow people to place their hope on changing their lives with these "exercises" that have no effect on reality? This is no different from the secret. "The secret" does not work. This also does not work. The only difference is the woman who wrote the secret got rich off of it, while you are selling people hope for free. If you know very well that no one will change their sex through these exercises or actualize whatever else they want, why encourage them to do it? You know it will have no effect on reality, except maybe having them think something weird is going on by experiencing mild "synchronicities" through confirmation bias.

You are consciously asking questions which are disconnected from the topic at hand, it seems. For example, in discussions there is a clear framing in terms of "exercises", "experiments", "investigations" rather than "methods" or "techniques". It is regularly pointed out that an apparent link between an act and a subsequent experience is problematic, and cannot be assumed. ("Confirmation bias" has a specific meaning which doesn't quite apply to this sort of thing, but I know what you are getting at.) And so on.

In fact, the conversations are very much focused on the deconstruction of experiences and descriptions of experiences - in both directions - rather than believing that this or that, or what could or should or did happen. I say the content of the subreddit is mainly in the discussions, actually, and intentionally. In the case of your comment there, there are lots of hidden assumptions to pick apart - your use of the word "reality", for instance. What is that? And without having conducted the experiment, you have no idea whether such a silly little exercise might lead to an interesting experience, or not. (And "or not" is a result too: if nothing at all happens, there's something to conclude from that. Even if something seems to happen, then you have to check you aren't misreading it, or in what context you are interpreting it, etc.)

Otherwise all you have is a default description of the world, perhaps not one you've really thought about very deeply, and if you have so much faith in it - well, that is a belief in an unexamined conceptual framework, a bunch of thoughts, surely exactly what you are opposed to!

I don't see how the ideas and exercises here are different from the exercises that are in the book "The Secret." Mind you, I read that book and couldn't stop laughing for days. Just as I don't need to try the exercises in the secret to know that it's fictional, there is no need for me to try the exercises here. Again, you are still being very evasive. You don't sound too different from a "the secret" or "law of attraction" teacher. When faced with tough questions, they find endless ways to explain why it does not work.

A1: Just as I don't need to try the exercises in the secret to know that it's fictional
This might be the funniest thing I've read the past month. Thanks.

A self-styled asker of the "tough questions", eh?

So, apart from the idea that one can conclude something from not doing an experiment, especially one which requires zero effort - although it is of course perfectly fine to consider something ridiculous-seeming and therefore have no conclusion beyond that - you are also discounting that just the fact of participating and discussing the subsequent experiences is in and of itself valuable and leads somewhere. However, it's not just that you are assuming that you know the nature of the experiment and therefore don't have to do it in order to comment; you are also implicitly assuming that you know... everything.

This potentially makes you a "believer" of the worst sort: a believer in an unexamined and vague concept (of "reality"), with a belief that it doesn't even need to be examined. You "do not doubt yourself", I suppose. Which, in turn, is probably also responsible for you holding a view of the nature of the subreddit without having really followed it. Perhaps, again, you feel you "don't need to" in order to draw conclusions. To hold beliefs about it. Perhaps that makes you a "free thinker"?

Again, I'll emphasis: this isn't about a method or belief, and in fact those two concepts would be held suspect also. You are perhaps confusing this with a "law of attraction" subreddit. Or confusing your own concept with the-thing-itself.

Anyway, there you go.

I tried magic when I was a kid. It never worked. I matured and grew out of it. Why would I go back to having imaginary friends as an adult? If it never worked when I was a kid who did not have any "strong beliefs," why would it work now with my mindset?

Magic, imaginary friends, strong beliefs, mindsets - not really related to this, I'd say, although some might sometimes draw connections (which should then be picked apart of course).

You seem to think someone's trying to persuade you of something in particular, but they're not. In fact, what "it" is, is what is under investigation. You can join in with that, or not - either is fine!

I do like your writing style. It''s very "refined." But thanks but no thanks. I came here to set people free. Can't allow myself to be swallowed up by madness. I have compassion for you. Increasingly, it seems that you are the one that needs help more than any other person here.

Oh well. Thanks for your well-meant comments all the same. Cheers for now.

POST: Has anyone used dimensional jumping against somone else?

[POST]

Like used it to manifest somone dying or something like that?

[END OF POST]

Intention is quite powerful so it could be possible to negatively affect someone's life, however there's a karmic debt created that has to be accounted for.

Really? What makes you say that? Who or what does the accounting, how is payment enforced, and why would it operate in terms of our human conception of goodness or badness? Is there some external intelligence at work in this? So:

The notion of "karma" as some sort of ongoing tally of "goodness" shouldn't be taken for granted, I think. For instance, it might make more sense to conceive of it more like "the persistence of intentional patterns". So, if you intend an outcome of "bad things" for someone, then you may experience the general pattern of "bad things" in your ongoing experience thereafter (similar to how the "owl" pattern arises in a general way in the Owls of Eternity exercise). However, the solution to that would be to be more specific in your intention, to deliberately structure it with this in mind, thereby avoiding a generalised "bad stuff" patterning.

I think we have to be careful not to end up simply repeating things in a superstitious way - e.g. karma payback, magick is evil, all that - without digging deeper into the actual structure of those ideas. Personally, I'd say that there is nothing necessarily stopping you from harming "other people", no necessary reason why you suffer as a result of doing so. However, it's obviously not a very "nice" thing to do!

