Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,019 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,103,094
Pageviews Today: 1,995,187Threads Today: 879Posts Today: 15,352
10:31 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger

 
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/06/2022 09:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
I regret that I was logged out as I wrote the last post as I definitely need to edit that response concerning conception of ideas, but I hope you got my meaning lol
D
User ID: 80408635
United States
01/07/2022 10:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
If I had a Prosper for every half-baked idea Chaol has pitched on this thread I'd be rich.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80408635


A half-baked idea is much different from a "half-baked" language, the latter I was pointing out can't really exist as there's no such thing as a completely-baked language. Actually, the former doesn't really exist either, since an idea is, of itself, a preconception of something else. So, wouldn't a "completely-baked" idea be an idea that starts as a conception, such as a thought, and is seen through in action until the original conception is irrelevant?

It could be thought of that way, but where does conception start and relevance end? Following, where does an idea begin and end? The idea of a mobile phone was conceived by someone who had knowledge of computing, which was conceived of through the existence of interactions between a) manual computing and b) certain metals and other materials as well as through the b) existence of manual computing, a) having been conceived through the existence of mental computing, conceived through the existence of numbers and b) having been conceived of through the use of metal, conceived through the discovery of metal, conceived by the observation of metal in its natural state. Can go on forever in the conception direction. Can go equally as forever in the other direction. Say we replace mobile phones with direct neural interface with electronics in order to communicate. Yes, mobile phones themselves become irrelevant, but the idea of them does not in that the idea was instrumental to the development of the new technology. Ideas cannot become irrelevant, but less-focused-upon.

Of course, I'm just having fun with my own half-baked ideas here.

I'm not hating on his process, only the idea that every inaccuracy or mistake he makes is purposeful and part of a higher meaning. That kind of thinking, to me, is dangerous.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80408635


Dangerous as compared to what kind of thinking?

Of course every inaccuracy and mistake made is part of a higher meaning, to him. What that higher meaning is is irrelevant, but it's there in some form or another. One can choose to search for such higher meaning, or not. Chaol mentions that they expect to be long gone by the time neuronics has reached any kind of popularity and that they are in no rush. Our impatience or lack thereof doesn't add or detract to that, but rather should point to the idea that the concepts should be explored by us. The innacuracies of the messenger don't detract from the message, or shouldn't if one pays any attention to the art of argumentation.


On the other hand Chaol is slightly ahead of me enough in certain areas of knowledge that I have a strange competitiveness I feel with him.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80408635


Competitiveness with oneself is how one defines existence. Focusing on the competition, on the inaccuracies, on the drama is what is traded for under-standing, however. Neither is better or worse, just an equal exchange.

The issues with adjectives is the subjective preference of the intended communication. I like Blue balls and I see Blue as full of possibility, but you despise the color Blue, so you would never refer to it as a high possibility. The language allows us to communicate how each of us sees reality differently but does not help to actually communicate that the ball is Blue.

So then you need a shared adjective that you also give a subjective denotation.

The LowPossibility-LowIneraction-Blue Ball
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80408635


It only doesn't, at this point, "help to communicate that the ball is blue" because there is no definition yet for "blue." Which is why I'm asking! If you and I set a definition for blue based on an agreement for the perception of "blue," then you and I absolutely can communicate something as being blue in ec. Then so can anyone else who reads our definition. Language is, after all, an agreement on meaning.

So, to you, blue is a [color] that [is full of possibility]. Blue is a [symbol] input and [high possibility] output. Let's say your entire room is blue and you notice blue wherever you go, bringing it to [high symbol] input. So then blue, to you, is +S+P (ee).

Then let's say I do despise the color blue. I despise it because it viscerally reminds me of my mother, whith whom I used to have many terrible interactions. It is a [color] that [reminds me of my mother ...]. Because the association is visceral, I'd place that as a [high symbol] input. Because I don't often see my mother these days and don't otherwise really think about blue, I'll say it has a [low interaction] output. So blue, to me, would be +S-I (o).

Then, you and I compare notes. We can explore why we each perceive blue the ways we do. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but for the example's sake let's say that it's +S for you because it's your favorite color and you have it everywhere around you, and it's +P because it can be applied to so many representations (the ocean, the sky, eyes, flowers, calmness, peace, serenety, sadness etc. etc.). You tell me this, and I tell you the bit about my mom, and now we each have an expanded perception of blue. You can now see how blue relates to (a negative view of) interaction, and I now see how blue relates to (perhaps a more positive view of) possibility.

Because there's no standard right now, we either pick one of the two to continue communicating with each other about blue, or we make a new symbol that better reflects the combined perspective. Let's say we do the latter: we both agree that it's +S, so we keep that input. For the output, your view is more broad and likely to impact my perspective than mine is yours, so we go more towards your initial definition and settle on neutral possibility for the sake of continuing to communicate between the two of us. "Blue" is now +SP (b), for the sake of communication. You and I can still have our initial definitions, but we can now effectively communicate "blue" between the two of us. That's no different from the use of the word "blue" now: each of us generally knows that "blue" refers to the color on the spectrum between green and violet, but it means something different personally to each individual.

Once we start communicating blue as +SP between the two of us, those who read it after us will learn to associate +SP as blue in context without having to know why that symbol was chosen, and then communication of "blue" as +SP becomes standardized! Thus, our dictionary is born.

Blue as being +SP is just for example's sake, I'd personally go with S+P.

