TriumphantGeorge Compedium (Part 2)

Overwriting Yourself

Overwriting Yourself

It is fun to contemplate reality from the perspective of idealism and subjectivity, and talk of consciousness as an undivided whole. Imagining the world as a dream-like experience which might be subject to one's will can trigger in us all sorts of exciting possibilities. However, it's one thing to dream about a dream in this way; it's quite another to knowingly dream the dream itself. Is it even truly possible, or is it just a fun and comforting idea?

How can we get there when our everyday experience doesn't quite correspond to this ideal? One approach is to attempt to directly alter our experience to conform to it.

The Experiential Dream-Space

If it is true at all that reality is dream-like then it must be true right now. In the room you are apparently in, at this very moment. So look around. Furthermore, your own body and thoughts must themselves be dreamed, along with every other experience you are having. All of this must be arising within an open "dream space" made of mind, of awareness. All of this experience is "you"! It doesn't usually feel that way though, does it? Why not?

Even if we understand intellectually that everything is consciousness and the world is undivided, we still usually feel that there is an inner and an outer to experience, that we are "located" and separate, except during certain peak experiences. What is the nature of this feeling? Can we tackle it directly? I say we can.

Stuck Thoughts, Incomplete Movements

I suggest this disconnect arises because over time we accumulate forms of "experiential debris" in our dream-space. The ideas we accept, the thoughts we have, the other encounters in the world whether passive or active - all leave traces which, when repeated and reactivated, gradually solidify. There are many implications of this, but the important ones at the moment are:

• Stuck Thoughts. These are basically thought structures that have solidified in your space rather than naturally dissolve. These may be located in your body area or beyond. This sense of division between body and world is one such thought.
• Incomplete Movements. These are intentions which were resisted or aborted before they followed through to completion. This might be a suppressed startle response, a decision to do something which you then halted by tension or a reverse intention, and so on.

Neither of these would arise or be a problem if we lived in open non-resistance. However, most of us are holding on to - identifying with - certain patterns in awareness, and this prevents the natural passing and dissolving of these structures. This leads to a sense of clutter and constraint (stuck thoughts) and tension (incomplete movements).

Subtle Identity, Subtle Boundary

Although all held structures interfere with our direct appreciation of the dream-like experience, there are two particular ones which being subtle are often overlooked:

• The first is the Subtle Identity. This is a sense of location, usually somewhere along the centre line of the body. It is a "stuck thought" which consists only of a felt-sense. It is where you feel "me" to be, even as you obviously experience it from outside - i.e. "me" is experiencing "it".
• The second is the Subtle Boundary. This often corresponds to what is perceived as one's "personal space". As with the identity, it is a subtle felt-sense, a three-dimensional structure felt as a subtle "wall" between one area of the dream-space and the rest. Again, it consists only of a located feeling.

The key to directly experiencing the undivided nature of your world is to at least recognise, and ideally dissolve, these two structures.

Releasing Held Structures

There are three general approaches to releasing these structures, ranging from passive to fully active:

• Passive. Simply lie on the floor each day for about 10 minutes. Completely let go to gravity, and allow your body and thoughts to move as they will. If you find your attention narrowed on some aspect of experience, simply let go of holding your attention. Let it roam as it will. Gradually, over quite a long period, your held patterns will unravel naturally. However, you will feel benefits of increased clarity almost immediately, as the most shallow structures evaporate rapidly.
• Investigative. In this approach, you actively sense out difficult areas and release them. Sometimes we know there is a particular problem that needs tackled, other times we might scan our bodies or larger space and seek them out. Either way, we approach this task with an open, relaxed attention. Having identified a particular stuck area, we "sit with it" and let it intensify and release into the background of its own accord.
• Active-Assertive. The more extreme version is to go straight for the desired result. Residual structures are accumulated over time, a deformation of the nature open, empty experience that we began with. Instead of gradually diffusing these structures, we can instead wilfully assert open space as our experience. To do this, we allow our attention to open out and be unbounded: expand into the whole body space, the room, and beyond. We take our stand as the background space in which patterns appear. We then simply assert - declare to ourselves as fact, summon the feeling of it being true - that we are experiencing complete open, structureless space. You will immediately feel the contrary to this: it is not yet true and so you will be very aware of the elements of experience which are not open and empty. Reality will offer its counter-assertion! Regardless, you simply stay with this posture of assertion and sit with it. Gradually, the resistance will soften. With regular practice, you will rapidly approach a clearer more, open experience - the subtle identity and boundary will become particularly obvious to you, and soften subsequently. However, a sense of expanded space and looser division will be almost immediate. Important: You are asserting the feeling of truth of this directly into the dream-space here, rather than merely thinking-about it.

Note that with the final approach, you are effectively overwriting yourself with empty space. As such, it is natural that you will encounter quite strong resistance and even a sense of existential fear. For this reason, it is probably better to start with one of the other methods, build up to this, and begin with only "light assertion" until you become acclimatised to the experience.

Afterword - This process is closely related to the interrelationship of arising experience, creativity and memory formation. See /u/ava_santana's post on a feedback model of experience and my comment here. Intend to do more on that and its connection to magick and "pattern transformation" later.

...

Q: What sort of exciting possibilities has this unlocked for you?

Puppeteer of the dream-space.

Q: Hi! I tried out the 'passive' model of what you suggested last night - I read quite a few other posts on this sub after reading yours, so this is not directly/only related to what you've written here. After lying still for a while, I felt like I was 'stuck' in my head. I've meditated before, although not a great deal, but enough to have some experience with thoughts arising and passing without identifying with them. I have some history with the 'fourth way' of Gurdjieff/Ouspensky as well which is also related. That to say, while I've played around with consciousness in the past, I've never connected it with space (or the lack of its concentration in space as you're talking about in this sub), which is probably why I've never had this experience of feeling 'stuck' before. What I mean by this 'stuck' feeling is that 'all' of my consciousness was sort of balled up there. Do you have any suggestions for moving it around? To the bottom of my feet, for example, or the corner of the room? Somewhat unrelated, have you read 'The Great Book of Amber' by Zelzany?

EDIT: Okay, you've bought up a great topic, so inevitably I just couldn't stop typing once I got started! :-) But it's useful to get some of these related points down in one place I think.

Stuck in your Head

After lying still for a while, I felt like I was 'stuck' in my head.

That's usually the first impression people seem to get, and it can be surprising. People meditate, work on letting their thoughts pass and so on, get some success - all the while not realising they have circumscribed their world into this little area. It doesn't really give any 'content' much room to arise and dissolve - no wonder people find themselves so "thinky". They are effectively "clenching their being" constantly. And tense, unmoving patterns spew out thoughts, no matter where they are in the body-space.

Another side-effect is that they are living their lives in "blind-sight". You are not truly out there in the world, you are only seeing it through a peripheral view, actually experiencing your thoughts-about rather than your direct-sensing.

I have some history with the 'fourth way' of Gurdjieff/Ouspensky as well which is also related

Now, I've read a little of Gurdjieff, but never really pursued it. It was going to take a bit more dedication to it than I could muster at the time, although it seemed pretty fascinating (I was looking into the Alexander Technique at the time).

Attention is not a Torch

What I mean by this 'stuck' feeling is that 'all' of my consciousness was sort of balled up there. Do you have any suggestions for moving it around? To the bottom of my feet, for example, or the corner of the room?

I know exactly what you mean. To get clear - because your "consciousness" is actually always everywhere - let's call it "attention" for now. The problem you have is that your default "attentional profile", its extent in space, has become defaulted and constrained to a certain area. You can temporarily force it out, but it'll spring back for two reasons:

• You are trying to move it, when attention is not something that is to be moved - because it is not thing. The metaphor of the torch-light is incorrect, it is more like a 3-dimensional spatial filter, a "profile varying the intensity of experience across space".
• You have accumulated structure/habit in your world where your attentional profile always settles into that shape, that location, probably with a 'felt-sense' boundary. Basically, you've ended up with a little "valley" in this area of your world.

Okay, the three methods described in the post are pretty much for this. First of all, adopt this assumption: Your natural state is to be completely open, without even an attention boundary - no localisation. Following the passive approach regularly (in which you don't concentrate, simply let go), your tensions and division would eventually unfold by themselves, and your attention would become increasingly open. But this takes patience, and you have to do it every day, and you have to not mistreat yourself (by forcing and pushing) in between times, ideally. The secret to doing this more deliberately is: You do not move your attention to an area of experience, rather you expand it to include that experience in your area of attention. The area you include doesn't need to be adjacent - what you are effectively doing is "increasing the intensity of attention at that point" - but it's initially helpful if it is. So, next time you're lying down, discovering you are constrained into your head area, let it be. Then feel out the tips of your toes, and include them. Gradually, feel out your whole body, bit by bit, in this way. Then feel out the space around you body, and beyond.

Remember, you are not really moving or expanding consciousness - that is already everywhere, what your experience is and is made of. You are basically including aspects of experience more fully in attention, and eventually dissolving the boundary of attention - the habitual valley - completely.

Switching Perspective

Now, this approach is focussed on the content. It is possible to short-cut this by switching perspective to the background space in and of which content arises. The exercise in the middle of this post tries to help with that. Also, Rupert Spira tries to lead someone to this in this interview. Once you know that you are really the whole space, you can just switch perspective to it. That doesn't mean all the debris disappears instantly, but it stops being troublesome, you are opened-out, and the debris will even be slightly loosening during daily activity while you are in this mode. The author Greg Goode has referred to this as Standing As Awareness, in the book of the same name. Another quick shortcut is to include in your attention an external sound, such as distant traffic. Sounds are more discrete that images, and so attending to a sound often draws you to, and releases you into, the silence surrounding it. Finally, including (not focussing, remember) the sensation of space just behind your forehead (where "your pre-frontal lobes would be"), can also help, since the thought-generation tends to occur nearer the back of your head-space.

In general, then, we want to avoid deliberately narrowing our attention, and find ways to encourage and allow it to open up without force - since force tends to paradoxically fix the current pattern in place.

Further Reading

A martial artist called Peter Ralston has a nice phrase, "feeling-awareness", that he uses for this "sensing out" approach, and covers some nice exercises in his book. You might find it interesting. You might also be interested in the work of Les Fehmi on open/narrow focussed attention.

And here is a nice illustration from a review of Marion Milner's book, A Life of One's Own, which captures it somewhat.

Somewhat unrelated, have you read 'The Great Book of Amber' by Zelzany?

No, not heard of it. Fancy giving me some highlights? I've been mostly re-reading old favourites from Philip K Dick, Haruki Murakami and JG Ballard lately to get me in the imaginative mood. (Latest: Eye in the Sky, a PKD I'd never even heard of, and quite relevant to the subjective idealist platform of this subreddit.)

Q: wow, thanks for such a huge reply. I'll read into it and try tonight. Amber might be fun for you - it's quite a complex fantasy novel, and very 'occult-y' in a way, but the main characters often 'shadow-walk' - wherein they transform the landscape around them to fit their desire until all the details are right and they're in the reality they were looking for. Maybe that's not the best description...anyway, it's fun, if you like fantasy, give it a try

wow, thanks for such a huge reply. I'll read into it and try tonight.

I had lots of bits of ideas I kept meaning to post about but haven't, so figured I might as well make a comment out of them!

Amber... 'shadow-walk'

Right, that sound interesting. I'm usually more sci-fi than fantasy, but I like anything with clever 'reality' ideas. In fact, that sounds a little bit familiar - someone might have recommended these to me before. Thanks!

quick update - i did what you suggested, and i had a feeling of 'largeness' - i'm not sure how else to describe it. like i was a big ship in the ocean instead of me in my bed. very interesting. thanks

There you go! Great. :-)

Imagine having that as a part of your daily experience. It's pretty hard to build up tension and fear and resistance, while also being so 'open'.

Just Decide.

Lie down on the floor, in the constructive rest position (feet flat, knees bent, head supported by books) or the recovery position (on your side, upper arm forward) and let go to gravity; just play dead. Let your thoughts and body alone, let them do what they will. Stay like this for 10 minutes. If you find yourself caught up in a thought of a body sensation, just let it go again.

After the 10 minutes, you are going to get up. Without doing it. Just lie there and "decide" to get up. Then wait. Leave your muscles alone. Wait until your body moves by itself. This may take a few sessions before you get a result, perhaps many, but at some point your body will just get up by itself. Once that happens, avoid interfering with your muscles and let your body go where it will, spontaneously and without your intervention.

This is how magick works. All you need to do is, decide. As Alan Chapman says, "the meaning of an act is what you decide it means". But you don't even need an act. You can just decide an outcome, a desired event, to insert a new fact into your world, without a ritual. Just decide what's going to happen. Just decide.

Decide to be totally relaxed. Decide to feel calm. Decide to win at the game. Decide to meet that person you've dreamed of. Decide to be rich. Decide to triumph.

Because in this subjective idealistic reality, where the dream is you, what else is there to do?

EDIT: When doing the part of the exercise where you get up, you may find it helpful to centre your attention on the area just behind your forehead. This keeps "you" away from your body, and any attempt to "make" it happen. See Missy Vineyard's book How You Stand, How You Move, How You Live for similar approaches, without the discussion of the larger implications.

EDIT EDIT: Do report back your experiences if you try this.

...

Q: Oh, I just remembered something. Long time ago I've heard of a similar exercise. In it you're supposed to stand upright and relax, and then as you say "decide" that your arms will begin raising, but don't actively raise your arms. At some point they should start lifting up as if on their own. I am pretty sure this exercise is related to hypnosis. I've heard it looooong time ago, almost like in a different lifetime.

Hypnosis is pretty much 'decision and allowing, or acceptance of direction, without muscular action'. You are actually doing hypnosis on yourself all the time, but you accompany it with excess muscular tension, to feel that "you" are doing it. I recommend Daniel Wegner's The Illusion of Conscious Will for those interested in more on this.

Q: Will is not an illusion. It's crazy that you slip back into that again after you agreed that it isn't an illusion. Very irritating. Look if you don't agree, then don't. But if you agree, please start speaking and acting in line with the agreement. Stop recommending dumb fatalist stuff.

Will is not an illusion. It's crazy that you slip back into that again after you agreed that it isn't an illusion. Very irritating.

Erm, that's just the title of the book. The book is pointing out that people attribute their actions to themselves after the fact - e.g. the hypnosis thing - when it wasn't "them" that was doing it. However, the book's notion of "themselves" is in correct (it corresponds to the ego thought), and so although it is well written and full of good information, its final analysis is off base (it almost gets it right, then saps out in the last chapter!). My recommendation of the book is that it highlights that we associated "doing" with muscular tension and other false signals; in fact "we" are doing everything, and the notion of Will as commonly understood is incorrect.

Q:
The book is pointing out that people attribute their actions to themselves after the fact - e.g. the hypnosis thing - when it wasn't "them" that was doing it.
This is complete nonsense. It's always you that's doing everything. It can't be any other way.
However, it's not George that's doing it, but you were never George to begin with, see? You are just you! You are that which is open to all options, one of which is George-ing around and humaning around. That's one option of an infinity for you. But it is you. The you that's real, and yet beyond optional identities.
in fact "we" are doing everything
Not "we". Just you. It's not a democracy.

