TriumphantGeorge Compendium - Part 14

POST: Alternative methods to Jump

A1: Holy shit, are you serious man? You can just edit your post. Also, methods don't matter.

Q1: Not sure what you are talking about? I intentionally am NOT including these in the main body of the post because the last time I did that some mod nuked the post so it can't be found unless you already know where it is. But I doubt that will happen if it's as comments, we'll see.

See my mod note above. In future, though, please hit "message the mods" if you have a query, and raise it directly. Circumventing moderation isn't really going to help: modding happens for reasons, such as reporting or rules or topic appropriateness. (Remember: as per others' comments, this is not a general chat forum, and nor is it a broad "techniques for self-help" or "magick rituals" forum in the manner of LOA, and so on.)

Clearly from looking out for evidence of that I am clear that view is winning.

I've got a couple of pending comments of yours to reply to which I'll try and get to soon, which might clarify this, but: at the moment you misunderstand the point being made about "multiverses" and so on, and the relationship between "physical things" and ongoing experience, etc. Which is, in short, that "multiverses" in this context would be just another "story" about an experience, but you do not actually experience "multiverses". This doesn't mean it's not a useful concept; it just means it's not a fundamental description of the experience. Also, the very nature of "evidence" is problematic here, because our usual assumptions about shared experiences fall apart. Again, we're back to unpicking the assumption that you are a person-object located within a world-place, and that the "world" is a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'". The point of the experiments is to, over time, indicate that all of these assumptions are somewhat dubious, or at least not constant. This means that we cannot rely upon concepts derived from those assumptions, when 'explaining' those experiences. Where this goes is that, later, in addition to noting the content of an experience - and all the (many) narratives we might construct which fit that experience, none of which seem completely accurate - we also note the context of all experiences.

Basically, we end up asking: what are all experiences "made from"?

I'll try and pick up that other thread soon, to make things clearer. But I think that you are assuming that I am proposing some particular theory or worldview, when in fact what I'm talking about is a non-world-view, or the "meta" perspective of all worldviews and experiences, if that makes more sense.

POST: A film about Dimensional Jumping

Does a bit. Except, I suppose, that it very deliberately omits things like "brains" because in that description there is no place for a "brain" to be. In a similar way to how we attribute results to other entities in error because we can't experience "the doing" (we are not separate from the results), we often identify with "brains" or other objects in error because we can't experience "being a doer" (again, because we are not separate from the results). In both cases, we fail to realise that we are the subject to all experience, rather than an object within experience. All experiences, and thoughts about experiences, are, in a sense, "results". Any descriptions about experiences are themselves further experiences - and because thinking requires that things be broken down into conceptual objects related within a mental space, we end up accidentally "looking past" ourselves as the subject, and in error focus upon: "which conceptual object is 'me'?".

...Yes, he's referring to the same thing - but beware of getting bogged down in a concept of it, which tends to make it complicated. What he (and I and anyone else) is essentially saying is that there is no doer as such; "awareness" (or "consciousness" or "God" or "The Father") refers to the sort of "non-material material whose only inherent property is being-aware" and which "takes on the shape of" states of experience, by becoming them.

"Awareness", then, is a unique word in that rather than a mental object that's pointing to another mental object or a sensory object, it is pointing to the subject or essence of all objects or patterns or experiences. If we forget this, we can start accidentally treating "awareness" (the word, the object-concept) as pointing to an awareness-thing (like awareness is another object, an entity, or a being), and talking about it acting on things or how to understand it or whatever. But since it is "that which all things are 'made from'", that is a meaningless statement. It is self-causing; it shifts-into rather than does-to.

I'd also add that it's important to recognise that awareness does not take on the shape of a 3D world and then you walk around in it. Rather, it's that awareness takes on the shape of this moment of experience - which may be a moment shaped "as if" you are a person-object located within a world-place, that you are "over here" and the rest of the room is "over there" - etc.

The little exercise at the bottom of this comment [POST: I'm so confused] is meant to illustrate that, or at least point in that direction.

POST: 10 People remember a vertical green line in the Banner.

And knowing it is possible helps a ton, even if it's not meant to be emphasized. Normally believing is the challenge.

I wouldn't disagree there. But it's much more powerful to (for example) do the suggested exercises for a specific thing, and have an outcome related to that specific thing arise. And that gives a direction for further exploration (since the "results" may not be quite what one thought one was intending, but provide insight in another way regardless, beyond simply "stuff changed"). Anyway, we keep it on the "deliberate" side because there are already other subreddits for spontaneous experiences (Glitch and Mandela, for instance), and it can easily swamp the subreddit to allow "this weird thing happened" posts; it is meant to be more about investigating. Having said that, posts are allowed to stay sometimes if they lead to an interesting discussion in the comments (the comments are mostly where the sub content is, I'd say). Which was the case with your first post. It's just not very helpful to have multiple, essentially off-topic, posts, because it leads to more of the same, as that then appears to be what the sub is about. And as I said, this does come up fairly often, at regular intervals - because even just engaging with this topic tends to encourage noticing of... this or that.

...

A1: Please stop being so dramatic. There is already another thread on the same inconsequential stuff.

POST: Mdmerafull, hdoublearp, PunkRockParanormal & aether22 remember a green vertical bar.

So, from a previous thread about the number (of which there have been many, so you can use search to find all the different responses that have come up if interested):

We really don't. The mods never change the number, and in fact they couldn't really, not consistently, because it's in multiple places (sidebar, sidebar text post, introduction post, header graphic image, subreddit title, various references throughout the subreddit's post and comment history). Any posts containing it show the time of any edit, just because that's how Reddit works, plus there's archive.org.

As regards changing the header graphic, from an earlier message:

Never been changed since the last style update. To be clear though: the number is guaranteed to never be changed; the style can't be guaranteed because sizing and other display aspects might be subject to updates to Reddit's code, browser or OS updates, and so on. However, when mods do perform a styling update, out of courtesy we'll always make an announcement as we have in the past. Remember too that you can check for yourself independently over at archive.org.

Meanwhile: I'd suggest that if you notice spontaneous changes in the header, then that simply means you are noting that your ongoing experience isn't as stable as you had previously assumed. That is, that your usual assumption of being a person-object located within a world-place may not be entirely accurate, and the "world" may not be best described as a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'" (the standard description). This can be pretty exciting, of course! However: The term "jumping", if it is to have any meaning and to continue to be useful, should be reserved for intentional changes. And in terms of investigating the nature of our experience (and the nature of our descriptions about experience), rather than simply noting that things are a bit more "loose about the seams" than we previously thought, only deliberate experimentation is really of much use. It should also be noted that a "dimension" in this sense might be best considered as a way of formulating change, of structuring an intention and incorporating it. The concept of "dimension jumping" would itself be part of the pattern of the outcome; the "mechanism" is really just part of the target result and doesn't actually cause anything. (This is why the demo exercises are called "exercises" rather than "methods" or "techniques".)

So one has an experience "as if" one has changed dimensions just as one is currently having an experience "as if" one were a person-object located within a world-place. The experience of "jumping dimensions" is therefore better thought of as a change of experiential state: "dimensions" are states rather than places. This of course involves a change in our understanding of ourselves and the world. Which leads to: I'm not sure of the thinking behind altering the header graphic at certain intervals? Given the above.

but excuse me for not being a person that bows to experience fully unreservedly, to anyone ever.

The point here is most definitely to have a discussion! As per the sidebar, you're not meant to believe anything in particular without personal experience or reasoning it out. (And even then, we should be a little skeptical of what lies behind them - if anything.)

This sort of conversation is actually what the sub is all about!

And my understanding is that there is not single "official" explanation proposed by the group.

Right.

Also my life's work is in physics, so because of this I tend toward some version of the Multiverse idea.

That's my background too, although I also have an inclination towards Paul Feyerabend and George Berkeley and the like, so there's that. We have to be clear about when we are being scientific versus philosophical, though. Neither one is better than the other; they just have different limits and spheres of application. I'd suggest that "dimensional jumping" is inherently non-scientific (note that this is not a dismissive statement), although that doesn't preclude it being studied as part of a structured investigation - which is what we're generally doing here.

But if you take the multiverse idea which can be at least partly understood and account...

I'd suggest that while the description may be understood - that is, that it is internally consistent on its own terms - its connection to our direct experience is somewhat debatable. I did a comment over at ME on this, so I won't go much deeper into all that (check it out), but the general point would be that since there is no way to observe "branches" and suchlike, only changes within one's perspective - a lack of "observational touch-points", if you will - there's an issue with taking it as "what is happening" and basing anything off of that. The "multiverse theory" is perhaps more like a narrative or a language we can discuss changes in terms of, rather than an actual theory or explanation. There is no evidence for "branches" other than as one (of many) ways of thinking about quantum states (which are basically just mathematical structures with no inherent meaning and with no way to distinguish between interpretations). They are definitely never experienced, I'd assert. Within this context, we have to ask: what would a regular changing of the header graphic contribute to our investigation? How can an observed change of header graphic be tied back to the concept of branches experimentally, rather than simply conceptually or narratively?

It ultimately comes down to: what, exactly, in our direct experience, would lead us to conclude that the content of our experience is structured as "branches" and that recent branches are more or less likely?

Also the indication that it changed might well be side effects of an intentional jump for some

How would we distinguish between that versus a spontaneous change? Isn't it the case that, truly, the only definite confirmation of a "jump" is that you intend for a specific outcome, and later that outcome arises within your experience?

POST: How do I learn to do these things?

What "energy"? I'd say forget about "energy" - especially if you can't define what you mean by it - and go directly for the outcomes you want, following the advice below.

...So, to be specific: it's a feeling? And, for example, in social situation, you might want to generate an experience "as if" other people were experiencing that feeling about you, and acting accordingly?

...That makes sense. We have to be careful because terms like "energy" and "vibration" and "frequency" get used in such hand-waving ways as if they were things or causes - perhaps because of their sort of feel-good use in law of attraction type descriptions - whereas here we want to be much more specific about their meaning. They key here, then, is that you'd want an experience "as if" such a thing occurred. This is different to saying that our experience actually is made from "energy" and that this is how the world is structured and how changes are caused, or whatever.

I read that energy is everything... I didn't do anything special but there energy is attracted to mine.

I'd suggest being a bit skeptical of all those sorts of descriptions. Or at least, view them as descriptions - that is, little parallel structures of thought - rather than "how things are". "Energy is everything" is essentially a meaningless albeit feel-good idea, potentially, at least in terms of trying to actually do anything in terms of it. How exactly does "energy is everything" connect to our direct experience? It's so vague. And if it's merely a description of the content of a particular type of experience - a feeling, for example - then it's potentially a mistake to take that content as being how experiences "work". Now, if we said something like "everything we experience is ourselves, as awareness, taking on the shape of sensory moments", that would at least be something you could examine immediately, rather than only contemplate in disconnected abstract thought. Again, though, we'd be appropriately skeptical!

Anyway, I think you're onto a more useful approach with the formulation:

I want certain feelings and experiences.

That keeps things nice and clear. Essentially, you want experiences whose content is "as if" (that is: "consistent with the idea that") there is such a thing as energy and connection between people, whether or not that is how things really are. This avoids you ending up hypothesising about something happening "behind" your experiences, when in fact experiences may not actually have any "behind" or "outside" - or indeed any particular, fundamental, unchanging "how things work" at all.

...Well, it's not necessarily clear that they are attracted to anything, in some behind the scenes way. Your actual experience is of perceiving other people apparently being attracted to you, or of seeing other people apparently being attracted to one another. But the idea of "attraction" is something you are inferring: it belongs to your description rather than to the experience itself. You don't actually experience "attraction" in the sense of a causal mechanism; you have to be careful to not mix up that "buzzy feeling" that is part of an experience, with something that is "causing" that experience. That you have this experience (of seeing this) isn't necessarily due to anything about the "people". There's no "attracting" going on behind the scenes, perhaps. Your experience of apparently seeing such things may be completely down to your own patterning, your own state as an experiencer!

The problem with the idea of "attraction" is maybe that it implies that there are independent objects, located within some sort of environment, and that there is some sort of "mechanism" - triggered by an act of some sort - which leads these objects to move towards each other in some way. These "objects" may of course be people, or some sort of event. But the inherent divisions implied within this description is misleading, I think, because it leads us to try to conceive of some sort of action we might take in order to acquire certain properties which in turn would bring about an outcome. When in fact, if you attend to your actual experience as it is, it is not actually divided in this way. And when you dig into that "attraction" type description, it reveals itself to be so hand-waving when it comes to the specifics, that there's not much of use going on. It's not really a model of experience at all - it's more of a narrative, a language that is used to talk about certain experiences using a certain turn of phrase.