There's also the additional aspect that "other people" might be best interpreted as being aspects of you-as-awareness - your own extended pattern! - so you are really mangling your own state by doing things like this. If such power is available to you, then surely there are better ways to tackle whatever issue one is seeking to address.

Q: Really? What makes you say that?
My ability to track the path that energy takes was helped along by a near death experience I had last year.
Energy transfers mediums as easily as wind getting converted to sound when a breeze hits some wind chimes. There are no gaps or wasted space between the wind/sound even though they are two distinct separate paths of energetic travel.
Who or what does the accounting, how is payment enforced, and why would it operate in terms of our human conception of goodness or badness?
Human energy in the form of life and emotion transfers just as easily as wind on the chimes, without any gaps or wasted space between the energetic forms. For example, if I angrily honk at someone sitting at a green light absent-mindedly and it frightens them, my anger was transferred from me, to heat when my muscles hit the horn, to an electrical connection which created sound waves, which transferred to the person hearing them, resulting in another emotion of momentary fear. If you freeze frame that scenario, my emotional energy of anger still exists in the form of their fear, minus the heat lost in the transfer of that energy.
When I refer to "karmic debt," I'm specifically talking about the human energetic value that is present when a person initiates harm and causes some sort of distress, discomfort, pain, suffering, or the like to someone else. Just as water seeks its own level, energy will balance its self depending on the positive or negative charges surrounding the energy. That's not to suggest that the do-er of bad things will have bad things happen to them; I'm simply saying that somewhere down the line, that harm will be neutralized.
be more specific in your intention, to deliberately structure it with this in mind, thereby avoiding a generalised "bad stuff" patterning of your experience.
I think I understand where you're going with this, but the karmic debt I was talking about wasn't based on any superstition. It simply aligns with the laws of energy. There's no belief required.
Personally, I'd say that there is nothing necessarily stopping you from harming "other people", no necessary reason why you suffer as a result of doing so.
I completely agree. That's a thin line though. One could indeed manifest harm to other people without harming themselves, but that does not mean the karmic debt doesn't exist, it simply transfers to something else down the line. Nor does it mean that the creator of that harm won't have to experience an energetically-equal amount of emotional accountability when they face death. Does that make sense? Edit: When I say an "energetically-equal amount of emotional accountability" I mean that someone who manifested harm for society would be required to feel emotions in equal measure to the emotions they created in other people. The fear surrounding their own death, or the accumulation of guilt, etc.

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, what you are going for here is less like the general "negative energy" spiritual accounting concept, and more along the lines of a physics style "conservation of energy" principle.

However, aren't you muddling two different things here? That is, the abstract concept of "emotional energy" and the concepts of "kinetic and potential energy" as used in physics (as well as, perhaps, difference ideas of "charge")?

Regardless, we're left with the issue of tying such a model back to our actual ongoing direct experience. In physics, for example, "energy" isn't a real thing as such: it isn't observed and it doesn't do anything, it's pretty much an accounting principle which carries across different types of observations, as a handy connecting concept. It is used because it helps the sums work out - and the sums can be tested against actual (if somewhat constrained) observations, and the models tweaked accordingly. In this case, though, how can we tie this description to our direct experience? What specific observations can be made, to ensure that this description is worthwhile, and that we should be using it to judge whether there is actually a "karmic" issue to worry about? What would convince someone to follow it? While we might say that there is "no belief required" within the description, there is still some level of belief involved in the very assertion that this description is accurate!

To some extent, of course, this last part isn't really a problem: no description should really be taken too seriously, as "what is really happening". However, if we are going to assert a description is useful at all, it's appropriate to push back on it and ask in what way exactly they should be deemed as worthwhile or useful. (For example, the "meta" model of "experiential patterning" is useful because it can be directly experimented with and offers a simple conceptual connection to direct experience, even though of course it is not "true" as such.)

In terms of OP's post, it still remains open I think: in what way does the concept of "karma" actually matter to someone who wants to intend (what they interpret to be) a harmful outcome?

(It's just good to really dig into this, rather than to perhaps skip over our assumptions.)

Aside - I suppose it's worth us reminding ourselves that physical models aren't "what is really happening" either, of course; they are useful metaphors only. For example: the world isn't made from atoms, only "the world" (an idea) is made from "atoms" (a conceptual framework). So what in fact matters most about a "karmic" model is whether it is useful, rather than true, because it is inherently not possible for it to be true. At the moment, though, I'm not sure we've got much further than the idea that "intending bad outcomes might produce unpleasant penalties", which I think we have cast doubt on now, or "taking action always implies resultant change", which is a tautology.

Tautology is an excellent explanation.

Actually, to some extent this is the key point that we keep coming back to. That is, the nature of descriptions themselves.

All descriptions are to a certain extent "castles in the sky": the manner in which they are "true" is mostly in the sense of "conceptual truth", which is really just another way of saying their are internally consistent. This, as distinct from what we might call "direct truth", the actual experience that is present, now (although this is not just limited to the "sensory moment" that is now). The link between the two, we might term "observational touchpoints" - the ropes that link the content one experience (the experience of "thinking about concepts") to another (the experience of "this main strand of sensory unfolding"). So, my issue with the theory of karma outlined above - aside from my reservations of mixing different concepts of "energy", although I do get what you are going for there, which is that all experience must have a counterpart in the physical model if they are to share a conceptual space - would be that it is tautological in the sense of being primarily "conceptually true" (self-consistent) without sufficient "observational touchpoints" in order to make it useful as a pointer towards "direct truth". Basically, that it might ultimately be more of a narrative than it is a model, I suppose.