I'll just draw your attention to the phrasing I deliberately used: "People who are interested in this might like this book..."

It's a good read on the topic for those interested. All the rest of what you say, we've already covered and agreed on I think. I'll say this: That having an experience like the one I describe has more influence than any amount of thinking and philosophising or even accepting of a worldview. You can see it in people: Their body moves by itself, and suddenly causality doesn't work how they thought it did. It's suddenly easier to make the connection between how a person can change the world directly - it's "all you" and responsive.

Q:
I'll just draw your attention to the phrasing I deliberately used: "People who are interested in this might like this book..."
It's important not to say things like that because you and others who read this identify as people. So when you malign the person, because of the mental condition the reader is in, you're throwing away the baby with the bathwater. You need to keep yourself and toss the George, humanity, and the universe overboard. But this is tricky! Keeping yourself is just as important as removing commitments to limiting identities. To keep yourself means to be responsible and to be effectual in your willing. To keep yourself means to be able to form unbreakable resolve. It is essential.
That's why when you address confused people, you need to be careful not to accidentally throw away the person behind the person, so to speak.
That having an experience like the one I describe has more influence than any amount of thinking and philosophising or even accepting of a worldview.
I've had experiences words cannot describe, including uncreation and recreation of the known universe. However, I only had them because on some level I could conceive of them and knew how to open my heart to them.
The task of contemplation is essential and experience is not everything. Experience is not that important.

Bah! The more you read around these things, as a person, the more you are able to deconstruct the assumptions you have been made. In my experience, all-or-nothing jumps to an alternative worldview just cannot be communicated to others. Now, that which is behind the person - Shiva! I see Him behind your eyes! - is always listening. Often you can talk to both at once, and one message and another message are received and acted upon in different ways.

I've had experiences words cannot describe, including uncreation and recreation of the known universe. However, I only had them because on some level I could conceive of them and knew how to open my heart to them.

Yes. Also, sometimes experiences lead to the ability to conceive of things that one couldn't previously. That's why there needs to be doing as well as thinking, in a manner of speaking.

Q:
In my experience, all-or-nothing jumps to an alternative worldview just cannot be communicated to others.
That's because they probably don't exist. The "jump" is gradual. There is an aspect of "all or nothing" in the uncompromising vision, in terms of the eventual purpose, the teleology. But this isn't the daily experience which is gradual for the most part, even if the daily experience can be erratic a bit.
Now, that which is behind the person - Shiva! I see Him behind your eyes! - is always listening. Often you can talk to both at once, and one message and another message are received and acted upon in different ways.
You can only talk this way when you realize that the person is a magical emanation from the ground of your own being. If that's how you know me, then you can address me as Shiva. Otherwise you lack the magical intent. If your intent is purely conventional, you'll not reach my Shiva side, at least, not in any kind of predictable, reliable way.
Also, sometimes experiences lead to the ability to conceive of things that one couldn't previously.
That's rare. In fact, I can't think of a single time.
That's why there needs to be doing as well as thinking, in a manner of speaking.
There needs to be doing because when an idea is held sincerely with conviction, it results in a change of behavior.

That's rare. In fact, I can't think of a single time.

Really? So, you've spent your life assuming, say, that being in the world involves physical effort and trying. Someone demonstrates to you that this is not the case, that things can 'just happen' in line with your wishes. Are you saying that wouldn't result in a change of how you conceive the world and yourself?

(Yeah, I know, you're already there; but you see my point.)

Q:
So, you've spent your life assuming, say, that being in the world involves physical effort and trying. Someone demonstrates to you that this is not the case, that things can 'just happen' in line with your wishes. Are you saying that wouldn't result in a change of how you conceive the world and yourself?
How would someone demonstrate this to me when my prior commitment is not compatible with the demonstration?

In what sense?

Q: Well, suppose I am committed to the idea that I accomplish things by going up against external resistance. Now how would you demonstrate to me that "things can just happen?" (what the hell does that even mean? it sounds fatalistic)

If you are committed to that idea, then enjoy the struggle. I'd prefer to be committed to the idea that it can all be effortless, and that all I need do is make the choice that what I want to happen will happen, and it will.

Q: So I was right. Knowledge precedes experience, always. Contemplation is Lord.

Decision precedes experience. You don't need to deconstruct by contemplation.

Q:
Decision precedes experience.
And knowledge/understanding precedes decision.

It is not required. Only in the sense of it occurring to you that it is possible for 'such and such' to happen, that you would do the deciding, I suppose.

Q: You can't decide to florodimbare if you don't know what florodimbare is. You need understanding to decide.

I'm more of an interconfibulator, but there you go.

Q: You're just agreeing with me and conceding the point.

Nope, not really. To detail it out: You don't need to understand the details in order to get what you want, you just need to know what you want. That sorter of 'knowledge' doesn't seem very challenging, or much of a hurdle.

Needing to understand in detail how the reality 'works' or its nature would be greater hurdle. This is optional though; all you need to do is have demonstrated to you that decision ──> result, and then accept this.

Q:
You don't need to understand the details in order to get what you want, you just need to know what you want.
You still need some understanding of what you want. You need to know its general direction, like say "due West." You need a whiff of it. That's what contemplation is all about. And the more clearly you understand what you want, the easier it becomes to get it. There is then less groping around in the dark, less trial and error, etc.
That sorter of 'knowledge' doesn't seem very challenging, or much of a hurdle.
Ridiculous. Try to actually open your mind for once to real knowledge, then talk. You don't know squat friend. :) Your mind is like a peanut in size. That's why I keep surprising you with my posts, like that one time with the tradeoffs.
Needing to understand in detail how the reality 'works' or its nature would be greater hurdle.
It's a great hurdle, but the reward is commensurate.

You still need some understanding of what you want.

You need to be able to specify the experience you want to have. That is not a very big leap to have to make.

Your mind is like a peanut in size. That's why I keep surprising you with my posts, like that one time with the tradeoffs.

Bah! My peanut is The Universal Peanut, encompassing all within its husk!

Of course, there is no 'how reality works', except for the patterns enfolded within experience. However, some of these are from [apparent] birth, so it takes a bit longer to dissolve them. While relaxing on your yacht. Eating steak.

Q:
You need to be able to specify the experience you want to have.
Precisely. And you need to believe that such an experience is not just a fancy, but is one potential and valid phenomenal reality. This is impossible without contemplation if your starting point is one of an ordinary, untrained, conventional human being.
My peanut is The Universal Peanut, encompassing all within its husk!
This is true for everyone at the ultimate level. When I said your mind is a peanut, I meant the capacity you're exercising right now, your ready capacity. I wasn't talking about your ultimate capacity. Ultimately you are Almighty, of course.
Of course, there is no 'how reality works', except for the patterns enfolded within experience. However, some of these are from [apparent] birth, so it takes a bit longer to dissolve them. While relaxing on your yacht. Eating steak.
You're confirming a pattern and conforming to it. Not dissolving it.

Precisely. And you need to believe that such an experience is not just a fancy, but is one potential reality. This is impossible without contemplation if your starting point is one of an ordinary, untrained, conventional human being.

Really, not. The decision is enough, and getting out of the way. You can learn this 'gesture' by practicing the exercise, and you're off.

This is true for everyone at the ultimate level. When I said your mind is a peanut, I meant the capacity you're exercising right now, your ready capacity. I wasn't talking about your ultimate capacity. Ultimately you are Almighty, of course.

Uh-huh. So, you're wielding that Big Universe Power right now, are you? While eating jello sandwiches for dinner accompanied with a mug of water?

You're confirming a pattern and conforming to it. Not dissolving it.

Pattern confirmation is different to pattern leveraging. Ignorant pattern-use is self-reinforcing; understanding that it's enfolded patterns does not do this. In the same way as Dream Yoga leads to karma-free actions just through awareness.

Q:
Really, not. The decision is enough, and getting out of the way. You can learn this 'gesture' by practicing the exercise, and you're off.
I disagree. You can get started in the way you describe, but getting started will lead you toward the path of contemplation.
I've seen people have amazing experiences and then say, "Oh well, it was just a play of chemicals in the brain. Nothing to it." And bang, they just dismissed an experience and wrapped the entire experience in a blanket of assumptions and ignorance.
Experience is important, but never, never, never more important than Knowledge. The flow is like this: Will ──> Knowledge ──> Experience. Experience needs some kind of conceptual framing to be intelligible and meaningful. This is true of the mysterious experiences as much as the ordinary ones. Ambiguity is framed by clarity and vice versa. Without understanding all this you cannot flow freely from state to state. Instead you'll flow from one constraint to another, feeling victimized and feeling pressed by the life's circumstances at all times.
So, you're wielding that Big Universe Power right now, are you?
No. I have a bag of peanuts compared to your one peanut. I am more well versed in this thing because I understand things that seemingly haven't dawned on you yet. That's why no matter how much I like many things you say (but not all), I will not look up to you so long as you're not the one who surprises me with the aha moments and it is I who does so to you.
Pattern confirmation is different to pattern leveraging.
You can't leverage something that's been dissolved. Imagine the pattern of a foundation for a building. As you dissolve the foundation, the building sinks. To make use of the pattern it needs to retain its structure.
In the same way as Dream Yoga leads to karma-free actions just through awareness.
Nonsense. Karma means intent, and Dream Yoga leads to mastery of intent instead of its absence.

I disagree. You can get started in the way you describe, but getting started will lead you toward the path of contemplation.

The knowledge required isn't very great though, is it? Just "this is a dream" is sufficient. Just decide to switch your perspective to containing space, and you're pretty much there. To stand as awareness. When you become the context rather than the context, you're free.

No. I have a bag of peanuts compared to your one peanut.

But... they're in a bag, all constrained and trapped. It's probably not even a transparent bag.

You can't leverage something that's been dissolved.

Dissolving just means something stops being mandatory. You can use any route or pattern you want. Or not. However, just recognising the existence of a pattern means you can skip it; you can leverage that pattern through choice, or not use it. Recognition of the arbitrariness of a pattern - that it is not actually a shape of the world - is sufficient. It's about giving yourself choices. You don't actually need to dissolve everything to nothing to give yourself that power.

Nonsense. Karma means intent, and Dream Yoga leads to mastery of intent instead of its absence.

Karma means accidental creation of non-transitory patterns through intentions/actions that aren't 'transparent'. Leave no trace.

Q:
The knowledge required isn't very great though, is it?
The knowledge required to get started, to make the first step on a long journey, that's not very great.
Just "this is a dream" is sufficient.
Hahaha... oh my. This isn't a knowledge for you yet, is it? It's an idea you're actively considering and you're playing with it. You don't know it's only a dream yet. You think it might be. Probably is. It will become true knowledge when you can lean on it so much that you'd be willing to bet your current and future states on it. In other words, you should be able to put your body and social reputation at risk, or you're not serious. To lean on this knowledge means you can't lean on any competing form of knowledge and still be sure-footed.
But... they're in a bag, all constrained and trapped. It's probably not even a transparent bag.
Of course. But at least I have more than one peanut because I contemplate and not just feel. My intellect is enhanced by feeling and my feeling is enhanced by my intellect. I am complete in this way.
Dissolving just means something stops being mandatory.
OK, so build something in the sky then. Having yachts is not that!!
Karma means accidental creation of non-transitory patterns through intentions/actions that aren't 'transparent'. Leave no trace.
That's not what karma means.

The knowledge required to get started, to make the first step on a long journey, that's not very great.

The rest is just... patterns. I reckon 2-5 years to dissolve most of the back-up though. But you can still have yachts and steaks while you're doing this. (Actually, that's not strictly true, because everything can get quite unstable during the process.)

Hahaha... oh my. This isn't a knowledge for you yet, is it? . . . In other words, you should be able to put your body and social reputation at risk, or you're not serious. To lean on this knowledge means you can't lean on any competing form of knowledge and still be sure-footed.

I already did. That's why I am where I am now. You're right, in a way, about going "all in" to an approach - the bold step forward. But you can have daily reality-shifts for that, if you don't want to have to completely destabilise all the time. Thing is, I quite like having fun too, y'know?

"Dissolving just means something stops being mandatory." OK, so build something in the sky then. Having yachts is not that!!

Y'mean, like, a personal jet? :-)

That's not what karma means.

That's what not accumulating any karma means. Pattern accumulation, with a corresponding funneling/backlash effect. Feel free to return with your counter!

Q:
I reckon 2-5 years to dissolve most of the back-up though.
You are utterly delirious. I can only laugh at this nonsense.
Thing is, I quite like having fun too, y'know?
You can't imagine having fun without a yacht.
Y'mean, like, a personal jet? :-)
No, not like that. Build something that never lands and something you can walk into through any door.
That's what not accumulating any karma means. Pattern accumulation, with a corresponding funneling/backlash effect. Feel free to return with your counter!
So freedom from patterns is a recognizable characteristic in this case. That's a pattern in its own right. A higher level pattern.

Why not? It took me 2 years to do the opposite, and I know what I did. In the space of 2 months I've deleted most of those mental objects. What's your problem with that timescale?

Not that I'll be flying under my own steam quite yet by then. I'll be in a steam-powered airplane though.

You can't imagine having fun without a yacht.

Yes, the yacht is required. Sorry. I must have been a sailor in a previous life. Or a jealous coastguard.

Q:
Why not? It took me 2 years to do the opposite, and I know what I did. In the space of 2 months I've deleted most of those mental objects. What's your problem with that timescale?
I look at the ideas you bandy around, how you slip into convention and fatalism. There is absolutely no chance you understand what's ahead of you. You don't have a sense of proportion or perspective. You're not thinking beyond a human identity yet.
Yes, the yacht is required. Sorry. I must have been a sailor in a previous life. Or a jealous coastguard.
You don't need a yacht to sail the ocean of your own mind.

I look at the ideas you bandy around, how you slip into convention and fatalism.

I adhere to the most open view that it's possible to have. I'm just honest about my experiences. I work on the assumption of no-structure, but I also recognise there is apparent structure. I wouldn't want to zero that out over a shorter timescale. I don't want to delete things down to an empty space, actually.

You don't need a yacht to sail the ocean of your own mind.

But the yacht is on the ocean of my mind. In fact, it's the yacht of my mind, sailing the ocean of my mind. I don't see why you think that patterns of my mind (be they yacht-shaped, private-jet-shaped, or whatever) would somehow prevent other patterns taking shape or dissolving, as I see fit. They are non-causal; only I am causal, as the material of experience itself.

Q:
I don't want to delete things down to an empty space, actually.
That isn't the point. The point is that the possibility of empty space without things shouldn't be a disturbing or frightening one for you. It should be a familiar and navigable space and not something you're running away from.
But the yacht is on the ocean of my mind.
Oh no. The ocean that a yacht is on is like a spit in a thimble compared to the ocean of the mind.

That isn't the point. The point is that the possibility of empty space without things shouldn't be a disturbing or frightening one for you. It should be a familiar and navigable space and not something you're running away from.

But that empty space - or rather, place - is already there, right now, in my experience. I can stretch out into it right now. It feels, frankly, very pleasant. You can't navigate it, because it comes before structured space.

If I want to dissolve everything in it, of course I could just lie down and go to sleep at any time...

Oh no. The ocean that a yacht is on is like a spit in a thimble compared to the ocean of the mind.

