Notes from an "alternate universe": The Revelation of the Real World

Yes, its the key point, isn't it?

Thank you for your comments on my other post too, which make complete sense also. I don't really have anything to add.

In response to your question, what comes to mind is as it wasn't "real" it was easy to see how it related to my Self alone. I don't remember the person in question, and my "self " so those things are neutral.

That has then been echoed throughout the rest of my life in a very real way at each moment time. Folded, as you say, into things that look very different but unfold in the same ways until they don't work anymore and have to be destroyed. Playing with the past is easier because it's not currently supporting my existence, but I hadn't seen just how much that "relationship" was staring me in the face the whole time, over and over.

If those initial things weren't real, it makes sense that the rest of the things representing the relationship haven't been either. Including the self I've thought myself to be.

If nothing has been built to replace it, then this would be very uncomfortable indeed... and rather boring.

Something else has been building, for many years now though. Thank you.

Went to visit a country with more space and nature this summer, to search for less AI/cams/scanners.
Turns out: all toll bridges, tunnels, ferries over there work by automatically scanning your licenseplate.

Now I’ll shut up and play my guitar.

I interpreted "waking up" on the cave island "from" the eruption island, alone. Basically just skipping the swimming part. Since I couldn't save the other person, I guess it didn't occur to me. And, if the scenario is at all analogous to "waking up in 2012" and the other person is analogous to my irl love/hate relationship, I'd be waking up without them (in their 'current form') in 2012.

Why?



There is a lot to consider deeply when developing structures for entire societies. It's difficult enough to develop personal ethos, let alone something that should serve as govern-ment for a group. More difficult when the task is to get from current systems to a fundamentally different system.

Like, having a system that doesn't utilize reward/punishment in those terms would be great imo, but you still have to account for people currently extant within the punishment/reward systems AND for developing education that would be the base of such a system. I think it'd take at least two generations for the education to take hold.

That reminds me, how long will it take to see if a UST system is sustainable or not? You choose ~21 a year and they share a prize pool for 10 years, but it seems even unsustainable systems take forever to naturally collapse (heck, without your intervention, who knows how long it would take the current system to die?)

Also, about how many people would be in a UST group? I do think it would be helpful for me, to this end, to 'go to 2012' because, as I said, I was all ready planning something that translates nicely to the UST competition, but 2012 puts me in a much nicer position to make connections to people to form a group with than I am currently in, the way I see it.

I definitely want to join the competition, but goodness it seems like a tall task. So many moving parts.



Yes, and that's an other reason I'm not a fan of punishment/reward systems. For something to be punished, it must be encoded as a crime. Once something is encoded as a crime, people seem to do whatever they can to do the crime but get around the encodation, leading to more and more needed legislation to account for variations of crime. Systems with punishment/reward systems as relate to crime also sort of need a beef-ed up government to execute the punishments, particularly if they'd like to execute the punishments expediently

I think "consequences in the absence of hierarchal authority structures," since they seem to be more in flow of action rather than an action having to go through the bureaucracy of the punishment/reward system, can be carried out more efficiently.

Details have not been hammered out, though



It seems this relates to another of the myriad reasons I'd like to "go to 2012," somewhat.

I often wish, barring perceiving 2012 again, that I could just find myself in a new environment that's all ready "set up." I got behind on taking care of my immediate environment Christmas of 2019, and I just have not been able to catch back up. Every time I try, new things pile on. If I could just reset my space to be clean and orderly, I could then keep up with it. But as it stands, I just do not have the energy to clear up the current relationships and maintain them.

"Waking up in 2012" would serve as such a reset quite nicely. There was a lot less in my physical environment that I was responsible for at that time.




I am very good at identifying what is not benefitting me, or rather what is distracting from what does benefit me, problem is is that it's all most everything. Getting rid of all most everything is proving to be a really overwhelming task and process bc of the above. Be real nice if it could just be reinterpreted all in one go.