It's not that Ec can't be used to communicate, its just that it hasn't yet. We could start to, or we could focus on the seeming inconsistencies in Chaol/Maria/Tony's presentation. Neither is better or worse, just another equal exchange. It's like how reading all about the experience of diving, the good, bad, and everything in between, isn't the same as feeling the water yourself
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80635221


You ever watch the History channel show, "The curse of Oak Island"? They are digging for a hidden Templar treasure. But no matter how many holes they dig or how much they explore, if there is no Templar treasure, their efforts are in vain.

There was a previous effort made to create a shared library of words on GoogleDocs, let's say it still existed. You now have new ways to say "Blue" and other things. How is this different than The Dothraki language of Game of Thrones? How will it help you to think a "millions of times faster"?

I bet you could explore the old info from Neuonicons for decades and not really extract much use from it. That's why I say it was half-baked, all the ingredients are not present. You can keep trying to bake some bread without any flour. You say there is no better or worse. But if you are trying to make bread, not using flour WILL make it worse.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 80635221
United States
01/07/2022 12:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
You ever watch the History channel show, "The curse of Oak Island"? They are digging for a hidden Templar treasure. But no matter how many holes they dig or how much they explore, if there is no Templar treasure, their efforts are in vain.
 Quoting: D 80408635


There may or may not be "physical treasure," whether in the location they're digging or somewhere else in the world. Regardless, it very much does exist as representation in some form in the minds of those who are looking for it. Could it be less that they haven't found it and more that they prefer, all things considered, the searching?

A person who pitches a tent on the sidewalk and waits for days on the release of a 2 hour movie doesn't like movies, they like pitching tents on the sidewalk and waiting.

Searching is what lets us exist, it's an identification of "other" as opposed to "me," and the resistance (tension) between the two is what we call "reality."

As for it being in vain, maybe the real treasure is the Templars we found along the way.

There was a previous effort made to create a shared library of words on GoogleDocs, let's say it still existed. You now have new ways to say "Blue" and other things. How is this different than The Dothraki language of Game of Thrones? How will it help you to think a "millions of times faster"?

 Quoting: D 80408635


Dothraki, if developed into a language with consistent structure, would be akin to a natural language such as English or Arabic. In English, you need a whole paragraph to say:

"The meaning of 'blue' to me is deep because it represents so many things. It's the calm of the lake, the deepness of the sea, the love in my fiance's eyes, the song of the blue-jay, the scent of the bluebell, the vastness of the sky. It's the glow of neon lights in the city at night, the softness of my blue slippers, the security I feel with my mother who wore a blue robe every morning, the memory of my sister crying in the hospital room painted blue."

To get all that meaning across in other natural languages, excluding the Asian languages for this conversation because those are, relative-ly, closer to Ec than the romance languages, you'd have to translate into another paragraph, perhaps more if you want the meaning to be conserved.

With EC, the meaning is preserved with one character: +S+P

I bet you could explore the old info from Neuonicons for decades and not really extract much use from it.
 Quoting: D 80408635


It's funny you should say that because I've been using Ec—actually using it rather than worrying about how to use it—for about three days and I can tell a difference in my thinking. In the past, my thinking has been primarily verbal, "spoken" in my head in the English language. I've played around with getting myself to think non-verbally and conceptually to some great success, but then my thinking was just a mixture of verbal and conceptual. Somewhat faster than verbal, not a big difference. Now, though, I notice my thinking is becoming extremely visual and associative. I'm "figuring out" and communicating to myself ideas now in seconds that would've taken minutes if not hours of mental "chewing" before. And that's after three days, so.

The language of Ec is an associative language, it enables one to explore the connections between re-presentations that otherwise wouldn't be immediately obvious. More associations = more connections, faster. Chaol said in the original threads that "their 'dimension'" uses a language (X) similar to how we use numbers, in addition to the natural languages. It's Numbers But More, rather than being akin to natural languages. That being said, would you say that we can't communicate with numbers?

That's why I say it was half-baked, all the ingredients are not present. You can keep trying to bake some bread without any flour. You say there is no better or worse. But if you are trying to make bread, not using flour WILL make it worse.
 Quoting: D 80408635


"Baking" is just a logical narrative to get from one perspective—that of breadlessness—to another—that of breadfulness—using the perceptual structure of a kitchen, an oven, flour, water, and yeast (and all of the representation behind each, folded in). Nothing more. None of those things actually "exist," they're just the logical way to get the representation we call "bread." Which also doesn't exist. Sure can be yummy, though.

The "ingredients" to Ec are all present. Got symbols, the structure of the matrix, the possibility of use, and the interaction with the mind. We're not missing ingredients, we're hung up on the possibility (or, impossibility) of the combination.

You can stand on the edge of a lake when it's warm out and think about how to enter the water until its too cold and time to go home. You could walk in, jump in feet first, jump in head first, get a friend to push you, spin around three times and walk in backwards, walk around to the opposite bank and jump in there, scale the cliffs next to you and perform an Olympic dive (or belly flop), etc. etc. ad infinitum. All of that while missing the experience of the water around you.

And then you say you like swimming.

Perhaps Chaol made a "mistake" when giving big promises as to the use of Ec. Becoming blinded by the wonder-full prospects of time travel, teleportation, communication with or the becoming of "gods," etc. certainly can take attention away from the actual use of the concepts. When attention isn't placed on the use, the view becomes that of Chaol "failing to deliver," giving false hope, being a hack. Then again, more resistance is more relative-ity, so who can say.

