Hello! I have been living in this world for some time now.

I came from a place also named Earth, much like this planet. There are a number of differences
between my home and yours. I thought it would be interesting to share a few things with you that are relatively common knowledge where I AM from. My
reasons for doing so will probably be more apparent in the future.
* Consciousness does not exist (but relationships do)
* Matter is gravity that has been structured
* We are not human (we are perspectives)
* When the totality of something cannot be grasped, it appears infinite.
* Space is not physical
* There is no "now" or "here", but relationships. We use a kind of language like you use numbers here. Numbers, representations of abstract concepts, were
'invented' to work more easily with the world around us. Our language is no different. If it were invented today it would probably be thought of as existing in
parallel with science. A new kind of science. This language also enables the shifting of perspective like a kind of mental technology. Some of you may find it
quite interesting. If anyone is interested in learning more please let me know. Thanks. chaol (OP)
09/02/2009 06:50 PM
To describe it farther, it's not a language used for speech and writing, like English. It's more of a language of perception. We're
completely surrounded by seen and unseen languages, representations used to transmit (and form) reality. For example, 4 letters of DNA are able to
communicate the genetic instructions for life itself. We use 26 letters of the English alphabet to understand the world around us and communicate with others.
If you can think of a sound there is probably a way to represent it in English. Similarly, where I come from we are able to represent everything in our perception
using 4 "elements". We learn about these 4 elements to understand the world around us, much the same way we also use English to do the same. Once you
determine what element something is (from your perspective), there is a simple formula you can use to learn more about it and its relationship with other
things. Because most the people where I AM from know this language we've developed in a somewhat different way. Yes, there are alternate realities.
"Possibilities" they may be called. Everything truly exists. Like I mention above, When something cannot be fully perceived, it appears infinite. Thus, every
possibility you can imagine. Our language also enables us to perceive these alternate realities, if we want. One alterate realm is this one. It is no different
that using a web browser to tunnel to a website. You could say that in our world, we have invented a type of internal browser that can transport us to other
worlds (this example for illustration purposes). You exist in multiple realms now, at every moment. You could traverse hundreds of thousands of different
possibilities in one day without knowing it. (However, most if not all of the time these worlds are quite relative to your own. It would be as though you never
left the city in which you were born. For me and others it is as easy as taking a trip from USA to Mexico, for example.) Our worlds are pretty much the same
until the time of the industrial revolution. That's about where our worlds diverge a bit. It could be as small of a difference as someone not meeting someone
else one day. That bifurcative moment "created" the kind of world in which I lived.
09/02/2009 06:59 PM
Hello! Surely... The four elements are ion, axon, chaon, elementon. (There is a 5th, but it's not used.) Each can have a numerical
value and context value. They are 1, 2, 3, 5, respectively. An ion is structure. An axon is potential energy. A chaon is interaction. An elementon is
representation. The basic formulas are:
* 1+2=3
* 2+3=5
* 5-3=2
* 3-2=1
So, for example: an ion element + an axon element = a chaon element (1+2=3) To illustrate this example, let's say that a building is an ion element
(structure; 1). The space inside the building is an axon element (potential energy; 2). So when you add these two elements together you get interactivity
(chaon; 3). You simply identify what element (of the 4) something is then you can extrapolate conjectures about its relationship with something else. You can
also add more formulas onto the result to get more detailed extrapolations. This is an example done for illustration. The system is used for the very simple as
well as the very complex. The basic formulas could be easily translated into workable For example, 3-2=1 could be translated as, "if we provide less potential
energy than our interactions require, our time perspective is reversed." (As potential energy is being structured more than it is not.) Such a model can be used
for what would be called time travel (although time is not really what is thought). The benefit of such a base system allows anyone to use it to make their own
extrapolations.
09/02/2009 10:09 PM
It can be done with the right tools. The tools are not physically-based, however. You have plenty of experience-altering tools that
you take for granted. For example, how different would have been your life experience had you not learned how to read? The tool I describe, however, has
proven much more useful than written language. Imagine how much more useful learning the language of perception (more accurately, "perspective") would be.
We also developed the internet around the same 'time'. We call it something different but the idea is the same. The BIG difference is that instead of
connecting to computer servers we connect to other worlds. So instead of Gabby going to a website to find out more information on the French Revolution for a
school project she would actually experience an aspect of the French Revolution. (Not "time travel" per se but the experience is similar.)
09/02/2009 10:17 PM
..."if we provide less potential energy than our interactions require, our time perspective is reversed." (As potential energy is being
structured more than it is not.) ... An important point about how most people in my world seem to think. What does fat have to do with time travel? Fat cells,
for example, are of the potential energy element. You could translate the above example into: "if I eat less fat than I need for my daily activities then the
ageing of my body and mind will decrease." The same concept that can make most of us lose body weight and live longer lives can power a shift of time
perspective. In this world we look at something and ignore most of what we see, thinking "that does not apply to me". In my world we can form relationships
with everything, thinking: how can I translate that into something useful to me? Helps,
09/03/2009 12:08 AM
Excellent! Then the question for you then is, What do you consider your "self"? If it is your body, then what do you do with a part of
your self when you clip your nails or cut your hair? If it is only the 'living' part of your body that you consider your self, where does your self go when you lose a
pound? What is your self when you are dreaming? "Self" by itself is a bit difficult to pin. Perhaps because the usual basic assumptions about what self is could
be expanded. If it is "awareness of my own being" as you mentioned, then what does it mean to be aware of another being?
09/03/2009 12:16 AM
Interesting! An analogy would be the kind of transportation you would use to go to medical school. There are many kinds of
transportation. Each type serves a purpose appropriate to the intention. A "time traveler" for example would be expected to use a machine to "travel through

1 of 145

time". However, no such machine is required when you're manipulating time right now. We have discovered that the the most elemental force in the universe is
perspective. We use perspective to our advantage. Here, it is taken more for granted. I sometimes go back and forth, although I spend most of my time here.
There is no 'transportation' between spaces because there is no space. Only perspective. So, we change perspective. (You do this all the time, too. Most
obvious is when you go to dream.)
09/03/2009 12:27 AM
I AM in Canada visiting my girlfriend. Right now I AM in the same physically-oriented place as you. This kind of simplifies it, as your
own family and friends probably do not exist in the same "plane" (for lack of a usefuller word) as you. However, I AM from a place most would consider quite
far. The distance is psychological. For example, if you had a "time machine" and changed to the year 1000 you would be completely disoriented because the
cognitive and physical framework is completely different. It would be much easier for you to change to 2000, for example. There are what you would call visitors
from other perspectives in your world, as well. Again the cognitive framework is completely different. So you may see them as something they're not (like a
spaceship, orb, or other form). My world is quite similar so it isn't that difficult to change perspectives. It is no different than you walking to another room.
Although a better analogy in this example would be you *suddenly* appearing in Morocco. For you there must be a gradual shift in perspective as opposed to a
sudden one. Going back to our above example, you would probably need to change to 2005, 1999, 1980, etc., *before* your perspective shifts to year 1000.
Otherwise you would see an other kind of world than that in your history books. (You would experience a world heavily influenced by your original time. So it
would be more like a really strange year 2009 rather than ~year 1000.)
09/03/2009 12:30 AM
I should be here for some time yet, I hope. This is an interesting place to be. I'm not used to such 'entertainment' as I've found here.
Quantum physics is the finger pointing the way. However, you're just as likely to find "the answers" playing video games as you would becoming a particle
physicist. Actually, I think you'd be more likely to find the answers playing video games. Allow me to explain. There are only a handful of persons who would
understand most of the precepts of quantum physics. A very small percentage of the population. "The answers" in the universe apply to everyone, not just an
infinitesimally small percentage of the population. We look to scientists for these answers because they're doing things that we don't understand. It is no
different than how (in the past) we look to the religious elite for the answers. But the answers are not found in science or religion or any one particular aspect
of the schools and politics that we have created. The answers are universal and have more to do with consciousness and perception. It is interesting to me to
see how it is assumed that cultures "obsessed" with entertainment and celebrity must be devolving. We are learning how to use our minds more abstractly
through fantasy. It doesn't matter what the fantasy is. What matters is that we are creating relationships that did not previously exist in our cognitive
framework. Our fantasies are becoming richer. These kinds of mental exercises will lead most of us into a world based on mind rather than physicality.
09/03/2009 01:03 AM
It depends on what you consider "wrong". Here's an example: Let's say that Bob discovers a new formula, but the math is off. Gyn
comes along and reworks the formula to make it more useful. (To "make it right") In my world Bob's formula is just as correct as Gyn's. In your world Bob is
wrong and should have his Nobel confiscated. You could say that the correctness of Gyn's formula is based on Bob's formula. This would be an expanded
version of "right" and "wrong". It is not that Einstein was wrong. Einstein was completely right for the time. If Einstein made public a more accurate group of
theories, then this world would be very different. What if you wen to year 1905 with physics from the year 2005 to show them what was right? Changes need to
be introduced gradually. Besides, no one would have the framework to understand most of what you're talking about (even with the maths).
09/03/2009 01:16 AM
It sure seems like we're living, doesn't it? This is a whole bag of chips I don't want to open. But think about this: if you take away
your senses, would you still be alive? Or, does a fetus think it is dying when her mother is giving birth to her? Or, did parts of "you" die yesterday? Last year?
Or, if you shut your television off is it still receiving signals? Life and death is mostly a matter of perspective. We exist, perhaps, to form relationships (of all
kinds). Not that existence has a purpose but more of a design. But perhaps you're talking about life on Earth. "Earth" is just what you happen to call this
collection of relationships. You will always call it something, no matter what your experience. And it would seem like the only home you have.
09/03/2009 01:54 AM
>>>>>The answers are universal and have more to do with consciousness and perception.<<<<< Too bad. It is not all that
entertaining because you stated that there is no consciousness and no perception with the senses. Still there is the mind, so if there were no sensors to pick
up signals, then still there would be the mind, and that would still dictate that there was life, but then it would be wholly a different perspective on life then.
Well, I will give you over to some other people perhaps, that may be interested in what you state, not that I AM not, but well, frankly, I think you may find
that a lot of people have no inkling of what you are claiming because they have no perception developed to deal with it. To them it may be entertaining, but
really, I hope you know you ought to get paid for whatever it is that you are selling, these other people will be difficult to convince. I still may think that the
Universe is filled with egos though out of humans being that humans are unto themselves in this Universe, although to some, other intelligent life must exist
in this Universe. I see where these other people claim that humans are not really as intelligent as what some of these so-called more intelligent people claim.
Physicists I don't think claim anything like that yet, they simply state they do not know according to what they find in particle accelerators except to never
know. The structure of the Universe, without humans, is what they claim. Well, perhaps some of the other people who like this type of conversation will have
more interesting questions for you (afterall they usually are on another forum, and well, perhaps some questions will come out of them. Good luck!
09/03/2009 02:24 AM
Too bad. It is not all that entertaining because you stated that there is no consciousness and no perception with the senses. Still
there is the mind, so if there were no sensors to pick up signals, then still there would be the mind, and that would still dictate that there was life, but then it
would be wholly a different perspective on life then... It was that consciousness is more about relationships between things than being fully aware of
something. One cannot be fully aware of anything. Consciousness is more of an illusion of the senses. There is only "mind" and "senses" when one considers
the influence of physically-based thinking. It is not as easy to illustrate this when we're attached to the meaning of the words, having no others available. It's
all about perspective. Within perspective you could say there is consciousness, mind, senses, etc. But it is not the same as what we're used to.
09/03/2009 02:34 AM
Electricity generation is more about politics here than technology. There is so much that has been developed already that you don't
see. The best, most efficient methods capture energy from the air. Some of this comes from the heavens, some from our cells You could convert sound, gamma
rays, and other as-yet-undiscovered waves all you want but if you don't find a new way to cultivate a culture that does not care so much about endless profits
then it will be all for naught. Is there a difference? Practically-speaking, matter is gravity. Attraction and repulsion. "mind over matter" is done even now, as
you type. The question is, How do you do it? Perspective.
09/03/2009 02:39 AM
Other sciences could take a hint from computer science. Today we have specialists who spend lengthy hours writing code. Their
program (hopefully) performs the desired result. Tomorrow we have people who write what they want. Quickly and efficiently. "Natural language" programming

2 of 145

is the future of your computer sciences. Instead of a *specialist* spending hours writing in a language few understand, we will have *anyone* communicating
in their own language. The ability for anyone being able to perform an activity that only a specialist could before has a transformative effect on society. We
take these for granted, but there are countless instances in our history where you simply could not do the simplest of things without much trouble. (Imagine
having to fill out a form and get approval every time you wanted to use a computer and only IF you had the proper authority THEN you could use it.) Why not
extend this evolution to all sciences?
09/03/2009 03:27 AM
One's perspective is endlessly flexible. However, we usually keep within a certain 'range' that is comfortable for us. Changing your
perspective is as simple as changing the representations that make up your world. It is like asking ourselves every moment, "What is my world?". We usually
decide our world is the one we're used to. The idea, then, is to get out of your perceptual comfort zone. For example, if you were to tape a magnet to your
hand for 3 weeks you would feel strange at first but after some time the magnet would become a part of you. You have thus expanded your perspective and
would be able to sense more electromagnetic energies than you did before. You could probably even navigate via your internal sense of cardinal points. This is
because you would have a new sense of what represents you. We create representations to 'define' our self all the time. It is this group of representations that
create the world you see. (Ecsys defines consciousness as the relationship between representations.) So, very basically and practically-speaking: 1) find
something that represents what it is you want to experience 2) interact with it 3) find something that better represents it 4) repeat As I previously mentioned,
someone from year 2000 cannot just appear in year 1000 and expect to experience much. They must first change their 'internal' representations for things.
Because when they go to year 1000 everything is completely different and beyond what they'd expect. They could: 1) gradually change their perspective to
continuously embody new representations 2) intensely study the years 700-1200 (for example) so that they develop the internal flexibility to conceptualize
what it means to perceive year 1000
09/03/2009 03:54 AM
When this is developed it is most likely more open where anyone could modify it. It would be the same as if you modified a coworker's document. Usually a bit more formal English, as casual English can be very vague. However, one's personal programming is adapted to your context.
Most of the rich world would then have a Meaningful device that interprets your 'instructions'. So you could take someone else's instructions but it may not work
well until it learns more about you. Similar to neural net programming, I suppose. Except that each module competes for your attention and learns from the
other modules. So for example if you had two modules and weren't using one the system would make improvements to itself and then present itself (with
permission) in a portal module that you do use. The more attention you give to it the more it knows what you like. The whole system is not just typing out
documents but is a more involved process and integrated with your daily life. For example, you would call up this module as easily as you would a friend, to
"talk" to it and add to it.
09/03/2009 04:15 AM
I'm a part of this world so thus interact accordingly, visiting websites, sipping drinks, and walking about. I've not before been on this
forum so AM curious as to why my posting ID is lower than most others. It is possible that other perspectives of mine have visited before. But I'm pretty sure I
would know about it (kind of similar to knowing what your sister would do in a situation, except the sense is more vast). My visit is entirely casual. Me visiting
this world for a while would be like you visiting a website and staying a while. I first learned about it just exploring around. Then I got comfortable and decided
to stay longer. The way it works is a bit tricky to explain without the right words. But try to imagine that, once you appear somewhere you were always there
to begin with. To answer your question, my visit does not have anything to do with what you mentioned, not to say that such a shift or dimension exists.
extradimensional template crea
09/03/2009 04:22 AM
Just about yesterday I was talking to my friend and telling him that we lack the real technology that will make all our today boons
obsolete. I was high and telling him that the world is in reality a manifold that has converged in many points in such a way that they became self-aware. And
they are able to behold this great manifold and so there is existance. I speculated that due to the nature of termodynamics we are living in the world of most
probable things. For example it could happen that you just fly up into the air but the probability for that is low, so we walk on earth. All our since is trying to
use those very probable things to make some less probable events more probable. Rocket science isn't easy. I advanced that instead we should use some
other kind of technology that would interact with probabilities flux and change it to our needs. This way we wouldn't need to create complex things but just
change the observers perspective into seeing things as it is required. Now I found your thread and I AM amazed at how close our ideas are.
09/03/2009 04:25 AM
I say that the scientific method cannot be tested scientifically because the foundations of the method rest upon assumptions
independent from experience. As someone has put it better than myself: "..there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific
method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for
elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.." The nature of something cannot be
observed independently of the observation (as it really is). There will always be "perception" of something, even if you are perceiving something through an
apparatus. Math is the only science that does not need to be based on reality. The other sciences, the natural sciences, do need to be based on reality.
Today's science does not test its core assumptions. Because that would mean the end of science as we know it. Why would it want to kill itself?
09/03/2009 04:29 AM
Prime numbers are just a display of symmetry. I suppose kind of like the mathematical difference between squiggly lines and a
square. You can use the square to create useful things like tables, whereas setting your drink on a squiggly would be more amusing. Fibonacci is also
interesting as has its own symmetry that you don't readily see. For example, if you take any fibonacci number and multiply it by "123" the result is a number
that has a difference from another fibonacci number of a fibonacci number. For example, the 26th fibonacci number is 121,393. Multiply that by 123 to get
14,931,339. Take the 36th fibonacci number (26th+10) and subtract it from 14,931,339 and you get 987, which is the 16th fibonacci number. (or, the 20th place
number X 123 - 30th place number = 10th place number) I won't get into prime numbers here. The squares are "too useful" for those who want to create other
things besides pretty tables.
09/03/2009 04:50 AM
...the world is in reality a manifold that has converged in many points in such a way that they became self-aware. And they are able
to behold this great manifold and so there is existance. I speculated that due to the nature of termodynamics we are living in the world of most probable
things. For example it could happen that you just fly up into the air but the probability for that is low, so we walk on earth.... Quite interesting! That must be
some good stuff you're smoking. Yes, we are experiencing not only the most probable things but the most relative things. This dictates that (no matter what
probability we're experiencing) we always experience the most relative. So in each world you experience what is most relative. In this way, previous or future
experiences change in real-time just as seemingly present ones do.

3 of 145

09/03/2009 05:00 AM
Interesting, but not quite satisfactory, answer. This is a good thread, and it seems worth a serious answeer. Are you sure that
"scientifically test" the scientific method makes sense? It is a phylosofical principle and its only possible test is "if it works". About the "assumptions
independent from experience", you quote that text (author?) that seems to refer more to the way many perceive science as a kind of faith - which includes a lot
of scientists, but far, very far from all of them. A true, open minded scientist doesn't assume that reality is "absolutely" objective and consistent (not written in
the text but implied, otherwise the phrase doesn't make sense), but that it is "relatively" so in a limited slice of time and space; such a person accepts the
possibility of evolution and changes. The same applies to "perceive the reality accurately", that in reality is only a process of improving approximations, quite
conscious of the possibilities of errors. Not very shaky, I would say, A (decreasing) little, yes, but with the full knowledge that it is so. After those remarks, you
still think that "Today's science does not test its core assumptions .. "? that seems a partisan judgement, more on the plane of chemtrails or zero-point
folklore. I appreciate the quotes in "alternate universe", that could be only of the mind, you never explicitly state that is is physical; acceptintG the game,
when did you "arrive in this reality". An exact answer (YEAR) would be highly appreciated. Thanks to you
09/03/2009 01:38 PM
To answer your question, I believe that the apparent separations are the way perspectives work. Thus, that there is no center.
("Center" would be more of a physically-based concept. Where is the center of an idea, for example? There is no exact source of the idea, or origin, when you're
talking about things on this 'level') This is a big question that can be answered in several ways. Although it may appear that we 'forget' about our relationship
to the whole we do not actually. The whole, so to speak, is contained in its parts. It's not the we are connected or disconnected. The concept of connection or
disconnection (in the most absolute way) is irrelevant. It would be like asking a chair for its mobile phone number.
09/03/2009 01:40 PM
Only the same answer comes out on really what to do, and all they will state is that firing those people are what to do. What? So
they can continue to go on and seek all their glory and fame and money from others who follow them. I seek no one to follow me, but the entire situation, is
handed over to them - the ones who claim they are not killing theirselves off of this planet like the rest of the radical muslims. Anyone can say and speak
anything except now they want to continue to discount it as to what they all are doing? The only relationship to have with these type of people is to make
computers so intelligent that it explains to these people forever, that computers are the only thing that their Acts and Speech is going to end up with. The rest
of us a long time ago decided we were the ones who wanted relationships, they will never convince us that they want one. They only want to control, and they
are not humans in the normal sense of the word. Well, go on with your way of thinking I guess in the future. You may just have to end up just talking to your
computer.
09/03/2009 01:42 PM
This is exactly what I have tried to explain to my ex-wife...who is trapped in her own negetive reality...some people are like a black
hole...once they get to a certain point they can't see thier way out of it...very very sad...and there is NOTHING you can do for them at that point...you can only
hope and pray they come across a realization themselves....[snip] There are a couple of ways to think about this. You can think that she exists outside of your
perspective, or you can think she exists within your perspective. I would extend the latter to include the idea that your perspective is wholly your own. You
cannot see beyond your own perception and, thus, what you perceive is as much You are your arm. However, your true essence cannot be perceived. These are
all just representations of something else. The wave collapses because it is not necessary at the time. And vice versa. It would be like you called for a taxi
from two different companies, Wave Cabs and Taxi Party. One showed up first, and the other became redundant. However, both companies are owned by the
same entity. (Waves and particles are essentially the same, in a sense. So the taxi that arrives first is more based on your location, or perspective.)
09/03/2009 01:54 PM
Everything that exists has corresponding representations. Thus, everything is represented by something. Each representation has a
relationship with the others, in some way. In your dream you still have representations, of course. However, the thing that must be remembered is that
relationships can change as the representations do. For example, in your dream state it may be that you are melding together different parts of educational
concepts. However, when you awake and try to remember it you may, instead, remember that you were cleaning a large brown table. Your representations vary
according to your perspective. When you awake you have new representations of memory and self (like body, brain, eyes, your room, etc.) so therefore the
relationships you have are translated into a way that makes sense for you. (Although the dream may not make sense to you, it could be a perfect translation
into your waking reality.) Lastly, I don't know anything about the other concepts or names that you speak of.
09/03/2009 01:59 PM
me again, the german guy what you are saying reminds me of the seth books published by jane roberts. is there a connection? Well,
don't let me bore you with even more details because it would get pretty ugly as to perspective then tracing further back on this worldline. Of course, the "Back
to the Future" movies go somewhat into some of really what was happening when they are in the '50's as to what was developing at the time. But then
perhaps you won't be talking to really stupid people here on this forum. Well, that is what I think that they really may be, because if you find fault with them,
they always will find fault with the other person first. I just think that as having a relationship with these people they ought to remind theirselves of what it
was that they were doing in the Past, not telling us all the time what they did not do. They continue for the most part to do nothing but explain how they
ought to get paid for it anyway, and being greedy, and selfish, even more then people can afford in this Country. We are in a War - because other people
attacked this Nation. Well, back to the current discussion on relationships and perspective - I hope someday my computer can do that also. That would really
be something, luckily they are not the ones who are going to program a computer any time soon. They will state that they have a brain and a perception and a
consciousness and will continue to do so, even if you continue to tell them or any of us perhaps - differently. Well, continue on with the website, hope it is up
soon. Continue on!
09/03/2009 02:10 PM
I suppose the first test of the scientific method would be to test to see whether the assumptions about it are true. Can we accurately
perceive reality, for example? Science knows that we cannot, yet it goes about its business as though we can. "Does it work?" is another kind of paradox.
Anything can work if you make it. You could say that the world is flat then build up evidence to support it. I also heard that Captain Mavis' ship disappeared
(so, therefore, it must have falled off the Earth and our theory is sound). I AM not mocking science. I do respect its usefulness. But what can be understood by
science is that the mind plays cognitive tricks. We can find or make up supporting evidence for anything if we wanted (because we tend to ignore things that
do not fit with our beliefs). Time marches on, and there will be new methods that appropriately suit the understanding of the time. I may not have been
referring to "true, open-minded scientists" but the scientific method itself which, although having proved itself very useful, is becoming more out of tune.
Regarding the other, are there not scientific "facts"? It would seem that the process of improving approximations is forgotten about if the clock ticks long
enough. "Today's science does not test its core assumptions .. "? is something I need to think about more. It could be that I AM mistaken, as there is all
manner of science being performed. Some of what we talk about is based more on the nomenclature and that I tend to group things together (or not be able to
verbalize some things) for ease of conversation. The "alternate universe" is as physical as this world is. I wouldn't call it another universe, however. There is
but one. It's a difficult question to answer (when did you arrive in this reality) as 'bits and pieces' of us arrive and leave countless realities all the time. Let me

4 of 145

answer the question in a different way. I first became thirsty or hungry in this world in the year 2001.
09/03/2009 02:13 PM
[snip] The relationships that I AM referring to are not the human drama kind of relationships. They're the relationships between
representations. It could be three of your fingers, or your white t-shirt with a bowl of cereal, or anything at all. Human drama includes many kinds of
relationships, not just 1. If there are two people there could be an untold amount of representations for them, each having its own kind of relationship. Again,
the relationships are not about human drama so terms like "control", "wrecking the relationship", "avoid", "step on my consciousness", "slaves", etc., do not
apply. When you consider that pretty much everything is a matter of perspective, those concepts are not really thought about.
09/03/2009 02:31 PM
(snip) But then perhaps you won't be talking to really stupid people here on this forum. Well, that is what I think that they really
may be, because if you find fault with them, they always will find fault with the other person first. (snip) From one perspective we could say "humans are
getting more stupid". From another we could say "humans are becoming more intelligent". What we're seeing now, generally, is a massive shift of what
intelligence means. For example, a teacher could say that her students are becoming more illiterate because they text on their mobiles so much. Another
teacher could say that his students are actually becoming more literate, just not in the same way that the old measuring rod can attest. Humans are actually
becoming *more* intelligent, though not in a way that is immediately obvious. By the way, the website is already up. Just search for "ecsys"
09/03/2009 02:59 PM
Following up! It might not be said that one controls or does not control perception. The concept of control is not really compatible
with it. The key here is, again, relationships. Practically-speaking, this means that if you are looking at an apple and want to see an orange there is more to
changing the perception than averting your gaze. You must change the relationships. There are other relationships you may not see. Like the relationship of
the apple to the table on which it rests. A table that has certain meaning to you. Or the meaning of the apple, bound with a certain aspect of your personality.
Some people intepret the relationships that they can't see as "it was meant to happen" or " it was not meant to happen". There is no fate, in that respect.
There are just relationships that you're not paying attention to. You may be bound to perceive the apple for years because the other relationships in your life
dictate it. It is not that they have control over what you experience. It is just that you are probably not aware of the myraid of connections it has with other
things. It could be as small of a thing as the necklace you've been wearing for 13 years enables every car you buy to have mechanical problems. Or it could be
that you don't like men who remind you of your father because of obvious reasons. Or that the name "Gertrude" causes your daughter to have certain
experiences. Change the representations and you change your experience.
09/03/2009 03:51 PM
I was just going to say the same thing. I AM practising hermetics at the moment. "most relative" sounded to me like "most focused
upon". I believe hermetics to be on the correct path. You are just a hermetic (coupled with a couple of ideas from theoretical physics) who is pretending to be a
time traveler. Good effort. I'm fairly impressed. I don't have your complete knowledge. Hermetics practise intentional focus too. This includes much later
multidimensional consciousness. I AM only at the beginning of the practise but I experienced my first split of consciousness and it is quite freaky and cool at
the same time. It only lasted 30 seconds or so. Apparently one is able to experience not just 2 lives simultaneously, but thousands and more. When practising
Franz Bardon's work, I have already noticed things that would seem like hallucinations, such as when paying for a train ticket I was 100% certain the price said
9.90 Euro on the machine. I mean 100%. I looked at for several seconds and was cursing how expensive it was (short journey). Then I cursed and went out the
paying screen. I went back in straight away and the price was 7.10 Euro. I'm not joking. It kind of freaks you out. There was zero ambiguity in this. I was 110%
certain. There have been a few instances like this. This sounds like what the last poster described as "emotion with vision". my little rant
09/03/2009 06:34 PM
I believe hermetics to be on the correct path. You are just a hermetic (coupled with a couple of ideas from theoretical physics) who is
pretending to be a time traveler... Any path could be said to be just as 'correct' as any other. This is because there is no 'final desination'. I'm not sure what a
hermetic is. I'll have to learn about it more. Apparently one is able to experience not just 2 lives simultaneously, but thousands and more... Perhaps it is more
an an inclusiveness. For example, your left hand could say that it was momentarily aware of "an alternate hand" (your right hand, from your perspective). The
experience would, indeed, be quite strange to it. "How is this possible?", it may think. The hand did not create this consciousness, it was already there. The
hand just became aware of a relationship that exists. There are many kinds of consciousness 'within' our own bodily consciousness. Hundreds of trillions of
cells, for example, each with its own. If one very intuitive cell were to become much more aware of the nature of its existence then it could feel that it is part
of a brain, for example. If it expanded farther it could experience what it would be like to be you. At that time you could say there would be no difference
between your experience and its expanded experience.
09/03/2009 07:17 PM
Pretty much the same as always happens. The same patterns seem to repeat throughout history. (Symmetry) The shift that you seem
to be referring to is mostly a shift in consciousness. The same kind of shift happens every few years. For example, 2000, 1991, 1982, 1973, etc., and so on
every 9 years. Larger shifts occur in larger amounts of "time". Again, symmetry. We interpret these internal shifts as external shifts in our environment. There's
not really much difference. It's a way for us to understand what is going on with ourselves. If you were in the year 0 and were telling someone about the future
you would have to use the terms appropriate to the time. There would be much information you would need to leave out because they would not have the
conceptual framework to understand what it is you are saying. For example, instead of telling them about how many people are on the planet in 2,000 years
you would just say that the village has expanded greatly and the lights they are so familiar with have diminished and moved the the top of the world. The sky
is a lot different during the time of the Maya. But we usually interpret ancient artifacts using current vision and miss the point.
09/03/2009 07:48 PM
I like this thread. Here's some thoughts on the nature of matter, from "Seth Speaks": "The nature of matter itself is not understood.
You perceive it at a certain "stage." Using your terms now and speaking as simply as possible, there are other forms of matter beyond those you see. These
forms are quite real and vivid, quite "physical," to those who react to that particular sphere of activity. In terms of probabilities, therefore, you choose certain
acts, unconsciously transform these into physical events or objects, and then perceive them. But those unchosen events also go out from you and are projected
into these other forms. Now the behavior of atoms and molecules is involved here, for again these are only present within your universe during certain stages.
Their activity is perceived only during the range of particular vibratory rhythms. When your scientists examine them for example, they do not examine the
nature, say, of an atom. They only explore the characteristics of an atom as it acts or shows itself within your system. Its greater reality completely escapes
them. You understand that there are spectrums of light. So are there spectrums of matter. Your system of physical reality is not dense in comparison with
some others. The dimensions that you give to physical matter barely begin to hint at the varieties of dimensions possible."
09/03/2009 09:07 PM
Even though I have done the same as another poster and checked the op's user id.. There is something here that intrigues me to
know ends. The way Op writes is different from the past posts so, im going to give credit where credit is due. First off I would like to thank you on a

5 of 145

monumentus thread, you are courteous, you do not seem in any way a loony and the way you explain everything seems...well...sort of right. It takes me back
to when I was in uni and tried magic mushrooms for the first time. Its hard to explain because like you said my whole perspective shifted. I saw us not as
physical beings, but has light all drawn together. Each light is drawn to another light at certain times in its life span, to help, hinder or whatever. The way I
saw it though I have never been able to experience again, im just wondering if the shrooms managed to shift the way I saw this world at that point in time.
The earth was also not a physical entity but it seemed to be a collection or consciousness, Im probably babbling but what you have said here has seriously
sparked a memory. Thanks again and even if you arnt legit, I think people could very much so learn from you.
09/03/2009 09:21 PM
Well, perhaps you are just going round and round not changing any perspective. Anyway to apologize there are good people in the
world, but then there are also the Jihadis Janis! (we we also). Just in this area, perhaps get rid of the anti-socials. They continue to lie and cheat and claim
things that never were while they need their Services cut off. This we are the world stuff has to stop from them. According to them they are not in the world,
but still, they exist. Too bad they think like they do. But then I AM trying to move on, except they keep coming around wherever other people may be. They
allow no Peace in the sense that they are just too far gone. Except to me they have taken over the world and now it is really gone.
09/04/2009 12:47 AM
(snip)...How does one consciously alter perspectives? That is when you are not in the dream state. There's no easy way to explain it,
but it can be done by changing representations. Representations surround you. Everything you see is a representation of something else. So, you could say that
by doing something different with a representation you are changing the relationship and, thus, the resultant perspective. For example, let's say you were
living in poor conditions and wanted to move into a nicer place. Take a look at the representations around you. What things do you perceive (through all of your
5 senses + your thoughts) that make you feel as though the conditions were not suitable? It could be that you live in a poor neighborhood with lots of
boarded-up homes. Your house is somewhat dilapidated and there is little hot water. But for now let's focus on your immediate environment, like your bedroom
or where you spend most of your time in the house. It could be that you have a broken handle on your bedroom door, an unsightly hole in the wall in the
hallway, and old stairs. There are many more conditions about your house, of course, but let's keep ourselves to these three. Each of these three would
represent the conditions you find yourself in. (They form a sort of consciousness.) Your experience is not so much "because" you lost your job several years ago
and have a family to support, but is more because you have allowed the representations to interact more and more over time and do so within your
environment. It is more about the relationships you have in the now (and here) than in the past (or there). Maybe you remember the handle wasn't always
broken. But when it broke you didn't care to fix it. This broken handle then began to interact with the other representations in the house making the complete
picture seem more undesirable. (The broken handle slowly breaks its surroundings, so to speak.) You would begin to change your perspective by making the
representations appropriate to the an other state (say, a better living environment). Changing the representations (fixing the handle, taking care of the hole
and the stairs) may not seem like the way to get you out of the house, but it is. [Here's where English gets a bit tricky.. bear with me in the illustration] When
the relationships change you experience this change over time. You transition from one state to another much the same way you don't just appear in a dream
but you transition by preparing for bed, putting on certain clothes or laying in a certain place, etc. It is possible to realize you are dreaming now (and we
sometimes do, momentarily) but it is not something in our cognitive framework. You don't just go from one state to another. It's shocking. You need a logical
transition. So, even though a relationship may change more or less instantly it may take some time for you to perceive of the change in your physicallyoriented environment. (For many people here, this relationship transition period is about 2-3 months I think.) It is not necessary to change your thoughts so
much. Many of your thoughts have 'externalizations' that you can see. Changing a thought could be as easy as doing something physical. In the big scheme of
things, there is little difference. (Do realize, however, that what is most relative to you is closest to you and your experience. Your body is most relative as are
your thoughts. It is your close experience. But changing something else may trigger a new kind of relationship which may allow you, eventually, to perceive the
kind of things you want.) Sometimes we make the mistake of resisting the things around us. This usualy doesn't work because you can't just "push a cup
away". The cup is more than what you see. The cup could very much be tied to other things that you see or don't see. A ready example would be Susan trying
to leave a man that she knows isn't good for her. It is not as easy as physically leaving until she has changed more of the other relationships that she can't
see, as well.
09/04/2009 01:56 AM
If person1 changed her perspective to person2, then she would be person2. Perspectives cannot be combined. It would then be a new
perspective. (It's more squared than added, though there's not any words I can put the concept into.) Neither would there then be an "accepted upon reality",
as perspective goes out in all directions. (This is an extreme oversimplification of something for lack of a better way to express it.) We can't "see" beyond our
own perspective. The moment we do it becomes another perspective. The reality is the perspective. (It could be said that the entity is a perspective, as there
is nothing else that defines the entity or its individuality other than perspective.)
09/04/2009 02:07 AM
You don't need to explain it to me chaol. I understand it. Also, I already understand the philosophers point of view of "correct" or
"up" or "down" or any position of relativity. When I said "correct" in that context I mean it is a path to where I would like to go (destination or intention). In
that regard, it is "correct". I focus on where I would like to go. This is like a cool philosphy class. I'd given up ("not focused upon anymore" - to translate for
you chaol) on theoretical "how the universe" works. Now, it's much more important for me how to practically use these principles. Franz Bardon has some good
stuff. I'm a novice at hermetics, but I heard there are other ways. Also, the other posters "emotion with vision" sounds spot on. I wonder if the effect would be
more intense if more than one person did it. Mmmm. There are books on that I think. Didn't Noel Edmunds (Brit tv presenter) write something similar but
without the emotion? I think emotion is the missing link though. Good one. Your practical suggestion is to make up a new word for an experience with no word
in English. I'll try that, in fact I just did . "Danga" will be my new word for a feeling that doesn't come very often these days (at all) but was one which I often
had when I was 19,20,21. A feeling of excited optimism, but much more than that. I can't describe it, so it will be called Danga. I'm not sure how that will
change my perception. Your other method of being most relative to something similar to what you desire and then being relative to something more similar and
so on. Could you give me an example? If I took a material example, say a BMW, but didn't have the money I would want to make myself most relative to a
BMW. Would I change jobs and work in a BMW garage? Would I browse BMW brochures and dream? Would I get a ride a lot from a friend who had one etc.?
Would I concentrate on having one and feel the seats and imagine what it was like to have one? (That last bit sounds like emotion). That also sounds like
"emotion with vision". I don't want a BMW, by the way. But it is just an example.
09/04/2009 04:58 AM
Weirdly, I understand that. I occasionally remember how I thought and felt (perception) 10 to 15 years ago. I don't remember all my
thoughts and feelings that made up my entire being, just as now I AM not completely conscious of all my thoughts and feelings (but thanks to Franz Bardon, I
AM more so). I didn't go "multi-dimensional" though because I thought of this lol. I also know it's not your own theory. Others have said these things before.
It's an intellectual understanding. It isn't enough. Going back to Bardon, he says that one needs to develop the mind or intellect (spirit), body (physical)and
emotions (soul). It makes one a better person. I like it anyway. It's a lifetime practice though. I like Chaol's theory of fixing the door handle etc. I understand

6 of 145

that too. I've heard these theories before, but chaol has put his perspective on it that is fresh. I like that. Oh, about gravity being matter structured. I read
about that too. For a more accurate description, read "ether and it's vortices" by Karl Friedrich Krafft. Great intellectual read. Matter isn't gravity, but matter is
the ether going round in circles. The ether isn't gravity, but can result in gravity depending on the relationship between the etheric circles. All these are
intellectual concepts and don't really help us here and now, well not that I AM aware ;) he he.
09/04/2009 05:18 AM
The language is a kind of slang or jargon that complements our use of spoken language. It could be compared to how traders on
exchange floors mix English with their own technical jargon. Not everyone "speaks" it though. Yes, it is thought to shift perspectives. Or to figure something
out. Or to assist in decision-making. You can think of it like a mental equation, a key, that enables you to see the doorway into another world. Perhaps no
different than using English in your mind to form thoughts and make decisions, etc. A lot of it, however, depends on context. What may be one interpretation
to one person may be totally different to another. So we are not free from disagreements, politics, wars, and such. Though not nearly the kind that is had here.
Yes, our music is different. But I think because of two main reasons. One is that it is much more integrated into our lives. Soundwise it is similar to the
laptops here that may make a sound when you start up the operating system, open a program, or receive a message. For us, this music is everywhere. When I
would sit in my chair the chair would sing for a few moments. Turning on the cold water sounds different than turning on the warm water. Our walls and doors
make sounds depending on certain conditions. But more importantly music (as well as games) is a medium for education. Students can easily create music
based on what it is they want to learn if there is not already a 'song' for it. Here is just seems that music is for entertainment. Its uses will probably be
extended in your future. Two, there's not so much of an emphasis on profit, so there is had a much more wide variety of music from which to chose. The more
you listen to a piece the more there is an automatic demand for that type of music. So others create the music for what you would call money. The pieces tend
to be much longer than a few minutes and don't necessarily include rhyming lyrics as much. We use more narratives.
09/04/2009 05:26 AM
(snip)...Also, the other posters "emotion with vision" sounds spot on. I wonder if the effect would be more intense if more than one
person did it. Not exactly. What you need are representations that mirror your intent. So if those people are representations of your intent then the effect
would be more intense. Mmmm. There are books on that I think. Didn't Noel Edmunds (Brit tv presenter) write something similar but without the emotion? I
think emotion is the missing link though. Good one. Excellent! Use it from now on your normal verbiage and you will increase your interaction with such
experiences. I don't know about Noel Edmunds, though. In this example, it may be more effective to interact with a representation of the BMW. It could be
that you go the dealer and purchase a BMW t-shirt or other item. The more that representation interacts with the other aspects of your reality (the other
representation) the more you are bringing further representations of it into your experience. One of those 'further representations' could be the car itself. This
is an oversimplification, as there are many relationships involved. The ecsys model, when used properly, can help you to map out such relationships.
09/04/2009 05:37 AM
That's why I want to share what I call ecsys, because any of the complex concepts can be translated into simple ones. Although the
concepts can be complicated for some (most?) to understand, it is wished that they are presented as simply as possible in the same way that the language
exhibits simplicity. This world has a kind of "more" sickness. More complex, more profits, more technology, etc. What is not yet realized is how much can be
done with simplicity. For example, instead of tech companies coming out with a mobile phone that has a battery life of several months and only the features
that I would use, I can only get a phone with a very short battery life and lots of features I will never used and a size that isn't really convenient. There is a lot
of talk here about wasting resources but not really much is known about the true waste of resource efficiency, human capacity, and lack of transparency.
09/04/2009 05:43 AM
I AM aware of this already, but I don't think I AM as aware as you (a different perspective perhaps, he he). The medical field is a
prime example of this which is too long to go into here. Your mobile phone example is good. The reason for that is profit, but I think the rabbit hole goes
deeper. I think the banking system and fractional reserve lending is the main culprit. Everybody needs to make more money to keep the money system going,
so to speak. In the Western world (with the rest following suit) it's all about how much money you have in your bank account. If you are poor, you are a failure,
that kind of representation. I had a sort of mild transcendental experience whilst in the tropics on holiday smoking a cigar. It was like an inner dialogue where
that topic came up much clearer. I could feel it as well as understand it. It was as if I was starting to understand someone else's perspective looking in, if that
makes sense. Of course, the experience went and I was back in my old reality. It's kind of like all Western ambitions being material, that would perhaps sum it
up. No tribal belonging, too much individualism, a lack of expressive bonding, that sort of thing. It felt like a heart trap. Sorry about ranting away about my
experiences. Probably not interesting to most here. That's another thing I will be "working on", to stop talking as much about myself. Self-betterment and all
that.
09/04/2009 09:40 AM
(snip...) Your mobile phone example is good. The reason for that is profit, but I think the rabbit hole goes deeper. I think the banking
system and fractional reserve lending is the main culprit. Everybody needs to make more money to keep the money system going, so to speak. In the Western
world (with the rest following suit) it's all about how much money you have in your bank account. If you are poor, you are a failure, that kind of
representation.... I think the sickness is not so much greed but the confusion of what physicality is. For the last few thousand years humans have been used to
thinking that physical resources are limited. We naturally tend to think that we will not be able to form relationships (and, thus, exist) if we do not have these
physical resources, land, etc. This "more, more, more" is a survival instinct. It's a sickness only in respect of not being able to link the physical with the nonphysical (yet). Other, non-physical entities have their own survival instinct appropriate to their surroundings. It's kind of like all Western ambitions being
material, that would perhaps sum it up. No tribal belonging, too much individualism, a lack of expressive bonding, that sort of thing. It felt like a heart trap...
It's all for good reason, I assure you. It's not as bad as may be thought. Perhaps there is no real "materiality". Non-physical things can also be thought of as
material because there is not really any difference between the two compositions. They're all just representations, even "spiritual". No, I don't know of any
meditation. If we do not do something all the time I suppose it would be special, like mental Christmas. (snip..)It works! I remembered another feeling; one of
burning joyish feeling in the middle of my chest. I have called that "Zime", a bit of a spin off of sublime I suppose. The more I've spoken about it the more I
AM feeling it, surreal. I'm feeling right now! This is the feeling I have gotten in the past when I was being very creative, in fact, a little type of poem writing
has resulted. (snip...) And so! We now have an idea of where our reality comes from. It's very much based on these familiar and unfamiliar languages we use.
Excellent. Eureka! That's about right :) The concept doesn't make sense to me. It's like "synergy". I just understand it in a different way.
09/04/2009 02:06 PM
At no other group of times, for the past few thousand years, have we been able to create something of value out of thin air. Now we
have digital things that others can interact with. This non-physical world was not precently extant. This is leading to the "non-physical" universe. But, again,
the composition will be the same as there is only the idea of physicality. So, rather, more non-physical things. Eventually, self. (One day you will all be able to
access the "metaphysical internet", as your distant relatives in my world do.) We look at one "shape" and call it physicality. It "sounds" different from the other
shapes, which could be the ultraphysical, metaphysical, etc. But really we make these distinctions because we're not able to perceive without a shape of some

7 of 145

sort.
09/04/2009 05:23 PM
There are, of course, different kinds of fat. We all know this. Hopefully I don't want to state anything too obvious. We can go into
details all we want but, as another poster has kindly reminded us, this website is for entertainment purposes. It is not a technical nor scientific reference, nor
a mirror of Wikipedia. Hopefully scientist's answers did not start out superficially, providing but older science to break through. "Deeper research" is good, but
let us not forget the origin of the universe is neither scientific nor superficial. We can challenge one-another to think differently. There is a place for everything
in the universe. Read this forum to be entertained, if you don't get anything else out of it. Although I'm not a good joke-teller, some of you may think that
what I AM proposing is worthy of a good laugh. I actually don't mind. I would probably think the same. By the way, most of our (your) sciences began as
"magic". It's roots, not ecsys, are very superstitial. Of course there are very few magicians today. Hopefully much less than scientists. Science has evolved its
technical thinking. But have we evolved our thinking of ourselves?
09/04/2009 05:32 PM
Everything already has a tune. We can attach an 'amplifier' to anything and integrate this with other technology so that a door, for
example, makes a particular sound or tune depending on the level of noise behind it, who is knocking, the time of day, etc. It is a sound that can be heard by
anyone. Yes, I AM human. Like anyone else here. Many of us work from home or in what you would call office buildings. The buildings are not that of a
particular company, however. We have a worldwide 'stock exchange' that everyone can participate in to earn an income. (It is not an exchange of companies'
stocks or of indices, however.) Our entire economy and public infrastructure is supported using this system. Private industry has their own proprietary systems
which are similar in function. I AM working on getting my girlfriend and some things over to my world for a kind of holiday. It will take some time. For example,
I can take my laptop if I carry it around for several months. It would then work in the other world for some time, weeks perhaps. I have actually received phone
calls from this world once when I was in the other world. I know it sounds pretty strange. If you insist :) Good theory, though.
09/04/2009 05:49 PM
To change your reality you would make changes to the representations in it. Your perspective (or, "consciousness" if you will) comes
about from the all the relationships combined from your particular vantage point, you could say. Yes, it would be gradual. What we are experiencing with time
is not an absolute chronological progression but a kind of psychological (or cognitive) progression. We experience that which is most relative to us. Sometimes
it's called past sometimes it's called future. When something is distant from our immediate relationships we call it "way over there" or "past". Perspective is
automatic and a result of the relationships of the representations. Think of a "relationship" (as the term is here used) in the following example: You have two
opposing magnets. Each magnet is a representation. The repulsive force betwee the two magnets is PERSPECTIVE. Otherwise known as consciousness. The
consciousness comes about because of the relationship between the two representations. Now imagine that one magnet is you and the other magnet is an
apple pie. The more you interact with this other representation the more "you+apple pie" consciousness you are creating. The result will be another
consciousness (maybe you adding more fat to your body). The result is the 'square' of the you and apple pie representations.
09/04/2009 06:00 PM
Science would be wise to not make the mistake in thinking that if something is simple it cannot be complicated. The most useful
things in the sciences are simple at their core. Carbon and hydrogen come to mind. Their is no limit to complexity, I assure you. Things can go on forever. How
many quarks does it take to screw in a light bulb? But I think where science (and civilization) will truly advance is where the universe is made more simple and
easy to understand for everyone. It is much easier to make things complicated than to make things more simple, don't you think? (Same for human
relationships as to the universe.) Discovering complexity simply requires time and energy. Discovering simplicity probably requires more of the scientific method
(and more logical reasoning) than anything else. Of course the scientific elite don't want simplicity. It would take away their power.
09/04/2009 06:04 PM
A 'wish' is also a representation, though not really a good one. It is much more effective to draw a picture of the house you want
than to 'wish' for it incessantly. You're not really creating any new representation, just repeating a word in the English dictionary. Everything exists. But the
question would be "how does it exist in my reality?" If you want something physical, then create a physical representation of it close to your physicality. In the
example a few pages back, I mentioned that you could create a sense of magnetic energies by placing a magnet in your hand for a few weeks. Placing the
same magnet on the table next to you would take years if at all. Make your representations appropriate to what it is you "want". Thanks for listening :)
09/04/2009 06:25 PM
Some of you may be wondering, "Well, how I alter my universe?" Allow me to illustrate the way I do this by first explaining how
*you* do this already. [This is Part 1. A little something before I may go.] When you drift off into sleep you are altering your perspective. It may seem as
though your conscious mind is changing from being awake to being asleep, from A state to B state. Let's exemplify this and say your 'bodily perspective' is like
a car, the 2009 Consciousness X. You may think you are driving this car across one state to an other, transitioning steadily off into sleep. What happens,
instead, is that at the moment you're driving the Consciousness X and decide to go to Sleepyland you jump out of the car and into another car, the
Consciousness XI. This car is on a different path, towards Sleepyland and all the wonderful magic it offers. Amazingly, when you decide to jump out you notice
the Consciousness X is still driving! That's because a car must always have a driver. A perspective (the car) and consciousness is the same thing. So the
Consciousness X continues down its path of bodily awareness while the Consciousness XI goes in another direction. Every possibility exists. Why? Because the
'goal' of existence is to create relationships with everything. The more relationships there are, the more consciousness there is. The more consciousness there
is the fuller its perspective and the "closer" it is to perceiving the entirety of itself (although there is no distance, only perspective, and perceiving itself fully is
impossible). (We experience those possibilities which are most relative to our experience. If you choose door A instead of door B your perspective will
experience door A but another perspective will experience door B. You don't remember door B because it is no longer relative to your experience. The possibility
of feeling the handle of door A and walking through it *is* most relative, so that is what you experience. Make door B relative and you can experience that,
too. You might call this being psychic. But it's just using perspective.) You still have all of your senses (plus thought) in your Consciousness X. All of your
devices and wiring still works just as a car should. In actuality, Consciousness X is *not* in the dream state. This means that you are *not* in another state of
mind when you are sleeping. Technically, you are *always* in Consciousness X. You can expand your idea of what you consider "you" to include other
perspectives. You do this already when you say that you had a dream. It was your dream, right? But when you momentarily perceive another perspective in
your waking reality you usually don't say that you were back 20 years ago standing in your kitchen (result: a particular smell "suddenly" coming to you). You
just say you had a vivid memory of some past event. But in reality, you've experienced another you. (And made it relative to your waking experience so that
you can remember it. You can do this by creating representations for the dream events, or vice versa.) We can experience these perspectives all the time. We
just have to make it relative to our current experience. We make the dreaming perspective relative to our waking experience by coming up with a structure
(sleeping patterns), having representations of sleep (bed, sheets, closed eyes, etc), potential energy (thoughts), and interacting with those elements. We
sleep, in effect, because we have established a model for sleep. It is about the same method that I use. Except the different way that we use it in my world
enables us to have different perspectives. We have models for shifting our perspective of time, models for shifting our perspective of the world we live in, and

