Does this site have any secret ascended mastermind geniuses of psychology? if so ....

Ah. Jung? Okay

So is that the one you’re recommending, or have you decided to ignore my request?

I’d like to say that this is an interesting response.

I read it two hours ago and continued thinking about it, offline. In the world of GLP, that’s a pretty high compliment. Perhaps the only way to be considered a psych guru is to offer the most titillating brain fodder.


It’s kind of like archeological digs. People only want to watch a dig if something cool is unearthed, like a kings burial chamber or something. But the real meat and potatoes of archeology is slow, methodical, and time consuming. Perhaps the same can be said of digging into the human psyche. Like sure, there’s some hidden gems buried deep up in there... but unless you sift through everything, ya’might toss the good stuff in the rush.

You want me to recommend something for you to read?
Okay.
[link to www.temploastral.com]

there is a paradox on glp, that I know, not everyone is aware of

No, no.

I made a specific request about a simple “readable in one sitting” book which was recommended by your father. Since you wrote about your wonder in relation to your father, I for some reason thought it would be easy for you to go down memory lane without effort to recollect a memory about a book like that.

I thought I could get a nice low-key recommendation from a dead guy who apparently knew some cool stuff, and decided it would be polite to ask for something small and probably not overly treasured.

Unless, you are telling me that the Old Testament is one such book you read in one go without interruption and then never read again, which fits the description according to the specific request?

I might’ve missed the point. Would you please clarify? As I mentioned earlier, I don’t leave my word until the work is done, and this is getting tiresome.

I’m looking for a very simple answer, here. You could even say “I don’t want to recommend/share/discuss something like that” or however you want to phrase it. That way I know how things are, and can forget about this thread.

Here is my answer: I don't remember anything.
He bought me the books I wanted without hesitation and debated me about their ideas.
But I can't remember any instance that fits your question.

Understood. Thank you for cooperating. I wish you the best of fortune in finding that which you seek. Perhaps, within a subsequent thread at some point in the coming years, an exchange of words between you and I could result in a more fruitful outcome.

If, and until then.
~

Why is it hard for you to communicate with me?
Is it because I'm abstract and you're direct?
I even wonder what your intention is in deciding our interactions can't be fruitful.
In fact, it seems like that twists the corridors before the outcome could even be intuited.

The initial 7 chakras are just the beginning here is a video on how to try to access the higher chakras beyond them..

The Secrets of Atlantis Hidden In Greece and Egypt - Manly P. Hall - Esoteric / History / Occult

I’m going to answer your questions out of order but bear with me, I think it will be more coherent that way.

I would say our interaction has been fruitful. Not quite how I might’ve hoped, but I’m not complaining. I still would like there to be even more fruitfulness, and my little right eye will scan the blue names on this message board with your username on “yes”.

This bridges into where the difficulty is. I of course have my personal preferences for the kind of content and conversation I would like to experience. However that’s merely my preference. I think our interests have been diverging since the last couple trips I’ve made through this message board.

You’re interested in something that might challenge what you’ve learned. I’m interested in what can increase my personal power. As I consume and digest, I measure the effects in the outcome. What makes me stronger, I integrate. It is only then I return to see if there are “more berries on the bush”, if that metaphor makes sense.

So there is some incompatibility for conversation. However, and I mentioned this earlier in this thread, I grew up kind of “autistic” and I am aware that I can be quite irritating, so I work hard to communicate as coherently as I can without defaulting to “hyper-literalism” which most people don’t care about, I’ve learned.

The effort required is difficult to sustain but this is also where some fruitfulness shows up, because every opportunity to practice is a chance to hone my ability to communicate adequately.

Finally, the most troublesome thing about all this for me is that I grew enmeshed in the World Wide Web. I have painstakingly extracted myself from the dependency over the years. I now treat it as a “chaos engine” (joking reference to the Improbability Drive from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy movie).

I prefer to limit my participation in Internet-situated happenings. I try to keep silent, but if I’m voicing complaints (I really wish I could say its a critique but I know I’m not quite there yet) it’s because I care enough to put the energy into the communication.

In short, we have diverging interests, my method of gauging value takes a while, I become confused when people use non-literal glossaries, my “effort budget” for internet stuff is constrained, and I am aware that I can be irritating (and since I have been unable to change it so far, I’ve learned to like being irritating because, as a wise man once said - if you are disloyal to yourself, who will be loyal to you?)