So, personally, I'd move away from trying to imagine some sort of thing that happens "out there" that brings objects and situations from "over there" to "me" (one type of "attraction": the LOA style) and also away from the idea that there is a particular property you can acquire which makes you attractive (another type of "attraction": personal magnetism). Instead, I'd tend to think of this in terms of: how do I go about shaping my ongoing experience such that it contains moments "as if" I were summoning objects and situations and "as if" I was magnetic. That is, experiences that are consistent with those descriptions, those concepts, while avoiding falling into the assumption that those descriptions are how such experiences are actually caused.

POST: If we make our own reality...

[POST]

So I saw many people saying that we make our own reality, and if that's true then how is it possible for unexpected things to happen? things your mind wouldn't even be able to think of... And how is everything so consistent?

[END OF POST]

You don't make your own reality - in that way. That is, you haven't deliberately constructed, via specific choices, your experiences in advance and in detail. It is perhaps more accurate to say something like: what "you" truly are is are what experiences are "made from", and right now you are in a particular state or pattern, from which your moment-by-moment experiences arise.

An analogy:

Imagine that you have a transparent sheet with a grid drawn on it. Now, take another sheet, with a differently-spaced grid, and place it on top. Do you know what the final combined grid will be, before you look at it (experience it)? Note that going off to calculate the final grid would itself be a type of experiencing.

If we take the first sheet to be "how I am now". And then the second sheet to be "an intention". That is the way in which you might say you "make your own reality". Really, it's that you are in a particular state (a sort of "landscape" of facts), and then you deform that state (change part of the "landscape", like overlaying another pattern, affecting the whole thing), but you don't experience the final result until you "look". Even if you know the change you've made, the specific fact you've introduced, you still don't know how that change has deformed the landscape, until you "look" (experience it).

A shorter way to say this might be: you don't get to "pre-experience" your experiences.

They're all "enfolded" into the background, and you only "know" them when they are "unfolded", moment by moment. In this way, if we go with this description anyway, we are in a situation where we both "create" our experience and know it intimately by being the pattern-landscape, but at the same time it is also completely mysterious because we don't know it as sensory-type expanded moments in advance.

POST: Confused on the nature of dimensional jumping

Ultimately, the point of the subreddit is to investigate the "nature of experiencing" by way of experimentation and contemplation (with attempts at generating outcomes being an ideal way to do this). This involves examining assumptions such as...

Out of what I've read though this sub, the experiences that sound legitimate make it seem like an internal mindset change, rather than an external reality change. It doesn't really sound different than the law of attraction (believe something hard enough and it manifests). What's the difference?

...what is an "external reality"? Where is this "internal" mindset and what is a "belief"? How, exactly, would the "law of attraction" work? What does it even mean to talk of "how it works" with regards to anything?

...as if our consciousness has no connection to our bodies, or can go where it wants.

What are "you", precisely? And what is the relationship between "you" and "the world"? Is the world truly a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time" with "you" as an object located within it (the common default description)? Do you ever actually experience that, or is it rather just a thought you have about an idea of "the world" now and again?

This is a lot harder accept and sounds quite a bit more drastic than what I talked about in the last paragraph.

How did you come to accept the default description you are using currently? If you pause and examine your direct experience, now - what is there that is truly stable and persistent about it? What are the facts which never change? Is it not the case the only that which never changes can be fundamentally true - in other words, "real" - and that all other facts must be relatively and temporarily true only? How does this relate to things seeming "drastic" or not?

And so on.

See also - the containing threads for comments here [POST: Questions regarding DJ], here [POST: Won $500 a few days ago], here [POST: Speculative answers to Frequently asked questions.], here [POST: A few questions.], here [POST: It wasn't a panic attack! ] and here [POST: The difference between low of attraction and dimensional jumping] from previous discussions on the differences between the "law of attraction" and "dimensional jumping".

POST: The difference between low of attraction and dimensional jumping

Well everything, of course, works the same way, since there can only be one way things work. But -

This subreddit encourages you to reconsider things at a basic level - what you are and the nature of experiencing itself - and suggests that there is no "how things really are" and there is no "how thing really work". Whereas the law of attraction tends to assume a particular mechanism, or "formatting" to experience, dimensional jumping advocates reconsidering that very formatting itself. It suggests that if you fully adopt a certain metaphor, then your experience will tend to fall into line with that. In the end, it strives for the most flexible metaphor possible that ties up to our direct experience of ourselves as a sort of "open aware space in which experiences arise" - hence the metaphors described in the sidebar. They are to be taken literally, in the sense that you can adopt them and have experiences "as if" they were literally true - what we might call "the patterning of experience". The upshot of this is that, instead of having vague notions of "maintaining frequencies" or "attracting" something, you can adopt any metaphor which inspires you to an intention - an intention which means-that, or logically implies that, you will get the outcome your desire. Choose your own mechanism. Because really the only thing that ever "happens" is intending. However, it is always more important that you recognise the nature of your own experience, since that frees you from having to adopt any particular worldview "true". Unfortunately, the descriptions tend to be a little abstract at this level, because we are actually trying to discuss the thing "before" thoughts or descriptions, or sensory experiences, or even division and change.

If you are experimenting with producing a particular outcome, then really you should consider it "done" at the moment of the intention. It's perhaps a little easier to do this by following the instructions in the Two Glasses exercise (see sidebar links); just carry on with your life neither anticipating nor debating the result, but also not worrying about any passing thought (you should just let them pass by). Basically, it's about having some faith, but mostly it's about not reacting to what comes up along the way, and therefore accidentally re-intending against your outcome.

But luckily for you...

As to your sense of "awareness of my consciousness", just relax and enjoy it. With that open space, you are in the ideal position to be okay with passing thoughts and fears, without reacting to them. Most people spend their time narrowly focused on an aspect of their sensory experience, not realising that they can release a hold on this and they will "open out" - become that "background space" with sensory imagery just sort of floating inside of it. If you've got that, you don't need to tinker with it - in fact, any attempt to fiddle with it tends to reduce it - just decide that if you occasionally notice you have narrowed your focus again, you will "cease" doing so, and allow it to open up once more. Then, fear or discomfort will be like ripples in an ocean, rather than waves in a glass of water.

You probably feel less like a "person" and more like an "awareness", but that's just because you're not used to it. As for choosing things, there's nothing more to it than intention - which means, to deliberately increase the contribution of a particular pattern. The "intention" is the pattern, "intending" is the bringing it into mind. All patterns are already existing; you only ever change how much a pattern is going to contribute. If you think about it: what else can there be? Your sensory experiences and thoughts are all "inside" your open awareness, rising and falling. They have no solidity and can't "cause" anything; they are results. The only cause is intention, and the results happen immediately. It becomes true now that the event will happen then. Of course, that's not something you should take anyone's word for - it's something to experiment with and test for yourself, and decide whether it is true or not. In small ways, and then in big ways. Only you can explore this; nobody can do it for you.

So is this state the same state I get in meditation? And I don't feel like I 've done any jumping. Just made connection with that awareness so now I can be that awareness. I definitely feel like less of a person and I want to feel like a person you know it's weird. Are you constantly in this state?

The difference would be, do you feel less like a "person" but more open and alive - or instead do you feel dissociated and numb? What you are after is to feel like a big open alive space, with your sensations, perceptions and thoughts floating in that. You should feel good. If instead you feel like you have shifted position somehow, but are not open, then you might want to adjust that, by - for example - lightly centring yourself on the centre line of your body (just behind the eyes, centre of the chest, or lower abdomen) to feel a bit more connected.

"sensations, perceptions and thoughts" yes. Alive as of means just having the awareness and observing. It feels good (currently I hold it back) but maybe because I am not used to that stillness and feeling pleasant out of the nothing and maybe I decide that is something wrong and artificial.
But certainly I am not numb in a negative neither neutral way. I am confused. And maybe it's due to the thought that I won't get any further than this stillness and not have that higher emotions that I know as a person.
Edit: Maybe I am not open that's why it feels like there's no air there and you are not required to breath.

Sounds to me like you are just settling in and getting used to not constantly reacting and bouncing around like a rollercoaster! Also, it can take a while to get used to that different sense of "location" compared with what you used to have (since now you realise you are sort of "everywhere and nowhere", and always were, in fact). Anyway, I think you'll gradually feel more comfortable with letting go to it, and it'll settle out by itself, one way or the other.

In this state do you reach higher emotions different from peace? I want to feel emotions like love, ecstasy, creativity.

There's nothing stopping you reengaging and having more of a rollercoaster experience again if you want. The open space thing, once settled out, should feel sort of like "open joy" and feel decisively positive (since it's basically near-unobstructed awareness), but it's a position of choice rather than limitation.

Is it wise to do the mirror method everyday after it hasn't worked. I also kind of split it into two session. Anything wrong with that? Is there any restrictions? Basically can you do how many times you like till you feel fully satisfied.

I can't speak to the mirror method personally. If you were doing the Two Glasses exercise, then I'd always say to wait until things settle out - days, a week - because results there usually come by "apparently plausible but seemingly unlikely paths" and you can't "get better" at doing that.

In fact, you can't really "get better" at intending as such, I'd suggest. However, you can intend persistently until you get "the feeling of something being true", when bringing to mind a particular scene or pattern or whatever which means-that you've got your outcome. The trick is to make sure you don't reset yourself every time you do it - like, to reuse an example I've used before, sitting down again before intending to stand up (you don't end up "more stood up" by repeating the sequence).

Q1: BTW, this is an interesting book based on a very similar way of thinking: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Changing-Reality-Huna-Practices-Create/dp/0835609111]

I've read a little on Hawaiian traditions - where they overlap with the "reach into yourself because that's where the world is" approach of other traditions - but that one's new to me. Thanks.

Q1: It's a really good one - I bought it in Foyles, but I'm sure you can buy it online.
EDIT: what is particurarly interesting, I think, is that there are some exercises provided, but it is sort of made clear that these are just for the ritual/symbolic value, and you can replace them with anything else. I actuallt meant to recommend this to you long time ago, but kept forgetting.

Foyles: by far the best book store, you have excellent taste! :-)

I've bought a Kindle copy and had a quick browse so far. Yes, it does seem to have that attitude of: here are some worldviews, but their importance is as structures for experience, and should be used based on usefulness not on "being true".

Overall, it seems like an excellent survey of all the ideas or things one might experiment with. If there's anything lacking (from my first skim reading), I suppose it's a more explicit tying back of experiential content to our "nature" - I think that this could have provided a foundation that would helped the last sections (on "shifting realities" and also what he describes as "grokking").

But otherwise a really nice clear read, which is specific about explanations just being stories, that you have to actually explore it to understand it otherwise it's just inert "knowledge". It even has a section about "patterns", so I'm obviously going to approve! :-)

Q2: (I apologise for not replying properly before , but I had to go back to the book to comment in more detail)
Yes, I really liked the author's take on reality and his exercises (re-arranging shells for example) remind me of what you are trying to introduce in the Dimensional Jumping sub. The idea of 'changing your symbols and changing your life' (p. 179) is very much what you advocate, and puts the focus rather on the spirit of things than the actual ritual ('what kind of candles should I use?' etc.).
I also realized, while reading it, that I am a natural shaman ;-) :-D I've mentioned many times here I've aways had lucid dreams and I seem to solve quite a lot of issues in those dreams. That's why I like the book; although you are right it could be organised a bit better, I feel the general idea seems very natural and not forced, with the 'change from within' instead of some violent manipulation of the 'world around us'. I think it is helpful to read something that incorporates these ideas into the normal, every-day life, instead of showing them as some kind of 'supernatural' force.
(BTW, when I was in Costa Coffee the other day, I saw a guy trying to explain parallel universes to some random coffee drinkers ;-) Maybe he was a fellow Redditor?)

Yeah, I like how, later, he emphasises the four worldviews as being simultaneous perspectives, which links those shells to both the "objective" and "symbolic" angles. The perfect approach for a "natural shaman", of course! ;-)

Hmm. Do you think we have accidentally created a secret coterie of incognito jumpers, some of whom have now decided to feel out for additional members? It all fits: certainly they would be Costa or Nero rather than Starbucks! :-)

Q2: Well who knows where he jumped from? :-D I wanted to talk to him - maybe make a joke and/or snoop a little - but he left. Maybe we should wear t-shirts with 982? ;-)

Haha, maybe! We're getting into real secret society nods and winks here, updated for a modern aesthetic.

Actually, the header graphic design is loosely based around the idea that "dimensional strands" are colour-coded, and so 982 would be a particular strand or synthesis of multiple strands, like overlapping patterns. A bit like Peter Saville's designs [https://www.eyemagazine.com/blog/post/upon-paper]. So the t-shirts could be even more abstract and mysterious and "only those who know, can tell" than having the number!

Q2: The Secret Society of Dimensional Jumpers! Imagine the conspiracy theories that would evolve around us :-D
But imagine the excitement if you saw another jumper on a train, wearing some discreet colour scheme.