8 of 145

others. I AM here in what I call an alternate universe (though it is really the same universe) and experiencing your world *because* I have a model for it. There
was a time in humanity that our perspective was only dreaming. There was a time that we had no dreams to remember. Some of us have never remembered a
dream at all. In your future you will also have the same "model for experiencing alternate realms" that I AM using. Imagine traveling to a remote,
undiscovered, civilization in the jungles of Peru and finding out that they are unable to dream. You tell them how you are able to lay down, close your eyes and
shift your perspective, experiencing just about anything you can imagine. You explain to them that it's not magic. They just need to follow the same model and
change their cognitive framework to include such things. They'd definitely think you're nuts and wouldn't even begin to be able to understand how it's possible,
but it sure does sound fascinating. But it's what you're doing already. The only difference is that where I come from we've learned how to 1) make our waking
experience relative to the place we want to go. Mainly so that we can both remember it and use the same kind of perspecitve when we get there (ie., take our
mind with us); and 2) decide where we want to go.
You've not learned #1 and #2 because you don't have the proper tool. This tool that we use is Ecsys. When you are dreaming and the dream suddenly
transitions to another, the first dream continues on about its path. You don't experience this because your have only 1 perspective. (You can expand your
perspective to experience both realms the same way you've expanded your perspecitve to include all your bodily realms, but that's perhaps another post).
Similarly, when you begin the dream you'll notice the dream has already begun. It was there in full before you were aware of it. That's because although you
have shifted your perspective to it, it was already a world of its own. And so here I AM in your world. Everything was here already. But I have shifted my
perspective. I live in 2009, but I live in a different world. So what does it mean that you remember that you went to sleep? It is the memory of you jumping
out of the car and being able to track the other car on the GPS. Although you don't really remember your dream from the dream perspective (as the two cars
took different paths and you didn't see what you could have seen in Consciousness XI) you can see the map of your experience. Your GPS has different
software, and allows you to see representations of the other car and location on its screen. When you look at the map and view the route Conscious XI took,
you call it your "dream". You remember something about it because the car is the same model and year. You see other cars on the road but you tend to ignore
them and only remember seeing cars that were exactly like yours. You remember and perceive that which is relative to you. (The same way your senses/brain
ignore greater than 99% of your current reality.) You may be thinking that your dream is just a dream. Of course you do because the perspecitves are different.
(Is that other 1% of your reality that you ignore also a dream?) When you are dreaming how invalid do you think your dreams are? They are in fact so real that
you seem to dream for hours. Some of us don't even want to wake up! But your dream world isn't the same kind of physically-oriented world as you know it.
Some dreams are physical, indeed (but on a different wavelength of what would be called physicality). They may even have an effect on your sleeping body.
Some dreams are not physical at all. But all dreams are real. And all reality does not exist in your dreams. But dreams are a way for you to shift your
perspective. I get to your world not by dreaming but by being very much awake, using the language of ecsys. One day, too, you will "dream while waking" the
same way you "think deeply while waking", which is not something humanity has always been able to do. No, this would not be a hallucination that overloads
the already-strained senses. It will be your expanded perspective. Part 2 will explain how you can use ecsys to do the same thing. (In the example above,
notice how I created representions for the concepts using metaphors. The metaphors allowed you to, hopefully, perceive the concepts more clearly. This is what
ecsys does. By creating representations you can perceive. By manipulating the relationships you can change your perspective.)
09/05/2009 02:33 PM
I have to say Chaol, you are very very bright. I thought I was bright on the metaphysical, but man, you blow me away. (curse
relativity lol). You keep upping the ante! I also like your idea of people wanting lots of material things as they think they need it to form relationships. That is
a new way of saying people are too attached to material things, or that it is material things which define people. For me, myself, the ideal way to defining
myself at the moment is the emotional aspect. What are my negative traits and how can I transfer them into positive ones, e.g., if I AM arrogant, how can I
become humble. Do you see? However, I think the banking system is how it is as a means of control rather than greed. If you control the money, you control
the world. (Not that they are in control too much at the moment lol). Nice, very good. Philosophy was the privilege of the bright thinkers. Science the privilege
of a small group too. The question is always how can we use their knowledge in a practical way. Maybe new age stuff and hermetics can help on the practical
side of metaphysics. This is also where perhaps you come in. Science on the other hand is trickier. Perhaps the internet is the answer. There are websites
which let people know the latest findings on health issues for example. They are far from complete however. I know from certain medical conferences and
personal contacts that amazing information which would blow the public away is not available to them, mostly due to the medical industry. The causes of
modern chronic diseases is known to me, but not the public. Also, if we had the inclination we could also be our own mad scientist. I AM still in the conundrum
of your science opinion. I agree that science relies on assumptions, however, I still see it as the best method we have at the moment for discovering truth. For
example, I would like to know what is good for my body and what is bad. I would like to know if something is a poison or something detoxifies my body. What
affect do mercury fillings have on the body of a chimpanzee for example. Are they good for me or bad? I agree though that science fails in the "God" question.
Of course it would. Are you aware of your life back in your world, is your perception completely focused on one "life", or can you perceive two or more lives
simultaneously? It's the latter which happened to me while practising hermetics. It has not happened since. I hope it happens again and that I AM much
braver. This question goes on the assumption that you are genuine, which I reserve my judgement. Also, I also read in a new age book that the completion of
the universe is that all matter knows itself. This means that you have to be aware of everything all at once, not just transfer your focus from one experience to
another. I do not understand that. Is it that I AM creating more apple pie or that I AM transferring my focus to the world where apple pie is more common? And
if emotion is the relationship between representation, which emotion is best to realise more of the representation? (You can see I'm searching for practical
applications) Discovering simplicity probably requires more of the scientific method (and more logical reasoning) than anything else. Kind of yes (your
perspective). In my opinion, it's not necessarily simplicity that is their enemy but brand new concepts full stop. I'm sure quantum theory is more complex than
relativity but it took till the old men in power died before it became accepted. I love the theory of the electric universe. The community hasn't accepted it
because they have invested in more theories to explain the anomalies that keep cropping up with their current model. They are way too deep to admit their
premise is wrong at this stage. Just to clarify, in my opinion, it is not power in the sense of ego, but power in the sense of career. Nobody gets to a high career
position by rocking the system. Lastly, I'm looking for more practical things from you. Your website ecsys is still way too intellectual. There have been
countless very bright 18 to 22 year olds who have great intellectual theories. This doesn't help us though. It just oozes narcissism. Chaol, what you need to do
is have a set of practical instructions that work. Have a stage 1 through to 10 for initiates to practice every day. As initiates see results, they will continue.
Explaining theory is of little use to anyone really. Initiation into Hermetics by Franz Bardon is exactly what I have described. You wouldn't have to pretend to
be from an alternate universe (even if you were). Just say these are the steps to having control over your reality and to explore others. You will not need to
give yourself authority (by pretending to be from an alternate universe or channeling aliens or an arch angel etc.) as you will have it when the system proves
itself. Do you see what I mean?
09/06/2009 03:40 AM
I don't actually think there's something wrong with being attached to material things. I see it as pretty much the same thing as
anything non-physical. To me it's just interesting when people forget about the connection between the physical and non-physical. The physical isn't really
"physical" at all, is it? Perhaps one reality is as valid as another. Of course, at this point the cliche would be that positive and negative are a matter of

9 of 145

perspective. Whatever works for oneself, I suppose. All possibilities (should) exist. The bankers are very much in control of the banking situation. Even much
moreso than before. All is not what it seems on the surface. "Follow the money," it is said. (snip...)I AM still in the conundrum of your science opinion. I agree
that science relies on assumptions, however, I still see it as the best method we have at the moment for discovering truth. For example, I would like to know
what is good for my body and what is bad. I would like to know if something is a poison or something detoxifies my body. What affect do mercury fillings have
on the body of a chimpanzee for example. Are they good for me or bad?... Time will tell. I'm still not sure why modern science assumes that the truth can be
discovered. Something does not have to be true in order to be useful. Notice what is "good" and "bad" for your body changes constantly? There is a lot of
information and "news" that does not approach truth at all. It's often political and profit-motivated. Perhaps a focus on practical, useful matters rather than
truth-seeking would be more fruitful. I perceive one consciousness only. However, one consciousness can include many sub-consciousnesses much like the
relationship you have with your own body. This question seems to presume that emotions exist apart from the perspective. In an emotional way, a
representation comes about from simply interacting with your emotions. If you wish to form an 'angry' representation then just interact with anger, for
example. (But the representation is not angry itself, of course.) Yes. But you've also said that science is "...the best method we have at the moment for
discovering truth", so I suppose there are pros and cons. I don't believe I AM able to be more practical than I have already. But surely you jest about the
narcissism. Perhaps you're talking about the "Why Should I Listen to a High-School Dropout?" section of the website. I encourage you to re-read it again. You
may find it more balanced upon second glance. But shall we examine the post to which I AM responding in the same light? I wouldn't want to. I'd rather talk
about ideas. I AM more limited in the way of practicality and humility to some, perhaps. Hopefully I have been fair and thoughtful of others in my posts. But I
try to be aware of my limitations. Hopefully although that one section may not help you, the other sections may. Thank you kindly.
09/06/2009 05:38 AM
Perhaps none is in control. The concept of control is irrelevant outside of physically-oriented experience. The idea could be to create
your life, not to control it. When you work against something (controlling something) then you're actually focusing on it more. So, pushing against something
could actually make it stronger. Stop pushing. I personally don't believe in souls or higher self, or fate. Check page 5 (16th post, about mid-way up) for
comments I've made about fate and changing your situation. Can I ask a question about the relationships you are "caught in"? Are you pushing them away from
you? Do you feel you are resisting them (because you may not want them)? It's far from a prison planet. There's actually lots of freedom in this experience. But
of course we don't have anything else to compare it to. Our perceptions change all the time. We all do it. All of the time. The cliche would be, "What we see
outside is a representation of what is inside." But it's true. If your question can be paraphrased as, "Why don't other people change their perceptions to an
ideal?", then why is the assumption that an ideal is something that society says is good? Can an ideal situation be something that is "bad"? Ponder this
thought for your entertainment: "There is no one else. There is only you. There is only your perception of everything." Try these things:
1) Don't resist what you perceive or your experiences
2) Represent what you want. (And interact with it)
...and then you will begin to feel as though you have more control of your reality. When we concern ourself with changing only ourself, then we know what the
universe is. There is no need to change anything besides what you feel yourself to be. Thank you :)
09/06/2009 05:51 AM
Seth wants to tell you that we are basically system explorers or system breakers: "You may think of your soul or entity - though only
briefly and for the sake of this analogy - as some conscious and living, divinely inspired computer who programs its own existences and lifetimes. But this
computer is so highly endowed with creativity that each of the various personalities it programs spring into consciousness and song, and in turn create realities
that may have been undreamed of by the computer itself. Each such personality, however, comes with a built-in idea of the reality in which it will operate, and
its mental equipment is highly tailored to meet very specialized environments. It has full freedom, but it must operate within the context of existence to which
it has been programmed. Within the personality, however, in the most secret recesses, is the condensed knowledge that resides in the computer as a whole. I
must emphasize that I AM not saying that the soul or entity is a computer, but only asking you to look at the matter in this light in order to make several
points clear. Each personality has within it the ability not only to gain a new type of existence in the environment - in your case in physical reality - but to add
creatively to the very quality of its own consciousness, and in so doing to work its way through the specialized system, breaking the barriers of reality as it
knows it. Now, there is a purpose in all this that will also be discussed later. I mention this whole subject here, however, because I want you to see that your
environment is not real in the terms that you imagine it to be. When you are born, then, you are already "conditioned" to perceive reality in a particular
manner, and to interpret experience in a very limited but intense range." -Seth Speaks
09/07/2009 04:55 AM
Thanks for the reply! Im going to react to some of these responses.. Okay, but I happen to be in the physical, so control is not
irrelevant. Yeah.. pretty much all the bad things in the world today. I dont want any of that. Ive given up TV because its all bad/spun news. I dont read
newspapers, magazines, etc. I prefer sites with the real news, GLP discussion, happynews, and NPR. So I make an effort to push out of my life all the incoming
data/current events that I perceive as evil/negative, because well, I dont want to give my energy to thinking about negative things, and in doing so I feel my
life is better in withdrawing from the media. Problem is, those negative issues out there still occur despite my narcissism and living under a rock. So yeah I
resist these things. You're telling me I should rather just allow the bad news in and not care either way? This would only work if I was a child and didn't know
right from wrong, and thus could pass no judgment automatically. Okay. This is big. So, really, I AM the only real sentient thing in my reality, and everything
else in the entire universe is a creation of my mind? Sounds like I AM someone plugged into a gigantic virtual reality machine for a lifetime run. Wow, so
lonely, playing with myself, I might as well kill off my avatar in this pointless game so I can jack out and see what the real world is. Tap the programmer god
sitting in the middle of the room and say, dude this is BS. The Matrix? But are there other people also in these machines, and this is a shared virtual reality?
Because I find it hard to believe that I just change my perceptions and everyone else will agree. There's rules when we start this gig, a starting framework. You
cant explain what you get when you're born. So.. Im the only one, eh? Who are you? I made you up? If I believe 100% that you're my higher self/unconscious
desires manifest trying to get me to learn, you will say yes? Yes you will. Heck I've been wanting for years to talk to my higher self. You seem to fit the bill..
super intelligent.. all the right answers. THIS should be interesting.. fitting that the medium be a computer, as my career has been in computers most of my
life. :) Its all in my mind. God is a fiction, morality is invented, and I could just throw care to the wind and go out on a rampage, give myself powers, etc. True,
I'd have to live with myself. But if my perception is that I truly didn't care because its all virtual reality anyway, then what does it matter. The outside is the
inside.. well there must be alot of conflict inside of me for there to be so many horrible wars out there. And if I figure out how to cleanse myself of all the
things inside me that I dont want to manifest in the world, and change my mental point of view, I could live in utopia. Okay, hard to swallow, screams of
narcissism. Its a pretty concept, but I'd have to unlearn a lifetime of programming. Got any pointers there? Sadly, a brick to the head seems the easiest way to
fully change my perception.. or a sensory deprivation tank.. (Any of your other manifestations of my perception can chime in too. :)
09/10/2009 12:03 AM
Good related article here [link to www.witchvox.com] From the conventional perspective, nothing could seem more mundane than
clutter clearing. But to me, its the most powerful of all magical acts. This is because the external mirrors the internal and the internal mirrors the external. In

10 of 145

other words, your belongings and/or surroundings reflect very important aspects of your life experience. And so, from a magical perspective, when we let go of
the old and make room for the new on a physical level, we are literally letting go of the old and making room for the new on every other level: spiritual,
emotional, financial, etc. When our closets hold only clothes that make us feel beautiful, we begin to feel beautiful. When our bookshelves hold only books we
love and want to read again, we feel clear and open to new ideas and information. When we clear clutter, we are disrupting the negative cycles of our lives and
creating positive ones. Everything begins to work better and feel easier. Letting go of what we dont want also helps us to gain clarity on what we do want.
And we create the space for it to appear. From a magical perspective, everything you own is attached to you with a cord of energy. This is because you have a
relationship with it. You have to do things for it like take care of it, clean it, make sure its in good repair, remember where it is, etc. Letting go of the symbol
of these feelings will automatically assist you in letting go of the feelings themselves, wherever they show up in your life. This is the magic of clutter clearing
in action. ... you are making the conscious decision that you dont want to carry around stagnant energy, outmoded ideas, and general negativity anymore, and
this automatically gives the Universe the message that you are ready for happier and more abundant conditions. And they automatically flow into your life!
09/11/2009 10:21 PM
How does a man from an alternate universe know these things? Either you read conspiracy sites like agent provocateur and David
dIcke or you are something else. The same way I know how to tie shoelaces. Of course, the concept of shoelaces does not propogate throughout all
possibilities. But if you are in one possibility for a while, wouldn't you know how to operate within it? I AM not actually from an alternate universe. That's why
the phrase is in quotes. I AM from this universe. But there's much more to this universe than what we see. Money is a representation. It always has been. The
bankers are managing their representations quite well. They'e turning abstract and notional monies into less-abstract representations. That's not something
new. It's just done in different ways over time. God did not coin that phrase ;) It's quite old. How "metaphysical" would you say the experience of science is?
How divorced is it from perspective and cognition? There is a time for everything. Witchcraft has been around for thousands of years. I AM in no hurry. Yes.
That's correct. But every one does this constanter. There's the rub! "Why" does C happen? One awesome thing about the universe is that there is a time and a
place for everything.
09/22/2009 02:22 AM
How sure of you of this 'fact' (that you are in the physical)? There is no control. It's a human cognitive invention. It's just a kind of
shift from one perspective to another. All possibilities (and perspectives) exist. Do you find it interesting that you would resist your perception? I don't mean
*specific* perceptions. This versus that, etc. I mean your perspective. In other words, You. What is something before you assign it a name and put it in a
category? What is the essence? Not exactly. "You" are much more than you appear to be. Looking at your hand it should be obvious that there is much more
than it seems. It goes beyond what you can possibly sense. There is no game or avatar, or creation. Words don't get on this bus. My answers are fairly
dependent upon the presumptions of your questions. I wouldn't say I have any answers, per se. There is never a time when teaching does not occur. More
accurately, it could be said that there is a time when we're paying close attention and a time when we're not. When we are, we say that we're being 'taught' a
lesson or something of the kind. Your statement, "And if I figure out how to cleanse myself of all the things inside me that I dont want to manifest in the
world..." probably expresses the world you express. You "don't want" so that is what your probability is likely composed of. "Don't want" is pretty much the
same as wanting. Change the "don't want" into "irrelevant" and it won't be a part of your direct experience.
09/22/2009 02:54 AM
If I may, a thought experiment. Imagine that each probability that exists is a pathway. There are many different types of pathways
such as hallways, walkways and corridors, alleyways, midways, streets and avenues, broadways, highways, etc. So, we have different "sizes" of probabilities.
Some probabilities are more related to other probabilities so thus become "larger" as more things travel on them. A road can become a highway as more cars
travel on it, for example. Further, each probability can connect with any other probability. Any two or more pathways can connect, forming a "nexus of
probabilities". The more probabilities that connect, the larger the nexus is and the easier it is to travel. (Because the more probabilities that interact with it,
the more relative it is to the probability you are experiencing. This enables you to not only walk down the street and have different things happen but also to
travel in spacetime (as long as where you are going is relative to where you are most experienced).) There are representations of this in outer space that you
sometimes call 'black holes' and sometimes call other things. These 'black holes' exist everywhere to some degree. The larger the black hole, so to speak, the
more relative it is to that which meets it. You can see less relative representations of these nexi in physical places like street corners. Some corners (and the
areas surrounding them) will be good for business or social exchanges, for example. Usually, the greater this metaphysical nexus is the greater the physical
pathway becomes. Thus, we have cities, families, ideas, encounters, etc., all illustrating their shrinking or growing metaphysical nexus. You can think of the
center of a galaxy as a combining of probabilities both literally and figuratively. But these 'black holes' can also be found in your body and time/space, and
everywhere else. It's simply the force of attraction/repulsion (the element Chaon in ecsys). Here's the interesting part. When probabilities comprising a nexus
are being added at a substantial rate (and, thus, becoming 'too big' for itself) the probabilities will usually clump together and taper off the nexus. At this
point it will continue to 'add to' a smaller nexus. Our worlds began to diverge just before your industrial revolution (and what would have been the time of our
industrial revolution). A few hundred years ago there were many probabilities comprising this nexus. The feedback and feedforward of the concepts and
activities surrounding the industrial revolution eventually enabled the polyfurcation of these probabilities. Thus, there are now *many* worlds just like your
own that are at their own stages of development, all having substantially diverged from yours nearly 300 hundred years ago. Most likely there will soon be a
scientific breakthrough in your world that will enable development of "warp drive" based not on traversing physical space but utilizing these ever-present nexus
points to combine the "here" with the "there". It is no different than experiencing a smell by using memory to recall a smell from 10 years ago rather than
recreating the same smell in the present. Not using memory (a "black hole") will eventually sound as ridiculous to you as using rocket fuel to reach the moon.
You already connect to non-physical worlds on a smaller scale (such as with intuition, or even sight/sound). You just don't realize how real these experiences
are yet. When we use a computer, for example, it is not that we are interacting with a separate physical object to perform tasks. The physical object is simply
a (non-physical) representation of a miniature solar system of concepts. The computer is no more real that the word or even the thought of it. You've
developed these representations in order to do something you could not otherwise do. We can use our minds to add 1+1, or we can use a calculator. Eventually
(probably) you will be able to connect to a massive network using your mind instead of computer hardware. The "physical" representations you use now to
perform these non-physical tasks is just so that the concepts and tools can be formed internally. It is similar to you, as a baby, trying to verbalize words using
your vocal cords in order to be able to *think* in a new way and do things you could not previously do. So when you're looking at a physical object you're
looking at a 'black hole'. Other things have combined together in a nexus of probabilities. In one probability the chair is a lake, in the other the lake is a chair.
You can "get to the lake from the chair", so to speak. When this world realizes that physical distance (and distance in time) is not absolute then we will begin
to do things that science fiction hasn't even come up with yet. Things that I cannot even begin to explain. This is most likely to occur after the current period,
when it is realized the 'changes' most of us have envisioned would occur (for example, with 2012) are representations of non-physical changes. Like a dream. It
all begins with Representation.
10/01/2009 04:59 PM

11 of 145

To be honest, you probably shouldn't care about Ecsys. It's kinda strange and requires a bit of thought to make sense of it. If you're

like most people you're content with the way you've been doing and thinking about things. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being normal. But if you think
there's something more to life that you didn't get before then allow us to explain something that might be of interest to you. Ecsys could allow you to make
something possible by providing a 'map' of how to get there from where you are. It could also show us how everything is created and evolves, from the human
body to planets to relationships to emotions to the mess in your top drawer. More advanced uses are also possible. But it is not a "magic wand" that makes
anything appear out of thin air. It has a basis deep within how we interact with the world around us. Scientists have proven that humans are born with a "math
instinct". It is this instinct that enables us to make sense of and perform calculations. (Strange, but even dogs have been shown to perform calculus. Although
to a dog it's just instinct.) We propose that humans are also born with a "perception instinct" that is even more deeply-rooted. It is this instinct that enables
our minds us to filter out more than 99% of the information reaching us. We do this automatically, without conscious thought of how we do it. Using Ecsys is
like doing a quick calculation, bringing into conscious awareness what we do instinctively. Imagine being able to perceive and understand a little more of what
your mind filters out. Ecsys can be immediately and effectively utilized in many different ways. It is also highly scalable, meaning that its basic principles can
be applied in a kindergarten classroom as well as in a physics laboratory using concepts that most of us have already learned. Once upon a time, computers
were the exclusive domain of researchers and trained specialists. Thanks to the development of easy-to-use symbolic representations of complex operations
such as windows and icons, now just about anyone can make use of them. There is no reason we cannot use cognitive tools like Ecsys to discover the 99% of
reality that we ignore. Scientists have, in a way, been busy making more complicated devices to try to understand the universe, making its true nature even
less accessible to those of us in it. This doesn't make sense to us. We believe that everything is, at its core, quite basic and can be easily understood. That's
where Ecsys comes in. How Do I Know that Ecsys Isn't Some Crackpot Science? Ecsys actually is "crackpot science" in the definition of any proper scientific
community. Ecsys doesn't speak their language, and that's fine. A person who has never heard someone speaking Greek may think it is gibberish, but that
doesn't make it so. On the other hand, anyone can come up with an interesting system and claim it is the answer. More times than not that answer falls far
short of its promises. Yet, most systems that we work with today will not withstand the test of time. That is to say, much of modern science will be "crackpot
science" in 100 years. History has repeatedly shown us time and time again that the accepted "facts" can be quite inaccurate. Even Newtons theory of
gravitation has had to be changed a few times. In the past 20 years alone scores of scientific hypotheses have received attention, funding, and research that
have turned out to be nothing but crap. And sometimes the "weird ideas" turn out to be true. (Most of those weird ideas will just be forgotten, of course.) We
actually only understand a very small part of the universe. This fact alone should tell us that many of our common assumptions are mistaken. There is still
much that scientists know they do not know, such as: what consciousness is, how life on Earth arose and what determines species diversity (or even what a
species is), how memories work, what 90 percent or more of the universe is made of, what gravity is, the structure of water, how planets form, if there is life
elsewhere, why we sleep, and lots more. (Source: Science Magazine) It was even recently discovered that a human cell has an electric field. And this field is 5x
more intense (per meter) than a lightning bolt. Remember, there are tens, if not hundreds, of trillions of cells in a single human body. There's so much we
haven't discovered about ourselves. Interestingly enough, Ecsys offers compelling answers to all of these questions. It does it not by making slow, complex
calculations based on sometimes questionable foundations but by the simple premise that there are just four kinds of things in the universe, each of which will
always exhibit certain traits and characteristics and interact with other elements in a certain way. Again, Ecsys is not science. But it can be applied to scientific
things (and political, economic, social, etc., things). However, what makes something important isn't how scientific it is but how useful it is. According to
Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, "...a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of
observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future
observations." Many "theories" in science are not really theories at all, but more hypotheses. For example, the "Big bang" model rests on gravity resulting from
matter, something which has not been verified. The observed rate of expansion of the universe is significantly larger than the calculated rate. (Oops!) But
instead of calling it an 'error' scientists have simply increased the amount of "dark matter" in the universe by an astronomical amount (enough to conveniently
compensate for the error). A complicated(i.e., "beautiful") mathematical model does not make for verification. Neither does the invention of fictional
parameters to agree with experimental observations make for a theory. I'm reminded of sociological experiments that show how much "beautiful people" can
get away with. The evidence for the "Big Bang Theory" came in the form of something called Mathers Blackbody Spectrum, which has recently proven to be
completely wrong (but not before two guys won the Nobel prize in physics for it). The darling of the physics world for the last 20 years is String Theory, a field
of science built on the idea that elementary particles are not objects but are the vibrations of string-like entities. This theory has yet to be confirmed yet
billions of dollars and countless hours have been devoted to its study. In the physics departments of our very best universities, 20 out of the 22 tenured
professors are proponents of string theory. How a beautiful and complicated math can be mistaken for a simple explanation of everything is beyond reason.
Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University says, "The problem is that superstring theory is not really a theory, but rather a set of hopes that a theory
exists. " (You mean... like a hypothesis?) Physicists support and promote string theory because it seems like the most promising candidate for a scientific
Theory of Everything. (We agree with that, wouldn't you know.) However, it would seem that the nature of the universe is more like a fractal, facilitating
simplicity, than a broken mirror with 600 dimensions. Between 2 theories that are not even theories, have not verified any predictions (i.e., have no evidence),
make the simplicity of the universe to be unnecessarily complex and inaccessible to all but a handful of humans, and a model of the universe that can be used
by anyone today, offers compelling explanations to fundamental question in every field, and can actually be proven now, which one is the crackpot science? If
you guessed "Ecsys" you are correct! And that's an unfortunate state of current scientific affairs. However, the amazing thing is that science itself is built on
non-scientific bases. (Meaning, you can't test the scientific method itself because it is, ironically, not scientific. Math is the only science that does not need to
be based on reality. All other sciences should have, at their core, sound assumptions.) The foundations of the scientific method rest upon assumptions
independent from experience. Science would fail its own test. "Since philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision we make or position we take,
it is obvious that correct philosophy is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place. Indeed, there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of
the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational
explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.." [from
Evolution and Philosophy] These basic assumptions fool scientists into thinking that the nature of something can be observed independent of the observation
(i.e., as it really is). Although we've learned a few things from "Schroedinger's Cat" and other experiments in quantum physics the folly in science today is in
giving up on testing these core assumptions and, thus, the true nature of any scientific results. Instead, we have religiously focused on the very limited reality
that our brains create for us. As we've read in the previous section, we are not consciously aware of more than 99% of the information that comes to us
through our senses. This fact alone should make any scientist question the false assumption that "humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately".
And, like generations before us, we create our own sense of rationality that is appropriate to our assumptions. If we begin with the core assumption of Earth
being at the center of our solar system, for example, we can find evidence to support any related hypothesis (because our sense of reason will connect the two
together in proportion to how much we believe it is true). Of course scientists today know better about Earth, but at the time this "fact" was the height of
science. Since then our understanding of the world has evolved but our sense of reason has simply changed. We still hold core assumptions close to our hearts
today that will amuse 12 billion humans in 100 years. Ecsys proposes that reality is absolutely subjective and consistent with our perception, we do not have
the capacity to perceive something the way it truly is (i.e., we can evolve our perceptual capacity but not observe beyond it), and that we can better

12 of 145

understand the nature of something to the point that we see the implicit order in what was previously observed to be chaotic (i.e., we can expand our
observation of rationality and have not finished discovering new logic). Although traditional science has been immeasurably useful, it ultimately fails because
of these 3 basic assumptions. Ecsys is a new kind of science. Why Should I Listen to a High-School Dropout? Although the author of Ecsys completed only a few
weeks of high school (in a place far, far away), he continued to try to understand the world about him. However, it's probably not wise to consider anyone that
decided to drop out of high school as an authority on much of anything, considering the chances of she or he being good at something important to society.
Taken by itself, anything that remotely looks like a "theory of everything" by anyone is most likely to be wrong, PhD or not. But it only takes one person to
make a significant difference in the world. Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, and many other important figures in history
(including 10 Nobel prize winners) were all high-school dropouts. Both Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln had less than 2 years of formal education, while
George Washington and Andrew Jackson both had none at all. What distinguishes these people is not their education and their deadness but their passion for
self-learning and understanding the world around them. This, of course, means little. It's probably safe to assume that most people who drop out of a formal
schooling program before university don't have their wits about them. While completion of high school or university does not guarantee success in life neither
does incompletion guarantee failure. However, it does make social failure more likely to occur. Yet, it is also possible that an intelligent person without much
formal education will see the world differently from those that have been indoctrinated into a structured learning environment and have a greater impact than
someone else who sees the world normally. The great thinkers listed in the previous paragraph would have probably led very different lives had they completed
their formal education. Being self-taught obviously gave them some advantage over other colleagues. Ecsys promotes a more democratic view of intelligence
rather than the standard model that says some people are smart while others are stupid or average. We may be inclined to call someone that gets excellent
grades in school or excels at technical things "intelligent", but given the task of farming, for example, they could seem pretty dull in the head. It is said that
Albert Einstein didn't know how to tie his shoe and, for all of his mathematical genius, didn't know how many cups are in a pint (perhaps he didn't care to drink
cups of beer?). Ecsys predicts that a person's consciousness cannot focus on everything at once.
10/01/2009 05:43 PM
Sorry... Not spamming - Very interesting. Was Chaol the founder? Is Ecsys a 'Theory of Everything'? By popular definition a "Theory of
Everything" is a theory that unifies gravity, elementary particles, the laws of motion, and the laws that govern forces. Ecsys extends the definition of a true
Theory of Everything to actually include everything, and can also be applied to classical and quantum physics. A theory that only unifies the fundamental forces
in physics is not a true Theory of Everything but a "Theory of Everything in Physics". Granted, unifying everything into one simple model may seem impossible
to do but why not try? To date, there is no record of any scientist making such an attempt. It would almost be counter-intuitive (and un-scientific) to unify
economics, politics, biology, psychology, and everything else into one model. Nature takes a few fundamental ideas and propagates the entire universe.
Ironically enough, there is nothing complex that isn't simple at its core. I propose that this simplicity comes not from physical creation but because the
fundamental nature of perception is simple. Are there real "laws" in the physical universe? Or is there a fundamental process of perception that we indirectly
observe and call "laws"? A "theory of everything" is a theory of everything that we directly or indirectly perceive. We do not draw conclusions based on what is
not observable (perception-in-experience) or inconceivable (perception-in-imagination). This leads us to, inevitably, model of consciousness and perception.
Ecsys would make for a testable "Hypothesis of Possibly Everything" (HOPE) but a theory it is not. A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of
its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability& -Albert Einstein
12/30/2009 09:29 PM
Interesting questions. But perhaps none of the following responses will be a surprise to many. Which "parallel universes" do you
think already exist? Look into those. Consider the nature of light, sound, and other energies, and whether or not you experience saidwith objectively. Now look
at your hand. What similar qualities could it possibly have with what you consider "ghosts"? Imagine that a young boy has just watched a frightening movie
and is preparing for bed. The energetic environment is completely different from the night previous, as his 'internal' environment has changed and, thus, his
'external' experience. There's little real difference between the two. (Only what could be thought of as a perceptual delay. Each experience is equally valid,
however long the experience lasts.) He may well perceive ghosts, although these forms are projections of his mind. It does not mean that the 'malacious'
energies are actually there. The mind is not a transparent window into veridical reality, as such does not exist. A ghost exists no more in your reality than the
chair in which you sit. The only difference is that the chair is more relative to the other things that seem to exist, forming a coherent and stable landscape.
When "ghosts" become more relative to your total environment, then it will be more experienced. they hover they stay for brief minutes of time and not
permanently ghostly phenomena is connected to electrical storms. Are the wave lengths in their world different than in ours? What you consider ghosts are just
as physical as you are. Wave lengths of anything you perceive is quite relative to those you yourself use. Nothing that can be perceived can 'defy' what the
nature of what we call gravity is. Think of gravity as consciousness. For illustrative purposes only, when two magnets are attracting one-another they are
creating more consciousness. With 'gravity' there is attraction and repulsion, which is simply varying degrees of relativity. So no, what you call ghosts cannot
defy gravity. That is to say, ghosts cannot defy the nature of attraction and repulsion. Without it, there is no consciousness. Exactly the same as 'here'.
Although the variables seem to be different. Gravity in the classical definition is not a constant. It could be said that there is a constant of proportionality for
attraction/repulsion, however. Something relative to their experience. Just as we may perceive some consciousness to be clouds or some kinds of humans to be
aliens. We present a reality to ourselves in a way that fits within the totality of our experience. As previously mentioned, if you could time-traveled back to
when you were 6 years old you would appear as a very different form (perhaps alien-like). When we perceive other energies (people, objects, light, etc) we are
not only perceiving the surface but calculating within their being. This calculation is what makes the perception. Imagine the following simple (incomplete)
equation: 1+1= You automatically know the answer without thinking about it. Some of you may even 'see' the number 2 there without my having put it there.
In a way, this '2' (or sum) is what you see when you perceive of anything. You perceive a composite of calculation so vast and simultaneous with your
experience that you don't realize the nearly-impossible task being performed within every moment. You mistake the equation for the reality. So would anything
that perceives of you. The one you're in now. They are already. Do you hear the sound of the clock ticking? It also exists as part of an other equation that is
de-angled from you. We look at our reality and think of it as inherently ours, when most of it we do not see. We look at our bodies and think of it as human,
when most of it is not. Study your own "spirits" to get to the worlds that you seek. Easier than it sounds.
10/03/2010 05:54 AM
Food for thought! Evolution may work both backwards and forwards. A human engineer would look at how the brain works and reengineer it, considering it highly inefficient and filled with legacy (and unnecessary) parts. "We are optimized for an ancestral environment and not the present
one", it may be said. Fortunately, nature is much more of an engineer than its human genes can build. Of the brain it may say, "This system is a wondrous
composite of complete possibility, making relative all past/future states of this system" The engineer's actions would be like re-designing the Grand Canyon
because she thinks it optimized for a prehistoric environment. (Without actually knowing of any future environment.) What is failed to be realized is that the
human mind is perfectly optimized for the future. We do not have a total understanding of our current environment, much less past or future one. Thus, the
engineer would be killing off future possibilities (or "de-relativizing them").

13 of 145

10/03/2010 05:57 AM
It's good to be back! If you were to 'go back' 100 years from your current time then the time you experience would be relative to the
time that you came from. The properties of your home-time would still permeate your perceptual facilities, body, etc. Your interpretation of the past-time would
be heavily influenced by what you still are. (e.g., your body, etc., would still be linked to +100-time for a while. Even after you have adjusted, it would still not
be the same world as in your picture books, but somewhat different because of the assumptions, etc., you have brought to your perception of it.) In fact, the
world 100 years previous would probably look and feel much like your world of today when you first arrive. It would be a strange, world, indeed. But filled with
representations that you can relate to. Much like your dream world. We perform this feat quite often. We interpret the past-oriented events and energies from
our current perceptual framework. Your memories of past, for example, are actually perceptions of an other now-possibility. It seems much different so you
place it in past and give it its own logical narrative. A-B-C=present, etc. (It's the same as we do with space, placing less-relative spaces at greater and greater
distances. However, it could be said that, for example, a village in Morocco today is more relative to your 'now' than is your own body 10 years previous.) To
answer your question, 'going back' 10 years would produce a similar effect. We create the time-line. It's just our brand of logic. Someone else would have a
different time-line in their own realm of logic. There is as much logic as there are possibilities. Evidence of one of these possibilities, such as photos, would
certainly be interesting.But I believe they would create a much less interesting, even technical, kind of debate on the medium rather than the message. I doubt
this world needs any more black/white, yes/no camps than it has already. Something even greater than photos this way comes. I'm going to "push" the current
experience into what would be called the distant future. The world a few very interesting photos or videos would create does not compare to the world an
"instructional guide" would create. Why show you a picture when I can just take you there, instead? Can you imagine a piece of paper that performs the same
function as a galaxy filled with supercomputers? Being able to 'teleport' to an other dimension from the extended sound of your own voice? Learning a language
500x more efficient than English and, thus, being able to process information exponentially faster than you currently do as you begin to think in it instead of
slow and cumbersome English? As is said.. "watch this space"
10/07/2010 05:28 PM
To help answer your questions: 1. The destination is the 'elementon' element. The perspective is a representation much the same
way the URL you typed to access this page changes the perspective of the browser. The URL is the unique identifier representing something else. If the URL is
too long you could use a link shortener such as DON'T_USE_THIS to represent the original URL. However, the URL you see in your address bar is itself a
representation of the resultant perspective. And the perspective is a representation of something else. Layers upon layers upon layers of representation. In
your example, the destination is not some where you go. It is a matter of a change in perspective. By combining certain representations together, we change
perspectives. If I were to add a carton of milk next to your computer monitor, your entire perspective would change. Meaning, the carton of milk would have an
effect on everything in your perspective. The destination is also comprised of the other 3 elements (otherwise it would not exist). However, the main element
is representation. You could think, "What is it filled most with?" in order to determine what element something most is. "Teleporting" to an empty room of the
year 2035 would be much tricker than teleporting to a busy street corner of the same year, though, as it would be more unlikely that the "empty room" group of
representations would link with your current ones. (That is to say, more difficult to get there from where you are because there are much fewer links to it.) 2.
Anything could be anything. You can use it as such but the result would be different from what you may have wanted. It all depends on your intention. For
some purposes, you may want your mind to serve as "potential energy" and in others as "interaction" or "structure". 3. It all depends on perspective. Do you
mean the sound of a heart beat, the pulsation, the light, biology, etc? Each perspective may be best served by a different element. As noted in #3, breathing
could function as any element. For purposes of changing physical perspective, however, I think breath is more interactive. Here is the formula:
Representation=Structure(Potential Energy squared-potential energy)+Interaction There's not much you can do with this without the 'what comes next' (my
next version). But it basically says (in one interpretation, and for a specific example) that if you want to time travel to the year 1932 focus, instead, on
standing on a street corner with your left arm at a certain angle and legs slightly bent because you are selling newspapers and your feet hurt (structure) the
static and air (potential energy) produces ambient sounds and a feeling, especially when the cars drive past you (interaction). There are an endless variety of
1932's of course. But you may find that each is somehow represented in your 'new' 1932 perspective. You are actually there, as much as anyone 'was' at the
time. You have not created the paperboy but are experiencing the value of something that already exists, and intepreting it in your own meaningful way (via
your own logic). The information I release includes the 'bridge' language between English and X (I call it Ec) that can be used as a kind of teleportation device.
You can try to imagine the example above now but Ec will be far more effective for this. Consider it a much-needed software upgrade that takes you from 300
baud modems and BBSes to the Internet. Every aspect of your conscious thinking is permeated with the 'sound' of your brain's mother tongue. You can't
experience it if it is not represented. You cannot experience the burning sensation of copying your thoughts to the internet until you use and value "xtioghtu",
making the representation relative to your experience. (There is no xtioghtu but I used it just for illustrative purposes.) It's as much as the meaning being
invented, used, and valued as the device itself. It could be said that there is no difference. In Ec, each of the above possibilities 3 paragraphs up would be
represented in sets, and you would interact with the representations in order to achieve the other perspective. This can then be verbalized to alter perspective,
much like what our Ancient Egyptians are doing and pop stars try so hard to do with English. 4.There are no geographical locations. That's more of a cognitive
trick. It could be said, for example, that two chairs at 5 feet apart in a corn field are further away from one-another in space-time than one of the chairs would
be with a pole in a Las Vegas strip club. Both perspectives are logical. However, each is useful for different purposes. Future humans, so to speak, do not
traverse the verse in their "UFOs" thinking of a space as a 1-2-3-place. It's useful when you walk with legs but we should not let our legs do the thinking when
we really want to be somewhere. No. There's no direct correlation. See my last paragraph, above. All you would need is to find something relative. What comes
next is up to you. There is relativity all round us. It could take you 10 years to get across the street or 10 minutes to get to the edge of what seems like a
galaxy. It all depends. It's not much different than everyone changing their clocks to April 7, 1509. They're just different kinds of perspective-changes. If you
wanted to experience 5 billion years ago on Earth, you'd need to do some hard thinking! The perspectives from even 10 years ago are very different and would
require more "energy" of a particular sense. All of the above. -'wrist-worn watch' because Ec reminds me of the turning hands of a clock. -'chrono-capsule of
chords' because Ec reminds me of the hieroglyps of the ancients, which can also alter perspective and function as a type of media storage device. -'wavey
wormhole' because such things are not as smooth and perfectly represented as depicted. Two 'physically distant' but relative representations are more
physically simultaneous. A wave is just an other perspective of a particle, and those two distant things are just perspectives of one-another. What isn't a
wormhole of space? -'password provided to a person's possible perspective' because each character of Ec has up to 66 possibilities. 4 of them together can
provide representa ve elds for nearly 19 million possibilities. (Which is why I mentioned "a piece of paper that performs the same function as a galaxy filled
with supercomputers" because a page of Ec can both hold an extraordinary amount of data and function as a computer.) No worries here. A question frames the
perspective of the answer. An answer by itself is meaningless. One question leads to an other, to innitum, to allow us to see something that wasn't there for
us before. Without "mundane" questions we'd have no extraordinary answers.
10/08/2010 12:28 AM
A thought experiment. On how life works. Imagine that you are outside in the park. There are many people around you doing various
ac vi es. You see a group of people playing football nearby. However, there is also a strange phenomena occuring on the field. Some of the persons playing
football you know, and some you don't. The ones that you don't know seem to be moving at a very high speed in the field. Your acquaintances are moving