Then I'm "gonna need a bigger boat"!

Q:
If I want to dissolve everything in it, of course I could just lie down and go to sleep at any time...
Nope, that ain't it. Sleep doesn't affect the basic pattern. To wit, you still find yourself in a human body, doing human things, 99% of the time, right? Maybe for you, 100%. I don't know if you've ever dreamt yourself in a non-human body doing non-human things.

Yeah, I wasn't being serious actually. Just making the observation.

Sure, I've often dreamt of being a 'perspective' or just being 'everything' or anything else. It's easily done, and one of the first fun things about lucid dreaming, once you've finished flying and having 'encounters' with pretty people.

In terms of RL, I often just switch to the open space perspective now. No body, just an environment.

Q:
Sure, I've often dreamt of being a 'perspective' or just being 'everything' or anything else.
No, that ain't it. That's not what I had in mind. I was thinking of a more radical break with familiarity.
In terms of RL, I often just switch to the open space perspective now. No body, just an environment.
What is the point of this?

No, that ain't it. That's not what I had in mind. I was thinking of a more radical break with familiarity.

Such as? Changing the number of dimensions is fun, having more than one timeline simultaneously is interesting, experiencing multiple moments at once, all that. Feel free to offer suggestions!

What is the point of this?

Really? Switch to being the dream. Then insert facts directly into it.

Q:Be a dragon and do dragon things. Have dragon's concerns, dragon's dreams. That's just a tiny example. Basically step away from humanity in some way.
Really? Switch to being the dream.
So you're not a dream if you don't do this? Is that what you're saying?

Be a dragon and do dragon things. Have dragon's concerns, dragon's dreams. That's just a tiny example. Basically step away from humanity in some way.

Sure, that's all been done. Wolves, fish, clouds, just nothingness, all that.

So you're not a dream if you don't do this? Is that what you're saying?

You are always a dream, but sometimes you are dreaming of being a person. You need to dream of being a dream. You can 'inject facts' either way, but freed from human boundaries you have greater influence - or rather, it is more obvious how that influence can come about.

Q:
You are always a dream, but sometimes you are dreaming of being a person. You need to dream of being a dream.
No you don't. It's the same dream with the difference being what you know about it. It's weird how it works out. You want to keep things the same, earthly, like money and yachts, blah blah, but at the same time you want to overwrite things with space because you need things to be different or else it's not dreamy enough. Aren't you confused?

No you don't. It's the same dream with the difference being what you know about it.

Sure. That's just phrasing.

Aren't you confused?

I don't see the confusion. I enjoy both aspects of experience. It's being obligated to have one experience that I fight against. Delete your accumulated mental objects with empty space, then you're free to use whatever you like. It's fun having a human experience. Eventually this body will be dead and I'll be out of it anyway. There's no rush for that; it takes care of itself. In the meantime, it makes sense to maximise the power I have over this experience of course. As it is, I can spent 50% of my time in an alternate reality anyway, if I so choose.

Q:
It's fun having a human experience.
For how long? Under what conditions?
Eventually this body will be dead and I'll be out of it anyway.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? You'll not get out of your human state that easily.
it takes care of itself
I strongly disagree.

It's fun having a human experience. For how long? Under what conditions?

Under the conditions I decide. :-)

"it takes care of itself" I strongly disagree.

Now, that is a decent point actually, for your everyday chap. But the point is not to be that, yeah?

Q:
Sure, that's all been done. Wolves, fish, clouds, just nothingness, all that.
I don't buy it. I get a hunch you're speaking theoretically, as in, that's the principle of a thing. Not your remembered experience.

Well, what can I say? I've been lucid dreaming since I was a teenager, although I never really sussed it until my 20s, when I read about someone being two people at once in a dream and 'having fun with that', so I decided to recreate that for myself.

Q: So have you had dreams where you're not in a world as we know it? A wolf is a denizen of our world.

I have explored the universe! Isn't it one of the first things you did? Become a space probe and go exploring out into the solar system, check out the rings of Saturn? The experiences are slightly more OBE-like. This is what inspired me (I read Oliver Fox and Robert Munroe before I got to lucid dreams):

“You can move through space (and time) slowly or apparently somewhere beyond the speed of light. You can observe, participate in events, make willful decisions based upon what you perceive and do. You can move through physical matter such as walls, steel plates, concrete, earth, oceans, air, even atomic radiation without effort or effect. You can go into an adjoining room without bothering to open the door. You can visit a friend three thousand miles away. You can explore the moon, the solar system, and the galaxy if these interest you. Or you can enter other reality systems only dimly perceived and theorized by our time/space consciousness.” – Robert Monroe, Far Journeys

Go to planets where everyone is made of glass, etc?

Q:
I have explored the universe!
But you're talking about our universe here, the known one, right?
Isn't it one of the first things you did?
It depends on what you mean by one of the first. It's probably not the first 3.
Become a space probe and go exploring out into the solar system, check out the rings of Saturn?
I've never done this at all. Nor do I have the slightest desire to do so. It bores me to tears just thinking about it.
Go to planets where everyone is made of glass, etc?
Never done it and it sounds excruciatingly boring to me.

Aw, you're no fun! Thing is, power itself is nothing, it's all in the experiences. There's no point in deleting everything and remaining in a state of deletion.

Eventually you'll run out of Ubik.

Thing is, you have already decided to have a human experience. That's why you are here, now. You can't remember it now, but don't you ever wonder how strongly you made that decision? Aren't you ever suspicious of yourself?

Q:
Aw, you're no fun! Thing is, power itself is nothing, it's all in the experiences. There's no point in deleting everything and remaining in a state of deletion.
I agree. I never said anything contrary. The point I made is much more subtle.
Eventually you'll run out of Ubik.
What does this mean? What's Ubik? Why is the supply of it limited?
Thing is, you have already decided to have a human experience.
Not yet. Remember that decision is an ongoing continuum? It's alive. It's not a decision as much as it is a process of decisioning. It's ongoing. Continuous. What I've decided in the past is only relevant insofar the obstacles I've created for myself. But as for the forward direction, what matters is, do I still want to be human right now? The past doesn't matter for this. I may have decided to be a human in the past, but the only relevance it has, now that I've decided to stop being human, is that now I can clearly see a set of obstacles I must overcome.
but don't you ever wonder how strongly you made that decision?
Of course. I don't think I made the decision strongly at all. I fell into this state by degrees. I wasn't a human and never wanted to be one. I slipped into this condition over numerous lifetimes of enjoyment and mindlessness.

Of course. I don't think I made the decision strongly at all. . . . What I've decided in the past is only relevant insofar the obstacles I've created for myself. But as for the forward direction, what matters is, do I still want to be human right now? The past doesn't matter for this.

You. can't. remember. :-)

Who knows what you've set up for yourself? If you wipe out everything, take complete control of your dream, you'll probably end up back here again you know. Probably, you already did this. Perhaps more than once. Definitely more than once. You might spend a while being free from it, but you'll choose to go back in eventually. Or to dissolve completely. And then you'll reform, memoryless, back to the same state again.

Ubik - This substance, whose name is derived from the Latin word "ubique" (meaning "everywhere"), has the property of preserving people who are in half-life.

It's a metaphor for the persistence of you as an active force. It's a literary reference, not serious.

Q:
You. can't. remember. :-)
What do you mean?
Who knows what you've set up for yourself? If you wipe out everything, take complete control of your dream, you'll probably end up back here again you know. Probably, you already did this. Perhaps more than once. Definitely more than once. You might spend a while being free from it, but you'll choose to go back in eventually. Or to dissolve completely. And then you'll reform, memoryless, back to the same state again.
You're suggesting that this state has some kind of gravitational pull. I don't buy it. Why do you privilege this state such that it would seem you have to fall into it no matter what?
It's a metaphor for the persistence of you as an active force. It's a literary reference, not serious.
Well, I don't get it. I'm actually reading Ubik right now, and in the novel it is a spray or some other crap that can renovate degraded elements of experience. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't make references to Ubik, because so far I've been finding the whole novel pretty worthless. I'm almost forcing myself to finish it, since it's so short and I am almost done with it anyway.

I'm kind of playing. ;-)

As I just mentioned on the Death-Experience Thread, which is a great post actually, I think staying constantly 'present' is vital, otherwise we are doomed to be forgetful and sucked into a repeat of our present circumstances. It does have a gravitational pull, of course, for those who don't recognise the situation "they" are in (which they're not). But to recognise it for what it is, and remain identified with the background rather than the content, is the essence. You may have chosen this for yourself though. Why can't you remember what you did before Nefandi?

Ubik

Hmm, it's a bit more insightful than that. But each to their own. That and The Man in the High Castle have much to say. Meanwhile, much effort do you think is involved in changing your circumstances?

Q:
I'm kind of playing. ;-)
I know. I take nothing you say seriously. The problem is, you often say things that are boring. I don't mind you playing the role of a trickster or a demon, but for fuck's sake, make it more engaging instead of repeating the known tried and true tropes. I want something heartfelt. I'm just not feeling much of what you say George. It's too lukewarm. Too simple. Too human.
As I just mentioned on the Death-Experience Thread, which is a great post actually
I agree. It's great and it's something you wouldn't have said. ;) It would be out of character for you to write such a post.
I think staying constantly 'present' is vital
What is this "present"? Is it an illusion? Is it something specific?
It does have a gravitational pull, of course, for those who don't recognise the situation "they" are in (which they're not).
So what are you saying? Do you recognize your situation? If yes, it means you can break convention at will right now. But I don't get this vibe from you at all. You seem highly chained to convention and only exploring broader possibilities, which is of course commendable, but you're still lukewarm.
How much effort do you think is involved in changing your circumstances?
It depends. For me right now it may take a little bit of effort, mainly when I have to face unpleasantries that arise when I break with convention.
Hmm, it's a bit more insightful than that.
I'm not seeing it. Maybe I'll see the point of it when I get done. So far it doesn't look insightful or meaningful to me.

I agree. It's great and it's something you wouldn't have said. ;)

Ha, dick. ;-)

Isn't the real problem with this topic that there isn't much to say? Once you recognise your true nature, while avoiding making the non-dualists' error of then thinking you have no Will, all that's left is dissolving your discomforts, your boundaries, and ceasing to identify with any object.

EDIT: There is of course the 'bending experience' stuff on top of that, but the fundamental thing is the dissolving.

Q:
Ha, dick. ;-)
Just blunt. From my perspective Aesir has a renunciatory frame of mind, and that article he wrote stems from that frame of mind. It's awesome and enjoyable. But when I talk to you, I don't get this renunciatory attitude at all. You're very much into being a human and humaning around until the cows come home. Aesir is not like that. I've talked to Aesir some and I've talked to you. Aesir is much more aloof in his thinking and is more ready to abandon this known reality than you are. Of course it's all subjective. I'm just explaining my impressions here. I know how you don't take too seriously what I write. And that's good. That's why you can enjoy it and call me "dick" and it's OK. We can be honest with each other that way without the BS.
Isn't the real problem with this topic that there isn't much to say?
I disagree. I have a lot to say. I'm often not inspired to say anything because I feel like few appreciate it. The things I have to say are too wild and discordant.
all that's left is dissolving your discomforts, your boundaries, and ceasing to identify with any object.
Don't forget that objects have meaning within convention. If you want to dissolve boundaries which define objects, you will need to dissolve the surrounding context as well. That's why it's essential to abandon both humanity and the known universe to really complete this task. Not abandon in the sense of hating on them, but in the sense of being untied from them and having an aloof, non-committal, weak relationship to them.
EDIT: There is of course the 'bending experience' stuff on top of that, but the fundamental thing is the dissolving.
Just a second ago you were saying that dissolving is a waste of time because you can't live with a bunch of nothingness. Hehe...
You bend like a reed in the wind. Maybe it's just you being a Daoist, or maybe you have no idea what you're talking about. Or just spreading disinfo, like a good trickster do.

Don't forget that objects have meaning within convention. If you want to dissolve boundaries which define objects, you will need to dissolve the surrounding context as well.

Yes, but the context and the object are one, or rather they define each other as separate. The boundary joins the two. You dissolve the boundary, not the object or the context, and therefore dissolve both.

Just a second ago you were saying that dissolving is a waste of time because you can't live with a bunch of nothingness. Hehe...

:-)

Ooh, I forgot about these tail ends! :-)

Not abandon in the sense of hating on them, but in the sense of being untied from them and having an aloof, non-committal, weak relationship to them.

You can't have it both ways. If you are aloof, you are bound. Even being non-committal. The universe has to be inside you, in order for you to not be bound by it.

Q: I don't agree. Universe isn't a place. So being unbound from it is not the same as being free to leave some place.

The universe is a concept; that is what you are bound to, implicitly.

Q: You're talking out of your arse.

:-)

I'm in that kind of a mood, I'm afraid (although you do have to let go of your idea of the universe, I'm sure you won't argue with that). How you been getting on anyway? Any successes?

Q:
although you do have to let go of your idea of the universe, I'm sure you won't argue with that
Or at least relax on it. The ideas are still "there" in some platonic sense, even if you let go of them they continue in the space of pure potential. But it's not easy to actually do it in practice because it's like everything in my being is "wired" to treat the universe as a concrete place instead of as an idea with a set of associated experiences.
How you been getting on anyway? Any successes?
Who knows? It's not often that I can recognize a success instantly. Sometimes when something is a success I realize it years later, retrospectively. I'm still contemplating. Recently I did a fast to see how that would go. It went OK. I am basically doing whatever I was talking about before and I am trying to slowly accustom myself to living inside my own mind as opposed to inside some objective space.

But it's not easy to actually do it in practice because it's like everything in my being is "wired" to treat the universe as a concrete place instead of as an idea with a set of associated experiences.

Yes, this is a problem. Do you do much reading on the subject? I find it helps to always have a book on the go on it, or glance at Berkeley now and again, etc. It was like that when I started lucid dreaming - if I kept reading on it, I could keep at it easier, otherwise I just 'forget' and end up asleep in 'real life' again.

Who knows? It's not often that I can recognize a success instantly.

Yeah, there's something to that. You don't know the impact until later. Never tried fasting. I've just been sticking to the daily exercise thing and keeping my dreams up, plus added magick (riding the "momentum" rather than being too dramatic though).

Q:
Yes, this is a problem. Do you do much reading on the subject? I find it helps to always have a book on the go on it, or glance at Berkeley now and again, etc. It was like that when I started lucid dreaming - if I kept reading on it, I could keep at it easier, otherwise I just 'forget' and end up asleep in 'real life' again.
I don't really forget. My problem is one of habits. I don't really read about it that much these days. There is not much for me left to read, imo.

It's not really to remember, so much as 'recreate the mood' and help keep habits on track. Anyway, works for me. It's surprising how hard it can be to stay focused, on something you actually want.

Q:
It's surprising how hard it can be to stay focused, on something you actually want.
This is a tricky one. You should look into the role of doubt here.
We have no trouble focusing on things we know will work as we expect and we want those things because we already had them in the past and know exactly what they are like. This is freedom from doubt.

Hmm, that's interesting, I think you're onto something there.

...