It could get very confusing, though, once your ongoing experience got patterned with the colour scheme, owl-style. Soon the world would seem to be entirely filled with jumpers, exchanging knowing glances on public transport!

Q2: Well true, and you will keep bumping into yourself from other dimensions as well. But still, next time I see someone talking about parallel universes I will make various hints and look at them in the meaningful way. Or shall I make owl sounds? Hoot hoot.

Hmm, I'll be looking forward to you posting the results of your "look at them in a meaningful way" experiments. ;-) Of course, once we get the eyewear range up and running, none of this will be a problem. (8>)=

Q2: OT, but you (and other Reddit shamans) may like this; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwd-nWr_-70]

I like a bit of flute! Here's my current somewhat more downbeat listening: Endless Falls by Loscil (full album playlist: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1EAF0D24D35C2235])

POST: It wasn't a panic attack!

I've experienced something that blurred the lines for me between dimensional jumping and the law of attraction.

Really, they are just modes of operating. The "law of attraction", "dimensional jumping", "strong energies" and "being a person hanging out in the world" are all on the same level. It just so-happens that the last of these is our strongest habit and so it seems like the "normal" one, which makes the others seem special. In each case, what is really happening is that we are explicitly or implicitly choosing a particular worldview or conceptual framework and adopting it, such that we have experiences "as if" they were true. But none of them are fundamentally true. There are actually no inherent limitations to your experiential content at all. So don't let the specific labels get in the way of experimenting or lead you to overthink things.

Aside - It occurs to me that some of the problems people have with the law of attraction, is that they try to work out how it works - as if there is a pre-existing mechanism that needs to be understood, a technique to be mastered. Actually, you are better to simply fully commit to a particular description of "how things work", because that will lead to an experience "as if" that is how things work. Ironically, going looking for the right way to do it is basically an intention to have the experience of searching for a right way to do it...

POST: Speculative answers to Frequently asked questions.

[POST]

Warning: Prepare for a wall of text
I think it may be presumptive of me to consider myself an expert in this topic, but I do think I can shed some light on many of the questions that frequently come up. Rather than just reply to all of them I thought I'd make this post.
Premise: Dimensional jumping is a subset of the "Law of Attraction" and similar manifestation concepts (magick, positive thinking, etc). As such, it is more or less a metaphorical concept. It is important that you keep in mind that dimensional jumping might not literally involve moving from one dimension to another. However (for reasons that are a bit deep for this post), it is likely the most accurate metaphor for how the system really works.
FAQ
Is it possible to______?
In general, yes. You can insert literally almost anything into this box and the answer is yes. However, that does not necessarily mean it will be easy for you. In general, the system protects against things that violate what we perceive as the natural order of things (i.e. laws of physics, the continuity of reality, etc). That does not mean these things cannot be violated, but just that if your desire can come about without violating these then it is more likely to choose the path of least resistance.
For example: If you've had a pet pass away, and you'd like to go to a reality where the pet was still alive. This is possible, but it is unlikely that you would be willing to effectively rewrite the laws of physics to make it possible. The more likely event will be that you suddenly and coincidentally find a new pet who behaves suspiciously like your old pet, and fills that same emotional need. You may even suspect that the new pet is a reincarnated version of the old one (possible, but not necessary).
Ok, so if "almost anything" is possible, then what is impossible?
Though I'm sure not every here believes in channeled information --I have my doubts about much of it myself-- I do often find things from Bashar to be very insightful. In this regard I think his Four laws of creation are the best way to answer this question.
For practical purposes I think we can simplify it even further to two laws for dimensional jumpers:

1. You exist -- You cannot jump to a place where you do not exist (Though if you really stretch you could find a way to pretend you don't exist if you wanted)
2. Everything changes - You can't stop things from changing.
   What happens to the me in the reality I jump to? What happens to the me in this reality when I jump?
   This is a question that actually goes very deep. First, its important to realize that in the grand scheme there is only one you. However, that "you" may be in many realities at once experiencing itself as discrete versions of you. This is largely academic and doesn't affect anything.
   I think it may be easier to divide this into two questions that really strike at the heart of peoples real concerns:
   Am I causing harm to the alternate version of myself by taking over his/her life?
   No. It is very likely that there is no alternate version of yourself with whom you are switching places. But if there is, then that version of yourself chose to switch in the same way that you did. If there were no other way to achieve your jump than to go to a universe where there is a version of you already existing, then you will enter a copy universe.
   But going deeper, this answer isn't 100% accurate either. It is important to realize that dimensions aren't perfectly discrete. They exist more like wave functions, allowing all probabilities to exist until they need to be observed. Think of it like a computer game. In most computer games, if you walk into a dungeon, the inside of the dungeon has not been rendered yet. Once you step in, it begins to render. But even then the render is only partial because it does not render the elements you do not see yet. Instead it starts making decisions about what is probable, and what it needs to be prepared for you to see. Then when you see it, it renders those frames.
   So there isn't a dimension where you were born a different gender, 5 inches taller, or with blue hair. Instead there are multiple -near infinite-- hyperdimensions of probability where all of these things are true.
   What happens to my loved ones in this reality when I jump?
   A bigger question is : Where are your loved ones now? Going back to the idea that dimensions aren't perfectly discrete, realize that the dimension your loved ones live in is not the exact same dimension as yours. Instead, you share a hyperdimension where your individual dimensions overlap a bit. The things you do in your dimension affect those closest to you, but only if they allow it. In the same way, those close to you affect you, but only if you allow it.
   The people who are close to you, are that way precisely because you choose to be in very similar dimensions. If one of them decides to radically change themselves, you may find that they suddenly move away, die, become imprisoned, or simply change friend circles.
   So the direct answer to the question becomes a bit complicated. They may experience you dying, or moving away. But they may have already experienced this. They choose their overall experience of how they perceive you. You simply help them by filling in the gaps...you add a personal flare to the "you" they want to experience through your choices and actions. Your choices and actions tug on their reality and pull it in a certain direction. They can resist it (but usually don't).
   However, you only stay close to those who are in realities similar to yours. So if you make a change radical enough both of you will experience drifting apart from one another....except not always. If one of the people in the group does not want to let go of the experience of the other person, then that person may be replaced with a sort of "bot" to simulate the experience.
   So here is an extreme example: Your spouse is in the hospital with a terminal illness. You want to jump to a reality where they do not have this illness and you can live your lives together. What happens if your spouse truly exists in the reality where they have a terminal illness? Well, you would jump to a new reality where your spouse would miraculously recover, while they would stay in their reality and experience their choice of interaction with you. Presumably they would experience you staying with them lovingly until they died (and perhaps some version of you does exactly this).
   But then does that mean the spouse in my reality is not my spouse, but is a bot?
   Maybe, but not necessarily. As mentioned above it is possible that there are multiple discrete versions of each person. So they may simultaneously choose to experience dying in the hospital and their miraculous recovery. Perhaps, they may even choose to have one version of themselves go along with you just to aid you in your choice of realities.
   It is also possible that your spouse is only existing in the universe where you perceive them to have an illness because you are choosing that universe. They are simply agreeing to go along with you, and when you choose to go to the recovery universe then the illness universe disappears back into the cloud of probability (I choose to avoid the word "collapses" because that actually has the opposite meaning in quantum physics).
   So if you are worried about how your choice might affect your loved ones, realize that the choice you are making now to not perform an intentional jump is affecting them in some way as well. They may be anxiously waiting for you to jump.
   It is important to remember that each individual chooses their path. We do influence one another. That influence can be very strong (especially against a person who does not have strong beliefs). But we never actually "force" someone to experience something they didn't agree to.
   Wait, go back. Are you saying we live in computer simulation?
   No. Not really. But a computer simulation is a very good analogy for the true nature of reality. It is a small technical distinction, but an important one. It is more accurate to say that our idea of "computer simulation" is a way we chose to mimic reality to understand it. We do not literally live in a computer, at least not the way we understand a computer physically, but many of systems of reality are very similar to a computer's operation.
   How does that work really?
   The "computer" that is our reality has simulated any and all possibilities and carried them out in a deterministic fashion the form of a wave of probable outcomes. It biases most of its power towards the most those outcomes that the observer (the player of the game --i.e you) are more likely to choose to experience. Then when you make those choices it renders the outcome.
   This is the technical way of looking at the thing many of these enlightened people have been saying for so many years: "All is one, and everything exists right NOW".
   The whole thing is just a big collection of possibility. Time, different universes, different choices...all these things are just different points and directions inside the same thing. Further more, if you are playing a game you know that when you walk for 4 hours in a computer game, that you aren't actually physically going anywhere. It's all inside the computer. In the same way, all distance in reality is simulated. All difficulty in moving from one reality to one another (turning your hair blue and living on mars with Beethoven) is simulated. All of these things are directly right on top of each other.
   EDIT: u/TriumphantGeorge/ pointed out that I should make a distinction here. There is really no "how it works" in the grandscheme of things. (see his comment below). But for practical purposes I believe everything mentioned here and elsewhere on this sub is useful framework. But, in general, on this sub if TriumphantGeorge says it, it is usually pretty accurate. It is just unfortunate that maximum accuracy requires maximum ambiguity
   So none of this is real?
   This is as real as it gets. Have you ever really defined for yourself what the word "real" means? The concept of "real" is defense mechanism. It is the same idea that attempts to enforce the continuity of reality. It is probably put in place by the system to prevent wild jumping around in the system. When looking at reality from this high a perspective its easy to see that he concept of what is "real" has no actual meaning.
   Then how does mirror method/ two glasses work ?
   These techniques are sort of like brute force hacking. They are about allowing yourself to let go of the unnecessary hold on continuity of reality by giving yourself an excuse for glitches in continuity. So tomorrow when you ask yourself, "Wait a second, wasn't my neighbors car red and now its blue?" You can give yourself the excuse that you've "jumped". What is more accurate is that you've just allowed yourself to "jump" further and in a different "direction" than you normally do.
   There are many things that create artificial difficulty in jumping, but personally I feel the need for continuity and causality is the strongest. We fight tooth and nail for all of it to make sense, but it doesn't have to. These techniques are sort of hacks to get yourself into the mood to allow some of it to not make sense. Or rather it is a way for you to make sense of the discontinuity.
   As such, proper technique is less important focus, intention, and belief. So don't worry if you spill water doing two glasses, or you don't see anything weird with the mirrors. All of this is secondary to trusting and focusing on your goal, and allowing the technique you choose to work.
   That's all for now. If anyone has some other questions that I can add to this, I can either reply in the comments, or if the question is general enough for a FAQ, I will edit it in later.

[END OF POST]

A couple of quick points:

Dimensional jumping is a subset of the "Law of Attraction"

I'd probably say that "dimensional jumping" overall is an umbrella for all changes to experience; the specific metaphor of "dimensions", meanwhile, is a subset of that. Dimensional jumping in its broader sense attempts to be a "meta" view, prior to any particular model of experience or change, assuming only that there is some structure or "patterning" involved (the most basic description that can still "makes sense").

it is likely the most accurate metaphor for how the system really works.

Although for convenience we usually ignore this, it's definitely worth emphasising that there is no "how it really works", and that the idea of there being a "how things work" is itself a metaphor.

The actual closest we can get to "how it really works" is probably something like: "you are that which takes on the shape of experiences; you can shift your 'shape' and therefore your experiences" - that's it. Which, of course, is basically saying: you just do. This can't really be described, so we often use misdirection to help things along, in both our descriptions and in our exercises. (Everything we do say about it is a "parallel construction in thought", and is itself just another experience at the same level: the experience of thinking about the nature of experience and change. And so on. Everything is an experience, with nothing "behind" it.)

This means that if one does want to use the simulation metaphor - because they find it attractive and it suggests certain ways of thinking about change that they find useful - they should bear in mind that it is not you who is inside a simulation run by an external simulator, rather you are the simulator which is "running" the simulation within you.

Technically that's not how the computer really works deep down, but it is a method to get at the core to achieve results.

And it's worth noting, I think, that it's completely fine to go with the "simplified diagram" version of things like this. We are not saying that "this" is "that", we are simply saying that there are benefits in viewing the world "as if" it corresponded to certain aspects of "that".

[There is no "how it works."] It is, but this is such an advanced concept.

But also it can be a very simplifying one: that is, that it is "all experience, no external world" or "all patterning, no solid substrate". As always, it depends on the aim. If it is simply to provide a method which "gets results", then it can be temporarily beneficial to just say: "this is how it is", and in acting from that model they will have experiences "as if" it were true. Ultimately, though, this is somewhat of a dead end, and people start questioning the method, which then affects the results. To really become free and flexible, and not get lost in disruptive theorising, we have to come to the realisation that the "how it works" is also based on intentions and their implications. Not only does performing an act with intention bring about a result, it also implies the context of the intention. In other words: if you go looking for evidence that things are certain way, you will have experiences "as if" they are that way, when they change their mind, another way. Not knowing this can be very confusing.