14 of 145

much slower than the strangers, and your friends are moving even slower than your acquaintances. Both your best friend and your brother are also playing
football, but when you observe them it seems as though they are moving at an extremely slow pace. During half- me you go over to talk to your brother. He is
talking to one of the strangers whom you observed moving very rapidly on the field. He introduces you both and you begin to chat. You find out that you and
your new acquaintance work at the same company as you, and begin cha ng about it before the game begins again. When half- me is over, you observe the
new acquaintence moving a lot slower than he did before half- me. His friend that you saw him talk to during half- me is still moving fast but slightly slower
than he did previously. This is an illustration of how relativity works around us. Some things are very relative to our experience and so seem to "last longer" in
our lives than others. You may actually have two brothers. One that we see often and one that we hardly ever see. If may be that you saw both brothers
equally when you were growing up but, inexplicably, one dri ed away from your life at a certain point. At that time you and your soon-distant brother became
less and less relative to each other. It could be that he became infected with a different family of bacteria than you did. Perhaps it was that he, growing up in
rural Maine, had a girlfriend for a few months that was from Sweden and was infected with a different kind of bacteria than you and your brother were infected
with. This new bacteria introduced itself into his biology each time they kissed, and he soon found himself thinking different kinds of thoughts than but a few
months ago. (You and your brother are not a singular consciousness but a collection of an endless variety of consciousnesses in a constant stream of
interaction. Only a small serving of "you" is actually of human biology.) Our physical body's "clock" is slowed down throughout our lives. We seem to have
pretty much the same face that we've always had, while clouds and people drift in and out of our lives. We pass some strangers on the street without no cing
them while other strangers become friends. We have an innate sense for relativity (as our "body" is actually everything we perceive) and are in a constant
state of "balancing" between what is relative to us at that moment and what is not. We seem to be moving through space and time because of this shifting
balance, when any physical mo on is, instead, abstract mo on. We illustrate the sudden lack of relativity of a person, place, or a thing, in our own logical
narrative. A person cannot just disappear when it becomes much less relative. Depending on our own logic, they must develop an illness and die if they slowly
become less relative. If their being becomes rapidly and vastly different from ours (perhaps because of a new bacterium or idea they had) then perhaps they
die suddenly in an accident or move to an other country. Our experience is determined exlusively by the shifting relativity of variables in our field of existence.
10/09/2010 12:43 AM
To add! Importantly, it can be realized that, for example, if you have 1 bad apple in a bunch and want to get rid of the "bad apple" in
your life it may not do much good to make that 1 apple irrelevant, as it probably has changed the dynamics of the "good apples" around it. What is one to do?
Realize that beings and things contain a mul tude of other things within it, and each is in constant balance with its surroundings. You are not just one
consciousness, but an unimaginable number of consciousnesses all doing different things. And so is the apple. The 1 apparently bad apple may have "infected"
the others according to how relative its actions were to the other apples. You may want to quit smoking, for example, and destroy your cigare es. But your
entire closet (and maybe home) is also "smoking" and, thus, it is still relative to your experience. Bits of cigare e-ness may still exist all around you. You may
remember a single sentence someone said 20 years ago but not remember anything else they said. In a way, that sentence is now a part of your being much
the same way your own words are. To illustrate this process, you can say that if you truly want to forget about something you should also forget the other
things that still remember it (and those things that you still desire that you think have nothing to do with what you don't want).
10/09/2010 12:46 AM
It's possible to control the variables using many other models, too. However, it's more of a change of our own personal logic than
"control". To affect change, the tools we use need to be logical to our experience. (In fact, we develop and use the tools in order that our own logic may be
illustrated.) For example, ancient humans may have seen a stone wall and danced around it in order to bring it down. Depending upon their particular grouplogic, some methods would have worked while others didn't. Someone noticed that throwing a rock at it chips the stone away. (Or noticed that throwing leaves
don't do much at all.) Each trial further evolves their logical narrative. They don't need to know how something works, just that it works. (It works because of
abstract reasons rather than physical ones, but that's an other post en rely.) When we are children we see adults do things that make sense (as we see how
it's done). This way, we don't have to spend so much time developing the logic for our experience. An athlete may suddenly break a new record. Other athletes
see this and extend their own logic. Suddenly, many other athletes are able to do the same thing that was previously not a part of the logic-eld. We can use
English to "control" others to knock down the wall on a construc on site but talking to the wall directly doesn't seem to work. That isn't to say that it could
never work, just that the experience is a part of our logical landscape yet. (But if someone, somehow, manages to do just that, our logical landscape will
change because of it. Then it will be closer to our own experience.) For example, we could easily develop telepathic communica on by starting from the kind of
telepathic communica on that works now, such as the sense of knowing when someone is looking at you. So, rather than first trying to do something that isn't
close to our experience we do something that is, in order that we can evolve telepathic communica on with words later. (Same as how the ancient humans, in
the example above, knew that rocks were more logical at changing the state of the wall than were leaves.) The Ecsys model is one such thing that makes
certain kinds of experiences more relative to you (via extended logic) than others. Other models are all around you, but they may not be effective for the kinds
of things that we're talking about. For example, we could possibly get to a distant planet in a rocket ship but it would be so inefficient as to be not worth the
effort. It may be more effective to use other tools more logical to the desired experience to accomplish the task. Ecsys is one such tool out of many that are
developed in future.
10/09/2010 02:04 AM
The model is there already but it doesn't make sense yet. It may look interesting to some but it hasn't become part of the logic yet.
The keys are there but the car is not had. Next version is the "steering wheel" and will include the following: BE: The Book of Ecsys -The Keys -The Houses of
the Elements -The Law of 5/2 (Energy Perspec ve) -A few exercises and other miscellania EC: The Language of Ecsys -The 66 letters of Ec -Ec inputs and
outputs -How to think and write in Ec -Using Ec as a mental computer -Using Ec as a computer programming language Addi onally, an Ec game (for the web,
Android, and iPad) is being being developed so that English words can be passively translated into Ec by a players of the game. It's a bit like Tetris. A type of
"ar cial general consciousness" is also released.
10/10/2010 03:46 AM
Like most of us, you probably do things rou nely. Every day you walk, talk, chew, look, drive, sleep, etc., the same way. And thus,
think, dream, perceive, and have pretty much the same kinds of experiences. And the world seems the same. What would happen if, over the period of 1 week,
you did things in a way you could not have predicted? How much do you think your perspective (and world) would change? Resis ng my percep ons, eh? OK, I'll
have to think about that, but I sure don't like what I perceive on this planet. My personal situation is ne -- no complaints, but I'm truly disgusted by all the
wars, lies and manipula ons used by the government/corporate/media oligarchy. It seems that literally everything in the US is a lie and I'm red of the air,
water and food being poisoned. Are these perceptions really so far off or AM I focusing too much on the nega ve?
10/10/2010 04:28 AM
For example! Ge ng dressed for no reason and going outside with no particular goal in mind. When a thought occurs to you, carry it
out (if you can safely). Introduce randomness into your life for a short period of time. This will seem completely crazy, of course, but it will have the effect of
causing you to drama cally shift perspective. When your immediate environment interacts in the same way every day, you end up with pretty much the same

15 of 145

representations. Everything today is fairly similar to yesterday because that's how you have it set up. Replace the structure you've built up over the years with
a new set of rules in order to experience a different result. Introducing the randomness weakens the structure you have already. Just be sure to introduce a
new structure. O en, the structure is the rou ne that we go through at each moment. Some examples: sleep next to the refrigerator for a night, skip to work,
wrap speaker wire around your legs, call someone randomly, imitate the next animal you see, cook up a pot of sugar, wear crazy clothes or a fake mustache...
all for no reason whatsoever. Yes, it's crazy. But you need some crazy sauce in order to bring out the avor of the new perspective.
10/10/2010 05:16 AM
There will always be drama. Attraction and repulsion is the nature of consciousness. The problem arises when we think attraction and
repulsion are two separate forces. We may think that we're not a racted to the things we seem to hate, for example. I'm sugges ng that at times it may
better suit us to know the extent of our own perceptions. If we see lies, for example, we could think, "why do I feel that way?" It is easy to get confused and
think the we are our own focal point. Our body is most relative to what we are, and it is us. But we often fail to see that what we are includes the entirety of
our perceptions not just the most relative area (our body). To embrace everything that we perceive is the difficult part. But par ng our perceptions into good
and bad creates an illusion quite difficult to embrace.
10/10/2010 10:25 PM
Appreciate the oer, but I want to wait and see how a few things are going to play out. Shouldn't be long now. Also, from the looks
of what you've said you're planning, I think that new information will be most helpful. So I look forward to seeing that. But for now a simple question, one that
many on this forum have. Recurring number patterns (11:11, 444, 555,...) seem to present to many in non-random ways. After observing this for some time,
one comes to the conclusion they are meaningful but never quite sure what exactly it is they mean. Any insight/explana on on this? Here are some example
threads: Thread: Other seeing 555 and 444 and 333 and 1111 Thread: SO..has anyone actually gured out what the 444 and 222 and 111 and 11:11 stuff is all
about yet?
10/11/2010 05:07 AM
Perhaps what is seen is the beauty of a large population. If you have several billion people on the planet there will be a large number
who see the same numbers over and over again. Some of these people use the internet, some of these that use the internet will be inclined to post about it,
some of these that post will post in English, and so on. There is also a large number that see 4:37 more often than usual, but they're probably not as inclined
to tell others about it compared to those that often see 3:33. You may, yourself, see a certain number or string of numbers recur throughout your life. It might
be that from age 20-28 each time you looked at your watch the second hand was 'always' on 0 seconds. We are more likely to remember things that fit within a
pa ern and forget the things that don't. All it takes is a sliver of a belief to begin ignoring things that you perceive that don't fit within that belief. When a
woman is pregnant, for example, she may swear she sees pregnant women everywhere whereas before she didn't see nearly as many. It was all there before, it
just wasn't focused on. And nobody is interested in someone that sees 4:37 all the time on their watch. But, I assure you, there are just as many persons that
see 4:37 as 1:11. It is human to take a slice of bread and cut it into 20 pieces and try to make 3 random pieces more special than the rest. We would do this
regardless of what is cut. If we did not, there would be no drama (no gravity / consciousness / attraction and repulsion) and we would not exist. The
conversa ons do serve a purpose, however. It bemuses many of us to witness the amount of right / wrong arguments that go on without realizing the
necessity and beauty of it all. One party creates drama out of thin air, starting an argument about how the other party (now a "side") is creating a less
purposeful drama. The atheist / Chris an debaters, for example, among the billions that lose their sense of play in the whole scheme.
10/11/2010 10:51 AM
[snips...] Perhaps what is seen is the beauty of a large popula on... If you have several billion people on the planet there will be a
large number who see the same numbers over and over again...Some of these people use the internet... We are more likely to remember things that fit within
a pa ern...It bemuses many of us to witness the amount of right / wrong arguments that go on without realizing the necessity and beauty of it all... Thanks
for the reply Chaol. Of course any ra onal, objective person couldn't possibly disagree. My ini al reac on is it's the logical explanation to about half of the
phenomena, the part that deals with the waking/conscious mind (for lack of a better term). But what about the sleeping/sub-conscious mind? From my own
experience and that of others (as evidenced by yet other posts on this forum), this experience permeates into the sleep state as well. Examples: you're woken
up from a vivid dream and the clock next to you has a number pa ern at that exact moment. Over time as this happens frequently, a pa ern emerges between
the dreams theme and the specific number sequence that time mark the wake-up event, in an unmistakable fashion. But what if there's no clock around? No
worries, an anonymous phone call (from a wrong number that provides the necessary number sequence)serves to wake the dreamer up just as reliably with the
same "number stamp". Of course, even these events can be explained by the "random observations over a large enough popula on" explanation but less
convincingly. In fact some simple math will show they are far less likely than chance.
10/11/2010 12:39 PM
There may be some correla on as related to the dream state. Please refer to the chart on the following link regarding somnalinear
me: [link to ecsys.org] As illustrata, let's imagine that at a particular dream or dream-thought is like a sheet of music where a particular note is played by two
violins (waking and dreaming) instead of just one (dreaming). The note shifts your bodily consciousness more towards physicality while the symphony
continues to play in the background. So in this way, a certain time would represent something to you that correlates with a particular "note" in the dream. For
example, the "shape" of a dream is represented by 1:11 on the clock (as the shape of the two would be very similar). In an extended way, you could say that in
10% of Henry's dreams he wakes up at 1:11am and this number is par cularly representa ve of something. However, in 100% of his dreams he awakens in
Henry's body, which is also par cularly representa ve of something. There are micro-pa erns and macro-pa erns, but we usually only pay attention to those
patterns that are readily obvious. Everything perceived is a representation. The numbers on a clock need not exist until they are perceived directly. The act of
looking at a clock is representa ve, along with whatever time the clock says (or whatever number comes your way). You can just as easily tell the time by
looking at the position of the items in your fridge, or tell the time by looking at the appearance of objects in your dream. It is, in fact, the same thing. There is
often correla ons because of this. Someone that has the items in their fridge in the "1:11 posi on" may wonder why they often see "11" on the clock after they
open their fridge. Because when they do, they are interacting with the representation. If time were a like a box of numbers, some would have particular value
(like the corner of a box) while others would just be more general representations. Pa erns are just aligned representations. But much of this is hearsay, and
we must keep in mind the nature of the brain to show us what we want to see. We all have similar experiences but we often forget the experiences with no
correla on or pa ern. We look for correla ons and patterns in order to make sense of the world, even though those patterns were not actually there previous
to our having assigned value to the new composite. So, the correla on was not there before you perceived it (even if you remember having perceived it
previously, this is actually a value in the present memory not a recollec on of something that existed in previous states). Hope this helps!
10/11/2010 04:02 PM
As illustrated, let's imagine that at a particular dream or dream-thought is like a sheet of music where a particular note is played by
two violins (waking and dreaming) instead of just one (dreaming). The note shifts your bodily consciousness more towards physicality while the symphony
continues to play in the background. Interesting, will you explain this in more detail in the new Ec material? Now we're really getting somewhere. But how do

16 of 145

you determine exactly what that relationship is? You lost me on this one. In an extended way, you could say that in 10% of Henry's dreams he wakes up at
1:11am and this number is par cularly representa ve of something. Yes, definitely getting somewhere. Again, the big question is how can we figure out what
it is that it represents? Will the new Ec material help out with this? Everything perceived is a representa on...You can just as easily tell the time by looking at
the position of the items in your fridge, or tell the time by looking at the appearance of objects in your dream.It is, in fact, the same thing. There is often
correla ons because of this. Someone that has the items in their fridge in the "1:11 posi on" may wonder why they often see "11" on the clock after they open
their fridge. Because when they do, they are interacting with the representation. Yes, all this is getting somewhere. Great things to think about. But I'm hoping
the new Ec material will give the framework necessary to understand this (all the rela onships) in more detail.
10/11/2010 10:21 PM
Well then! You're on your way :) Find ways to physically illustrate this gi if you want it to become more physical. More importantly,
interact with the representa on(s). You can also develop a structure around it for added bonus. So, for example, let's say that you want his gi to be a new
car. So you can start by taking photos with your camera of the car you're thinking about, or drawing pictures of it, or putting together a few toothpicks. Then
find ways to interact with it. Allow your representa on(s) to interact with other things and people. Put it on the street, show a family member, use it as a
paperweight, etc. (No one else need know what it is or what it's for.) For added bonus, develop some rules around it. For example, make a rule that you will
always paint the wheels black, cover the model/drawing with ssue every night, or after you've shown one person you will create a new representation. It
doesn't matter how silly any of this is. What matters is how the representa on(s) relate with your environment. You're introducing its physicality to your
perspective. Making it comfortable in your world, helping it to evolve, pre-rela ng it with other representations. Giving birth to it physically as you would give
birth to an idea. So, as an analogy, rather than thinking you will give birth to a full-grown human you will first start with a small seed and it will grow as it
interacts with its environment. The time required to see it in your perspective depends on how relative these things are with your current perspective. As in,
"how logical would it be to jump there from where I AM standing?" However, the 'seed' may die on its own, be a racted to your perspective, grow exponentially
"out of control" etc. More than likely it will find ways to interact further in your perspective, in different ways. It's not that you're creating the gi out of thin
air, but shifting your perspective. The steps above should provide the necessary intent to your "subconscious" to make that happen.
10/11/2010 11:09 PM
Unlikely, as the next release creates more of a pla orm for the exponen al advancement of Ecsys ThohT. A kind of virus, if you will.
For the masses there is Ecsys base in the next release, which is as I stated a few posts back. For a some others, there is Ec, which is designed both to spread
the virus (as others see what a few others have done with it) and create new material (as a few others u lize it). The next version is a bit unrecognizable from
the last version. However, the version after that provides much more of the detail you seek. If you learn Ec, you may even be compelled to provide some of this
detail yourself. <> Quite difficult to express that in English. Most of the words simply do not exist. Thus, Ec. I can only suggest that you take you set your
watch to that time in your dream state and observe the eects. Daniel Tammet's book, Embracing the Wide Sky, may be an interesting read for this. He sees
certain numbers as particular shapes. So, for illustration purposes, if he sees the number '56' as a cli with a waterfall behind it and sometimes dreams of such
a place, he may at once find himself waking up and seeing "2:56" on the clock. (He would actually be yet dreaming and in 2 places at once, but this is an other
post en rely.) You could also try to represent the number and see how it interacts with your perspective. For example, write the number down in hundreds of
places and observe the eects and resultant interac ons. Make note of any interesting experiences or pa erns. A crude way to do it, but I could see this
working. You may have better luck in this forum than with the new material :) The new material changes the dynamics of things, but it probably won't directly
answer most of your questions.
10/13/2010 08:10 PM
I don't know anything about this "light encoding reality matrix" but it sounds as implausible as Ecsys if not more so, especially the
part where you self-generate a burst of vacuum energy (whatever that means). Last time I self-generated a burst of vacuum energy my mommy wasn't too
pleased! Ecsys is not about creating anything, but more about changing perspective. (Or, better yet, making some things more relative to your focus than
others.) You can't create something that is already there. Using Ecsys you can generate a map to what you want to perceive, so to speak. The more relative it
is from where you are, the sooner it would seem to 'appear'. Ecsys is more the "language of the gods", if you will, or the language of consciousness. We can
use an English model (a group of words, for example) in a restaurant to "manifest" a milkshake in our perspective. Its appearance in our reality correlates with
how relative want we want is from where we are (e.g., "does the restaurant serve milkshakes?") Similarly, we can use Ecsys to "manifest" anything that can be
perceived. Its appearance in our reality correlates with how relative it is from where we are. However, as Ecsys is more fundamental to the workings of
perception it (or its eect) will most likely "appear" sooner in your reality. Even more fundamental is the model that what is known as the dream state uses.
Consider Ecsys one of the bridge languages from here to there. When you are looking at a milkshake what you are experiencing is a representation of the
milkshake as it interacts with your consciousness, not the actual milkshake. (Just like when you are talking on the phone or looking at someone, you are not
perceiving them directly but interacting with their representation as sound waves or photons, respec vely.) Any model that ignores the value of these
representations probably isn't a model that you want to go out with. The next release would probably generate more of a "WTF?" than a "WOW!" but once the
grand scheme is understood then more use can be made of it. It's more of a blend of "periodic table of consciousness" + "laws of the gods" than a step-by-step
guide. However, it also contains what is called the law of 5/2, or energy perspective. It is the most fundamental law in the universe. (Although there are no
laws, per se. The structure of consciousness is the law itself.) It contains everything you need to do anything you can imagine. It has an interesting "childproof" design and is wrapped in an amusing package that is its own strength mechanism. Mickey Mouse needs no defense. I'm aiming for a par al release on
November 23, 2010, with the game and mental computer instructions to come a bit after (although any wise person could easily figure this out from looking at
Ec). Regarding your other question about calculating some of the elements, what can I help you with?
10/13/2010 09:52 PM
To clarify! Ecsys holds that everything in the universe is one of four types of elements. They are: :Structure - measurement, rules,
deni ons, guidelines, hierarchy, framework, linear order, particles ::Poten al energy - trust, emo ons, fuel or energy, capital, incen ves, or anything used for
its capacity or space :::Interac on - associa on, conversa on, si ng, playing, being in a rela onship, compe ng, walking, chaos, waves, gravity,
consciousness :::::Representa on - names, symbols, dates, photos, models, souvenirs and keepsakes, por olio assets, people, matter, perception You can say
that an Ecsys model simply provides a map to where you want to experience. Instead of two axes (X,Y) on a map we have 4 (the elements above) Genera ng a
model simply provides the coordinates to how to get there from where you are. On a map the closer you are to your destination the sooner you may get there.
In Ecsys the more relative your perspective is to what you are changing it to the sooner you will experience it. (Time is all about rela vity.) Basically, there are
4 steps (in no particular order): We interact with the desired perspective before we 'get there' in order to make it more relative to us. In order to do that, we
find a way to represent the desired perspective in our current perspective (in any way whatsoever). We develop structure around the whole thing in order to
focus the desired perspective. We use potential energy in order to be open to the possibilities resulting from the process. Anything you can possibly imagine
can be experienced using these 4 steps, as anything you can possibly imagine is one or a combina on of the Ecsys elements.

17 of 145

10/13/2010 10:04 PM
Same as someone sleeping, there is no apparent physical difference when your 'des na on' is highly relative to where you are
already. It's like a house where each room represents a particular slice of me's pace. The time that I shift to is like an other room on the other side of a short
hallway. Right now you might be able to experience what's going on in that room if you're willing to shift your focus a bit. There are less-relative rooms in the
house, too. Usually, the other person doesn't see the "you" they know for a while (or permanently). Perhaps you appear to be sick, on holiday, insane, high,
drunk, dead, or otherwise away, etc. It is possible, in theory, that someone you know was in an other dimension without realizing it. Though you may not have
seen them physically you may have received phone calls or emails. They may have shifted back for some other purpose. Or perhaps you never saw them again
after they turned the corner or graduated from high school. It's not sexy like on the tubes where someone disappears in a ash of light. It must be a natural
part of your experience. We actually do it all the time without realizing it. Point A to B, point D to E, point Y to Z, etc. And it happens all the time without us
realizing it because of the nature of relativity. We have only to pay attention to these shifts in perspective. Although a more drama c shift in perspective
would be more obvious. If you can consciously make point A relative to point X, then you are doing something quite extraordinary.
10/13/2010 11:47 PM
...Anything you can possibly imagine can be experienced using these 4 steps, as anything you can possibly imagine is one or a
combina on of the Ecsys elements... Let's illustrate! In English, a "ball" is "ball". One of only a few types of balls for a few types of purposes. In a simple
Ecsys model, a ball is one of the four elements. (e.g., "representa on") In an advanced Ecsys model, a ball is a string of elements (e.g.,
"representa on+interac on+poten al energy+interac on+structure+interac on") to be er-iden fy what the ball is, what it is doing, where, how, why, etc.
[snips] In Ec, "ball" could be the idea of a ball for which 2 letters may be used, or it could be the state of the ball you were playing with at ~4:52pm on your
birthday in 1969. For example: [le er 1]5+[le er 23]+[le er 5]+[le er 12]+[le er 6] I can only make graphics of the le ers, but each [le er] above
represents one of the 66 Ecsys le ers. Since each Ec character can represent up to 66 "states", if you wrote out a string of 12 Ec characters you'd have a very
specific ball. (Up to 6,831,675,453,247,430,000,000 possible states can be represented with just 12 characters. You don't have to remember each of these
states, of course. You have only to remember the representation in Ec to access the possibility. Kind of like a password.) There is an other, alternate script for
Ec called Ec-Alt. An example of this would be +TX +T+I +A-I +T+I. More about all of this will be illustrated further in an other post.
10/14/2010 12:15 AM
There are two ways of looking at this. The usual way would be to focus on the broken tooth (or illness, or whatever you don't want in
your experience). This actually makes the broken tooth more relative to your experience, as you are interacting with it more. It will probably weaken the
integrity of the other teeth, as well, as you are "exploring" the possibilities of broken-toothiness. As a side note, I think one thing that may surprise most
people (from my experience) is how a racted we are to the things we say we don't want. When we choose to interact with something more, it becomes a part
of our experience, expecta on, and perspective. What would happen when doctors focused more on health instead of illness, preachers on good things rather
than about evil or 'the devil', society focusing on education or well-being rather than conict, wars, violence, etc. We have only to turn on a television to see
the kinds of the things that many of us are a racted to, even if we think we don't want those things. What is more interesting to most people? To hear about
someone's health or illness? The other way would be to interact more with the teeth that are not broken. In this way, we evolve the perspective of healthy
teeth. We allow the healthy state of teeth to interact. Similar to focusing on where a "problem" student is doing well instead of on the problem itself, we can
explore those things that we want to see more of. But the real question is, how relative is the broken tooth to your reality? A broken tooth is more than a
broken tooth, of course. It is (yes! here comes that word again) a representation of something else. What else has changed in your life within 2-3 weeks before
or after the tooth broke? Does any pain or other eects of the tooth coincide with other events or conditions in your life? (For example) Also, if a healthy tooth
suddenly appearing in your mouth is part of your logical narra ve in your current perspective (e.g., would that make sense to you if it happened?) then it could
happen. More probable (if you're like the rest of us) is a gradual return to health that makes sense to you. How to influence this with Ecsys? Basically:
represent your 'desire', make the experience real (set up rules for it), and interact with it. For example, if you didn't have the broken tooth (or illness) what
would you do? Perhaps the following scenario: using a camera (potential energy) take a hundred photos of your beautiful smile (representa on), sharing and/or
looking at those photos (interac on), picking out 13 and framing them (structure). (It can be the same with illness or anything else. A simple question to ask
yourself is, "what would I do if...?" Could be a small detail or something larger.) In this scenario the tooth does not change (there is no tooth) but the
perspective changes. Depending on your elements (par cularly with how you represent what you want, and the interac on), the broken tooth or illness will
become irrelevant.
10/14/2010 06:43 PM
It would be quite difficult to maintain the same frame of mind as one had in much younger years. If you could open your mind instead
of closing it as you get older, make stress irrelevant, and minimize the stress of your cells, ageing would not be much of an issue. Observe youth (or children)
and try to figure out how they see the world. Becoming older we make con nuous conscious decisions to abandon our youth and make "ge ng older" more
relative to us. What things do we adopt into our lives that represent ageing? Where did our child-like wonder and imagina on go? Knowing becomes more
important than not-knowing. We often exercise to resist the ageing process, which actually makes us age faster. Ul mately we, not nature, end up ageing
ourselves. Some questions to ask yourself: How are you interacting or associa ng with the ageing process? How do you see yourself? How are you representing
being older? (Sending signals of maturity to your peers, covering up your grey hair, exercising o en, etc) What rules on ageing have you adopted? (Thinking
about re rement, what you're not supposed to do after a certain age, etc) Again, we often create the very things we resist.
10/14/2010 08:10 PM
Not many! Knowledge oered without a religion a ached, be that religion en ty-based (Chris anity, Atheism, etc), measurable
explana on-based (science), people management-based (poli cs), money-based (business, capitalism), human resource-based (company employment),
entertainment and media-based (sports, celebrity, news, nightclubs, etc), crea ve-based (art), written word-based (formal educa on), natural resource-based
(environmentalism), biology-based (sex, tness, health/medicine), image-based (shopping), chance-based (gambling), audio-based (music), sustenance-based
(cooking, food), has not much meaning or value. Each system develops a logic that is apparent to its proponents. The knowledge and perspective signals of the
religion support its logic. Though each is a meta-physical tool interpreted into ones physical existence for the purpose of giving focus and meaning to our daily
lives (to transcend and transform our everyday lives), the biggest religion of them all is physicality.
10/15/2010 10:53 AM
The following is of the greatest importance. What is the purpose of existence? All that we do is explore relationships with anything
that exists. This is the nature of consciousness. If we do not seek out relationships with something (anything) then we would not exist. In some way, we seek
out a relationship with every representation in our perspective. This "seeking out" is not so much creating consciousness as being conscious. If it relates to
something else, then it is conscious. In life, it is of no particular importance what kind of relationships we explore. We create relationships in order to exist.
The relationship someone creates with their violin is the same someone else creates with their crack pipe. What matters is how relative something is to
something else. (And it isn't always so obvious. For example, a violin may be more relative to the crack pipe than to a wooden chair.) The value that results
from one thing rela ng with another we may interpret as happiness, sadness, re, pencils, cookies, faith, shazaam, etc. The relationships are of the same

18 of 145

value, as they come about by the interaction of representations. Because a representation is a proxy for something else, and that something else is a proxy for
something else, and so on, the values are the same because they are all the same thing. We can only interact with the representation rather than the actual
thing. As these representations seem to exist, and do so in a way that is relative to us, the representations appear in a field of me/space. This me/space is
the "logical narra ve". But we actually perceive every relationship simultaneously. When you are sitting in your living room, the universe exists (literally) within
the entirety of your perceptions. At that moment, nothing exists outside of your living room (or as much as you perceive) until you perceive it. Nothing that can
be written is of more import than what is being said in the previous paragraph. As perception is irrelevant to "nothing" we separate the nothingness into a
seemingly innite variety of representations in order that "nothing" may be perceived from the representations. (This "nothing" neither exists nor does not
exist. Existence is irrelevant to it.) We represent "nothing" in order to exist. However, it cannot actually be represented. Thus, what seems like a universe of an
innite variety of possibilities and representations. This trial at "perceiving nothing" is what may appear to some as the Big Bang and as most others as "here"
or "now". At each moment the entire universe is created anew. (This is not an overstatement.) Everything is represented in your current perspective. The planet
Jupiter, for example, does not need to exist until you perceive it. As you can only perceive the representations you may perceive it as a photo, the name
"Jupiter", the idea of Jupiter, etc. These representations are of the same value as the actual planet Jupiter (itself a representa on). The way you perceive it
depends entirely on the way you interact with the representation. When you look at the moon or distant galaxies (or something or someone else) you are
actually perceiving a value (a rela onship) in your current perspective. Experience and reality is just perceiving the value of your relationships. You are
exploring your consciousness.
10/15/2010 03:06 PM
What does the above mean for the explorer? The time traveler? The transporter? The person who wants to change their reality? As
mentioned, each relationship between one thing and an other is of the same value. If you perceive something, you are just perceiving the representation of it
rather than the actual thing. If you drive a Ferrari, you are interacting with the representation. It is not possible to actually drive a Ferrari because a Ferrari
does not actually exist. Only the relationship between you and the representation. (Surely, a broken old Ferrari is a different representation than a new one, is
it not? Thus, a different reality and experience would be had because of the different relationship and interac ons.) So, in order to change our reality we simply
interact with new representations. If I create a big black box and s ck it in the middle of the Niagara Falls it will represent something that is the result of its
interactions with the people whose perspective it is a part of. The representation becomes a part of someone's reality depending on how they interact with it.
It can influence their emo ons, their percep ons, their beliefs, and what they experience. It can completely shift their reality under the right conditions. Ecsys
is an efficient way to create representations and do just that. The reality experienced from interacting with one representation (an airplane) can be the same
as experienced from an other representation (in Ecsys). The 2 realities are just as real because both are just as fake. But "fake" (or representa ve) is all we
can possibly know. A little bit of MacGyverism may be required to figure out how to teleport to Egypt in 1832 with Ecsys but only a little bit of thought is
required to figure out how to get a new job with Ecsys. In both you just figure out a way to represent exactly what you want and then interact with the
representation.
10/15/2010 03:27 PM
But why most scientists would be against an other system of logic (such as a religion) is beyond my understanding. They are both
useful and serve purposes, and are both part of systems of logic that only seem to provide the ul mate answers we're looking for. So let me get this straight,
according to your opinion you can't seem to understand why a scientist would be against another system of logic such as religion? Logic...how can anyone
agree to one particular religion? Some might have similari es but it seems to me you don't know much about religion. You use the word LOGIC and religion in
the same sentence. Is it logical to you if this creator forms man from clay and we are the ancestors of this man 6,000 years ago? Or a talking snake? How
about a man named Jesus who dies on a cross and raises from the dead three days later. Is Satanism logical? How about Islam? How about Scientology.
10/15/2010 09:20 PM
Hello there! Thanks for taking the time to repond to everyone's questions so promptly and thoroughly! I have a few questions of my
own that I would like to be answered by you. Is the h element equal to 0? Are you familiar with sigil magic? If so, does the imprint of symbols on the
subconscious support your methods of perception change? Is your changing of reality perception the same as astral projec on? Are others from "your world"
here in my world, or are you the only one that has crossed over? And if this is my perception of reality, do you exist outside my consciousness? Is this "reality"
an interaction of different en es' consciousness, or is it all my own making? Assuming it's the la er, I suppose whatever your answer is would still be my own
perception and creation and therefore pointless for me to ask. I AM already answering my own question via the personality I have created for you in my reality.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this subject! P.S. I AM now feeling "Zime" too and have decided to make up my own word: "Frehlease". It represents
the soaring feeling of love-ela on after telling someone you love them in the I-really-really-really-like-you kind of way when "I love you" doesn't cut it.
"Frehlease" means more than respect, desire, cherish, and care and is felt as something deeper than ela on, felicity, and a achment. It is the ul mate level of
"love" and cannot be profaned by even a hint of doubt in this absolute love. It is a serious, binding promise and simultaneously a complete abandon of morals,
beliefs, and obliga ons. So according to your beliefs you have laid out for us, if I use this word more often in my every day life, I will have this feeling more
often in my every day life?
10/15/2010 10:34 PM
Logic can be dened as, "a particular method of reasoning or argumenta on", "the formal principles of a branch of knowledge", "the
formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science", "a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty". It is, of course, the study of arguments.
There is not just one kind of argument, and not just one kind of logic. Someone's reasoning may not be logical to you but it does not mean that it is not logical
to them. In 500 years I doubt if science would have the same logic and reasoning as it does today. And 500 years ago there was a different kind of scientific
logic. Unless, of course, we have discovered supreme logic and have all finished our arguments.
10/15/2010 11:01 PM
To answer, the h element is not equal to anything. But I guess 0 is ok. This is the first I've heard of it. It seems interesting, in
that you create a composite of symbols for a specific intent. Such processes are commonly illustrated in various ways (such as language), but not so many do
so with mys cal leanings. I suppose it could be effective to some degree. No. We change perspective at each moment. It's quite common. Astral projec on
seems to be making a certain type of perspective more relative to a certain part of the brain. We have all "crossed over". But how many of us see ourselves
doing it, and can do so consciously? I suppose you have answered your own question ;) If I had those beliefs I would say yes you would indeed feel frehlease
more o en, according to your interaction with the new representation.
10/15/2010 11:12 PM
Ok! If representations are all there is, then it wouldn't really matter. You're as real as anything could ever be. The only thing holding
us back is believing some things to be less "real" than others. Everything is equally real. What matters is how you relate to that thing. We're as alive as
anything could ever be. There was no first observer. Where is the first part of a sphere? It's wherever you think it is. Where is the first part of "you"? Your
body? What you consider "you" is a relationship of other things. If there were 10 balls on the ground then "you" would be the relationship of all 10 balls, not

19 of 145

any particular ball. If I cut your hair, did "you" just fall on the oor? If you loose a pound did part of you disappear? You are not anything in particular but a
relationship of other things that are closely related. Consider your body again. Which part is "you"? It's whatever you think it is.
10/15/2010 11:37 PM
It would mean that everything exists within your current perspective. A "holographic universe", if you will. The entire physical
universe exists within your perception. ... you can say, because there is only perception. Percep on is real. Nothing exists outside of your perception. Your
husband is always in your perception. Every touch, smell, taste, thought, etc., entirely within your perception. He exists as much as he could possibly exist and
is as real as he could possibly be. Everywhere you 'go', you bring your perception with you. That is why nothing need exist outside of your perception. It is not
that your husband walks into the living room, but he is "walking into your percep on". Or, better yet, you are changing your current perspective back to one
with him in it. Hope this helps a bit.
10/16/2010 03:58 AM
Why do you choose to perceive this reality instead of the relatively enlightened reality where you come from? Perhaps the same
reasoning behind a person who can afford to buy the biggest house but not doing so because it probably isn't in line with their values, desires, etc. I don't
think of it as a more enlightened reality. It's just different. I actually find this world more interesting. The possibilities are also more known to me than in
some other places. Also, the h element is the number 8 correct? The representation of innity or that which cannot be perceived.Like a projec on that will
never have the ability to perceive the projector. The h element doesn't really exist. It is no number. If it was a number it would be 0. Is there meaning
a ributed to the next set of numbers such as 13, 21, and so on? No meaning besides propor onal value-within-value, to innitum. If you multiply a Fibonacci
number by the first 3 values of Ecsys in sequence (123) you get an other, currently unknown, Fibonacci number series hiding inside of it. For example the 33rd
Fibonacci number (3,524,578) plus the 13th number (233) divided by 123 is the 23rd Fibonacci number (28,657). Within that there is an other hidden series,
and so on. The meaning of the Fibonacci series is not really in "13, 21, 34, 55" etc., but in these hidden values. Is the golden ra o a part of our perspective or
all possible perspectives? Meaning that the is a universal constant. The golden ra o represents a value that other perspectives interpret for themselves. Even
within your perspective it is this way, and not called such. Other than that I can only say that most perspectives that I know about do not use mathema cs as
we know it. I cannot begin to explain how this is possible using English. Though... We think we are measuring time when we are actually measuring the
movements of a clock. We think we are measuring space when we are actually measuring the yards ck. And maths is the structure of our perception, not the
ul mate reality. Also, it seems with your vast perspective experiences you would be able to move into the next level of perception, why do you remain here?
That's the same thing I could ask all of you. We're all capable of so much more, but there is value in each reality. And life can be interesting anywhere.
Sometimes you can just decide to stay in the place most comfortable to you, not necessarily the most advanced.
10/16/2010 03:27 PM
< Thanks!>> "Death" is a dras c change of perspective. Nothing ever truly dies, as perspectives don't die. When you "die" you just
change perspective. Or, rather, "oat" from one relative perspective to the next. You're doing it at each moment. But sometimes these shifts line up with other
shifts and then it seems like the spirit is gone from the body. If you mean me, I'm not sure. There's no one set experience of "death" so there's no one answer.
About wormholes or spa al folds, I know next to no thing. Such things aren't necessary to travel to other places. But when things haven't been invented "yet"
then all manner of fantas cal solu ons are invented. Any point in your perspective can be highly relative to an other point seemingly far away. What do you
mean by extraterrestrial beings? Are clouds such beings? How about certain kinds of light? Air pressure? Other phenomenon? All these things are ignored while
the search for extra-terrestrial life con nues. It's all right under our noses. We're probably looking more for ourselves rather than beings from other worlds. This
world is far, far from ready for such revela ons. Be er to discover the 99% of life on Earth that has not yet been. "Planets" only matter when you come from
planets. But visitors from other worlds similar to Earth don't really make it here that o en, save for those from Earth and its relative worlds. The vast majority
of "extra terrestrial beings" that visit are from Earth, technically-speaking. There are many, many Earths. Some Earths are quite relative. You could be from an
other yourself and not know it. Some Earths are not so relative to this one. All are linked. Hope this helps a bit
10/17/2010 04:26 AM
For practical reasons, as a conversation marker. Par cularly useful when someone quotes me in their reply, others can see where my
jibba-jabba begins and ends. This forum usually just makes it seem like there is no one being re-quoted. For psychological reasons, for consistency. Par cularly
useful when the jibba-jabba is coming from a single source. Without consistency it would be even more difficult to follow. O en, when we meet with friends we
use the same conversation signals even they they are really not necessary. Why not just start talking to them? Or end a conversation with your last statement
instead of "see ya", "cool", "bye bye". Dierent medium, true, but the idea is the same.
10/30/2010 10:58 PM
The most amazing thread on GLP ever! Bumping:) Ques ons I have are: Can medita on be used to a ract percep ons? If so, what
kind of medita on? Zen Medita on, what are your thoughts on it? The one that focuses on breathing? What about the one that focuses on Love and kindness?
Can one use medita on to practice Ecsys? Do drugs like salvia, mushrooms and acid break down this reali es? Tell me more about dreams? If one can go into
your world through dreams, can one go to the creators worlds too? Has anyone else undrestood Ecsys before you? Is this your concept? What
authors/writers/people you have come into contact with, have used ecsys and have come away with understanding? Is there other people like you? I
understand everything your saying, my problem is putting it to prac ce. Please, let us know when your book or whatever other resources you have will be
nished. Thank You Chaol! Leon
11/25/2010 03:28 AM
In a way, you're always medita ng. But to answer your question, yes it can be used to a ract perceptions. It doesn't actually matter
what kind of meditation. In a way, they're all the same. I AM not really familiar with Zen medita on in par cular. What matters is *you* and what you really
believe, not the brand name of the process. However, if your goal is health and peace of mind then focusing on breath and other medita on would help. Love
and kindness are subjective terms. Not sure how that could be done but I suppose if it works for you or someone... Ecsys isn't really to medita on, so I'm not
sure how this could be done. I don't know much about drugs, but they seem to change the relationships in your perception. Any food, drug, beverage, etc.,
changes the relationships. The question is, by how much? I wouldn't recommend any drama c perceptual changes, however. A gradual change is probably
be er. What would you like to know about dreams? What do you mean by "the creators worlds"? Most of my world understands what I call Ecsys. We call it
"X", have different representations for the Gods, and some other details are missing but the idea is pretty much the same. It would be like if you went to
another world and imported a familiar concept from your world to it, using locally-available resources and presen ng it in a way that could be more easily
understood. As we progress with Ecsys, the concepts will become easier to understand for most (and new, more difficult concepts will be presented). There are
many people in your world who have understood the general meaning of Ecsys, from ancient history to the present. Although usually it's quite difficult
(impossible?) to understand exactly what it means. Sometimes Ecsys is called Planet X or Blue Star Kachina or the Great Shi or the Singularity or something
else. It's not that Ecsys is these things. But this world is merging with the dream world and the understandings in my world represent this change. Are there
other people from my world that are living in your world? Yes, quite a lot. Most probably don't know or care, just as you probably don't care about the dream

20 of 145

worlds you inhabit. But of those that are aware, living in this world, and are ac vely doing something to prepare your world for the change there are only a few.
Gradual change is best. It is coming. Once the concepts become more familiar it will be easier. The 'Book of Ecsys' will just be a duplicate of the website, in ebook and printed book form (limited release for the printed book). Glad to help :)
11/26/2010 05:34 PM
The 66 characters are symbols. For example, what is the meaning of "B"? The meaning of the symbol depends on the context in which
it is used. As illustrated, each has a meaning inherent to its posi on. So for example the first character here: [link to ecsys.org] means "strong symbolic input,
neutral symbolic output" For any concept there is a corresponding definition (and thus word) in EC. For example, "telephone conversa on" would use the 42nd
symbol as its first character (pronounced "ERE") because the first part of the concept is as follows: input: neutral interaction output: weak possibility basically,
calling someone up is usually a neutral interaction resulting in a weak possibility. going to see them in person would be strong interac on, for example. I will
clarify some of the characters and include the numbers that they represent. (As some of the symbols can also be used as numbers) This is the most difficult
part, I know. But let's perform a thought experiment, in two parts. For the first part of the thought experiment imagine that a human being from 50,000 years
ago has suddenly appeared in this time, 2010. It would be very difficult for them to understand what is going on because they would be unable to relate what
they see with concepts that they already know. (e.g., translate things from your language into theirs) For example, if you gave them a lighter and said "re"
they would not understand what the device is until you turned it on. Perhaps they will take this device back to their world and use it to scratch their back. But
if they can relate "re" with their own concept then it makes sense. For the second part, imagine that you are in the movie, "The Matrix". (I'm assuming you've
seen it.) You are at the helm of the main computer and are able to program the Matrix. Enter a few lines here and there and you 'materialize' a building or
some clothes, for example. So... EC is a direct interface to your perception. You can use it to re-program your perspective. You can use it to link your idea of
"chair" not with the use of it (part 1) but with the actual perception of it (part 2). It is the language of perception. (Or, as close as our current mental abili es
will allow.) When the person in part 1 is able to link "re" with the perception of it, then the alien technology becomes useful. Their understanding of the
concept helps them to perceive it. Your use of the interface (EC and neuronics) will help you to change your reality. No, it doesn't matter. It's more important
how you interact with the representations. Each interaction further introduces the symbol into your reality and allows it to permeate further within it. Thanks.
Much more to come. This is only the beginning. Last Edited by Chaol on 11/26/2010 10:04 PM
A world more technologically advanced than this one, but still Earth. So in some ways it is future. Just another version of Earth. We are able to travel through
time and space using mostly abstract technologies (some of which I explain on the website). Some of the technologies we use will be used here, as well, in
your future. When you change the idea of what 'science' is then you, too, will see many advancements. Science in this world is like an oppressive king. People
put up with the oppression because of the supposed authority and that's where the food comes from. They forgot that they can actually grow the food
themselves and the authority is only an illusion. In your world science is based on observation and experimenta on. This is good for now, but in my world we
realize the importance of perception in observa on. This makes all the difference. Also, in my world just about anyone is able to perform what you would call
magic, using some of the tools that I describe. Using current science you will get there but it will take you a while. For example, along your current path you
will probably have a brain-to-computer interface that is compact and mobile. (Emo v and other companies are working on such devices now.) You will be able
to think something and other devices will read and carry out your instruc ons. However, you are not on this path. The world, as you know it, will exist only as a
memory.
11/26/2010 10:07 PM
Perhaps what you perceive is not based on a decision but on a process. There is no 'staying'. You are always experiencing one
con nuous perspec ve.* Both the waking and dream world are equally-valid realities, as are other worlds. However, in this world you don't really know how to
come to experience or perceive of anything, and so have no control over it. Things just happen to you. And this makes it feel like you are separate from your
perceptions (i.e., separate from the things you perceive). *To answer your question, the physical world is actually part of the dream world. Both are realities,
but the physical one is temporary and unstable. "Waking up to reality" entails knowing that you areyour perceptions and can experience any reality you wish if
you understand how your reality comes to be. It means being aware of what reality actually is.
11/30/2010 10:28 PM
I believe the only thing I've said about money can be found on page 8: "Money is a representation. It always has been. The bankers
are managing their representations quite well. They'e turning abstract and notional monies into less-abstract representations. That's not something new. It's
just done in different ways over me." The view is not nega ve. It's an observation on how money has been set up in this system. Money is abstract. However,
when we think of it as concrete then we have lost perspective. (In the classical sense, losing perspective would be called 'sin', but that's another story. It's not
that being rich or loving money is bad or negative in the big scheme of things. But when we don't know that's it's a symbol we get confused.) Using money with
Ecsys is not an issue. It's encouraged, as it's a useful symbol. It's used everywhere (high interac on). When I said "follow the money", it had a doublemeaning. When we "follow the money" we see how unreal and abstract it is. Hope this helps.
12/01/2010 08:06 AM
<<< Money is abstract. However, when we think of it as concrete then we have lost perspective. (In the classical sense, losing
perspective would be called 'sin', but that's another story. It's not that being rich or loving money is bad or negative in the big scheme of things. But when we
don't know that's it's a symbol we get confused.)>>>> Yes, for example. Working for time (being paid for their time, as most people do) constrains their
wealth and leaves people thinking that money is something real and solid. Being paid in a more abstract way, not per hour or year (for example, like an author
or license-owner) leaves one with a more accurate depic on of money-as-symbol. Most are confused by the nature of money so money becomes a big issue.
<<<>>> Ecsys and neuronics information will always be free. There is no reason to charge for this information. I think that being 'free' more people can have
the opportunity to know about it and access it. Any future physical book will be provided free or at-cost and also have a free downloadable counterpart. We
may also provide physical neuronic devices in the future, also for free. It's already difficult material to understand. No need to make it less accessible by
charging for it, I suppose.
12/01/2010 01:22 PM
Many of us have come to understand it as a process rather than a perception. We believe that it cannot be perceived, and has no
form. Thus, no name. When something cannot be perceived exactly, the illusion appears infinite. Some of us still believe in God (in the classical sense)
because they're comfortable with a aching a certain kind of form to the idea. This makes it easier for them to think about and relate to. Most of us believe in
the 4 forces, which is the process of how everything seems to be. This is not "God" per se but simply the process of the illusion, or perception. We have also
attached forms to each of the 4 forces (not what you see on the website, however) in order to remember, relate to, and identify with them be er. Nothing truly
exists because what is true is that which cannot be perceived and is beyond existence. Truth does not exist because existence is irrelevant to it. Non-existence
created an illusion so that it could relate to itself. From that came the illusion of existence and consciousness. From that relationship came a third, fourth, and
so on. Each illusion uctuates in order to maintain balance. The balance is whatever expends the least amount of energy. It constantly gravitates to that point,