I don't see how they're two different concepts. Emotional energy is every bit the same energy identified in physics.

I think that "emotional energy" is generally used as a metaphor to describe a particular subjective sensation associated with an emotional state. Whereas in physics "energy" is an accounting principle associated with (loosely speaking) the position of particles in a particular context. These are two different conceptual frameworks, really. "Emotional energy" doesn't translate to a "physical world" energy unless we explicitly redefine it. Which we might be able to do, of course - but we can't just hand-wave it.

Where would emotional energy come from if not from physical energy?

That rather presupposes that the two conceptual frameworks are compatible, and/or that one of them (physical energy) is somehow "real" and foundational. The proper answer is probably that "emotional energy" doesn't come from anywhere in terms of "physical energy". And to some extent, from anywhere at all! Again, unless we redefine "emotional energy", to have a version of it in a physical model. This sounds picky, but:

The term "energy" is vague...

Not if we choose to be specific in how we are using the term, and in the mechanics of how it is being applied in our descriptions!

This presupposes that one must worry about their karmic issues at all.

Perhaps, but:

Even if we didn't worry about them; even if we just stomped along blindly without regard to the benefits or harm we're creating, the energy and its correlating effects can still be mapped out from start to finish.

This rather presupposes that there is such a thing as karmic energy at all! The effects are "only mapped out from start to finish" if there truly is such a thing, and right now its existence is what we are debating. If it doesn't exist, then there is no "mapped out".

In the end, all of it must be accounted for, energetically speaking.

Must it? Even if we translate "emotional energy" into a physical model, and say that energy must be accounted for (which is really just a way of saying that energy is never created or destroyed, standard stuff), there's still no reason to suppose that concepts of "harm" or "benefit" are connected to this. Now, one might say something along the lines of: "if you take an action, then that corresponds to a change in the form of energy, be that kinetic or potential, as heat or gravitational, or whatever". But that doesn't really mean anything for us, in terms of "harmful" or "beneficial" actions or outcomes. That sort of thing - moral judgement or interpretation - lies outside of such a framework.

If we ARE aware of the energetic balance in our lives, it still shakes out to even money. Either the individual had a net benefit or a net cost to humanity.

So far, though, this idea of "energetic balance" has no link to "goodness" or "badness", or other human conceptions of different types of events or situations.

I totally agree with pushing back on these concepts to determine their usefulness, but we can only tally the energetic profit/loss after everything is accounted for.

I'm still not (based just on this description we're digging into) convinced there even is such an energetic profit/loss, in the sense of one that matters in terms of good or bad behaviour, and good or bad experiential outcomes. There still seems to be a muddling between the concept of "energy" as used to describe configurations of matter with that used to describe subjective experiences of situations, which hasn't been overcome.

All that aside, though, there is perhaps a more important aspect of this as regards "dimensional jumping", which is:

Why would intention - that is, a direct update to the facts of the world - incur any sort of karmic aspect, since it is “before” the sort of energy we’re talking about here?

In other words, since intentional change is not an action, surely it is in any case outside of a personal causality-based karmic framework, no matter how it is conceived of, and particularly in the case of a "physical" model like we've been discussing?

Instead, intentional change would perhaps be more like the reshaping of the whole landscape simultaneously, via the incorporation of a new fact or pattern. We might have a "karmic debt" in the sense that this pattern would now be a part of the landscape of ongoing experience until it was reversed, directly or by implication, but that wouldn't be related any notion of "good/bad" or even "physical propagation" type concepts, surely. I'd say that "karma", as the word is commonly used, probably wouldn't be an appropriate term for this.

But then, what type of "karma" would there be for such intentional (rather than physical) change, that would be a meaningful guide when selecting intentions and outcomes? That is, other than as a narrative that never really shows itself in actual experience. Is it, as you suggested earlier, perhaps just something that be ignored, since it doesn't actually manifest other than as a sort of story?

POST: Header Change Thought/Question

I'd move away from the concept of a "dimension" as a "place", and instead view it as a "state of experience" (that is, a particular set of facts and patterns from which your ongoing sensory moment arises). And the "you" who experiences this "dimension" isn't a you-as-person, but rather you-as-awareness.

That way, you can view yourself as having taken on a "person-in-a-world experience", but you never actually go anywhere, it's just that the content of the experience arising within you changes (like a 3D multi-sensory thought unfolding within an open aware space). Given this, it makes no sense to talk of what "other people" would be experiencing, because "people" don't experience anything at all. Rather, "people" are patterns which are experienced - by you-as-awareness. You can easily recognise that any thoughts you have about other people, or any other sort of external environment, are in fact just further experiences within you.

For example, note where your thoughts about other people and other dimensions-as-places appear if you do this:

Feeling Out Exercise

POST: An Experiment I'm Doing

[POST]

I doubt I'm the first person to do this experiment, though at least in my explanation, doing it will serve a dual purpose. For the past 16 or so hours, I haven't looked in any mirror/reflective surface. I'm doing this so I forget what I look like so I can only experience my ideal appearance (in thought) without any "this is how things actually are" image conflicting with that. I also thought this would be helpful for getting rid of the idea of viewing my body as the "center" of my experience. Even after having realizations of there being no separation in experience, the old perspective of your body being who you are can still come back. I figure with not remembering what you look like as much will help loosen the idea of "being a body" because that idea relies heavily on having a clear mental image. As someone who usually looks in the mirror 20+ times a day, due to being rather preoccupied with appearance, I already feel the effectiveness of doing this for just the short time I've done it so far - there's almost no resistance to feeling as though my ideal is true, because the opposite has no fuel to run off of. I will keep doing this experiment, though I don't know for how long.

