The Guide to Unlocking Your Subconscious Mind and Understanding Reality (The Book of Secrets)

Bump for later.

To me, belief goes beyond conclusion, which is only one of many possibilities. I feel comfortable with my conclusions in applying my SPIR-like analytical system, but not enough to fix them permanently in my processing. I want the conclusion to always be in potential state, until for some reason that conclusion must be fixed.

Why? Because I know that my perspective is limited, and just because it looks like I have added 2+2 to make 4 (to me, a symbolic equation of belief), it does not, it makes 5(a symbol of possibility) because of things I do not understand.

OP, Evidence for your position grows. You see our avatars in Mindcraft? It's unlikely those two things should be connected and talking in this world if I didn't personally put them there. Conclusion: I am talking to myself. But I don't have to believe it. It makes me happier not to.

That would imply that one came before the other.

In a system where everything is balanced, all forces work together simultaneously to balance everything in the system. So in that way there would not be any one particular force, or entity, that initiated something.

If we "zoom in" to reality then it may appear that a particular force is the cause of something, but when we "zoom out" we see that all other forces are moving at the same time.

Another way of looking at this (from our perspective) is to consider that energy is neither created nor destroyed. By making a fist and hitting a wall, for example, we are not creating energy when we make the fist and destroying it when we hit the wall, but moving it from one part of the system to another.

Perhaps we don't realize that hitting the wall is also our part in balancing the system?



In our perspective, there is the difference because it should be there.

If it was not purposed that way, then we would not perceive it like that.

From page 70:

We cannot really know if something is good because we cannot perceive of all things at once. If someone feeds the hungry can we say it is good? What if the hungry party is an alligator and humans are being fed to it? Does it then become bad? What if it's a silly new online game for charity where $5 goes to a good cause for every zombie human you feed to the alligators? What if the charity funnels money to those doing nefarious deeds? We do not know what something is unless we know how it relates to everything else. The definition of something is found in everything else. There is no "good" or “bad” independent of perspective.

It's all about perspective, no matter how complex our perception or experience.

This is not to trivialize the example you provided but are not children slaughtered every second of the day in factories and farms everywhere?

To really explain what we mean (what kind of children, and under what conditions and circumstances, etc) we would need to become more specific. This illustrates that there is no absolute anything.

We tend to focus on what we see. But then we miss the more important relationships between the things we see. The things themselves don't matter, and are just ways to work with and express the relationships.



To the contrary, I think we would be more attuned to a more balanced reality (that includes everything) than the very specific reality that we are now attuned to.

We would realize, for example, that children are being slaughtered all the time ;)



Yes, the mind is very tricky. But even when we see the secret of how a magician performs the illusion, we are still looking at an illusion. Even the secret is but another layer of an illusion.

But the illusion is the reality, because the illusions enable relationships.

When we look at the Sun, we can say that it is yellow. A scientist may say that it is actually all colors at once, and should be thought of as white. But the white is also an illusion, because the color comes from the color cells of our eyes. The Sun has no color independent of the perception of color.

It is just best to think of the sun as being yellow, because that is what we see. The "ultimate reality" is not uncovering the illusions but learning to work with them, via the relationships that they enable.

Last Edited by The Builder on 04/25/2015 11:55 PM

Thank you for your response! I was imprecise in my representation of Twain - I think he and you and I are on the same page.

Thank you again and again, because your book "held my hand" through some difficult times.

That's a good way of putting it.

It is, indeed, good to remember that illusion is never fixed, and neither would relationships be.

I am happy to announce that the fictionalized version of "The Secret of Everything" has been published.

The book, The Distant Memory, can be found on Amazon at [link to amazon.com]

It covers most of the main points of the "Notes..." material, but of course has been made into a narrative. I hope you enjoy the story :)

I have also mixed in some aspects of Chaol's world into the story that I thought were interesting, to me at least.

Also note that it will be a free download on Amazon from approximately May 4th to May 8th.