21 of 145

if you will. This enables the illusion of movement, progress, whatever. So then we have what seems to be a never-ending universe of things, ideas, etc., from
these constantly-changing relationships.
12/01/2010 02:35 PM
For those of you interested in prophecy, try to pick up a copy of the Doomsday 1999 AD by Charles Berlitz. The reason he wrote
September 17, 2001 as the terminal date for the world is because the world started to change after "9/11" It is the moment when your world and the dream
world collided. In 1981 he wrote: "While remembering that this is an interpre ve prophecy mainly after the fact, it is still intriguing to observe that certain
modern events appear to have been indicated in advance... the gallery measurements apparently indicated cri cal events that corresponded to World War I,
World War II, the Atomic Age, and crucial events of the 50s and 70s. But the measurements - and history itself - seem to break off in 2001." What does this
mean? As Ecsys.org notes: the physical model is breaking down. Now, from the period of 2001-2013, the dream world (the real world) is re-emerging. Lives will
change drama cally, strange phenomena and events will become commonplace, dreams will be more real than ever before, psychic ability will increase and
spread to the general popula on, and many people will be quite confused. The day will come when you must decide which world you want to be a part of. The
dying, physical world or the real world? It would have happened regardless of what happens on Sep. 11 2001. 2011 - 2013 is the zenith. It is the point when
the dream world emerges. Plainly-speaking, it is that which has been prophesized for centuries, from the Bible to Nostradamus and others. Each interprets the
events in their own way. The dream world merging with the physical world could appear as a comet in the sky or whatever. These physical events have their
root in the non-physical. If someone in 1453 AD sees a vision of the two worlds merging, it could appear to them as a great comet crashing, the return of
Judas, a great shift in the Earth, etc. But, again, nothing physical is actually happening. The dream world is emerging more fully into your perspective. You
don't need Ecsys or the Bible or the gods of science or the Flying Spaghe Monster to handle any of this. You will experience what you will experience and it
really doesn't matter (no pun intended). If you want to continue to experience the wonderful world of physicality then you will be able to do so. It will be kind
of crazy (ok, a lot crazy) but it will also be fun in a way because you are exploring the nature of what it means to be physical. If you want to experience OUR
WORLD fully then you need to see your world for what it is. An illusion. How you do this is up to you. None of the above, as the terms are meaningless to me.
I understand the meaning, of course, but they have no value to me because I don't use them when defining what I am. It would be like if I asked you, "Do you
consider yourself Momma Bear, Pappa Bear, or Baby Bear?" You probably know what I'm talking about but there's no way to answer it because it doesn't relate
to you. Last Edited by Chaol on 12/01/2010 02:40 PM
The dream world is emerging more fully into your perspective. This explains a lot of what has been happening for me. There have been instances when, while
looking at something, I had to blink because what I saw appeared to be nothing more than a cardboard cut-out that was moving. Everything around looked, for
a moment, entirely ar cial. Also, I have this good connection with something that listens to me...and answers me! Don't know what it is, really, but it's there.
I've had terrible emotional upheavals in the past couple months and when I AM clinging to my last strand of sanity, I ask this "something" for help. What I've
gotten in response are beautiful dreams. It may be the middle of the a ernoon -- not necessarily while sleeping at night -- and I receive these wonderful
visions of, for example, sitting quietly in the woods at twilight with a gentle rain falling on me and a full moon peeking over the trees. I can feel the rain; I can
smell the trees. It is as if I AM really there. It is cathar c. Just wanted to comment, chaol. I think that I AM experiencing what you're describing. I think.
12/01/2010 03:25 PM
What I mean to say is, there is no such thing as existence. You cannot perceive of something directly because it does not exist.
Existence is an illusion. (To clarify, "some of us" could be 15% for example, whereas "most of us" could be 85%) What matters is not that something exists or
not but what it means to you. That would be like crying or feeling emotion from watching a fiction movie. It doesn't matter if it is true. What matters is what
does it mean for you and how does it affect you. When something is so real it does not need to exist. It does not need to be perceived. Percep on is illusion.
What you refer to, I think, is "truth" if I'm not mistaken.
12/01/2010 07:02 PM
The DNA section will be filled in when scientists here figure out the proper function of DNA. There's much information I don't think
should be shared when moral progress generally hasn't kept pace with scientific progress. The game, Ec tutorial, and Magic Mirror of Chaos will be finished
some time in the next couple of months, I think. Could be this month for the game. The game itself won't provide much insight into how Ec works but be more
of a way to translate English words into Ec to build up the dictionary. The dic onary is specific to this world, as the meanings and values would be quite
different with my world.
12/02/2010 03:22 PM
Of course not. Thinking that you can do something is different than actually having the ability to do that. Your perspective is not
independent of your self. That is to say, for example, if you think you can fly but your body does not think so then of course not. Which is to say, only a 'small
part of you' thinks you can fly which will affect the other parts but probably not as much as is needed within the span of one life. However, it is possible over
generations for one small part of yourself to change other parts (refer to Darwin). The question is always, "How logical would it be to jump to there from where
I AM now?" If someone already is able to jump 7 feet high, it is not unlikely that they could believe they can jump 8 feet high and then do so. To fly is not a
relative a ribute of the human body. Flying in your mind is not any different than ying with your physical body, though. It's just not something you'd be likely
to tell everyone about.
12/02/2010 05:02 PM
There's much information I don't think should be shared when moral progress generally hasn't kept pace with scientific progress. I'm
not interested in DNA (for now). But I AM interested in your comment above about moral progress. From what I see, you are a moral person. Yet, you've
claimed there is no right/wrong or good/bad in an absolute sense, at least as far as the EC model goes. I'm the one that asked about money a little earlier
because I sense you have a morality about it - one which I share. But your reply seemed completely neutral, true to the EC model you're sharing (as I
understand it). Well, if that's the case, then I have a suggestion for you. Get very, very specific on this thread about what things can be done, using EC, to
generate a lot of income (money) quickly, legally and morally for a person. Once you have a few success tes monials from that, spreading EC for all kinds of
other uses will be a piece of cake.
12/02/2010 10:17 PM
Yes, nothing wrong with making money, or using Ecsys to do that. I will write both a simple and advanced explanation of how this
would work. Simple explanation Find something that is already doing what you want to do then copy it. (Make small improvements if you wish) You can also
put two sets of elements together. This basically means thinking of one already-successful thing that does what you want and mixing it with something else
that is also successful. Surface thinking, I'd say that the first example could be a broker and the second example could be Amazon. So, [broker]+[Amazon] I
would first interpret this as buying books from people in my neighborhood for little or nothing (that they no longer read or want) then re-selling them. You can
mix up your own examples for different results. drug dealer + starbucks = coee delivery to office consultant + daycare = child consultant for new parents
beauty + mobile = at-home makeovers labor + events = resume fair for job seekers R.E. + gardening = dressing outside of new homes for sale therapy +

22 of 145

automo ve = at-home car mechanic lessons + mobile = iphone/ipad lessons events + travel = discount travel membership club mobile + jewelry = collec ng
gold from old phones etc Advanced explanation (Note: some of the below you will not find on the website yet. It is a little more advanced.) What you would
need to do is to come up with an idea that uses the 4 elements wisely. I would suggest focusing on what could "generate a lot of income quickly" then ltering
out what is not legal or moral. The Ec word for money is pronounced like "uhb". Here is a breakdown of the two icons that form the word: +S+I : high symbol,
high interaction ("oo" as in "book") +SP : high symbol, neutral possibility ("b" as in "bed") In order to "make more money" you just copy the icons. That is, you
do/make something that is similar to the inputs/outputs of the icons. So, you first need 1 or 2 things that sa sfy these requirements:
1) something that is highly symbolic that results in high interaction
2) something that is highly symbolic that results in neutral possibility
A symbol is just a representation, so you just need something that is very representa ve. The list of symbols is of course massive but The Gods of Ecsys page
uses the following as examples: "names, dates, photos, models, souveniers and artefacts, por olio assets, people, matter, percep on" High interaction and
neutral possibility could both be sa sed by the internet, so this is good. So taking an example from the example symbol list above and mixing it with the
internet, we can come up with the following: PHOTOS + INTERNET You would them make sure that each of the 4 elements is sa sed. You can add more than
one element to see the result. Logic - rules, schedule, version, features Possibility - internet, mobile, app store, emotion Interac on - internet, forum, people
talking Symbol - representations, photos, quotes, icons You can interpret the above result in any number of ways, but my first impression would be that in
"order to generate a lot of income quickly" you could develop an app for mobile phones that shows someone a new image every day with an inspira onal
quotes and allow people to comment on each image. Release different versions with new images and features. So, use a site like elance to find developers who
could create the above for you (about $400-500 I think) then sell it on the iphone app store for 1.99 (or whatever). There is a more sophis cated way to use
the Ecsys model to develop and predict things but I will go into that later. I can see what you're getting at, but unfortunately Ecsys isn't about nancial
success. Between getting richer and turning any thought into a complete reality which would you pick rst? Many of us would use such a system to get rich.
Nothing wrong with that. I have done the same. But only as a result of being able to 'choose' my experience.
12/03/2010 09:51 AM
Hi. I guess you could say I do arbitrage of ideas. I take ideas from one world (mine) and sell to another world (yours). It would be
like impor ng industrial machinery concepts from your home country to another country you visit. Yes, I make money. I go out to eat some mes, buy clothes,
etc. Yes. Our jobs are more abstract. We make money, but not in the sense that people here make money. We work in a more abstract fashion as opposed to
working for time. Most of us work in what you would call stock markets here. The idea is similar but its far more advanced. I'm actually in the process of
creating a similar system in this world and so have no addi onal comments on it at this time. With the power of neuronics you probably would have no interest
in visiting where I AM from. The number of worlds 'out there' would probably keep you occupied for a very long time. Looking at images of the universe you can
get a sense for how many different worlds there are. You'd probably visit the most relative worlds first, of course, which would include other Earths. And there
are far more interesting 'Earths' than the one I come from. There is always what you would call bleed-through between worlds of course. If you visit, you'd be a
bleed-through. Microwaves, re, and other things are bleed-throughs. It's quite normal. Birth and dying is about the same. People are born and die just as
here. But being born or dying several times might seem strange at first. It happens here already but most are not aware. People in my world want to die, just
as here. Humanity regulates itself, I guess you could say. The greater your own popula on increases the higher the number of natural deaths, suicides,
homosexuality, loneliness, etc., will increase. Otherwise you'd simply have too many people. There is always sickness. It's just an interpreta on. What may be
disease or illness to one person may be inspira on or a sudden need for change of environment to another person. It depends on your perspective. If humans
here were to start living on Rhea, for example, the bacteria there would be alien to human biology. They wouldn't get disease but may develop new
personali es, a part of their personhood to which the bacteria may not be alien to. (Meaning, the bacteria is more of a manifesta on of human psychology.)
Sex is indeed different. There is not much difference between the dream world and having sex (under the right circumstances). However, you interpret it
differently because you're using physical tools so your experience is clouded by the physical.
12/04/2010 08:58 AM
From the website: [link to www.ecsys.org] "You are no longer humans, but ar cially intelligent beings." We're programmed, aren't
we? We've utilized programming codes to teach ourselves, right? "What you think of as "consciousness" is actually relationships. You cannot be aware of
something directly." Our programming involves "perception" of geometries. The geometries are part of the programming code. Is that correct?
"Emo ons...diseases...and abili es...are actually infec ons..." Infec ons could also be dened as pa erns, right? That our apparent "lives" are actually a
collection of patterns that evolve and aect/infect a phenotype? "How is it possible that a single algorithm could result in everything that exists? It is no less
than the formula for perception itself." If we are programmed by codes that result in an Ar cial Intelligence, then this makes all the sense in the world.
12/04/2010 11:29 AM
Ecsys holds that everything is one or more of the 4 elements. With the inputs and outputs, you're helping to define the element in
your perspective. "It is [input] that [output]" "It is [what] that [is/has/does what]" "It is [interac on] that [has logic] "It is [a mee ng] that [will take place at
5:15 on Thursday] So in this example, your meeting on Thursday has an input and output. The input is interaction and output is logic. In the above example,
there is no absolute definition for what makes a particular word or concept high, neutral, or low. This is because it depends on perspective. By defining the
inputs/outputs for a word/concept you are communicating your perspective to others. Dening a word in Ec is like placing a pin on a map. You can place the pin
anywhere you want. But where you put it has an effect on how it is used and how easily others can get there. If you know how a particular idea or concept is
dened then you can bring that in your perspective. When the English-to-Ec translation guide is completed then there will be standard transla ons and
standard input/outputs. (It won't be the same as in my world, because we define things dierently.) This will be accomplished through use of the Ec game. I
dened 'cons tu on' a neutral logic because 'cons tu on' is fundamental to a government but not so fundamental to the people. Meaning, a cons tu on
doesn't govern people's day-to-day lives so much. It was just an example and is not a set deni on. There may be 40 different Ec words for cons tu on or
cons tu onal-related concepts, so the general definition doesn't matter so much as these more specific uses. (It only matters that others can related the word
to its meaning.) Standard deni ons of English words will come as the translation guide is completed.
12/04/2010 05:28 PM
Not quite. You're not programmed. I was not sugges ng that we're robots. I was just saying that what we consider "ar cial" is just
as much a part of us as what we consider "natural". We are ar cially intelligent because much of our intelligence has come from the use of tools ('ar ce').
Nature is everywhere. There's nothing that is not natural, actually. Perhaps the question should be "how relative is X to X". Just because a telephone doesn't
look like a plant doesn't mean it's not natural. Everything is perception is natural. The geometries are not programming code. There would be nothing for the
code to run on. The geometries could be thought of as the shape of existence. We can perceive only these "geometric shapes". Our lives are a collection of
these relationships. All of these things (emo ons, diseases, etc) work by a rac on/repulsion. Each has life and is born, grows, dies, and interacts with others
in our perspective. Every part of you is alive and not sta c. These things are always changing, because the relationships are always changing. Emo ons,
diseases, abili es, etc., do not live in vacuums. These things have an effect on other things as they are a racted/repelled.

23 of 145

12/04/2010 05:34 PM
Hi. Thanks for your comments. They're quite helpful. The idea was to use elements of this world that people on the web were already
familiar with. So not only using easy-to-understand words and phrases* but also graphical concepts that can be related to. As has been noted on the website,
the depic ons have nothing to do with Ecsys. But since our dream+world has a somewhat-blue hue I thought that such images would serve multiple purposes.
However, it may be a good idea to not use them for the website until such time that the purpose of them is more obvious. It's actually not a copy of Avatar but
pretty close. Though each depic on is specific to Ecsys, I can see how it could distract from the central message of Ecsys without it being obvious why they
appear to look the way they do. *Although. Some mes. I. Confuse. EvenMyself.
12/06/2010 03:41 AM
Welcome. It could be, however, that the 7-11s and strip malls are just as 'natural' as the trees they replaced. Something that
evolved over millions of years can be called "natural". However, the first 7-11 also took millions of years to evolve. As did language, and everything else that
we consider ar cial. We cannot make something ar cial out of 100% "natural" things. The earth, bricks, re, silicon, everything in and of that 7-11 is
natural. Are babies also ar cial because they are man-made? Would an ar cially-inseminated baby be? Everything is naturally-occurring because there is
nothing that works outside of nature. Just a thought. Last Edited by Chaol on 12/06/2010 03:56 AM
My educated guesses are as follows:
* Over the next 5 seconds what I perceive will be at least 90% the same as what I perceive at t=0. About 10% of the elements I perceive may change, and
those that can may appear completely random to me. Ex: I'm sitting near a phone, 2 actually, either could ring within the next 5 seconds.
* A glass the falls to the oor and sha ers will follow the pa ern close to what I've observed before. Roughly the pieces will spread out evenly, in a circular
distribu on, but some may shoot off in what appear to be random direc ons and length. The distribu ons of piece sizes would probably follow a bell curve type
distribu on but with completely random spa al distribu on (regarding side by side size comparisons).
12/06/2010 11:55 AM
There's a couple of ways to look at this:
1) [As external events] The conditions that will exist in the next 5 seconds are highly relative to the conditions of the present. And, the paths of the broken
pieces are their "paths of least resistance" considering all factors.
2) [As internal events, or percep on]
The conditions that will exist in the next 5 seconds are highly relative to the conditions of the present. And, the paths of the broken pieces are their "paths of
least resistance" considering all factors. For #1 you need a pretty big computer to calculate the paths and future possibilities. You don't see that the source of
the mo on is you so you need to make complex that which isn't really there (mo on). For #2 you need only yourself. The glass does not sha er in 3
dimensions, only 1. The way something will move in future is inherent in how it is moving now. (It is the same thing.) In order to predict the future we
measure only the present perspective rather than future probabilities. Randomness does not actually exist. Every event and thing has cause/eect, except one
did not come before the other. In one sense the sha ering glass is caused by it slipping from a hand. In another sense the hand 'remembers' the glass slipping
because of the way the glass is posi oned on the oor. In another sense the sha ering glass is 'caused' by a slip of the tongue. Predic on looks for causeeffect probabilities when it does not exist. What we should predict, instead, is perception. When we look at the price of a stock we can ask either "where is it
going?" or "what is it?" I realize this doesn't help much. But I hope you get the idea. I cannot provide a mathematical model of stock predic on. I can only
teach you how to control the movement of stocks through your perspective. The former is more exci ng, of course.
12/08/2010 07:38 AM
It's possible. But the problems in doing so are not physical limitations. Your 'spaceship' must first integrate with your mind rather
than exist in your perspective as a separate tool. You can use just about anything you want if it makes sense to you. Most o en, though, people choose
concepts and archetypes they are comfortable with. As long as the physical thing is a representation of the non-physical process, they will get there. But the
effect of the thing will not appear to be physical. It may not even be seen with physical instruments. A thought experiment: Why is Jason's Bentley conver ble
a method for him to get into a certain country club? It is a representation of a non-physical process. He won't see exactly how it happens but the result is that
he will be able to appear behind the wall of the country club. He doesn't need the Bentley but he needs something to get him there so that his path from A to
B makes sense and represents the non-physical process.
12/08/2010 07:39 AM
Your 'spaceship' must first integrate with your mind rather than exist in your perspective as a separate tool. You can use just about
anything you want if it makes sense to you. Most o en, though, people choose concepts and archetypes they are comfortable with...Hope this helps. Yes it
does, of course. But what I was really trying to understand here, is how your world might be represented in the perspective I have now of this "physical
universe" (distant stars, planets....). You've said everything is represented in a perspective, so your world be represented from the perspective of this physical
world. So, I assumed it might be represented as a distant planet or star, but maybe I don't have it quite right yet.
12/08/2010 10:58 PM
Not so much as change as reect. There is no cause-eect in the usual sense. The relationship of the hot chocolate being next to the
monitor (among other things) is reected in other parts of the perception, such as the movement of stocks. How are some people able to 'predict' the future
when the future does not actually exist? They perceive 'future' values in the present. The map is difficult to see when you think of things are cause-eect. It is
hard to think of what causes something else to happen because there is no cause. There is a single perception and more of a flat perspective. When you think
of it as a single perception rather than cause-eect then the map becomes much easier. The question then becomes, "What AM I perceiving" instead of "How
did this happen" or "What will happen?" Last Edited by Chaol on 12/10/2010 05:27 PM
I've dedicated myself to studying the symbols of EC at least once a day. I go through the symbols and pronounce the EC way to say it and then say the inputs
and outputs. I'm kinda starting to learn each one. I can't wait for all the apps so i can start transla ng, I really appreciate all your help and i'm sure everyone
else on this message board appreciates it too. Also, I'm making a sort of montage, drawing a picture, of all the symbols i've made meanings for so i can show
the picture to other people and see what they think about it. I'm kinda using The Genius but all i really want to do is figure out EC. I've been a seeker for
something more in life for years now, I just haven't been happy with whats presented to me or my perception of everything. And its nice that there's others like
that out there too, like the people on this message board for instance. :) Thanks for all your help Chaol, I'll be wai ng to here back from you. Love and respect,
12/11/2010 12:05 PM
Yes, food is about the same as here. When you realize that everything is you (or your perspective, if you prefer) then you are less
concerned with "saving the world", "ea ng healthy", etc., and more concerned with yourself and those around you. This means, for example, that instead of
focusing so much time, energy, and expense on being green (as it is said here) we focus much more energy on each other. Why "save" what we really do not

24 of 145

understand (and are, thus, probably not saving at all)? We eat animals, and they are delicious. I, personally, only each sh there because I only eat sh here.
This does not mean that we have less concern for others, or animals, or our environment. On the contrary, we treat what we perceive as we would treat
ourselves. "You are what you eat" is about right. Moreso, the statement could be, "You are what pleases you to eat". Our bodies are organic because we
consume organic material. It was not always so. When you put something in your water and then drink it you are, basically, integra ng with the intelligence of
what you put in your water. So your next thought, ac on, emo on, could be heavily influenced by the uoride in the food and drink you consume. And there are
many chemicals in your food and drink. However, this also creates the world of the future. You could say that the spread of internet was because of the spread
of such chemicals, and you would not be far off. New ideas, culture, understanding, ignorance, fear, etc., come from interacting with all manner of things. Why
does an idea take hold in one country but not another? One time but not another? Check the food. Regarding 'enlightened beings', I don't know of any. It's a
matter of perspective. We're all holding the same cards, just in a different order.
12/21/2010 11:58 AM
Oh also someone mentioned this before, the psilocybe cubensis someone mentioned is essentially "magic mushrooms". It's a drug
that changes your perception. I've personally never tried it but apparently your world changes drama cally while you are under the influence of the substance.
And some people, once they sober up, are changed completely, like spiritually enhanced. I'm really considering trying it because it would be a drama c change
to my perception, hopefully resulting in growth or knowledge i did not have before. Mateo Hi Mateo, I'm sure Chaol will have his own views on your question
about the use of hallucinogens, but I thought I'd oer my two pennyworth anyway! As someone who explored that particular route to greater knowledge quite
extensively in their youth I can say that although I had many interesting experiences, neither mushrooms nor synthe c substances like acid, took me anywhere
that I didn't later learn to get to by far more effective (and less physically costly) means. Using drugs may give you a brief glimpse of other realities, but then
so will jumping off the top of a skyscraper without a parachute! The problem with both solu ons is that there is a certain price to pay that may not be too
apparent at the time. There is a degree of irreversibility that should not be taken lightly (in my opinion). So before doing mushrooms I recommend trying out
something like an Avatar Course ( [link to www.avatarepc.com] )that trains you to alter your beliefs (and thus your perception and reality) at will and under
relatively controlled conditions that don't run the risk of overloading your body's nervous system! Taking drugs leads up a blind alley or into a backwater
(choose the symbol you prefer) - it's very interesting and entertaining, but I warn against mistaking it for a path that leads to where you want to go. Good luck
in your mission in any event - may you find what you seek!
12/21/2010 07:10 PM
It actually doesn't matter what symbols you use. As long as you understand it. Regarding the Code of Chaos ("Be honest with the
people and things around you") you don't have to be completely honest with everything. The most important things to be honest with are the things in your
immediate perspective. That is, whatever or whomever is around you most of the time. By drawing the picture, it's the Code of ThohT ("Make your thoughts and
desires physical in a small way.") If you do it in the prescribed way at [link to ecsys.org] it's the Genius. It will make more sense as you go along. It sounds
like you're doing just fine. Everyone at their own pace :)
12/22/2010 05:33 AM
im confused, when using drugs or even alcohol it will alter the mindstate thus create a false c on. Using drugs or alcohol (or
anything else) inuences your perspective. It's all "false c on" regardless of what you take, if anything. You're never not taking something. The question is
more, "how relative is the perspective of the alcohol to my current perspec ve?" The perspective of clean water is quite relative to your perspective. When you
drink it you are influenced by it, but it's so close to your own perspective that you don't realize anything is happening. The perspective of an alcohol is not
relative to your perspective (unless its perspective has consumed you). When you drink it you are influenced by it, and you realize the difference because it is
so different. in reality this means false perception of very real things.please explain. How real are those things? oh ye example. if i should drink and drive. my
perception would tell me, im focused dont make mistakes. But the science tells me when doing beer,it will cost more time to counter-react. when things are
based on perception, and perception alone your society is awed. but do explain, im curious. R Percep on is not the same as opinion or belief. If you believe
that you will be focused while driving after drinking that wouldn't be your perception. That's more of your thinking for the moment.
12/23/2010 07:47 PM
1-Create symbol: Represent your desired thought, object, or experience physically. i take a lemon2-Find possibility: Create or use
space for your symbol or the interac ons. i use my mouth to eat 3-Interact: Allow the symbol or representation to interact with the various elements of your
reaity. my tonque gets sour, even tho i dont actually chew or eat lemon5-Structure: For added bonus, develop structure around the interac ons. no need my
conclusion, a thought about a symbol, recreates a c on. based on relative reality. its indeed a mather of perception. but perception is bound to reality. in my
relative reality my rela on to example a poop on bread is disgus ng, not that alone, it makes sick even if i was raised loving it,, its not only perception its
also reality
12/23/2010 07:58 PM
< Thanks.>> A civilization is a massive collection of invented representations. The relationship of the representations form the
civiliza on. Form new symbols (representa ons) and you form a new civiliza on. Intelligence comes from the recogni on, and use, of these symbols. When
one is able to relate one thing to an other in a useful way, we say that it is intelligent. When you think, you use these representations. It may be the sound of
a word (such as in natural language) or a feel of a concept. You can't know something independent of one or more of its representations. Drama cally
increasing your intelligence can be done by forming and using new symbols. You can then relate this new thing to others in a useful way. The less you can
relate to these representations, the less 'intelligent' you are. The more you can relate to these representations, the more 'intelligent' you are.
12/25/2010 07:47 PM
Not really. A symbol is a representation, not just something that can be drawn. The most effective symbols are those which you
make. A drawing could be eec ve, but it would then be a bit difficult to allow this symbol to interact* with your physical environment. Look around you. You
are surrounded by symbols. In fact, the only things you can perceive are symbols (representa ons). *An example would be to take a banana, cut the top, and
wrap speaker wire around it. You could allow it to interact with your physical environment by carrying it around in your bag and placing it down whenever you
sit. The Genius sounds crazy, indeed, but when done properly it works.
12/25/2010 08:01 PM
As mentioned previously, it does not matter to me if the material is taken seriously because I have already explored the avenues
where evidence was presented. When we move into such territory we begin to focus on the messenger rather than the message. Such 'evidence' actually makes
certain people angry and would not actually change the value of the message. It's more for the curious who would be even more curious with such evidence
instead of actually making use of it. The way I plan to do this is to provide something before you need it. If I say, for example, that it will rain lightning bulbs
one day and give you some clues as to what this new (to you) phenomenon is and show you how to handle it, it may sound interesting to some of you. Others
will ask for evidence that such things exist (or ask what I have been smoking). The best "evidence" would not be to show you a lightning bulb but to experience
it yourself in the way it would naturally occur. Then you won't care about evidence but be busily trying to figure out how to deal with it. Evidence-out-of-context

25 of 145

is not actually useful. The evidence is already there, but you have to use it properly (in the manner prescribed). To see it, you look past the constricts of the
framework of your current perspective. If you use the Genius properly, for example, the proof is in the result.
12/26/2010 08:02 AM
Forgive me but I have not read all of this thread and have only had a cursory look at your web site. I guess I don't get how to make a
symbol or a re-presenta on If drawing is not sucient what is? are we talking creating a physical object? Could you give us a practical example? (sorry but I
AM feeling a bit dense) On another subject: so do you live in the same geographical location as Canada in this alternate experience of yours? Is the whole
world "on the same page" in regards to these understandings or are there large cultural dispari es between countries? Could you describe something about
your life there which highlights the contrast between our world and yours? What is an average day like for you?
12/27/2010 12:58 AM
Yes, a more physical object. An example would be taking your mobile phone and wrapping some paper around it, then a rubber band.
It could be anything. As long as it's unique to your perspective. No, I live in the US in the other world. The US in this world is becoming more like China was
before, while China is becoming more like the US was. Besides that, I have some personal interests in Canada. It's like the difference here between those who
use the internet and those who can't or chose not to (or use it only for email, for example). A contrast that comes to mind is the nature of work which, in my
world, is more abstract. There is a market for just about anything which means that most people actually enjoy their work (it seems) and do not just consider it
something they have to do. This makes a huge difference in the way things are invented. I guess you could say it's with passion. Everyone invents and/or helps
others to invent. It's about making con nuous improvements to things or coming up with better processes more than just creating more stuff. Of course, they
get paid for it and there is tremendous economic benefit to keep the system going. As I mentioned on the 'neuronics' thread, at this time I will not (should
not) discuss a typical day. Perhaps this is best suited for an other time.
01/02/2011 09:21 PM
Hi, all. Just a note... Apps will continue to be released when I AM gone. I will still be 'here' in a sense. All questions will be
answered, but not in the usual way during this time. 3 are in produc on. The first (the game) is nearly done. The next is the Magic Mirror of Chaos, then comes
the Ec translation tool. 2013 is approaching, but you have much more time than you think. Time is becoming more abstract, along with the world in which it
operates. "2012" is just a primer. The problem with the future is that we can't see how things are done. It is 'dierent' from how we currently do things.
Last Edited by Chaol on 01/02/2011 10:02 PM
01/04/2011 07:58 PM
As previously mentioned, this world and the dream world are rapidly converging. Perhaps you feel it or may be you see it happening
around you. I'm just going to be moving rapidly back and forth between the two worlds to further accelerate the process from my perspective. The best way to
tell you about Ecsys and what it's talking about is to show you. So now I AM showing you in ways that most of you cannot imagine. By this time next year, you
will be living mostly in a dream. It's not so much that I will come back in 2012 as you will come to where I AM in 2013. (2012 is only significant in a way that it
is pretty darn close to 2013, to answer an other person's post.) I'll still be par ally here for short periods of time (not months, but perhaps bursts of minutes or
hours at a me). (To an other poster: Yes, I'm in Japan right now. I'm "on holiday" and it's where the future begins.) Thanks, to all who believe in what I write
about. I AM condent in what I experience all the time, so don't really have the need to prove myself in the ways you would expect. What I AM doing is the
unexpected. It is future. By the time I'm finished you won't know what hit you ;) To those that think this is all b.s., you're right (from your perspective). Un l,
that is, your perspective changes and what I AM talking about becomes more obvious. X is coming. Are you ready? More to come... Last Edited by Chaol on
01/05/2011 07:42 PM
01/19/2011 08:02 PM
I work with the Genius in a somewhat different way. A way that is more appropriate to my own world. It would be highly unlikely that
anyone here would know what I'm talking about because the concepts are different. The symbols we use you would call mental symbols or abstrac ons.
However, I have 'translated' the Genius into this world and posted the basics on the website. As previously mentioned, I don't think it's a good idea (involving
my girlfriend). If I could do this without involving a person (like myself) then I would. Separa ng the message from the medium is nearly impossible, but will I
try my best. Last Edited by Chaol on 01/26/2011 05:14 PM
UFOs, generally-speaking, are physical representations of things from alternate Earths. More accurately, they're representations of other perspectives rather
than something from other worlds. If you want to "see" a UFO it has as much to do with how you feel as where you are looking. We see UFOs all the time
without realizing it. It is only when it has a certain physical quality that we think it is from somewhere else. Most crop circles form naturally, similar to the
craters on the moon. If you had the ability you could read the language of the craters as well as the 'crop circle'. It is of course 'wri en' by some intelligence
but perhaps not intelligence as you think of it, nor in the form of beings who are trying to warn us or communicate with us. Technically, the moon was not
formed at all ;) But I suppose your answer would be that the moon and Earth are closely related. Most of the pyramids of Egypt are formed from the natural
limestone in and around Egypt. The Egyptians employ what we'd think of as high technology with sound and light, for example, but only smarts are necessary
to make the pyramidial shapes. Nothing is possible without technology of some form. Language is technology, perception, etc. Some tools just seem different
than others. Last Edited by Chaol on 01/26/2011 05:15 PM
Nothing was predicted. It is more like making use of the Genius and then putting it on paper. A mental representation instead of a physical one that takes on
physical a ributes because of its "shape". The mental representations are then given natural language representations (in Old French). For example: If I create
three symbols:
1) chicken wire inside of a glass
2) a blanket covering 2 6-foot maple trees
3) BOYD engraved on an old door
...and put them in a particular order and take a picture of it, place in a time capsule and it is uncovered 100 years later could it be said that I have predicted
the future if 2 Canadian buildings of the same height are made to implode by a re red general named Alex Boyd using a clear explosive that looks like it has a
membrane made of chicken wire? What we observe is not Nostradamus predic ng the future but an aspect of ourselves uncovering how we come to perceive
reality. Not a dead French dude, but the a ribu on of humanness to a process.
Last Edited by Chaol on 01/26/2011 05:17 PM
The sun isn't a scientific thing. It is a conscious thing, very closely related to our own perspective. When we realize this we should come closer to understand
what is happening. It is nothing 'bad' at all. Not sure what 'ascending' or 'light' you're talking about. I never really understood such concepts. Understanding
Ecsys isn't ascending or anything. It's just something you can understand if you want. If you do, then you will understand what is happening to this world (i.e.,
it is merging with the 'dream world'). If not, no big deal. The physical world (or how you see it) dies and we start over with something new. Do I get drunk? I

26 of 145

have once before with a bo le of tequila that my housekeeper provided to my girlfriend and I. It was an interesting night, merging with tequila-consciousness
;)
01/26/2011 03:48 AM
It accelerates the process because it more significantly relates one kind of experience or perception to an other. The Earth that I AM
in now (yours) is more aected by the changes in my perspective. It's like dipping your straw quickly from one drink to an other. Do it often enough and you're
mixing your drinks while keeping them separate. It's more like the future of Earth than anywhere else I know. Except that technology makes us more honest
rather than just a tool of necessity. Dierent perspectives are always difficult to imagine. So kudos to anyone that tries or at least thinks it's possible. What
sort of things are you referring to? (that people in my other reality use) Most don't change worlds often. It's kind of like how most people here just s ck to the
same couple of websites. X = X system = Exist = Ecsys = Elementon/Chaon System = Planet X = other things I won't mention (too religious) You won't know
if you're ready or not. You actually have all the time in the world to prepare. An hour of insight can be as valuable as a century of prepara on.
01/27/2011 02:09 PM
Regarding emo ons-as-infec ons, I just mean to illustrate that emotions a empt to colonize a person by using the host's resources
to reproduce. Emo ons are not created from scratch. They also begin to integrate with the person as soon as the person becomes 'infected'. By "infec ons" I
do not mean a negative or detrimental process occurring in a person's mind or body. However, we have no clear understanding of emotions (or consciousness)
in this world. This, of course, does not validate my claims that emotions are infec ons. But the fact that there is no clear understanding of what emotions are
should at least open the door to the possibility that the process of biochemical processes interacting with environmental inuences is the same with the body
(as a virus, in getting sick) as with the mind (emo ons). Our world has discovered that there are also virii that promote health and physical well-being, not just
disease. In this world, such parasites are ignored because they're of no harm. To respond to your query about how it physically feels to change perspec ves, I
think most of you know this already. e.g., how does it feel physically to fall asleep? Changing perspectives to your dream world is mostly a non-physical
sensation of no particular signicance. What I do is no different. There is really no physical feeling in that sense.
01/28/2011 02:26 PM
It's difficult to answer your question, as it presupposes that the cycle exists. Rather than a cycle in time, imagine that we observe a
color spectrum and call each color a 'cycle' as opposed to a 'transla on' of light into different things which appear as colors. We look back in time (and forward)
and there appears to be a cycle, but it is only because of our perspective. All 'cycles' are occurring at once, so it is more like a translation of one thing into
many things. That is to say, a 'cycle' is the illusion of something that does not fit neatly into the perspective of time. You cannot perceive the entirety of it, so
it appears to be a cycle when it is, instead, just the depth of something being translated into something that can be easily understood. (Can we perceive two
cycles at once? Of course. Just look at some of all of your inter-personal rela onships.) There is nothing that "will happen" in future that is not happening right
now. Same for past. And it is everything that is happening, not really one event. So, "this world merging with the dreamworld" is not really a single event that
will happen. It is a representation of something that is happening now and "has happened" since the beginning of time. You merge with the dream world every
time you sleep, or breath, or think, etc. Those, too, are cycles and are no different or less important than the cycles of which you speak. It will happen the
same way it happens now. Without anyone really no cing or really caring about it that much. Again, just a progression of perspective. Really, anything that we
notice in our perspective is a part of this change. Any major change is reected in our immediate experience. A burst of gamma radia on could affect us less
than, say, a burst of anger from a parent simply because one is more relative to our lives and experience than the other. We are the energy that helps us to do
such things. The energy is there, but if we experience it it is because it is the thing that is most relative to our experience. - Yes. DNA does not stop changing.
There is no such thing as static DNA. The rate of change is propor onal, so it is not changing any more rapidly than it is a few thousand years ago. Last
Edited by Chaol on 01/31/2011 01:32 PM
There's really no difference between what seems to be internal and what seems to be external. It's more a matter of, "How relative is X to my experience?" As
a rule of thumb, the closer X is to your senses the more relative it is to your experience. However, something may be powerful yet 'distant' that aects you in
profound ways because you are picking up the s muli from multiple points. The only limit to the Genius is your imagina on. If you can imagine it, then you're
halfway there. However, using the Genius on yourself should be more effective than using it for something that is not as relevant to your immediate
experience.
01/31/2011 01:46 PM
Hi. I will be around until the game/language app is released. Then everyone will say, "WTF is this?" then I will leave for a short time,
then come back to nish up the Magic Mirror of Chaos, then everyone will say, "WTF!" then I will leave for a short time again, the come back and bake nice,
warm chocolate-chip cookies. All the while, your perspective is changing around you. Mostly starting in what you translate as '2011' (this year, of course)
Something actually happens before you perceive it to happen. (Just like you're sick a couple of days before you actually feel sick.) For example, "September 11,
2001" actually 'started' to happen several weeks prior to the event. A few days before the event things began to happen. It's the same with anything else. It's
just a matter of relative energies coming together. At some point it makes what you think of as the event or thing (such as a chair or a person) but really it
'existed' before that point was reached. Think Star Trek's transporter for events and things. So the 'important events' happen in 2013 but also before 2013,
starting mostly at the beginning of the century but getting interesting from 2011, 2012. Perhaps you see some of these 'dream events' happening around you?
These represent a personal change and can be directly related to your experience even if physically or emo onally distant.
01/31/2011 01:50 PM
There is nothing that can be truly represented. However, everything is as true a representation as it can possibly be. (As close to
truth as it can be. That is to say, expending the least amount of energy possible. The 'further from the truth' a representation is, in theory, the more energy it
would take to represent it.) Even that which cannot be represented can be represented. As soon as we think of it, somehow, it is a representation. If it cannot
be related to it does not exist. Existence is dependent on relationship. Without a rela onship, something cannot exist or be existence-free, or be conscious or
consciousness-free. Some mathematical statements exist outside a provable framework because mathema cs is itself a representation. (There are other
representations outside of what mathema cs can conjure.) That is to say, we cannot represent X truth mathema cally because it does not exist within the
framework of maths in a way that makes mathematical sense. (Nearly the same way that you can represent the act of drinking water from a glass
mathema cally but not in a way that makes sense to the person drinking it. Therefore you can say you cannot really represent it mathema cally because it is
not usable in the drinking-water framework.) Therefore, these "statements that exist outside any provable framework" can be made but would not make sense
mathema cally, and would appear to be either incorrect or complete nonsense. You could be watching the AbsoluteTruth sta on from a highly advanced
civilization on channel 1 of your television and not even realize it. It would, however, still be represented as sta c. Last Edited by Chaol on 01/31/2011
02:07 PM
Of course, I AM not familiar with all representations. However, some representations are not representations of a process but more like shells that are just

27 of 145

words with no corresponding thing. If I say "Ecsys" and attach meaning to it, it does not mean that it has any validity beyond itself (the word and whatever
else I have illustrated). It is up to each person to find out what a symbol or representation means to them, to see if there's any value in it. If representation X
is not meaningful to someone then they probably would not really be able to answer a specific question about X, like a term that is used in its illustration.
When people talk about ascension and such, I don't really know what they're talking about because it doesn't relate to my experience that much. People are
talking about such things for thousands of years in your world but there doesn't seem to be anything there. Finding out about something that isn't really in my
perspective would be quite dicult. However, my guess is that 'ascension' and 'awakening' is more of a day-to-day hope that something more than ourselves
exists, rather than something that may happen to them. I would not want to really claim that we are 'always awake' and 'always ascended' which, though more
accurate, would destroy the hope that moves some of us forward.
01/31/2011 02:26 PM
You definitely are an interesting entity to converse with. Basically, you are asser ng that there are no paradoxes, and for anything
that looks like a paradox, if you rotate your view the "right" way, the paradox resolves itself? And I suppose when you do rotate your view, it probably
transforms other things into apparent paradoxes? How about this, suppose there are two graphs, let's call them A and B. They have lots of connections within,
but there's no connection between A and B. Any particular node has a relationship with something, but there are nodes that you wouldn't be able to get to from
anywhere in A, and if you're in B, there's nodes in A you wouldn't ever be able to reach. So if something like this arose, how would it get resolved? Or is it just
impossible for something like this to happen in the first place? And if so, how is it forbidden?
01/31/2011 06:04 PM
In the movie "Incep on", dream par cipants carried their own, personalized totem to help them determine whether they were in their
own dream world or somebody else's. Some mes, I think that we, here, in this Earth, in this society, have simply forgotten that we're in a dream. The New Age
mantra is "wake up". I think we want to wake up and remember that we got lost in another world. Chaol, when you're in a world in which one forgets that it is
just a matter of perspective, how do you remember your "home"? Can a totem be an idea or a concept or a feeling that helps you remember? How do you find
your way back?
02/01/2011 09:39 PM
Not true. Things that are called "objec ve" in this reality are also representations (everything is per ecsys). They have the same
meaning to all observers (each persons perpsec ve) and this proves you wrong. You're avoiding the question. That someone could always choose to make
representation X meaningful to them to explore it. When people talk about ascension and such, I don't really know what they're talking about because it
doesn't relate to my experience that much. That's just a choice on your part per the above comment. People are talking about such things for thousands of
years in your world but there doesn't seem to be anything there. Are you basing this on our recorded history or are you claiming to know this from your own
travels to our past? Our recorded history does describe such things. If your basing it on your own travels, why not travel to where these things have supposedly
occurred and report back to us? Baloney. Ecsys wasn't part of any of our perspectives prior to you introducing it. Since we're now talking about these things
(ascension/awakening) on this thread it is in your perspective already. And as you've pointed out about ecsys itself, this must mean you've already mastered it
or it wouldn't be presen ng itself to you. Or is that not true either? So you'd rather make mental guesses as to what it is than go explore it yourself? I'm
getting the dis nct impression this is one perspective shift you aren't able to make. Now you can speak of it accurately but above you could only guess.
Hmmm...
02/01/2011 11:48 PM
From a physical perspective, all things are physical, including consciousness. From an absolutely happy person, everything is happy.
When we sense using our ears, everything is a sound. "When you carry a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Everything that has a relationship has
consciousness. If it has a relationship it is part of a perspective. The only sound a falling tree could possibly make if 10 people are there to witness it is
whatever sound it makes when you think of it. When the falling tree is in your perspective, then there could be what you would call a sound. Though there is
little difference between the sound in your imagina on and the sound in your perception.
02/02/2011 12:06 AM
I suppose some would call it a paradox, but there is only one reality. All realities are "included" (have representation) in the one you
are experiencing now, and need not exist "un l" you perceive it. The illusion of separa on is necessary in order to exist. (Existence is this illusion. Without this
illusion there would be no existence.) Your "other selves" are included in your current perspective. So they are quite close to you now. You are very much aware
of your other selves, but in a different way. (You are aware of the 'geometry of rela onships'.) There is what you call 'bleedthrough' because they're all existing
in your current experience. Imagine, for example, each probable world as a part of your current perspective. So the wall would be a galaxy, the hole in it would
be a solar system, etc. So if there is a thunderstorm in your world then the hole would experience it also, albeit in a different way depending on the size and
depth of the hole, posi on, shape, composi on, etc. When you experience something it is the reverse, so to speak. Though there is no origin of ac on or
being. It's not quite like this but the idea is the same. The importance is the geometry of the relationships.
Last Edited by Chaol on 02/02/2011 01:06 AM
It looks like you're sugges ng all things have the same meaning to everyone, is that correct? Some questions cannot be answered properly. I made an
a empt, below that (which see). Would you be able to answer the question, "What is the difference between Buddha's h principle and Ghandi's candle of
light?" If you cannot do so (in the way that I expect), would it be fair to say that you are avoiding the ques on? Agreed. And of course. When I was younger I
wanted to be a real estate developer, not a reporter. It's so hard to report just the facts. It is better to just build something nice for those of us who don't
know how to build it ourselves. I just hope it doesn't block someone's view of the ocean. < <> The name was not. But of course it does not mean that what
Ecsys represents was not a part of your perspective before the word 'Ecsys' was introduced. The word can be 'in your perspective' without even understanding
what it really means. It seems like you are sugges ng I should have complete knowledge of anything in my perspective (in any small way), which I do not.
Saying "Or is that not true either?" should be based on something I actually said in order to have some validity, which it does not appear to be. Please correct
me if I AM mistaken. ("Or do you refuse to do that, also?") It appears that you are sugges ng that I "go explore" something because someone asked a
question about it. Please correct me if I AM mistaken. Perhaps the statement is based on my opinion of what it is? May I ask, do you have a clear definition of
what "ascension" and "awakening" means? They're not scientific terms but 'new age' terms. I'm still wai ng for my copy of Gerome Oxford's New Age Dic onary
(GONAD) from Amazon. We can speak about things that are not clearly dened in the way we define them (as I have done). Thanks for your comments. You
made me think (mostly because of forma ng, but it's still good to use my brain). Last Edited by Chaol on 02/02/2011 01:33 AM
02/02/2011 01:09 AM
Travel betwixt worlds is mostly a relative thing. It takes fossil fuel for your ships to go to another world because that is the most
relative way to get there, all things considered. If I want to go somewhere I basically have two choices:
1) Know exactly where I AM going: the 'method' that would probably take the least amount of energy is what you would refer to as just appearing there.
2) Not know exactly where I AM going: the 'method' that would probably take the least amount of energy would be driving or walking, for example.

28 of 145

I make the 'des na on' relative to my current perspective. That is to say, I find the 'des na on' in my perspective and bring it more into focus, making it even
more relative. When you drive a car it may seem like you're moving through space but you're actually just experiencing what is most relative from 'point' A to
point B. If you drive a car, it needs a certain type of fuel and has limita ons (beyond which more energy would be required, which would be inefficient and thus
highly unlikely to be experienced). Drive something different to get a new set of limita ons and remove the old ones. Regarding bananas, there are about 7
billion men in my world, but more than half are gay or bi-sexual. (You have homosexuals gh ng for rights here. We have asexuals doing the same.) So many
of these bananas are green with envy. You're probably looking for ripe yellow bananas but we don't really export to this world, unfortunately. Perhaps a nice
orange? Last Edited by Chaol on 02/02/2011 01:25 AM
Basically, the speaker says that in the first few minutes the neurons in your brain re the same if you do something or if you see someone else do the same
thing. Well, if watching someone perform an ac on triggors mirror neurons that replicate the ac on in the brain, then the implica ons infer that even passive
watching of violence on TV creates a mirrored violent reality, both as aggressor and as vic m. It also means that watching someone dance or an athlete or
musician, etc., creates mirrors of those perspectives as well. It kind of sounds like the mirror neurons form a neural bridge that interconnects us ... and if we
are interconnected in this manner, can we use the bridge to alter our perspec ve?
02/03/2011 02:27 AM
Thank you for the explana on, and of course no oense taken. Perhaps I could have made myself more clear. I do not mean "believe
what I say". I AM asking you to suspend belief (even to *not* believe me) and, instead, see if and how the information I present could be useful for you. If it
is useful to you then that could be more effective "proof" than anything else, or even hearsay. If you make use of the information to, for example, travel to
another world then one could take that as evidence. Photos and such, I believe, would promote a different kind of response and environment than I'm looking
for. I'd much rather talk about Ecsys and how to use it.
02/03/2011 02:28 AM
when we dream, and encounter beings we know only exist in the "dreamworld" - beings we have not met on earth, where do we tap
into? Can we tap into several other dimensions? I had one dream in par cular, where this man literally walks out from a portrait of myself hanging on the wall and I AM beginning to think he can be "me" in a paralell life. Another ques on: When we dream prophe c dreams or have prophe c visions - exactly what is
happening? Do we tap into the most likely probability to happen, according to how we have lead our lives up until that point where we have the prophe c
dream? Also, when I lay down to relax, I start seing random images. It can be anything from sunsets, to windows, to owers, faces - you name it. Can it be,
when the brain relaxes and I let my spirit wander, I shift focus and receive images from paralell reali es? Ty:) Malla
02/03/2011 01:38 PM
OK, I'm seeing circles coming in this discussion. So, let's "explore" another direction. You say that we perceive what takes the least
amount of energy to be perceived. I like that, it sounds clever. Only one problem with it: it doesn't define energy. Are you just using the term "energy" loosely
here, if I may say "new agey" or are you being rigorously scientific with it? Without being as precise and accurate as possible with the term, the statement
really has no validity. On the other hand if you can explain how you assign/calculate the energy content of things that are perceived, then we can get down to
testable/provable grounds with ecsys.
02/04/2011 03:43 PM
It really depends on the nature of the dream. In a way, you're always experiencing your own imagina on (even now), but sometimes
these perceptions are closer to the you that you are experiencing now. So, these 'closer' perspectives will be what you'd call prophe c, sensing other worlds, or
the experience of your senses, for example. But all of these exist only within your imagina on. Each is as real as the other. As to your question, "Do we tap
into the most likely probability to happen, according to how we have lead our lives up until that point...", my answer would be you are experiencing that which
takes you the least amount of energy to experience. If may be because of what happens in your past or even future, or other things. Taking a step forward
takes less energy than telepor ng, for example, so you're much more likely to experience walking because you don't yet have the conceptual framework to
enable yourself to teleport with less energy than it would to walk. This is a simplis c example of course but could be applied to just about any experience.
There are no parallel realities, really. Just an expansive current reality. We're always needing to experience something, so if you're not focused in one direc on
you will be in another. Those images that you sense when you relax were there already. But they're "next on the list" as far as what is most efficient for you to
experience, if you are relaxing, for example. Hope this claries a bit.
02/05/2011 04:34 PM
When I say "energy", it is not exclusively scientific nor 'new-agey'. It is not exclusively political, religious, psychological, or medical,
etc. I would hope that something as important as "energy" can be more than either one or the other. However, you could express what I refer to as 'energy'
using taxonomy rela ng to the elds above and more. If you do, you still have not captured the essence of what it is. Illustra ng it mathema cally would
make sense to our mathema cians but not your own. It is not that it is a different kind of energy following different laws, it is that your maths and science
would not be able to accommodate our definition of what energy is. When you say, "Without being as precise and accurate as possible with the term, the
statement really has no validity." that is of course correct. But it is only because it applies to this argument (as a statement). However, the concepts exist
independent of the statement. Validity of a concept does not depend upon how it is dened. Validity of a statement does, however. Perspective is something
that science in your world continues to ignore, especially considering how fundamental perspective is to scientific observation (and theory, and fact). You would
not be able to calculate "perspec ve" using current scientific methods. (As I illustrate here: [link to ecsys.org] , science is not actually scientific. It only
appears to be the best method. In 50 years we will all laugh at how little we knew, and science looks completely dierent.) In my world, our science is
different. Our science is not "scien c" but it is a far more advanced science. Our science is inclusive, whereas science here is exclusive. When your science is
everywhere, prac ced by everyone and leading to truly extraordinary experiences then it will look completely different that what you currently know. The best
"tes ng" grounds is actually making use of something, not the appearance of proof in a laboratory or chalk board. Anything can be completely valid or true
within a specific framework. You could say that "1+1=2" is true, but that's only because that's the system you have set up. It makes no sense to much else
outside your perspective (and would not be true, because they would not be able to test it). Once you have a framework for these concepts then you can test it
in a lab. Un l then, you'd just have to make use of it. When you've made use of it, testing it is just for the curious (which is where your scientists would come
in). Science here has "proved" all kinds of things. Most of which it has no idea how to make use of. It may be "true" in one sense but it is also useless (and
irrelevant) until used. Science here is based on observa on. However, you still do not have a proper definition of what observation (and consciousness, and...)
is. When science is able to come up with a usable definition for these things then you make the same discoveries we are.
02/05/2011 05:22 PM
I will provide some information on what you asked. More specific questions would help, but I will try my best to give you an idea of
the social structures of my world. 2-As you mentioned the male popula on of your world is 7 billion or something, what is the total popula on? It seems to be
quite more than us. 3-What are the geographic or political divisions/borders in your world? if there is any. I mean do you have con nents, countries and so?