I've brought up Neville Goddard a few times, and it seems you've written him off as Cult of Satan propaganda. That's fine, but he does talk about "revision," which is essentially 'overwriting' memories (imagining them differently, how you'd've preferred the memory to've played out). Thus, relating to them differently. From my personal experience using that method, it does seem to change things qualitatively (the negative attitude toward me of someone I fought with disappeared after re-imagining a scenario where the fight didn't occur), but not 'quantitatively' (i.e., the fight still happened).

"Revision" seems to open up opportunities for interactions going forward but doesn't "actually change the past," so I don't know.

The second time I found myself in the past, I made a genius model shortly after. I think I've mentioned before, I'm pretty sure the genius was first. So, "actually changed the past." Honestly sort of terrifying.

At any rate, had a response to:



In sort of imagery. I don't really know how to express it in English.



This put this topic into sharp focus for me

Did the revelations.one counter reset to 90 days?

Also, RE:



Will UST start in (approximately) five years, then? If so, does that mean the new Genius is five years out?

In every system, you will likely find hierarchical authority structures if the system is meant to produce something of value. The human body follows such a structure, as does the forum that we are using now. If you fail to properly respond to a captcha your permissions can be reduced, for example, or you could be banned if your IP address while posting is within a certain range. Your brain wields more power than your spleen, which itself may wield more power than your fingernails. The presence of each part or role in a hierarchy can produce some consequence for others working within the system, or even itself.

There could also be beneficial or productive consequences, so perhaps we could add a certain kind of consequence to that definition (e.g., "negative consequences for the person performing the action"). But then we don't know if the 'negative consequence' is actually beneficial for them, even if they may dislike the punishment. I'm sure my brain must have kept the less 'authoritative' parts of my body from doing things that would not provide benefit for the entire body itself countless times.

If two things were related to equally, they would not be perceived differently. All things could be said to be perceived the same, but they are related to differently. Some things are related to more and some things are related to less. My brain relates more to every part of my body, so should have more authority and permission to 'decide' what is best. My fingernails may not relate as much, so should have less authority and permission.

My fingernails could say that such a structure isn't fair or equitable and things should just happen by themselves, but they would find it impossible to come up with a better alternative that actually works.

Problems that result are not because of hierarchical systems but of the human need to experience problems and other dramas.

How many of us would willingly read a novel where there are no problems and everyone is happy? It would be very unpopular, for it would be seen to be missing something.

People are not looking for happiness, generally-speaking. That is just what people say to make themselves feel better. They are looking for dramas just on the edge of reason and acceptability with, perhaps, some Chaos thrown in.

Without hierarchy there is no perceived difference between things. Without this, there is no perception.


Someone who has more experience in a system would be the authority over someone who does not. In an other system, perhaps the same person would have less authority and the other would have more. This is what generally works best in or out of the home.

On the one hand, we could say that the 'problem' with the world as it is today is this hierarchical system and also artificial authority. On the other hand, we could say that the problem is us and our unwillingness to choose differently, or even penalise those parts of ourselves that seek to disrupt our lives. In fact, we continue to support what is destroying us and often praise it.

And because we have resigned over our own authority and think we have little, we then look to certain kinds of "authorities" as absolute authorities, when they could not possibly be.

The artificial authority is there because we choose not to be our own authority. Again, our default is laziness, stupidity, and ignorance. We could easily build or adopt systems that would benefit us far more, but we do not. We continue to choose what doesn't really work.


Hopefully, it is easier to see the difference when we consider the value of action.

Just knowing or understanding something is meaningless without action.

These three things...

1) Give orders
2) Make decisions
3) Enforce obedience

... for the definition of authority are all about action. Give orders (to others that will perform an action), for example. One would not order someone else to understand something, but act.

You have defined 'proper authority' as more theoretical authority based on wisdom. Wisdom, in its much older sense, is ways-dom: knowing how to do something. But wisdom is meaningless without acting upon it.

That is why I have, for a very long time, considered action above all else. BUILD something, PRODUCE something, and act rather than thinking and gaining knowledge.

Gaining knowledge by itself is meaningless without its application because it needs to be relevant. Just take a look at how much 'knowledge and understanding' the average person has gained over the past 20 years and compare it with the state of the world we see today. The Cult doesn't care what people know because it is essentially meaningless. They could put all of their secrets online and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. The Cult cares only about what people are doing because doing is where real authority is at.