Q:
Yes, but the context and the object are one, or rather they define each other as separate. The boundary joins the two. You dissolve the boundary, not the object or the context, and therefore dissolve both.
I don't agree. I think it's a bit more complex than that. There is more structure to it. If you dissolve the boundary around a tea cup you still have the keyboard, etc. left over. Even if you dissolve all that, you can still have a craving for all that to come back, or a fear of the resulting state, etc. So it's not so simple in practice.

For each particular object and its specific context which is what defines it, holds it in place, it applies. I see what you were getting at now, though: the larger notion of there being separate objects, yes?

Q:
I see what you were getting at now, though: the larger notion of there being separate objects, yes?
Yes. When you examine the context of an object, that context has a further, deeper context, and so on. At some point you run out of context and then you hit the ultimate ground of being, ambiguity, chaos, will, whatever. However, before you hit that point there may be quite a bit of structure there and it can be pretty snarled and hard to untangle. There was some yogi who said something like "If the screw took 16 turns to put in, it will take 16 turns to take it out." I think this is pretty much bang on the point.

Right, I'm with you on this. Now, I do think you can circumvent it to some extent - stand back and see that these structures exist, floating in a spaceless place - so that you don't identify with any of the structures even though they are still intact.

Until you dissolve them, they are still part of your experience. However, I think even the act of dis-identification itself leads to the gradual self-dissolving of structures. You can speed the process up by direct investigation and exploration of course.

Comparison: The 'dissolving of the Witness' after realisation. You can do this deliberately, or you can let it happen by itself. What tends to happen is that you keep accidentally recreating it though (me).

Q:
Right, I'm with you on this. Now, I do think you can circumvent it to some extent - stand back and see that these structures exist, floating in a spaceless place - so that you don't identify with any of the structures even though they are still intact.
This generally fails to work, because the second you succeed even slightly, your cravings will flare up in terms of fear, uncertainty, doubt, a desire to return back to the familiar solidity and so on. In other words, the psychological mechanics you suggest I think are rational if you had no heart! If you had no emotions. If you were just a machine. Then it would work perfectly. So in practice I think it ends up working like this: you do a little bit of what you say until your heart snaps and you rubber-band back into the known universe. Then you need to digest what happened, contemplate, firm up your resolve. Adjust your methods if needed. And do it again. And again you'll rubber-band back. Again you have to review what happened. Contemplate. Investigate. Maybe do some more small trial and error stuff. Maybe adjust your method or adjust your frame of mind slightly or a lot. And again. And so on.
In other words, I think in practice it's a lengthy process that has some repetitive qualities to it, and the challenge is to keep the process alive and to avoid falling into dead and numb rote.

This generally fails to work, because the second you succeed even slightly, your cravings will flare up in terms of fear, uncertainty, doubt, a desire to return back to the familiar solidity and so on.

The fear is only initial - once you give yourself to it, it's incredibly peaceful! You have to break through that barrier eventually, even if you do it by persuading yourself step by step, as you describe.

Why not just boldly step forward? Like the 'rope technique' for OOBE, there is an enormous fear barrier that kicks in - of course there is, because your body thinks it's going to die - but once you've passed that, you're good. It's not "you" that desires solidity, the larger you. It's the "small you". You have to abandon that to move forward anyway. For as long as you are giving in to the "small you" your progress will always be limited. In fact, even accepting the notion of "progress" may be problematic?

Q:
The fear is only initial - once you give yourself to it, it's incredibly peaceful!
This is only true when you rest in the knowledge that you'll safely come back to the known world. It's not peaceful when you're getting ready to fly free 100%.
Why not just boldly step forward? Like the 'rope technique' for OOBE, there is an enormous fear barrier that kicks in - of course there is, because your body thinks it's going to die - but once you've passed that, you're good.
The body death is not the biggest obstacle. It's a speed bump. After you get over that, you have to face universe dying, your future as you knew it is dying. This is different.

This is only true when you rest in the knowledge that you'll safely come back to the known world. It's not peaceful when you're getting ready to fly free 100%.

No, really. When you completely let go, you will feel peaceful. And to let go is to let go of the universe, not just the body; the universe is your body. If you truly identify with awareness, surely you know that you are not this transitory content? Fear will arise, and pass, just like any other object in consciousness! Furthermore, you should realise that the universe has been being destroyed and recreated again and again, every moment since you were 'born'?

Look, Nefandi, it's okay to feel afraid. You're going to have to commit fully to this at some point though, so why not now? You're just delaying the inevitable. And it doesn't actually involve any action to do this; you simply have to stop holding on. Holding on, I might add, to things you don't actually want anyway, according to you!

Why not, this weekend at some point, just lie down on the floor and give up completely?

Q:
When you completely let go, you will feel peaceful.
That's a tautology. The point I was making is that generally no one can completely let go overnight or even in one lifetime. It's doable as a process that requires long-term application and unbreakable resolve.
If you truly identify with awareness
Awareness is the least important aspect of the mind. I identify with the mind, not awareness. Awareness is how all the delusive junk gets generated. Awareness is mostly the function of sense bases and its output is mostly garbage.
The interesting stuff happens on the hidden side of awareness, on the side of knowledge and will.
You're going to have to commit fully to this at some point though, so why not now? You're just delaying the inevitable.
It's not inevitable. It's a choice. I am feeling the weight of the choice. Talking about inevitabilities and eventualities is the cop out of fatalism.
Holding on, I might add, to things you don't actually want anyway, according to you!
Indeed. I reflect on this every day, many times a day. But it's not so easy as you explained it. It is obvious to me you've never done this yourself.
Why not, this weekend at some point, just lie down on the floor and give up completely?
I did that when I was 20, long time ago. I've moved on.

That's a tautology. The point I was making is that generally no one can completely let go overnight or even in one lifetime. It's doable as a process that requires long-term application and unbreakable resolve.

Why not?

Awareness is the least important aspect of the mind. I identify with the mind, not awareness. Awareness is how all the delusive junk gets generated. Awareness is mostly the function of sense bases and its output is mostly garbage.

Awareness as a synonym for Consciousness is a synonym for Mind (large-'M'). The word is not important, it is the vastness that you really are that I am referring to; the context for all experience. You are confusing "Awareness" with "the content of Awareness, that your attention is drawn to".

Even your use of the definite article - "the" mind - shows you are on the wrong track here. You are thinking of non-identification, while operating very much from an identified perspective. Like "enlightened" people who, upon investigation, are just relentlessly thinking about being enlightened, rather than actually being.

It's not inevitable. It's a choice. I am feeling the weight of the choice. Talking about inevitabilities and eventualities is the cop out of fatalism.

It's inevitable if you want to get anywhere with this.

Why not, this weekend at some point, just lie down on the floor and give up completely?

No, you didn't. Not really. You are afraid and you are holding back. You are not truly committed to this. You are attached to a perspective, gripping onto it with white knuckles.

Q:
Why not?
Oh boy... Forget it. If you don't know why not you can't be helped.
Awareness as a synonym for Consciousness is a synonym for Mind (large-'M').
It's a bad synonym. Awareness implies passivity. I don't like to use that word. It's also not obvious that knowledge is important if you speak of awareness. I don't like the word "awareness" as a substitute for mind. I've used it myself many times, but I've been distancing myself from that practice and settling more on the mind.
You are confusing "Awareness" with "the content of Awareness, that your attention is drawn to".
Not me. That's the conventional understanding. Mind is also confusing, but less so. At least mind correctly implies knowing and not just sensing the way awareness does.
It's inevitable if you want to get anywhere with this.
No it isn't. What is inevitable is the freedom of choice.
No, you didn't. Not really. You are afraid and you are holding back. You are not truly committed to this. You are attached to a perspective, gripping onto it with white knuckles.
But I did. I am not lying. You don't have to believe me. I don't care.

It's also not obvious that knowledge is important if you speak of awareness.

Of course it is. Knowledge is to become. To have something within awareness is to know it. (Note, not be aware of, which would be dualistic.) But each to his own. Capital-'M' Mind works just as well.]

No it isn't. What is inevitable is the freedom of choice.

If you want to get anywhere, you will have to break through your fear. And you refuse to do this. You are making excuses. You are afraid of being separated from your body.

Q:
Knowledge is to become.
That's too limited.
To have something within awareness is to know it.
This would imply there is never any delusion. Of course that's wrong.
If you want to get anywhere, you will have to break through your fear.
And I am breaking through it every second, gradually, through contemplation and other practices.
You are afraid of being separated from your body.
I am not. I am afraid of losing the universe as I know it, of having no future, etc.
I speak of my fear openly, unlike someone I know who hides behind false masks and makes bogus statements all the time because why not fuck around with someone's aspirations?

Knowledge is to become. That's too limited.

How so? It doesn't preclude changing things. And delusion is revealed by seeing the nature of the experience through this. There is a difference here that we're jarring against: There's a difference between the recognition of the state of things, of dissolving boundaries to experience this directly (basically, getting rid of the "snap-to-object" property of Mind/Awareness, getting rid of the power of your Platonic types), and of actually destroying the universe, the 'X'.

I am not. I am afraid of losing the universe as I know it, of having no future, etc.

Why are you afraid of this? You write as if this is what you're aiming for anyway (the destruction of the universe). If you destroy the universe, you won't destroy the fundamental "you".

Q:
How so? It doesn't preclude changing things.
Knowledge encompasses and addresses that which doesn't become.
Why are you afraid of this? You write as if this is what you're aiming for anyway (the destruction of the universe). If you destroy the universe, you won't destroy the fundamental "you".
It is what I am aiming for, correct. As for why, I know why. There is no need to tell you because you can't help me, since you've not doing what I set out to do. You have different aims in spirituality from me.
Don't you have a yacht to manifest ;).

Don't you have a yacht to manifest ;).

But I want to sail my yacht on the waves of infinity, the disconnected Nows of Platonia, to be both the ship and its wake, the Caused and the Uncaused! ;-)

Q: Is that so? I thought you just wanted an ordinary wooden yacht like this one.

At a minimum, this - just while I'm still messing with only four dimensions.

Q: I notice your story is changing wildly from time to time.

In what way? It's pretty simple, if convoluted, and I've gone backwards more than I've gone forwards, particularly in my representation of how it hangs together, but that's just how learning works. Happy to discuss anything.

You, meanwhile, seem... to talk ahead of the game? ;-)

Of course, there is no time.

Q:
You, meanwhile, seem... to talk ahead of the game? ;-)
Not at all. I keep my eye on the prize at all times, even as I address my current state. This does require a broad mind, sure. I can't just ignore my human condition and dream about the prize or vice versa, think about the now and ignore the prize. My contemplation must be wide enough to embrace convention and that which is beyond convention. It must embrace my current fears and the desired state beyond fear. This is how I train myself.

Well, that all sounds very nice. :-)

Being a little more serious... To be honest, I keep switching between whether to force change or to let it happen in its own time.

You can switch perspective instantly - detach from your perspective - and that takes care of identification in the obvious sense, but you're still left with, as it were "convention" in your experience. You can be 'enlightened' as in, see how things are, but then you are left with making changes to the structure of your experience. You don't need to do this, you can 'live from the knowledge' despite the content, but why wouldn't you?

'Overwriting' works and is powerful but has after-effects, and isn't necessarily pleasant initially (you know this). 'Deciding' and detaching lets things unravel in a spontaneous way, and is not unpleasant, but it does take "time". So I'd say, attachment to "yachts" is indeed my thing. I don't have fear, so much as I have attachment.

Q:
You can switch perspective instantly - detach from your perspective - and that takes care of identification in the obvious sense, but you're still left with, as it were "convention" in your experience. You can be 'enlightened' as in, see how things are, but then you are left with making changes to the structure of your experience. You don't need to do this, you can 'live from the knowledge' despite the content, but why wouldn't you?
I agree. I think that knowledge has different levels of penetration, stability and durability.
So for example, all of us here on this sub realize that appearances are illusory. But not all of us realize this to the same extent. That means the penetration is different. And then there is the stability. Stability means, do you remember this at all times? Ideally even during dreams? I forget during dreams unless I deliberately go lucid, which I generally do not anymore since I've abandoned that practice some time ago. It also overlaps with reliability. This means, if you lost your arm, or your teeth are broken, or something major happens, do you lean on your understanding of the illusion or do you pursue conventional resolutions? If you pursue convention it means you don't want to lean on the knowledge of illusion, and you still lean for support on the idea of solidity, objectivity, etc.
So we have different levels of penetration, different levels of stability, and different levels of sturdiness in our understanding of the illusion, even if our understanding is basically the same at the conceptual level.
The deeper one familiarizes with the implications of dreaming, the more doubts evaporate, the more you can rely on your mystical knowledge in cases of genuine emergencies as opposed to keeping things at a hobby level when everything is OK with the world, in a soft lay-z-boy chair on Sunday night, we'll meditate, but only after having had a scrumptious meal and ideally squeezed the tits of our GF or wife as well, just to make the list complete. Oh yea, and sitting on a pile of money as well. Now we're safe. Now we can meditate for 10 minutes and go back to maintaining all of the above.
Overwriting works and is powerful but has after-effects, and isn't necessarily pleasant initially (you know this).
I agree that it works. I would say many of your exercises are really good in my view. I just object to your sometimes flippant attitude when there is a serious problem you tend to either dive into fatalism where it seems like you say just live with the problem and there is a reason why you got this problem and it's because you want it, or you start to ignore the problem entirely, and say things like, "just let go, it's so easy... there is nothing to it." So either fatalism or flippancy, and all this I find bad. Clumsy. The right approach is middle ground. Not going bonkers over how difficult it is. Not dismissing the problems of fear, doubts, etc. And kind of exploring the middle ground between fatalism, which is a flippant acceptance of convention, and flippant acceptance of the void.
I don't know. You're no dummy and you're definitely not an average bear. But like I said, it seems like you're not consistent. It's like you're on a fence or you don't know what really works, and you're exploring this and that. I guess that's what it feels like. It's like you're trying on for size all the different opinions to see how you feel when you say them. Something like that.

I think that knowledge has different levels of penetration, acceptance, and stability.

Yes, all true. I can reliably return to the 'right perspective' at any time, that's not a problem. And when I relax, or sit back, that's the default perspective now. In this way, you have the "mental objects" you've accumulated, but they don't affect you in the same way as someone who hasn't a) had the realisation and b) adopted the perspective. But in times of stress...?

And in an emergency, do I remain detached? Actually, I'm better in an emergency than in boring times at this. That's when I fade out, the 'tension of boredom'. Less and less so as I've been doing my exercises (because there's less to "fall into"), but that is definitely a thing. Although I can directly enter dreams if I commit to it, I don't have persistent awareness if I don't. I should be present at all times in the sense of carrying over, but I'm not.

And that's the test, isn't it? Can you bring this out into the world?

So either fatalism or flippancy, and all this I find bad.

Well, flippancy I'll admit to. Hmm, I'm probably on the fence a little at the moment, because I do know what works, but I'm uncertain now on how active one should be. Until recently, I'd say the active approach always, but having experimented with reducing the level of action to its absolute minimum, in an attempt to get to the very root of 'Will' (as I thought of it at the time), I have dithered a little.

In actual fact, the reason it has left me undecided is probably because they're both the same thing: actively dissolve barriers, or create the environment, thus increasing the efficiency of the second approach, due to the elimination of resistance. Make sense?