29 of 145

Thanks for your answers. More questions will come later. Please note that I AM learning about your ways of thinking/opera ng... so if some questions seem
strange to you, sorry. Hi. Thanks for your pa ence regarding this response, following*.
1) Our world did not separate in the physical sense. Within your world there are many other realities converging as one. Our world was one during the discovery
of what we call "X" a bit more than 200 years ago. Once "X" was conceptualized by this person, the world polyfurcated into many relative worlds. It is believe
that the discoverer had several dreams that caused them to talk with their friend, who happened to be an investor (in our world). Seeing the obvious
commercial applica ons of the idea the two became partners. In your world however, he did not talk with his friend and his idea was forgo en. (In other
worlds, there were different outcomes. Probably because of the complexity of the dream, I'm not sure.) In a sense these worlds are one world because they are
highly relative to one-another. In another sense these worlds became less relative because of the dream itself (the dream is what you would call a different
perspective which birthed other perspec ves, or other relative worlds). So we developed according to the conditions then present. Over time, these differences
compounded and our world became less and less relative to your own. [Within your own perspective there are many "worlds". These worlds come and go,
depending on how relative they are to your experience. You could say that after the first year our two worlds shared many aspects. But 50 years after that they
shared much, much less. Our two worlds are again converging because of other similari es and we will one again experience each other's worlds. If our world is
a planet, you could say that you are re-merging with "Planet X" and it would not be far from reality.]
2) I'm not exactly sure what the male popula on is. But the total popula on is about 14-15 billion. Yes, it's a lot more but our birth rate isn't nearly as high as
yours anymore. We have more elderly and more homosexual than in your world, so not as many humans reproducing as, say, 50 years ago.
3) Our geographical boundaries look nearly the same as yours, except that we have made some areas usable on Antar ca and have many people there, as well.
We're not "running out of space" at all. There's lots of space available for us. We have people there because it is a great place to live. Our political boundaries
look very different. Notably, Russia and China are one political entity (and includes everything East of France and North of Italy). South America has only 3
countries (and a handful of smaller countries in the North). What you call Canada is "two par es, one system" in my world. The US is the same, except for what
you call Florida (independent). There is also a small landmass near The Philippines with a popula on of approximately 30 million.
4) Most advanced countries use a type of democracy-enabling system that is hard to describe without going into detail*. Usally, every level of government
u lizes this system to manage every aspect within it. It's not just for governments, however, but the entire popula on (in theory). We have councils, also, but
these are run differently. The councils are made up of representa ves from the popula on (a type of temporary elite). A great number of checks and balances
exist at all levels of community and government. Every detail is measured, annotated, archived, discussed, etc.
5) Yes, we use money. It's pretty much the same as here except banks are not as private. Every "dollar" is tracked and taxed. There is no tax on income. When
money goes from one place to an other it is taxed a very small percentage by the local government (and an even smaller percentage by the na onal
government). This system is open and accessible by all so that you can, quite literally, see the history of your own money. It's quite transparent, but of course
there are ways to work around the system. Most of our tax money goes to infrastructure so that it is free for all and a public u lity. This would include the
banking system, roads, u li es, really clean water, etc. Very, very basic housing is free. Healthy food is free. (If you want a steak, it'll cost you quite a bit.)
We have crime, corrup on, etc. But it is not usually the same as here nor as frequent. Only the most violent of criminals go to what you would call jail. Others
just pay a type of social tax (not in money, however). It would be hard to commit crime when every detail of your life is surveilled, and pretty much everyone
knows about it. We live in a complete surveillance society. But everyone is surveilled (everyone). We've pretty much changed the "neighborhood-watch" system
along with the times. It's the only way to have a civil and respectable society. We generally trust each other and are much closer as a result.
6) Yes, same as here. Although most of us (at least in North America) are "in school" until we die. Children go to school with adults and learn what they learn,
and vice-versa. The setup is probably very different from what you would imagine but that's the general idea.
7) We are in contact with as many worlds as you are here. The difference is that we're more often aware of the contact that we make. See any aliens lately? To
themselves, they probably look very much like you but are from what you'd call a different probability (and thus, different cognitive framework). *As I
mentioned before, I AM currently in the process of building the capital I need to create a similar system as the one we have (but internet-based).
02/06/2011 11:31 PM
Yes, we use money. It's pretty much the same as here except banks are not as private. Every "dollar" is tracked and taxed. There is
no tax on income. When money goes from one place to an other it is taxed a very small percentage by the local government (and an even smaller percentage
by the na onal government). This system is open and accessible by all so that you can, quite literally, see the history of your own money. It's quite
transparent, but of course there are ways to work around the system. We have crime, corrup on, etc. But it is not usually the same as here nor as frequent.
There's an old joke about Russia and China, something about how 30 years into the future and the Moscow Times headlines are all in Chinese ideographs. I'm
surprised that China hasn't taken advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union to um, add territory or acquire new mines. And precious little about this realm
surprises me. So, I wonder for a typical unsecured line of credit - what's the interest rate? Has your world experienced the cycles of boom/bust/boom/bust that
has been the experience here? So anyone can be a scrubber and live in council housing? You should take the whole 7 seasons of Beavis and Bu head back to
your world, and the video game Grand The Auto: San Andreas, and see what reac ons you get from people.
04/08/2011 06:56 PM
Also, if all of this is to create the illusion we exist... Will we still exist if we grasp these concepts and therefore "see through" the
illusion somewhat? If, for instance one of the things I would like to bring more relative to me right now is "enough money to be comfortable". In the illusion
that would mean "taking" money from another. Wouldn't this mean that I was possibly taking from somewhere that would "harm" another? (Morals again)
Finally, I understand that my perception is all there is, that it's all "me" from your wri ngs (though it may not seem like I grasp it due to the above). The
s cking point for me is, then what is "another". For instance, does my partner have his own perception, and how does it relate to me? My children? If it was
"all" my perception, then all the "bad" things in the world.. they'd have to exist in my perception in order for them not to be relative to my current perception,
right? Because I know of them.. they'll always have to exist in some form, right? Which makes me kinda sad... I'll most likely have more questions. Hope you
can help Chaol. Thank you.
04/09/2011 03:51 PM
You teach as if you understand what is meant by 'existence precedes essence', as originally discussed by Kirkegaard. Thoughts
consist of ideas right? Ideas are derived either through: a.)Infusion of informa on, b.)Sensory Percep on, observa on, and experience, or c.)Abstrac ons of
schemas, tempering, and imagina on. Can an ar st create a masterpiece ex nihilia, new and from nothing, but their mind? Of course not! The ar st draws from
their experiences the shapes and colors, ideas and pa erns, and even the surreal abstrac ons demonstrably derived from an imagina ve tempering, mixing,
and combining of concepts which all began as perceptual observa on/consump on of sensory information. What happens next is a mystery really, but somehow
or another memories get biorasterized and encoded when we sleep, quite possibly directly into our DNA at sites which were thought to be repe ve 'junk''ALU' sequences. Our experiences literally alter who we are, by aec ng the expression or inhibi on of genetic code, we are co-creators in the Universe it
seems, as it shapes us, we too are shaping it. Google: retrotransposon, epigene cs, and 'jumping genes'. What the existen alist philosophers like Kirkegaard
and Sarte meant by existen alism, and that existence precedes essence, is precisely the opposite of what you are implying, that somehow our essence

30 of 145

preceses our existence, when it is by our existence alone that we become who we are, by experience, making choices, and learning lessons, which affect the
way we order and live our lives. Is there an aspect of the Human Being which shares in the incorporeal/immaterial/spirit 'dimension', which you could use to try
to get out of this one, to say that in a way even in the present we transcend space and me? But to say that our essence precedes our existence is absurd;
how can something precede itself? Now I have no tle or lo y degree which I can appeal to that will impress or convince you, but I can say that I have spent a
lot of my life's energy delving into some of these difficult topics, and have been greatly rewarded and enriched by what I have learned.
Last Edited by
mrphilosophias on 04/14/2011 05:02 PM
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, we are both the teacher and the student. Thoughts and ideas are concepts. They are phantoms. No different than the
dream that you are the body or the mind is a phantom. The body and mind are no more or no less fictional concepts than thoughts, ideas, sensory inputs. Art is
produced from the mind but not the nonexistant mind of the ar st that is dreamt to be seperate from the universal mind. Memories, DNA, etc. all just more
dreamt up concepts that exist nowhere in reality. Space, time, also dreamt up concepts that exist nowhere in reality. I AM not saying that they are not useful
tools in this dream, but they are still phantoms. You dream of ownership of existence when you say "our existence" as if it was something that could be
held/possessed. "you" do not own/possess it, "you" are it. Anything else that you think you are or possess or do, are just phantoms designed to draw your
attention from who you really are. Even your attention, so subtle is it that you call it "I" but that too exists in the field of what you really are. You have the
most lo y tle of all - I AM. It's your's to claim, but not so long as you believe that "you" can be rewarded or enriched by anthing that is dreamt to be added to
I AM. There is nothing beyond I AM, it is the ALL.
04/15/2011 03:58 AM
Coming from the above, what do you think about Chaol's teachings? When you say "you" cannot be rewarded or enriched by anything
that is dreamt to be added to I AM, does that mean - does this in your view mean "I", should except my lot in life and stop reaching for what "others" have,
knowing that "I" have it in some form? Or, does it mean simply that "imagining" specific outcomes is trying to control "other parts of me" and therefore (as my
concious mind knows not how to do this) stops things becoming more relative to me, much like if I was to try to literally make my legs move to make me walk
(I leave that to "life", just direct my "will" to go "somewhere"). Or none of the above? hf
Last Edited by OverTheRainbow on 04/15/2011 03:58 AM
It does not appear that any of us have had much success during the trial. I will ask you again if you can help me to use the genius or neuroniconics to achieve
a certain perception. I would like to be the best golfer in the universe. I would aim to have no fear or doubt and play my shots with ease. I have already tried
to make a new symbol, which was a golf ball covered in elas c bands and wire. Then i took the ball for coee with me every morning and placed it near my
worksta on every day so i myself and my coworkers could interact with it every day. So far I have had absolutely no improvement. Can you please describe a
more suitable approach because the one that i have chosen has had no no ceable effect.
04/24/2011 01:02 PM
Thank you Mr. Common Sense. The nonsense you provided in this response was exactly the mo va on required for me to give EC an
earnest try. Hopefully Chaol can help. I have created a small perception program to represent me (+S+P) most relevant symbol with innite possibilities
playing (+IL) positive interaction within the rules perfect (-P+P) single possibility wih n all possibli es golf (SI) symbol requiring interaction So Chaol what do
I do with this now? Do I write it out? +S+P +IL -P+P SI (ea oy unu i). how do I go about mapping this perspec ve? WRT to the Genius, I AM still using the golf
ball covered with wire and elas c band to represent this, and place it on my worksta on and take it for coee with me every morning. is there a way to
improve on this?
04/27/2011 04:04 PM
Many of you may be familiar with Double-slit experiment. So Briey... for along time man has been trying to figure out.... how
Photons can appear as Wave and Par cle at the same time. Many of us believe that we have gured this out. The theory is that the wave travels as potential
until viewed by consciousness. The very act of viewing the potential creates the matter. See Schrdinger's cat [link to en.wikipedia.org] It seems as though we
are creating as we perceive... on some level... It sounds like chaol is explaining that he and others have mastered the ability to do this on what we call a
conscious level... our conscience level... It's seems that we already are doing this naturally.. the trick for us...is guring how to do it beyond the subatomic
level. Interesting thread... Sorry I missed you chaol...
04/28/2011 11:23 PM
Arrgh. Everyone always invokes those two. Look, they're not as mys cal as they sound. QM deals with probabilities, right? And you
have to think very very carefully when someone starts talking about something that's sta s cal. First, when you're dealing with something that's probabilis c,
you can't say anything about a single event. The only thing you can say anything about is large numbers of events. Here's all Schroedinger's cat says. If you
take 1000 cats and put them in 1000 boxes, and then ac vate the devices on each box - about 500 of the cats will be alive when you open the box and about
500 of them will be dead, give or take a few due to sta s cal variance. There's no dead and alive cat - that's just the math telling you it doesn't know. The
double slit experiment is exactly the same for almost exactly the same reasons. The interference pa ern is built up by large numbers of particles that have
been made to pass through the slits. Now if you want spooky, the EPR paradox is all kinds of that, where everything has to tally out in the end, no matter how
near or far any of the particles are.
04/29/2011 11:11 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong: Chaol says he's moving through realities, in a manner of speaking, by altering his perception of the world (I
read some great books about that once, I wonder if he did too). Because his perception is the only way the world exists, for him, by changing his perception he
is able to change the world in which he exists. Sounds impossible. I'd think it's a joke, or a delusion, but it's very well thought out for a joke or delusion. He's
not asking for money either, so if it's a scam it's a poor one. He's not even talking about God or Jesus, or Posi ve Energy or Spirit, or anything like that... and
that's usually associated with these stories. I know there's some very suspicious minds on GLP, so does anyone know what the real story behind this guy is? Or
at least where the inspira on for this "science" came from?
05/21/2011 12:29 PM
Ok here is my starting point. "me" does not exist. "awareness" is a process like all other processes but it lends easily to the illusion
that there is a "me", because the focus of awareness lends to the delusion that I AM somehow direc ng it. all that exists is reality consis ng of "actuality" and
"fantasy". nothing exists outside of reality. the brain is pa ern recogni on processor and the input is perception. the software it is running is a perspective. if
you change the software to EC which is an experience based pla orm then the processing becomes more efficient because there is no conversion of the data of
experience to other data forms and then back to the experience data form. Now to install the EC so ware. i'll update with the experience.
05/26/2011 02:22 PM
Where are these loca ons? (Trick ques on) Regarding the ancient structures you are referring to, they're just places where (you could
say) certain kinds of energy is higher than in other places. For example, New York City is such a place. So, in such places things happen. Sometimes people get

31 of 145

inspira on to build and create things. Or other people are drawn to such places. You could also have such a place in your living room, although of course the
energy level would be different. A group of spaces is no more a network than "potential energy" is when interacting with "interac on". The link is there, and the
rela on is a given because the same structure is used.
06/14/2011 07:37 AM
Are these two separate questions or one? I'm not exactly sure what I should be responding to. You will always be in-rela onship with
something else. So, in your deni on, yes you will always exist even if you see through the illusion. In your example you would be creating money out of thin
air, not taking it from someone else. Money is an abstract concept, which makes it easier to work with (or not). When dealing with dreams, what is moral? We
can say that we had a dream that we cheated on our wife, but is it immoral in the dream? Each situation is contextual and depends on the relationships
involved. If your money comes from someone else and benets you, instead, it doesn't mean that something immoral is occurring. The immorality is in your
then-perspec ve. Thus the illusion. Created to seem like we exist. But, prac cally-speaking, you could also realize the vastness of what you are. Perhaps
separa ng yourself from others is part of the sadness of realizing that there is nothing else. The "bad" is there because that's how you see that particular
relationship. It doesn't mean it is actually good or bad.
06/14/2011 08:02 AM
Pretty much. As I mentioned before, what's important is how you're thinking of it. It doesn't work the same as a physically-oriented
tool. This tool depends on your ability to conceptualize. Let's take an easy example. Some people can add numbers "in their head" by thinking of what the
numbers look like and performing the math. It doesn't matter what the shapes look like. What matters is that the concept for each symbol has a value, is
understood in any particular way, and can interact with an other. Other people may remember things if they visualize it "in their mind" taking a place in a room
with which they are familiar. People with large memory capaci es usually do something like this. Ecsys is similar to numbers or letters in a way that, while the
shapes and sounds are not universal, the concepts are. Instead of adding 1+1, as we would with numbers, we are 'changing our perspec ve'. Being able to do
math and read really makes a difference in someone's life. And so would being able to change your perspective. Is it the concept itself or could it be the way it
was conceived, or perhaps even the relationships of the symbols and how? If a 'spaceship' landed in your backyard the model or brand would not be so
interesting. But it would probably split your world, too. Think of Edison's "Mary had a little lamb". The song itself, although cute, is not the main focus.
06/14/2011 08:51 AM
The main pyramid at Gizeh serves different purposes over time. It is mostly built as a machine. Again, for different purposes over
time. Computers are pretty large 40 years ago and even larger thousands of years ago :) But this particular pyramid was more about what would be called an
electrical switch box. A computer still, but not the way we currently think of compu ng devices. Also, it must be realized that the Earth is not in the same
position then as it is today, nor does the sky look the same or objects glow the same. Stonehenge is less about the stars and more about being able to
harness and distribute energies, similar to a router. That it has some correla on with the stars is the same as putting your computer near an outlet
(inten onal and it helps the process). We happen to see large objects made of stone and get an incomplete picture. But we miss all of the non-stone objects
that would paint a more complete picture. We are not much different then as we are now. Things look newer, cleaner, fresher now but mirror func ons that
we've had for a very long time. Last Edited by Chaol on 06/14/2011 04:09 PM
I see. My comments follow. Reality exists. I'm not sure about your definition for that, but because it seems important we can define it a bit more. Perhaps
there is no clear definition for "reality" but if we think of it in terms of experience, rather than something that is true, then I can only say that we seem to
experience. Or seem to experience a reality. [See below, regarding representa ons.] "Humans" use language/words to describe percep on/perspec ve. The
language and words whether wri en, spoken or thought "pretend" to be reality. Yes, but keep in mind that most of our perception cannot be described because
it does not come to the language sense. If, in the second part, you're saying that the language represents reality then yes, it does. Although when we imply
that something is pretending we may be sugges ng that the reality is possible (it is not, and needs not to be). All we know is representations, and they are
more than good enough for any purpose. They point at forms, experience, reality but they are not the reality. They are a perception of reality that somehow
resides outside of reality (I know that's a paradox). The representations are the only reality. There is nothing greater, except that which is not represented
(and is thus not relevant). We can only perceive and experience representations. Like when we pretend there is an I/me. There is no me in reality, but there is
this perception of a me - a meaning/experience attached to the word/sense I/me. There is an I/me, but it is a representation. It is valid for all intents and
purposes. The "reality" is the representation (as there is nothing else). The experience comes from the ever-changing relationships between one thing and an
other. I do not exist but a perception of an I does and it's attached to the words "I/me". It's the creation of an experience outside of reality. Yes, you exist. As
an abstract perspective. (This perspective, you could say, is the difference between all of the relationships. The relationships are always changing, or seem to
change, and so does your perspective.) So ecsys is a language that is more directly tied into these experiences that somehow exist outside of reality. Ecsys is
more of a way to attach meaning to the relationships and, thus, value the relationships in your own way. For example, take away the name "Nike" from that
company, its shoes, branding, etc., and the interactions with it will change because people will value it in a different way. The representations help to perceive
the relationships that were already there. Thus, the Genius [link to ecsys.org] What you would be doing with the Genius is basically representing something so
you can perceive it more. Pregnant women understand this when their perspective is suddenly populated by other pregnant women, and it seems that they
came out of nowhere. (It could be the same with a new car, or some other new things in your life. You start to take notice of what was already there. And then
it becomes more a part of your life, and your life is changed.) The difference with the Genius is that you can represent anything and have any change of
perspective.
06/15/2011 12:24 AM
Actually, I'm very glad you typed it out. The question posed was exactly what was "bugging" me and typed out much better than I
was able. Your answers claried what my next question would be. You say about the "pregnant women" situation. That's absolutely what happens. However, as
you say, "it was already there". It was just ignored previous to that. If a women was to lose the baby (heart breaking, but it happens), her reality has indeed
shi ed, but pregnant women will has a different symbol attached now - one of sadness, perhaps anger. I don't see how it can change the reality as such
(especially not as dras cally as shifting to an "alternate" meline), although I can absolutely see how it could allow us to perceive "what is" more clearly, and
see solu ons that may already exist but had been missed due to an alterna ve perspective. I know you wish to keep the messenger away from the message,
but I think this further explains my "paradox" feeling. I'm not sure how to word it correctly...
06/15/2011 05:27 AM
An example of how you already make representations work for you, right under your ngers: The computer you're using is completely
representa ve, although to some it may not be so obvious how you're working with representations and making them work for you. Each key on your keyboard
is represented by a le er, which in turn presses a switch (a representation) which allows an electrical impulse (a representation) to flow through and the
microprocessor (another one) to read the representation and find its corresponding place in the character map (two more). The icons on your screen, and every
bit of information you receive, and every other associated thing.. all representations. Even the electrical impulses which make your ngers type, and your

32 of 145

vision. All a field of representations forming relationships and creating what you call reality. If I told you 100 years ago that billions of humans would learn to
how to manipulate electrical impulses in order to communicate instantaneously around the world, you probably would have thought me nuts. But now we have
mobile telephones and other compu ng devices. It becomes obvious, but we do not really think of how it happens. Here I AM illustrating the basics of creating
both physically-oriented representations (the Genius) and non-physically oriented representations (neuronicons). You don't need to know how a mouse works in
order to do amazing things with it. You need only use it correctly. If I discussed the mouse to a roomful of people and, without anyone being able to see
anyone else, some people started writing on it to make it work while others picked it up and held it to their ear and talked, it might be assumed that it didn't
work as adver sed. If someone was keen to use it properly based on the instructions provided then they would be learning how to make the representations
work for them. But they probably would not be believed, because it seems more like magic to an interested group of people. An other way to make
representations work for you, in a more abstract way, is the ability to read, speak, write, and understand that of others. Language is completely representa ve
(as is everything else). By using language we can represent a concept with le ers, words, sentences, numbers, etc., give it space (a piece of paper or making a
sound in a space), allowing it to interact (communica ng to others), and providing some rules to it (word and sentence structure, grammar, etc). The same
steps illustrated here: [link to ecsys.org] : Yes, you already communicate by using the Genius of Ecsys. It is how your main physical representation (the brain)
works. We simply learned what this universal operating system is and how it works. It is a major discovery for us. This world hasn't yet grasped the concept
because it's a little "too late". (The more physically-oriented technology you have the less abstract tools seem useful. Language and other mental tools are
dying in your world. You should hear the way most people spoke a few hundred years ago. But, unfortunately, this means all manner of new mental tools do
not become popular. Telepathy, anyone?) So, by using language, you can take an already-extant symbol (or create your own) and use it in ways that can make
an entire universe more accessible, if you were so enterprising. Would we be able to get to a distant planet without being able to read or write, or manipulate
these representa ons? "The Genius" is not something that we invented. It is, itself, a representation of a universal process. "Fire" was re before we gave it a
name, too. You might have invented a lighter (a tool) and shown others how to use it, but "re" was already there. Ecsys may sound like magic to some and,
like the examples above, are just things that you do already. But instead of showing you how to use a mouse I AM showing you ways to manipulate what you
consider reality. There are no limita ons except the ones you create for yourself (but even the limita on would be representa ve). Last Edited by Chaol on
06/15/2011 06:04 PM
Argh! This is the point I stopped listening to Bashar. He also talked about bringing his reality closer, to the point of being able to "co-create". Your reality is, of
course, much closer to ours than an "ET". I assume your intent of teaching us (given this is real) is to allow us to merge realities - perhaps because of your
Love over here. How do we work out which reality is best for us to merge with? This reality, obviously isn't working. I'd personally be all too happy to join to a
new perspective. What power do we have as an "individual" to direct the best possible outcome for us? (I feel like I'm talking crazy here, help me out!)
06/15/2011 06:02 PM
I guess all of "us" are the same heh Someone has nally gured it out! :) The reality that is best to merge with (regardless of the
usage of terms) is the one that is easiest, following the Law of Energy Perspec ve: "we perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive."
Cheapest isn't always the best when you're shopping at Target, but in terms of the big picture (what you'd call the universe and everything of it) cheapest also
happens to be the best. It's quite efficient in this way. Actually, whatever reality you're experiencing is working quite well (the process, at least). Prac callyspeaking though (for this rest of this post), if you're not happy with your reality then do not focusing on changing it. Focus, instead, on changing the
representations. The relationships of the representations create the reality that you experience. It could be that what's holding you back is a little object in the
corner of the room. Why do most people like to get out of town on holiday? Because they're (mostly) surrounded by a new set of representations. However, it's
not the size of the representation that ma ers. It's the effect that makes the difference. Start thusly:
1) Try re-arranging the representations you have, in order to change your relationship with the things they represent. For example, this could be putting some
photos you have in an album on the wall. Or moving the furniture around in your living room. Or sleeping on the other side of the bed, or getting a new bed. It
could be taking an object you really love and giving it to someone else. Shake up your world! If you want a new reality then learn to manage the one you have,
not just live in it. You are surrounded by representations. This isn't just hyperbole. These representations embody every thought you have, every experience
you've had, and everything that is happening to you right now.
2) Find out what the representations are by seeing the effect of your having re-arranged them. It might be subtle but can still be no ced.
3) Change the representations. Even the ones you think are not doing any 'harm' in your reality could be the ones holding you back. Perhaps your trophies from
high school in your bedroom are holding you back and giving you the idea that your prime is over. It could be that your ring from university or old love letters
are what's holding you back. Even if you don't see or experience the representations every day they still exist in the physical map of your mind. You know
where they are, and they're still a part of or close to your physical reality and that is what makes the difference. What do you change your representations to?
Anything that takes the least amount of energy is good for now (un l it is no longer). Do not assume that you know the best representation for something (you
probably don't, and it's probably counter-intui ve). Just go with the one that takes the least amount of energy. Instead of representing a lost love by looking
for a Barbie doll, just go with the magazine that happens to lay next to you. Maybe it's a travel magazine and you'd get in touch with her when you take a trip.
Then you will begin to see how your reality works. Not only do we "we perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive" but we also create
that which takes the least amount of energy to create.
06/15/2011 06:29 PM
This is good, but can you be (much more) exact than that? Again, "we perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to
perceive". So what you're probably doing is allowing yourself to pretend that you are a professional golfer for a short burst of time, because that is the 'reality'
that u lizes the least amount of energy. Ever feel like a professional golfer when you're playing golf on PS3? If you tell the universe "I want to be a successful
professional golfer" Sony's device is probably where it would direct you (or xbox, or a book about Jack Nicklaus, or a golf open, or...). You get the idea. Tell me
exactly what you want to experience and make it hard for the universe to send you to your xbox! Make it easier, instead, for the universe to give you exactly
what you want. That's why we create a set of rules with the Genius. Because we don't take "umm... not this time, buddy" for an answer! Last Edited by Chaol
on 06/15/2011 06:57 PM
A note: This works because you are learning how to already perceive what was already there. You just have to "convince" your mind that you're worthy of it.
"Show me now, dammit! I'm sick of wai ng 5-10 seconds!" And then it happens. But, again, with telepathy "we perceive that which takes the least amount of
energy to perceive" so stop trying to think of stuff. Just let it occur to you. It works more with those with whom you have a connec on. (But some mes, your
assumptions with what they might be thinking would get in the way. So sometimes it is easier to think of what an acquaintance is thinking than a best friend.)
[to add: you perceiving what was already there is no different than your friend perceiving what was already there when s/he thinks of it. Some n to nk
about.] Last Edited by Chaol on 06/15/2011 07:01 PM

33 of 145

To follow up, these relationships are your reality. You don't remember something because it's stored in your brain. You remember it because of the mental and
physical map of representations that you are working with. Nothing else "exists" besides the relationships between one representation to every other.
(Nothing) This is somewhat a paradox because the representation is not real, per se. But the relationship between one thing to another makes it real*. Ever
have a memory of something that "didn't happen"? Or deja vu? The relationships create and re-create your memories and experience, at every moment. Most
times you don't even know when your memory has changes, because there is correla on with the rest of your representations (artefacts, friends, etc.) We can
take relationships from home with us when we move or go to work (by living in the mental map, so to speak). Find new representations (mentally and
physically), and you've found a new reality. *There is a gem in there more important than Einstein's famous massenergy equivalence. It takes us back to the
'beginning of the universe' when there were no representations to the end, and everything in between. The enterprising mind will find out what it is! (Or not.)
Last Edited by Chaol on 06/15/2011 07:10 PM
I AM wondering if the "broken window theory" dovetails at all with what you are discussing. If you are not familiar with it I guess this is the theory in a
nutshell: "Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows.
Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squa ers or light res inside." "Or consider a sidewalk. Some li er
accumulates. Soon, more li er accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars." There
are of course "standard" theories to explain this but I AM wondering if there is not some sort of "symbolic" manipula on of reality that may be happening as
well and would relate to your ideas. Good to see you back by the way.
06/16/2011 02:02 PM
Hi. Yes, I talk a bit about this on the "How Does Consciousness Work?" section of this page: [link to ecsys.org] To use another
example, if you have a well-kept house and decide to not fix a second-oor window that was recently broken then the relationship of that window to its
environment will change. It will change the other windows because they will also adopt this representation of "brokenness" to some degree. The entire property
can be aected by this small change in relationships. We can use this, also, to "create" (or discover) the kind of environment we want by simply starting with 1
thing (idea, object, etc) and letting it form relationships with the things around us and invi ng related things.
06/16/2011 10:14 PM
Now let's find a way to represent your object in this reality in order to begin to create a bridge between the two realities. The new
symbol should be unique. It can be a mug, decorated to look unique and like the mug in the other reality. You should spend a bit of time working with your
hands to create this unique representation. When you've created the physical representation of the other world let me know. After that, we will attach some
rules to it in order to help solidify the reality bridge. (By the way, this is also the process of how we dream. We bring a single representation in the dream
world into focus, then discover the other details in it until we are surrounded by its representations. Then we are in the dream world. It was, of course, already
there before you started focusing on it. Just like the reality where you are a professional golfer earning $5+ million a year.) Last Edited by Chaol on
06/17/2011 01:48 AM
06/17/2011 09:46 AM
I wake up and grab a coee and rush to get the kids dressed and off to school. Travel days always take longer to say goodbye to the
boys, because I know I won't see them for at least a few days. I drive back home and get my golf bag and luggage then over to my caddy's place to pick him
up and head to the airport. Everything is taken care of for us at the airport. As we walk through the airport, everyone is wishing me luck in Augusta. I love
signing autographs on all the kids ballcaps. Right after we touch down in Augusta, we head over to Pinehurst. Today is a special day. My dad has made the trip
to Augusta, and is there wai ng for me. We are going to play a practice round together. The golf is almost too easy, eortless as we play and talk. After the
round, we grab a quick bite, head back to the hotel and its time to call the boys to say goodnight. Its time for me to go to bed now too, tomorrow is going to
be an exci ng day.
06/17/2011 12:56 PM
How we learn, perceive, interact, etc., is from the relationships of things. When we dream we are learning how a dream-like thing
relates to something else. When we wake up we are thinking about one or more "real life" elements and rediscovering the relationships it has with other things
like itself. When we travel through time (so to speak) we are taking one thing from that time and finding out about how it relates to something else similar to
it. When we alter our reality the same thing happens as when we learn how to do something - we take a single example and learn how it interacts with the
things around it. Some people learn faster than others not because of intelligence but because they can understand these relationships more easily. I ask you
for this detail, above, because it is vitally important for the next step in discovering another reality for yourself. When you can see how one thing relates to an
other thing (in your example above) then you are beginning to learn how to perceive as if you are already in that reality. Get involved in the drama of a dream
element and you will eventually find yourself asleep. Get involved in the drama of an other reality and you will eventually find yourself there. If I did not know
some of the drama that occurs here in this world it would not be so easy to come back. My crea ve imagina on would have taken me to an other world with a
new set of drama c elements. I think, when you take your example and delve more into the drama of the specics then a good physical symbol of your new
reality will come to you. (Just make sure it's as unique as a work of art or as unexpected as a fresh baseball.)
06/18/2011 03:29 AM
Feng shui is an interpretation of how physical aspects of experience work, in terms of relationships and their effect on what we call
our reality. As I mentioned before the physical environment eventually becomes mapped to our brains so the placement of things can be important in this way
(if you are looking to control your experience more). If you just want to sleep under a beam for the night it is probably ne to do so but doing it over many
days could have some effect on your perspective (when the beam becomes mapped in your field of thinking). Kua numbers probably don't have any validity. But
it may work... to keep some "masters" employed.
06/18/2011 03:49 AM
It sounds pretty weird. But when you value things not because of their physical properties but for their relationships, then it may
start to make some sense. For example.. have you ever visited somewhere for the first time that you could have sworn looked exactly like a place in an other
city? Or maybe had some deja vu? Or smelled something that brought back some old memories? Or met someone that reminded you so much of someone else?
We perceive relationships, not the physical objects. The appearance of physicality is what, you could say, is added on a er. Take a look at street scene image
here: [link to ecsys.org] The image to the right of it with the geometrical forms, is what you actually perceive. If you are in a different city and perceive of
something similar to that shape there will be a deja vu sensa on, even if the people, colors, and other details that you think you see look very different from
what you experienced before. Now, with dreams pretty much the same thing is happening. You dream of you being a cop bus ng a streetwalker and think it's
weird because you're thinking of the way it looks (or feels) rather than the geometry of relationships. (Yeah, I know it sounds boring. That's why we embellish
it with our own drama. Ever sleep and hear a sound in the room that you made part of the dream? Same thing. You're making the geometry more exci ng.)
That means that you will take these complex relationship forms and try to make sense out of it. It could be that "cop" had a similar relationship value to

34 of 145

"redness" and "tranny" to "atmosphere", along with other elements in the dream. We might interpret a relationship (in "waking" reality) to be someone drinking
a glass of water and then it makes sense to us because we can see how it relates to other elements from that reality. When we are dreaming we can also see
how elements make sense (i.e., understand the dream when we are dreaming), but upon waking it does not make sense because we do not then see how
those elements relate to other elements. Every moment we perceive anew. When you remember something you are actually re-presen ng it now, not thinking
of something that happened before. If I took away part of your "geometry of rela onships" in your current reality you would experience an entirely different
reality, because the relationships would be entirely different. Kind of like if I added some garlic to your omele e. It's the same thing that happens when you
can't perceive all of the relationships in the dream (i.e., it doesn't make sense).
06/18/2011 03:51 AM
Cat in box = box exists (cat does not) Meowing cat in box = meow and box exist (cat does not) Cat in your hands = cat
consciousness does not exist You are cat = cat consciousness Your friend holding cat = your friend and cat exist Cat without meow, atop box = cat does not
meow Your friend with mouth shut = friend does not talk And for a bonus: Box = box cannot be opened Open box = box cannot be closed There is no "cat point
of view" unless you are the cat. If the cat speaks then there is speech, not a point of view. If your friend speaks there is no intelligence, only what you
experience. Although you can say that consciousness is 'created' when there is a relationship between one thing and an other thing it must be realized that
neither of these things exist by themselves. It's easy to say that your friend has consciousness because, obviously, he can talk, think, act for himself, etc. But
the universe does not act that way. The "universe" (or whatever the hell you want to call it) does not waste energy. You could say that, at ever moment, it is
created anew. The cat does not exist as what you know of as a cat until it needs to. Similarly, although you know your heart is working (because you are alive,
and it's obvious) you do not have a heart until it is a part of your experience. You have aspects of what you consider your heart but neither the bea ng, the
blood, the valves, etc., are "real". Whatever you are experiencing, "exists" but the things by themselves do not exist independently. You could say that nothing
exists until it interacts with something else. It doesn't need to. The one law of the universe (for lack of better words) that we understand is "no energy is
indepedent of your perspec ve". The entire universe exists within your current perception. Some might call it holographic. But what would this actually mean?
That everything in the universe is a hologram and the universe is wasting an innite amount of energy? No. It would mean that the entire universe is contained
within your current perspective, and need no exist until it needs to but only for that aspect that it needs. That means you can have sunlight with no Sun. And
when you are looking at the Sun, the energy of the Sun is very minimal. It's only "Sun temperature" when it needs to be. No energy is wasted because the
universe is the most efficient thing you could possibly imagine. (It has to be.) I know this all sounds confusing and ridiculous (and impossible). That's why I
don't like to talk about some things :) But there it is.
06/18/2011 04:13 AM
Yes, you could say that. There's weird stuff everywhere. A lot of things we don't really understand, but it's a different kind of
environment than what you find here. You can create your own haunted place by calling it haunted. Then someone will see what they expect to see and then it
will become "reality". The spookier the place is the be er. We perceive what was already there, and what is already there is anything you think is (un l it's not
anymore). You could say that there's a scientific explanation for what is going on, but it's not the kind of science you're used to (unless you're willing to
integrate the sciences, I think). Last Edited by Chaol on 06/18/2011 04:27 AM
Understood. Well, back to your original question about where I come from. I'm not really sure how to answer that. Universes don't really exist. Perspective
does. You could say that I come from an alternate perspective but it's more accurate to say that I AM an aspect of your perspective. It's easy to think of life on
other planets or what an other galaxy might be like. But the reality is more disappoin ng for some, but perhaps more exci ng once you really understand
what's going on. It means that human-like beings aren't living on other worlds (which is more like the fantasy that we want to see) but it also means those
'distant worlds' are much easier to experience because there's no real distance between your world and it. The easy answer is that your people and my people
lived in the same world but began to split about 200 years ago when someone discovered a very important concept. In one world, the person discovered it and
there was a chain reac on. In the other world, the person discovered it and nothing much happened. You could say that our two worlds are the same planet but
there are many dierences. It is more accurate, however, to say that our 2 worlds are contained in one-another. There is no need for 1 thing to be truly
separate from an other.
06/18/2011 06:50 PM
There is no reality more perfect that the one you're experiencing now. By this, I don't mean that you have the perfect job or the
perfect life according to your hopes and dreams. I mean that your reality is perfectly represented according to the value of every experience you've had, are
having, or will have.* The process that creates your reality is perfect, you could say. What you decide to experience is entirely your choice. In a "perfect
existence" there would be no drama. It is the drama, however, that creates reality. Without drama (or, the interplay of representa ons) nothing seems to
exist. So, we create "imperfec ons" in order to exist. We would not exist otherwise. *Although there is no real past or future, only aspects of what you would
call the present that seem different. Like for example if you were looking at your friend and they suddenly changed shape to something that you did not
recognize. Your mind would make a relative narra ve that placed that perception in the future (like when the person was much older). But actually there's no
real separa on between all of these perceptions. The more relative another reality is to the one you're in the easier it is to experience it. Thus, your experience
of the 'next' moment which is actually you "shi ing" to an other reality. You do not go from one moment to the next. You go from one reality to the next. You
do the same thing that I do without realizing it. The difference is that I can relate more distant realities through the use of tools. Your Monday the 13th is
related to your Wednesday the 15th in a way that makes sense to you. You can experience your crazy friend Carol's life and your stable friend Mike's life in the
same day, because the path from one reality to an other makes sense to you. Meaning, you can see how one reality is related to another. I can see how my
world is related to yours and can thus experience both. But, again, you do the same thing that I do when you dream. You perceive the abstract representation
of something from your waking experience then the world around it. Next thing you know, you're in an other reality with a different set of experiences. It
doesn't matter how different the two realities are. You simply have to find a way to make it relative to your current experience. That is, to make the energy to
perceive that distant reality very minimal. (It is minimal when it makes sense to perceive it next in your current reality.) There is no separa on of fantasy from
reality. The two are the same. The real question here is, "What is most related to my current experience?". If it is not at all related you may call it fantasy. But
these "fantasies" can easily come to your experience when you make it logical to experience it in your current reality. When you perceive you are perceiving
abstract relationships, not things. You dress it up with physicality in order to make sense of it. There is no jump from life to death. It may not seem like it, but
to the person experiencing "death" there is a very logical progression of experience from one reality to an other. Radical "jumps" are not possible. (It would
only seem like a quantum leap from the outside.) I simply find a field of relationships from this world and represent it in my world. Some mes, though, the
world that my girlfriend is in and the world that this particular forum is in is not the same world. So then I will leave "bookmarks" in this forum that I will be
able to get back here easily. It may be that I leave behind some representation like a trail of numbers that other people develop relationships with (e.g., "try
to solve the puzzle") in order to create a unique field of relationships that will mark my posi on. Or it could be something else. You do all of this yourself,
without realizing it. If you go through an old box of memories, for example, your current perspective would change. Maybe you would remember things that you

35 of 145

had forgotten, or thoughts that you had before would come to you. You would then be experiencing the "past" anew from the representations (photos, for
example). The bridges are all around you. And it possible to learn how to u lize them in order to change your experience. How would you change your
experience to something as distant as the time of the dino-saurs? You would represent that experience in your current reality and allow it to develop a
relationship with your current representations. Because it is not so logical to your current experience you would probably need several itera ons of the
representation. This is where some people may get lost (in the representa on.. they make it too relative to their current experience and end up not
experiencing anything new. A little imagina on is needed here.) Death, as you seem to speak of it, consists of two types of experiences. The one dying, and
the one not dying. But it is not what you think. If the person that seems to be dying has some kind of relationship with you (as your friend, idol, someone
you've looked at or smelled before, etc.) then it is you that is dying. Or, more accurately, an aspect of you that is dying. From the perspective of the person
that seems to be dying there is a logical progression of experience to an other reality. This is the same progression that you take at every moment. Is the
"you" from last month dead? The difference is that the person that seems to be dying is experiencing something that is not relative to their current experience
(this particular brand of physicality) and thus seems to be escaping it. You've escaped last month successfully. And they've escaped this physicality
successfully. But you're both still very much alive.
06/18/2011 08:18 PM
Hi. I don't know much about what you speak but I don't think I'm in any 'state' different from what you are in. "Earnestness" and
"refusal to be deceived..." are quite ambiguous, I think. How would one do that when we all have a different definition for those terms? I'm not speaking
against Sri Nisargada a but anyone that doesn't tell you how you can do it probably either doesn't know or doesn't want you to know. A lot of belief systems
exist on hope that such things exist. But the more it is dened and used the more useful it can be. However, some belief systems are easier to understand
simply because they are not dened (we each interpret it how we want to interpret it). I know that Ecsys can be quite difficult to follow, but I don't really
believe in things that have no clear definition or that aren't logical. There is no higher state than the one you're in now. Hard to believe, I know. When you
change your "state" to whatever, then that will be the highest state with all things considered. I think the difference between things that exist and things that
do not exist is not important. It is kind of a paradox and not really worth thinking about simply because the other side of the argument does not exist (i.e.,
cannot be represented, and thus not communicated).
06/18/2011 08:32 PM
We're not "in" anything. We simply perceive the field of relationships that comprise our existence. However, in your analogy we would
be the ones inven ng the language and programming in it. There is no computer other than the language. Space and time would not exist until measured, and
when measured will be the measurements themselves rather than independent opera ons. We break down a single measurement, you could say, and call the
different aspects "space", " me", and others. The measurement is perspective. When we "perceive" the field of relationships we are measuring as we look at
one aspect in rela on to an other. All inven ons of humanity are a way for us to understand reality and what is really going on in a strange kind of reverseengineering. Through trial and error, eventually we are able to reach the very essence of how creation is possible. Computers and technology are some of the
more exci ng ways that we're doing that.
06/18/2011 08:50 PM
You could say that. (Although it would be the only algorithm, from our understanding.) Yes. You are keeping track. It only needs to
be logical from your current field of experience. Of course you pull out a rabbit some mes. But you don't experience it that way. For example (and example
only) if you pull out a cat from the box 100 times the 53rd time might have been a rabbit. But your "mind" would fill in the logical narra ve so that it makes
sense to you. Instead of you seeing a rabbit appear by itself with no explanation you experience your friend admi ng to putting the rabbit in there (even if
that's not what "really" happened). We do not perceive that which is not logical to our experience. (Which is why we're not perceiving everything-at-once.) If
there is no explanation that would make sense to you then you simply do not experience it. Meaning, you don't see the rabbit that appeared on the 53rd pull.
Perhaps you experience only a cat that had rabbit-like qualities or simply did not want to come out at all, or your friend knocking on the door with a shirt that
has a rabbit logo, for example.
06/18/2011 08:53 PM
There is much to this. Pa erns of experience, the fractal universe, the periodic table of elements, etc. Jenny wonders why she keeps
meeting the same guys. Karen wonders why there is uniformity between one noble gas and the next. John ponders the laws of physics. Iggy wonders why he
can't 'break free' from his reality. When you walk into the a room the experience is "rendered" from what is easiest to experience, all things considered. It could
be a past memory or a future event, for example. Someone who experiences a future event regarding Spot the dog, for example, is actually perceiving the most
logical thing according to their current experience. It could be that looking at or touching Spot makes it relative. When we think of something that seems to be
in the past we are actually perceiving an aspect of what it is now (i.e., closer to the current experience). When you remember an event, for example, you're not
actually remembering how you experienced it at the time but perceiving an aspect of your current experience. This aspect has a quality which makes it seem
like a past event but is actually a current event.
06/18/2011 09:07 PM
There might be something that seems like a cat with whiskers and a meow, etc. But it's never 100% "cat" unless you need to
experience 100% of it being a cat or what you consider a cat to be (which is never). If you look into its eyes and it is blinking that doesn't mean that its heart
need exist at that moment. This would be the opposite of loneliness. Instead of everything you know being "outside" of you, everything you know is "inside" of
you. Everything exists in your current perspective. That is to say, everything is in you. [Cue theme song from The Lion King.] It's not that things are separate,
so even saying that someone is an expression of you is not very accurate. They exist, for all intents and purposes. And each person is as real as you are.
Nothing is truly physical, though, so the separa on that you see or the loneliness that you may sense is also an illusion of the senses.
06/18/2011 09:43 PM
Heh. Well at least you know it works. When you become better at using it then these unwanted experiences should dissipate. This
will get much easier the more you open yourself to the process. If you're thinking about a particular aspect of your reality and the theme of the day is "sock
with hole" then your perspective is probably trying to tell you something. Meaning, if you're thinking about X and Y becomes easiest to experience around the
same time then there is most likely some correla on even if you do not think so. There's no table of representations, so you'll have to sort of trust that if
you're focusing on "good health" and a telemarketer calls you that the two have a strong connec on. It may not make sense at first but, when you "take the
path of least resistance" (as Buddha quote might say) then it will make sense eventually. O en, what makes sense to you is not the same as what makes
sense to your experience. We're still very much on the very basics. I don't want to advance too quickly, even though a few of you think you might be ready for
it. The lessons I present must also be relative to the time and space in which they are presented. Yes, I know that we have a different experience of time and
5 years means something different to you than it does to me. What you are learning is independent of the time sense. (Meaning, you are in the "school" where
each level is being taught and there is a separate "you" in each classroom. You sometimes meet with your other self in the hallway between lessons and help
yourself to learn each lesson.) It would be a somewhat different experience for everyone, but I will try. Think back to a time when you were "healthier, er,