So yes, technically in a sense using the simulation metaphor is sort of like picking an operating system and programming language.

Right, in a way. Once we are aware of this - that metaphors are "formatting" rather than explanations - then we are freed somewhat from the tyranny of trying to "understand" a mechanism that isn't there. We can treat the use of a metaphor as a choice of how we'd like things to be, rather than it having to be fundamentally "true". At that point, we realise that we can stop looking for descriptions which explain experience (whew!) because we understand that descriptions are patterns overlaid upon - or restructure - experience. Therefore, "how things work" is a pattern in experience in exactly the same way as the pattern of events resulting from an target outcome; they differ in terms of abstraction, not of kind.

I've added an edit in the post that hopefully helps make that distinction.

Note that this wasn't about pointing out flaws in your post; I was just picking up on some threads for an expanded conversation. You should leave your post as it is - it fulfils your purpose as stated - and readers can then follow what's written in the comments, if they want to dig deeper.

This recursive logic bothers me.

The recursive logic can be problematic, but I actually think the drive to release oneself from that recursion - the "stepping back" from that - is where you shift to a different context, and grasp your actual situation.

The question that we end up asking is:

• What are "you" and what is your relationship to "the world"?

Or shorter version:

• What is the "nature of experiencing" itself? What is the context of experience rather than the content?

And the answer to that, which is arrived at by (really simple) directly looking at our experience as it is, means we don't need to battle with the recursion issue. Although it's still slightly claustrophobic to try and think of it, because it as something with no "outside" to it, it can't be thought of conceptually, only directly intuited.

Also, the "you just do" sounds suspiciously like "I am that I am".

Well, it's inevitable we end up with phrases like that, because we're trying to point out that you are the entire moment of experience. Even when you are having the experience of apparently being "over here" and the screen is "over there", in fact you discover you are everywhere, just having "taken on the shape of" that experience of apparent separation.

It sounds very exotic, but it's very simple: anyone can close their eyes right now and try to:

• a) find the "edges" of your current experience,
• b) find where "you" are in your current experience.

But of course, it can't really be put into words. We end up with metaphors like: What you are is a sort of non-material "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware, and which has all possible experiences "dissolved" within it. It can experience any of those possibilities simply by "shifting" itself to "take on the shape of" that experience. Right now, you have taken on the shape of the experience of being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person.

And a whole load of other metaphors involving blankets, beaches, water, and anything else that's vaguely malleable! :-)

[Free Will and Determinism] But I can't quite put that into words as to why that is, I just know it as an intuition.

Right! It cannot be thought about, it cannot be described.

The essence of it is, while your state between shifts is fully deterministic, you-as-awareness is not. Awareness is "before" all structure and formatting, and that includes division and multiplicity and, relations and changes in space.

So basically, there's no point in trying to work out whether you-as-awareness has "free will" because, in a sense, both "free will" and the "working out" are "made from" awareness. However, you can know it directly (intuition). And in fact, this direct knowing is the same way in which you are experiencing the entirety of your current state right now, even though only an aspect is "unfolded" as 3D-extended senses.

Aside - I think that confusing the formatting of the senses with the formatting of the world-as-it-is can be a real stumbling block, and is what leads people to think of the world being a fixed 3D-extended "place", and there being an "outside" to their experience even though a moment of directly attending to it reveals there is not. The ingrained idea of the world involving "separate people exploring a spatially-extended place unfolding in time" is a big hurdle.

Yes, but now it seems more accurate to ask what is the world's relationship to me?

Yes! And I think that urge to reverse the wording is the first thing that comes out of the contemplation of this. And then, having taken that step, the rest becomes much clearer, more easily. Yeah, time to get some dinner, that sounds like a good idea! Catch you later.

A brief addition, because someone posted a follow-up comment and then removed it, but they brought up a good point, about the difficulty in thinking about this - and the subsequent difficulty you can have trying to think about anything. Once you've recognised that you-as-awareness as the true nature of experience, you can end up being caught in a bit of a bind. After all, you-as-awareness cannot be thought about, and trying to think about it can feel either slightly claustrophobic as you try to turn yourself almost inside-out while having no "inside" or "outside", or unmoored because you have no stable platform within experience from which to comprehend experience. Because of this, it is good to take one particular perspective and go with that as your "default formatting". Remember: there is no special or ultimate "shape" of experience you should be aiming to adopt, you don't have to be seeking to constantly experience yourself as an unformatted space whose only property is being-aware - because: then what? It is enough to know that is the case, regardless of the experience you are currently happening. What we want, then - since there is no "correct" perspective - is to select a basic perspective which is the most flexible and beneficial.

The ideal default, I suggest, is to format yourself as "a background space within which sensory experience arises". This places you-the-observer as a pure, relaxed, background expanse, with you-the-content floating within it. This gives you a stable platform to operate from, to think from. You view the world, then, as "a three-dimensional multi-sensory thought of a world, that is floating in the space of a perceiving mind". Other thoughts are then parallel experiences, floating in mind. You can of course then choose to reshape yourself as "being a person in a world" when you want, but you will always have this format of "being a space within which the sensory thought of a world is floating" available to you going forward.

Q1: you don't have to be seeking to constantly experience yourself as an unformatted space whose only property is being-aware - because: then what? It is enough to know that is the case
the formatting i'm having at the moment is along the lines of changing my patterning from an apparent "internal/mind-only state" and expanding it to become "the world"
because before, my experiences were felt only intellectually (which is purely a fictional experience itself) so by changing that to be-the-world it should then become manifest
because all events are rooted in consciousness anyway [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqOjFC9MCDc]: the intention of creating something creates it
The ideal default, I suggest, is to format yourself as "a background space within which sensory experience arises".
this is the goal
You can of course then choose to reshape yourself as "being a person in a world" when you want
this is what i am doing by "transferring" the intention from an apparent mental-construct to an apparent-physical experience
yet both are the the same in principle being derived from an intention manifest in consciousness

The intention of something is that thing! The thought of something and the actual something differ only in their intensity and their location (3rd person vs 1st person, basically). Isn't this shift in relative position - changing from watching something to being "clothed" by it - actually the essence of what you're speaking of ?

POST: Won $500 a few days ago

Congrats on your win!

I believe dimensionaljumping and law of attraction are essentially the same thing.

The usual philosophical follow-up questions: What "thing" is it, precisely, that both "dimensional jumping" and "the law of attraction" are? How does the law of attraction work, exactly, and what does this imply about the nature of our ongoing experience - and the nature of "the world" and "you"? Strictly speaking, without answering that we can't really say that "something triggered the win" nor that two things are the "same thing".

Im guessing it was the feeling state that shifted me into an experience that matched the state?

It's potentially a way of looking at it. One possible model is that adopting a particular pattern (an image, a feeling, whatever) can trigger the associated extended pattern into prominence, and that this then informs your subsequent experience. Although we might wonder: what are "states" made from? And where are they? Or are they just metaphors which are used to formulate intentions, and which have no existence other than that?

The idea being, that the more clearly structured our description is, the more we move towards a situation where any apparent results can be linked back, and the outcome repeated (eventually ruling out coincidence or a tendency towards superstition).

It's hard to pin down what, if anything, triggered the win here, I think, because there was a bit of a muddle of activities going on in this case. Did you get paid in $100 bills, for example, as in your visualisation? Or was there a more specific intention that accompanied the image? How would you go about repeating it - what have you learned from the experiment that you could reuse?

I played the scratch offs for the sake of enjoying the game without caring if i won or lost.

Yeah, I do think the attitude of basically "being okay with whatever happens" is a key ingredient, even when it comes to managing and directing everyday life, never mind the more esoteric experiments.

I was grateful for having that experience I desire, now. Without the feelings of desiring/yearning (that would imply having it in the future).

Perhaps the stability and relationship thing didn't come with her because I hadn't gotten to that part on my list yet before she came up and said hi

Ha, I love that. Following on from what you say about "yearning", I agree that does have an impact. We might draw the connection between this and "thinking about" vs "experience of". If you are thinking about something, imagining it in the 3rd person, then it is "over there" and you are "over here". There is a distance between it, and it is that distance, the gap between the desire and fulfilment, which leads to the yearning. For as long as the outcome is held in this 3rd-person state, then it cannot be experienced. For it to become an experience, one needs to be "clothed" by the outcome, it must be released from suspension "over there" and be allowed to dissolve into the main strand of experience "over here" - the 1st person. Basically, you must allow it to cease being a located, bounded thought, and become an unlocated, unbounded thought - because that is what ongoing experience is. To release something, then, is to allow it to dissolve into the background, and therefore become integrated into your main strand of 1st person experience. One might skip this, however, by formulating your intentions as "unlocated, unbounded" thoughts in the first place, rather than as object-type thoughts - provided one wasn't resisting change to the main strand at the same time.

POST: Questions regarding DJ

So, for your first point, see previous answers about "dimensional jumping" and the "law of attraction": here [POST: Won $500 a few days ago ], here [POST: Speculative answers to Frequently asked questions.] and here [POST: A few questions.]. As for the story, it's just that: a /r/nosleep type story "inspired by" the topic of dimensional jumping (although really a misunderstanding of the topic as it is described in the sidebar).

Q1: Wow, thanks for the fast reply tho, would you be able to explain the difference beetwen DJ and LoA for dummy people please? Like I though it was something like: DJ (2 glasses) might "change everything" (might change your relationship with parents, close people etc) just for your wishes while Law of attraction you're just asking for one thing while it be the only thing changing or only things around it wil change.

Your timing was good!

So, the real answer is that "dimensional jumping" and "law of attraction" are both aspects or artefacts or leveragings of a deeper truth. The difference between them is, I'd say, that "dimensional jumping" is knowingly employing this and understands there is no solid underlying "how things really work", whereas the "law of attraction" tends to be based on a hand-waving sense of there being a "how things are really". (And often a poorly-defined one, leading to almost superstitious behaviour in search of "vibrations" and the like.)

At root, though, they both work because change arises due to intentions and their implications - and the world-descriptions those intentions are structured in terms of - rather than due to a technique or method based on the world being a certain way independently of those intentions.

Q1: Thanks for all your answers :) so after all there are no big changes if you do 2 glasses if you dont really want big changes around you due to whatever you asked for, right? Since you might make the shape of whatever you want.

Right, so the idea is that when you write the labels you contemplate the specific situation you are in, then contemplate the specific outcome you want, and in each case "feel out" the words that capture those situations (that is, you let the words come to you rather than logically working them out). There's no reason for anything more dramatic to happen, other than what makes sense in terms of "this" turning into "that". You're not going to some other drastically different place, you're just tweaking up your current experience a bit by "re-patterning" it (is the concept behind the exercise).

Q1: Alright, thanks :) It sounds better than dimensional jumping wich sounds kinda shady actually compared to what it really is. Since as far as i've understood there's no jumping to other dimension (thats why you are not ocupping any other body and yours its not ocuped either)

Yeah, well "dimensional jumping" is just one of many metaphors which, the idea goes, you can use to generate experiences "as if" they were true. So, if you want radical change in your life, something that breaks the rules a bit, then constructing intentions in terms of that metaphor allows you to "re-pattern" your experience in a way that actions based on the usual world description would not. (Although there is also some misdirection involved to ensure that you don't resist, or later counter-intend, the outcome.)

Fundamentally, you never occupy any body, you just have an experience "as if" you are "a body within a world". The deeper observation referred to earlier, is realising that the only fundamental truth is the fact that there is an experience happening - that is, the fact of being-aware. The actual content of experience, though, is impermanent and has no solid underlying substrate, and hence the possibility of shifting its condition without limitation. (All of which, of course, should be checked by personal experimentation; you're not meant to take anyone else's word on this.)

Q1: What breaks my brain is that then, the world is a place of shared experiences, right? Since, as an exemple, i've met you, and you're an human being more than something that i've created.

That's everyone's favourite topic, apparently! See recent discussion: here [POST: What happens to the other 'you's when you jump?], for example.

Q1: I feel like a freak but i find these "theorys" (for scepticks or however its written in english) interesting. But, what would happen if 2 same persons make the 2 glasses method to be attached to the same person, lets say "x" and "y" want to be with "l", what would happen?

At a fundamental level there are no people and you are not actually a person! Basically, don't worry about it - you can treat it like a "private copy" of the world where everything in your experience is an aspect of a larger you. As I say, the only thing that is always true is the fact of "awareness"; everything else is true on an "as if" temporary basis only. So there are no conflicts, because there is only ever this experience happening.

Q1: Thanks for all the answers btw :) That sounds totally awesome, is this connected to the astral projection/law of attraction philosophy, i mean, we're here to live, so just do it. Or does this go in other way that people who believe in karma and so would reject this, like if this woud be cheating?