The question is: to focus on the minutiae or to focus on the application? Neither is better or worse, just an other equal exchange.
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/07/2022 12:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
You can keep trying to bake some bread without any flour. You say there is no better or worse. But if you are trying to make bread, not using flour WILL make it worse.
 Quoting: D 80408635


In addition: it's not that there's no better or worse, it's that there's no objective better or worse.

Yes adding flour to water and yeast is better for the making of bread, but it is much worse for the making of yeast soup. Why would one want to make yeast soup? Who knows, but somebody probably does. Perhaps a 5 year old brewing potions. Adding flour would really muck up their needs.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 81084374
United States
01/07/2022 12:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
OH WOW WHAT A GURU!!!!!!!11111111111111111111 /s fuck off /ns
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/07/2022 12:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
OH WOW WHAT A GURU!!!!!!!11111111111111111111 /s fuck off /ns
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81084374


A bump's a bump! /ns
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 81011555
United States
01/07/2022 12:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
OH WOW WHAT A GURU!!!!!!!11111111111111111111 /s fuck off /ns
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81084374


A bump's a bump! /ns
 Quoting: Sabai_Adonais


Gotta love how easy it is to please the "slower" ones :) /s?
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/08/2022 12:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
"The meaning of 'blue' to me is deep because it represents so many things. It's the calm of the lake, the deepness of the sea, the love in my fiance's eyes, the song of the blue-jay, the scent of the bluebell, the vastness of the sky. It's the glow of neon lights in the city at night, the softness of my blue slippers, the security I feel with my mother who wore a blue robe every morning, the memory of my sister crying in the hospital room painted blue."

To get all that meaning across in other natural languages, excluding the Asian languages for this conversation because those are, relative-ly, closer to Ec than the romance languages, you'd have to translate into another paragraph, perhaps more if you want the meaning to be conserved.

With EC, the meaning is preserved with one character: +S+P
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80635221


Clarifying:

It's less that the "meaning" is preserved with the +S+P symbol, and more that the perceptual "code" is, a code that can be expanded upon to be more precise. The perceptual code behind the English paragraph takes a lot of words to communicate, and potentially just as many words when translated into other natural languages.

All of the associations in the initial paragraphs are "folded into" the "+P" aspect of the symbol, and can be unfolded to give a more precise idea of what kind of blue is trying to be communicated.

Say we're trying to communicate blue specifically as it relates to the lake (the first association).

A lake is a [body of water] that is [deep] (and has much potential both in what can be in the water and re: the following) where [people] go to do [various activities] (sailing, swimming, beach bumming, lunching, hiking, etc.) So we can use two symbols for that. I live in an area with many lakes, so they're relatively relative, so S, then +P. Then "people" are representative, but not much so, so -S and then +I for the interactions.

"Blue as relates to lakes," and the entirety of the paragraphs in English that described them, is now +S+P,S+P,-S+I. Three characters, one word, lots of information. From here, we can begin to see how "blue" relates to "hiking next to the lake." More relationships between re-presentations make it easier to navigate information.

It's similar to how #0073cf denotes blue in color coding and #5d89ba denotes silver lake blue. Without the context of coding, those numbers/letters wouldn't mean blue or be able to communicate "blue," yet they do! Ec could be given context, standardized, and be just as meaningful in regards to communication as electronic programming language(s). Ec, if interacted with, becomes the programming language of reality itself, rather than just of computers (which is how it's different to programing languages that we know of and already interact with).

Thanks for helping me explore this :)
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/11/2022 01:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Hey OP, I have a "better" understanding of how Ec is a tool of perspective, but I don't get how to apply it. I'm reading the original thread and came across this:

Also, 23047384, keep in mind that Ec is a tool of perspective.

You can translate the phrase "I took a trip to France last year" from English to Ec, which is what most of us think to do...

or you can experience a very similar perspective (i.e., that specific trip to France)

Our minds want to do a direct translation of words, but Ec allows for the experience of perspective.

A page of Ec contains more information than all the knowledge of all the libraries on Earth. Why read about something when you can experience it yourself?
 Quoting: Chaol


From my understanding (in English), ec codifies the qualia of an experience/perspective. That is, the "the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena." Conceding, of course, that the "internal" and "external" components are one and the same as opposed to one arising from another and also that qualia takes into consideration both what are and aren't considered by the "conscious" mind to be "important." (Please excuse excessive use of quotes).

Regarding my want of experiencing life as I did in 2012 (conceding both that "want" is irrelevant and "2012" doesn't actually exist), similar to the quoted example of experiencing a specific trip to France, I created an ec string of 6 characters that translates to English as "laying in bed during spring break of 2012" but attempts to focus more on the qualia of such than the words. I think that's a good string as "laying in bed..." is representative of the "want" itself of "experiencing 2012," correct? My question now is what do I do with it?

Earlier in the thread it's mentioned that, eventually, one could simply speak the ec string/equation and experience the perspective that it represents. I don't think I'm "there yet," as speaking my string hasn't done anything that I can readily tell. So how do I use it? Help would be appreciated:)
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/11/2022 03:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Also, how-come your moniker to be "The Builder" after Chaol was 'the destroyer of worlds'? Just curious as to the evolution from your perspective:)
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/12/2022 01:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger


...




Could this be it?