Q:
And when I relax, or sit back, that's the default perspective now.
I remember at all times during waking. During waking it's my default perspective. In dreams I tend to retain an attitude of fearlessness without even trying, but I tend to forget that it's an illusion. So it's like I have the result (fearlessness) of knowing that it's an illusion without the cause, which is knowledge. And this isn't very good.
And in an emergency, do I remain detached? Actually, I'm better in an emergency than in boring times at this. That's when I fade out, the 'tension of boredom'. Less and less so as I've been doing my exercises (because there's less to "fall into"), but that is definitely a thing.
I don't mean just fading out. Fading out, detaching from the situation, that's nice. I mean, for example, if the bus is about to hit you, instead you levitate the bus, or teleport to the sidewalk, or you make your body immaterial and allow the bus to drive over it then restore yourself. That's what I mean. It's relying on the knowledge of dreaming fully and radically. Totally. Not just a tiny bit. I already rely on the knowledge of dreaming to some extent in real world situations, but I would say it's small. My reliance is nowhere near complete. I don't stand on the knowledge of dreaming with both my feet, totally leaning on it at all times for every need and want, where the knowledge of dreaming is more solid than a hard diamond and more massive than all the black holes put together. I don't do that yet, but that's the state I want to be in ideally.
Although I can directly enter dreams if I commit to it, I don't have persistent awareness if I don't. I should be present at all times in the sense of carrying over, but I'm not.
OK, same here.
Hmm, I'm probably on the fence a little at the moment, because I do know what works, but I'm uncertain now on how active one should be. Until recently, I'd say the active approach always, but having experimented with reducing the level of action to its absolute minimum, in an attempt to get to the very root of 'Will' (as I thought of it at the time), I have dithered a little.
I like this. So you're basically exploring with the different styles of willing. And I agree that making active use of your will doesn't have to always mean struggle and working oneself over.
In actual fact, the reason it has left me undecided is probably because they're both the same thing: actively dissolve barriers, or create the environment, thus increasing the efficiency of the second approach, due to the elimination of resistance.
What do you mean by "create an environment?"
I think if we realize that the mind is a capacity to know, to will and to experience, we should be exploring with the intent to regain the scope of our ready capacity so that we can exercise willing in a broad range instead of a narrow band, and similar for knowing, and experiencing. Cause right now I do feel very narrow-banded with all that convention and solidity on all sides of me.

I don't mean just fading out. Fading out, detaching from the situation, that's nice.

By fading out there, I mean losing the perspective. So when I'm bored, lacking in energy it's like I'll get distracted, and fall into mental objects. Yes, this view should be one's first 'port of call'. Break your ankle? Your first thought should be to reverse it. Car crashes over the barrier? Just reset time.

Actually, you've unintentionally pointed out something that I do too: Your solutions are still inspired by the idea of being a body or in a solid environment - e.g. "levitating", "teleporting" - or that it wasn't under your control in the first place. In other words, ambitions could be much higher than this. I don't use it nearly enough. I go through phases of doing the 'nightly rewrite' (Goddard style), but then forget about it. Similarly, each day you should decide what's going to happen before you set out, but again I forget it. So I might have the perspective of 'being the space' - the correct identity - but not the perspective in its active form, that of directing the experience. That's what I'm trying to work on.

What do you mean by "create an environment?"

Not great phrasing. Two meanings: Firstly, there's dissolving barriers verses just overwriting your bodily space, etc (going directly for what you want). Then, more advanced, would be to directly change the scene around you, and within you, more completely.

Cause right now I do feel very narrow-banded with all that convention and solidity on all sides of me.

Do you experience that solidity as a 'felt thing'?

Q:
Car crashes over the barrier? Just reset time.
Interestingly my wife has done something like this once. But compared to my wife I am a n00b in some ways. And yet in other ways I am much more serious about it all than she is. She ignores the mind when she feels stressed at work, but then during a high emergency she'll pull off a miracle. I want to operate predictably and reliably in every situation, small and big. Routine and emergency. And I want to be more creative. I feel like I am not very creative. My imagination is not where it needs to be. I bore myself sometimes.
Actually, you've unintentionally pointed out something that I do too: Your solutions are still inspired by the idea of being a body or in a solid environment - e.g. "levitating", "teleporting" - or that it wasn't under your control in the first place. In other words, ambitions could be much higher than this.
That's probably an important point. I wish you'd propose some alternatives here though. Don't leave me hanging.
Similarly, each day you should decide what's going to happen before you set out, but again I forget it.
I agree. Those are all really cool exercises. So in the morning, you plan your day. At night you overwrite junk with cool stuff. Quickly this becomes a serious practice. :) Which is not necessarily a bad thing, even if I tend to prefer spontaneity more as opposed to planned events during morning and evening.
Then, more advanced, would be to directly change the scene around you, and within you, more completely.
This is a pretty God-like level right there.
Do you experience that solidity as a 'felt thing'?
To some extent yes. Like say if I want to switch a street lamp off, or if it's off, then back on, it doesn't seem to work instantly. I can maybe do something where a week later there is an interesting effect, but it's all very uncertain. It's not at the level where I'd rely on it for serious business.

... then during a high emergency she'll pull off a miracle.

I've studied a bit of that for a while. Mostly they occur as 'reality shifts', not deliberate. Actually, probably deliberate in the sense of a reaction, but without understanding of what was being done. So more of the order of a 'prayer' that gets answered. Again, a motivation for my 'just decide' approach, since a prayer does not involve effort - but it does involve focus, mind you.

And I want to be more creative.

I'm pretty creative generally. Probably more creative than practical, actually, by a long way. This can be debilitating as well as empowering, because I do get sidetracked. I see this 'work' as a way to focus this more, hopefully.

Don't leave me hanging.

See later - - -

Those are all really cool exercises.

The point is, there seems to be a tendency to forget these things. 'Everyday life' has a sort of force to it, a gravitational pull against the unusual. Which of course is one of the motivation for dissolving, etc. Anyway, I figured that if I couldn't yet rely on operating actively from this perspective during spontaneous situation, then at least I could do the before/after and manage 'reality' that way. Just because you can't do it all yet, you can still leverage massively what you can do. As you said, it's all a bit easier when our lives are comfortable. Well, let's make use of that then. In those comfortable moments, we take advantage and set things up in anticipation of the uncomfortable moments when we won't be on the ball.

This is a pretty God-like level right there.

Yes, yes it is. It's a complete commitment to and leveraging of the power of subjective idealism + magick. Fast travel seems to be a good starting point. But then we think, well, that's still within the conceptual framework of a spatial environment that I am somehow 'traversing'. Do I need that? Except that it is an enjoyable experience or whatever, to mostly live that as your base level. Y'know, like sitting down on top of a mountain and enjoying the view, the experience. And the aim of this is to have enjoyable experiences (because there is nothing else, as I see it). If instead I view everything as a configuration space - that is, a set of all possible Nows (like the link I included on time), a Platonia, that I can navigate.

Solidity and the felt thing.

I still think the 'felt-sense' thing is the vital aspect to this. That sense is the way we get 'under the hood' of, say, the appearance of the senses, into the global sense of structured experience. That's where it arises from. Changing that is what changes apparent experience, because they are the same thing, through different perspectives/angles/senses.

Q:
I've studied a bit of that for a while. Mostly they occur as 'reality shifts', not deliberate. Actually, probably deliberate in the sense of a reaction, but without understanding of what was being done. So more of the order of a 'prayer' that gets answered. Again, a motivation for my 'just decide' approach, since a prayer does not involve effort - but it does involve focus, mind you.
I think this is spot on. That's kind of how she described it to me. She went on autopilot and amazing stuff just "sort of happened" and after the accident was averted, she got the conscious control of the vehicle back.
I'm pretty creative generally. Probably more creative than practical, actually, by a long way. This can be debilitating as well as empowering, because I do get sidetracked. I see this 'work' as a way to focus this more, hopefully.
You might be an artist. I am not an artist yet. At least, not formally. Maybe you have too much creativity but I have not enough. I also want my contemplation to become more creative. Surely I can think of something new.
As you said, it's all a bit easier when our lives are comfortable. Well, let's make use of that then. In those comfortable moments, we take advantage and set things up in anticipation of the uncomfortable moments when we won't be on the ball.
It sounds reasonable, but without a practical example I have nothing that pops into my mind for this other than the grisly stuff I already contemplate. I contemplate renunciation so that if or when pain comes, I can avoid body-attachment to better control pain, for example. It's hardly fun contemplating the drawbacks of being a conventional being all the time. There needs to be an element of fun too to balance it all out.
I still like the negative and renunciatory type contemplations, but I also like the playful and happy ones. I think I need both types. So preparing for when shit hits the fence, whatever it is, I can't imagine it being any much fun.
But then we think, well, that's still within the conceptual framework of a spatial environment that I am somehow 'traversing'. Do I need that? Except that it is an enjoyable experience or whatever, to mostly live that as your base level.
When experience becomes unnecessary it becomes what I call (and some Tibetans also call it) "ornamental." "Ornamental" is a very, very good word. To move all experience toward being ornamental is pretty much the goal. At that level experience stops being weight-bearing. So for example, to avoid hunger pangs I must undergo the experience of eating. Now, if hunger pangs were ornamental I could switch them on and off, and eating, being another ornamental experience, would no longer be in any way connected to hunger. In other words, I would no longer need to structure my experiences for the sake of function. When all experiences become merely ornamental then the only thing that matters is: are they cool? Is it beautiful? And that's it.
I still think the 'felt-sense' thing is the vital aspect to this. That sense is the way we get 'under the hood' of, say, the appearance of the senses, into the global sense of structured experience. That's where it arises from. Changing that is what changes apparent experience, because they are the same thing, through different perspectives/angles/senses.
I agree. There is definitely something in my mind that's generating all this stuff, but I am not consciously intimate with that "something" yet.

For creativity, you just have to let loose and try stuff out. It's a "letting happen". I was going to recommend a couple of books, but then I realised that what happens is we just read about creativity then. Get a pad and a pen, and just start doodling and see what comes out. There's a "feel" to that which is the same "feel" for other creativity.

Despite what I just said, Edward de Bono's books (Lateral Thinking and related) have some approaches for a more, deliberate and rules-based angle on generating new ideas though.

Ornamental

Yes, a great way of putting it, but it can miss something fundamental. Experiences aren't all just visual fancies, there is meaning involved too, felt meaning. That's what makes life worth living. Something occurred to me reading your response: I may be misreading, but I think you seem to be quite focused on the negatives of life, of being a human life that is, and seeking to overcome that? But there are positives too, and the purpose of pursuing this stuff should be towards a positive rather than escape from a negative, I think. Actually, I think that orientation is probably vital to success and speedy progress.

Q:
Yes, a great way of putting it, but it can miss something fundamental. Experiences aren't all just visual fancies, there is meaning involved too, felt meaning. That's what makes life worth living.
I disagree. It's important to rid the experience of this meaning you speak of so that it becomes ornamental. Then my life will be worth living once again. Right now the only reason I live is because I know I can rid myself of this heavy and sticky meaning I don't want.
But there are positives too, and the purpose of pursuing this stuff should be towards a positive rather than escape from a negative, I think. Actually, I think that orientation is probably vital to success and speedy progress.
Hell's no. I hate being a human. I will never be positive about humaning. I like life. But not as a human.

Right now the only reason I live is because I know I can rid myself of this heavy and sticky meaning I don't want.

No, no, change the meaning, or generate experiences with better meanings! Often the meaning isn't truly bound to the experience, as you might think. You are giving "humaning" a bad rep it doesn't necessarily deserve! ;-)

The 'overwriting' exercise is of course about stripping meaning, or rather habitual, historical meaning - but that doesn't mean there isn't going to be a 'felt-sense' associated with experiences in future. It's just going to be of a clearer, more direct quality.

Q:
No, no, change the meaning, or generate experiences with better meanings!
I am doing this and it takes me away from humanity and Earth. My heart doesn't belong here friend. I am sincere. I think I will probably die soon and it doesn't bother me one bit. I won't miss anything and wouldn't want to be missed by anyone.

Aw, rubbish to that. You realise that, at a minimum, you can just become a different character in the meantime? It might take a long time to delete mental objects overall, but you can assume a 'posture' at any time.

Q: I already became a different character. I am no longer a human. That's what's different about me. Now that I am not a human I am also working on getting out of this place. I detest this planet and all that stands upon it. There are good aspects to everything, but for me the bad makes the good worthless. This is why I am so into regaining control over my own mind in the first place! Don't you get it? If I loved being a human, why the fuck would I want more mental power? Why would I want more personal power? For what? I need all that to get the fuck out of "here." Where "here" is this state of mind that produces humanity, Earth, and all this shiite.

I do get it. That's why I say what I say. But you are wrong about "the bad".

Q: I can't be wrong about it. My feelings can't be wrong.

You are wrong about feelings not being wrong, sorry. Stick with the overwriting, see how you do.

The very idea that you would pursue this approach with the idea of escaping something - be that humanity, or a more local difficulty - shows you've got a couple of things to delete, before you can get what you want. You will have to go into these things anyway, in order to dissolve them, as I'm sure you've realised, because that's how it works.

(Overwriting can't occur at a distance, from "here" directed at "there"; it only works if you are present and co-located with the aspect you are overwriting as part of the larger space.)

Q:
You are wrong about feelings not being wrong, sorry. Stick with the overwriting, see how you do.
I just deleted this line. My George never said this. How's that?

Deal! :-)

I guess that really, I meant that if everything can be adjusted, then feeling can be arbitrary and adjusted too. That make more sense, better worded? But then, I'm really talking about "feelings" rather than "felt-sense" there.

Q: I love hating humanity and Earth. I don't want to adjust that. It's the motivation behind all my efforts. That's what gets me up in the morning and that's why I don't slack off in contemplation and meditation.

Humanity appreciates your efforts! :-)

Q: I just recently (relatively) realized a bad habit I have. I get bored, so I look for entertainment. Ideally I should make use of my own mind as an entertainment source. Instead I tend to look for the products of convention such as books, games, watching cartoons or movies, etc.
I probably don't want to quit cold turkey. But it would be reasonable if I could entertain myself for 1 hour just by using my mind. And I specifically mean entertainment here and not contemplation. So this mind-entertainment time should be as close to playing a game as is possible, for example.

Have you read Nikola Tesla's biography? One of the things that inspired me to try and make 'mental machines'. Instead of making prototypes, he would create his inventions in his mind and set them going. He would then return to them, months later, and examine the components for wear and tear, then improve his design and set it going again. That's a level to aspire to.

Anyway, I used to avoid taking an iPod with me, and instead generate music in my mind (I've always been into electronic music, used to write a lot) as an exercise. Or when travelling, close my eyes and replace the sense of my surroundings with a different location as vividly as possible. I never really made the leap to see the full possibilities, but there's no reason why that couldn't evolve into playing your own internal FPS, or No Man's Sky.