[END OF POST]

One possible approach to this - or maybe something to use in addition - is, rather than to try to forget the mirror image, instead recontextualise it.

For example, shift your attention to the idea of a "background space" within which a "sensory moment" of experience is unfolding. From that perspective, an image in the mirror becomes simply a part of this overall 3D-multi-sensory moment-image, and belongs to it rather than to you. In fact, what you are is that within which all of it appears. (Note that when I say "the idea of" I don't mean to think about it; I mean to seek out that background space directly in your actual experience, now.)

To further emphasise this, you should include the "direction you are looking out from" in your attention. That is, if you were to be stood looking at a mirror, your attention is in the direction of the mirror. Now, in addition, extend your attention into the opposite direction, to the space which you are apparently looking out from. You'll typically perceive this to be a sort of "void" that has no end, and then you'll realise that this void is in all directions - again leading to the experience of a void/space with an image floating in it, with you as that void/space and also the image. (This was Douglas Harding's old trick for noticing your actual relationship to experiential content, mirror images included. His books On Having No Head and particularly Head Off Stress are still worth checking out.)

A version of this approach is described in the Feeling Out Exercise, which seeks to recontextualise both your sensory experience and your thoughts about sensory experience, and dispel the notion of anything being "behind" or "outside" them.

Even when I looked at "myself" in the mirror without being in the midst of a realization type experience, I didn't feel very much ownership of what I saw, because it didn't seem like me.

Somewhat like the image in the mirror is part of the "visual wallpaper" of the room; the images of your body parts as you move through the day are part of the "visual wallpaper" of the scene. Just because those images aren't "you", though, doesn't mean we can't want to adjust them. After all, our main strand of experience unfolds "as if" we are that body in that world. If the wallpaper in our house is looking a bit rough, we don't just go "never mind, that wallpaper is not me" and sit in squalor!

(The irony being that, in a particular way, the wallpaper in your house and the mirror image are in fact you - just not in the way we would normally think of it, and not in a way that is burdensome.)

POST: Letting go

[POST]

Any good advice on this topic? I know it's one of the most basic concepts, but this seems to be a really big fuck up for me. I made a very important jump and everyday that I wake up and nothing has changed or when check the thing that's supposed to be changed, and it hasn't, I feel like it didn't work and I feel really hopeless.

[END OF POST]

So, it's perhaps useful to see that "letting go" isn't something you actually do - although language tends to imply that. There's no technique. If you look for a method, you'll end up doing something else instead but calling it "letting go".

First, I'd think of it more like a not interfering after having intended an outcome. The idea being that when you have made a change, then it becomes "true now that this happens then" and any further tinkering amounts to counter-intending. That's why the final instruction of the Two Glasses exercise is as it is. Second, there's "letting go" in the sense of non-attachment. Now, sometimes people say "detachment" but I feel that can get us muddled up with the idea of trying to be separate from what's happening somehow, which would actually be a sort of interfering or holding - the opposite of what you want.

"Non-attachment", then, would correspond to allowing the ongoing moment to unfold without obstruction no matter what its content - as above - but also means not trying to "make" things happen when intending. Intention has no inherent sensory component, after all - sensory experiences are always "results". Attempts to force or manipulate experience in order to "experience doing the intending" is basically an intention to create a particular sensation, and if that sensation is associated with your current state, you are effectively re-intending that instead of your target outcome.

Generally, it is probably useful to conceive of your current patterned state as the full definition of your world. That "world-pattern" consists of all the current active facts, and therefore fully determines the sequence of sensory moments that will follow. And so, if you successfully shift this via a "jump", then from that point onwards the new target fact has been incorporated and taken into account - even if you have experiences which aren't filled with joy or whatever afterwards, or passing doubtful thoughts or whatever (simply leave those alone).

For sure, you might experience synchronicities afterwards, just as a side effect of "patterning" your experience, but there is no reason why you must experience any indications of success prior to experiencing that actual outcome. Basically, this isn't a "signs form the universe" type deal. (In fact, in this view, there is no independent "universe" as we usually conceive of it.) "Letting go", then, becomes somewhat a matter of trust, acceptance, belief, faith and so on - but only in the sense that those tend to lead to you not interfering; they are not in and of themselves a cause of results.

You don't even know how much you've helped me George, thank you! This may sound like a stupid question, but now that I realize that I've been interfering with my intention big time, should I redo my jump minus tinkering?

Why not? Decide to have a clean slate, and begin your experiment again.

You can also play with carrying this over into everyday life: for example, lots of people move their bodies by straining and controlling their muscles, instead of, say, intending an outcome then allowing their body movements to arise spontaneously. After all, "body movement" is another experience like any other, the nature of it and its relationship to intention is identical, so that's a good way to practice. For example, sit down in a chair and then intend to be standing up - or to be standing over there by the door, whatever - but don't do anything about it, nor obstruct any movements that arise. By doing this you'll become aware of whether you are, for instance, habitually intending your current position and then having to strain to overcome it, or whether you are intending muscle tension (for "doing") as well as the outcome. (Which would be like intending "stay still" and "move freely" simultaneously, producing the experience of effort and strain.)