(continuous) - kata
(changing) - booba
 Quoting: U3


I don't think so. Somehow the numbers are a language.

For example, instead of calculating 52X351 it would just be spoken or thought, and the "answer" would come from that. And like the reverse is true, too. (Like speaking English is performing rapid calculations.)
 Quoting: Chaol


An other question! Since we're (I'm) on the topic of neuronics, have you more to expand on this, re: the number system of Ec?

When it comes go 52x351, how is each number represented in Ec? Is it (5)(2)x(3)(5)(1) [wudua]x[sunwuunu]? That seems cumbersome. How are numbers greater than 9 represented? How are (adding) (subtracting) (multiplying) (dividing) represented, assuming there might be a difference from +,-,x, and ÷, respectively? I get that the maths part itself is probably the same, so (32+6)/2=19 is still valid, but how do the numbers and processes get represented?
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
01/13/2022 04:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Regarding my want of experiencing life as I did in 2012 (conceding both that "want" is irrelevant and "2012" doesn't actually exist), similar to the quoted example of experiencing a specific trip to France, I created an ec string of 6 characters that translates to English as "laying in bed during spring break of 2012" but attempts to focus more on the qualia of such than the words. I think that's a good string as "laying in bed..." is representative of the "want" itself of "experiencing 2012," correct? My question now is what do I do with it?


 Quoting: Sabai_Adonais


A few posts/pages after the post I quoted in this ^ comment, it's expanded upon how chaol creates strings of Ec surrounding a desired representation wherein the desired representation is what is missing from the ec string. I believe the example used was a vanilla ice cream cone; an ec string is created that denotes the experience of everything but the vanilla ice cream cone, making the ice cream cone the most relative thing to "next" experience. Similar (if not, the same) to you "setting the table" mentally before communicating with Maria.

I think I get that, don't get how to do it in ec. I think I'm on the right track with the qualia thing, I think I was still too direct-translate-y with my string, and I still don't get what to do with a string. I'll chew on it some more, insight would be appreciated:)
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
02/17/2022 01:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
OP, on the revelations .one site, the IoB is talked about, including this quote:

"When the Internet of Things (IoT) connects with your body, the result is the Internet of Bodies (IoB). The Internet of Bodies (IoB) is an extension of the IoT and basically connects the human body to a network through devices that are ingested, implanted, or connected to the body in some way. Once connected, data can be exchanged, and the body and device can be remotely monitored and controlled."

Can you expand on how this is different, in effect, from the concept of the THoHT network? I get that one is "physical" and one is "metaphysical," respectively, but what are the differences to the average person who would be partaking in them? An "average person" being one relatively unaware of the deception(s) present within the framework of "this" reality. I gather that one is more balanced in Chaos and the other more balanced in Order (again, respectively), and there's the element of self-governance or lack thereof. I think I get it, just wanted your take.
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
02/17/2022 01:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Perhaps first think of why you 'need' to experience it physically rather than just metaphysically.

You could say that it needs to be metaphysical first, so maybe focus more on that.

It will, within about 3 days, make an appearance physically in some way. It will look different than it does metaphysically, so pay close attention.

 Quoting: The Builder


To re-respond to this, I 'need' to experience it physically because I miss that configuration of (physical) relationships, desperately. I know that if I 'succeed,' the actuality of the relationships won't be the same if I still have all of my "current" memories (or, most of them, I know even now I don't remember everything, nor do I feel the need to retain the minor details), but I want the representations again as I remember them, and I want the potential of 2012-2022 (1012-1022, lol) to be "open" again, so to speak. More the former, though. I miss the simplicity of that time, the confidence, the safety, the love. I can find those things in the "now," ofc, but I want them in the forms they took "then." I miss my friends, my parents, my cat, the opportunities that were available then that aren't now. I 'need' it physically because I want to be able to interact with it in a way that I'm "sure" that I'm not just making it up. I'm unsure as it is about the nature of physicality, but with metaphysical things it really feels like I'm just making it up. Ofc, the physical stuff is "made up," too, but I hope you get my meaning.

Speaking of it metaphyiscally, at this point I'm really not sure what you mean by "focus more on that": focus how? Focus on what? Imagining what I would do or say or feel if I were to "get back"? That seems to be getting me nowhere. Focusing on how the "past" relationships are re-represented in the now? I don't understand how to do that, thus I don't understand how to focus on them to 'bring them out more.'

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 05/03/2022 03:18 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82220841
Spain
02/20/2022 04:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Maybe he’s suggesting you get out of the way (by concentrating on/attempting to manipulate the physical, which takes up considerable amount of energy) and realize that everything is metaphysical to begin with. When you think of “what you want” in a metaphysical sense, it’s just letting the experience flow to you easier in physical form.

With regards to making the strings, I’d suggest following Chaol’s instructions as best as possible and don’t try to elaborate on them. Keep it simple n’ sweet.

You take vital elements of what you want to experience and make a (not overly long) string out of it using ec/neuronics.

You can’t experience something directly so it makes sense to “build up” to your desired experience by making a couple of inputs/outputs that relate to that desired experience.

These, of course are only my opinions. I hope it helps somewhat.
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
02/20/2022 06:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Maybe he’s suggesting you get out of the way (by concentrating on/attempting to manipulate the physical, which takes up considerable amount of energy) and realize that everything is metaphysical to begin with. When you think of “what you want” in a metaphysical sense, it’s just letting the experience flow to you easier in physical form.