Last Edited by The Builder on 04/29/2015 11:40 PM

I forgot to mention, it's a second draft, but I'll be making some small edits throughout the next few days.

I've already begun work on the next book, which will go more into the "mogic" part of the material.

I think it will be many years before we, as a people, begin to really consider the types of things discussed in the book.

For the 3rd book (which I will begin tomorrow) I will be working within the MindCraft universe, so will be connecting to it more.

There is an entire world already there, even if we're not ;)

Note that I have changed the title of this thread, and the book, to match the title of the series that I am working on, which will ultimately go into mogic and its applications.

It will also go into mental whiSPIRs, which is described in this short excerpt:

Are you not mentally hearing yourself read this book as your eye dance across the page? You're representing the sound of a voice in your mind to make something else more relative: imagining the fictional world described on a page or bringing you closer to understanding what is written by making it easier to think about. You could also be hearing someone else's voice, or even think in images and shapes if you wanted. But these representations are not native to the mind. You just made them up, and they're useful. You're representing concepts and relating them together in order to affect, and change, your perspective.

With mental mogic we are doing the same thing. Using SPIR mentally to discover new perspectives.

It is based on the material in the "Notes" thread as well as my own adventures over the past year or so.

It is the stuff of wizards, I suppose ;)

You're very welcome.

"This is only the beginning..."

Just a note.. the new book "The Distant Memory" is now a free download (today) at [link to www.amazon.com]

Hi Chaon,

I bought your book off amazon. But its quite confusing.

Seems like there are a lot of repeating semantics and complicated descriptions.

I'm just trying to figure out what the overall goal of this book is.

Is it a book of your theories? Is it mandatory that we need to understand all these details? Which is overwhelming since many of your paragraphs basically repeat themselves

Is this a book of exercises? Techniques? Or thought experiments?

I also see a repeating theory of "how boring life would be if we knew everything and had everything we wanted". Im not finished the book...but such an assumption is dismissive of any greater truths that may be discovered.

I don't know. I was so looking forward to reading this book. But now i just feel confused. (And I have 3 college degrees, a high IQ, and have read hundreds of "spiritual" and new-thought type books)

Thank you

Hi. Thanks for your note.

Yes, the book repeats many of the same things in different ways. It's the same procedural narrative of the threads that the book is based on. It is also illustrative of the many ways that one thing expresses itself (the primary formula)

The number of college degrees you have, unfortunately, may hinder the understanding of the material. I think the material cannot be better-understood by being 'smarter' about the world as we know it today, but actually less-understood. Personally, from people that I know, I've found that understanding comes about through not being sure about reality, so to speak.

The goal of the book is to summarize the thread that it is based on, with additional notes and other pieces of the puzzle that would help to illustrate the thesis. If the thesis doesn't make sense, just think of it as 'lite entertainment', as my predecessor would say.

It is not meant to make everything very easy, but requires "unlearning" on behalf of the reader. Again, the more we think we know something (e.g., "I exist") the more difficult it might be to get what the book is saying.

Regarding, "how boring life would be if we knew everything and had everything we wanted", it not of course implying that one should not discover anything. Otherwise the book is useless. It is meant to be a tool for your own discovery, rather than something that states everything plainly.

"Self-discovery" being the key word.

(Also, it is repeated throughout that such would be impossible, because there would be no other perspective with which to compare.)

Let me know if you have any specific questions about the material, and we'll see if we can get them answered in a way that makes more sense.

I forgot to mention...

One of the main reasons I am writing the other (fiction) books is to present the information more simply.

Starting with the first fiction book, "The Distant Memory" there will be other books that draw from the material and present it in a way that is more human.

"The Book of Secrets" isn't meant to be easy. It's, perhaps, something for a different time. It could, however, be useful from a different perspective, today.

The other books, however, are based on it and should be much more easy to understand.

I'll be finished with the next book in a couple of weeks. It's kind of like Harry Potter + mogic

Thanks for your reply.