Q:
That's a level to aspire to.
The powers of visualization you've described there are indeed awesome, I agree.
Anyway, I used to avoid taking an iPod with me, and instead generate music in my mind (I've always been into electronic music, used to write a lot) as an exercise.
Nice! This is a bit harder for me since I am not a musician and not very good with music. But that's kind of what I am talking about, yea.
==Or when travelling, close my eyes and replace the sense of my surroundings with a different location as vividly as possible.
Nice... but then what kind of game should you play? I think it really needs to be a game. Observing a static image is not my idea of gaming. Being able to play an RPG or an FPS in my mind would be fucking amazing! And it's massively more immediately attainable than controlling "physical" reality, which is still my goal. ;)

Nice... but then what kind of game should you play? I think it really needs to be a game. Observing a static image is not my idea of gaming. Being able to play an RPG or an FPS in my mind would be fucking amazing! And it's massively more immediately attainable than controlling "physical" reality, which is still my goal. ;)

:-)

Right, this is attainable. :-) The link I included was to No Man's Sky, which is a procedurally generated space exploration game. It's basically an infinitely explorable world, seeded randomly. So having all that appear "just in time" as you were exploring would be pretty powerful. However, I'd quite like do an internal Parkour game, because of all the physical sensations that this would involve. A nice challenge, beyond simply having something you were exploring 'visually'. Also, internal versions of adventures like this.

Q:
However, I'd quite like do an internal Parkour game, because of all the physical sensations that this would involve. A nice challenge, beyond simply having something you were exploring 'visually'.
Interesting. I don't do parkour, so there is no reason to think I'd be any better at it inside a visualized space. I think a good first mind game should use the skills I am already good at for the most part. But I do want it to stretch my visualization ability, so it shouldn't be too unambitious. If you're into parkour when you're awake, then doing it in a visualization is a natural step, and it will probably make you better at parkour even during waking. Maybe I can invent a visualization game for each of the 6 senses. I think astral projection is almost like an RPG already, and so is lucid dreaming. The problem is, AP for me is very difficult and LD'ing is clumsy... I need a bed and some time and it's not 100% reliable either (even if I can produce an LD with say 90% success rate, it's still not 100%). And what if I am not sleepy?

Interesting. I don't do parkour, so there is no reason to think I'd be any better at it inside a visualized space.

Are you serious with that response?! That's the whole point! You'll be great at it! And you'll be able to fully realise it, with dedication. Do you think Nikola Tesla knew what it was like to be a cog, or a component, or that he had direct experience of all aspects of his machines? You are drawing on a larger 'reservoir' of structures and knowledge than your own, personal ones. That's how you can lucid dream a whole world, and have that world surprise you.

Maybe I can invent a visualization game for each of the 6 senses. I think astral projection is almost like an RPG already, and so is lucid dreaming.

Indeedy! This is basically semi-lucid-dreaming, if you think about it, by being 'parallel-aware'. You start simply. How I started was, when I was studying, I used to drink juice out of this red plastic mug with a handle. So, when taking a break, I'd created this in my imagination visually, and then try to 'feel' it too. that, and I had this symbol, a circle held within a triangle, white line drawing on black background, which I'd flip and rotate whenever I was bored. It didn't take too long for those to be 'real'.

Note, it helps if you, while doing a relaxing exercise or whatever, reinforce your abilities by 'deciding' them to exist.

Q:
Are you serious with that response?! That's the whole point! You'll be great at it! And you'll be able to fully realise it, with dedication. Do you think Nikola Tesla knew what it was like to be a cog, or a component, or that he had direct experience of all aspects of his machines? You are drawing on a larger 'reservoir' of structures and knowledge than your own, personal ones. That's how you can lucid dream a whole world, and have that world surprise you.
But I don't parkour in my lucid dreams. I can fly. But not parkour. It's weird, but parkour is much more awkward and intricate, and therefore skill intensive than flying.
In principle I should be able to reach some kind of divine inspiration that teaches me parkour, but I am not sure I want to invest energy into that specific type of imagination. I just don't want to parkour I guess.
You start simply. How I started was, when I was studying, I used to drink juice out of this red plastic mug with a handle. So, when taking a break, I'd created this in my imagination visually, and then try to 'feel' it too. that, and I had this symbol, a circle held within a triangle, white line drawing on black background, which I'd flip and rotate whenever I was bored. It didn't take too long for those to be 'real'.
I like this. Drinking from a mug will engage all your senses as a visualization. Now how do we attach a score to this? :) hehehe I mean, you're talking to someone who still likes conventional video games.
Note, it helps if you, while doing a relaxing exercise or whatever, reinforce your abilities by 'deciding' them to exist.
Yes. For me this is automatic ever since I've taken up deity yoga. Since inwardly I always consider myself to be a deity, I am in some sense never without my abilities. I am more like a drunk deity that's drunk on materialism.

In principle I should be able to reach some kind of divine inspiration that teaches me parkour, but I am not sure I want to invest energy into that specific type of imagination. I just don't want to parkour I guess.

You're right in that: If all this is you, then all the knowledge and the sensations are already enfolded within the space you are experiencing. You can be a master guitar player, speak French, parkour to your heart's content. Or... not, if you don't fancy it. But if you are serious about this, the abilities - which, remember, just correspond to summoning a particular experience - are all there, already.

Now how do we attach a score to this? :) hehehe I mean, you're talking to someone who still likes conventional video games.

Heh. Right, I'll set it up some trophies and unlockable content based on how vividly you render the cup! If you get to the top of the leaderboard, you get can upgrade to the cup of a carpenter.

Q: Lol, no sound in the video clip, so there was no point in putting it there, imo. Pay attention.

Darnit, wrong one. But I'm sure you get the reference. :-P

...

Q: Deleted

More the question: how many human years has he got to go? Answer: lots and lots... ;-)

Actually, we aborted this part of the thread and moved over to the other branch, if you are looking to continue reading.

...

Q: I'm filing this exercise under "interesting stuff I may want to try later." But I agree 100% with your "decide" message. The trick is to stop deciding small stuff, like money, house, sex partners. I have decided I no longer want to be a human. I am dreaming big. This planet is too small for me.

Well, the main "decide" is to "decide to be the awareness in which this experience arises". And it works, instantly.

Then it's all yours.

EDIT: Also, why not decide the small stuff too? It's not like there's any effort involve. You just "get it" for free. And if things don't go your way, delete them and replace them. Another way of saying this is: inserting new facts into your world

...

[POST BY Due-Main8306]

This post is super old and has less up votes, but bro if you are seeing this, you were right, literally just decide and have faith in that decision and it's all yours, everything, even the impossible

[END OF POST]

The Patterning of Experience

The Patterning of Experience

This is just a quick bullet-point summary of the memory-pattern-based view of experience, plus guidelines for selecting experiences. I have a more expanded description but I haven't written it up yet (and it's probably not required here). You might use it in conjunction with the Imagination Room metaphor and the Imagining That post to help provide context.

The Static

• What you really are is an open space of awareness.
• Dissolved into the background, implicitly, are all the patterns that ever were, although they are only very subtly present and barely activated.
• Your background felt-sense is the global sense of all the patterns you are holding on to (the facts-of-the-world).
• All sensory experience is the effortless and spontaneous arising of patterns in alignment with the felt-sense. The shifting of the felt-sense is how we actually select experience.

The Dynamic

• The content of the senses and your apparent history have no necessary impact on what happens next, if you are detached from them.
• All that matters is the patterns you are holding onto right now.
• If you trigger a pattern it will subsequently arise in your experience (both thoughts and senses).
• Recalling or experiencing part of a pattern in any way triggers the whole pattern (and to a lesser extent all associated patterns) via auto-completion.
• Every imagining is a 1st-person pattern and all bring about an experience:
  • If you imagine doing something from a 1st person perspective, you are imagining “me doing this” and you will later experience yourself doing it or something like it.
  • If you imagine doing something from a 3rd person perspective, you are imagining “seeing myself doing this” and you will later experience someone doing it or something like it.
  • If you imagine an owl in front of you, what you are doing is imagining "seeing an owl". You will subsequently see owls. Everyday people call this "synchronicity".
• The pattern will overlap with other patterns you are holding onto. This is why it does not immediately become your experience. It is immediately true but your other patterns fit it into a time framework.
• The more detached you are from sensory experience and the felt-sense, the more swiftly and completely the pattern becomes experience. If you had no time-pattern at all, it would be immediate.
• Note that an emotion is a sensory aspect. To hold onto an emotion is to trigger or retain all patterns which have that emotion as a part of them.

The Angle

• Define and assert yourself as the open space of awareness in which sensory experiences appear.
• Remembering that all imagining is in the 1st person and is the triggering of a memory-pattern which will come into experience - you should always imagine from your own perspective.
• Patterns are manifest immediately from the perspective of time. “It is true now that this happens then.”
• Ultimately you should aim to detach completely from the sensory experience round you (what seems to be going on) and from the felt-sense (which is a summary of the facts-of-the-world you have accumulated).
• The more detached you are, the more you can simply “just decide” on something (the partial imagining that is the “decision” will trigger the whole pattern via auto-completion).
• In the absence of complete detachment, allowing the decision pattern (which will typically just be the feeling of the decision) or an imagined situation (a sensory visualisation of the desired experience) to intensify before letting it go will prioritise it over other patterns.
• It is fine to re-decide or re-imagine a pattern provided your decision does not contain any temporal-but-non-specific details of the path of manifestation, even if just implied. Otherwise it will be essentially recreating your future pattern again.

...

Q: What do you mean exactly by "background felt-sense"? Do you mean this sort of "noise" that you can feel filling the gaps? And I'm very curious to know how you got to the conclusion that it's the global sense of all the patterns. Also, I don't know if you've posted it somewhere already, but I would really love to learn about your experiments with manifestation.

You can directly experiment with this.

First I'm going to say: you are experiencing your entire world right here, now. All of it. You tend to thing of the big shining images, sounds and textures as it, and then emotions and feelings, but that's just the unpacked part of the whole thing, which is here too as a sensation. But it's obscured, like the sun hides the stars.

You use it all the time. It's everywhere, but you find it by going to that feeling roughly in the centre of your body. Very subtle. Go to it, with a question in mind, the answer comes from there. Your intuition comes from there. Your whole body experience actually arises from this. It's the entire patterning of the Imagination Room, you might say.

When something changes about your world or in your person, that's where the shift occurs.

Q: Yes, I know this. This doesn't answer my questions. Or perhaps I misinterpreted some parts of your post. When you're talking about the "background felt-sense", you mean a particular sensation (or a particular type of sensation), right? I've just never really experienced a collection of all of my reality-shaping habits. I've only experienced them one by one, as I caught them shaping my reality.

Actually, it was probably me that misinterpreted your question. And it's the area to be expanded in future.

I've just never really experienced a collection of all of my reality-shaping habits.

In truth it is always contextual in terms of what is clear, right? It is always responsive and unfolding. But everything seems to be in there if you go looking, vagueness comes into focus. I don't think you can experience all of your habits separately and all at once. That would be like trying to experience all colours separately but at once - you just get white.

Does that make sense?

In the post I was mainly trying to highlight that you can't make changes (personally or in your world) if you are restricting the movement of this - e.g. the feeling that comes up associated with an intention and you resist it or push it or whatever.

Q: That makes sense, thanks for the clarification!
I don't think you can experience all of your habits separately and all at once.
I agree. But I didn't mean experiencing them separately. Just generally, how do you experience a habit? I've just realized I had never really thought about it. What is actually a habit? You can't experience a habit, right? You can only deduce it from your experiences or "learn" about it in a gnostic sense. Is it an on-going intention?

What is actually a habit?

A very good question!

I say, today: An experiential pattern, the whole pattern being triggered from part of it, just like with any memory pattern. Which is why the way to stop a habit is to disrupt the pattern by dissolving the emotional aspect of the trigger, or breaking the sequence (can do this via imagination, summoned from the felt-sense?).

It's no different to, say, thinking of the start of a favourite song and it then continuing in your mind. Only this time the result is played out spontaneously in the main area of your imagination, as it were.

Is it an on-going intention?

In a way, it is right? But I think "intention" has become a difficult word since it gets used as something in mind that you're then going to "intend". Maybe we could say: An intention really is just a pattern of experience you've created, either a one-off (you create a temporal pattern which manifests something in the future) or something more general (you create a pattern which manifests in certain circumstances) or a "fact" (a static background pattern that filters everything else).

Q:
I say, today: An experiential pattern, the whole pattern being triggered from part of it, just like with any memory pattern. Which is why the way to stop a habit is to disrupt the pattern by dissolving the emotional aspect of the trigger, or breaking the sequence (can do this in memory).
Interesting, I've never tried it with memories before.
In a way, it is right? But I think "intention" has become a difficult word since it gets used as something in mind that you're then going to "intend".
What I'm talking about is intention as a force of sorts. Not intention, but intending. We don't create our experiences, they're all already here and we just choose a certain pattern, right? So intending is actually this choosing. It's what free will is, no more, no less.
Then it seems that habits are not in fact background intendings, since they're clearly a part of the pattern. So the habits do not only shape our intendings, they make us forget how to intend. Otherwise there wouldn't be a gradual learning curve to this, you would either not know how to intend at all, or you would be able to instantly intend all of your habits away.
edit: Or not, there is a lot of possible explanations and interpretations. It's almost like there's an infinity of them ;)
What I'm trying to figure out is, why do habits make it seem like we've forgotten how to intend? Does this mean that intending is also part of the pattern?

(If I'm understanding you correctly...)

What I'm trying to figure out is, why do habits make it seem like we've forgotten how to intend? Does this mean that intending is also part of the pattern?

I think it means that people never knew how to change their experience anyway. Sensory experience is arising and as it unfolds they are imagining nothing useful. People simply don't realise how the work. They try to "do" things by summoning up muscle tension patterns, or ineffective verbal thoughts patterns, or actually focusing on the troublesome pattern more.

Want to kill a habit? Activate that pattern and activate a neutral pattern (such as the experience of complete empty space) at the same time - or some other stronger pattern. If you generate a strong emotion then that can help. (The Overwriting Yourself process is about getting rid of residual perceptual patterns in this way.)

Intending is deliberately "deciding", but deciding is simply activating a part of a pattern and having it auto-complete. What makes out an "intending" from another memory pattern? It's: the temporal pattern. Activate a sensory event pattern and a temporal pattern at the same time, and you've effectively updated your "timeline" (whatever you want to call it) with that event.

And so on.

So, this is always about summoning a memory pattern or two in order to strengthen them so that they shape your subsequent sensory experience. Mixing patterns provides context and organisational structure. We've already got some pretty deep formatting - such as temporal, spatial location, all sorts of other abstract frameworks, our own body pattern - we can leverage. And there's all those accumulated facts-of-the-world too.

The infinity aspect can get out of hand pretty quickly, so I always treat something like the Infinite Grid concept as my baseline. Experience works on an "as if" basis, so whatever metaphors you adopt, your experience will seem to fall in line. Using this knowingly keeps things in hand - rather than going on meta-adventures via synchronicity. Choose your fictions wisely!

Q: Can you rephrase the last bullet? I'm having a difficult time grasping that

On the felt-sense? To experiment, literally place your attention roughly in the centre of your body, perhaps nearer your lower abdomen. And wait quietly, to feel what is there.

The feeling is what you might call the "global sense" of your whole situation. It's much easier to do than to describe! Give it a go and get back to me if you don't have any luck.

Eugene Gendlin's Focusing technique is based on something along these lines; you might find it interesting to look that up.