With regards to making the strings, I’d suggest following Chaol’s instructions as best as possible and don’t try to elaborate on them. Keep it simple n’ sweet.

You take vital elements of what you want to experience and make a (not overly long) string out of it using ec/neuronics.

You can’t experience something directly so it makes sense to “build up” to your desired experience by making a couple of inputs/outputs that relate to that desired experience.

These, of course are only my opinions. I hope it helps somewhat.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


Getting out of my own way is something of a common thing I'm noticing that my perspective is "telling me," lol. It's cropping up everywhere. Trouble is, I'm not very good at that (and never have been, in the string of logic I call my past; never at the right place at the right time despite all the trying in the world). Getting out of one's own way is a common denominator between most metaphysical, "manifestation"-type ways of interpretation (in the form of "letting go," generally), there's no real good explanation of how to do that, which I get is because it's a lack of "doing," but that's an utterly foreign concept to me.

I'm very familiar with the idea that all is metaphysical, I've been heavy into Neville Goddard, nondualism, and relativism for a time now (before having come across EcSys) and got used to the ideas that imagination=reality, all is representative, and reality is subjective fairly quickly... in theory. I'm great at understanding things mechanically. Applicably? Not so much. But that's how the language of this society is set up.

I thought I got the hang of "letting go" at one point, but it seems this reality has doubled down in making itself absolutely resist-able. Makes sense, chaol once mentioned that kind of phenomenon re: world events becoming more chaotic before 'the wider world' "merges with" the DreamWorld in kind of an effort to stay relevant. Since I'm not too involved with the "wider world," it makes sense that an increase in chaos would present as being much more personal to me. That hardly makes the perceived increase in chaos more palatable, though maybe having had typed it out here has helped.

Re: ec strings, what do you think about this:

Do you think an ec string is more effective when formulating them from the perspective one wants to experience?

Take my cat, for example, who is a part of my perspective in 2012. From "here," I'd represent her as +S-I (cat), +S+P (strong emotion, I loved her a lot and was/am very sad that she's gone), +S+L (dead, death). That's dandy, but if I were to plug that into a string as wanting to "play with (+I-P, P-L) my cat in 2012," I'd get... well, playing with my dead cat, which wouldn't help to bring 2012 into perspective bc ofc she wasn't dead in 2012, nor did I make a habit of playing with dead things. The way I have represented her now still identifies her as I know her in 2022. But if I represent her as she was "in 2012," +S-I (cat), +S+P (young), +SI (friend), +I+P (love), then its much easier (energy-conserving) for my perspective to "show me" 2012 because that's much more related to it. Right? Ofc, I wouldn't have all of those icons in the total ec string for "2012," probably just +S-I (cat) and the others would be "folded into" that one icon by default since I've already defined her.

So, in fewer words, something should be represented as if you already "had it," I think, maybe.

Also, what do you think about representing things in order to "erase" them? In The Book of Secrets, it's mentioned that something has to be represented in order to become less relative, just like something has to be represented to become more relative. Like how we fold our "present" experience into memories (representations) and label them "the past." I don't totally get how the Genius/Subconscious/whatever knows how to differentiate how to make a representation more or less relative, but that's okay, it's smarter than me and that's cool.

When first learning about ec, I got it in my head (though I don't think this is stated anywhere) that "the present" conditions should be represented and then "the future" (in my case, the past, though it'd still be "future" to me since ideally I'd keep my memories. Time is fun) should be represented. The Genius/subconscious then has a "starting point" and "ending point" and can map out everything in the middle in terms of neuroicons (that are then translated into experienced events/interactions/representations/etc., or what Neville Goddard calls "the bridge of incidents). Idk that that's necessary, but I think "the present" conditions should be represented in an ec string in some form. Like, 2022 to me now would maybe be +S+I, -P+L (now), +S+L (time)*, +S+P (strong emotion). However, 2022 would be represented totally differently from the perspective of 2012. Do you think a different representation should be included in the ec string? Like, -S-I, +S+L, -P-L (condensed in the actual string, which can then be interpreted as, like, a can of coke or something in "actual experience"). Idk

Thanks for responding, responding to responses helps me think way more than just thinking by myself.

ETA: *+S+L has its pronunciation as "Time," but personally I also think the icon is a good definition of time, so I'm not just going off of the pronunciations as definitions

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 02/20/2022 06:59 PM
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
02/20/2022 07:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Question for OP pr anyone else if they have thoughts, how to structure time differently, mentally?

On the new site, the structure given for the SPIR of spacetime is relativity. We're able to orient ourselves in space and bring things closer or push them away (make them more or less relative) at will, as if moving within a 3D matrix. As it stands, we evidently cannot do this with time in the same way. The difference, I think, is that we have structure within space that allows us to move in such a way (body, legs, inner ear balance system, cars, trains, etc.). So how to give ourselves "time legs," is a good starting question. The problem with viewing time as a linear progression my entire life is that I cannot conceive of viewing it any other way. It feels like trying to see without eyes, or speak without language. It's been said in this content that time is not a thing or force but a sense, but how to structure that sense in a way that's different from linear?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82220841
Spain
02/20/2022 11:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Glad to be of some help. Hopefully, Chaol would provide you with the answers you seek. My understanding is basic at best and it works out for me when I apply it.