I only mentioned my education history to avoid being labeled incompetent. The only point being that I'm able to understand complex topics. (I should've explained myself the first time... since many people assume all education equals a lack of intelligence...this is not so for everybody.)

The comment about boring lives, I didn't think you were saying we shouldn't discover. What I meant was....its a common theory that if we were gifted with all knowledge, all understanding, then we'd be bored and life would be unexciting. The theory suggesting that we would/should prefer ignorance and life surprises to maintain our zest for life. As outlined in your example of the boy and the genie.

What I believe, is that that doesn't make sense since the very root of humanity is a continual seeking of those unknowns. Those unknowns are what could very we'll be keeping the bulk of humanity in ignorance, violence and suffering.

You say the book is based on your thread...I'll take a look at the thread then.

I am not sure how others feel about this but, for me, it is not complex at all, but very simple. It's the explanation that is more complicated, I think.

'one thing that generates all other things', and then endlessly explaining what that means, and the ways it works.

The story of the boy and the genie suggests that he is forgetting he has a third wish left, and can do anything he wants, but decides not to. Rather than choosing 'ignorance' he is choosing 'friction', which in the book is what creates anything (referred to as resistance). He would rather have friction between one thing and another, thus explore creation, rather than realizing that there is no other, and end up destroying himself (and feeling bad about it).

In that way, if it means ignorance, then that would also imply the entire universe is ignorant. But again, it is not the universe, or the boy, that is ignorant and "chooses" ignorance, but the nature of perspective.

Perspective is based on a very precise ignorance. One that ignores nearly everything else, but also one that can "procedurally generate" everything else.

Although I don't agree that the root of humanity is the unknown. We did not, for example, populate the Earth out of a quest for the unknown but for the sake of survival. Seeking out the unknown is more of a luxury, when our survival is comfortable. The majority of us seek out what is known, comfortable, tried and true, etc. Comfort, it could be argued, is much more valuable than the pursuit of the unknown.

The boy simply wanted to be comfortable, and used his wishes to try to have a more comfortable life, not really to explore the universe. His primary drive, I think, was to survive in comfort.

Many of us, perhaps most of humanity, do not really want to know the answers to the questions. If that was true then vastly different things would be popular. The unknown is unpopular, I think, because the conditions of survival and comfort are unknown.

I'm willing to give your book a try, but it doesn't seem to be available anywhere. The links you posted only have the first 13 pages.

So far, the book didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, but it would still be interesting to read the rest and see where it goes.

Where is the full download link?


PS: I do not pay for esoteric material, as a matter of principle. If this thread is really just an advertisement so you can make a buck on Amazon, then I'm not interested.

Pin, bump.

Hi. Thanks for your post. The full download was available for a while, but due to Amazon's policies in the particular program it's participating in right now, I had to remove the link. I'm sure one of the other 2,000+ people who've downloaded it from issuu and the website may be able to send it to you.

Amazon doesn't allow one to sell books for free, and more download it when it is at the price that it is at than at the "99 cent" price. (Also, though I spent a full three months writing the book, full-time, I don't make any money from the book itself. That's not counting the nearly 1 million words my fingers have typed in 3,000+ posts since 2009. It's all available on this website.)

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask :)

Last Edited by The Builder on 05/10/2015 09:25 AM

I am not sure how others feel about this but, for me, it is not complex at all, but very simple. It's the explanation that is more complicated, I think.

'one thing that generates all other things', and then endlessly explaining what that means, and the ways it works.

The story of the boy and the genie suggests that he is forgetting he has a third wish left, and can do anything he wants, but decides not to. Rather than choosing 'ignorance' he is choosing 'friction', which in the book is what creates anything (referred to as resistance). He would rather have friction between one thing and another, thus explore creation, rather than realizing that there is no other, and end up destroying himself (and feeling bad about it).

In that way, if it means ignorance, then that would also imply the entire universe is ignorant. But again, it is not the universe, or the boy, that is ignorant and "chooses" ignorance, but the nature of perspective.