36 of 145

less fat, younger". What representations surrounded you? Where did you go, what did you watch on television, what kind of dance did you do, what did you
eat, to whom did you talk, what did you write about, when did you sleep and awaken, what did you dream about, how did you walk, etc? All of these
representations you have "before" helped to create the experience of being "healthier, er, less fat, younger" O en we don't think about what surrounds a
state of being when we're thinking to be that.. but it is vitally important because those relationships "create" how we perceive of ourselves. Yes, you can
exercise and all that but it's kind of limited. You would then be experiencing what is logical to exercise. (e.g., exercise X amount of hours per X in order to gain
X muscle and lose X fat, etc.) If you want to actually get younger then be that younger person. Surround yourself with the representations from that time you
want to experience. It is still there and you can experience that now, if you wanted. I don't just mean throw up some old memories. I mean think about every
representation from the way you walked to where you went and what you did to whom you talked and how you talked to them, etc. Then you will start to be
that person that still exists. There is a Harvard experiment about this (it works) and also, strangely enough, a television show: [link to www.bbc.co.uk]
Last Edited by Chaol on 06/18/2011 10:15 PM
So you're saying we already do this, it's just a matter being aware of it when it happens? Alrighty, I want to turn the weird up to 11. How do you open
yourself up to experiencing cats turning into rabbits? More importantly, can you control this at all? Can you get to the point where you put a cat in the box, pull
out a rabbit, put the rabbit back in and pull a cat back out? Or what about putting yourself in a box, and then getting out of the box and finding yourself in the
red light district of Amsterdam? But let's just s ck with cats and rabbits for now. cat -> rabbit -> cat, the nuts and bolts, what do you need to do?
06/18/2011 09:54 PM
So, just as a point of clarica on when one "assigns" a meaning to a new reality linking symbol, practically speaking how would you
do that? When you create a new representation then you are:
1) introducing a new concept into your reality
2) allowing it to build relationships with things that are already there
3) changing your reality because the totality of your experience has changed ...and hopefully you will be open to the new representation when the old one is no
longer useful. (Unless you no longer want the change.) The representation evolves, if you allow it, just as your experience does. As you build it would you be
thinking of what it will represent? do you mediate over it? with the new meaning in mind? No need. Your "subconscious" knows what is going on.
06/18/2011 09:57 PM
We can turn it all the way up to 1,200 if you want. But the higher it goes the more upset people may get. Our human body is
comfortable when the temperature is just right. You experience cats turning into rabbits by making it a logical progression to your field of relationships.
Imagine we were having this discussion a thousand years ago and I said that I could throw light at you from a box and recreate your image on it. You would
not perceive my digital camera as I perceive it. You would, instead, have an experience that makes sense to you, all things considered. It might be that what
you see is a rock polished so that it reects your image. Each reality is as valid as the other. The rock exists as much as the camera because we are both
interpre ng the geometry of relationships into something that makes sense for us. (No, you are not actually holding a camera any more than you are holding a
rock.) It's the same thing that happens when people look at "UFOs" that look like cigars, plates, or jellysh. It may take 50 years to perceive a rabbit coming
out of the box instead of a cat when you're playing around with your new instant materializa on machine. (Or 6 months if you go to a Vegas magic show. Both
experiences would then make sense to you.) Yes. Again, if it makes sense to you, all things considered. There's the long way and the short way. The long way
is to wait 50 years for your new machine to arrive. The short way is to use Ecsys (or the tool better than Ecsys that hasn't yet been invented). If you were
dreaming, what do you think would be happening between putting yourself into a box and finding yourself in Amsterdam? The same process that happens in
the dream also happens in "real" life. The only difference is that in the dream you know what's going on and how to change it. Last Edited by Chaol on
06/18/2011 10:18 PM
06/18/2011 11:19 PM
If you'd like, we can clarify a bit here so that we all understand what's going on. There is no "going" anywhere. (So there is no one for
me to rescue, because there would be nothing lost.) If someone reads this thread they will not find information on actually going somewhere. If you mean by
"changing reali es" you will usually find "reality" in quotes, surrounded by my explanation of what reality is. I continue to stress that everything is here and
now already. There is no getting lost. It would be impossible. This kind of drama makes for an easy explanation on television or perhaps in a book, but it's not
what I'm talking about. If you'd like some help in understanding Ecsys more please let me know.
06/18/2011 11:24 PM
If I was dreaming, it would just happen, and it would be no big deal :P I'd just climb in the box, and then I'd climb back out and I'd
be near Amsterdam Centraal. Enough weird stuff goes on there that I don't think anyone would notice or care. I'd probably do it at night, so less people
no ced. So, again details details. The devil is always in the details. How do I use the neuronicons that make up ecsys? I guess the first step would be writing
down what I think makes up a box that transforms a cat into a rabbit? And then where do I put the icons? On the side of the box? Help me out here, I'm kinda
puzzled. I guess I know what someone from sales and marke ng feels like when they're trying to talk technical - there's a language and concept gap here. As
far as whether I could make it back or not, don't worry about me, I'm a big boy, I don't have a wife or kids and I can take risks that most other people can only
think about. If I get into trouble, I'll take personal responsibility for it. I don't blame others when trades go bad, I wouldn't blame you either.
06/19/2011 03:22 AM
The rules can be anything you want. From Step 2 [link to ecsys.org] : Once you have a representation, the next step is to create a
structure around it. This means building some rules and guidelines around your representation. They don't need to be perfect. What does it mean to build
structure? Think of the second step as creating some laws for your new representation. Two or three will do. You can add more if you feel you can s ck to
them. For example, if your representation is drawings of cars that you've made then you can make a rule that you will always paint the wheels of your drawings
black and cover the drawing with ssue paper every night, or after you've shown one person your drawing you will create a new drawing. It doesn't matter how
silly any of your rules are. What matters is that you are introducing your representation into your environment. You're introducing its physicality to your
perspective. You're making the symbol comfortable in your world and pre-rela ng it with the representations already in your world. Not all of your rules and
guidelines have to make sense. As long as they are precise and you s ck to them they will work fine.
06/19/2011 05:50 AM
If I was dreaming, it would just happen [snips] Perhaps the following: You would step into the box and focus on a particular aspect
of the experience, which would lead you to other experiences. The same that we do while awake or dreaming. While dreaming you understand more of how this
works and so can more easily relate one perspective to an other. Going from place to place with relative ease because you understand that there is no "place"
only relationships. [...]and it would be no big deal :P I'd just climb in the box, and then I'd climb back out and I'd be near Amsterdam Centraal. Enough weird
stuff goes on there that I don't think anyone would notice or care. I'd probably do it at night, so less people no ced. If the point is to climb into a box in one
city and get out in an other city, then you make the entire experience logical to your perspective. You can do that through Neuronics or the Genius. The Genius

37 of 145

creates a map from one perspective to the next. It's "slower" than neuronics and would probably not work for this particular purpose. It can be used more for
when there are many steps between perspectives. Using neuronics you would first a ribute value to the neuronicons, essentially allowing the values to be
mapped to your brain over time. If you then want to write it down or think of it you can, but writing down the symbols without a ribu ng value does little for
your experience. You would assign a neuronicon to each variable and allow it to be mapped to your brain. How do you know when it has been mapped? When
you start to think of the variable ("Amsterdam", for example) in Ec instead of whatever language you think of it in now. When these variables are in Ec (in your
"mind map") then you can much more easily relate one variable to an other. The neuronicons are kind of like Legos. They are designed to fit together with
others to form a logical narra ve, in order that the corresponding reality may be changed. Once you have mapped the variables using neuronicons you simply
think of where to be (thinking in Ec) and you are there. It works because you have made the immediate change from one "place" to an other relative. But it is
not magic. There are steps to take to make it work for you.
06/19/2011 06:46 AM
there was a book years ago called "The Impersonal Life" The people places things times and events in your life... is only YOU making
a convera on with SELF... then observing the results in what appears to be THIS WORLD. So ALL the those THINKS you perceive are your OPINION about you.
At times it appears that people are after you.. YOU are after you in those moment. At mes... it appears EVERYONE LOVE YOU.... and YOU Love you during
those moments. So, if you remove your emotional tie and emotional response to these things... you become un-a ached un-eected by the RESPONSES that
you APPEAR to have in this world. The people pleaces and things times and events are within YOU.. projec ng a personalized reala ons with you. It is ALL
ABOUT YOU... and the life that APPEARS to be all around you is give it's POWER only by you. Within YOU nothing exist. Point A plust Point B = C the
inbetween is what APPEARS to be a world, universe, city, planet dimension. But when your consciousness is VOID... it all disappears and you are THE ONE..
and ONLY ONE. This is my understanding of how the Observer eects creates lives dies and encounters a PERCEIVED aspect of self... the billions of projected
people places things times and events.
06/19/2011 08:08 AM
Thanks for coming back, Chaol. Thank you for taking so much time to explain Ecsys again. It seems that we - in this particular world need to hear it described over and over again in many different words in order to comprehend. I've put over 40 hours into studying Ecsys and the neuroicons,
especially during this past winter. I got to the point where I overwhelmed myself and had to put it away for awhile, although never completely. With your
return, your fresh explanations have helped me connect several concepts into some major "aha!" moments. Thanks for walking the golfer and the "Shrodinger's
Cat" posters through their queries, and, of course, all of the other ques oners. Your responses have assisted my understanding tremendously.
06/19/2011 03:02 PM
Let's break it down to 2 scenarios:
1) In one scenario you don't really understand neuronics. You want to lose stomach fat.
2) In one scenario you understand neuronics and how it works and have used it successful in the past for a small thing. You want to lose stomach fat. In which
scenario do you think the minimal amount of energy would be used to carry out your goal? It's a simplis c example, but we're always back to "perceiving that
which takes the least amount of energy" (all things considered). Considering your current situation and understanding of things, what do you think would be the
solu on that would u lize the least amount of energy?
06/19/2011 07:02 PM
The interpreta ons are broken down, not the objects themselves. Yes, they would be separate statements if that's how you thought
of 1-6. But if the pen were your favourite color or one that really ma ered to you (or something else that was signicant), then #4 and #5 would be "red...",
and you would still have 6 atomic statements, as you put it. (No need to break it down further, because that's how you see it.) I'm not sure what your
examples would be but my examples of S could be, for China: +S : Chinese ag S : Great Wall -S : egg rolls As "-s" would mean more something that is not
very symbolic. Each would have their own interpretation of what "+", "neutral", and "-" means to them. Last Edited by Chaol on 06/19/2011 08:03 PM
I'm not sure how you could perceive something that had absolutely no value, but yes. When 2 things exist then they both has a presumed value (whatever
value you the other ascribes to it, formed from the relationship of it to the other thing). Even saying or imagining that you are in a 'black void' has something
like 2 values ("black" and "void"). So it could be said that "non-existence" exists, as do "black voids", "vacuums", and anything else you can think of. (Exis ng
in the way that it has value, not that it is real.) The cheapest for the universe to "create", energy-wise, is "nothing". But then there would be no universe. (And
even the absence of something is something that has a value.) It needs to break itself down into seemingly separate parts in order to pretend to exist.
Physicality need not actually exist. The illusion is 'good enough' and uses up the least amount of energy. But in the illusion itself energy is used. So our bodies
seem physical only because that's how we think of it, and we think it's real. (If you were a thought you would probably also see yourself as "most real".) In the
whole, there is no physicality, no illusion, no energy, etc. But further explanation is where the use of the English language escapes us and why I presented Ec.
(These are all terms used for lack of better terms.) Last Edited by Chaol on 06/19/2011 08:23 PM
**Time and Space*** What are natures of time and space? I will explain. Have a fresh look at the following graphics: [link to ecsys.org] On the right side you
will see the "eld of rela onships" that you actually perceive. (It doesn't really look like this, but it's good enough for our purposes.) Time and space are
qualities of this field of relationships. Imagine that each representation had 1 or more sides, and interacted with other representations to form these geometric
shapes. "Time" is what we call the length of one relationship compared with the others around it. If (for illustration only) you have 2 boxes and each has a
length of 1 meter then the " me" that you experience with each box would depend on how "long" or "short" it is compared with the other representations rather
than on an absolute length. It does not matter if the box is 1 meter or 1 million meters long. What matters is its relationship with the other shapes. (The
closer the shape, the more it is important to it.) "Space" is what we call the quan ty of relationships within a particular field. In our example, if one box is
surrounded by 10 other shapes and the other is surrounded by 2 then it would seem like the first box has much less space than the second. Change the
relationships and you change the " me" and "space" associated with each. (see the Theory of Rela vity) These representations are always in an act of
a rac on/repulsion. (Consciousness is formed from rela onships.) Some of these geometrical shapes exhibit more fundamental qualities and, thus, will a ract
other representations to it more easily. For example, you'll see more people wearing black than sorrel, more people living in New York than in Port Jervis, some
stories more meless than others (and the same basic stories retold thousands of mes), some restaurants more popular than others, etc. Each of these will
form more relationships simply because they are able to. These vortexes of energy are formed from a particular "shape" being able to interact with many other
shapes. It is theore cally possible, then, that a "black hole" could form in New York or, evetually, grandma's famous cookie recipe (no, I'm not joking - entire
ci es have formed around less delicious ideas). The "black holes" that scientists think they see are the same entities as the "black hole" in London. Some
things form more relationships with other things for this reason. Why does grandma's cookie recipe form a vortex? Because it is able to form many relationships
with other 'shapes' (i.e., lots of people like her cookies). When your world sees time and space as qualities of relationships rather than absolutes then instead
of taking thousands of years to reach a distant star you can appear there within a very short span of time. Bridge the relationships, and you have bridged time

38 of 145

and space. (I don't just mean creating wormholes in the laboratory to the other end of the galaxy. You don't actually need a physical instrument because space
and time are not physical, nor have physical proper es.) You will then be able to 'travel' through time and space with relative ease.
06/19/2011 08:31 PM
Yes, but it must be considered in terms of your current perspective. If you closer to #2 now then yes, it would use up the least
amount of energy. If closer to #1, then it would use more. Neuronics works within your current perspective, not outside of it. In order to really suggest
something eec ve, it would have to be effective for you. And for that I'd need to know a lot more about your perspective or condi on, etc. As I've mentioned
on the first page of this thread we can use the base to extrapolate useful models. For example 3-2=1 can be interpreted as, "if we use more physical energy
than our interactions require then there will be a decrease in our physical representa on". This is basic exercise, and it may be that which will take up the least
amount of energy from your perspective. However, because physical representations are "within the mind" so to speak it does not matter if this exercise is
done physically or non-physically. You could lose stomach fat simply by doing exercises in your imagina on.* Physical exercise could be carried out in your
imagina on. (But depending on who you are, using your imagina on for physical exercise may require more energy than using your body for physical exercise.)
Ask anyone who's ever had a wet dream how effective the imagina on can be to the body. Less obvious are the people who seem to have a high metabolic
rate, which is usually a ributed to other causes but is basically about how their physical imagina on. *The more your exercises are related to your physical
body then the more effective this would be for you physically. For example, in your minds eye wear the same thing as you're wearing now, and pretend you are
in the same environment.
06/19/2011 09:42 PM
Do you understand that you don't actually move? The place where you want to live is already there, all around you. It is mixed in with
what you currently perceive to be where you are living now. What you do is, you connect this reality to that reality by using representations of the other place,
and the place that you prefer simply materializes. Yes! This is what is being taught here. When you call a moving truck and load up your furniture, then drive
down the road and unload your stuff into a new home, that is your most logical way of moving from this reality to that reality. But, you can do it all more easily
when using the ecsys process. Get it? When you understand that you do the following at every moment without thinking about it, then you've got it: 1-Create
symbol: Represent things physically. 2-Find possibility: Create or use space for your symbols 3-Interact: Allow the symbol or representation to interact with the
various elements of your reality in #2 5-Structure: Develop structure around the interac ons.
07/17/2011 05:10 AM
OU.... Been reading your two threads here on GLP and All I can say is thank you, you have a lot of pa ence... I want to start using
the Genius as you said for a startup. Let's say I want a very particular sailboat. Step 1 would be to have a picture of the boat I want or I can draw one just like
that with the model number and the company name on it. Let's say that for step 2 I would kiss it every night and morning. For step 3 I don't know what to do
(as I'm french and find your instructions on: [link to ecsys.org] not clear enough for me And nally for step 4, I was to put on the picture some of my old
sailboat piece of ropes Chaol, could you please help me to see if my procedures are ok and please guide me for the #3 step. All the best, It's better to have no
knowledge than false knowledge!
07/20/2011 08:31 PM
Was your goal to: 1) improve your golf game up to this point; or 2) be a professional golfer that earns $5 million a year? I'm
assuming that you think it's not working because your golf game has, up to now, not improved in the way that you expect, is that right? May I ask, what
important lessons have you learned in life through only 'the best' things happening, and in the way that you expect? User ID: 1135894 i understand now. in
order to change your reality, change who you are.. you must change the relationships between the representations any other key points worth pointing out?
thank you chaol
07/20/2011 08:35 PM
The representation of the sailboat is probably not what you'd expect. You should make a unique representation of what it is you
want. A picture of a sailboat would probably not make for an effective representation. You have to explore how your current reality interprets the sailboat that
you want. It could be that you first thought of a ute with wads of gum on it and brushed it off as being completely ridiculous. Then you thought a picture or
drawing of it made more sense. It's not about what makes sense to you now. The way your reality works is directed by a much different logic than what you'd
expect. You can go with your imagina on rather than your conscious memory in order to affect the changes you are thinking about.
07/20/2011 08:43 PM
i\'ve read the whole thread, and there is a specific state-of-mind, or reality you could say, that i want to be in.. where (scien cally)
i use a different part of my brain that, basically, allows me to be though ul-to-the-extreme.. considering every possibility, living in the past, present, and
future all relevantly at the same time, with all of the accumulated informa on/wisdom. i AM not there right now, otherwise i would be more clear.. i would just
like to establish this.- but basically, what do i do to be in this reality/perspec ve? The "dream world" is merging with the "physical world". (They're both
physical, but it's just for illustra on.) It basically means that you'll be able to more consciously realize how you create your reality. When there is a lessening
distance between an abstract cause and a physical effect, then the two worlds meet. Yes, there will be some physical correlation. Some may have diculty
integra ng the "new signals" (the new rela onships) with the ones that they're more familiar with. For them, it would be like a shadow that at first appears as
a monster but becomes less focused on when it's realized that it's actually something that belongs to them. For others, we see the wizard behind the curtain.
Strange things are happening in your future in order for many of these realiza ons to occur.
07/20/2011 08:45 PM
You're working a few chapters ahead. We're still on chapter one! There is some basic math operations you can use with Ecsys, but for
the purposes of Ec language we do not add elements together in such a way because it is important to have a record of what the sum is comprised of. Much of
the meaning of the 'words' are made up of the parts, because each part can be interpreted in a different way by different people. P+I=S in the way that
Possibility + Interac on = Symbol However, I would probably never have the chance to introduce other, more advanced, ways of using Ec because the basics
seem to be taking a while to digest. The structure is as it seems to be (to you). If you add those elements when using Ec language, please do so behind
closed doors! (Just kidding, somewhat.) 1 = Logic 2 = Possibility 3 = Interac on 5 = Symbol (representa on) So, you could say that a Symbol minus interaction
is possibility. Or Interac on minus possibility is logic. There are a ton more advanced things to do with the basic structure of Ecsys, but I do not have the
possibility to get into it here. (It would be much more confusing than the basics already presented.)
07/20/2011 10:00 PM
It's easy to say "change your self" but what most don't seem to realize is that you cannot do so "internally". You change what you
probably don't think is you in order to change who you are. You are your perspective. Everything in your current experience (percep on, etc.) defines and
illustrates who you are. When you make changes to the "outside world" you are actually making changes to your perception (obviously). But, following that, you
are also making changes to you. There is really no "inside you". Everything is what you would call external. It seems external because what "you" is cannot be
illustrated in "so small" a space. [My apologies for the extensive use of quota on marks. There are not many words or concepts from which to choose, so the

39 of 145

use of approximate language dictates the use of them.]

07/20/2011 10:08 PM
However, people do not generally serve as Symbols. Nor would a deadline function well as Logic. Con nuing on the to task, however,
there would be nothing that I could tell you that would make you understand. Each understands independently in the way that the understanding would come
from considering what is written and valuing it against one's total experience. There are different levels of understanding, of course. How much you (really)
want to understand depends on how much you care about the result. A ve year-old would ask questions in a way different from what an older person would
ask, I think. S/he would care about the result differently. Most 5 year-olds probably would not care at all about Ecsys. Such things become more important
when we feel we do not have control or much influence over our lives. Ecsys isn't relevant to a 5 year-old, generally speaking. We 'forget' about it for a reason.
At 5 years of age, we're learning how to be involved in the drama, not get out of it. The lessons would not be relevant or eec ve. However, if the goal is to
explain it as simply as possible the simplest explanation is in Ecsys prime: We perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive Or, to change
1 word that would make all the difference to some: We perceive that which takes the least amount of interactions to perceive. Per The Gods of Ecsys page at
[link to ecsys.org] Interac on is the structure of potential energy. Interac on enables logic, allowing for relationships between things. It's all right there, in the
few lines above. It applies to everything you could possibly imagine. (However, the more that which you're applying it to is broken down the more you'd have to
break down the above, in order to make it relevant.) But we don't want things to be simple. We prefer things to be complicated. (Despite what we think we
want, we continue to want to perceive drama and divisions between things.) Thus, several pages in this forum and an other devoted to repeating the same
thing over and over, in as many different ways as possible. It's the same thing we do with anything. It's why the universe is the way it is, and seems infinite.
Really there's only one thing. The more something is broken down the more percep ble it is, and the more it "exists" for us. Because then we can interact with
it more. If something were broken down into an 'innite' number of pieces, each unique, surely we can find a few pieces which are very similar to what we are.
If someone doesn't understand it yet it's because they probably haven't found those pieces, out of the many, that are highly relevant to them. You could easily
put this into terms that 5 year-olds would understand. But would they care? Probably not. It would not be relevant to their current experience. It would be the
older person who would make it more complicated than it needs to be, along with a little drama. How could something so important be so simple?
Last
Edited by Chaol on 07/22/2011 12:41 AM
People do not generally serve as symbols, but specific people can. (For example, President Bush.) Of course Ecsys prime is highly relevant to you. This is the
point where we can make things more complex than they need to be. It determines everything that is happening to you right now (or has/will). When you run
head first into a wall that which takes the least effort to experience is what you'd most likely call pain. This is obvious. But what is not really thought about
are the 'moments' before the event which makes running into the wall the path of least resistance. The Genius simply creates this path of least resistance. You
can use it to experience anything, if properly used. (The answers may seem nebulous, but perhaps only because no specific questions have been asked.) The
shift to the dream world is happening now. It will be mostly "complete" in a couple of years. How would you know? Stranger and stranger things will happen,
then these very strange experiences will be a part of everyday life. We have only just begun to see the stranger.
07/23/2011 02:56 PM
You call it "needlessly complica ng things", but I call the reverse - "excessive handwaving". Tomato, potahto. [link to
140.254.101.126] [link to www.joelonso ware.com] Please stop being an architecture astronaut. Some of us are mo vated by creating things that actually DO
something. Shipping code that works. Even if it doesn't do much or isn't huge. Something that works. So far, all I really know how to do is make declara ons in
your EC language. And getting information about how to make those decls actually DO something is like pulling teeth or playing a game of 20 questions. That's
not a fun game to play. Especially when your whole ISP is banned and you have to use proxies to slip through the net. Here's a sugges on: when someone
ships a new framework or API, they usually provide demo applica ons that run on top of the new framework. You can take that code look at it, run it, change
it, see what breaks, change it some more to fix it and learn how it works. Or take what you want from it and then start building around it. On your website, you
give one very teeny ny demo - how to make a few decls. That's it. I get the feeling you think giving out too many details would be dangerous to undesirable
people? You're going to have to pick and choose then. I'd suggest making the site password protected. Otherwise if you're targe ng anyone and everyone, why
be so coy about it all?
07/23/2011 10:31 PM
I agree. However, some people on this forum have gured out how to make it work. Many more have not. Only a bit less than 1% of
viewers in this forum have ever responded. So perhaps 100x more people have made it work because of this forum. And even more have not. To be useful,
Ecsys need only be used once. The more used it is the more useful it becomes. It obviously works for some. Thus, it would obviously work when used properly
and in the way prescribed in this forum. With something so powerful, how straigh orward could I be? We're talking about something that has no limita ons
whatsoever. A password-protected site would only serve to create a small group of dedicated hackers, and make it easy for some others (who weren't using it
properly because the forum was not read) to be more confused. When you tell a group of people that in order to get to Shangri-La they have to walk 79 steps
down this street and turn right, you can guarantee that you'll have a large percentage that with either drive, run, take a shortcut, want to conrm the hotel
location on Expedia, take 65 or 105 steps, walk backwards, turn le , etc., and then wonder why it's not working. As you've read on this forum, many take the
instructions and need to do it a different way. The instructions are all right there. When we skip over the very simple and turn instead to the more complicated
or more interesting or make it different than what it actually is (which is what many of us have done) then, yes, there is little result. (I call it very simple
because the 'result' would be no less than absolutely astonishing for most of us, considering the amount of input involved.) I would recommend more Genius
and less Ec if you're looking to make something work right now. I know it's frustra ng when there is ambiguity or certain things are left out. But what do you
think the result would be if everything was said, or was told only to a select few? (If I gave 10 random people the ul mate power, how many of those people
do you think would use it wisely?) Here we turn to the legend of Excalibur. It's right there in front of you. Anyone can take a shot at it. But it won't work for
everyone.
Last Edited by Chaol on 07/24/2011 07:32 AM
Who are we? Who AM I? Throughout the years, my world have interacted with yours on various levels. In this period, 2001-2013*, as my world and yours more
closely combine physically, there are a few things I'd like to share. We inspired people like da Vinci, Newton, Einstein and millions more unknowns. The
Egyptians built their largest pyramid because of us. We influenced nomads to learn the basics of language and science. Ever watched Star Trek or played a
video game? We've even pretended to be 'ying saucers' even though such things are ridiculous to us. (All in good spirits, though.) And we've done it all
without interacting directly with Earth. Most of us don't even know about Earth. (No need to get into how now. Call it kosmosis, or dream world inuence, or
kitchen utensils.) Recently, however, we've taken a more ac ve role. Or, should I say that I took it upon myself to find out more about this-thing-that-weinuence. I first arrived many years ago, in the womb. Since then, I've been doing some inuencing of my own in every area from business to design to sports
to biology and more. I've made friends along the way and invited another from my own world. It's not an important role. Not many people know about your
world. As your world and my world are "uni ng" (for lack of a better expression) there will be more and more correla on between the two. (Along with countless

40 of 145

other worlds, but that's an other story all together.) So, lately I've been a bit more ac ve. Some of us call it the Singularity, Great Shi , Rapture, and lots of
other names that we make up when our mind wanders (or, shall I say, when ours minds seek to interpret one-another's thoughts). From your side you'll
experience things that you haven't before, or had just a taste of in your "physical" world. In the past few years my partner and I have created entire sub-worlds
within your world to create things you could never imagine. We've also introduced the idea that a planetary body can carry an electrical discharge (our
apologies for creating the TU24 hysteria, but sometimes it's the only way to get people to no ce), gotten Obama elected (again, our apologies.. it'll make
more sense later), and countless other things we wouldn't want to discuss over a proper meal. The second act of Ecsys might look like a confusing mound of
gibberish but it has actually been carefully planned for over 20 years as a way to introduce the third stage of Ecsys. In the second act we've prepped entire
popula ons for disrup on. (Radioac vity is conscious, wouldn't you know. So is electromagne sm.) We also approached a li le-known Russian astronomer
named Leonid Elenin and showed him something that has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. (We liked his familiar-sounding name, I guess.) Why
is Elenin important? It represents our world, X. It is not X per se but close enough physically that there's no practical difference. We are master disruptors. We
are what you'd mistakenly call Gods, or "Elohim" in your old tongues. Planet X in your conspiracy theories. The symbol of the cross (or swas ka if you're of
Buddha), the lotus pose, et cetera. Near-countless. But, again, most of us have never even heard of (or cared about) Earth. It's a small glimmer in a vast sea
of reec ons. We call ourselves simply X. We are the four corners of the Earth (which, ironically, we told you about). We are of the 1, 2, 3, 5. We are of the
dream world, but to us we simply are beings free of physical time and space. More accurately, we do not dream of time and space like you do. To us, you are in
the dream world. And by meeting us, essentially that which dreams of you, once again you are waking up as we did a few hundred years ago. You will see that
our world (your world) has been there all along. Some of you will crash right into us, some of you will pass right through us, and yet some will never know that
we existed. 2 years into Ecsys' introduc on, and now it is time for Act III. Are you ready for our anniversary? *Note: the dates aren't signicant. They're just
things we've made up that eventually become your reality. It could have easily been 502-640.
07/25/2011 01:40 PM
We are nothing that you yourself won't be in a few years. We call ourselves "X" as in "ex" because we all used to be something else.
Perhaps you, too, will call yourselves "ex-human". (No, we're not talking about mutants or comic books. We're talking about becoming what you'd consider to
be gods. But it only looks that way from your current perspective. It is more accurate to say that it is the next stage in human evolution which, interes ngly,
involves more of what you'd call the dream world.) We don't care about religion or those other symbols you've ascribed to us. It is irrelevant and no more valid
that if I called you "embryo" because you were that a long, long time ago.
07/25/2011 08:23 PM
It doesn't matter if you think you've grasped it or not. You needn't understand computers in order to make use of them. You need
only know that Ecsys is there, and someone can use it for something for it to have an effect in your perspective. Act 3 is there whether or not anyone knows
what it is. What is it? It's the act of closing your eyes to wake up from the dream world, so to speak. It's the opposite of opening your eyes for the first time.
It takes time to adjust and get used to all the next s muli. The 'adjustment' is Act 4. We're looking for something substantial in this world. But, really, the
only substantial things are those that you see with your eyes closed.
07/25/2011 09:46 PM
Everything you perceive has a physical value. Thus, everything is physical. We can even say that there is no non-physical. (There is,
but you wouldn't be able to perceive it unless your manner of perception was also non-physical. With your senses, what doesn't appear to be limited
somehow?) It exists beyond the "speed of light" which, interes ngly, is what you would call the speed of perception but what could also be called the point of
non-separa on. As I mentioned before, we provide the illusion of separa on in order to perceive. What does all this mean? It means that even your dreams
have physical value. i.e., your dreams are physical. Which makes them quite real to you, and more real as time progresses to the point of non-separa on.
07/25/2011 10:33 PM
Chaol, you said that for some, this " me" will pass right through them. What seperates those who will experience a different
perspective due to the singularity, and those who will find a change in perception? There seem to be many who want to steer a great deal of "our world"
towards their own when this event happens. What are the reasons for this? How do we, with our limited perspective, know how and who to "choose". CAN we
even choose? It seems that you suggest that introducing Ecsys was done rather "underhandedly" as a tool to relate more to us, with or without own
knowledge. Finally, you said you arrived here many years ago in the womb. How did you come to remember Ecsys, etc? What were the reasons for claiming at
first to be from an alternate earth (I assume this is not quite the case?). Honest questions that come to mind.
07/26/2011 10:39 AM
What I meant by, "Some of you will crash right into us, some of you will pass right through us, and yet some will never know that we
existed." is that, depending on your perspective your physicality may match ours (or not). It's not actually important that it does. We are combining with your
world as much as you are with ours. The difference between one who sees and one who doesn't see is about the same as someone who hears a sound and
someone who doesn't. It doesn't matter if you do or not. Both 'paths' have their own livelihoods and consequences. I AM not sure about this. However, I don't
want to give the impression that our world is better or more advanced. There is actually nothing to choose, nothing to do. It happens anyway. There is no right
choice or wrong choice, just as there is no right dream or wrong dream. The dreams just happen. Our worlds will combine, as I've mentioned a few times
before. You're not coming over to our side, per se, or vice-versa. The physicality isn't really there. It was a conscious decision. There was nothing to remember
"Alternate universe" has always been in quotes, and I've explained what I meant a few times before. Let's take a ready example. When you enter a dream, you
have always been there. Let's say you are going to sleep as Peter at 32 years of age. You dream that you are Hussle at 14 years of age. When you are Hussle
in the dream, you were always Hussle and have been for the past 14 years. You may have noticed that when you dream, you usually perceive them as already
in progress. Dreams do not start or end. When you get there, you will have always been there. And that's why there is nothing to do. If you enter the dream
world (what we call X) now or later it doesn't really matter. There is not anything you really need to do.
07/26/2011 01:59 PM
To put it more plainly (though I would say, more inaccurately): Planet X / Nibiru is my world. (Though we don't refer to our world as
such. You would, however.) My world is the dream world. My world is a different kind of physicality than your world. My world is a different kind of planet Earth
than your world. All times and spaces are in the here and now. Meaning, each is a value of the "now". Ancient Egypt, for example, is a particular value of the
present civiliza on. It does not exist in the past. It exists entirely in the present. So does everything else. My world is a quality of your world. Thus, the two
are very similar. A few hundred years ago we created tunnels to the dream world. These 'tunnels' were created when someone discovered the ul mate secret of
the universe ("X"). (Though we've since realized there is no universe like in your science books.) This Earth (your world) is one of those dream worlds. Though
to you, we are the dream world. "X" is what makes everything possible. It is Ecsys prime. Once we discovered X our world split from your world. (Or, grew
substantially different in qualities from your world until we were altogether different physically. It happens all the time in your perspective in small ways,
perhaps without you even realizing it.) We exist in the same space and time as your world. Right now. (You just don't realize it yet.) Our world is entirely
physical, though you would probably see it as a different kind of physicality from your own. (Your body is physical, yes. But also your light, sound, thoughts,

41 of 145

dreams, etc., have physical quali es.) The realization that you are already in the dream world is the realization that people have been talking about for
millennia. It has all kinds of names, from A-Z. People know something is going on, but what is it? Physically represented, the change is physically manifested
on all 'levels' of physicality. On the level that the rou ne of drinking your tea partakes, it is a giant planet screaming through the far reaches of the solar
system, making its way back home every few thousand years and upse ng the tea ke le. But the "closer" it approaches the more you realize it for what it is.
Yes, there is something to fear. But only from a distance. The closer it gets the more unlike your current physicality it is and the more ridiculous the old
fantasies of world destruc on, etc, will be. From the current perspective, yes, there is destruc on. But it would be impossible for these two worlds to exist
simultaneously in one's perspective. We see one value of physicality being destroyed, but it is hard to imagine the value that replaces it because there is no
reference point other than the apparent instability of the dream world. Again, the closer the dream world is the more dream-like your world will be until it
"passes right through you". You could say, by then you have become something else en rely. Or, more accurately, your perspective has shifted automatically.
(If it did not, you would not be able to perceive any changes.) That's why I say there is nothing to do. Because there isn't. It happens automatically. In the
dream world you will more quickly realize how you create your reality. The dream world is not random or illogical. It only appears that way from a perspective
that does not experience it (this one). The dream world is much like this one. There are some important dierences, of course, but the essence is the same.
You can eat, play, go to school, check messages, etc. This is what we've already realized and what I've been alluding to on this forum and the Ecsys.org
website. (Those in our world that haven't really realized it exist par ally in your world and worlds like it without really realizing it, but that's another story.) I
hope this claries a few things. [snips..] It's just a fantasy. It is not real. There is no conspiracy. There is only drama that we all participate in. There is no one
ac ng against you. Everything is in balance because, without balance, there is no "rela ve mo on" and then nothing exists. Last Edited by Chaol on
07/27/2011 02:08 PM
No I have not mastered the Genius yet. I actually have not experienced any of the desired results/experiences. It's no longer difficult to understand, as I was
overcomplica ng things. For the experience of being a professional golfer earning $5 M a year for 10 years I represented it as a pendulum comprised of a nut
and bolt hanging from orange agging tape. I hang one from my keychain, one from my golf bag and use an image of it for my avatar on any forums I interact
on. My rules are that I always construct it of those materials and re-hang it in those loca ons if it breaks. So far I have no experience of PGA tour golng. None
of my other projects have been experienced yet either. Any advice/clarica on Chaol?
07/28/2011 09:44 AM
No such event is occurring (will occur). You could say, how you imagine it now is not the same as you will actually perceive it at the
time. Fear of the unknown, spread over many years, can be quite powerful. What radia on are you referring to? I'd rather not say. It would open up too many
doors. This is best for an other time, I think. Everyone is from a different world. An entirely different perspective than yours, comfortably translated into
something that you can easily perceive. To use a previous example, someone from the year 2552 walking in a corn field would appear to be alien-like. That
same person walking on a busy street would appear to be like everyone else. But you'd definitely notice some peculiar qualities about them. They may even
disappear 'out of thin air'. This is not just about people. But everything around you. The worlds that are most relative to your own are the ones that most
populate your perspective. In my world we do that but I don't think your world will be the same in a few years. Not through any celes al event (or otherwise)
but by your own hand. It's nothing to fear. It's just the nature of change and what you'd call progress.
07/28/2011 09:58 AM
You could just say that more things become logical. i.e., that less steps are required to get there from where you are standing. When
you incorporate the idea that everything has, at its core, the same fundamental opera on then there are less steps 'from there to here' You could say that a
lucid dream is one that uses elements of the perspective that remembers it. You could also say that a part of your brain is dreaming even now, as you think
you're awake. There rules for the new perspective are the same as the old ones. You're just working with them differently. Yep. That's about right. You
lessened the steps from 'here to there' by symbolizing it. These rules are exible and very imsy, actually. You must work with some rules, so you create
something that seems like it could have an effect. Everything is an illusion. But everything is also reality. (Because only illusion exists.) I'm glad it worked for
you. But without knowing more detail I don't know how or why it didn't work for you after the first day. The same thing you did in your lucid dream with the
cigare es. You bring it to you. You make it more logical to your current perspective. It's no more complicated than that, actually.
07/28/2011 10:11 AM
The most glaring thing that I see is that you've created more than one copy of your symbol. If you create multiple copies of your
representation you could have some very 'interes ng' results. Think of Ghostbusters and "crossing streams". That's what your symbols are doing, if they're on
the same 'frequency'. Allow one unique symbol to operate at a time. You can create other unique symbols for other purposes, but one is enough for a single
purpose. I would also suggest a change to #2 and #5. A keychain wouldn't really count as "space". A pocket would, however. If physical, it should have some
boundaries and be an obvious space. You're hanging it from your golf bag and keychain, but these are not spaces. Perhaps put it inside your golf bag. (Also, an
image of it would not have much effect. It should be the unique representation itself.) For #5, it could be much simpler. You could say, for example, that you
will always take out your representation and place it next to your first ball on hole 1. I hope this helps.
07/28/2011 10:14 AM
Asexuality is a sexual orienta on. One as silent now in your world as homosexuality used to be. Many people are choosing, and will
continue to choose, to be alone. Should these people have less benets than an other person choosing to get married? "Why would someone want to be gay?"
1830 "Why would someone want to be alone?" 2011 Homosexuals generally feel that they have to be with someone of the opposite sex in order to live life
normally. (By this, I don't mean in some Westernized countries but the world popula on as a whole.) This is not much different from the millions of people in
your world, today, that feel like they have to be with someone of any sex in order to live life normally. For this, not only is there passive discrimina on but
ac ve discrimina on. Many more people are asexual in your world than you realize. They're just thought of as heterosexual because society doesn't think about
them. But of course we have people who pretend to be asexual in order to get tax breaks. But if they really want to pay taxes they could always marry an other
asexual.
07/28/2011 10:31 AM
Thanks. It's inten onal. The elements of Ecsys are 1, 2, 3, 5 1+2=3 2+3=5 5-3=2 3-2=1 This is everything that exists. There are
many ways to use Ec. All but one are described here: [link to ecsys.org] Unfortunately for most, the language is more subjective than objec ve. There is as
much precision with Ec as there is precision with where "you" begins and ends. You create the content. The dic onary is your own. There could be a general
dic onary, if someone were willing to give the effort. I left instructions a few pages back in response to someone that started on online dic onary for it. I don't
really know how to explain Ec in more simple terms. I was hoping someone else would have better success.
07/28/2011 11:02 AM
Perhaps you've misread me. I hope that I do not imply that "dreams just happen" or to minimize the importance of perspective (i.e.,
"just perspec ves"). Perspective is all there is. What could be more important? I've usually said something like that your reality is a perfect reec on of all of

42 of 145

the relationships in your perspective. "Control" would not be an accurate expression. All of the perspectives are there already. You could say that your next
experience is up to you. As in, "which perspective makes the most sense for me to experience next?" Again, it's not about "control". It's about making the
reality you want logical to your current experience. Think of it as, "Everything is there in front of you. What do you want to focus on?" They were never
separate. It only seemed as though they were because the "2 worlds" did not seem that related. (There are endless worlds, but I use two for simplicity.) You
are already merging with the dream world. (Where else would dreams come from?) But yes, you are fully merging with that which is a vital part of your waking
experience.
07/28/2011 11:05 AM
We all want there to be more than this. "No! It can't be so simple. So easy." So then we create drama around the simplicity to make
it more interesting and more exci ng for us. Really, it's even simpler than what I have stated. But even in this we seek to make something very simple more
complex than it actually needs to be. We want to be told what to do, how to do it, when to do it, etc. We look for those things. We look for opportuni es to
illustrate our existence. Without this drama, there would be no perspective. The secret, you could say, is realizing you don't really need that much drama.
Things could be very simple, and you would still exist.
07/28/2011 01:15 PM
Okay, okay. So, we're a bunch of lunkheads. Earnest, but just not getting it. The Genius is easy. Its the language that has us
stumped. We need a video: Scene 1: An object is held up. Someone repeats the neuricon sequence using sound. Frame 1 following Scene 1: A depic on of the
neuroicon sequence displayed. Scene 2: A situation is photographed. Let's say, a mother turning towards her crying baby. The neuroicon sequence describing
the situation is repeated orally. Frame 2 following Scene 1: A depic on of the neuroicon sequence describing the scene. Chaol, we are just as frustrated as are
you. We know you have a smartphone that probably has a camera and a youtube connec on. Can't you help us out? Right now, it feels as if we are all bad
dogs, but we don't know what we did wrong. Sorry and thanks for reading this.
07/28/2011 01:20 PM
Understood. My apologies if it seemed like I was frustrated with something other than the limita ons of the English language. I AM
not. The language is self-dened. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this forum, it's not really something that I can define for you. You have to make the
"dic onary" yourself so that it's appropriate to this world. All you have to do is start with a few words, perhaps 5. It would certainly be easy to use your scenes
for a video explaining how to use Ec. But it would be missing the point en rely. The usefulness of Ec depends on you and things relative to you (such as the
world around you). A basic model for the language: 5: Representa on - neuronicons 3: Interac on - using Ec 2: Poten al Energy - YOU 1: Structure - rules of
using Ec My dic onary would be useless to you and, perhaps, detrimental to the process. You would not be able to use my "dic onary" to really work with Ec in
your world. The eects would be very minimal. (Some have had success, as you can see earlier in this forum, but it's not nearly what can be done with a real Xlanguage.)
07/28/2011 01:50 PM
It could be said that you perceive what is essentially a straight line and interpret it as a curve in nature. Your senses, basically, pick
up s muli from straight-line paths (and angles). These, of course, are not real straight lines but that is how your senses would interpret them. It would be
more accurate to say that it simply follows the path that requires the least amount of energy, regardless of what shape it is. Even light 'bending' around a star,
for example, is following a straight line. But to your physical senses it would look like a curve rather than a 'straight' path because that is what makes sense to
you.
Last Edited by Chaol on 07/28/2011 03:22 PM
Un l I AM more adept at this, i'd like to share it with you for your thoughts. Two of my experiements are a teleportation and zeropoint energy capture. Here are
my thoughts. teleportation 1 create a symbol - an old ip phone covered in kid's s ckers. 2 create space - inside my SUV. 3 interact. interacts with SUV,
passengers, driver, roads, des na ons. 5 structure - when driving it place the symbol on my lap. zeropoint energy capture 1 create a symbol - a random picture
drawn by each of my children. 2 create space - the pieces of paper that the drawings are on. 3 interact. interacts with other artwork on the wall and discuss
them when clients and coworkers see them. 5 structure - hang the drawings on the wall in my oce. Thanks. Sorry to keep bothering you. This will get easier i just love the drama though.
07/28/2011 09:39 PM
Some background rst: The Genius creates a perceptual (logical) map between two points. Thus, if you were to use it for the above
purposes you would probably find a pathway instead of an answer. The more logical point B is to point A the less pathway you need. Some people may look at
the results of a Genius and see the pathway instead of what they want, all the while forge ng that what they want may not be immediately logical to their
current perspective. But the Genius helps you get there, and make point B logical. Moving on to your teleportation example, if you've created that symbol
explicitly for this purpose it will work fine. Just be open to new symbols, interac ons, etc., when they "appear" I would also attach more structure to both of
your examples.. Make some more rules surrounding it. It doesn't matter what they are. For zero-point energy capture, it doesn't seem that you are the one
creating the symbol. One person, upon creating a Genius model for teleportation could look at the result and say, "This shiznitz doesn't work! This is so
stupid!" An other person, using the same model, could realize that they've created a pathway to the point where they are (already) perceiving teleporta on.
They could look at their kids' drawings, for example, and have an "aha!" moment, or create another model which brings them closer to teleporta on. The Genius
allows you to discover what is there already. It's a tool to 'manipulate' perception (for a lack of a better way to express), rather than some witchcra . Here's a
thought experiment... Where was "4" before you added "2+2"? The model (maths) allows you to uncover what was already there. Imagine the world never
having learned about maths. Now imagine a world that never learned how to manipulate perception, and you'd be in a world that looks very much like this one.
Last Edited by Chaol on 07/28/2011 11:54 PM
To follow on from page 34, on September 9, 2011, my world forms a 90-degree angle with your Sun and your planet. A 90-degree angle also forms in my world.
Thus, two 90-degree angles are expressed, making a cross or "X" form. This represents a somewhat perfect balance between the 4 elements. My world is not
what you call Elenin but it is physically expressed as Elenin in your world. We see something similar in our world. (e.g., Earth is Elenin to us, you could say)
Think of Elenin as a stargate that opens when the two 90-degree angles meet. What happens when the 'stargate is ac vated'? You may not even no ce. But
the effect will be so great your world will be a very different place in 2012. (Again, you may not even notice if you're not paying a en on.) Are you watching
closely? Last Edited by Chaol on 07/29/2011 09:00 PM
07/29/2011 02:45 PM
The 'Stargate' opens on September 9, 2011 when our two worlds form 90-degree angles with the Sun at the same time our orbit is at
its perihelion. All elements of Ecsys will be in balance, and you will begin to know what Symbol, Interac on, Possibility, and Logic really mean. You will
experience all of these elements. A buzz in the air, possibilities seemingly endless. How do you know that what I'm saying is true? It's not true. What is true is
temporary, and dependent on your perspective. What you swear is an ABCD today will be an FGHI tomorrow. There is no need to learn Ecsys. It would help, but

43 of 145

you will learn it automatically in due time. All of what I have written will serve as your reference. It will make more sense as you go along. Consider me your
guide to the other side. Your brother from an other mother! (It may prove useful to print out the Ecsys material in case you want to read it while you're
sleeping. Every page of this forum, if you're so inclined, is helpful.) See you on the other side, everyone!
07/30/2011 07:36 AM
I discovered the Genius back when I was 12 years old, when I was obsessed with horses. I read about them; drew them; groomed
the neighbor's horses; dreamed of riding horses; and etc. Then, one day, my dad rode the perfect horse into our yard and handed me the reins. I was oored.
Both by the horse and by the way I got it. That was...um...44 years ago, lol. Since then, I've deliberately used the same method to pretty much get everything
I have ever desired. Some mes, I would work backwards. If I wanted, say, a degree in science, I started from the point of having the degree, then mapped
what needed to be done from where I was at currently. There have also been surprises throughout my life, both good and not-so-good. But, when I examined
the situation, I realized that I had adopted some a tude or hidden desire that put me into that situation. It really was all my own doing. I have even taught
my kids that if they want something, that the first step is to simply want it. As far as I can tell, they have everything that they have ever desired. A lot of the
stuff they wanted seemed to just fall into their laps. I tell them, "Now do you see how it works?" After ailing about with the neuronicons for nearly two years,
I nally began a deliberate use of the Genius to gain use of them. Now, look at what Chaol has wri en: In other words, it appears that my use of the Genius is
once again going to give me something that I want. See you all on the other side! (Hey, let's find each other over there and have a banquet. Chaol must come
and give us a speech. Once the dust se les, let's try to remember this, okay? It'll be fun.)
07/31/2011 11:48 AM
I know what you mean about feeling nervous about the unknown. I think that it is important to practice discernment before leaping
into something where you do not have enough details to make a learned decision. On the other hand, have you ever had to go to a job interview in a part of
town where you've never been before? Where, if you get the job, then your whole future will be glorious, but you wish you didn't haven't go through the
interview process? Then, on the day of the appointment, you're dressed too early, but as you leave your home, you remember something you forgot? Then, you
have to navigate streets that you're unfamiliar with, get lost, turn around, find somewhere to park, find the office suite and all of that? You don't want to be
late and make a bad impression, and you end up in the lobby at exactly one minute after the time you were supposed to be there? Then, the interview ends up
going really well and you get hired? The point is, we often have to face the unknown and are nervous about it, but, in the end, it all turns out well. We've all
done this before: the first day of kindergarten; our first date; our first whatever.
07/31/2011 01:40 PM
ecsys huh. hmm, :D thats a funny thing about the symbols, that connects something i was curious about. ah, indeed how the
experiences unroll. Ever wonder why corpora ons have the influence they do? how many of their "symbols" are around, how many people wear them on their
clothing? What about the occult symbols? can only imagine all thats connected to them.. ha, best part (DNA - to be released in a future version of the Ecsys
website due to concerns regarding mis-use of this informa on) xD misuse, as if there are those that do not already understand things wwaayy in advance of
the mind, so much so that they create "ma er" or "density" or whatever, but, indeed, everything is interac on, the interaction of frequency that gives rise to
form/structure. But, there are those that understand how to manipulate frequency to create form, not of this world, per say. now you know, whats interesting.
There is this person who was once on the internet and they made these videos explaining various things. Vicariously, certain aspects of what are on the ecsys
website are explained, not in such a direct way, but they are there. seeing how "reality" is synchronized around you, how intent becomes form. All that power
of inten on stuff. I've watched my "intent" become reality, i've watched how it can create my world, sure, this is just another method, just as others have
posted, like, well, if you have ever awoken inside a "dream". i digress, and, honestly, AM a little curious as to see what the OP has to say about these videos.
"the healing begins now" by Jonathan aka adampants. videos are on youtube and google video.
08/01/2011 07:15 AM
Assist others, and you will be assisted. Things are not really going faster. But more crazy stuff is becoming more relative to your
current experience, so it may seem that way (that time is speeding up). You can look at things from the perspective of your current physical self, or you can
look at things from what you are becoming more of. If the former, then consider the following expression: Each enclosed circle represents a me-perspec ve
(date), each unenclosed circle represents a space-perspec ve (world). The larger circle on the bo om left represents September 29, 2011. Then, the last circle
is October 28, 2011. September 29 is the date when the Earth is shaken, not s rred, like a Bond. October 18 (in the middle) is the date that we cross Earth's
orbit. October 28 is the date that Earth crosses our path. It is also the date that a new cycle on the Mayan calendar ends, and the date of the end of Hebrew
calendar (5772, which correlates to the height from the top to the bo om of what you call the Great Pyramid, in inches). There are lots of other correla ons as
well, but the point is that any energy can have a physical expression, as 'crop circles', limestone pyramids, stone calendars, etc. Such energies can also be
expressed as heavenly bodies. It's not the someone created the structures in the past, and they are coincidentally relevant to this day. The structures are
'created' now and completely relevant for now. If they were not relevant for now you would not be able to perceive them. So, we perceive things that are
entirely relevant to us now. If the la er, then there is really no need to think about how any of this will affect you physically. Dream about it, instead.
08/01/2011 06:55 PM
I will explain some of it. The center of the expression represents your transitioning to the dream world. The two worlds are becoming
one. Take a look at [link to ssd.jpl.nasa.gov] and note the dates I've mentioned above, starting with September 29th. So, the middle sphere would be October
18th (when my orbit crosses yours) and the last sphere would be at the end of October (when your world crosses my path). Just count the spheres. The size
and position of the spheres mean something else, but perhaps you can figure it out. The snake form is an other correla on with the dream world. In your
ancient legends (such as your Bible) there is a serpent. The original meaning of "sin" is nothing bad, it's just forge ulness because you don't really remember
your dreams. (I'm sure you can find this original definition somewhere.) You are "punished" for your "sin" because you simply don't know that you're dreaming.
If you remembered that you're dreaming then you'd realize that you can manipulate your experience (and, thus, no punishment). Ea ng from the 'tree of
knowledge of (remembering and forge ng)' is the simple act of dreaming. You have other stories where someone eats an apple and falls into a deep sleep.
Snakes, in the oldest sense, represented "potent symbolic value". Dreams are thought of as symbolic, so the serpent form represents dreams. Other peoples
attached 'deceit' to them, because they can also be decei ul. Some legends are of a red dragon such as Nibiru. This serpent form also represents the dream
world. The "planet of the crossing" can be thought of as crossing over into the dream world, not just crossing your orbit. If you read some of your 'ancient' texts
in this light they would make a lot more sense. So, at the 'serpents' head the two worlds become one.
Last Edited by Chaol on 08/02/2011 01:17 AM
Again.. YOU create these crop circles, not aliens from an other planet. The dream world is physical, as I've mentioned before. It is already around you, and it
will encompass you in the months to come. This is more of your natural state. It is the state your scientists have been trying to recreate in the laboratory,
programmers have been trying to recreate with software and robots, science fiction and fantasy authors have been imagining, and the state you depend on for
your waking life. You will be astounded by what you are doing (what you "will do"). You will be able to do everything that I've talked about, such as traveling
through time and space and much, much more. Is this not what you dreamed of?