One is one's own authority by doing, not theorising about it.


Top-down social structures are mostly a myth made up and spread by those who seek to control. These are the same people that want you to think in terms of 'elites' when they are anything but. They do it because it is effective at getting people to give up their own authority, which increases their power over that person. If someone believes that they don't have authority (when they do) then they won't act upon it.

Again, it's all about action.

The actual structure is like this: at the top are those who have authority and are willing to act upon it, and at the bottom are those who have the same authority but are unwilling to act and, over time, lose their sense of authority and give up their permissions by default.

If 10 out of 100 people complain about the same authority, what prevents them from adopting an other system? They will make every kind of excuse and ignore the realities, but they will continue to choose the same artificial authority that they think they don't want (but they actually do).


If humans acted based on information alone rather than punishment/reward, the world would be very different, indeed.

Take a simple act like returning a shopping cart to the store that it belongs to once items have been placed in a vehicle, for which there is usually no penalty or reward for doing so. Every cart-pusher has all the information they would need to return their carts properly, but how many would actually do this if there was no penalty or reward?

Let's say we decided that about 50% of people would return carts to the store. Perhaps it is generally more or less where you are, and much more if there are sections in the parking lot itself to return them that didn't need to be there 20 years ago when we were generally more civilised. How many of these are returning carts because they don't want others to get angry at them (and possibly suffer a penalty), don't want people they know to see them being irresponsible, would like to virtue signal and have others see them doing it, don't want to hit their own vehicle on the way out, etc.? How many are returning carts not because of any potential reward or penalty, but because it is the proper thing to do?

Why doesn't everyone return their carts?

Do we get about the same percentage with more law-abiding areas with less crime than we do with more criminally-oriented areas with more crime? In both areas it is not unlawful to leave your cart wherever you want it, all parties have all the information they need, and the percentages should be about the same. We hope...

If we get as high as 10% of people not returning their carts, imagine a world where there was no potential punishment (social, legal, or otherwise) for anything else. How many of us would be harming others without some kind of law against it that goes beyond being informative, but punitive? How would we handle 10% of people being disruptive to everyone else? Only incentivise people to do good things?

There are no right answers to these questions, only attempts to find the best solutions for ever-changing systems.

Artificial government works by dangling the worst aspects of fear in front of us. Without fear artificial government is not possible. But we have chosen this because we have lost the will to govern ourselves.


It will be nice to see such a system in practice, to see how well it works.

Last Edited by The Builder on 08/14/2022 09:41 AM

It should say 87 days for everyone, but perhaps not everyone. It's just a reference, really, as it will probably be much less.


UST should also begin in less than 90 days. The new Genius will come about only through the actions of others.

The more the information is used, the more useful it will be :)

As noted:

The process of how it works is as follows:

1. Plan Actions & Experiences to identify the ‘what’ of things, then
2. Codify processes in Wisdom to identify the ‘how’ of things, then
3. Apply wisdom to broader categories in Extended Self to know the self, and
4. Reduce what is known in Understanding to identify the ‘why’ of things

Each level gets more and more focused, moving from Chaos to Order and from the endoself of your personhood to the exoself of the world around you. You would be taking the Chaos of your actions and experiences and applying order to it (the system) to determine what the processes behind things really are, then applying that wisdom to the world around you (your extended Self).

Last Edited by The Builder on 08/14/2022 09:36 AM

If I may, they would be completely ineffective if one has not all ready adopted the system in some way.

It would be like not knowing a language and someone expecting you to be moved by a monologue in it.

The reality we experience is 100% produced by the systems we build or adopt. There could be nothing outside of that.

Yes. Complete fiction. Slaves were nearly all prisoners or those against artificial government or those taken in raids. It had nothing to do with the color of one's skin. Most of the 'slaves' in the US were indentured servants working under contract (such as Benjamin Franklin, who was owned by his brother).