One might consider, then, that to intend these unhelpful ways is actually to regularly re-intend your current state, in preference to your target state. "Resistance" to change isn't necessarily about fighting back in obvious ways; it can be more like returning to an overall extended or postural pattern by unwittingly re-intending a part of it. (I don't mean to overstate this though: you are not undoing all your good intentions every time you struggle to get out of a chair!)

Don't get too hung up on that last bit though; there's nothing to be done about them, it's more about recognising the benefit of, and experimenting with, "ceasing to interfere" and allowing the moments between now and the outcome to unfold without obstructing.

Thanks, George! I really needed to read this. I've noticed that it can be hard to perfect the "detachment values" as I call them (I'm a programmer, I usually discuss this all like it's a program, makes it easier to understand). But I've compared it to hypnosis. If you are thinking to yourself "Okay, now I will be hypnotized", then it won't work. You have to just relax and allow to happen. It's not much different here. I wasn't able to get hypnotized for the first time until I was really tired and not really focusing on it. This is when it actually happened. Thanks for this thread, I really needed to read this!

Yeah, I sometimes think viewing things in programming terms - or other mechanistic analogies - can be a hurdle, perhaps, because it tends to imply that there are processes and mechanisms whereby one thing operates on another, which is not the case when we are talking about the nature experience (whether that is unobstructed experience or intentional shifting) rather than its content.

(Further thoughts:)

I do keep returning to a model whereby we have ourselves-as-world as a single patterned landscape which self-shifts, and is static in between such shifts. The only thing that "happens", then, is intention - and that is not a process nor does it have a mechanism. Your ongoing "unfolding moment" appears to be changing, happening, but really it is static from an overall perspective (we could say that "time passing" is a static pattern in our landscape).

Which is why you can't do anything in order to be non-attached [1], because any attempt to do so is actually an intention, a deformation or obstruction of the situation which was already there, an example of interference we are supposedly trying to avoid!

Actually, I suppose part of the problem with getting a handle on this is that people assume that in their daily lives they are always "doing" their movements and thoughts and so on, and this means they just don't have the concept of experience just happening "by itself". But if you pay attention to your everyday life, you'll find that this is very much what happens (and that's why doing silly little experiments with body movement can be quite helpful, to dispel incorrect assumptions).

[1] Again, I used "non-attached" instead of "detached" there to emphasise that there is no attempt to somehow separate ourselves from experience involved. That's what "detached" seems to imply for some people, even though it is meant to indicate detachment in the sense of "being okay with and non-resistant to whatever arises", rather than putting distance between the (apparent, supposed) experiencer and their experience. Having said that, I do tend to use those terms somewhat interchangeably myself.

POST: Which method to use to achieve future goal?

Just for super clarity, I'd probably highlight issues with the use of "unconsciously" with the word "choosing", because of how loaded that term is, and how varied its uses. It's easier, I think, to reserve "choices" for intentions, where "intending" means deliberate selection and intensification of a pattern to make it relatively more prominent in our experience ("the intention"). I'd perhaps strip it back to simply: we can intend outcomes or facts - shift ourselves - but sometimes the extended pattern implied by those intentions is not anticipated.

For example, you might react to an encounter with someone you like but are shy of by intending them to "go away"; and they do. You could say that you "unconsciously chose" to make it so you never have a relationship with that person, but I think that doesn't really capture what's actually going on. "The unconscious" is a problem because people tend to think of it as both a place and a process, somehow separate from ongoing experience, but which has a mind of its own and does things - whereas it's really just a way of saying "aspects of your current patterning which are not unpacked into this expanded sensory moment", like Bohm's ink droplet analogy.

You are the only mind, and the state of your world is a static landscape that cannot shift unless you shift it/yourself. You are the only thing that "happens". So, "unconscious" in the sense of not being explicitly aware of what we have done - not having a thought about that - but not in the sense of there being something "happening" behind the scenes. But then, of course, our entire state right now is of that "unpacked" type. Our current patterning is, other than this current "sensory moment", in the background rather then unfolded into explicit knowing (=experience). Only the current "sensory moment" or an explicitly chosen intention, while being intended or recalled, are not of that type.

Perhaps it's a better term to use overall, but it only makes sense if you truly know what you're doing.

The problem is, when we begin with these terms we've already created a hurdle for understanding it properly. "Conscious-unconscious", given that people tend to conceive of these things as "happening" independently in some sense, is already built upon an error and rich with unhelpful associations, some of which are very difficult to point out, to the extent that it's better to put them aside. Of course, in casual conversation, unlike here, then we start with whatever way in might be easiest, and then try to lead things around. But at some point, inevitably, you have to just assert the viewpoint - either by asserting that there is such a thing as "intention" and building out, or by leading them through an exercise like Feeling Out and so on - and build out from that, as a parallel picture of things. In these conversations, naturally, we're all about digging into these things, and I'm not particularly aiming at generating snappy few-liner descriptions that can be given to people without establishing a background first. However, a side effect of this tends to be the generation of new metaphors which can be helpful in that area.

Why would negative feelings arise if that's not what I'm focusing on anymore?

They are aspects of your current state, which will always have some patterning from previous intentions and implications - which typically become less conspicuous over time. (Remember, here, that the state is static, so more accurately they don't "become" less conspicuous, it's just true now that the pattern is less dominant across the static set of moments.)