Q: No I meant
"It is fine to re-decide or re-imagine a pattern provided your decision does not contain any temporal-but-non-specific details of the path of manifestation, even if just implied. Otherwise it will be essentially recreating your future pattern again."

Ah, right.

The idea is that if you just think "I will see owls", without specifying any details, then "owls' is overlaid across time. If you keep thinking "I will see owls", or "owls are cool" and "I really like owls" that pattern doesn't get disrupted. However, if you thought "I will see an owl on Tuesday", and then start thinking "no, owls on Wednesday" or "will I see owls on Tuesday?" then you are mangling what you've already laid out. You are revising your pattern.

Q: I see, so consistency in your thoughts is preferable?

Yes. Passing thoughts are fine, let them rise and fall. With intended thoughts, though, you should stay consistent, because you are effectively rewriting yourself each time you do it, creating a muddle if you keep changing your mind!

Q: Thanks for this recap.
Your background felt-sense is the global sense of all the patterns you are holding on to (the facts-of-the-world)
So if I understand this correctly the background felt-sense is the knowledge of what your world consists of? Memory of places and people, senses, forms, etc?
All sensory experience is the effortless and spontaneous arising of patterns in alignment with the felt-sense.
So that which arises is limited to that which you perceive as possible. Is that what alignment with the felt-sense means?

The background felt-sense is (as I tell it) all the persistent facts-of-the-world you are holding onto. Obviously there are levels to this, patterns upon patterns. Something I've noticed is that even when there are stuck sensations elsewhere in the body, they are referred by this central sense. Which makes, um, sense really!

So that which arises is limited to that which you perceive as possible. Is that what alignment with the felt-sense means?

All experience arises from the felt-sense. If that is your world and you are navigating through it, then you are basically exploring the world as dissolved and summarised in your felts sense.

You can do a little experiment. As you go about your day, exploring the world and exploring your thoughts, notice how you do it. Despite what you might assume, you actually seem to navigate by feeling your way along.

In quiet moment, settle your attention in the centre of your body and explore the sensation. Ask it questions and see what you get. The entire state of your world is potentially available for exploration. If nothing else, it's free transformative therapy on tap! :-)

Q:
I will perform the experiment as per your suggestion. I suppose I am right now as I type this.
you actually seem to navigate by feeling your way along.
What do you mean by feeling your way along? Imean, I don't exactly know how all this sensory information gets to me or how I navigate it, it just sort of happens automatically, with the guidance of intentions. I feel like I have more to say about this. I'm not sure at the moment though.
All experience arises from the felt-sense. If that is your world and you are navigating through it, then you are basically exploring the world as dissolved and summarised in your felts sense.
Ah, I see, so my facts-of-the-world are limiting my manifestations to a certain spectrum. This makes sense.
You can do a little experiment. As you go about your day, exploring the world and exploring your thoughts, notice how you do it. Despite what you might assume, you actually seem to navigate by feeling your way along.
This experiment sounds simple but I feel I may be misinterpreting you. Is the point of the experiment to realize that I am perceiving more than I am doing? The term "feeling my way" along is throwing me off. I'm imagining a blind man feeling around in the dark, and coming into contact with objects and stepping around them. I wish to try this experiment but to be honest, I don't know how I do it, I just do.
In quiet moment, settle your attention in the centre of your body and explore the sensation.
I've begun to get more and more familiar with this sensation. I consider this to be the source of all of it, am I wrong in stating this? The part that I get hung up on is what is doing the perceiving, is it this sensation itself that is perceiving the other sensations? I'm calling them other sensations but perhaps "the sensation" is the amalgamation of all sensory experience. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, especially how you feel we are perceiving ourselves at all? I view it currently as the Self created other (or perceived exterior) in order to have the necessary contrast to perceive itself.
I wrote this kind of in a rush, so apologies if it is a little all over the place.

(Quick response, but this is "the" topic, although having a model of it is not entirely necessary for getting on in your world...)

I've begun to get more and more familiar with this sensation. I consider this to be the source of all of it, am I wrong in stating this?

This is how I view it. Everything is in there. It's an area that would benefit from some proper coverage! I've not really explored how best to describe it.

I'm calling them other sensations but perhaps "the sensation" is the amalgamation of all sensory experience.

It's all patterns, your entire state. When you go exploring through levels and such, that's where you are exploring. The perceptual sensations (images, sounds, textures) appear spontaneously as you unpack patterns-objects from there. For fun perhaps we could view it as our Global Lightbee which projects everything in our Imagination Room.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, especially how you feel we are perceiving ourselves at all? I view it currently as the Self created other (or perceived exterior) in order to have the necessary contrast to perceive itself. It depends on what you mean by "ourselves". If you mean the thoughts, bodily sensation, etc, we identify with, that's just a habitual pattern. Think: how do you work out which bits of experience are "you" and "other"? By spatial proximity, by whether there is a feeling within that spatial proximity, by the timeliness of response between you "asking" and "receiving" and the case of inner-outer distinction it's subtle things like whether "other people" seem to respond to them.

These are arbitrary.

As soon as you experiment with synchronicity and intention, you realise that it's just all imagery arising within you - the undivided open aware space - and you are categorising different images-objects-patterns according to their intensity and location. When you come to the idea of the floor of the Imagination Room, or the Global Centre of the felt-sense, you then view all of this as just spontaneous imagery from an exploration of that.

Q: By ourselves I meant the sensation in our chest. I'm more curious how we're able to perceive period? This might be a type of question that is unanswerable, but I'm willing to ask you because if anyone has an idea on this it's you. How are patterns arising at all? Why not just static wholeness? I feel that there is static wholeness, but how are we able to explore the wholeness as though it is separate and to form these wild patterns that vary and differ?

I'm more curious how we're able to perceive period?

I think on the one hand it's impossible to answer (EDIT: I offer no other hands, it turns out).

All we can say for certain is:

• We are a consciousness.
• Experiences arise within and of that consciousness.
• We cannot experience ourselves "doing" or "selecting", which implies that we "take on the shape" of experiences.

We can only think in terms of 3D sensory images, we use metaphors to extend that, but we can never truly think-about these things - such as what we "really" are, how did experience come to be formatted the way it is, and so on. Thinking about those things creates a self-patterning chase of one's tail that we can't get out of.

The reason for that is that we think experience and think about things using the process that that experiencing and thinking follows. As I said elsewhere:

Even worse, the more you try to get a handle on the whole synchronicity thing itself, the more incoherent, confusing and "meta" they will become. It's like a dream trying to work out how "dreaming" really works behind the scenes, and just ending up with... more dream, only this time about the subject of "dreaming". - TG

Whatever you think, formats your experience. There is no "how it is", only what we assert. All we can do is choose a pattern which is stable but flexible, and use that as our base. Experience behaves "as if" there is a static wholeness that we are exploring. And it behaves "as if" we bring aspects of that wholeness into experience by "remembering" them. I think that's as far as we can go.

I feel that there is static wholeness, but how are we able to explore the wholeness as though it is separate and to form these wild patterns that vary and differ?

We let ourselves feel separate from experience by designating one part of it as "us" and hold onto it, letting the rest change. Even "being the background" is a subtle version of this, albeit the most flexible version there is, and the one I go with, because it effectively attaches identity to "the consciousness" rather than "the world".

TL;DR? Stop trying to work out how things supposedly are, instead just decide how you want them to be?

(Going to tag on a thought process in the next comment...)

(From elsewhere, but relevant perhaps when it comes to asking what we can truly say about our experiences, what is permanent and fundamental, and what is changing and so cannot be. Maybe other Oneironauts might find it a useful exercise.)

Exploring Direct Experience

Here's how I have proceeded before, from empirical evidence:

• It appears that am a conscious being of some sort. No matter what happens in terms of content, this persists. I seem to have no permanent structure. It is the one certainty that does not need interpretation.
• During waking hours this conscious being it seems to have the experience of being-a-person.
• Within my perspective there appears both thoughts and perceptions as a seamless experience. I don't perceive either to be external to my being, however I notice they are of two levels in terms of behaviour or impact and I make a distinction between "private/inner" and "public/outer" as a result.
• I notice that I am not simply a passive experiencer (although through experimentation I notice I can just let things happen "by themselves"), I can also "intend-imagine" changes in my experience.
• Having noticed that this waking experience seems to be associated with a body, and seeing other bodies, I infer that there may be conscious beings associated with them, having a similar experience. (However, having noticed how my own activities can occur spontaneously and without direction on my part, I quietly note that I can never be certain that activity equals an experiencer.)
• I notice that I am the occasional recipient of information that is beyond the context of my present experience. Sometimes intuitions about the current situation, but at other times knowledge which implies that situation I have not yet encountered are in fact already created in the background and awaiting my experiencing. This and various other things remind or suggest to me that I am not in fact a person so much as having a person-experience - I am not of this world but I have allowed this world to arise in me (or something like that).
• Exploration of phenomena such as synchronicity reveal that the inner/outer distinction I use for convenience is not as solid as I usually assume. They suggest that usual assumptions about the unfolding of events, coherence of narrative, and our simplistic "world-sharing model" are probably not solid either. However, since phenomena such as synchronicity get "meta" very fast, with an affect akin to exploring your own memory-patterns, it is best not to involve oneself too deeply.
• All experience I have seems to arise within and of and be made from the consciousness that I am.

Now, from this we are left with what I think are unanswerable questions or meanderings one has while exploring the above:

• What am I really, really? I can only know what I'm not. I seem to be just impersonal consciousness.
• I experience being a person or a mind, but I am not one.
• This "world" I connect to - does it exist only in this consciousness?
• Am I connecting to something or am I imagining something? Perhaps I am taking turns at being each of the people in that world, only I cannot remember being one when I am being the other.
• The previous point might explain why sometimes events "bend" in my direction in unlikely ways and even at the expense of others. I am that world's God having a person-experience, however so is everyone else in turn (and being-a-person limits one's "powers").
• The world might be structured so that every person-experience is responsive in this way, because its "sharing model" is not as simple as "people in a room, choosing the consensus decor together".
• If I have an OBE or NDE or (to a lesser extent) a lucid dream or (to a maximum extent) when I die, am I disconnecting from that world and connecting to another? Or is it revealing that I have basically been having a custom dream all along? Or is it revealing that there is always a next moment to experience, at the same level, and this never ends?

Of greatest interest to me is what the "world-sharing model" is, if indeed this is something that can be pinned down without encountering the synchronicity mind-formatting problem (that the metaphor you adopt tends to filter your experience).

Are you and I both here at the same time, in the same place, in a straightforward manner?

Anyway, from there we end up with the Patterning of experience, the uses of metaphors such as the Infinite Grid to help us format ourselves better, and so on. Another version of that "patterns + eternalism" view which can be used for "as if" exploration:

The Hall of Records

Imagine that you are a conscious being exploring a Hall of Records for this world.

You are connecting to a vast memory bank containing all the possible events, from all the possible perspectives, that might have happened in a world like this. Like navigating through an experiential library. Each moment is an immersive 3D sensory image.

And there may be any number of customers perusing the records. So this is not solipsism: Time being meaningless in such a structure, we might say that "eventually" all records will be looked-through, and so there is always consciousness experiencing the other perspectives in a scene. At the same time, this allows for a complex world-sharing model where influence is permitted, because "influencing events" simply means navigating from one 3D sensory record to another, in alignment with one's intention.

This process of navigation could be called remembering. Practically, this would involve summoning part of a record in consciousness and having it auto-complete by association. This would be called recall. You can observe something like this "patterned unfolding" occurring in your direct conscious experience right now.

Q: So let's say I imagined a desired experience in 1st person, and then I detached completely from it.
I then go about the following days acting on my intention (in alignment with my intention of experiencing the desired pattern) without any expectation whatsoever.
Would this interfere with my desired pattern manifesting itself? I'm asking this to find out if actively acting on something that i have already imagined will interfere with the pattern manifesting itself.
Hope you understand my question.
Cheers :)

So I think you're asking: if you intend something, and then later keep self-consciously acting to try and make it happen, will that work against you?

Generally, you do the intentional act (imaging here, water-pouring elsewhere) and, since the world is literally updated at that moment you just carry on with your life, knowing that the change has already been done. Since your body movement is as much a part of the world-pattern as everything else, you'll let that carry on as normal too. If you happen to feel the urge to go somewhere or say something, you let it happen; there's no purpose in trying to work out what to do. "Don't interfere", is the phrase to have in mind, because interference amounts to re-intending.

However, since your main intention was probably a much more strongly activated pattens than your little interference, you tend to find you result really tries to push through into experience, whenever an appropriate gap or context arises.

Q: Quick question, what's a time-pattern?

It's the organising concept or pattern of "time", in the same way as "space" is an organising concept. The idea being that neither time nor space are existent "out there"; both are part of your "human experience formatting", in the same way as the senses are.

To expand -

Just as you might pass your attention across things (spatial objects) in a pattern of "3D-space"; so you pass your attention across the events (temporal objects) in a pattern of "time". The patterns are defined and format experience, like the colour spectrum is defined and formats experience - they place structure upon and as content.

Unfortunately, the idea that a spatial scene exists and is defined even when we haven't fully viewed it, is ingrained in most people, whereas the idea that a temporal scene exists even though we haven't fully looked at it, is not. In both cases it's better to say that the formatting or environment-context is defined, but the content is not.

Multidimensional Magick

Introduction

This might be of interest. Several groups of people have tried "world jumping" in the past, using different systems of thought or concepts. Links below are about an approach called Tesseract or Multidimensional Magick. I've quoted some of the key paragraphs to save you wading through the whole lot.

I'd suggest that the details of the process described in the main document aren't so important - it's just another version of the approach 'relax your hold on yourself and the world, allow it to change'. More interesting is the larger context.

Meanwhile, everyone should check out the movies Coherence, The One I Love and Safety Not Guaranteed for inspiration and 'the feel'.

Further suggestions from comments elsewhere: Ursula K. Le Guin's The Lathe of Heaven and the recent pilot for The Man in the High Castle based on the excellent Philip K Dick novel. Ari Folman's movie The Congress also captures the notion of alternative simultaneous worlds.