Everything boils down to perspective. No two perspectives will be identical, different nuances and understanding apply. I would say, for more immediate results and as a beginner, stick with the genius. Those are fun and easy to do. Have you made any yet? You can make a genius to make understanding Ecsys easier. Once you see results there, you’d probably drop Ecsys like a hot potato and focus on making more geniuses.

When I make my strings (or genius), I’m making the experience more relative. I wouldn’t think of 2022 or 2012, otherwise I’m making things more complicated than I want to. I’d think of my cat with its favourite toy chilling by the kitchen window on a rainy day (if those were the conditions of said day that I would like to recreate). Then I’d make a string out of that.

My Cat = high Symbol/ high Logic (because gorgeous beauty that I love loads)

Toy = low symbol / low interaction (just my kitty’s toy, she liked it a lot but didn’t really play too much with it. Just liked having it around)

Chilling by the window = neutral interaction / low possibility

Rainy day = low interaction/neutral logic

Make the corresponding word out of this string. Illustrate and write it down, verbalize it (following the structure outlined by Chaol). And that’s it.

By defining these parameters, I understand it as making the experience more relative to your perspective. The genius does the exact same thing but with a more hands-on approach (which is what I think you need tbh)

Somehow I am logically aware of the fact that I have a higher self. This helps me get out of the way and let my metaphysical self do the grunt work. It’s fun letting someone else do all the work. Setting the intention or focus and sticking to it also helps.

Yes, everyone says let go but how?? I think it is as easy as that. Just let it go. No thinking or obsessing about it. No mental peeking to see if you can sort it out this time. Just let it go.

I can’t remember the details of the Book of Secrets but I’m surprised it mentions to represent something to make it less relative. Chaol has always advised to make whatever you want erased irrelevant. Some of us did get stuck on how to do just that but that’s what was recommended. Representing it would be defeating the purpose of erasing it, I’d have thought.
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
02/21/2022 01:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Glad to be of some help. Hopefully, Chaol would provide you with the answers you seek. My understanding is basic at best and it works out for me when I apply it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


Could you give me some examples of this stuff working when you apply it? It's not necessary and ik this stuff isn't like copying a multiple choice test, but I like reading about it c:

Everything boils down to perspective. No two perspectives will be identical, different nuances and understanding apply. I would say, for more immediate results and as a beginner, stick with the genius. Those are fun and easy to do. Have you made any yet? You can make a genius to make understanding Ecsys easier. Once you see results there, you’d probably drop Ecsys like a hot potato and focus on making more geniuses.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


I've tried to make a few to no ends. I don't stick with the rules I set, and going into them I don't really have a clear idea of what I want to achieve/experience. One reason for this is that there's nothing "here" (in 2022) that I want, so I don't see a point in making them for practice. I know that's ridiculous, absolutely silly. Another is that I very much live in my head, so mental processes seem to appeal more even if I know I'd probably have an easier time with the Genius. I like very much thinking about things, and evidently I like very much making things more complicated than they are (such as we are wont to do, considering the whole point of existing is to forget that we're Nothing). Another is that i live with my significant other an extended family, none of whom understand any of this or want to and making/interacting with geniuses feels very vulnerable in that light. All of those reasons, and I could come up with more, but at the end of the day it's just fear. Fear that it won't work, fear that it will, but fear nonetheless.

When I make my strings (or genius), I’m making the experience more relative. I wouldn’t think of 2022 or 2012, otherwise I’m making things more complicated than I want to. I’d think of my cat with its favourite toy chilling by the kitchen window on a rainy day (if those were the conditions of said day that I would like to recreate). Then I’d make a string out of that.

My Cat = high Symbol/ high Logic (because gorgeous beauty that I love loads)

Toy = low symbol / low interaction (just my kitty’s toy, she liked it a lot but didn’t really play too much with it. Just liked having it around)

Chilling by the window = neutral interaction / low possibility

Rainy day = low interaction/neutral logic

Make the corresponding word out of this string. Illustrate and write it down, verbalize it (following the structure outlined by Chaol). And that’s it.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


We're agreeing, I just overcomplicated what I was trying to say c:

By defining these parameters, I understand it as making the experience more relative to your perspective. The genius does the exact same thing but with a more hands-on approach (which is what I think you need tbh)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


Going strictly off of how resistant I am to the Genius vs ec, the Genius probably is exactly what I need, lol

Somehow I am logically aware of the fact that I have a higher self. This helps me get out of the way and let my metaphysical self do the grunt work. It’s fun letting someone else do all the work. Setting the intention or focus and sticking to it also helps.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


The kicker for me is that I would absolutely love someone else to do the work, but also I have this staunch resolution that I have to do everything myself. Maybe I need to go back to therapy for that one, lol

Yes, everyone says let go but how?? I think it is as easy as that. Just let it go. No thinking or obsessing about it. No mental peeking to see if you can sort it out this time. Just let it go.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


In the context of western society and culture, letting go is very unnatural. Not that it's inherently unnatural, it's just a very difficult thing to switch from a work=reward mentality (which, more often than not, creates much more resistance than result) to one of being able to let go. I don't tend to think of metaphysical things in terms of the ego, but the concept of the ego well illustrates the idea that 'something (in this case the "I") fights tooth and nail because it's afraid it won't exist if it were to "let go." And we're back to fear, lol

I can’t remember the details of the Book of Secrets but I’m surprised it mentions to represent something to make it less relative. Chaol has always advised to make whatever you want erased irrelevant. Some of us did get stuck on how to do just that but that’s what was recommended. Representing it would be defeating the purpose of erasing it, I’d have thought.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82220841


I'm struggling a little bit with it, too, but I think it goes along with how Neville Goddard explains "renunciation." Renunciation, in his terms, is to remove ones attention from a thing but is different than ignoring it. How to remove attention without ignoring something? Place attention on something else. More in chaol-language, remove focus from one set of representations and focus on another. Since everything is representative, the first set is within the second set, which I think is what was meant by representing something I order to erase it. Literally, re-present it so that it no longer looks like it did. It wasn't expanded upon a whole lot in The Book of Secrets, so I'm not totally sure. I also don't think I explained NG's idea of renunciation totally faithfully, but I do think all three ideas (renunciation, making irrelevant, and representing something you'd rather not experience) are cohesive even if they don't immediately seem to be.