Welcome! I don't think the idea of karma as in "judgement and payback" is valid. There are no inherent rules-based morality laws or an independent benchmark for appropriate behaviour.

There is karma in the sense of, if you "pattern" yourself with a particular outcome or a particular worldview - whether by intending it or doing something that implies it - then it will become prominent in your life. But that's not the same as "balance" or whatever. Rather, it's just what a "patterning" approach means by definition: you get what you assert plus the logical implications of that assertion - i.e. if you intend something then you are also intending a world in which that intention makes sense.

So, basically just do it. There is no morality or judgement outside of yourself, so it's up to you. The nature of "patterning" does imply a certain "do unto others (unto the world-as-experience) as you would have done to you", though, of course.

Q1: wow! This is a very interesting and good point of view, mother of god. So, what do you think about the infinite knowledge that is right now in the universe? Like, none of it "exists" as it trully is, or it is really something exist and we discover over our experiences?

You could consider that the world is not so much a "spatially-extended place unfolding in time" as a "toy box of all possible patterns and experiences, from which we draw to create our 'private copy'". All possibilities, then, are present eternally (which means "outside of time" rather than "forever"), "dissolved" into the background. However, that too is basically a metaphor which you can experience "as if" it were true, albeit a metaphor which gets closer to being completely inclusive. Again, only being-aware - or "awareness" - is fundamentally true (exists), however it can "take on the shape of" any experience "as if" it were true (exists). To summarise this view:

• What you truly are is "awareness", a sort of non-material "material" whose only property is being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiences.
• The experience you have taken on the shape of right now is one of apparently being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person.

The problem we have when thinking about it (this is covered in the last link) is that our thinking is already pre-formatted into a "shadow sensory" shape. We cannot think of things which are "before" experience, because thoughts are themselves are just experiences. We have to be careful and not make the mistake of assuming the-world-as-it-is is of the same format as our sensory moments, since they are just a particular patterning themselves. This tends to inform our idea of what "to exist" means.

Generally, I'd say that everything exists as potentiality (enfolded), and the current sensory moment exists as actuality (unfolded). However, right now you are actually experiencing absolutely everything, and this is true always - however, different pattern-facts are just "brighter" than other pattern-facts (their relative contribution to this sensory moment is stronger). We might call the current relative distribution of pattern intensities our present "state".

Basically:

• Think of the situation now that you want to change. Pause and wait for a word to come up which feels like it fits as a summary of that situation.
• Think of the situation as you want it to be. Pause and wait for a word to come up which feels like it fits for that.
• Use those words for your labels.

Follow the instructions as they are written in: these instructions [The Act is The Fact - Part One: An Exercise]. That's it!

Q1: Hi again. Tried it about last week but literally: 0 changes. Not even around me. If done the two glasses but the glasses aren't transparent at all (they have like pictures). Does It matter? I'll try again soon, but I'd like to know how to do It perfectly when I just want to thing one change while maintaining my family bounds exactly the same.

The properties of the glasses don't really matter - although it's helpful if they are transparent to some extent so that you can see the water levels and so fully experience the pouring of the liquid. So don't worry too much about that. Other things to consider: remember to follow the last instruction; generally allow a week or so for anything to become obvious; later, if no luck, perhaps consider whether you are someone who "holds onto themselves" in everyday life, do you "control" yourself moment by moment?

Q1: What do we mean by "controlling", sorry for obvious questions but since english is not my main language (not even close to) somethings might be a little bit confusing to me.

It's not you - it's hard to put into words anyway! So, an example:

Sit in a chair. Now stand up.

Does it feel that the standing up experience just "arises" and your body "moves by itself", or do you feel that you are "doing" the standing up? If you feel that you are "doing" it, can you identify what it is you do? Are you tensing muscles? Thinking intensely? Narrowing your attention down? Do you begin by re-asserting the fact of "sitting down" before you being targeting "standing up"? None of that is required.

Now, instead of doing anything about standing up, just let your attention be open and expansive in all directions (don't narrow down onto your body parts), and just-decide that your body will stand up: simply think "being-standing-up". And then don't interfere. Allow the experience of "my body standing up" to just arise and unfold in your awareness, by itself.

Some people constantly "re-assert" their current body position and then use effort to overcome it, and they do the same with thinking, and in particular they "concentrate" their attention on the target of what they are doing. None of this is actually required (in particular, you don't need to narrow-focus on your target in order to intend it and have it happen), and what it tends to do is "fix" you in your current state, and prevent it shifting - in the example, like you are intending "being-sat-down" and "being-stood-up" at the same time!

Q1: alright, i think I got the point, so how do we transfer that to 2 glasses? And by the way, how was this method discovered? i've been looking on google but there's only reddit threads, no other websites so im curious :p

In two ways. Firstly, when performing the exercise, simply perform the acts as described in the instructions, and don't "concentrate" or "focus" or in some way try to make anything happen. Secondly, in your everyday life work towards staying "open and spacious" and go about your tasks by just-deciding rather than "manually" moving yourself (body, thoughts, attention). The exercise itself, I put it together when someone posted a question over at /r/glitch_in_the_matrix asking whether it was possible to deliberately create a "glitch" type experience.

Q1: Got it! Thanks!
Yeah, but my point of the question, is how would someone discover the method, since lot of people on this reddit say it works im just curious why it is not famous out of reddit itself

Oh, I see. Well, it's just one example of that sort of thing, I suppose, and it probably doesn't make much sense out of context?

It's probably best described as an experiment rather than a method. Its underlying purpose really is to trigger an experience that encourages a questioning of your assumptions, and perhaps thinking along a particular direction about the "nature of experiencing". Without that larger idea backing it, the ability to have conversations like this about it in a forum, it probably isn't very valuable.

Q1: Gotcha, thank you once again!
Could I ask you to share your own experiences that have worked with 2Glasses (if not very personal) as how was it before, what you wanted to change, and how it changed and what else changed due to it?

You're welcome. I'll leave you to conduct your own experiments and check it out for yourself, but if you're interested: here is the original comment [POST: [EXPERIMENT] Glitch Generation Test, I Need Your Creative Ideas!] describing the exercise, and the first responses!

...

Q2: [There is no morality or judgement outside of yourself]
yes there is - me

Hmm, you are not outside of yourself!

Q2: other people are because they are not directly me and do things I despise... judgement, see

But you are not "directly you" either. To despise them is simply to despise aspects of yourself, and for as long as you despise them, it'll persist...

Q2: for as long as you despise them, it'll persist...
that's right, because by thinking about them, I am reinforcing that "pattern". so I have to "drop" them... but realistically, they're not going to just vanish; so there must be a need for a war or something
But you are not "directly you" either
this is still confusing to me [https://youtu.be/DyOxHTLE3EE]

Drop "realistically" too, then...

POST: What happens to the other 'you's when you jump?

The content and links in the sidebar cover this, I think, but -

Although it's fun (or disturbing!) to contemplate, there are not any "other yous" in the sense of physically (in a separate space), simultaneously (in a parallel time) "happening" (unfolding in time). I'd suggest that the only thing that is "happening" is your 1st-person ongoing experience right now.

"Dimensions", as an (active?) metaphor, provide a way of conceiving of a discontinuous change in the content of that ongoing experience that breaks your usual narrative of the world as a "spatially-extended place unfolding in time". Other narratives might then seem more appropriate - for example, we might think of "the world" as a sort of toy box containing all possible patterns and facts and moments, from which we select our particular "private copy" experience of a world.

Q1: I rather like the "private copy" metaphor, it helps me grasp the whole idea of "patterning." The only thing I don't understand is how it can be "private" when our toolboxes seem so show the same pattern, and my patterns can influence your patterns. I'm sure you get this same question in its different forms very often, and I guess it can be boiled down to this: if objectivity doesn't exist, then why do our subjective experiences "sync up" so well?

There are a few ways to tackle this, but let's say: if objectivity doesn't exist, then subjectivity doesn't exist - there is just "experiencing". Therefore, our subjective experiences in fact don't "synch up" at all. Your current experience is the whole thing, you are being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person (and by "a world" we mean a particular shaping of the metaphorical eternal "infinite gloop").

The Hall of Records metaphor gives us one way to conceive of this. It essentially says: all perspectives exist, but the only thing that is ever "happening" is this experience, because "experiencing" == "happening". There is no "outside" to that. However, really, we have a problem here: that our thoughts about experience are themselves experiences, and so already formatted into pseudo-sensory object-based experience. We cannot therefore think about experience; it is already "too late". What we are talking about is "before" division and multiplicity. So, we might say that there is only one toolbox, not many, and only one experience, not many. Strictly speaking, given the above, we should say that there are not-many toolboxes, and not-many experiences. We literally can't conceive of this in the abstract, we only conceive of particular experiences, as experiences!

Although we can't think about it, we can directly attend to our experience and get an unmediated insight though. (Excuse some recycling here.) A silly little exercise illustrates this. We might close our eyes and try to:

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

The conclusions of this are the facts upon which all of experience is built. (Try it before reading the next paragraph!)

I anticipate what you discover is: there is no edge to your experience, and so there is just a sort of unbounded space of "awareness" rather than "an" or "the" awareness; you seem to be both everywhere and nowhere, you are unlocated and unbounded; the entire experience appears to be "made from" you, as in you-as-awareness rather than you-as-person; what you previously considered yourself to be is a thought of you, and that thought is located within you-as-awareness and is made from you-as-awareness.

Eventually - from this, the experiences you might generate from other exercises, and some contemplation - you conclude that the only inherent property of experience is being-aware, and that to talk of there being "other" subjective experiences or an objective world is not right or wrong, but meaningless. You can't "understand" this in terms of conceptualising it, but you can know it, directly.

I've spent my whole life using "subjectivity" basically as a synonym for "experience."

Me too, largely, which is why it's worth doing what we're doing now: just emphasising that it's a shorthand for "the subject" rather than it being a perspective that is embedded within an environment.

I'm imagining an Alex Grey painting with an infinite pattern of eyes embedded into the background, which alludes to the idea of awareness being an inherent property of all things.

A nice image. If the background is made completely from "eyes', then all objects which appear within it are also made from "eyes". Although, because that can suggest that one part of the background is "looking out" at another part, it's probably better so that it is made from "sensing" or "being". That way, we get the idea that the background doesn't go beyond itself, it simply experiences itself, in and as the shape that it has currently adopted. This is where we eventually come to the idea of calling it "awareness" and its only inherent property being being-aware.

However, it's really useful to come up with different visual images, like the one you suggest, for helping us grasp particular implications of this. So long as we bear in mind that the true situation is "non-dimensional", as it were, then we can't really go wrong.

At the core of reality I imagine a uniform, unbounded 3D grid ...

In some respects this is similar to The Infinite Grid metaphor, I suppose. These metaphors can be very useful for: a) conceiving of a structure which can be used to formulate intentions; b) providing a thinking framework to discuss certain experiences. It is important, though, to note that it is not "how things really are" - because there is no particular "now things really are" or "how things really work".

There is no stable underlying substrate within which we are operating, hence the "formatting" of your world experience at an abstract level is just as much a pattern as everything else. When we intend something, we not only intend that outcome, but we also implicitly intend the conceptual framework that was used to conceive of it. That is, that when you intend to go out into the garden, you are also implying the extended pattern of that intention, which involves apparent houses, gardens, a persistent environment, spatial extent, unfolding change, and so on.

So, every intention is a shift of the entire world! However, we tend to only intend things that are consistent with our current experience, and thus every time we go out into the garden, we further entrench this entire universe or dimension (that is: patterned state). What we are doing on this subreddit, what the exercises encourage, is intending an outcome which is not consistent with our current experience of "how things work", and thereby we reveal to ourselves that "how things work" is something we implicitly intend and which is within experience, rather than some stable independent landscape that we navigate across.

This node could be described by some as an "ego," a container for the awareness. Is this description compatible so far?

Well, the ego isn't a container for awareness. Awareness has no edges or boundaries, it is what everything else is "from", so it cannot be contained. What you think of as the ego is just a concept. In terms of what you actually experience, I'll be it's just an occasional thought that arises here and there, which you attribute to an ego. Again, what you are actually experiencing is being "awareness" with sensations, perceptions and thoughts arising within and as it.

The little four part investigation demonstrates to you this fact of experience. It is important, though, to actually do this, to attend to experience directly, rather than just think about it. Your thoughts about it won't get "behind" it, they will be just more experiences, deformations of your current experience - like rippling a pool of water that you are trying to perceive the surface of. Realising this, you discover the the "ego" is really a thought about an "ego", rather than an actual thing. It is a pattern of experience, nothing more. (I suggest.)

POST: A few questions.