With passing thoughts and feelings, then, just let them be and they'll just be left behind. Wrestling with the content of every moment is a sure way to get into trouble. If a thought or feeling persists, then intend the desired feeling. And, again, let it be too. You are not meant to be managing your ongoing experience in some sort of constant maintenance mode.

so it does seem like this could improve drastically as I keep putting more focus into it.

I'd say it's not necessarily about "putting focus into" so much as "do not subsequently interfere" - depending on what is meant by that ("putting focus"). This is something to experiment with a bit, but since your intentional reactions to surroundings can be in terms of a depressed state, you can end up recreating it. After which, when you notice this has occurred, you can re-intend feeling good again of course - but:

I'd like to caution against "keeping focused on" in some sort of ongoing sense, like a "forcing" more than simple one-hit "decisions". This can become another version of holding yourself in a fixed position in opposition to the moments that you have defined in your state previously. Intention can best be considered as as "redirection" or "assertion", not as a process that needs maintenance, otherwise you are in fact holding a moment, rather than modifying your state while avoiding obstructing the unfolding of your sensory experience.

"Putting focus into" in the sense of "intending when I notice that I have counter-intended" is perfectly fine, of course.

It's fine to invoke any concept, but we just have to be more careful than we would when discussing other topics - because in this case the thing we are discussing is also about the nature of concepts (or descriptions). Every concept comes with baggage, and accumulates more over time. Worse - "God" being a classic one, but "consciousness" too - many concepts turn out to be sort of meaningless, because we tend not to take the time to define them. (For example, reading "consciousness explained" type articles is often fascinating, because usually - inevitably - the article turns out to be about this other thing, but with it being labeled "consciousness".)

As you pointed out earlier, though, this just means we need to engage in a dialogue to whittle down what exactly we mean by the terms we are using. And I do think that, if we introduce the "meta" idea of "experiencing" as being independent of, the context to, any content, then we've always got a platform we can retreat to in order to regain our footing.

Anyway -

There's probably an interesting point to be made about whether or not to treat any content as "important" (or as "signs"). It's best to treat them just as they are actually experienced: multi-sensory 3D imagery, within awareness, with a feeling of "meaning" with it. Any further interpretation is itself a further experience: the experience of "thinking about" that experience.

Meanwhile, if you don't regularly re-imply something, then the pattern tends to fade, simply because other intentions towards desired "fact-patterns" will tend to imply the reduced contribution of that something, simply as part of the world-experience being fairly consistent. As I say, though, there's nothing wrong with regularly intending "being happy" or whatever, but this is not the same as manipulating or maintaining the ongoing sensory moment. It is more like "asserting a fact" into the background of experience, such that subsequent sensory moments arise in alignment with that, later.

The total simplicity of this does, ironically, lead to lots of verbiage in an attempt to capture it. Ultimately, we are talking about an undivided non-thing - but since words and concepts require division (that is, the breaking up of things into "parts" and then relating them within a "conceptual space"), we immediately create an error even in the attempt to capture it (if we are talking in terms of divisions, we are already not talking about the undivided thing), and flip from zero complexity to endless complexity.

Trying to talk about "awareness" suffers from this. It's not a thing at all, and nor is it even the material that things are made from, although that's still a useful metaphor. The concept "awareness" is immediately inaccurate, because simply the fact of dealing with a concept means we aren't talking about awareness-as-it-is, which is "before" concepts.

And talking about "intention" suffers from the same issue. Intention is not about entertaining thoughts or feelings or whatever. Intention is the reshaping of oneself, by oneself. "Entertaining thoughts" is a result - an experience. So it cannot be a cause. Experiences are results of intention, so if we find ourselves talking about something to "do", we are already talking about something other than intention.

It's actually better to start with the concept of a "state" and have intention simply be a modification of the state, with sensory experiences being aspects of the current state. That way, you have a nice clear model:

You are "awareness". The only inherent property of "awareness" is being-aware. Awareness contains all possible patterns, eternally. Awareness can be in a "state" where some patterns are more prominent than others. Your ongoing sensory experience is the sensory aspect of that "state". "Intending" is the name given to increasing the relative prominence of a pattern ("the intention") in your state, such that ongoing sensory experience reflects that (because it just is an aspect of that patterned state). All experiences are results. The only cause is the state/intention.

Of course, this inherently means that neither "awareness" nor "intending" can be described, since descriptions are themselves experiential patterns, and are "made from" awareness. Just like you can't build a sandcastle which is the shape of "the beach" and "sand", even though the sandcastle is both "the beach" and "sand". (And if you make sandcastles and label them "the beach" and "sand", they are still not those things, although it is likely we will get confused and start treating them as such. Which loops back to where we came in, with our unpicking of terms in order to be certain we meant what we think we meant.)

It's not really passive, though, although I get that the language seems to suggest it.

Saying that the only inherent property is being-aware is just to say that the "shape" of it is always inherently an experience. It can then causelessly shape-shift itself into any experience (but don't conflate experience with the current "expanded sensory moment" only; something I keep accidentally implying I must admit).

Sometimes, as a brief mental image even though it slightly misleads, I refer to "awareness" as:

"The non-material material whose only inherent property is being-aware and which 'takes on the shape of' states and experiences; right now it has 'taken on the shape of' apparently being-a-person-object-in-a-world-place".

Which is more suggestive of the complete idea. Implicit in this description is that all possible patterns are present eternally, are always available, and it's a matter of the "relative intensity of contribution" rather than their existence as such.