Once again, I wrote a fricken essay and walk the fine line between enjoying being myself and indulging in mild sadism.

Please tell me that this has made everything very clear. I really do care for honest feedback.

op,

have you read the book "A course in miracles"?

taken down by a Columbia professor in psychology. Helen Schucman.

You mention being interested in the depths of psychology. If you read that book, you'll either be amazed by it or you'll throw it in the garbage. Your reaction to it will gauge your position in life.

If you decide take a close look, you will want to read how it began. I believe the story will intrigue you. She, herself, was astonished.

It's the 'end all' of psychology. The end of the line. Jung was getting there, but his personal filters obscured the result.

I guess I'm going to switch hats and make some postulations. You are extremely particular with what you are trying to communicate. You prefer answers that clearly answer the specific intent of your question. And also, you are pretty careful to try and phrase things in a way where you will be interpreted correctly.

That's unusual for this site, but I can see why you find me irritating. I can create a thesis and do my best to support it concisely, but my preference is to be very broad and associative, conceptual in the abstract, and then specific depending on where the free associative process lands me in my cognitive or imaginal space.

For example, it's interesting you mention non-literal glossaries. In my Acq of Lang class, there's an important difference betweeen prescriptive and descriptive grammar. The prescriptive is the formal and that which we are educated to use, but the descriptive is more interesting to scientists because it is acquired, and evolves, simply on the basis of extended interactions. The "chaos engine" and flyby glossaries you mention are similar ideas.

So in essence it seems we are speaking of contrast versus bloom. Oh wow, that's a very unspecific metaphor. I was just editing a picture, sorry about that. Contrast sharpens the definition of the picture, but bloom gives it a bigger presence. Bloom effects sort of push out the limits of where you can say a boundary is. And this very metaphor is an example of the "pickup" glossary that you say you don't have patience for.

I don't mean any offense by this, I seriously don't, but do you have some form of aspergers?

yes/no on the book "A Course in Miracles"?

Lol, come on lady, it's like you didn't even read what I wrote. Why would I even keep talking to you at this point? And wow I thought I had communication problems.


Just..."I'll see you around" or whatever. Next time you make a thread with an interesting enough amalgamation of word choices.

Later//

I see, so your questions must be answered directly, but my comments, if they do not fit with your motivation, are offensive...

i just rolled my eyes

No, i had written a close and was ready to give your thread all the space you demand for it but since you asked I labored over your stuff

Yeah I understand it's your thread, it's your soapbox so you can get into expressing your stuff all you want.

But if you're going to ask a question that has its answer in what I wrote, and the whole point of putting in that effort in the first place is to be more efficient

kinda
like
not

"hey, i grew up on the spectrum"
and your response
"hey, so do you think it's possible you're on the spectrum?"

Really. Are you even trying to have a conversation or just looking for fodder to riff upon?

and we can keep going in circles like that

but check it out

effort in does not justify the output. I understand now why people write such half ass dismissals in your thread.

and sucks for me, actually, because before i was like tf are they like that

and now check it out

i barely give a shit anymooooooore

ahaha, well truth be told that feels fine too. life is easy like that

cheers lili or lolo or whatever

edit -- your new thread is better. kudos

This was a very educational experience. Thank you (all?) for your guidance. Not sure if that's multiple people answering along.

Finally can up my game a little, it was worth the workout.

Communication seems like it should be simple, because what you want is simple to you. You may think you're explaining it well, but sometimes people don't receive messages the way you intend. I have a very different way of thinking from you. Probably the polar opposite, so I apologize that our interaction isn't facilitating much rapport.

If you're frustrated, it might mean you care, but I couldn't really say why. It seems like you want me to give you an excuse to approve of my personality, but my sincere modality cognitively is something that I think you, very innately, do not like.

That's fine.

Yeah, quite a bit of people on GLP have taken a stance one way or the other on me, and maybe this thread was fodder for the ones who think I'm a nonce.

But let me say something else too. Communication is not only for the benefit of someone else. My soapbox as you call it, benefits me too. And if 1000 people a day call me a nonce, but just 1 says "thanks this gave me a new idea"
...