Perspective is based on a very precise ignorance. One that ignores nearly everything else, but also one that can "procedurally generate" everything else.

Although I don't agree that the root of humanity is the unknown. We did not, for example, populate the Earth out of a quest for the unknown but for the sake of survival. Seeking out the unknown is more of a luxury, when our survival is comfortable. The majority of us seek out what is known, comfortable, tried and true, etc. Comfort, it could be argued, is much more valuable than the pursuit of the unknown.

The boy simply wanted to be comfortable, and used his wishes to try to have a more comfortable life, not really to explore the universe. His primary drive, I think, was to survive in comfort.

Many of us, perhaps most of humanity, do not really want to know the answers to the questions. If that was true then vastly different things would be popular. The unknown is unpopular, I think, because the conditions of survival and comfort are unknown.


I agree that it's simple, a good description of the basic generative pattern. I liked the diverse examples because that's the way I often think - by analogy. The fact that there are so many examples can be daunting. Not because of intellectual depth, but because I suppose the author's intent is to give so many perspectives on the same information that one is likely to resonate with the reader, providing the "curiosity wedge" to open the mind to the rest. Certain parts were less relative to me (because of who I am), but that did not detract from the parts that were.

I am not sure how others feel about this but, for me, it is not complex at all, but very simple. It's the explanation that is more complicated, I think.

'one thing that generates all other things', and then endlessly explaining what that means, and the ways it works.

The story of the boy and the genie suggests that he is forgetting he has a third wish left, and can do anything he wants, but decides not to. Rather than choosing 'ignorance' he is choosing 'friction', which in the book is what creates anything (referred to as resistance). He would rather have friction between one thing and another, thus explore creation, rather than realizing that there is no other, and end up destroying himself (and feeling bad about it).

In that way, if it means ignorance, then that would also imply the entire universe is ignorant. But again, it is not the universe, or the boy, that is ignorant and "chooses" ignorance, but the nature of perspective.

Perspective is based on a very precise ignorance. One that ignores nearly everything else, but also one that can "procedurally generate" everything else.

Although I don't agree that the root of humanity is the unknown. We did not, for example, populate the Earth out of a quest for the unknown but for the sake of survival. Seeking out the unknown is more of a luxury, when our survival is comfortable. The majority of us seek out what is known, comfortable, tried and true, etc. Comfort, it could be argued, is much more valuable than the pursuit of the unknown.

The boy simply wanted to be comfortable, and used his wishes to try to have a more comfortable life, not really to explore the universe. His primary drive, I think, was to survive in comfort.

Many of us, perhaps most of humanity, do not really want to know the answers to the questions. If that was true then vastly different things would be popular. The unknown is unpopular, I think, because the conditions of survival and comfort are unknown.


I agree that it's simple, a good description of the basic generative pattern. I liked the diverse examples because that's the way I often think - by analogy. The fact that there are so many examples can be daunting. Not because of intellectual depth, but because I suppose the author's intent is to give so many perspectives on the same information that one is likely to resonate with the reader, providing the "curiosity wedge" to open the mind to the rest. Certain parts were less relative to me (because of who I am), but that did not detract from the parts that were.


If only I could learn the simple art of quote buttons.

Indeed... 'an endless variety of perspectives on the same thing'

:)

I'm happy to report that the next book is now complete. I will be uploading it as a (free) PDF in the next day or so, as well as publishing to Amazon.

It's a work of fiction. (Think 'Harry Potter' + mogic)

Awesome, I cannot wait to read it.

I can't get the full pdf. Could someone please link to the full pdf version? Tks!

Ditto...especially trying to sell to your GLP family. Spill it freely or not at all.

And other books about how to get rich...

Hey Chaol, You talked about your reality merging with ours...and how things change beyond 2012? Any update on that?

Good that you will be able to get it while it's free :)

The early bird gets the worm, as is said.