Following from that, then: "intending" is the reshaping of you-as-awareness such that a given pattern ("the intention") becomes more prominent in its contribution to ongoing experience; "volition" would be a little bit of experiential or imagination theatre whereby you browse patterns and select one to then adopt more fully.

As always, we should highlight that experience just is and there's nothing "behind" is - and that includes this description, which is itself just an experience (an experience of "thinking about experience"). So, the description doesn't get "behind" experience or "explain" experience, however it provides a framework for thinking about the essence of a structured experience independent of specific content - it is closer to the "basic experience" - and is useful as a platform for formulating intentions "as if" it were true (which of course intensifies the apparent truth of the description, because whatever patterns an intention is asserted in terms of, is also brought into prominence, as part of its extended pattern).

To avoid going astray, though, so that we don't start thinking that this is "how it really works" or gives us a method or mechanism, we keep re-iterating that the only fundamental truth is the fact of "awareness", and all other aspects of experience are relatively true (patterning, temporarily) only.

The shape-shifting metaphor makes passivity go away, but the adverb "causelessly" seems to bring it back.

The issue here is one of language, again. Language requires that there be a "doer", a "doing", a "done". You can't really describe "movement" without it sounding passive unless you invoke a "mover" - but in this case we are talking about self-shaping or self-movement, with no "mover" distinct from the "movement", because of course you are the entirety of the experience.

As an attempt to illustrate this: move your arm. Attend to the experience. Do "you" actually "move" your arm, or does the experience of "my arm moving' simply arise? In what sense do you "cause" your arm to move? If you have an experience of "doing" the movement, then what causes that experience? Is it not itself a causeless experience, in terms of there being something within your experience that makes the arm move? Is it not the case that the entirety of your ongoing experience is a "result" and not a "cause"? Something to play with, anyway.

So, there's nothing "behind" it, but maybe there is something inside it.

Again, this is perhaps best viewed as an issue with language and conceptual thinking - which always involves arranging object-ideas within a conceptual space, almost like as sort of imaginary "thinking room". There are in fact no hierarchies or locations in what we're talking about here, but there's actually no way to talk about this, since thinking requires division and relation, which is "after" this.

So, really, we must simply accept that we are using metaphors to point to aspects of our experience, and sometimes those metaphors will apparently even clash or contradict one another in the details because they are all "wrong" to an extent. The descriptions we are using aren't "explanations" for our experience, they are our best attempts to communicate insights that are observed. "How things are" is never captured by the description, never are them; the descriptions merely point to them.

The implicate/explicate orders are one useful image, certainly. But: the implicate order is not actually intended to be spatially located at all, since it is "before" even the formatting pattern of "spatiality". It is useful to refer to it as "enfolded within" our experience, because it gives a sense of the relationship, but the spatial metaphor is not really accurate (since only spatially-extended experiential content has spatial extent and this is not that).

Similarly, the "patterning" model tries to use the concept of patterns or ripples, all existing simultaneously and summing up to a state. A bit like Moire fringes. The idea here is to use the minimum required concepts to represent a structured experience, whilst avoiding invoking spatial or temporal metaphors as much as possible. The "sensory aspect" is the current "unfolded" part of that total image, in this description: sensory experience is spatial, but patterns themselves are not. But again, that description is not "true" because no description can be; it is simply an attempt to capture certain aspects of experience such that they can be discussed and, then, used as formulations for intentions.

The summary, then:

Experience is as it is and is primary; descriptions are pointers to that and are themselves experiences, so it is not possible to have a model which is experience. There is actually no "how things are" or "mechanism" or "structure" which is inherent. Models are meant to be "effective" (that is: useful) rather than "true", so arguing about the models can sometimes be a distraction, and that's why the sidebar encourages conducting experiments.

Aside - Models are never "true" even outside of this more "meta" analysis, although unfortunately they are often presented as such at the moment by many people who really should know better. Even in the standard description, the world is not actually, say, made from "atoms". That model was never intended to capture "what is really happening"; it is simply a useful - "effective" - description for many purposes. "The atomic world" (a certain conceptual framework) is made from "atoms", but the-world-as-it-is, experience, is not. See, for example, two handy articles: The mental universe [https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf] and What's bad about this habit [https://www.ehu.eus/aitor/irakas/mes/Reference/mermin.pdf].

When seeing this, it seems kind of pointless trying to meddle with whatever you're experiencing, because it's not seen so much as an impediment to get somewhere else.

Another way to say this is: If all things already exist, and they are brought into experience by intensifying them, then trying to tinker with the content of the moment is misguided, or at the very least it is limiting. There is no need to "transform" the current experience into the desired one; one simply needs to assert the desired pattern into relative prominence.

Furthermore, the very idea of trying to operate upon the "image" is (in this context) really in error, because the current experience is a result or sensory aspect, and is not the fact itself. That is, if the sensory aspect is the flames atop a stack of glowing coals, their shape reflecting the arrangement of the stones from which the flames arise and are a part, then trying to modify the flames, while it may adjust their position slightly, does not tackle the pattern of which the flames are merely a visual aspect.

You needn't be parroting positive things to yourself all day, but if it arises for a while, then go ahead. If negative stuff like "I look like crap" arises, then let that be there, just don't be interested in it. Does that sound accurate?

That sounds accurate.

The notion that one must always be "feeling good" or "thinking the right thoughts" - as passing aspects of experience - in order for the desired outcome to arise, is flawed. There are two aspects to that:

First, those feelings or thoughts are results. Like the flames above. Altering the flames does not alter the facts or the state, beyond perhaps a little intentional extended patterning. The flames are not casual. One moment does not cause the next moment: they are both images arising from one's state, which is a static definition which fully determines the sequence of moments (that is, between occasional intentions/shifts of course).