It is totally worth it :)

[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]

[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]

No i get it, you're abstract. Descriptive not prescriptive

And I'm just messing with you, because i know there's someone watching our conversation

I just wanted to see how far I could take the bit, but I put it to rest at the point where the conversation had basically become insane

I don't know what a nonce is, don't want to know, don't care what people's stances are

I come to GP for the...hm. Gotta think of an accurate, sadistic enough term for it.

Well for basically threads like this, but let me tell you a funny joke I made up.

Seriously I made it up, you're probably smart enough to like it, after you go through your abstract wave or whatever, it goes like this

"You hear that meta-joke about listening to solipsists? You heard one you've heard them all."



By the way, tell me if Im being too mean because I had a super busy day and kinda chill with the self-restraints atm

Cute :)

"someone watching"...hahaha.
I guarantee there is more than one out there
probably?
I'll basically never be able to prove it.
But what I can prove is that my daydreams and internal conversations from a few days ago exist as art on the internet right now.

it's not synchronous in time, but the idea is too weird.
the entity the girl is talking to, is the same one I was talking to.
Also, the conversation is the same.
They look alike.
But the comic strip is? Older?
I don't know if that matters....
But I truly think some people struggle deeply enough that other people pick it out of the electric field and start writing about it themselves.

[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]
[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]
[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]

okay, the details aren't perfect, but it's so close. so, so, so close.

but the part the really gets me is the guy with white hair.
THATS my entity.
The one I've talked to...forever.

I think this is convergence.
A singularity of infinite information capacity and years and years and years of history, through which, anything on the internet *could* exist, whether or not we remember it as a species.

I know shroedinger was trying to say a cat can't be neither dead nor alive, but the example I just gave IS that.
There's no limit to what *might* be online.
And, in the quantum sense, it is very possible that soon it will be created in this timeline at the same instant it becomes relevant for people to find it and make those connections.

This is a real black box.

yeah you see with writing "someone watching" i kinda had specificity in mind

but can you prove your memories were not constructed in the moment of reviewing them?

If your memory is like a bag (container) then perceptions being related to it even now could be organized into those "collective sockets" up in there

You know, kinda like archetypes, if you resonate with Jung (some people do). But it's like having your own set of buckets and other people have these buckets too

Nothing you do to your buckets affects other people's buckets

Indeed

The things you do to your memory buckets are also influenced by the shape of those buckets

You get it, right? There is no "consciousness strong enough to influence a million" or things like that, unless you're talking about Genghis Khan or Madonna or something like that.

All out in the external places of experience, where it's not just shifting psychosomatics that alter experience, you actually need to have some leverage to do stuff.

What do you think, I think I made a pretty good case here.

I didn't look at your comic while coming up with my spin of psychobananas for you

It's all rhetorical questions anyway, but I still claim my credit where I made it

.

I think I talk about this a lot, but I disagree that the world is fundementally material before it is collectively ideologically constructed. I think quantum eigenstates, entanglement, and the measurement problem are good indicators of this. We probably live in a holographic universe with additional dimensions that give new resolutions to experience.

There are some things that a person in a 2D universe, couldn't EVER CONCIEVE. What I mean is, you couldn't actually explain it to them, because since they live in a 2d universe, this would be completely impossible for them to even dream of. Our 3D world and their 2D world may both be real, but the 2D experiences have a poorer field of receptivity and influence, one where the concept of depth would be akin to a djinn for us. whereas a sentience which was say, 4d, could elegently just sidestep the time dimension and traverse it like they were holding a rubic cube, rather than being literally stuck inside the currents, they'd see the notches of the overall totality in the way of a highly dimensional fractal.

We are the flatlanders of my example. Thus, the idea that space or time are more real than the measurer, despite the fact that time is mathematically relative and the absolute position and velocity of an electron cannot be known simultaneously - these point to a different theory, that our world is more a product of a host signal called conscious experience, and the machine brain houses the fragmented awareness for whom the hologram is unraveled and appears literal.

Can a person influence a million people? Yes, because of morphogenetic fields. Rupert Sheldrake thought up this theory, and it's brilliant, despite the protestations of current dogmatists.