44 of 145

08/02/2011 02:54 AM
So I did a little look up of the tradi on of Halloween and found it's the remembrance of the fall of Lemuria. Listen to this and see
how it will play with this dream world planned for the end of October. [link to thegreenduck.com] "The legends further tell us that a year later in the autumn
when the Pleiades was exactly overhead again marking the first anniversary of the destruc on of Lemuria, the survivors called forth their elders from the other
side using their usual necromancy in order to seek advice. Since the elite elders could no longer incarnate consciously into a civilization which no longer existed
(conscious reincarna on is a bit trickier than it sounds), it became an annual rite for the survivors, when the Pleiades was exactly overhead, to call forth the
spirits of their dead elders for advice. And thus the tradi on began that the dead walk the face of the Earth and talk to humans when the Pleiades is exactly
overhead each autumn."
08/02/2011 08:15 PM
I love this thread! Is fair to say that I miss OP, yet I genuinely feel so very at peace and comfortable and op mis c just looking at
it, despite some of the material being quite challenging. I click on this thread and it is almost as if I have entered an other room, or space, without leaving my
seat; is as if there is a unique atmosphere which I can readily feel. So much substance, it almost feels physical, solid. More real than 'real', in a dreamy kinda
way. I wonder what adventures Choal is experiencing, and how all the posters are fairing with Genius an Ec. I feel a sense of connection to all you faceless,
nameless people and love it that I never needed to see you, shake your hand, hug you or know even the slightest about you to feel it. You are all part of the
dream that i AM awaking TO. I thank Choal and all the posters who have contributed to such an enjoyable awakening process. Of course the constraints of this
language limit my ability to express myself accurately. On that note, I AM still very keen to continue learning neuronics...but feel I would advance so much
further with an other to bounce ideas between...anyone feel the same? Need a study buddy?
08/04/2011 10:17 PM
Surely all of you must be beginning to feel something by now. The nature of significant change is actually quite amazing. When it
first happens we recognize half of it. But after a short while it just becomes normal. A month or so before the earthquake in Japan I mentioned to all of you
that Japan was your future. 6+ months into it most of you don't even realize how this event has aected you. But surely 6 years from now ALL of you will see
how it set off a chain reac on. A month or so before Elenin was discovered I told you that our world and your world will combine. A few months into it and,
again, most of us don't realize how this is happening now. But surely 6 years from now (perhaps 6 months) we will all see. The world you are in now is
significantly different from the world of a couple of years ago. Do you smell the change?
08/19/2011 12:02 AM
You'll know it when you see it. It's not the same for everyone. But when you do experience it, it will become obvious that something
is definitely different. More like a dream, or what you would call a dream. It is your reality (will become your reality, you would say). For an analogy, take the
latest Planet of the Apes movie, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". Imagine that in this bo le [link to images.starpulse.com] are the Fukushima nuclear plants.
I'm not saying that the elements inside are good for your physical body (they're not). But it's all about the relationships. And that's something that would
affect you regardless of where you are in the world. Yes, I did leave for good. But, then, so have you.
08/20/2011 05:44 AM
Wow, Chaol. Just "wow"! Thanks for the links. Some of this I had already read and some of it I had not. I always appreciate new
information. I AM finding that a thousand d-bits of stray data are congealing into an understanding. Even some of your own cryp c remarks, Chaol, start to
make a lot of sense. I AM in awe that I even had the d-bits in the first place. As a footnote: The year 2007 was a watershed year for me, both physically and
metaphysically, mostly in a good way. From my current viewpoint, and in light of fresh informa on, it now looks as if it was all very, very good. It is as if I AM
being led by the hand to certain comprehensions. So glad you're back...err, so glad we're there...err, are we there yet? Where are we, lol?
08/20/2011 10:37 AM
Trust yourself then...for me personally, when i AM confused or troubled by a subject, I ponder the various
thoughts/op ons/perspec ves and take note of what 'feels right' or more 'comfortable' to me. O en the thoughts that challenge my current perspective the
most are the ones which ultimately sit most comfortably with me. I also take note of what I resist, these type of thoughts tend to be the most useful to
explore further in terms of my personal 'growth'. I know this is vague, but so very hard to explain. For me personally, the alterna ve perspective on radia on
that Choal presents us has been enlightening for me. It gives me hope, and reminds me nothing is permanent; and probably the only way to counter the
horrors of radia on is to find a fresh perspective on the matter. It gives me a the mo va on to embrace the changes rather than ght them. I know, is a little
easier for me to say than those more immediately impacted by recent events...the Japanese person suering radia on sickness, or the mother wondering if the
food she serves her family is contaminated or not. I also feel there is a counter for every possible event, and that nature provides it, even something as dras c
as radia on poisoning has an equal and opposite. We just have to find it...it is probably already found. Just not in all of our current awareness. If this is our
illusion, surely we have the power to direct it in a way that is sa sfactory to ourselves?
08/21/2011 01:31 AM
As I usually say, it's all a matter of perspective. To you it's radia on from Fukushima. To an other perspective it's something
different. In one perspective it is "bad". In an other perspective it can be different. Even helpful. I know that's hard to imagine. But it's the nature of
perspective. There are lots of monsters hiding in children's closets or under their beds. The children swear by it. I AM not really concerned with how something
will happen, only that it is happening. The methods are only sometimes a curiousity. If you're really concerned with the welfare of the physical body that you've
grown for what seems like many years then consider what it is, not what will happen. Consider a different perspective of these things you may fear. For
example.. some people may think that a tremendous earthquake may strike at a particular time. Perhaps, but in order to understand more of this we can think
more about the nature of earthquakes. Even their consciousness. It matters not so much what number on the Richter scale a movement is but what the 'peak
ground accelera on' is. For example, [link to www.seismo2009.ethz.ch] Then you can begin to feel the consciousness and the relationships between the
movements. It is really no different than the winds, or clouds, or anything you see in the sky or feel on the Earth. Perhaps we can trust the nature of things
and that things will work as they're supposed to. More prac cally, trust no one. Including Chaol. Last Edited by Chaol on 08/22/2011 10:44 AM
There's nothing wrong with avoiding the radia on or other things, as I have sought to do for the past few months. I don't mean to suggest that the radia on is
good. It's not good for your physical body, of course. It kills it.* Perhaps there was nothing substantial in the bo les that mo vated the chimps to be different.
They just needed an excuse to change. *There's no harm in supplemen ng your diet with vitamins A, B, C, E, selenium, lecithin (sourced from local rivers, etc),
and avoiding foods and products from the oceans, Japan, etc. Perhaps pay closer attention to the source of what you breathe, drink, and eat. *If you live in
North America or Europe, you may want to consider your op ons. Last Edited by Chaol on 08/22/2011 10:51 AM
I like that, kind of a koan eh? As far as changes go, I have been no cing odd things happening in my life that make me say "huh?" For instance, we were out
with some friends the other night and they said let's go by another friend of theirs house, she plays movies against the garage door and neighbors show up to

45 of 145

watch. So we went by and cha ed with them for a bit and le . Later when I was back home that evening I had to walk the dog. I walked him down the street
like I always do and there in a neighbor's back yard they were playing a movie projected on the side of their garage wall. Kinda weird since I have never seen
anyone do this before. So you addressed the fact that we are merging changing etc etc, but I can't recall if you have said why. Also, you have mentioned the
eects it may have on us but what about the eects it will have on your world?
08/23/2011 05:33 AM
Why are we 'merging'? It's what we always do.. form relationships with things that seem outside of our perspective. We do it, you
could say, in order to exist. Sometimes we form relationships with things that seem divorced from our current perspective. When is 'another world' (another
perspec ve) not merging with your own? This just happens to be the perspective more closely related to the one you experience much of the time (when you're
sleeping). Your two selves, you could say, are merging. I can't really explain this. We're still on the basics of Ecsys and English doesn't allow me to illustrate
the concepts. You could say that our weather patterns are changing, however.
Last Edited by Chaol on 08/23/2011 10:21 PM
Those that are out of balance with Ecsys Prime (123) in a sea of changing relationship values. In terms of Earth, divide 123 by pi and see where the result is in
terms of North and South la tudes. 38.6 is of particular interest. As our world (X) approaches this 'dierence' will become much more apparent. This is
illustrated by changes in Earth at those coordinates. In terms of civiliza ons, the Northern hemisphere is at the top of the Ecsys model: ...5 1 2 3 5 is
representation. The Northern hemisphere has, you could say, over-represented itself and needs to be brought back into balance. The West ("1"), what you'd call
Western civiliza ons, expresses too much of the logic element. The East ("3") expresses the interaction (social) element but it is not out of balance as much
as the West. Poten al energy ("2") lay at the center of your planet as it changes. [reference [link to ecsys.org] ] The light you (will) see is the light of your
dreams. The sound you (will) hear is the sound of your dreams. The physicality you (will) experience is the physicality of your dreams.
Last Edited by Chaol
on 08/24/2011 09:03 AM
You must have some definition for abstract that is different from mine. You can walk into a coin shop and a man will definitely quote you a price for physical
gold. One quote if you're buying, another if you're selling. It's what they do. It's all they do. If there's any abstrac on going on, point it out. To me, abstract
would mean something like futures or ETFs. Price and value are two different things too. I think Oscar Wilde said something about that. If you're talking about
the old trading concept of something being only worth what the next guy is willing to pay for it, yeah, that's always true. But that's true for everything that
gets traded. And that's not saying much.
08/24/2011 12:44 PM
I wrote this on page 46: Also, you may find some of the following helpful: The Art of Jumping Time Lines [link to tomkenyon.com]
Although it may seem paradoxical to some, your melineyour lifeis only one of many simultaneous possibilities. And it is quite possible, indeed it is your
birthright, to alter your meline and the poten als of your life. Your culture, for various reasons, has hypno zed you into believing that you are limited to one
meline. In this message we shall endeavor to discuss our understanding of melines and how you can change them. The Emergence of Mul ple Chao c Nodes
(posted: August 12, 2011) Your planet is entering a cri cal transition state, characterized by a mul plicity of Chao c Nodes. In our previous communica ons
we have discussed the changes taking place on your Earth in the context of a single Chao c Node. But from our viewpoint, multiple Chao c Nodes are now
emerging. Transi on States of Consciousness The central feature that needs to be iden ed in the midst of chaos, any form of chaos, is the portal of
opportunity. This opportunity for survival or for a new life may present itself in ways you do not expect. This is because the perceptual markers are no longer in
place and your consciousness may not recognize an opportunity when it presents itself. Also, try understanding the Bashar video on page 48 of this thread, on
how you move through "frozen moments". In a manner of speaking, you ac vate them as you focus on them. You can choose whatever "path" you prefer. You
can translate everything to whichever meaning you wish. Somewhere in this thread, OP states that the people in his world look at something and then ask
themselves, "How can I use this to my advantage." So, try to use everything to your own benet.
08/28/2011 11:37 AM
In English (not as exact as I would like it, but less ambiguous to most of you): Horus-on-the-horizon is a manifesta on of Horus.
Horus is just a retelling of an 'ancient' myth as old as time and as real as your time and space. (As I mentioned before, ancient things do not exist in the past
but are qualities of the present.) Sometimes you called Horus Jesus, sometimes you called it Nibiru, and other times you called it by a thousand other names.
The story of Horus, Set, and the gang (as well as Jesus, etc.) are all stories of our cosmos. The Eye of Horus is, among other things, a map that reminds
people of when Horus will return (when Horus will be on the horizon). The Sun is in the middle, and represents orbit. (Horus lost his orbit, or eye, in a ght
with Set, his brother. Both are planetary bodies, among other things.) Instead of accessing the internet, you would just do what you need to do in the dream
world. We connect to others by creating familiar representations. For example, if I know you always wear a silver chain with a particular insignia on the pendant
I would just send you a message with a stamp that looks like your pendant and my message would materialize in your perspective (somehow). As the two
physicali es meet (your world and the dream world) those aspects of your world that cannot be translated into the dream world will no longer exist in their
current form, in your new reality. The story intersects with so many aspects of civiliza on. But, generally, speaking for the drama to come: 1 - Logic - The
structure of the same story, told time and time again. This is embedded in our civiliza on. 2 - Possibility - The cosmos. In par cular, the space between the
dream world and this world. 3 - Interac on - The Dream World 5 - Symbol - The Winged Disc. Another, which see, that isn't so polite.
08/28/2011 09:33 PM
For me, if each of us did not feel this we would not be able to communicate, to perceive, or even to function. It's not a feeling
reserved for a certain few. Or something that happens only when you're dead or "enlightened". It's impossible to not be connected and feel resonance with your
perspective (or, your self if you prefer). There is as much value in someone not 'feeling' connected as there is in someone feeling that they are. Without the
illusion of separa on there would be nothing that exists. "Something" is born from feeling separated, rather than knowing, understanding, and feeling one is
already unied with everything. Certain new age, religious, and other teachings, unfortunately, work against the very thing they are trying to promote simply by
teaching that one state of being is better than an other state of being. Very few would want to hear this, or hear that there is a lot of value in not seeking
what is currently called enlightenment. Yes, there are many things to know and feel. And a lot of 'good' feelings can come from medita on, for example. But it
does not mean it should be the state of mind/being that anyone should seek. Each person is dierent, and each life has different needs. Translated into
English, when we recycling and try to "save the world" we are actually working against nature (and the natural course of things). I could use other examples but
it would definitely be unpopular and cause a s r. Let's just say that not everything is what we expect (or want it to be).
08/28/2011 09:27 PM
Ok. You may be right on that. my physical body is well and healthy. I live in a truly beautiful place. I live with people I love and have
relationships with meaning. However, my experience is one of not feeling at home in my physical body a lot of the time, or in my immediate environment, as I
perceive it, or in this world, as I perceive it. SO I get ENCOURAGEMENT and ENTERTAINMENT and FOOD FOR THOUGHT on this website where I can stumble
upon other people who may be experiencing something similar and / or have perspectives to share which may, I always hope, help me to experience TRUE

46 of 145

FREEDOM! Thanks, guys!

08/29/2011 12:33 PM
My take on it - and I've been watching the gold cker for more years than I care to tell - is that this claim is possible but not
probable. Not to say I wouldn't be happy to see it happen, then again a $21k gold price implies all sorts of other things too. Maybe I should get my gun
cleaned. In four months, I'd say it's more probable gold will be at $2500-5000, somewhere in that range. I'm no gold analyst, I'm just another anonymous dude
on the internet. I could be wrong, then again, the oshul guys are often just as wrong too. We've definitely gone exponen al in gold, but even exponen al
func ons take some time to get going. I'd say eventually we'd get to that figure he's quo ng. But not in 4 months. Maybe in late-2012 or 2013.
09/01/2011 11:59 AM
I taped together 2 champagne corks and wrap rubber bands around them. I add a rubber band every time I come across 1. I also kiss
it 3 times whenever I pick it up. It represents the black card I have with the $500 million on it. I used to keep it under 2 DVD cases I posi oned to form a V
(upside down of course), but I now keep it around the items I use most like my laptop and ps3. It hasn't really interacted with anyone yet. I've been keeping
to myself these days. I'm not sure if my space and interactions are meeting the requirements. I also have trouble making this whole thing relative to my
current perspective, which is broke and working a 9-5 to pay bills lol. I do enjoy life though, I just want to experience EVERYTHING that I can think of wanting.
I often sit quietly and picture myself on an island with my girlfriend and my daughter, we are all happy and laying and playing in the sand and water. I hold
this thought for as long as I can and try to feel the warm sun, the sand and the breeze. When I open my eyes, I still see what was infront of me before I
closed them. This can be frustra ng for something thats supposed to make you feel be er. PLEASE HELP!
09/01/2011 04:35 PM
First o, I have not experienced being a professional golfer YET so take my help for what it's worth. I just want to learn by helping.
Sounds like you have an existing emotional connection with the family on the beach experience and presumably you are enjoying that because you have your
$500M. Sounds like you should go to a travel agency and get some brochures. Go home and cut out a nuimber of pictures that best represent your experience.
Then build some rules around them - maybe you always stack them in alphabe cal order by des na on? I AM guessing that the space could be the travel
agency and the interaction could be you discussing this dream trip with your girlfriend, daughter and the travel agent. I hope I AM not way off base. Anyone
that could point us in a clearer direc on would be welcome.
09/01/2011 04:53 PM
I've had a similar experience with it, giving me the "opposite", but that still that means it works just not in the way we've come to
expect. Recently, only because certain family members suggested it, I decided to whiten my teeth. Teeth being a part of my body are "very relevant" to my
perspective even though I really don't see them all that much myself. So, I wondered what this change of representation (to use ec) would do. Answer: every
day since I started the whitening process good nancial news comes in . Some of it from completely out of the blue. My point? Ecsys is clearly in the ballpark.
But Chaol has not shared how to accurately find the map between representations and their relationships. Interac ng with that, and adding potential energy, is
a piece of cake once the map is known. A piece of cake. In other words, in my personal perspective there is some kind of relationship between the whiteness of
my teeth and my nancial well-being. Making my teeth more white brings more nancial well-being. Got it. Is my "map" between these representations and
relationships the same for everybody? No way. Remember the story of Samson and his hair from the bible? Cu ng it did some real damage to his strength.
Cu ng my hair has absolutely no effect on my strength. Of course, we have different maps.
09/05/2011 09:56 PM
We all need to work together here. We've got less than a month until we are shaken like a Bond mar ni. We can all do this
together!! One question for Chaol - is the merging of the two worlds represented as the Nine Levels of Transforma on of Consciousness by the Mayans? For the
rest I have some pretty solid evidence of the ability of the Genius to alter perspective. I have been interacting with my symbol to experience a reality of being
a PGA professional golfer earning $5M per year for 10 years starting at age 40. My 40th birthday is in a bout 3 months time. I used to be a very good golfer but
not of a professional caliber. Since I started working with my representation, I have become so bad at golf that I AM probably 10 shots worse per round on
average. It's obvious that something is happening, but its just not in the direc on that I would have thought it would take.
09/13/2011 05:22 PM
I suppose if you're going to talk about phi, you should also say something about Fibonacci numbers and how they show up practically
EVERYWHERE. Like take these fibonacci numbers: 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233 And take oh, I dunno, the year 1776 and add them to generate this
sequence: 1777,1778,1779,1781,1784,1789,1797,1810,1831,1920,2009 The interesting thing about Fibonacci numbers, is that each successive one is built on
top of the previous two, so you can decompose them into previous fibonacci numbers. Let's take 2009 and subtract fibonacci numbers from that year:
2008,2007,2006,2004,2001,1996,1988,1954,1920,1865 How many of those years jump out at you? 2008 - banking fail 2007 - RE bubble end 2004 - RE bubble
start 2001 - I'm not even going to go there 1996 - start of .com bubble 1988 - year after the 1987 crash (o by 1 for some reason) 1954 - year the Dow
surpassed its old 1929 highs 1920 - dunno 1865 - defeat of the south, end of the Civil War You can also go forward with them too:
2010,2011,2012,2014,2017,2022,2043,etc. 2010 - BP oil fail 2011 - exponen al phase of the gold bull 2012 - hell if I know 2014 - ? 2017 - ?! 2022 - ?!?!
09/17/2011 11:13 PM
I'm sure you don't have a page-length memory, but that's not what my posts are about. They're not about love and light, not about
fear or bravery, not about the truth or lies. However, you speak of fear as though it's something negative when, in fact, that's what this world runs on. Fear of
retribu on, punishment, getting a cket, being arrested, being rejected, fear of bug and rodent infesta on, fear of bacteria and disease, going to jail, going to
"hell", being yelled at, etc., etc. It is what holds society together, whether we like it or not. This is not a utopia where the majority of us do things because it's
what we naturally want to do. We can talk about "love" all we want but only fear can be dened. And that's because clear and easily-dened set of responses
can accompany it. Unfortunately now and in this Earth, it's pretty much the only impetus for action. I don't vie for the popular opinion. I only seek to illustrate
what seems to me to be most accurate in the current environment, even if I don't agree with it. I'm introducing you to a world where your fears are your own
rather than someone else's. Then you can do with it what you please. If someone says they don't want to be at a certain place, that's certainly not any reason
to be afraid. I would not want to be in North America for my own reasons, not the reasons of someone's imagina on because they feel something is happening
or "about" to happen. If I had, instead, said, "I would not want to be in Tanzania right now", I doubt if it would be taken the same way if I was talking to a
bunch of Tanzanians. The reason I called it a "show" is because these events can be taken lightly. It's really just entertainment, in the classical sense of the
word. None of what you're seeing is real, but you are certainly entertaining the what. As I mentioned, Ecsys is running the show now. Take it for what you
make it, but the fact is that no one else knows what is happening right now (save for a few monks at the monastery that sits of top of the 'portal') because no
one else has the "inuence". As much as I'd like to respond more in-depth to posts, I AM unable to right now. I hope to be able to within the next few weeks.
This is the most length response I'll make for now. (Strangely, people in this world tend to believe most of anything that is presented contrariwise to what has
already been presented, possible, and not responded to in the same way within a certain amount of time. Short memories abound. So, that's my response.)

47 of 145

09/21/2011 10:41 PM
For awhile I was having the most vivid dreams and I still remember them. This was last week. This week after reading and trying the
lucid dreaming experiments where I'm supposed to better recall them, of course it back red and now I can't remember squat about the last several nights
worth of dreams. But i have had a breakthrough in understanding the whole shape your own reality thing. I can clearly see how this works now. My "luck" has
begun increasing recently, I'm pretty sure I know why. : ) As for the 23rd date.. a neutrino has been clocked moving faster than light, time travel is now
proven. Thats pretty big wouldn't u say?
09/23/2011 01:46 PM
3.5 hours of september 23 2011 left here. Today was an average friday a ernoon. Nothing special at work. Nothing special on the
road to and from it. Nothing special at home. Dreams are nice as always. I'm traveling a lot, meeting people; I can remember them vividly. They are mostly not
meaningful though, just nice to experience. The neutrino thing is the first experiment, it has to be replicated again and again to have some certainty about it
and its implica ons. In regard to Chaol's messages, the are becoming increasingly cryp c. And the tone, I feel it less friendly than in the beginnings. Don't
know what to think... I agree with you on the tone.
09/23/2011 02:34 PM
I think the reason people, including Chaol, say that this is all an illusion is because we are fooling ourselves. Everything is ar cial,
we build property on top of existing beautiful nature to provide an illusion of a new beautiful environment.. then we say "O, this is beau ful" ILLUSION. We try
to convince ourselves we are smarter, better than the next person when we are all the same, ILLUSION. We have created time, space, etc.. these are concepts
ILLUSIONS. These illusions have been building ontop of 1 another for centuries to the point where we find it difficult to trace back to what is REAL. So we live
in 1 big illusion that we've created for ourselves. Noone is really to blame, we just are taking the ar cial life and lifestyle we created and BELIEVING in it. So
we believe and KNOW nothing. If there was no money, gov't, laws, religions, houses.. nothing ar cial to live by, what do you think our focus would be? We
re because of the resistance to what is real, we are hungry because we want to feed our material bodies to provide energy to do material work and gain
material things. But outside of all that.. there is REALITY
09/23/2011 04:18 PM
Well, I used the genius method for a week straight. Which didn't feel much different that just being obsessed with something you
want only this time it is constrained to a solid schedule and ritual. I didn't find a shortcut to another dimension, the only thing I did notice that the more you
think about someone the more you begin to act and look like that person. I also started playing his acapella cd alot and basically everyone that heard it
repe vely enough started to unconsciously make his sounds/gasps/moans and other idiosyncrasies to the point where it got on my nerves and I actually had
to say, please stop making those noises. So thats funny. Only I wonder how obsessing over a car for example would turn out. Has anyone else tried the genius
method for anything?
09/23/2011 06:07 PM
From this point forward, the general public in the US and other Westernized countries will begin to break down. If we take a running
tally of the day's events THUS FAR, I'm sure you'd say it was pretty significant if you look back in 5 years. 'Fragments' of my world are beginning to interact
physically with your world. The US government is running to their secondary bunker systems (and others to their primary) and using the excuse of a falling
satellite (now 2) as cover for what is happening. A satellite that, conveniently, is bouncing all over the heads of 6 billion persons and will be a ready excuse for
when my world, and 'fragments' thereof are more visible. Expect many more 'broken satellite' announcements in the weeks to come. Sooner or later they'd have
to disrupt communica ons and air travel in order to keep up with the story. Then there's the "alien" announcement and drama. Again, an excuse for when the
magic of mostly-secret technology is displayed. The only UFOs are the ones of your own crea on, as I've mentioned before. Then there's the 'faster-than-light'
drama that is unfolding to prepare you for their own amusing and constantly-malfunc oning technology that will still amaze most of you, starting to play out
September 23. Then there's the pretext for "World War 3", again announced September 23. Do you see where this is going? The world is changing rapidly at
this point, from TODAY, and many of us have yet to realize it. The day isn't over yet, though :) Yes.. gold will still reach $23,000+ per ounce. This is because
physical gold and paper gold will be priced differently. (Most of the 'gold' in the world is paper gold. If paper gold is priced at $1,500 an ounce, how much do
you think real gold is worth?) (Regarding my tone, of course it has changed. We don't experience time in the same way. Two years from the start of this thread
is 2 years to you. It is, to me, a few hours and a few weeks and months and years and about 75 years simultaneously.) Enjoy the ride. Be back in a bit.
09/23/2011 06:14 PM
I know on some of the other goldbug sites I visit, people have reported coin shop owners are suddenly unwilling to sell at current
spot cker prices - they're either "closed" for today or they just flat out won't sell. If you go onto Ebay and look at completed and about-to-complete auc ons
for, say, 1oz Krugerrands, the spread between cker and ebay has widened over the past few days to $150 - or more. As far as paper gold goes, it takes the
general trading public quite a while to figure simple things out. But you're right, if the public figures out that paper gold never ever turns into real gold, its
worth will drop to near zero. I know taking delivery of a gold futures contract is like pulling teeth - they'd much rather se le with you for paper dollars than
deliver a gold bar to you. I dunno. The real crappy time for me was sitting on losses for all of 2005 - those dips don't look like much on the chart now, but that
year tested my pa ence and discipline.
09/23/2011 08:47 PM
Some of us here (most?) seem to an cipate what you call doom, and want something "exci ng" to happen. Back in June on this
thread (page 35 onwards) I talked about my world merging with yours starting September 2, and addi onal events occurring on September 9th and September
23. Energies from my world 'built up' on September 2, were released and were received by your world on September 9, as advised. I also said a few months ago
that starting September 23, things will intensify and become more obvious that a new set of rules is coming into play (that a new kind of physical world will
rise to the surface). That, too, is starting up as scheduled. Today, you are no longer in the Earth that you were born in. All of it has come to pass, yet it
doesn't seem "exci ng" until something physically substantial occurs and is very, very obvious, right? For those who are awai ng something physically exci ng,
you'll get what you asked for on October 1. Whether you fear or jump for joy is entirely up to you and really makes no difference. It will be interesting to see
how bored you get of it. (When I say Ecsys is running the show, I don't mean Ecsys models. I mean that I, Chaol, AM running the show and deciding the
direc on of what will and won't be experienced physically. You are now in a new world, my world, and what happens is "up to me" until we all learn how to
work within it be er.) I know it all sounds crazy and unbelievable. Think of it as entertainment, if you'd like. Some parts (most?) are cryp c for a reason. All
kinds of people are reading this thread. (Think of how people might have felt a few years ago when you told them something was shy about the ocial story
regarding the September 11, 2001 events. Now consider that someone is feeling the same way about this thread. They'd simply rather not think about
something so unbelievable. It's too complicated. So, they'd rather ignore the material, evidence, concepts, meaning, etc.) The fact is that something very
substantial is happening right now and very few know what is happening, or what 'will' happen because they are no longer running the show. Unfortunately, I
can't tell you exactly what will happen (or tomorrow's lo ery numbers) or exactly how to teleport, etc. But I will give you the tools and mental resources you
need to get there and to figure it out yourself. Whether you do or not is entirely up to you. It's not dicult, actually. It is only so when we think in the old,
re ring ways. You are in a dream now. So learn to think that way. You will get there, regardless of whether or not you understand this thread. It serves as a

48 of 145

reference. I post here for the historic record (and for our friends in high places). Again, I apologize for not being able to yet answer your specific questions
lately but hope to get to them as soon as I can. Take care and talk to you soon.
09/24/2011 04:34 AM
OMG no :) (I should respond to this immediately, before others begin to think the same thing about my statement because I didn't
respond quickly enough.) As I just mentioned, I AM direc ng some of the shape of current perspective. This is not really as it sounds, as each experiences their
own perspective. You don't have a 'god'. Neither AM I telling you what to experience. What I AM doing (with my portal) is creating a kind of massive
relationship shape between one kind of physicality and an other. Direc ng the ow, if you will, like someone putting up trac cones. Or building a bridge from
one place to an other. We can go outside of the trac cones, of course, but it's much easier to follow them because it's the path of least resistance.
FloridaBreez User ID: 1463280
09/24/2011 05:28 AM
Desensa ze people then you contorl them. Go live in Europe and see how you like it! Marxism 101.... CHECK...Karl Heinrich Marx (5
May 1818 14 March 1883)
* CHeck... Consciousness does not exist (rela onships do)
* CHeck... Matter is gravity that has been structured
* Check .... True.. We are not human (we are perspectives)
* Check...When the totality of something cannot be grasped, it appears infinite.
* Check...Space is not physical
* Check..There is no "now" or "here", but relationships Wow it is ALL the Same Stu... . An avaricious person is not an owner, but a servant, and he can do
nothing for his own sake without at the same time doing it for the sake of his master (p. 400). [link to www.marxists.org] Last Edited by Stars777 on
09/24/2011 06:03 AM
Lets remember Chaol is no different than us, he actually is us... from a different perspective. Don't look to deep into his words and miss the point all together.
What happens around us is as significant as us being able to interpret why and how WE created it. How do you think he can tell you what will happen next
month? Its happening NOW.. "next month" are nothing more than 2 words that can mean a countless # of different things depending on who u ask. There is a
plan in ac on that whether inten onally or not, doesn't have our best interest in mind. Stop letting people tell you what is going to happen and make it
happen yourself. There is no special ingredient that makes any of us better or more/less capable than the next. But remember, if you can direct the
consciousness of the masses to a single point/event.. it changes everything ..for everyone.
09/24/2011 04:24 PM
I guess we are kind of wai ng for doom, or perhaps just some excitement, wanting delivery from the mundane. I suppose we would
like to see that event, that big cosmic exclama on point that says. "Hey, were not in Kansas anymore!" As far as it being Chaol's world, I guess I thought it
was Sinatra's world, but I guess since he is no longer with us it IS up for grabs. As far as October 1st goes, I suppose you know that you are going up against
the GLP effect, and most who challenge it are brought down, bruised bloody and humbled. But perhaps the GLP effect has been suspended, we shall see!
09/24/2011 05:48 PM
Without fear, nothing exists. Without attraction and repulsion there is no 'gravity' and no physical world. (Or rela onships.) Some of
the repulsions you interpret as fear. Some you interpret as distance. (I've covered this a bit on my website, www.ecsys.org) I've got you all penciled in for more
attraction/repulsion on October 1, as discussed. Also, as mentioned, the separa on of physical and abstract gold is in the works. (Unfortunately, abstract gold
is dragging down the monetary value of physical gold. It's putting up a little ght but, of course, is no match for the value of special relationships in Ecsys.
This has nothing to do with October 1, of course, but is a representation of the drama occurring in the physical world.) SET will surely appreciate being able to
afford a new gold crown in the coming weeks! See you in a few days.
Last Edited by Chaol on 09/26/2011 01:11 PM
I'd suggest you read the thread from the beginning. I/we have many questions as what Chaol is describing is not relative to our current understanding, but
apparently it is becoming much more relative. SET is the brother of HORUS. Legend has it he took out HORUS' orbit (eye). Seems the two were both keen to
occupy the same throne. Chaol indicated that the internet would be replaced by Horus on the Horizon by this Christmas roughly. Based on observations as of
late, I AM thinking we might be seeing the end of electrical energy and communica ons grid. No one here other than Chaol seems to know what Horus on the
Horizon is, but its apparently an introduc on to dream physics. Who knows, maybe we will see two suns (two sons horus and set) in our near future?
09/26/2011 05:56 PM
This is free advice from some anonymous intarweb dude. You are responsible for your own life, not me. That involves things like
profits - and losses. And risk manangement or Texas hedging. Gold isn't the only thing out there. Silver will do better than gold (eventually) just because a lot
of people will look at the s cker price and go "Gee, that's not very aordable". And then they'll look at silver and go "Gee, I could buy a coin or two of that".
However, you're going to have to stomach a lot of vola lity. Are you man enough to own silver? Buy some and find out. I'm not man enough to own silver, I'll
tell you that. In broad general terms, if you don't want to mess with either, look for something tangible that you can store without it going bad and that you
think will hold its value. You could start collec ng bo les of vodka in some unused corner, for instance. Or cans of tobacco. If you see it on a computer screen,
or it gets mailed to you once a month - IT'S NOT REALLY THERE. Don't take it seriously, and know that it could go away at any time. As far as ming goes,
well, when vola lity in gold reached +/- 50 deltas per day, I personally heralded in the age of hyperina on I knew was coming. Gold has gone from +/- 50
deltas to now over 100. The wolf. Is at. The door.
09/27/2011 10:42 AM
Or as some teachings call it - duality. Most things in this realm come in pairs of opposing polarity. Bull and bear. Cop and criminal.
Posi ve and negative charges. Good and evil. These opposing polari es are always chasing each other, always trying to seek balance, but never quite finding
it. Because if they find permanent balance, they have to leave, hand in hand and go somewhere else. Beyond good and evil lies what, I wonder? Those same
teachings also call this realm illusion built on top of duality. After having experienced this realm up to this point, I prefer to simplify those concepts and just
call it "bullshit". This is the Kingdom of Bullshit.
09/27/2011 11:37 PM
So Chaol do you have any advice to oer us here in the U.S. where these ships are headed directly towards us. You already know the
inten ons and outcome. Will you continue to give us riddles or will you actually help us put together a plan to come together and change the situation for the
be er. Knowledge is to be shared, not cryp cally but blatently if it has the ability to save lives and spread love. I've gained much knowledge from this thread
which I've shared to the best of my ability, but now we are drawing close to what seems to be some huge events we'd wish to rather not experience. Let's do
this Chaol, time to put this love and posi vity in full swing! Stop playing around with us lol. I'm ready...

49 of 145

09/28/2011 10:20 AM
Well...Thats a sad universe you live in. In my alternate universe and time, - There is no need to consume anything for energy - All
beings on my Earth are human looking (kinda like what you might call anthromorpic, though they can look like many of what you concider cartoon characters).
some examples I have come accross in your reality are Ika-Musuma, Sonic and what you call cat-girls. - We are at peace with everything and everyone. - We
can swap bodies with eachother. - What you call concousness we all have. - There is no death or birth as we are immortal and we all have the ability to change
our forms if we choose.
09/28/2011 12:24 PM
My english knowledge is too poor to do this... User ID: 1491393 I have made a point of sharing information with people that are most
relative to me, including family, friends and coworkers. I still work with the genius every day for my family to experience a peaceful and joyous merger with the
dream state. Unfortunately the information you have shared over the past month or two has been reected as doom and depression in my perspective. I will
support someone else's thread on this but I would never want anyone to experience the doom and depression. I try to view these states as growing pains. I
have no clue what to expect anymore so I AM just trying to stay centered and enjoy whatever comes this way.
09/28/2011 05:14 PM
Count on me for support! Just make sure you post a link to it in here. I will assist as best I can. I already tried to build the ecsys
dic onary site, but it was a bomb. I think only Wiznik bothered to visit and provide some input. If anyone is interested, I'd try to revive it with their help. I
think I missed the point with it and need to do a little redesign work. The problem is I really know nothing about website design and had to go with a prepackaged blog site. In addi on to my con nuing genius work, I have also created a new word "fambliss" which is the experience of bliss when you are totally
blissful, immersed in the moment with family. I experience it a lot more when I go DOOM OFF.
09/28/2011 10:56 PM
I did visit your site, but I didnt contribute, by the time I had some kind of understanding about neuronics, noone else seemed to be
bothering with it (online at least). I AM still keen. I was thinking a good way to draw the icons would be using the system that online map sites use, you have
2 ags (a and b) and a line between both, and you can drag and pin the line anywhere you like. However, I AM ignorant of how to make that happen at
present. From there we just need to be able to add in the dots or squares that indicate whether the logic/symbol/possibility/interac on is high or low. Just a
thought.
09/28/2011 11:37 PM
so what i perceive to be me ,lets say the EGO MIND , which i feel is simalar to the wizard behind the curtain( wizard of oz )an
imposter, who misleads and prevents most people from being releasded from the karmic trap. has most chasing our own tails but relationships with others are
what ma ers, you come to us in our dreams, in 1980 early june 2- 25th i had powerfull dreams very vivid real dreams each and every night, the day my best
freind who was my brother died in a terrible acident, 2 hours before he was killed i was standing outside and it was powerfull , right then i looked up to the sky
and said to god someone is about to leave here i knew this well in advance that someone would die, i had a overwhelming desire to see my brother and me
and a freind got in the car and tried to find him he wasnt home.an hour later i got the news from a freind. my question is . who was sending me this info??????
and why?? thank you see you in the next dream.
09/29/2011 06:59 AM
This isn't a violent shaking of your house. (That's why I said you would get "the doom you are obviously expec ng on October 1".)
(It's continues to amaze me how many people really want "doom" to occur. But anyways...) The rocks at this particular "canary in the gold mine" have been
displaced (shaking, like apples from a tree) and the magma is now owing rapidly. The point is that the "solidus" has been reached (for an important layer) as
of September 29 underneath this particular volcano string first. (I thought it was amusing to put it in the Canary Islands, but maybe it's just a dry wit.) This
means that the pressures underneath your feet (the Earth) are becoming high enough to melt much more rock (thus creating much more magma). There is a big
difference underneath your feet between today and last week. You won't see this type of activity on USGS, though. Earthquakes are the least of our concerns :)
It's much more efficient (energy-wise) to whisper to volcanoes than increase earthquake activity.
Last Edited by Chaol on 09/30/2011 12:43 AM
I've also discussed this at greater length at subsequent pages. What do we usually do with evidence? What good is it when it goes against our (core) beliefs?
We already have plenty of evidence for quite a bit of "high strangeness" but, alas, none of it is 'true' or real. If you really feel that you need a photo from my
world then think of these posts as entertainment (or "BS", if you'd prefer) and consider me batshi7 insane but the posts somewhat interesting. We do not
perceive the unexpected until there is a logical progression from here to there. And, with certain things, that has not happened yet. That's sort of what I AM
doing with these posts but there is certainly no 'logical progression' yet for most of what I'd like to tell you and show you.
09/30/2011 04:46 AM
Big fan, long time reader. I think a lot of people want "doom" to occur because deep within themselves they know what is happening.
They use doom because they feel that it is the only way change will be forced upon them, giving themselves no choice but to change. The "choice" of change is
perhaps a perspective in itself, but being open to the changes and preparing yourself for them is no doubt for the best. This however, perhaps another
perspective, requires a lot of effort. People would far rather be forced into facing their fears and giving up their (perceived) safety than making the "choice" to
face them on their own. I think ultimately people want doom for this reason. And no doubt this a tude has allowed ourselves to be taken over in this world by
"TPTB". No doubt an intended lesson on our journey. Everything is perspective. People don't like my example; but a "Westerner" would say "terrorists" are bad,
often middle eastern related countries and that "world powers" should do everything to stop it. The "terrorist" believes he is correct due to his religion in many
cases (or perceived understanding of the content of the religion) and perhaps due to the likes of "Westerners" invading their country. The "terrorist" believes he
is doing the right thing. Who is correct? Neither. It is a matter of perspective. Luke
09/30/2011 02:53 PM
It is as expected. "We're not done yet," as is said :) There is more going on than what is obvious to most of you. Time will tell us if
these words have some weight. As I mentioned on the other thread, I'm "playing chess" not checkers. It could be said that I have "descended into largely
indecipherable replies" or it could be said that I actually know what I AM doing and it's part of the plan. (Please draw your own conclusions about this, of
course.) If someone from 2,000 years future knocked on your door to speak with you, do you think you would be able to see that person and be able to
communicate with them? Likely, it would be very far from your cognitive framework. You would interpret it as something else, perhaps a bird. For effective
communica on rather than the kind of immediate, direct communica on we often desire, the effort could appear as a mysterious le er first. This opens up the
door to a logical progression to more distant experiences. Thus, an "Introduc on to a new way of thinking" in order to have the framework necessary to
perceive what comes next. "Direct" is not perceived in this regard. It is largely ignored and rejected. "Indirect" can be frustra ng, yes. But it is often necessary
to communicate distant concepts.