Second, it you intend a particular outcome, then at the moment of intending the state is shifted (because intention is the shifting of state) such that the new fact-pattern ("the intention") is incorporated. At that moment, it becomes "true now that this happens then", with the series of moments between now and then being fully defined by implication. But:

There is no reason why all those intermediate moments will be filled with "loveliness" and "joy" or "signs of success".

A silly example: If I intend to bump into someone I am attracted to, this may actually come about because I wake up one morning feeling depressed and hopeless, this lasts for a week, eventually I decide to take a walk and go for a coffee in that new coffee shop that's opened even thought it's not my sort of place and shake myself out of it, and they happen to be in the coffee shop.

You could say everything falls under that rule, since there is no division...

That's where the idea of this all being paradoxical comes in. It isn't really, though - the paradoxes lie in our attempt to construct a conceptual framework for it, not in "the thing itself". It's generally convenient to have "awareness" as indescribable, but notionally something like:

"The non-material material whose only inherent property if being-aware but which 'takes on the shape of' states and experiences - and which has presently 'taken on the shape of' apparently being a person-object in a world-place".

but is it fair to say that you wouldn't be entertaining those thoughts unless you already intended the outcome in which the thoughts are related

I'd suggest that it's better to side-step this because it implicitly suggests a deliberate causation that isn't necessarily so, plus a notion of an initial starting point which doesn't exist.

If "awareness" is eternal, and all possible patterns exist eternally, then there is no time (in fact: no time!) where there wasn't a patterned awareness. In that context, saying that our experience (of "the world" or of "thoughts", the same really) is only because we intended the outcome is misleading, potentially.

If we reserve "intention" to refer to our deliberate intensification of a pattern, we're on better ground, and our current state is a the sum of all intentions and their implications (their implications given that the intention is a modification of an existing state). These intentions may not be about outcome events as such, though. If you intend the experience of the image of an owl in front of you, then that is an intention (bringing into prominence the experience of "an owl image" and also the extended pattern of "owl") but it is not necessarily a selected outcome. You have shifted your state, but the results are not so clearly defined as having intended an event.

Intentions, then, can be really quite abstract, and not necessarily structured as events or objects or world-facts - that's why I use the concept of "patterns", since it does not assume a spatial or temporal aspect.

From here, we can loop back to the idea that because there is no division, because the "world-pattern" is continuous and undivided, then if there is any "world-fact" at all, then there is immediately, by implication, an entire world. That is, if the world-pattern was a metaphorical landscape, then as soon as there is anything other than uniformity, any slight hill or valley, then there is immediately a full topology. This is why we can't say that it is the sum of deliberate choices, but we can say that it is the (effective) sum of all intentions and implications, even if those intentions are not in the form of "choosing world-events or world-facts" or whatever.

If the above explanation has any weight, then intention is the cause of you letting go of another pattern, right?

So, if the world-experience is to be a self-consistent thing, then bringing one pattern into relative prominence will, simply from the property of a continuous pattern, mean that contradictory patterns will be relatively reduced. If you select "happiness" into prominence, then that is also a reduction in "depression". You don't "detach" from anything, though. I think I know what you mean by "attaching" to a sensory experience, but for clarity it's better to say that you increase the prominence of a pattern, and that pattern implies a particular sensory experience, subsequently. There's also a bit of exploration to be done in terms of what something like "depression" is. If the way we change our state is by, essentially, "leafing through" potential patterns by a sort of "associative browsing" of the eternal memory of all possible patterns, there's an interesting issue to ponder. That is, there's perhaps a difference between identifying and increasing or decreasing the pattern which is associated with the word or concept "depression" (following the word!), versus identifying the patterns associated with your actual experience, and increasing or decreasing that (following the direct feeling!). They may overlap, but it isn't necessarily the case. Because experience and intention are "direct' (that is, there is no intermediary), it's important to actually attend to the pattern itself, rather than just a proxy, or at least ensure the proxy means-that you are addressing the pattern itself. Aside - I'd like to highlight here that none of this is an "explanation" in the sense of explaining "how things really work". The overall insight is that there is no "how things work", no mechanism or method. What it does instead, is propose a conceptual structure which is the minimum required for discussing a structured experience without specifying any particular instance of content. And then, it is also a structure which can be used to formulate intentions and conceive of their potential impact, while avoiding the associations usually implicit in more content-based descriptions (of which this is the "meta" perspective).

TriumphantGeorge Compendium (Part 10)

POST: Isn't this too good to be true?

POST: Did the Two Cups Intention Method Last Night... and Woke Up Today Filled With Negative Emotions and Hostility

POST: Superhero Dimension

POST: This sub feels like what /r/lawofattraction is trying to be

POST: I'm so confused

POST: Two glasses - Tell me about your experiences...

POST: [THEORY] Why I think we REALLY aren't getting results

POST: What does this sub think of DMT?

POST: Astral projections meditation/ findings on my studies into the practice

POST: Could this be a sign? Seeing owls everywhere again

POST: The name of this subreddit annoys me.

POST: My final post

POST: Do not doubt yourself

POST: Has anyone used dimensional jumping against somone else?

POST: Header Change Thought/Question

POST: An Experiment I'm Doing

POST: Letting go

POST: Which method to use to achieve future goal?

Warning