Ebony Anpu & Tesseract Magick

One approach to world-jumping was Ebony Anpu and the Hawk & Jackal system of Tesseract Magick. You can read some thoughts about him here. One Tesseract story comes from a personal recollection:
I know that I promised not to tell a tesseract story, but since tesseract magick was probably Ebony's greatest contribution to the technology of Thelema, and because (though a trivial incident in itself) it served to convince me of the evident power of magick to transform one's universe I will include it here after all. I had for some time been hearing incredible reports about the efficacy of Ebony's tesseract workings. Being rather skeptical by nature I was somewhat dubious and didn't at all credit the reports I'd heard.
One day in late 1987 or early 1988 I was visiting at 41st and Opal where I'd often go to rap with Ebony, listen to him play his magnificent, bluesy fuzz guitar, and share some sacrament. The conversation turned to what I'd recently heard about his tesseract workings. He laughed at the reports, but he didn't deny them, and he offered to take me through a tesseract ritual so I could see for myself.
"But you have to be ready for your universe to radically change.", he said. "Can I control how it will change?", I asked. "'fraid not", was his succinct reply. As I was rather satisfied with my universe at the time I declined his offer. "Well, let me just show you what it involves.", he said, and I agreed that just having it explained couldn't do any harm.
So he went over to his desk and brought back a slim calligraphic manuscript. As we sat on the sofa he showed me, step-by-step, how the Hebrew alphabet could be arranged to form the geometry of a tesseract (a "four-dimensional" cube; sort of to the cube what a cube is to the square). As he finished up the explanation he flashed his characteristic smile, devilish and angelic all at the same time, and said, "Oops, looks like I took you through it after all!". I wasn't upset by this, I didn't believe in it anyway, so I went home without expectations or anticipation about how my universe might change.
That night I set to making dinner, but when I turned the knob to light the burner under my pan of water for the pasta, the burner behind it went on instead. I had been living in this apartment for close on five years. The inner knobs had always lit the front burners and the outer knobs had always lit the back burners. I got one of my room-mates to come and see. "But that's the way it's always been.", he said. No one else remembered it the way I did.
Later that night I called Ebony. He laughed, but he seemed impressed, "You must really be doing your will if that's the only change your universe needed to balance it." Considering some of the horror stories I've heard related I'm grateful that a switch of the oven knobs was all it took to convince me of the reality of magick!
-- Some memories of Ebony, Frater Faustus

Multidimensional Magick

Later, the Tesseract approach was extended to become the rebranded flavour known as Multidimensional Magic, as described in this document.

Some excerpts:

We used to call the Multidimensional Magick section Tesseract Magick, after the first of the major innovations in Magick developed by Hawk & Jackal. Since then we have begun doing work in dimensions beyond the fourth.

On the overall effect:

There are phenomenon that we should warn you of. Time will sometimes be perceived in a different way immediately before, during, or after a Tesseract.

The effect can be sudden shifts in time or space. Driving a hundred miles in less than 20 minutes. Going through the same stop twice in the same direction on a public transit system. Losing the entire day, someone once skipped their birthday. Distortions in space. Being able to perceive beyond a closed door to the extent that you walk into it. A universe where the sky is red and has green cracks in it. Universes where there is no radio or TV on the air, and there is a smell of ozone in the air (jump again immediately!) People can change eye color, hair color, height, weight, or personality.

Some say that Tesseract jumping is a better version of suicide, and should only be undertaken in the same circumstances. Some say it is habit forming and leads to permanent tourist syndrome toward any universe one finds oneself in.

On jumping and other people:

Only those that jump with you can be counted on. Everyone around you and every social circumstance can change rather dramatically in the most highly vectored jumps.

On post-jump stabilisation:

Usually in a few minutes, though it may sometimes take a few weeks, your new universe begins to harden and become more cohesive. You quit being able to see through walls and time-space distortions become more manageable. Hey don’t try to drive until you get used to these effects. Cars have been wrecked. But again lives have been saved as well.

I remember an emergency jump when I was in a car wreck on a skyway, I must have fallen 5 or 6 stories before I felt the jump, and then instantly I was back on the roadway sliding upside down toward the opposite guard rail. I had a broken shoulder but was otherwise all right.

On over-specification:

Don’t try to manipulate your new universe too much. Micromanagement can really screw things up. Think about it, what if you tried to consciously control your adrenals or the production of endorphins, or every other hormone or drug made in your body, it can be fun but do you really understand how every thing about how you works.

When you are God, and you are when you create a universe, let the automatic systems function normally unless there is a abiding need to interfere, then be prepared for much more than you predicted.

-- Multidimensional Magick, Fra. 137[http://chakraactivation.com/MultidimensionalMagick.pdf]

TL;DR: I provide links and excerpts from documents which describe an approach called Tesseract or Multidimensional magick for jumping universes.

...

Q: Deleted

Well, the tesseract process is super long, but it is basically symbolic anyway (of course) - by representing a 4d space to yourself and by intention 'summoning the experience or feeling' of traversing it, you are essentially just accepting that it is possible and allowing it to happen. Belief matters, unfortunately (where "belief"=entrenched habits of your world).

The 'mirror technique' is really just an approach of detaching from the mirage of your current surroundings, and so letting the underlying patterns shift.

You can be more efficient simply by practicing lying down and completely abandoning yourself and the world, and using assertion. You can choose a nice metaphor (for me it's blankets and folds, or mirages and dunes in the desert, or it can be tesseracts and hypercubes) to represent the 'jumping' to yourself, or you can simply intend new facts into the world.

It's basically "releasing a hold on the patterns of the world, and intending-allowing".

EDIT: Of course, there is an effect by which established routes by "others" assist your own changes. So the fact that the tesseract system has been set up will assist your own efforts.

it's easy to see many similarities ...

Yes, it's all the same thing. It has to be, if you think about it. If what we do is based on the truth of the world, then all approaches that produce results must be based on the same principles. I suggest that the main principle could be described as: "decisions and permissions".

I'm inclined to wonder about the relationship here between manifestation and dimensional jumping. Are they really different? ... Prayer, 'The Secret', focused thought-energy...

In truth, I think you can just brush aside all the explanations. Explanations are routes to allowing change, but they are not actually the mechanism of change. Let's just focus instead on what you actually experience.

You do a ritual - 'jumping' or 'focussed-thought' or whatever - and subsequently the apparent world seems to change. Say you want a ticket for an important game of Your Favourite Sport and you perform your favourite bit of magick. Two types of result may be possible:

• Maybe the something you want comes to you by an explainable route - a friend rings up and he has a spare ticket for the game because his wife has left him, great!
• Or maybe your world changes in narrative-breaking ways: an object (a ticket for the game!) simply appears out of nowhere; it's just suddenly there on the coffee table. Meanwhile, friends change eye colour and character; geography drifts; the world rebalances.

The only difference between the two is that the second one is an experience that doesn't fit into our usual story about the world. Really, it is simply a shifting of experience in the same way as the first. The latter simply makes it more obvious that there is no solid, fixed underlying to the world.

An implication of this is more dramatic: That whatever physical or mental actions you seem to take don't actually matter and have no effect. All that ritual and visualisation means nothing - well, except what you take it to mean. And that's the key.

All change occurs by simply deciding-and-allowing. Meanwhile, the apparent world is always seeking to return to a balanced state. Resistance (identification, beliefs, expectations) prevents this. Intending a change in one aspect will naturally result in a realignment of other aspects, because to get any result at all we need to loosen our hold. Actions simply provide an excuse for allowing; it is how you give yourself permission.

TL;DR: The ways things work is always by "decisions and permissions". You don't notice this because you rarely allow yourself to change radically, or decide ambitiously, in a way that will result in dramatic shifts.

Q: TriumphantGeorge, I read your description of Tesseract process: "... by representing a 4d space to yourself and by intention 'summoning the experience or feeling' of traversing it, you are essentially just accepting that it is possible and allowing it to happen. Belief matters, unfortunately (where "belief"=entrenched habits of your world)."
This sounds a lot like Neville Goddard's teachings, in which (among others) I've immersed myself over the last couple of years. Do you think? I'll look into this perspective on the technique. (Although there's a point at which all the studying must stop, and Faith must rule.) :)
For sheer inspiration, I recommend Kidest Om. Just putting that out there.

I think that, fundamentally, all successful 'magick' is of the "Neville Goddard style":

• Detach from the current facts and experience.
• Assert new facts (until the corresponding felt-sense arises...)
• Profit!

How you represent the change to yourself doesn't really matter, so long as it involves relaxed detachment and it generates the felt-sense of the new 'reality'.

Although there's a point at which all the studying must stop, and Faith must rule.

Right. Something that happens with those chasing 'the truth' and those chasing reality changes is that... they end up just talking about it. Putting off the doing. And you can understand: implicitly, everyone knows that realising the truth (dreamlike reality with no solid foundation) or changing experience (transforming the dreamform) corresponds to a sort of death.

Everyone wants what the want - except most don't, not really.

Kidest Om: New to me, will check.

Q: Hey, I have a question. If I want to intend that, say, I enter a dimension where my favorite video game is finally released, could I also intend-allow that all of my friends have the same personality? I'm actually fine with my entire physical world changing, I just want to be able to have the same friends, and of course, the same me.
Edit: Could I also will that, say, a sentimental object stays the same, but allow everything else to change?

I think that making the firm decision (and fully accepting it) is enough. After all, this is what you are doing in daily life anyway. Holding onto some things, letting other things unravel and change. With this approach, you are just letting go of more. Perhaps to make it easier, you could try imagining it in a slightly different way. Rather than imaging jumping dimension via a leap into the void, imagine that right now there are two paths. The left-hand path, no game. The right-hand path, in a short while there will be some new information that shows all is well. The rest of the universe remains untouched.

Get into the right frame of mind. Step onto the right-hand path. Meanwhile, I'll be so disappointed if The Last Guardian really is not happening. Because The Shadow of the Colossus is my favourite game of all time.

Q: Well fuck lets bust some magickal nuts and get that shit on the shelves! I don't want to live in a reality where The Last Guardian wont exist. Wait, I WONT live in a reality where The Last Guardian wont exist. I'm making the firm decision that The Last Guardian is in fact coming out to store shelves in a month.

I'm making the firm decision that The Last Guardian is in fact coming out to store shelves in a month.

Yeah, but you know what'll happen don't you? Magick has a habit of taking your requests literally. So you better be very specific in your phrasing.

For example:

YOU: "I want The Last Guardian to be on store shelves in a month!"

UNIVERSE: In a shocking development, The Guardian newspaper goes into bankruptcy, publishing its last edition one month later.

Q: I wonder if I could make a servitor to automatically re-define the intent of my spells based around its context...

An intermediary usually solves the problem. Actually, what usually happens is that all relevant meanings arise!

* * *

DimensionalJumping Misc Posts

Relevant Experiment: Facts Are Now

Redditor /u/UniversalChairs has submitted a post elsewhere linking to a recent study of the Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment:

To put it very simply, a particle (in this case an atom that has the physical properties of weight and mass) can behave either as a discrete particle or as a wave ... this experiment proves that whether the atom behaved as either a particle or a wave can be decided after the fact.

What it really means is that, in effect, the atom didn't behave one way or the other at the time. However, the observations you make later decide if reality will behave "as if" it had.

What's the relevance to dimension jumping?

Well, it highlights that what really matters here is what you experience as true, now. Directed jumping involves detaching from the current observation while intending, or "asserting", that a new situation is true. Asserting a new fact in this way is like creating a fake observation, such that subsequent experiences will be "as if" it were true.

The insight that comes from this: imagined experiences are of the same form as sensory experiences and, if intense enough, have the same weight (create a memory in the universe as fact) as sensory experience. See the Imagination Room metaphor as an illustration.

You can read my full take on this in my comment to the main post (it's worth reading the rest of the discussions also). The key observation I make:

The only rule is that the apparent world remains self-consistent as an entire pattern.

If an "observation" is made, the apparent world will appear consistent with the observation from that point onwards. In this subreddit, we suggest that both sensory experiences and imagined experiences count as "contributing observations", differing only in their intensity.

...

Q: I love the way you described this. Exactly the way I wanted to explain this to my compadre. I have a question. Do you think this is why people say not to jump too often or too "far"? If you know what I mean. You could possibly send yourself into a hefty delusion if you dissociated successfully and heavily too many times. The forming of completely different personalities perhaps?

You could possibly send yourself into a hefty delusion if you dissociated successfully and heavily too many times.

I say we are mostly safe because the "world-pattern" remains a unified whole, it's just that tugging too hard on one part obviously involves indirectly shifting the rest of it.

However, whatever you fully intend - or imply with your intention - is guaranteed to produce an experience of some sort, even if it's just lots of thoughts or a dream about it. You could end up with a half-magical, half mundane experience. After all, it's perfectly possible to dream that you are insane.

So...

Do you think this is why people say not to jump too often or too "far"?

What's important is that you don't intend conflicting things - adopt a single metaphor and stick with it. If you view it as "swapping dimensions through a mirror", stick to that. If you view it as "updating your dream", stick to that. And then let it go. In my opinion, we want to stay with a really streamlined "technical" metaphor that doesn't imply much else. e.g. If you start thinking there are "other you's" that you swap places with, you might imply to yourself that these others really exist and might linger or cause problems, that you might not fully switch, etc. And you will have experiences that are consistent with these thoughts.

So keep it simple, keep it focused, don't think about it too much: What you are doing is literally "giving yourself a new observation", one which implies facts of the world via the metaphor. I've linked this before, but the Dream Views article on persistent realms is worth a read, because it illustrates how creation-by-implication works (albeit in a more flexible starting environment.)

EDIT: Added some extra sentences because I was in writerly mood! :-)

Q: A summary please?

For the main takeaways, just read the quotes in the post - but for the experiment, it amounts to (very loosely speaking):

• Passing a helium atom through a "switch" and then to a detector.
• The "switch" is such that it can correspond to the helium atom being a wave, or a particle.
• But the switch is randomised after the the atom passes through it.
• This means that the "wave or particle?" result depends on the measurement, and not the switch.

In other words, "wave" or "particle" are properties which belong to the observation and not the atom. It's a bit like discovering that the brightness of the sun really is a property of which pair of sunglasses you are wearing, and not the sun itself.

TL;DR: The world is your accumulated observations of it. The world itself has no inherent properties.

Q: So the Fiction- is as real as we'd make it (ish), this sounds a lot like romance

Well, if I was blueprinting a universe, I'd definitely have a healthy dose of romance built-in!

The Buddha Makes A Jump

From an article over at Science and Nonduality

We may read about the “emptiness” of reality and be perplexed by what this means from a conventional perspective. However, in the context of an interdependent co-arising universe, the fullness of one moment vanishes completely only to be replaced by the fullness of the next instant of manifestation. All that existed in the preceding moment disappears completely so all things are truly empty of an enduring, physical existence. This is a subtle and foundational insight for a wise relationship with the complete dynamism of reality.
--The Buddha Awakening, Science and Nonduality

Okay, this is a bit of a different angle, but if you are interested in such things then Buddhism has quite a nice description of how "reality" dissolves and is recreated every moment. This provides a way of thinking how dramatic changes can occur in your experience almost instantly: the continuity of experience is something that you do; it's not a property of the universe itself necessarily. By letting go of that continuity, with an intention in mind, we can jump more directly to our desired situation than would otherwise be possible using a "stepwise" approach.

Recommend reading the article in full for the quotes, if this is your kinda thing.

Constantine Dimension Jumping

Last week's episode of Constantine - an excellent TV series based on the Hellblazer character John Constantine - had a storyline about alternative dimensions accessed by candles and reflective surfaces. And a great character called Ritchie who had certain inter-dimensional benefits, having studied the "principles of other planes"...

Spoiler-filled recap here. [https://collider.com/constantine-recap-season-1-episode-11/]

Hopefully your own jumps will be less... traumatic.

An Empty Dimension

It's gone rather quiet on this sub.

Is that because 974 subscribers have now successfully jumped to alternate dimensions? Only I am left.

Technically, there should be one final post from a subscriber in each destination dimension, documenting that subscriber's success after landing in that dimension. But there isn't one on this sub. Is that because this dimension isn't desirable to anyone, so nobody has jumped here?

I am sat alone, in the dimension all the other dimensions have nicknamed 'the Departure Lounge'...