Thanks again for responding c:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82112984
Canada
02/22/2022 11:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Everyone wants different things at different times. My needs and wants are liable to change by the minute. I’ve used different kinds of ways to test out my tools. From the mundane to quite important events in my life. I don’t think I need to go into further detail but know that I started out somewhere at the very least ;)

You don’t know how a conversation you’re dreading is going to turn out? Make a string for what you’d like to make more relative (and hope for the best) is what I’d do if I wanted to try to “manipulate” the situation in my favour.

I have been waiting for OP to continue on his journey and see where this all leads. I’m nearly all out of popcorn. At this rate I might have to grow my own, save money and sell some. Why? —> increasing cost of corn and other commodities due to inflation.
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 79992594
United States
02/24/2022 05:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Everyone wants different things at different times. My needs and wants are liable to change by the minute. I’ve used different kinds of ways to test out my tools. From the mundane to quite important events in my life. I don’t think I need to go into further detail but know that I started out somewhere at the very least ;)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82112984


I see what you're getting at *sigh*

You don’t know how a conversation you’re dreading is going to turn out? Make a string for what you’d like to make more relative (and hope for the best) is what I’d do if I wanted to try to “manipulate” the situation in my favour.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82112984


I'll see what I can do. Pretend for a minute that "time travel" is off the table and use the Genius/Ec for things that I would want in the future (going on into 2022) as if reinterpreting the past wasn't an option. Doable enough

I have been waiting for OP to continue on his journey and see where this all leads. I’m nearly all out of popcorn. At this rate I might have to grow my own, save money and sell some. Why? —> increasing cost of corn and other commodities due to inflation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82112984


Oh boy I sure hope you started growing, bc the world stage certainly just got more interesting lmaoo
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 79992594
United States
02/24/2022 05:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Hey op, any comments on the whole Russia/Ukraine business? Are we looking at world War 3 (or, the visible portion of it as it actually started quite a while ago)? What might we expect?
SpawnX

User ID: 79630388
Japan
02/25/2022 02:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Relevant?

Search for 'DHS Insider's two reported interviews and watch the situation in Europe and Russo-China and at home.

This is all the growing irrelevance of this brand of physicality, all illustrated in a certain narrative.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 80635221
United States
02/25/2022 12:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Relevant?

Search for 'DHS Insider's two reported interviews and watch the situation in Europe and Russo-China and at home.

This is all the growing irrelevance of this brand of physicality, all illustrated in a certain narrative.

 Quoting: SpawnX


It's not war, conspiracy, government, etc. That is just what it seems like. It's really one kind of reality becoming irrelevant and being replaced by an other. The details are not as important as the meaning

Juicy. Wonder what chaol's part has been, and how the replacement will make itself evident
SpawnX

User ID: 75140854
Israel
02/25/2022 06:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Would the interview be on insider.com about DHS or published on DHS.gov news and updates. Is it already archived?

Power shift from UK – USA, and now USA – Russo-China.

Top 100 Chinese companies on us stock market. Any fellow commies onboard?
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 82284209
United States
02/25/2022 10:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Would the interview be on insider.com about DHS or published on DHS.gov news and updates. Is it already archived?

Power shift from UK – USA, and now USA – Russo-China.

Top 100 Chinese companies on us stock market. Any fellow commies onboard?
 Quoting: SpawnX


Nah, "communism" has basically zero meaning as it's been redefined so many times. China/Russia's version of communism is... not ideal imo and in the opinions of many workers in the tech sector (at least in China). Most economic systems and governments today in "this physicality" are plutocracies in costumes. The costumes appear to change, but they're still plutocracies until money as a representation is fundamentally altered.

Something that would actually be ideal for humanity is something that is, as of yet, undefined (on purpose, of course). It doesn't matter if the world is "capitalist" or "communist" if we have the same underlying framework of thinking/philosophizing/computing/living. They're basically different words for the same thing when life is viewed "on the whole" as objective and money viewed as a thing to have rather than what it is—a representation.

Even what OP talks about on his new site isn't really capitalism as we tend to conceptualize it today. It's 'capitalism-but-if-we-understood-societally-that-the-division​-between-self-and-other-is-illusory-so-theres-an-at-least-ele​mentary-sense-of-responsibility-within-the-individual-for-the​-other-rather-than-a-zero-sum-system-like-we've-been-conditio​ned-to-interpret(conditioned by ourselves, ofc).' The amount of hyphens is intentional to illustrate what I mean by "undefined."

At any rate, fundamentally different from "actual capitalism," and perhaps a successful marriage of what we idealize "capitalism" and "communism" to be.