I guess probably the best way to start, is to ponder:

• How, exactly, does the "law of attraction" work? (And what is the model of the world upon which it's based?)
• What are "you" and what is your relationship to "the world"?

As the sidebar says, "dimensions" are really just a concept or metaphor (as indeed is the concept of "reality"), one that is used to describe an experience and/or formulate an intention. It is not really "how things work" or "how things are". (In fact I'd suggest there is no "how things work", and "how things are" cannot be described because descriptions themselves are made from it.)

Ultimately, then, this is about generating experiences which lead one to contemplate the "nature of experiencing", and understand the relationship between experiences, intentions, and descriptions. And getting some desirable results along the way, for sure. The Two Glasses exercise, specifically, is really a structured approach to getting someone to shift state from one with "this" pattern as dominant, to one with "that" pattern as dominant - whilst making it relatively unlikely that they will counter-intend it afterwards, and in a way that naturally raises questions about causal relationships within experience.

POST: I've got a bit of a problem.

Q1: I am saddened that this subreddit seems so negative suddenly

Q2: It's the flood of all these new people. The whole "vibe" of the sub changed. There's no more teachers. And all the noobs are just relishing in their ignorance.

Q3: Imo "teacher" isn't the appropriate term.
Assuming that the core intentions of this sub are:
(a) to rise curiosity about the relationship between "I" and "the world" and subsequently between "experience" and "descriptions".
(b) Suggest tools to help individuals in their personal investigations.
What is lacking at this phase are more people willing to redirect "noob discussions" to the core theme. The modus operandi of /u/TriumphantGeorge is a good model.
My suggestion to make this task easier is to create a hypertext in the format of Question/Answer linking to previous discussions here. Maybe it could be done in a collaborative fashion utilizing a shared doc...

Indeed, those are the core themes - although they are usually best articulated as part of a dialogue, rather than a statement of intent I think, because the various terms tend to have different meanings for everyone. That's also why there isn't a basic Q&A/FAQ here. However, a wiki page linking to "historical discussions of note" may be a useful thing for us to introduce. Meanwhile, the number of subscribers and new interest probably now exceeds what is practical for a subreddit topic like this, and has for a while. In moderation terms, we've tended to let things breathe for a bit, then reel things back in. That is, allow some basic or repeat posts to stay for a while - because they often allow a strand of discussion to develop that is valuable even if the main post is not - and later remove ones that didn't flourish. But this does mean we suffer from waves of "incomer ignorance" dominating the sub sometimes, and perhaps we need to push back on that a bit more.

...

A1: Grow a pair sissy.

A2: I agree with you. I was sitting in front of the mirror bored for 40 minutes straight. OP is just afraid of the dark.

POST: Can you change yourself physically when you jump?

I would also like to know if I can change myself physically when you jump, but this comment is pointless so think of it like a bump.

The likely range of bodily change is often asked in rhyme,
The key you seek to make it sleek will come to you in time.

Sooooooo, yes?

[Come on, you gotta keep in the spirit of it!]

Dramatic shifts and bosom lifts mean lowering your defences,
Parts are moved and others soothed while detaching from the senses.

I would like to have clear answers, because I really don't want various types of cancers.

[That's better!]

The theory's said that results are lead by the thoughts we hold in mind,
But the strength of these asks commitment, please, which is difficult to find.

Commitment is something I am not familiar with, but I could do it for this, now stop rhyming please and help me jump into the abyss.

[Very good.]

I've never had cause to dabble myself in this - except that I did accidentally 'keep things going in the right direction' when I was growing up, unwittingly. But the process is the same for all this stuff: Enter a state of detachment (so that you are not "holding onto" present patterns, and they fade) and will the desired change (triggering the desired pattern, to intensity) without using any effort. It's a bit more difficult, I think, to let go of the body, so it's easier to will it in the future - and if there's some 'token action' you could take in that direction, that can be helpful.

How can you will change without using any effort

I think of it like "remembering". Do you use effort to remember something? It's like that. Will is how you actually accomplish things; everything else is an effect. It's hard to describe. I mean, how do you see or hear? You just do it. But it's the difference between having a 'technique' and it working or not working. It's sort of a commitment to something being a fact. Here's a little experiment which can give you the experience: Get a friend and challenge them to an arm-wrestle. Do this twice.

• On the first attempt, use all your muscle power to attempt to win the arm wrestle, as you normally would.
• On the second attempt, withdraw your 'presence' from your arm and simply "strongly decide" that you are going to win the arm-wrestle. Now, resist the urge to interfere - leave your arm alone and simply let your arm do the winning for you.

That "strongly deciding" is the willing. It is that which brings about the result. In this example, you can will muscular movement or will the result. When doing these types of things we want to use the second sort. And so it is effortless.

what is a token action?

A 'token action' is just something which you can pass off as the 'cause'. For instance, if you wanted to lose weight you might, having willed, go jogging once a week and eat an extra apple. (In the arm-wrestling example, 'muscular trying' is a token action which actually gets in the way of the result.)

POST: So...could every person that you talk to in your life actually have their consciousness in a different dimension?

Today's Conundrum - Nobody is looking out of the eyes that look at you, except for you. If you pay close attention, you'll realise that even you are not looking out of your own eyes.

This has always been my assumption- we live in our own worlds

Yes, effectively we are each living in our own patterned "dream-space". When we "jump" we are letting go of some world-patterns, allowing them to shift according to our intention.

Aside - This sometimes leads people to worry about "other people", but the answer is that you are not a person either - you are a conscious perspective, in which the "dream-world" appears. And so is everyone else (if you need to believe in "elses"). It's best to just say "it all works out in the end; everyone experiences the version of themselves they choose to".

Thats seems pretty limited-Im also a person and youre a people. Its part of how this works.

Well, it's optional but - It's better to say you are experiencing being-a-person or a "person perspective". It seems like a detail, but things make a whole lot more sense if you take this approach. Not just "jumping". Search for the "person" you assume you are, and you won't find it. You will, however, find transient sensations, thoughts and perceptions in an "open aware space". The person you seem to be is as much the content of your world as the rest of the environment.

That's a lot of robot talk to skirt that it's People not- animals or robots or anything else that has the ability to surf the meta fiction as with jumping. It's the Person, human that bridges mortality & immortality - that's pretty fucking important. With heady robot talk about consciousness you miss the most important part

Hmm, so what is "the most important part"?

The Human.

Okay, interesting point. If you are experience something, you can't be that something, I suggest. But this depends on what you mean by "human". If you mean "human" as in, a particular formatting of mind but independent of the body and thought, then I might agree with you. Human experience is a filtering of potential experience. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be able to do "jumping" and the like. In fact, the whole jumping process is precisely about detaching from that formatting and letting it shift. You let go of "being human" to, briefly, be nearer to raw unformatted consciousness and more responsive to intention. You die and resurrect.

Without that there is no subjective experience to experience.

Very true. And if you pay super-close-attention, you might realise that your subjective experience is constantly disappearing and re-emerging, like the gap between frames in a movie. At best, we are half-human in our experience. But since time can't be measured against anything within those gaps, so each gap in a way lasts forever, maybe we are barely human at all... And who knows what you become in those unremembered experiences between your "human" moments...

Yikes. Rocks have consciousness. The universe is aware.

Nah, rocks don't have consciousness. Nothing "has" consciousness, I'd say. I wouldn't even say "the universe is aware".

Well there are plenty of people to disagree with you on that so I'll leave you there. We'l have to agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, lest I leave a confusion: I'm not saying you are not conscious. I'm saying that consciousness must be something you "are" rather than "have". What you then seem to be is the shape you have taken on, as consciousness. My "wouldn't say the universe is aware" statement is misleading in this way. Better to say "is awareness" and "has awareness of its form". Anyway, thanks for the exchange.

...

Can a Mantra be a Metaphor?

Good question! Some thoughts: If we abstract these terms out into "patterns" then, effectively yes. To say a word is to trigger its associated patterns. Meanwhile, a metaphor is simply a named set of overlapping relationships (patterns), connected and associated with an unnamed set of overlapping relationships (patterns). To say the word "owl" is to trigger the associated patterns of "birds", "wings", "big eyes", 'tree branches", "Blade Runner Voight-Kampff Test", "Rachael", "night-time", etc. To think-about an owl is to do the same.

On archetypes

Gods and Goddesses, owls and archetypes, they are all just triggers for pre-existing extended patterns which cannot be encapsulated in a word or an image, but can be triggered or intensified by them. All possible patterns are here, now, in your experience - it's just that some are more intensely activated than others. To feel better (simplistically speaking) you want to allow the "bad feeling" to fade and a "good feeling" to become more intense. How to do? "Detach" from your current experience and "allow" it to shift; trigger a pattern which implies the desired state. Literally, you are a wide-open perceptual space with some experiential patterns more intense than others. You don't "heal" so much as "allow experience to apparently shift". More accurately: you can't change anything, you can only let the present pattern dim and intensify an alternative pattern by "recalling" it.

POST: What's the point of the Dimensional ID 982 if an infinite amount of other dimensions could have the same number on their sidebar? Why doesn't everyone pick the own ID for their original dimension?

The ID is there for fun really. It's part of the mythology.

Even if people were to pick their own personal ID, there's no reason why it would change just because other changes have occurred. There of course an infinite amount of different types of experiences in which the ID is still that number.

Really I'm referring to "mythology" in its looser sense:

"Mythology can refer to the collected myths of a group of people—their body of stories which they tell to explain nature, history, and customs"

The concept of using some sort of "Universe ID" or anchor to identify shifts was one of the early ideas in dimensional jumping, so it's part of the shared history of the subreddit. If you think about it though it doesn't really work as a reliable reference (why should that number necessarily change just because other things have changed?) so it's really just part of the fun rather than something inherent or useful in the approach. If it does change however, then you will know for sure that things have shifted, right?

POST: So can i jump without the whole "candle n mirror @ night"?

The point is to get yourself into a detached state, released from holding onto the current sensory experience. Check out the other methods post linked on the sidebar - e.g. Neville Goddard approach of entering deep relaxation, etc. You don't even need the timing, although there's something about the quietness of late night, and it feels "special" in a way that helps. The trick to letting go is to let go of your attention. People understand letting go of the body and thought, but they leave their attention narrowed. Free your attention also. Then, once you've settled out, you can begin, focusing your will. Check out the couple of (free) books referred to in the Neville Goddard post. His approach is probably the most accessible, next to the stripped down version. Here's a good exercise to begin doing (there's a more advanced one here):

Daily Releasing Exercise

• Twice a day, 10 minutes, lie down in the constructive rest position. On the floor, feet flat, knees up, head supported by a couple of books, hands resting on your lower torso.
• Completely let go to gravity. Give up totally, play dead.
• If your body moves or thoughts come up, let them be. Just let them release without interference.
• If you find your attention becomes focused on something, the same: just let go of your attention. Give up, again.
• At the end of the session (don't worry about exact timing), decide to get up, but don't make any movement. Wait until your body moves by itself. This won't happen for a while, but during one session, it will.
• In general, resist the urge to interfere with your body and mind, to push it along. Settle back and let it run at its own pace.

POST: Has there been any thought given to the idea that you are consciously manipulating reality, rather than jumping to a different one? Is that question semantic?

A1: I think that quite rightly sums up the issue. The way I like to express it is that you do not exist in multiple dimensions but rather multiple dimensions exist in you. If you think of all possible worlds as a probability wave, it is a matter of conciousness "collapsing" the wave into multiple realities. Much like the old idea of our subjective reality being a dream and we have the ability to change the dream.

Right! I'm not quite so keen on "wavefunction collapsing" because it's maybe not a great interpretation even for physics (it implies an event), but the idea that you are a conscious space and all possible experiential/factual/logical patterns are by implication if not in fact latent within you, like memories waiting to be triggered, is pretty close as metaphors go.

Q: So do you think humans have 'incarnations' in lower and higher dimensions simultaneously? Could I dimensional jump my consciousness 'up' a dimension instead of 'left or right'?.

All there is, is experiences, and all experiences arise in your "perceptual space". In a dream of walking across a field, do you go anywhere? What if you had a dream about exploring other dimensions? No, in all cases what you get is... more dream. When you wake up in the morning, again... more dream. You might consider that you are only dreaming of waking up.

(To illustrate this, try out the little experiment in the middle of this post [Outside: The Dreaming Game].)

POST: Noob here. Am I too negative to try this DJ?

Right..the only reason I would want to DJ would be to fix the negativity, ha. So, if I were to get in the right mindset to do it, I wouldn't want to anyway. I will just have to figure something else out, but it was just a thought. Thanks for your reply.

Yeah, if you "defocus" yourself a bit, the rest of your mind is going to snap to the same thing! So messing around with mirrors seems like a bad idea.