Weird, it says 87 days and some change on my phone but was at 90 on my laptop even after I refreshed a few times



I mean, UST is "started" now, lol. But I guess I mean the starting of choosing of systems & distributing of prize money. If that's in less than 90 days then holy cow

And ... the actions of "others" like who? Out of curiosity

It depends on whether or not people act to make it happen.

It begins the countdown from the first visit on a device. It could happen next week, depending.


States will have until the end of 2023 to try to figure out the best ways their system could work and to get others on board.

The first batch will be chosen at the end of each year, beginning in 2023.

It is whatever the people involved want it to be.

UST will be something that provides the impetus to act. The idea is to show that an other world is possible and that we need to make it happen in order for it to happen.

Anyone who would like to participate.

Oh, tricky :)



Ay, caramba that's soon

It might be because you don't want to feel that way. You, somehow, have resolved that there is more benefit to not feeling that you are in control.

There is nothing to prevent you from feeling any way that you 'want'. If you don't feel a certain way, that's up to you.

My first question would be why feeling that life is in your hands matters to you?


Life still happens regardless of whether or not one does anything about it. But if you want it to be a certain way, make plans and take action. It is usually through focused actions that we come to the understanding that we are the author of our reality and our experiences are really up to us, through our interpretation of them.

I wish to the bottom of my heart that I'd chosen a different thing to "want." Would've been so much easier. Now it has a life of it's own. Watching it grow has been something of a marvel

There are no actual things, only relationships between things that seem to be (but are not).

You could say that reality is the relationship between illusions. The illusions serve as a vehicle for reality.

Only the Absolute could be said to exist, and that is something beyond any perception. Thus, nothing truly exists.

It cannot perceive of itself directly. It perceives of itself through you and your forgetfulness/ignorance of reality.

From this forgetfulness, things seem to be. We interpret random patterns and make something out of them, but they are not actually there. They are interpretations (of the Absolute).

Between the interpretations, there are relationships. This is reality.

Reality is the relationship between interpretations (of things that do not actually exist because they cannot be perceived).

There is life, but not existence.

Hope this helps some :)

If we defined consciousness as 'the freedom to perceive what one chooses,' then only you are conscious.

Said an other way, only the Self is conscious.

Taking her to church and the grocery store and making sure that she has what she needs. I'm sure talking to her helps, too, in other ways. It also helps me to understand human nature more and what things might have been like towards the beginning of the 20th century when she was born.


No, not at all. I don't generally try to explain my point of view or opinions to others unless asked. It saves a lot of drama, to be sure. For me, it is improper in regular society and is something that the Cult pushes to break down and divide it (the push to 'express yourself', 'be yourself', 'voice your opinions', 'be heard', etc)

With others in regular society, I'm happy to just observe and ask questions. Sometimes they are saucy questions, but jovial.

Feel free to ask whatever you'd like. I might even make some of the answers clear and obvious :)

...but I really want you to do the work, not me.

I think I'd quite like to express myself ... to myself (that is, the one identified as "me"), only really. I'm attempting to get in the habit of only offering my thoughts if asked. You're right that there's much less drama that way. Not many people ask very many questions, though, so sometimes I feel that I might burst

Difficult to do especially with my significant other, but being with them isn't really "regular society" so I suppose it's okay

Edit: I do see the irony, lol

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/13/2022 03:32 AM

Builder, if you were me, in my particular situation, what question would you ask You for the purpose of making the path to what you 'want' a tish more obvious?

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/13/2022 03:38 AM

No. (You would then be the Absolute and unable to perceive of yourself.)

But 'others' are also your Self because they are only in your perspective.

Everything you build is a part of your reality. Everything in your reality is built in real-time. You might have just observed a painting. There is no need to know for whom it was built because it is all built for the same just as everything else you interpret.

You are building for your Self. That is to say, you are interpreting for your Self.


Only the Cult pushes this through their various religions in order to keep certain populations docile and unproductive. The same Cult pushes excessive activities in other populations for the same reason. Both have some benefits. If they did not, people would not adopt them.


You can either do that, or just forget that they are. At the end of the day the choice is irrelevant. There is no need to know any of this, only to live in whatever way you see fit.


Thus, a constant state of Chaos, moving from one to the next.