Being on board for "this physicality's" brand of communism is being on board for "this physicality's" brand of capitalism, as they're the same thing (at a fundamental level of how people think within any system in "this physicality"). It's like how the right and the "left" in the US are the same thing and engaging with either fuels the other. We have limited the spectrum, by defining it in such a way,to a fraction of what it "actually" is and encouraged polarization to either side in order to destabilize the individual and stimulate what OP calls "chaos." That is—interaction.

In order to "get rid" of that which we don't like (be it either side), the sides must be removed and a new system must be built. If OP is correct about this being the logic by which the new physicality is making itself evident, what we will have after all is "done" will be neither capitalism or communism as we currently think of them. Both will be irrelevant
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 82284209
United States
02/26/2022 12:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
OP yer killin me w the new website
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
03/01/2022 02:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
A couple more questions for you, OP. First, what is "trust" in the schema of this brand of philosophy (for lack of a better term)? Where does it fit in? How does one know or determine who/what to trust?

It's defined in the dictionary as:

[a] firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

If everything is perception/perspective and is local, why are some things "trustworthy" and others "not"?

I am a person who, currently, does not know who or what to trust. I would say that I trust that everything is my own perception, but that seems to go beyond trust as it's just the case at hand. Apart from that, though, "trust" is not something I can seem to muster in anything. There are many "reasons" for this—which my therapist will hear about, I'm sure—but the thing is, I can't even trust that those reasons are real since everything, on the surface, is illusory. One of the biggest issues I face when attempting to apply this material is the lack of ability to trust in my Genius/subconscious/perspective/whatever as an extension of being unable to trust myself as I've done a bang-up job in both my roles as the AoC and as myself to convince myself that I'm not trustworthy.

If anything can represent anything else, though, and meaning is subjective, does that render the concept of "trust" largely, if not completely, irrelevant? Is it just not a useful way to interpret relationships? That seems sort of... bleak. What, then, is that feeling when interacting with certain people that one loves, or that feeling one gets when something "feels true"? Truth is not perceptible, ofc, so what is that feeling?

"Love" is relating to something/someone to a large degree and seeing yourself in them. "Hate" is relating to something/someone to a large degree and not seeing yourself in them. "Trust" is something completely different, you can trust anything to do anything. You trust someone you love to not harm you, or to tell you the (relative) truth, or that they generally have the best intentions toward you. You trust someone you hate to act against you as a general rule. You trust the AoC to be chaotic. You can trust the cat will tear up the carpet. But none of these things are set in stone, so what is the practicality of trust? Is there a use for this particular interpretation of a set of relationships?

A common theme in your new material is that the AoC aim, ultimately, to reduce one's trust in their own ability to self-govern. I see how that is, how the six rules of deception have been employed in my "non-local" reality, how non-linear warfare works, how thoroughly I've confused myself to the point of impotence. How does one even begin to build trust in themselves when its themselves that have been shown to be untrustworthy? I'd say one would begin by starting to see through what self-imposed deceptions there may be, but even having done that I don't understand how to do anything about it (nor do I trust that "doing anything about it" would actually do anything, lol). Should one dispense of "trust" altogether and redefine that feeling in a new way?

Apologies for rambling. Just something thats on my mind.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 46775715
United States
03/01/2022 02:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Is the messenger before or after the passenger?
Sabai_Adonais

User ID: 80635221
United States
03/01/2022 03:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Learn the True Nature of Your Reality from the Messenger
Nah, "communism" has basically zero meaning as it's been redefined so many times. China/Russia's version of communism is... not ideal imo and in the opinions of many workers in the tech sector (at least in China). Most economic systems and governments today in "this physicality" are plutocracies in costumes. The costumes appear to change, but they're still plutocracies until money as a representation is fundamentally altered.

[Snip]

 Quoting: Sabai_Adonais


Just wanted to add onto my ramblings abt communism that it relies as a social and economic model on the idea that resources are finite. If everything is perspective and perception, then resources are infinite (or as good as) and only limited by the logic applied to them.

In the past I criticized Animal Farm (as an example of anti-communism propaganda) because it seemed to convey that there will inherently and inevitably be someone, a singular entity (be it one person or a small group of people), that will rise and "actually be in charge" despote a guise of "everyone being in charge," when everywhere in nature its seen that systems are naturally (without outside influence/the introduction of "too much" chaos or order) self-sustaining and self-limiting.

I now criticize the idea of communism as an economic model because it conveys the idea that resources are finite. In a world where people are actualized more to their potential as "non-physical" beings (or beings that interact more and more with the abstract), physical resources (like food, materials) become a non-issue a) because we would no longer consume them in the same ways and b) because processes to procure/produce/distribute them would become maximally efficient. When commodities are shifted from the physical to the abstract, the idea of "finite" is completely redefined. Abstract commodities in an abstract system are self-sustaining and self-limiting, but never finite.

There not being "free-energy" in our current brand of physicality is more of a political issue than an issue of it not being possible. We as a human population produce enough food and housing in abundance for everyone, the issue lies in the systems we've set up for ourselves. I suspect things like the cure for cancer and various virii are, as well, issues of bureaucracy and politics rather than ability.

"Economics" as we know it now is politics, the management of people, using a different name. This brand of managing people tends to, currently, manage them away from self-government. Good news is, eventually we'll figure out how to self-govern (in a way also distinct from, say, anarchy) and know what not to do because the alternative has been so well-defined.





GLP