Possible suggestions: You should concentrate on something more general: bringing into mind scenes of what you'd like to experience, vividly and with the feeling of how you would feel, as if you were experiencing it now, in the 1st-person. That alone will make a big difference to you. Even just because it's fun and feels good. Although outside random events might act to budge you out of negativity, the longer it goes on the more the world will have lost that random factor, and settled into your attitude along with you. You are going to have to "shape-shift" yourself!

Think of it as having ended up with a slouched, weeakposture. You can wait for something to bump into you, or pull you up, but that might be a long wait. The best solution is to shape-shift yourself, take on the form of upright posture and power. It might be worth reading the Neville Goddard version, described best in The Law and the Promise (see links in that post), for inspiration.

POST: trying tonight

Work on summoning the feeling of "how you would feel if you were as you want to be". This will help more generally.

POST: Too scared to jump.

Try other methods. They all amount to: entering a state of sensory detachment, and allowing a shift towards some intended state. No matter what you have to "let go" in some way, but some are a little more pleasant if you don't like the morning ritual bit!

Have you ever seen those isolation tanks? I wonder if those can be used in jumping. I don't see why not.

Floatation tanks? I've had a few sessions in those: very relaxing. It was before I started thinking about these things though. Potentially it could be ideal. The more you feel "totally supported" the more you feel comfortable in removing attention from your body sensations (that's why maybe lying on the floor is better than lying on the bed is better than standing up, for this).

POST: Seriously tripped out. I SWEAR there were at least 65,000 subscribers to this subreddit. I watched the number climb for quite a while too. WTF

A1: That is an improvement then, imagine 65,000 people posting this type of drama daily.

Hmm.

POST: Misunderstandings

/u/TriumphantGeorge states that "dimension jumping" is actually just a metaphor. It's all been a metaphor. I don't mean to shoot anyone down with this. If you believe you are actually jumping between dimensions and shifting the OBJECTIVE REALITY, go for it, I'm not going to stop you

However, to say it is "just" a metaphor is also misleading. That implies that metaphors are lessers things, that they are not "real" like other things which are "objective". The sense in which "dimensional jumping" is just a metaphor is the same sense in which "objective reality" is just a metaphor. To highlight:

It's a place to change your subjective perception of reality, meanwhile the objective one remains unchanged.

I have never encountered an "objective perception" of reality. In fact, strictly speaking, I'm not sure I can say that I have ever experienced a "reality" at all. The context of the statement would be all important. It is also worth considering whether there is truly a difference between having an experience that "really" happened and having one "as if" something happened. The experience certainly happened; the explanation of that experience is another thing. The explanation is in fact itself another experience: "the experience of thinking about an experience". Explanations are never "what really happened", you might say. Unless perhaps one thinks that the world is actually made from explanations! (Although: there is a sense in which that might be viewed as an accurate statement, but not by the straightforward interpretation of it.)

Anyway, you get the idea.

The sidebar text and the introduction already give the perspective to take (and there's no risk of posts or my comments being deleted; the idea behind the subreddit is that a lot of the content will be in the evolving discussion taking place within the comments). From there, the intention is that people do some exercises, contemplate the results and their ongoing experience more generally. There is, in fact, probably not much point trying to work out what this "really is" without engaging with that. It can lead to one simply creating more "castles in the sky" (self-consistent conceptual frameworks which "make sense" within themselves, but do not actually connect do the the topic of direct experience - that is, they are "conceptually true" only). Regardless, one needs to be really picky when it comes to how we use our familiar concepts and ideas here; because perhaps familiarity is the only thing making them seem valid. Some good and reasonably accessible reading related to that last point from the perspective of science and philosophy, again to be viewed as thought-provoking rather than prescriptive:

• What's bad about this habit - N David Mermin, on the reification of abstractions.
• The mental universe - Richard Conn Henry in Nature, covering similar ground.
• Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics - George Ellis on, essentially, science vs conceptualising vs philosophy.
• A Private View of Quantum Reality - Christopher Fuchs on interpretation, probability, the "objective world" container concept, and more. (See also the related Nature article, Physics: Qbism puts the scientist back into science, which is also interesting for the point at which the author resists the implications of his model.)

1] It's obviously worth asking what "dimensional jumping" and "objective reality" are metaphors of or for. One answer: they are metaphors for the patterning of our experience; they are possible "as if" perspectives on them. Of course, "patterning" is itself a metaphor! However, it perhaps benefits from having less in the way of hidden assumptions between the direct experience and the description - plus it self-declares as a metaphor rather than claiming to be "what is really happening".

I don't believe I'm being that much of a poison.

Hopefully, I never seemed to suggest that you were. That's not the spirit in which I responded, which was: to clarify what was meant when I said "it is a metaphor" (my "own words", just as you say) and to elucidate the underlying approach of the subreddit. Your post was a great seed for kicking off a discussion about exactly that.

I just wanted to highlight that for newer people to this sub, so they can decide for themselves if they believe it or not.

Indeed. But it's hopefully not a matter of people "believing" something (or not) based on what they read. As the sidebar tries to underline - and it really does give you all you need to get started - it's about conducting a personal investigation and then drawing your own conclusions. In fact, "belief" is probably too strong a word: people don't believe in an "objective world", they just never really examined the idea one way or another, nor paid much attention to the structure of their own perception. I'm not even sure that most people truly understand what is actually meant by a phrase like "objective reality", beyond the vague background assumption that what they supposedly are is a person-object located within some sort of place-environment. Most people, I would suggest, have never truly examined - intellectually or practically - their assumptions about their ongoing experience in any way. And then, if prompted to, they mostly go straight into thinking-about it at a surface level, rather than attending to it. Most don't even know what attending-to even is. This tends to result in wandering around the same ideas in a circle.

solipsism is by definition unfalsifiable

That's not necessarily the case, I'd suggest. It is true that there can be no content-based falsification of solipsism. But, it might be possible to notice something about your ongoing experience, its context, which suggests that ideas like solipsism are meaningless - that they do not apply. They are "not even wrong" as a description of one's situation. Similarly, the idea of an "objective world". That is not to say that they are not useful ideas, though. Recognising that these ideas (those, and "atoms", "particles", "waves", and so on) constitute "effective theories" rather than explanations in the sense of behind-the-scenes truth, is probably quite important. (People often pay lipservice to this, but not much more than that, especially over the last few decades where increasingly descriptions are taken as literally true, actual "things".) This is one of the senses in which the "objective world" and "dimensional jumping" are both metaphors.

To emphasise, though: this subreddit is not about believing anything. However, it might be about examining - everything.

And "belief" isn't that strong of a word to describe the situation.

I think I'm just keen to have a more specific use of the word "belief" when discussing this particular topic. Certainly, as you say, the everyday use covers all those situations you allude to. But here, when dealing with a deliberate examination of the nature of experience, it's useful to highlight when something is more of an unexamined "assumption" than an explicit "belief". It can seem nitpicky, but making distinctions like that can help when digging deeper, I feel.

When all is said and done, this boils down to solipsism vs. realism

I personally don't think that's the case, and for a reason: you can observe something about your direct experience which simultaneously re-contextualises "realism" and makes untenable the common version of "solipsism". Loosely speaking, we end up with: in the former case, there is no place for a "real world" to be; in the latter case, there is no place for a countable "object" to be and hence nothing for experience to "belong" to. Now, if one has no new information - no additional experiences to add to one's memories-to-date; no fresh container concept either - then certainly it seems that we are left with an intellectual choice between "realism" or "solipsism". This is why there is an encouragement to conduct certain experiments, and why the sidebar calls them "exercises" rather than, say, "methods". (And to really ponder what a "description" actually is.)

As a side note I'd like to applaud you for keeping this discussion civil and well-meaning

Likewise. Hopefully the subreddit is all about encouraging collaborative discussion, an ongoing conversation - albeit one guided by a certain approach. That "certain approach" though, is based on engaging with ideas and beliefs as ideas, rather than fighting to "win" exchanges. After all, who knows where the next interesting or useful angle may come from? Certainly, it's unlikely that it will arise from people just viewing everything in exactly the same way and nodding their heads in precise agreement! (Or fighting in such a way as nothing is gained by anyone.)

The exercises themselves, however, are biased in favor of confirming one side over the other.

I don't think so? There is no content within the exercises themselves. And they are definitely not intended to involve a selection between two viewpoints, as such. Instead, quite possibly the conclusion would be that both viewpoints belong to a certain "type", and that the "type" is itself something to be questioned.

They can be explained through other means that don't require this.

The issue, here, is that the exact nature of "explanations" is one of the things under examination.

But I do think that some more clarification was needed for people to decide if this really is the subreddit and ideology for them

Ultimately, although it doesn't explicitly state this, it's sort of about being anti-ideology. (Although not just for the sake of it, of course.) It not "selling" a viewpoint. Rather, it's pushing a critical view of all descriptions of experience, as a category, with an encouragement to do a couple of little exercises which highlight this, directly (because there's no point in just thinking about this within any particular conceptual framework; you just go round in circles). In other words, the clarification comes from the participation, via personal investigation. There's not really any other way to do so that sticks; it's just more thoughts otherwise. The final context of it is non-conceptual (it can't be resolved into mental objects related within a representation space), which obviously poses a problem. None of this is particularly new, though, of course. The idea of "believing in" concepts and reifying them versus direct experience is a relatively new thing, I'd say - and has been retro-fitted onto past figures who explicitly criticised such an approach. For example, the key physicists of the early 20th century, and so on. As philosophy's prominence in physics diminished, and science became more like piecewise engineering built on prior conceptual platforms, we're left in quite an odd moment when it comes to the idea of "the real". Which is an interesting thing to explore, I think - hence all this.

Since the subreddit is ultimately non-ideological, the main battle is to prevent any particular "understanding" from becoming dominant to the exclusion of others (I think /u/Hooded_Rat gave quite a nice response along these lines). That would be what would constitute a "poisoning of the well". You're right that the internet is tricky when it comes to this. Now, it is true that not all newcomers to the discussion arrive at the same "level" - but that is fine, I think. With a topic such as this, intellectual elitism is quickly exposed, whilst ignorance is revealed as opportunity. From experience, though, you can't really just tell people "this is how it is". You really have to engage with them on their own terms. Fortunately, as one of the moderators, I have some influence over that! Plus we take the approach of "moderation via contribution", which hopefully ensures anything that gains momentum does not continue for long without coming under appropriate scrutiny. As a subreddit somewhat built on being against taking things on faith, though, we are generally in a good position here - even if Tom Cruise does show up and jumps on the subreddit sofa...

(Probably the real enemy for us is the casual comment declaring that "I read somewhere that this or that is the answer to your question", followed by nonsense! Corrective responses are time-consuming.)

Anyway, it is good when people (such as yourself) from all different perspectives are willing to engage, since it's not really about being "right" so much as digging into the construction and implications of this or that view (and its relationship to experience).

POST: Questions for Mr. TriumphantGeorge about reality tunnels, non-dual doctrines, books and movies.

(Replying as recently requested!)

First, on the reading recommendations front, I'd probably point you to this reading list conversation we had quite a while back.

[TG COMMENT]

See also, perhaps:

• The essays and articles linked at the end of this comment [POST: Misunderstandings];
• The partial reading list at /r/oneirosophy;
• On the entertainment side, the viewing and reading thread at /r/glitch_in_the_matrix.

And some things which may or may not be in those lists, off the top of my head and in no particular order, around the topic:

• Three Dialogues - George Berkeley
• Presence Vol I & II - Rupert Spira
• An Introduction to Awareness - James M Corrigan
• SSOTBME: An Essay on Magic - Ramsey Dukes
• Against Method - Paul Feyerabend
• What is Zen? - Alan Watts
• Head Off Stress - Douglas Harding
• Focusing - Eugene Gendlin
• The Open-Focus Brain - Les Fehmi
• How You Stand, How You Move, How You Live - Missy Vineyard
• Zen Body-Being - Peter Ralston
• The Mechanism of Mind - Edward de Bono
• Wholeness and the Implicate Order - David Bohm
• MUI and Conscious Realism - Donald Hoffman
• The Camel Rides Again - Alan Chapman
• The Meditator's Handbook - David Fontana
• The Michael Chekhov Handbook: For The Actor - Lenard Petit
• The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep - Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche
• Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self - Robert Waggoner
• The Lucid Dreamer - Malcolm Godwin
• The Serial Universe - JW Dunne
• The End of Time - Julian Barbour

Meanwhile, an archive of Neville Goddard's books and transcripts can be found here, although the two main ones for getting a handle on his thinking are probably Awakened Imagination and Imagination Creates Reality.

[END OF TG COMMENT]

I don't really have any primary favourite that captures the feel of the subject, but all these have aspects of it. In terms of fiction and the authors your mentioned, for Ballard, The Unlimited Dream Company is nearest for me, but also things like The Drowned World less directly; for Philip K Dick, it's Ubik or The Mind's Eye more straightforwardly, but Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said captures it better.