You are experiencing exactly how you choose to interpret reality. Build your own Chaos, then.

You know, I came up with a neuroicon for "water" and have it as HRH. But then, I realized that that fits for every liquid and every gas, by my estimation. What differentiates water from milk, or water from steam?

What do you decide to talk about with her, if you don't mind me asking?
I suppose I'm curious how you keep your understanding of the world under wraps and how does small talk form for you.
Most of existence thus far always veers conversations toward boundaries and the "larger questions" and I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good thing.



Having some simple conversation like this is surprisingly effective.

Previously you suggested that when you build a narrative, you create the characters and then meet them in real life.
Thus new relationships in the forms of other people is an effective way to "fill in" the blank parts of what you want changed.
What would you suggest if you wanted to "fill in" blanks without other characters?
It is a rather hard handicap on storytelling I'll admit.

But aren't you afraid of your storytelling going awry? The chaotic elements may cause issues that'll get you wrapped up into court or dangerous things or... you may have such a grasp where such ideas just don't make sense.
Nevertheless most of my experience in interacting with others is to not interact with others because it's an endless mound of problems.

Liability. Liability sucks. People just often are trouble, but I also acknowledge it's me writing that narrative or "accepting" that narrative. Whenever you involve yourself with others, you have to deal with all of their actions. There's never a "clean slate" unless you move away and have no digital footprint. like [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] stuff. Every interaction comes with an implicit contract between the two parties and you must be brutally frank as to whether or not you're providing value to the other entity, something like that.
Most relationships are painful because they're without purpose. People don't have a place in the hierarchy anymore, because we've all forgotten skills or specialization that matters: the cobbler, the blacksmith, the textiles and electronics.

What do you think?


My understanding here is that every breath comes attached with a new world.
And every instant "photocopy" of the world is plenty similar, otherwise we would not be able to interpret it. And if the narrative collapses, then we cease to exist, is my guess of why things appear linear, even though every moment is created and is a complete world.
If you had the know-how, would it be possible to, in the next moment, be lounging out on some island because of this real-time creation?
Is that the idea behind this "real-time" creation?
What I'm poking at is confirming the main constraint from such a reality: our logic. Making sure the chain of worlds logically fits together. Surely such a short link between these two worlds (one in your room, one at a resort) is possible, if teleportation magic made sense.

Why don't we make magic make sense in this world? It was stated that we are too divergent from magic realities due to the dominance of technology, but surely there's a way back?

The only current logical route to a lounge chair in a luxurious resort would be to pay for it and go on a plane.
Are there alternative "instantaneous" routes? IIRC there were experiments with teleporting I read.



I've bolded several of your comments and wanted to express my thanks for you writing them out.
Right now it seems I'm fighting a lot of Cult brainwashing. It makes total sense why they would advocate "expressing yourself" instead of doing things, or meditation instead of doing things - "accept your lot, but you're welcome to complain about it or to sit still until you reduce your sense of self!"
What's the merit behind enlightenment then, i.e. [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] or [link to happiness-beyond-thought.com (secure)] ?
What excessive activities are you referring to? I would imagine the usual bread and circuses amok.



Could one translate this to "Man is condemned to live with his own Chaos?"

I vaguely recall linking these items before but cannot find them in the thread at the moment.
It's one of the main things I'm confused about: on one hand, it makes sense that the whole point is to, as you said, interpret your Self through this limited lens.

But it also makes sense to expand your perception beyond that; you still have a limited lens, just larger/prettier/kaleidoscope?
Quite confused about it

The kingdom of heaven is within, as was stated

Perhaps OP can find the quote I'm referring to, but I remember a certain comment that talks about how systems that have the goal of limitless possibility are chaotic. "Limitless" is an impossibility and striving for it is thus an exercise in futility and chaos.

Edit: though you may understand your lens is all ways limited, the system(s) in questions have their own agenda, which is striving for limitlessness

Just my 2c, but a lot of spiritual content also focuses on "remembering who you are." "Remembering," in this world, is an inversion of "forgetting." The whole thing is very confused, and when we try to "remember," we're working in the opposite direction of what we think we intend to

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/13/2022 01:52 PM