There has to be more than the raw information in DNA in order for, for example, a cortical neural hypercolumn to be translated from amino acid sequences to proteins with critically specific structures. In that sense, these progressions of nucleotides are simply piece 1 of a puzzle humanity thinks is fleshed out enough to radically alter biology. yet we have yet to have information about how the replication of forms is maintained between organisms based solely on protein sequences which could theoretically refer to any number of forms.

so a morphogenetic field is the postulated "memory" that guides living organisms to grow using guidelines that continue to produce the finished project. The brain has K-lines which refer to frequently accessed pathways used in the cortex, so frequently that the brain finds them highly accessible. What if I told you that space had K-lines? That this accounts for the repeating archetypes Jung noted, the symbols and myths that are universal, the structure of language with too much deep structural similarity to be communicated by direct methods?

morphogenetic fields make us sensitive too each other and provide a good mechanism through which two people could transduce the subjective states of the other. that is, a theory of mind, a theory about what someone else thinks, is a very advanced capability, and the more accurately you can access theory of mind, the better suited you will be in miraculously complex hybrid organism/sentience that is humanity. individually we are as conscious as one cell in our own body, together we are the freeway, entire continents, and the whole planet herself.

you tell me: can an idea change the world? if a butterfly can cause a hurricane, the internet is the agartha of butterflies, with its own K-lines. "VIRAL" information literally changes the entire earth in sometimes only hours. Memes and ideas transmitted in this pandora's box put clockwork Newtootian physics in a Dali-themed grave.

the climate is VERY sensitive, which is why the butterfly is part of the well known phrase overused in chaos dynamics. but if the climate is sensitive, 5 billion minds accessing the internet could have an infinite amount of behavioral reactions because of doing so. that means the "sensitivity of initial conditions" critical to chaos theory is so many magnitudes more suggestible we may not even bother comparing them because it would be pointless. people themselves, the measurers, make a clockwork universe where "an omnipotent force could theoretically predict everything if it knew every simulanteous state" - impossible. we nullify it because we are fucking erratic and invent the wrong reasons for why we do things. in fact mass hysteria is a reference to how influential archetypes can be. mass psychosis is absurd. people sharing hallucinations should be impossible, unless something like the morphogenetic field DOES exist.

theoretically, merely using the internet should be having a dramatic influence on the morphogenetic field, and collective consciousness COULD be drastically changed by an otherwise spectral cluster of ideas or feelings.

The more formally these crystallize, the more they will be iterated, and replicated. A chaos magician is simply a person who understands that on a level too deeply to explicate the way I am right now, because it's a bother.

There's even more too it, which is part of why the tenant says not to even bother to reveal a mystery. But it's fun, isn't it? Anyone who is inspired enough to have a thought because I wrote that is just as entitled to the esoteric secret schools as someone born a descendant of thelema or dee.

basically, the new age people talk about synchronicity, but they are just dipping their ankles in the arctic for all that the 3D mind can properly grasp. Synchronicity has remained a publicly discussed concept because it feels very convincing. But it sounds like pseudoscience or parapsychology merely because our scientists pseudo-comprehend what synchronicity might even imply about "deep" structure.

I will put it another way: human beings can code their entire perceptual experience and their perceptual experience, when it begins to be interpreted in a new way, will present novel stimuli to the perciever. that's because the things we see, notice, and care about actually change which somatasensory information is processed, which changes how rapidly or slowly time is experienced and what input it recieves, how little or how much, and whether an experimentee counting basketball dribbles will notice a man in a giant gorilla suit walk across the screen. to put it simply, these are all also transduction changes, electrical signal processing changes, and magnetic changes, at the same time. But my most important point with all this is the core value changing is the geometry of the consciousness measuring these values, and how it chemically interacts with its environment, especially other human beings.

we are actually chemically intuitive about other people in this way, because our interfacing with one another is metaphorically porous. we have porous interactions meaning that our conscious experiences actually penetrate into our theory of mind and daily routine. pourous is a good word. scientists speak like ideologically, our consciousness' splat into solid opaque glass and just guess about others, but that's not how it seems to work, given the notion of viral ideas and mass hallucinations.

this is not an epiphenomenal difference, the universe and our consciousness are actually encoded the same way.
the architecture of our experience, which guides the formations of crystals, helixes, arms, and particle wave entanglements and dualities, if we live in a hologram, the smallest particle of you has all of that information embedded anyway, that morphogenetics are part of the narrative experience, where we maintain constancy against a backdrop of flux.

think of it this way, the flux is actually the picture, the constancy we take as an anchor is the negative space we code through psychological learning, pruning, development, and education.

Okay I'll read that stuff but first I will need a coffee