Those experiences made me realize that this "material" world is an echo of the "imaginal" world.

I feel that if we take a step back from that, and instead view all experiences as being at the same level, we can short-circuit some of the usual paths of thinking here. So, no one aspect of experience is an echo of anything else; they are just aspects of your current "state". One moment or strand does not cause another; rather they are part of the same "place". In this way, we sidestep the concepts of "belief" or "projection", both of which imply some sort of separation between "you" and "world" plus some sort of intermediary mechanism, and end up with a description based around you as that-which-is-aware sort of "taking on the shape of" states of experience, by a shifting of self. Basically, a "patterning" of you-as-awareness. Loosely speaking, that corresponds to something along the lines of:

• What you truly are is a non-material "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware (or "awareness"), and which "takes on the shape of" states of experience. Right now, you-as-awareness is "patterned" as a state which corresponds to the experience of apparently being (an experience "as if" you were; consistent with a description of being) a person-object located within a world-place. However, by attending directly to one's ongoing experience, one can recognise that the context of our experiences in general does not correspond to any of the descriptions we have about the content of specific experience. (Something like that, anyway.)

This, I'd say, is effectively another depiction of "non-duality", but employing metaphors that are stripped down, attempting to avoid old associations whose original meanings have become corrupted (e.g. "god" or even "consciousness"), or getting ensnared in modern metaphors that don't quite fit (e.g. "simulations" or misused "quantum states"). In the end, thought, as with those descriptions, it becomes about pointing out and avoiding saying things that are "wrong", rather than being able to say the thing that is "right".

POST: Witch needs help re: unintended consequences

Can you please just help me understand why no one here promotes using safety clauses.

We have had discussions in the past about being specific, particularly when someone has come up with a "monkey paw" type hypothesis. Ultimately, the generalised version of how to view this here would probably be that it's best to view things as a "dumb patterning system". That is, there is no interpretation of your target outcome taking place, there is in intermediary entity or intelligence. Rather, you are literally and directly increasing the prominence of the fact/pattern that you are intending, and the rest of the "landscape" of your world-definition is simply being deformed as a side-effect.

And so, yes, being specific is generally helpful, or appending some sort of notion of "in a way that benefits everyone" or whatever. One strategy someone came up with for the Two Glasses exercise was to add an asterisk (" * ") beside the labels, as if indicating an internal footnote, and just-decide that doing so meant that the manner of the outcome would be beneficial in a broader sense. It's worth noting something else here: that is, that the way some of these exercises were designed, was that it's not so much about the actual words you write, rather it's the state they represent or are a handle on.

For example, in the Two Glasses, you are not writing a description of your outcome, you are summoning the outcome in your mind and then retrieving a "handle" onto that, which you then write onto the label, linking it to the state. If you are doing that with full attention, then you are inherently specifying your outcome state in a way that is more complete than simply words or other symbols. So, there's a bit more to consider here, potentially, than just the general notion of "safety clauses". And obviously there's a whole lot of stuff to unpack about concepts like "forces of the universe" and so on. The approach here is (amongst other things) aimed at unpacking and defusing such patterns, and in the process I'd say that there's less to worry about as regards unintended outcomes from assumptions, since intentions are more "direct". Of course, almost all of an outcome could be said to "unintended", strictly speaking. (As in: not specified. Because if you intend an outcome - say, passing an exam - then "passing an exam" is just one little fact, but the whole landscape of your state was deformed to accommodate it. In that way, almost all of the outcome or result, almost all of your landscape, was not deliberate.)

POST: Two Glasses - А Cautionary Tale

See recent discussion on "unintended consequences" [POST: Witch needs help re: unintended consequences], too, and the idea of "safety clauses". It's important to be careful to not get too hung up on any "monkey paw" type notions here - that is, the idea that there is some sort of payment extracted for having an intentional outcome arise. What you say here isn't a bad way to phrase it:

Cause it's all about the "path of least resistance".

However - it's not necessarily the "path of least resistance" in terms of how you yourself would narrate or conceive of your situation. The way in which your outcomes (seem to) arise isn't necessarily dictated by "story" type logic; it's more like dream or "patterning" type logic. The whole thing is more like a direct "dumb patterning system". Which is to say:

If you intend an outcome, then it's like you have asserted a particular fact to be true: the fact of this-outcome at that-moment. The two certainties, right then, are that this-moment is true (because you are experiencing it) and that that-moment is true (because you are "pseudo-experiencing" it by defining it). If we conceive of our state (the set of all facts and the sequence of "sensory moments" which are implied by them) as a sort of "landscape", then it's like you have defined two particular landscape features, - like mountains or valleys or trees or rocks - one "now" and one "then". And so, just from the fact that the landscape is continuous, the intermediary ground that is the moments between "now" and "then" are defined implicitly. This is "dumb", or happens "stupidly", since there is no calculation or intelligence involved, any more than pulling on one side of a blanket results in a calculation which reforms all the folds and creases in the material. And the way in which the blanket reshapes does not necessarily correspond to any narrative we have about the current set of folds. That is, the rules of "folds in blankets" do not necessarily match up with the rules of "stories about pictures made from folds".

All of which leads to: yes, we might say that outcomes arise by the "path of least resistance", but the sort of "path" we are talking about doesn't necessarily correspond to our conception of what a "path" would be. In fact, the rules of "folds in blankets" would be "before" conceptualisation; they are literally unthinkable. So there's not much point in worry about that (because you wouldn't actually be worry about the thing you should be worrying about, anyway). The "story path" of an outcome really only an observation you make in retrospect, when it's too late. Fortunately, though, all of this is easily solved. If our worry is that the "outcome fact" will bring with it circumstances which are unappealing to us, we can simply include within our definition of the "outcome fact" that it will be appealing to us. From the other discussion:

And so, yes, being specific is generally helpful, or appending some sort of notion of "in a way that benefits everyone" or whatever. One strategy someone came up with for the Two Glasses exercise was to add an asterisk (" [*] ") beside the labels, as if indicating an internal footnote, and just-decide that doing so meant that the manner of the outcome would be beneficial in a broader sense.

The takeaway of all of this, I'd say, is the realisation that there is no intermediary between you and the intention and the outcome. They are all identical: intending is basically a "reshaping" of yourself into a new state, by yourself. The more specific you are, the more specific your subsequent experience. If you are not specific, then the intention is effectively "auto-completed" via triggering of the extended pattern of your intention (that is, simply due to its "dumb" incorporation into features of the current state or landscape at the time). Importantly, there is no "universe" or other entity interpreting requests or whatever, or sending you messages. Although you could intend to have experiences "as if" that were true, of course - but you would still be doing so directly.

Additional thought - It's also worth noting that the correct attitude isn't really: "if I intend something, then what if a bad thing happens as an unintended consequence?". Because if you never intend anything, you are not actually avoiding unintended consequences. Rather, your entire experience is an "unintended consequence"! You are deciding to accept however the "landscape" happens to have ended up by this point. So I suppose it's really about a transition towards taking responsibility for your experience, rather than not. And part of that is to understand and accept the limitations of knowledge as regards experiential content. There is an inherent "mystery" here: you can't pre-experience your experiences, and they aren't really "experiences" until you have experienced them.

[“there is no intermediary between you and the intention and the outcome.”] If we all had our “houses in order”, I would agree.

I think it applies regardless, and that's actually partly what's being said by it. To muse on that for a bit:

What I mean here is, that there's never a structural or active intermediary; there are no levels. The lack of order in your "house", is just a part of your current state, at the same level as any other pattern. The only thing there is to change, is the patterning of your state, directly (with no intermediary), even when in terms of a particular conceptual model that pattern would be described "as if" it were some sort of boundary or entity. Someone might, say, describe their process as "sending a message to god", and have outcomes consistent with there being a god. What "really" happened was that they shifted their state such that "outcome" was overlaid onto their existing "fact-pattern landscape" - and "outcome" was structured in terms of the pattern "god" and "message" and "response". The intention for the outcome was also, implicitly an intention for a "god message" experience. The subsequent "outcome-experience" then arises with content "as if" these things existed as intermediaries. The "outcome" is incorporated into existing patterning; a deformation of the existing overall pattern, and the "outcome" itself is defined in terms of a particular patterning. So at the fundamental level of "you-as-awareness in a patterned state", there is no intermediary, simply because there are fundamentally no "parts", just one "landscape" (you, in a particular "shape"). The state of your "house" is identical with the state of you, and there's nothing outside of that, hence nowhere for intermediaries to be. Hence "dumb patterning system" and all change being "direct". Or: it's patterns all the way down, and there isn't a "down" really, because "down" is a pattern too...

However, I've noticed you don't really discuss belief systems and definitions.

Hmm. So, what would you say a "belief system" is?

I feel that as as concepts, "beliefs" and "belief systems" can be a bit tricky, they are sort of quite hand-waving notions. There's this lack of clarity between "believing" or "belief systems" as an experience, as content of thought for example, and as the "meta" structuring or context of one's experience, what we've been calling our "state". In the view we've been exploring about, I'm not sure that the concepts are needed. Would we just be including them again from familiarity, from habit? In what sense do we actually experience a "belief" as such? And is it perhaps a partial idea which arose from a different model, an idea which doesn't translate easily or usefully?

Yes, the patterning system is dumb and it's steered by an even dumber set of generally unchecked notions about "life, the universe and everything".

Following on from the last bit, I think we have to make a distinction, perhaps, between "notions" as something one experiences thinking or inferring are at the root of thinking, versus the actual structuring of our experience. There's a hidden assumption here, perhaps, which is: that the format of our thoughts corresponds in type to the format of our state. That is, that descriptions somehow get "behind" experience, when in fact descriptions are themselves just further experiences, at the same level: the experience of "thinking about [a concept called] experience". There is no "behind the scenes".

Am I saying one should be afraid to explore their own mind/dreamscape?

Only in the same sense that one would be scared to explore their own thoughts, I suppose!

I'm saying one should... have a decent grip on how their own mind works, why they want what they want...

I definitely agree that it's quite fundamental to explore one's current state, and from that proceed accordingly. No matter what, though, you can only do this by actually experiencing your state. That can be in thought ("feeling out" your landscape in direct contemplation) or in the main strand (your ongoing "sensory" experience). So it's a funny sort of thing, that there is no "outside" position one can take. There's no way to "do something and then experience selected patterns", because the way that you select the patterns is itself by implicitly selecting patterns. So you are always exploring your current state, in fact!

The choice you make, though, is whether to intensify (increase the relative contribution of) a particular pattern, once you have unpacked it in some form or other (as a thought or as a main strand). So, it's all a bit like a rippling of self? Unfolding and refolding different aspects, electing to keep some aspects unfolded and contributing after having encountered them in our investigations, others less so. The main thing being that we can't actually "pre-decide" that we want a particular pattern in advance - we have to experience it in some way before it is available to us to choose to persist it or not.

...

Well, we're basically in agreement throughout; it's mostly terminology. As with a lot of these conversations, half of what we're doing is digging into terms to make sure we mean the same things by them - so we can then confirm we were agreeing anyway. I'd only pick up on this bit:

[Hence "dumb patterning system" and all change being "direct"] I'm simply pointing out that it's something most people will never get to truly experience for themselves.

In terms of what the description is pointing to, though, all experiences are that experience, and all intentional change is that. The extent of change (how unusual it is in comparison with the everyday-world description) doesn't matter; that would be a difference in specific content, not in type. And:

For me, descriptions and definitions sort of generate and organize experiences while, indeed, being experiences (patterns) themselves.

I'd clarify this and say that if an intention is structured in terms of a description or conceptual framework, then it could be said that the description "generates and organises" experiences. That's the difference between a description as an "experience of thinking about something" and a description as "a shaper of experience". (Now, I would agree that there's some deformation that can occur just by thinking about a description, but it's relatively negligible, might lead to broad synchronicity.)

This is where we get into the idea of extended patterns and meaning, and the view that there really is only one continuous overall pattern or shape, consisting of all possible patterns; there are no "parts". Each intentional pattern, then, essentially implies a whole world, and intending is therefore a shift of the entire world-pattern. This doesn't involve explicit formulation. To be less vague, if you kneel down and pray, then that act already has a full meaning and implied structure beyond simply the request, which is then part of the extended pattern of the intention - regardless of what you think about it, or whether you have thought about it. Now, for that example there is some overlap with the idea of "belief systems" I suppose, but:

More abstractly, even just conceiving of a desire in terms of an object, already implies a certain structure to the "format" of the world (a "place", spatially-extended and unfolding in time, and so on) which in turn implies a certain structure to the resulting experience. And so, the intention for the object is also in effect an intention of a "place"-type world, and "place"-type experiences, since the "meaning" of the intentional pattern is its extended pattern in those terms.