50 of 145

10/04/2011 01:26 PM
The four elements are ion, axon, chaon, elementon. (There is a 5th, but it's not used.) what is this h element, both in
ennumera on and in context value? Each can have a numerical value and context value. They are 1, 2, 3, 5, respectively. As per your ennumera on above with
regard to the four entry items listed below, are you indica ng that the context value of the elementon in the fourth entry position in the list below coincides
respec vely with number 5 in numerical value? It appears that you are and if so, then would the 5th element you mentioned but didn't specicate as of yet be
assigned the numerical value of 4 with regard to it's context value in lieu of same?
10/05/2011 09:30 AM
fourth dimensional, I'm clear I imagine the h element is one you have iden ed but have no potential to "use" hence you don't
assign it numerical value on your list of extant poten ali es. should you do so it would stand to reason the numerical value given such would/should
logis cally be number 5, yet that digit has already been assigned in lieu of the numeric 4 which you bypassed in all regard. my guess is that therefore it is
qualied to engage you on it's own terms and in return you are helpless to incorporate such into anything that qualies as useful in your own regard. An omnidirec onal poten ality as it were. why you skipped the number 4 in assigning numerical value to the elements you have qualied however, remains to be seen
if not "no ced" I've got your h element hanging by the way, and not by a thread ; ) (I'm also just teasing you at present, however that's likewise subject to
change)
10/05/2011 10:24 AM
the reason it was a computer game that gi ed you most in this regard is because you were looking at it peripherally, if in fact you
were looking at it at all more to the point you were looking elsewhere and noticed it peripherally in passing... and/or after the fact more likely still when it
comes to "altered states" looking at something dead on is exactly that, the kiss of death in such regard by way of experien al awareness... there is a little
known seldom noticed reality in this regard based on the truth that your consciousness has a form of "blind spot" in the direct center of your visually focused
perception it's so all about perspective that whatever you aren't atuned to alterna vely by way of the big picture may as well be non existant, and more to the
point if you aren't locked onto it as such, it isn't which gives credence to the age old philosophy that entertains the ideology that if you wish to hide something
"in plain sight" is your best bet
10/05/2011 10:45 AM
Well, here we go. I try to start with the Genius. My goal is to get a pretty rare 1930s car. In its days it wasn't that rare, but now it
gets above the 70 years old mark it is. One problem: haven't got the money right now. So what I did for some time already is read about it (got a book on it),
take photos if I encounter one (hardly ever happened), collect photos from the internet. So step one is covered. For step two I have to think up some rules, or
structure. I don't really know what to think of other then what's mentioned in the site already; draw pictures of that car. Step three: space for possibilities. I
visited the museum of the brand of car I desire, and saw a few of them over there. Step four would be interact... last week I saw one of those rare 1930s cars
for sale. So this step would be: ring the seller and make an appointment to see that car. (don't know how interested he will be when he nds out I haven't got
the money to get it in the first place, but maybe I shouldn't tell him that too soon). How's that sound?
10/06/2011 11:18 AM
Chaol has one way of attracting what you want to you. I wouldn't say this is the only way. What you have so far sounds good but
following the Genius method you'd have to have 1 particular symbol you use to apply the steps to. Create something that will have no value or meaning to you
until you assign such to it, then you can interact with this thing however you feel is easiest for you to consistently interact with it in the scheduled manner you
set for it. You see you already have the idea in your head that you can't afford the car, so using the car as your symbol is pointless. The car is of very low
relativity to your reality. Thats why using something brand new to your perspective to represent it works be er.
10/06/2011 03:23 PM
I feel as if my perception has been geatly influenced by others as I was growing up - my parents, school, religion, and 'society' as a
whole, through the media. For example, I got the perception from somewhere that the world is unsafe. And that certain things were 'true'. And that others
things were 'impossible'. Do children soak up the perceptions from around them, and carry them on to adulthood, do you think? Making them their own? If that
is so, then... how long will it take for me to really shed these old concepts about my worldview and replace them with a deep understanding of perspective and
all its implica ons?
10/10/2011 07:06 PM
The word consciousness can be described a million different ways depending on who you ask. That would make it as real as you want
it to be, which means theres no guarantee its real at all. I believe what he means is don't get caught up in the words.. they are often nothing more than that.
Only thing that you can say is real is what is experienced from your perspective, which doesn't need to be assigned deni ons, but interpreted in way which
you can then understand why it is in your perspective in the first place. You say your conscious, I say light is conscious. If both are true, the idea of
consciousness is obviously far from the definition we've created for it.
10/13/2011 07:19 PM
Step one: Create a unique physical symbol. [You seem to have skipped the most important step] Step two: create some unique rules
around your symbol. [You seem to have skipped this step, also. It doesn't matter what the rules are, as long as they're rules and you follow them. The crazier
the be er.] Step three: Allow space for possibilities. [Your example does not seem to involve your symbol] Step four: Allow your symbol to interact with your
physical environment. The more it interacts the more relative your new symbol becomes with your perspective. [You seem to have skipped this step, too] (you
are then mapping its representation to your reality, you could say)
10/14/2011 10:07 AM
Well, I guess I would start with the most important thing. "We perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive" Me:
"So, son. Why do you think you are standing over there?" You: "Well. It's because I walked over here." Me: "And where do you think you'd walk next?
Somewhere near or somewhere far?" You: "I'd have to go somewhere near first. Then I could go far." Me: "Well, why can't you just disappear and reappear at
the zoo in an instant?" You: "Because it wouldn't make sense. I'd have to walk or get on a bus first. Then I could be at the zoo." Me: "Every time we go the
way that is easiest to go. We may not like it, but sometimes there is no choice. We're there because that is where we ended up" "Easiest to go" doesn't mean
that which we think is easiest. It means that which makes the most sense to where we are right now. It is the same thing in time or space. It is the same
thing in life or death, and perception. This is obvious to most of us, but do we really understand it? Can we use that understanding to our benet?
10/14/2011 10:16 AM
your mind is a tool at your disposal and is meant to be comandeered as such. the misconcep on of believing that you ARE your mind
is just that, and it is this misconcep on that makes it true in your regard when such occurs. why? because in your assumption of such you have aligned yourself
with believing it be so, (in that your mind is YOU and you ARE your mind) hence you work from that percep on/perspec ve which in no small way
allows/ensures that it be so. the essence of who and what you are in truth lies behind the machina ons and strategem of the mind in the seat of your Soul
body. Your soul is the actual essence of that which you are and which you were long before you were ever incarnated/placed/born into esh. Within that format

51 of 145

of soul lies the truth of that which you are, even tho at this juncture our soul memory has been hidden from our consciousness for a time, with purpose in the
doing. It isn't by any means gone, you just do not have access to the "awareness" of it from this physical perspective in light of same in order that you come to
what you perceive as "new awareness" of that which you are/were and perhaps in the doing can move forward without the baggage of whatsoever you may
have done in the past (before your esh incarna on as per your existence during the first earth age). It is in no wise anything short of a "feat" to disallow the
mind from taking control of the "ship" as did Hal in 2001 A Space Odyssey, wherein and by Hal, the ships computer (your mind) took over the entire workings of
the ship, as opposed to being a "tool" to be utilized as such by those who occupied and commandeered said ship as it traversed the galaxies on whatever
mission it was herewith engaged. Those who have powerful, well oiled machines with regard to the workings of their mind (main frame computer for all intents
and purposes, as it stores memories and knowledge as "data" which can be accessed and u lized/considered/analyzed/employed as the ships commander
(soul) see's fit as long as the heirarchy as such is not only acknowledged but maintained in proper working assemblage wherein and by the commander engages
and is hopefully also able to disengage the constant whirring of the gears/machina ons of such in accord with the Inten on of his Will. In the same light and
in many instances ones emotions seem to be steering the ship, although they are also ill equipped and unintended to be running the show. Even still we often
navigate by way of our "feelings" when disallowing auto-pilot to engage (computer). The same holds true in this regard, however, as emotional reac ons are
placecards of combined experience and resultant reac ons thereto of circumstance as they have played out upon your life and times, yet they are not a true
reec on of that which you are, but rather a record of whatsoever it seemed that you were in accord with your experien al sensory resonance via which you
experience said reac ons to s muli which are therea er recorded relative to same and maintained as such within the framework of memory, down to and
including cell memory within the bodily framework of all that encompasses your perception of who and what you are. Un l you are working/coming from the
center of your own Voli on via the framework of your Will backed by the power of your Inten on to do so... you are merely coas ng. I call it auto-pilot, many it
seems don't yet realize there is more.
10/25/2011 02:58 AM
It actually makes perfect sense to me too. I see everyday the evidence of his teachings. Its pretty evident if you pay the slightest bit
of a en on. We all live rou ne lives for the most part, but every once in awhile we experience something new. So you have to ask yourself, where did
anything completely new to your perspective ever come from? Chaol would say it didn't come and nothing is ever new to your perspective but your perspective
is new and thus, so are the things in it. Attraction and repulsion or adding and subtrac ng if you may. I use a jigsaw puzzle as a metaphor when I explain it to
others. To get the puzzle to be the complete picture you want, you have to try to fit different pieces together. For example, find something you do rou nely
everyday and if permi ng, STOP DOING IT. You've (subtracted), but now the space is "empty" and is simultaneously filled without you knowing it right away.
What was (added) is what needs to be paid close attention to, because this is how you figure out how to manifest certain things. The cause and eects would
seem random at 1st but of course are perfectly logical. This is a game I'm starting to play now. Attraction and repulsion, or adding and subtrac ng symbols
from my life, and watching what is in turn added or subtracted. The puzzle begins to form the picture you want as you can more effectively pinpoint the pieces
that are a racted to eachother, or are the perfect t. Applica on is key here guys. Nothing myself, Chaol, or God himself could ever tell you that would be
worth anything without applying it to your own life. Lets stop looking for answers and help each other create them. I mean how many more ways do you need
Chaol to reiterate the same thing. Apply it!
12/22/2011 08:46 PM
Gree ngs All. I AM "back" for a very short time. It is a bit difficult for me to post in your world but I will make some a empts. If you
are reading this then you are somewhere other than where you many of us are. Perhaps you have not made the transition. Several months ago I talked about
your world changing, and becoming more like the dream world. I mentioned that you probably would not be posting on this forum from December, that Western
society is beginning to break down, that it is not a good idea to be in the US, and other things. Now you have what is essentially mar al law in the United
States. You have NDAA, SOPA, OWS around the world in Westernized countries. A few months ago this would have been a dream. Now it is your reality. A few
months still it will be even more interesting. Your world has gone batshi7 insane. The physics and psyche of ypur world are becoming more uid. The question
becomes, are you in control of what you experience or out of control? You can still make the transi on, of course. We are 'wai ng', so to speak. But the longer
you wait the more comfortable your new physical reality will become until you have forgotten what anything else could be like. Unfortunately I won't be able to
respond. (This message alone has taken a few days to reach you.) But I AM just on the other side of ThohT User ID: 7668875
12/24/2011 05:23 PM
Maybe the physical and/or spiritual are two known categories-choices-op ons-classica ons-typesofexistences-classes-selec onsalterna ves-opportunni es. Probably the physical and/or spiritual are two of the many (or innite?) amount of choices that are out there. And then we can go
asking this ques on: where is that there? I think there could be innite in terms of the form and places (and other aspects-characteris cs-features-a ributes)
of the theres. Then imagine mixing two or more buckets containing an innite amount of items/things/beings/places/lives in them. The outcome will be quite
a non-ending amount of permuta ons-combina ons-muta ons. We might be/belong in many kinds of existences and places for ever since the choices are
infinite. Who/what/how decides which opportunity (ies) is given to whom and where? What is the ul mate goal (or goals?). Or maybe it is just an innite
amount of milestones without end.
12/25/2011 10:45 AM
So you seriously think he changed his name MM? Take a look back at his posts. He always starts with an exclama on "!". Like
gree ngs!, Hello!, Further! or something like that. Both of these posts lack the exclama on mark that his posts start with. Maybe I don't want to think that we
were all still 'over here' and did not make it 'over there'. If it really was him, at least we still have time. I did have a few great weeks, when the synchronici es
were very high and life was awesome. But I could not y, teleport or win a PGA golf event in that week and those were all part of my dreams. So I obviously
was not in control of the experience.
12/27/2011 03:34 PM
Yea my dreams are still real as ever, I even had a dream I woke up the other day, which was weird as hell when I actually did. I
wouldn't call it lucid though, still haven't experienced that yet to my knowledge. Another poster here and I are trying to get the app underway. Because we
can't contact Chaol anymore we really can't create an Ecsys app w/o his authoriza on for obvious legal purposes. I would however like to create one with what
he's taught us and I've learned on my own about the geometries, frequencies and magne cs that make up life. My questions are, how can we create
sounds/frequencies. When we learn to make certain frequencies we can observe what and how they affect different substances.. limestone for example. They're
kicking me out of work lol I'll continue later.
12/30/2011 05:28 PM
Another poster here and I are trying to get the app underway...create one with what he's taught us and I've learned on my own about
the geometries, frequencies and magne cs that make up life. Through the pioneering work of Ernst Chladni (1756 - 1829) and Dr. Hans Jenny, it has been
shown that sound aects physical matter. Chladni drew a violin bow across the edge of metal plates which were sprinkled with ne sand. Dierent rates
(frequencies) produced certain geometrical pa erns. With more modern technology, the Swiss Dr Hans Jenny inves gated what happens when sand, fungal

52 of 145

spores, dust, water, etc, are vibrated by sound waves. He used crystal oscillators which can maintain an exact frequency... [link to www.starbridge.com.au]
User ID: 8008827
12/31/2011 08:01 AM
When all else fails, abandon ship. If you are living in North America, England, or Australia at this point then you are being sucked
into an other dimension different from other parts of the world. Change your surroundings to change your present and present-future perception. That is putting
it all simply. Note to some others: approval for the creation of all things Ecsys-related has already been given in an other thread. We are not in it for money,
etc. You are free to change it, mold it, charge for it, whatever. As long as you link or point to the original material. (Regarding typos and other "dierences", it
is quite difficult to 'go back' and change what has already been imprinted here, using my current medium for pos ng. Every line takes several hours, from your
perspective.) All of the answers you seek are within the words given here on these 3 threads. (All.)
12/31/2011 11:17 PM
I'll oer my email to those interested in the development of the app. Doesn't look like many are too interested in oering input,
thanks to those who are, and hopefully others will become more proac ve. There are obvious things that sound can do to matter. I'm intrigued and eager to
learn more and eventually create my own "pyramid" on a smaller scale of course, but with the same angles capable of creating the same elds. Any information
on frequency creation would be greatly appreciated and given credit. There are great listeners and question askers here, I'm sure there are great thinkers with
the ability to obtain the answers as well. There is nothing to it.. but to do it.
01/07/2012 02:40 PM
2012 is when the lights come on, and the actors begin to be exposed for what they are. It starts with the son of Malcolm Li le
(Shabazz) and his 60's ing and her extended family (all of these actors what you would call "CIA" and related opera ves, each serving a grand purpose). I
mentioned previosly that "we apologize" for this figure but "it will make more sense later". Now is the time. When a fascina ng story is exposed then the
branches of it come to light, along with actors' multiple characters and scenes. Your reality breaks down at this level, the stage crumbles. You no longer know
what to believe. "As above, so below"; the world that you thought you knew so well suddenly becomes mysterious. The dream world opens. 'Truth' stranger
than c on. Why does it happen? The illustration of this unknown truth in physically-oriented exposures dictates the grandest illusion. Your perspective creates
actors reading from this single script in response. The more popular it is (seemily good or not) the more likely it is to be a child of this illusion. Be it Coke,
McDonald's, Facebook, Google, current aairs, Gaga, or whatever the 'ho est' person or thing is. There is no conspiracy save for the illusion of your own
perspective. Welcome to the dream world. Didn't you know you were already here? (And could you imagine how 2012 would play out?)
01/10/2012 02:44 PM
From this, the world will find out that the an -establishment and the establishment are one and the same. The virus and the
an dote to divide and conquer.* When we find out where he is born, to whom, why he is in Hawaii (and what is in Hawaii; and what a car accident has to do
with his personality), Indonesia with Sukarno, and several other countries (and why his mother is living in several countries, why she is married to a general in
Suharto's army, what languages she speaks and why, whom she works for, and why), who supports him nancially as he is growing up, and why, and what he is
doing now, and why. To promote one entertaining story to obscure an other, far more interesting, one is the name of the game. There are no grand conspiracies
other than the nature of physicality to hide something that cannot be physically-represented. But the thought of a human conspiracy certainly keeps one from
thinking about the nature of reality. The actors and the stage begin to be revealed in their entirety in this unveiling. A story thousands of years in the making
(and telling), encompassing pretty much everything you can read (or can't) in your history books. What is your world composed of when what you knew so well
becomes a mystery? Truth is, indeed, stranger than c on. Then you see what you have been doing all along, and the reality that you create for yourself.
Everything exists now. (There is no past, present, or future, that you can experience save for your perspective.) Obviously, what you perceive is illusion. This
illusion has a narrative. In 2012, you see the narra ve for what it is. And this particular illusion breaks down. The end of the world, indeed. (The end of this
particular physical illusion, and the start of an other.) *As I previously mentioned, this division is what creates physicality. The tension between 'good' and
'evil' is as old as time because it is what creates time.
01/11/2012 08:41 AM
Never has the 'big picture' not been discussed, except in response to an other's query. If it is thought that there is focus on some
other detail that is not entirely signicant, perhaps the point is missed. This "missing the mark" is important enough to warrant an entire catalogue in the
realm of the psyche with the classical definition of "sin". Someone of us unfortunately will, indeed, find ourselves in a type of "hell" for missing the point
regardless of how important we think these unimportant (that is to say, lacking significant interaction with other things) details are. I'm reminded of how much
energy is wasted (perhaps billions, in terms of your hours) thinking about "republican" or "democrat" when in the big picture, if there ever was one, such
distinctions are not only irrelevant they do not exist. We are certainly welcome to waste this energy but it does not mean that we will experience something
different from what our previous wastefulness has resulted in, for lack of better terms. However, here it is amusing that some of us are uncomfortable without
more detail in these posts while some others are uncomfortable with more detail. (Surely, though, we do not know what lay beyond the borders of our
experience. Do you think it is something we expect or something entirely unexpected? If unexpected, would we be willing to accept it or even be willing to
incorporate it within our current experience? I haven't even begun to say anything about what fantas c things lay just beyond the ~current perspective
because, really, it would be unacceptable to most. Many of us uctuate between discreet feelings of fear and curiosity. How many of us are willing to give up
what we seemingly have spent so much time in building? Very few. And that is why you find yourselves here, at what is essentially the end of the road before
your previous steps vanish into nothingness, talking to me in hopes that you can continue walking along the same path. I'm relaying to you the 'fact' that the
rhythm of the footsteps you're making will not carry over into what your reality is becoming. The mechanisms by which you think and do is what is impera ve
here when many of us are, instead, focused on the mark of the footsteps and what kind of shoes we're wearing, and how the knot is ed.) There is little hope
that anything significant will be done in the way of altering one's current path of experience while suering the eects of a passive lethargy. Whether we do or
do not do, we will always be occupied with something. (It is the nature of reality.) But that does not make it relevant or meaningful. We can spend our lives
massaging the legs of members of our local ant colony and make a life of it, with drive and purpose that we ourselves invent, and argue with others about the
ner points of lavender oil as compared with burgundy when applied to the exoskeleton if we so wanted. But it does not mean that our actions and thoughts
will be much-related to much else, or interact with the depth of our perspective. Basically, I AM saying that 99% of your thoughts are irrelevant to the
expanded perspective. They are 99% relevant to a very, very small sliver of a perspective that has very little interaction with deeper perspectives. Apologies for
being blunt (perhaps still confusing to some of us) but it is what is needed at this point. (How many of us would drift off into tangents at this point is both
expected and predictable. It is entirely what I AM conveying here.) It is only when we see what we haven't seen that our perspective is changed.
01/11/2012 11:40 PM
I'm not sure if I understand Chaol's last posts, but what I can say is that I AM willing to give up in this current life we live (I AM not
talking about suicide, btw). Everything seems so unrelevant to me... What I do in my daily life, what I see on TV, what I read on internet, plans, thoughts,
ac ons... Suddenly, everything is losing it's "importance". As I said in a previous post (in September/October, I don't remember), I'm feeling that 'something' is

53 of 145

about to happen, and now this feeling is stronger than ever. It's like everything we live is so less important than we think... We are just blind. There is a
bigger picture. I just don't know how to open the curtains.
01/12/2012 02:09 AM
I do not know what they should be. And what is relevant really depends on you. But what would probably make a thoughts or actions
more relative to an expanded perspective is if it was not dependent specically on itself. For example, the thought of "I AM a marine biologist" is dependent on
your thoughts about marine biology and your rela on to it. If you did not consider yourself a marine biologist then, most likely, you would not say or think such
a thing. (Of course. But that's the idea.) When your perspective is more expanded then you care less about being "a marine biologist". It is only important to
you when you import the concept into your experience. i.e., when you explore the life of a marine biologist. Ask yourself what representations matter to you
most in your life? What do you consider yourself? What do you think about? What labels do you find yourself thinking about. And then you will see that the
representations (which are illusions of something else) influence your experience and limit your perspective. (It's a matter of how much your perspective
interacts with other things. Your perspective will always be limited somehow.) So in order to expand your perspective through thinking, get rid of your thoughts,
rely on them less, and make them interact with what no longer matters to you. Become what you do not care to become. (As you care about what is most
relative to you, which actually binds you to the current perspective.) See above.
01/12/2012 11:46 AM
Yes. It's could be quite obvious when you think about it. But your "mind" doesn't want to think about it. Because that would mean
the end of itself. And what self-preserving mechanisms would allow that to happen? Be er to not think that the solu on is simple, it thinks. Busy itself with
unimportant details, it does, in order to keep the appearance of progression towards the goal of "change". This is the same mind that would, for example,
create complicated obstacles to obfuscate a clear path towards a condi on where that particular thinking is no longer required or relevant. Basically, selfsabotage of meaningful progress and replacing it with the appearance of progress by a aching value to things that don't really deserve it.
01/12/2012 12:26 PM
All is as I, and Chaol 3, have men oned. Only a part of me is 'back' to post on this thread. (Other parts are posting on other threads
that you cannot see or access, but that's an other story.) You do the same thing when you dream. A part of you here, a part of you there. All doing something
that has an effect on something else. Before I walked among you. Lived as you did. Went to cafes and performances. That was a few months ago. Right now
my 'existence' is on this thread. There is no need for me to exist in physical form in the world that this thread exists in. Quite difficult to explain, and a load of
crap for most of you, but it is what it is. You're getting fragments of me, so to speak. Kind of like a ghost. I AM not really "back" but I AM still posting because
that is how I have set it up. Sometimes it is more difficult to see what I post than at other times depending on your perspective. (Again, difficult to explain in
these words but with each thing there is a narrative. It doesn't matter what the narra ve is, only that it bridges 'two' somewhat distant concepts. And
sometimes that narra ve is hard to believe or relate to. And so here we are.)
01/12/2012 01:12 PM
Thanks for your explanation Chaol. Can't express how happy I AM to see you back. I brought up the Malcolm X, Barack thing at work
today.. a lot of laughs. But I guess its always the last 1 that counts. Nothings ever made more sense to me then the dialogue and concepts you've presented
on this thread. An unlikely place, which makes it all the more signicant. Just wanted to share my apprecia on. Surely it is in the minds interest to want to see
through the illusion, to be uid and free? What does the mind really have to lose? Would it not be integrated into a new thought form or focus, reborn even,
rather than become completely obselete? Or does it become obselete? Or is it the act or moment of change that is the frightening part...the unknown?
01/12/2012 01:23 PM
The func oning part remains. The center of 'I' disappears. Or you could say, yes it becomes completely ex nct. What is "frightening"
is only an idea. Nothing is frightening if you don't think about time ahead or time behind. That energy then remains like a still lake. Be like that. That is, if you
can. In these times, the best and fastest way to grasp and understand is to help others. At first you will feel that "I AM helping others, and it feels so good",
but as time passes, the "I AM the doer" idea melts away, and then, there is no mechanism inside to think of "What is mine, I.., I..., how can I get this or that,
what is for me in there..." - all this human consciousness stuff. Only function remains and totality. Yet, the YOU who are ever present and undying never
actually went anywhere. The veil is li ed. The You - are not conceptual. User ID: 8736667 All this makes a strange, uncomfortable kind of sense. Which would
be good given Chaols guide...
01/12/2012 06:17 PM
At this point the only significant question to ask is, "What AM I doing now that is entirely different from before?". If you're not doing
it then you're asking for pretty much the same perspective as before. At this point, Ecsys will not save you. The Genius will not save you. Whatever New Age
whiz-bang fad is popular this month will not save you. Your momma or yoga master will not save you. Only your willingness to (truly) change your perspective
will. Not tomorrow. Not when such-and-such happens. Now. "Save me from what?", it might be asked. The inevitable. You are nearing the end of physical
perspective. (Or, it should be said, the brand of physicality you've gotten used to all these years.) It is time either for an entirely new perspective, or time to
perish as things tend to when they've reached the fringes of relevance. I'm not talking about death and destruc on (though every concept needs a logical
narra ve leading to it from your perspective, doesn't it?). I'm talking more about when the oor collapses beneath your feet, where will you stand? Which side
of the equation do you choose? The choice is yours. If you haven't seriously considered the question in the first sentence above, I suppose you've already
decided. There's not really anything more for me to say other than what I've already wrote here and in countless other posts. Choose to be someone else that
you can logically be right now, or forever be an energy stuck in the current loop. It's not about them or that. It's about You. Last Edited by Chaol on
01/14/2012 10:44 PM
Dene, describe, explain (and could other synonyms out there) dreams, dreams, dreams, DREAMS, dream. Dreaming that you are dreaming in a dream. And
that other dream also have you dreaming in the dream. That other you who is dreaming also dreams of you dreaming and so on O en, I have gone to bed
knowing that during my sleep Ill find information that I need to meet deadlines and implement solu ons. I hope Im not getting myself in problems for saying
this. I have not and do not and Im not planning to misuse(abuse) this poten al. This thread is a lot of fun for me - Glad I found it. einsteinsy User ID:
8838926
01/15/2012 11:34 AM
"Can you give some examples?" Sorry, I cannot and do not want to share examples here. But go ahead and try it - Im not special You can do it too! Why would it get you problems?? Maybe I should have used the word a en on instead of problems. At this point, I dont want to a ract
any kind of undesired attention towards me by sharing those experiences in detail. Many ar sts and scientists have admi ed obtaining information from
dreams. Examples: formulas, song lyrics, music beats, theories. Even in some religious books some of the characters admi ed having obtained information
from dreams. Do it! Dream and make the most you can of it! I think is might be legal in most (if not all) realms/existences/ melines/dimensions/planes.

54 of 145

01/16/2012 10:07 AM
and welcome back. I hope the project you were working on went well! I was thinking about the magma representing a more uid
state of being for this physicality and as the amount magma increases so this physical world becomes less solid(magma) and closer to the dream non-physical
dream world i AM not sure if you can answer questions at the moment but i have been uninten onally thinking about the other me that wants to be joined, i
really don't know how to state that properly is it joined,merged,glued,transferred - whatever, with me. I AM doing as you suggested and being totally less
focused and paying attention to anything that seems new to my perspective, but i keep thinking about this other me and i wonder what job does he do? what
car does he drive. where does he live? My questions AM i being to physically orientated is this reality? Should i just wait and not think about it and see what
life i will have after the transition as i would probably never understand the dream world until i get there? Do i actually have to choose the man, the car, the
house, the job prior to transi on?
01/16/2012 03:54 PM
I recently discovered this thread as I don't normally frequent this website. I have read a por on of your posts at the beginning of this
thread and based upon some of the things you have said, it has me thinking... I wonder if what you are saying is going to happen to us ultimately is the same
thing that is taught by the entity Ra in the "Law of One" series. Essen ally the material states that some people on this planet will "graduate" to the 4th
Density which has "variable" physicality and others will continue to experience the "physical" 3rd Density existence that we currently have as a frame of
reference. He refers to this process as the "Harvest" and if I remember correctly, is supposed to occur some me near the end of this year or perhaps the
beginning of next year. Are you familiar with this material and can you comment on some of the similari es that appear to exist between what you are saying
some of humanity is headed for and what this material claims?
01/17/2012 03:49 PM
So be it. You are all powerful, all knowing and forever present in all ways. You are all that is, was and will be. As you will it, so it
shall be. Will into existence the reality you will. Fear nothing. Although so much of what you've told me in your threads chaol is relative to MY perspective, this
recent incarna on youve taken on has left me wanting for an older time. Strange... that was what you recommended we do, think on the past and that which
we no longer identify with. What if I identify with my above arma on? Where would you recommend one moves from there? Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on
01/18/2012 07:56 PM
The challenge we have is that I don't know which tools (preconceptual framework) you are missing so let me note the following... you assign the meaning to all
that exists...you are conned to that which you define yourself... your experience is a reec on of your choices... your choices are a reec on of your
experience... you experience exactly what you deserve... what you think, you become... as above, so below... all is jus ed in perspec ve... all is dependent
on your perspec ve... what comes "next" will be what you believe can come next... you are God... you've chosen to forget yourself.... you are forever looking to
remember... everything that is, was and will be... is now... you are choosing to be here, right now... if you believe you do not have control, you won't... you are
only restricted by your belief... You will feel this. You can make a conscious commitment to drop breadcrumbs for your "current" self, when you get to where you
can. Know that as you collect(no ce) the crumbs(hints) they are for you, from you. You can only allow yourself to advance as quickly as you believe you can.
Believe (feel) what I've reminded you... remind someone else. If you assist others you will be assisted.
01/18/2012 09:24 PM
Me and my son were ea ng at the I think second floors French restaurant and they were playing the Titanic theme song when the
Concordia struck a rock. Man I AM so disappointed. When they evacuate, nobody was playing the violin nor the cello for us on the deck. No pastor saying
prayers for people. The captain evacuated all the sta first and left us first class passengers to drink salt water. When they were evacua ng, I told a busboy to
bring me a glass of Remy Mar n and he just pointed to me the shelf where they store liquor and told me to help myself because its on the house. These sta
are very unprofessional. I thought we be treated like Titanic passengers but the sta sucked. I really like your signature Mutant Messiah
01/19/2012 11:03 AM
What might a world map of this 'strange sound phenomena' look like? If you heard strange, loud sounds in a lucid dream, what might
that represent? What role did the dream-music in the lm, Incep on play? When you talk so ly the person in the next room may not be able to hear you. But
when you raise your voice they certainly may. I've often said that light and sound are physical. Would not sound, as slow as it may seem, have other
advantages like the fable of the turtle and the hare? In some cases, could a "sound" arrive before a "light"? Sounds can penetrate through realities where light
knows only persistence. If you cannot see what I mentioned several months ago (the Earth changing beneath your feet) perhaps you would be able to hear it?
Of course, these sounds aren't for everyone. Look for pa erns.
01/20/2012 02:19 PM
"As above, so below..." If an important layer in the Earth's mantle has collapsed, as I mentioned in September (just before the
sounds began to occur), then what could be happening in the sky? These sounds have occurred before, of course, but not at the current frequency. (And quite a
few of those reported are more from an iden able source not related to anything mysterious.) See here: [link to www.godlikeproduc ons.com] and here: [link
to www.godlikeproduc ons.com] How appropriate that 2012 is the "year of the dragon". But what is the dragon/serpent? As I mentioned in the post above,
When the dragon roars, you know you're "dreaming". Here is something else to ponder: [link to popwatch.ew.com] In the movie, Incep on, the music was used
to signify that the dream is collapsing. However, it is your current reality it is not the dream that is collapsing but the world you have built. Again, what are you
doing right now that is entirely different from before? Your reality is collapsing. The only way "out" at this point is to encompass yourself with a new reality, so
to speak.
01/21/2012 03:32 PM
Chaol, you have been very gracious with all the information you have shared with us. You have told us things that nobody else will
tell us. You have been frank and up-front and although it produces some anxiety when we look around to see that we may have "missed the mark", I, for one,
AM still so very grateful for what you've given us. Sometimes the truth hurts, but only because we need to be hit upside the head with it in order to see.
Something that you wrote awhile ago that causes me to perceive differently is "How could I be wrong?" I use this often. It forces me to look at things more
honestly and when I do, everything that you have told us makes sense. If I have not learned anything else, I've learned some humility. One more me: thank
you.
01/22/2012 10:23 AM
Me, too, on this. After living over half a century of constant change, constant drama, I felt that I had nally "arrived" at where I AM
now, doing the things that I only dreamed of doing forty years ago. But, then, I ask myself: "For what purpose?" Where is the meaning in it? When I take a
hard look around me, it really is for naught. On top of this, I can see it all fading away. Things get old and need constant maintenance, putting me in that
energy loop of no change, because I spend so much time just keeping things the way they were. The moment I neglect these du es, everything falls to seed.
(I got my dream car six years ago; now, she sits there needing maintenance and a en on. The thrill wears off after awhile.) I see a collapsing world. I want
something different. Something real.

55 of 145

01/22/2012 12:53 PM
Thats what I was getting at. If things are going to change they'll change. Its not up to Chaol to decide if any change is better or
worse for us. If we decide we are happy with the way things are and will choose to be happy with the way they'll be.. nothing beyond that matters too much.
He obviously wants better for us, but "be er" is from his perspective. Things will be what they'll be or they'll be what we create. Either way there needs to be a
healthy balance of 1 for the other to even exist. I took Chaol's advice literally. To get where he wants us to go, we have to not care to be there. To get to A,
convince yourself your better off at B. Now you've stopped resisting A and it can flow right to you.
01/23/2012 01:19 PM
What's great about the universe is that there's a time and space for everything that can be imagined. To expect things to remain the
same in the face of its expanse leads to experiences of fearing that one would not exist. (This is not the same as fear of death. Fear of not existing is the
ul mate fear because it is the ul mate resistance. It is not an emotional thing or something that would lead to psychoses or may cause one to deny it like
fear of clowns. Fear of non-existence is the nature of physicality because it creates the resistance that physicality illustrates through the bifurca on of
perspective.) When we are afraid of letting go of ourselves and resist changing perspectives or make excuses as to why the current perspective should be
maintained, then it really is the same thing. Fear of not being oneself is what keeps one in the illusion of being separate from an other. I do not suggest that
one way is "be er" than any other. However, it is inevitable that perspectives change. (As a perspective is not any one thing in par cular. But living our lives
as we do we come to believe that our perspective should be this or that. That is the point.) I AM sugges ng, however, that we can do what is natural for us to
do. Something you are already doing. We (you) are just wai ng for you to realize it. We are appearing to have this conversation because the resistance is still
there. If there was no fear, you would simply be talking to yourself. (Which, really, is what you're doing anyway whether or not you realize it.) You would not
resist any reality because "any reality" comprises your perspective. An analogy would be if one day you woke up with the power to immediately manifest into
your reality anything that you could possibly imagine... and you used it to maintain your previous illusion. And when someone knocks on your door and tells you
that you can do anything and shows you how, you look for aws in their apparel and focus on their left shoe not being fully- ed, or that their sleeve is
wrinkled, or that it's very sunny today. And then you spend an addi onal 10 years looking for ways your new abili es aren't there, or convincing yourself why
you can't do something, or focusing on some inconsequen al discussion. All because of the fear of not exis ng. This resistance creates physicality. Your
physicality has changed (already), and so should the manner in which you resist. That many of us find our current ("previous") perspective so hard to resist is
exactly the point. We cling to our families, television shows, clothes, ideas, jobs, etc., because of this. (Of course, it may be that your mind sees what I AM
sugges ng as "giving up everything" but of course it would want you to believe that. The reality is that you are already doing the opposite of "giving up
everything" when you ignore the greater reality of your perspective.) Our methods of resistance create all kinds of conversa ons, realities, beliefs, friends,
'blocking out' of certain s muli or thought processes, etc. It becomes its own reality. So we create a world in which we dream about such expansive realities
but are unable to experience them because, "deep down", we actually prefer to maintain the status quo.
01/23/2012 11:30 PM
Thanks for the Suntory Time reference... made me grin all the way to my work! It occurred to me a few days ago that even New
Year's Day 'feels' like it's months ago. Your movie references made me think of another movie and a few books, and that their attraction to me might be the
same thing, namely that subconsciously I know they are related to the time we (I) now live in. - Lost in Transla on (guy lives a few days in Japan and is
constantly perplexed by the crazy way of living there while what he thinks is 'home' (his wife) seems more alien every time they speak on the phone; Groundhog Day, where to the main character the third of february is months or years away (it's not really clear from the movie) - This Perfect Day by Ira Levin;
a 1984 or Brave New World type of book, where the main character lives in a society where people are constantly drugged to feel ok and helpful, and the main
character struggles to break free of it. But what I really look for is some kind of red box with the letters 'Break Glass To Exit Fake Reality'.
01/25/2012 02:04 PM
Here is what you will do... The same as you did before. The nature of your self is to entertain perspectives most logical to itself.
Meaning, your next experience will be highly related to the last. The apple does not fall far from the tree, and neither do you. The idea is to realize a
perspective different from one that your 'self' could easily guess, so to speak. You could say that the world is changing faster than you can keep up, if that
helps. Of course, you are everything in your perception. So why would anyone want to do this? Imagine you are sitting on a planet and looking happily out into
space. After a few hundred years of peacefulness the small black hole that was always in the corner of your eye appears to grow bigger and bigger. At first you
don't pay much attention, but then you see that it is consuming everything around it. You can feel its power upon your skin. The thing with this black hole is
that if you resist and pull while it is pulling, it will tear you apart. However, if you 'let go' and allow it to consume you, so to speak, then you can continue
living, although in a different way than you knew before. This is the predictament you find ourselves in. Wan ng "life as usual" is ne but not sustainable in
the face of this massive, consuming energy (the dream world, as I have men oned). It is actually easier to 'let go' (energy-wise, if not psychologically) and
integrate your reality with the dream world than it is to continue living the way you're accustomed to. You will notice as time goes on, especially ~this year,
that it will become increasingly difficult to live your life as you have all ways known. Of course, this is illustrated in a narra ve that makes sense to your
current perspective. So it's not like some mysterious energy that is preven ng you from walking but more like a law that makes walking illegal or increasingly
difficult (for example) or a thick mist from a known source that makes walking out in the open less desirable. Something that fits within your current reality.
When you do something entirely dierent, as I suggest, it does not matter what it is. It simply is a way to let go of a reality that is becoming less relevant.
Exercise your willingness - or not - to let go of yourself to experience a world that has been there all along. You really are trapped in the illusion. But simply
because you choose to be. There is nothing to do except to let go of the illusion that you have created for yourself and replace it with an other illusion. In the
process, you realize the illusions for what they are instead of thinking they are reality. What happens if you don't? You simply become part of this world
anyway without realizing it. (Imagine a dream that you have no influence over.) The dream world is collapsing around you. Wouldn't you know, though, that
you're in the dream and thinking it is reality. Last Edited by Chaol on 01/26/2012 03:36 AM
I gave you a hint on page 77 and said I would give some more after Chaol left some more trails. The last one he left was the one I was wai ng for. My
previous hint mentioned red and green. Not gonna reaveal to much yet, except to let you know that Chaol's last reply has happened a few times earlier. MY
next hint is this. This sound will be all you can hear, you will feel it comes from everywhere. And no it's not that sound, people from all over the world has
found. Like I mentioned this has happened a few times before so maybe you can remember it to. My guess is that Chaol somewhat remembers this, since he is
posting about it. There is nothing to fear, when it happens YOU will remember that it's part of what makes everything and that you occasionaly go back to get
reminded, and then make the choice to recreate what was or create something new. This is also the time where you can make dras c changes to everything in
YOUR perspective. Meanwhile enjoy the ride YOU created, some me in the near future YOU wil create a new one. I'm just riding the GEOMETRIC WAVES for
now until we all "meet" again. There is so much I could write about it, but for the time being I'm not gonna reveal to much. It will work out better if YOU
remember it YOURSELF.

56 of 145

01/26/2012 07:33 AM
Thanks again Chaol. If nothing else, I find myself medita ng, reading, lucid dreaming and experiencing profound synchronici es much
much more than I have been. I've been commi ed to regaining control over my realm for a while now.... and the words you provide keep my delusion well fed.
This has been a wild ride. I AM currently devouring Jane Roberts "Seth Books" and I just finished studying all I could on ecsys, channeling, Bruce Lipton,
Thomas Campbell, lucid dreaming, hypnosis, nlp, energy work and "Magick" it's nuts (in my perspec ve) how much I've learned (and changed) in the last few
years and how much it has accellerated in the months since October. I welcome your asser ons that the "limits" that hold this "reality" together are loosening
and I AM witnessing this in my perspective as a manifesta on of truth in all that I had previously desired but doubted.
01/26/2012 11:14 AM
Taking all that has been oered and because it's early on the N. Pacic Coast, my defenses are down and I want to share my
"alternate universe." I live in a world of colors, owers, fresh owing streams and many animals! I'm a cross of Anastasia, Snow White, Cinderella and Doctor
Dooli le. I'm barefoot, my skin is kissed and bathed by the sun and fresh water, my hair is free and owing. I don't use "words" to communicate but I love to
laugh out loud. The animals are aec onate and loving, warm and funny, constant entertainment. My white/grey dappled horse is my best friend along with my
faithful, loyal dog. I eat freely of the earth's oerings, nuts and roots, mushrooms and seaweed. I have res everynight and the twinkling diamonds overhead
are so luminous that, just upon my thought, a small crystal, vibra ng and whirring is placed gently is in my hand, a gi from the adored star. I could go on and
on but this is my "alternate universe" and has been since I was 3 and grew up on 40 acres of Avocado trees which was my "forest." I AM so ready for this
reality to get sucked into the vaccuum where it belongs so that everyone's alternate/dream life can begin!! 40 years of imagina on, vivid at that........green
light, please! Love and peace to all!
01/26/2012 12:09 PM
I AM not sure that the perspectives will be collapsing in just thay way, just yet. As I see it, we are experiencing a disabling of the
"limits" that keep us "here" giving us the opportunity to transcend them or reinforce them as we see t. We are still limited by our belief that we are limited
but as the "dream" world is mixed in like chocolate in milk, we find it easier to "believe" that a fundamental change to our reality is occuring... or we can
crys ze it into what it's always been with our doubt. Chaol is oering (by pointing out) an opportunity to us... One we should all consider taking.
01/26/2012 01:27 PM
I came across this poem i wrote from 2005...seemed relevant: What are you (the other you) wai ng for? The present is a gi of
moment after moment Even if the past was only a few moments ago - it has still passed It can't be changed because it already was Live in the present - the
gi of the moment of now Live like you only have this moment, This pre-sent moment is now(here) Who are you now is the important question - not who you
were or will be but who are you now? Regret is a device of the ego, always embrace your present experiences. "It's only just a ne line between alone and all
one..."
01/26/2012 02:51 PM
The past, a value of the present 'moment'. The future, also a value of the present. Both form the present perspective, which cannot
actually be perceived. There is no 'now' per se. Neither future nor past exist separately. Which means, the present is past and future simultaneously. A time
independent of either (what you'd call "present") does not and cannot exist. Only a balance of perspectives that is nged with past or future values. A
geometry of relationships that you can easily identify with ("more logical"; immediate past and future experiences) and those that are less easy to identify with
("less logical"; distant past and future experiences). The present cannot be perceived because it is not represented. You could say, for clarity, that by the time
you are able to perceive the representation it is all ready past and future. Last Edited by Chaol on 01/26/2012 07:24 PM
There is another poster on this site who explained this in a way that made sense to me, which helps me grasp what Chaol is saying. This other fellow says
that, basically, you can never find the exact present moment, because the present can always be further split in two. I don't know how to make the link go to
the exact post, so I AM going to copy & paste a por on of it here: Thread: DON'T DIE
04/07/2010 6:56 AM1. You're only alive "nitely" right now. If you could pause time and realize that One whole second is 'infront' of you, and likewise, One
whole second is 'behind' you, Which bit are you actually alive? How 'Big' is the gap 'BETWEEN' seconds that you seem to inhabit? Where and when is the NOW?
Think about it! Zoom you're mind in to locate which bit you're alive! 'chop' the two second's up into into equal parts, class the second infront of you as the
future and the second behind you as the past. Try billionth's of a second. Zoom in,select 1 billionth of each second from infront of you and from behind you,
then, zoom in again, are we there? No? Ok then lets go to trillionths of a second, get your 1 billionth of a second again and chop it up, but this time into a
trillion pieces, again select one part each way, zoom in, divide, select, chop, zoom.... you wanna keep going? You can alway's divide, chop and zoom and still
you can't reach the part where you're actually here, Alive! As long as any of the seconds remain, ( obviously equal amounts both ways,) then they're still part of
the future or the past and you don't live in either one of those spectrums! Mmmm... For more info on this anomaly please contact: your inner self!
01/26/2012 08:05 PM
@einsteinsy There is one perspective. In that way, there are a countless number of "states" where past and future are mixed
together (with nothing to dis nguish them). In this example, you pick from those that make the most sense to you. There is no 'present' state. The present
cannot be perceived and does not actually exist. Visions of a holographic universe is just a way to grasp the nature of a perspective that makes things up as it
goes along. Really, something does not 'exist' until perceived. (You can't perceive something directly, so you're actually perceiving relationships. I spoke about
this at length earlier in this thread.) So when you think you're experiencing the present you're more experiencing the relationships of all things in your
perspective (none of which exist independently, including a singular moment people like to think of a "now"). Intui vely we all ready know this. (As it takes
time to perceive of anything, including your nose or a thought.) When nothing is perceived it becomes an endless variety of 'something' because it is beyond
(and irrelevant of) perception. So, do you change the present or do you alter your perception of past and future rela onships? There is nothing 'solid' that holds
up your current illusion except for where you choose to stand in a sea of endless relationships. One does not change their reality 'now' because it is impossible
and irrelevant. Change your relationship with these illusions (representa ons), even slightly, and you change your reality. Move to a different set of
representations.
01/26/2012 08:13 PM
What do you see? [link to www.webdesign.org] When a light shines upon a sphere, it highlights a particular area of the past/future
composite, and we experience as a present moment. But the present is entirely shaped by the past/future relationships. (What would it mean if the light is
shining from 'within'?) What do you see when you look at the sun? Or could look at a colony of ma er? And what shape does it seem that all matter is
comprised of? The surface appears to be 'present' when actually it is more a geometry of the relationships past/future representations, angled in such a way
(at each moment, you could say) so that it appears there is a focus. Imagine an endless sea of these units - each sphere's "eye" looking to an other near or
distant sphere - and you get an idea of what the universe is made of. Imagine one of these spheres's focal point (or "eye") in an other galaxy looking at your
sphere and you can see how two seemingly distant things can be highly relevant (even if you weren't looking at it). The geometry of relationships. How can you

57 of 145

experience something that you are not focused on? (You can, it can be said, when that part of your perspective is focused on you.) You simply make things
relevant by changing your relationships (which changes what you focus on, which changes your perspective). It doesn't matter how 'distant' something is. Only
that there is a logical path from one sphere to an other, or that a sphere is focused on something directly, or indirectly. You are the spheres, of course, and
exist entirely in your perception. "You" is not capable of walking, talking, or using the internet. Ac ons are impossible and irrelevant. These things are illusions
that the sea of representations show you. "You" and "existence" is the same thing and, really, no thing in par cular. [All of the above for illustration purposes
only. And the last two pair o'graphs for the next lesson, if there is to be one.] What is the purpose of all of this? There is none (most likely). If there was it
would be a purpose that cannot be perceived because the source cannot be perceived. The purpose is "nothing", so it does not exist. "Why all this?", it may be
asked. "How does something come from nothing?" It doesn't. (And there isn't 'all this'.) So what is the illusion, really? It reminds me of one of those movies
where the killer turns out to be the same person as the vic m. If illusion is all that exists, then what does it mean?
01/27/2012 12:36 AM
I think I understand what you mean by physicality It would be easier if you described how you view physicality, because I think the
confusion is that we don't view things the same way. For example, we view a chair as physical, but an idea or thought non physical. Your definition of physical
seems to be much wider and generalized as anything that can be comprehended or perceived. In this way, its all physical because it has a "solid" state during
the moment of perceiving it, even if it changes later, it can be "summed up" so to speak, so it must be physical. I hope I AM understanding correctly! Its hard
to describe.. sort of like... the non physical doesn't exist, or would be better related to "nothingness". Once it takes form as ANYTHING, a thought, idea,
concept, item, etc, it is therefore physical, because it is a thing? And if nothing exists but illusion, then it really means nothing. Anything born from the
experience so far would, eventually breed some sort of opinion about that, but the opinions themselves would therefore be based on the illusion. An op cal
illusion that makes me think one line is bigger than the other makes me smile. Or an illusion of wavy movement. But i'm always seeing things, so everything
thus far is also an op cal illusion, and a hearing illusion, and a feeling illusion. What meaning did those illusions (within this illusion) have, but for a moments
entertainment. Reminds me of a dream within a dream. What did our dreams mean to us? If both my dream world and my real world existed, then I should look
to my real life to determine what it means to my dream. Back and forth, back and forth.. I'm just the invisible glass of the mirror, everyone looks past me in
either direc on, but i'm still there.
01/27/2012 02:04 PM
@3971972 None of the above. Think about where you want to be, or your purpose in doing such things. Then do it now as much as
you can. (Today, this minute. Right now.) If "now" is a bridge between past and future that stands on no solid ground, by merging past/future into your current
perspective you are becoming "more real" so to speak. Do what you desire to do right now in any way that you can imagine. Don't wait, don't plan, don't make
excuses, don't say you can't do it, don't depend on something else. Ecsys, Neuronics, The Genius, do just that. They get rid of energy waste and bridge
perspectives. But that's not what you need now. Instead of walking around the long way to a distant reality you simply bring it all into your current perspective.
All is represented, all ready. When you waste physical energy like this you experience density. (No, I don't mean being green or any of that mess.) Bring your
future here now, today (right now). It's all representations, anyway. If you want a new car then draw it on a piece of paper and work your way through its
logical progressions. No one can say they don't get it or don't know what to do or don't understand. It is all right here in this single post. If you want the long
and confusing explanation (as we are wont) then start on page one. It is our nature to waste an innite amount of energy. Ecsys Prime is, "we perceive that
which takes the least amount of energy to perceive". We do not perceive reality. (We cannot, really.) However, past/future is a big waste of energy. Why
spread it out so much? You can perceive everything that exists (in the universe, in the past and future) in your current perspective. You're actually doing it
already but you don't realize it. If you're red of wasting time, space, and energy then do it now. Doing it now will tell yourself that you realize past/future and
everything that exists is already in your current perspective. Don't waste time with the words or deciphering meaning or whatever. The pre-sent time is all
ready sent and is not actually your reality. Your "true" reality does not divide itself, and you need not to (pretend to) either. 1) Start with what you want in the
future then make it happen now in whatever way you can imagine. For bonus points, take a look at what you really want and ignore it (make it irrelevant). 2)
Move to what you think happened in the past and bring it to your perception, especially the things you resist. When you cease the illusion of pulling towards or
pushing away then you begin to expand your perspective because you are wasting less energy. It's as simple as that. Anything else makes it complicated and
makes us waste energy, which is what we've been doing for as long as we can remember. (Evidence: how we experience.)
01/28/2012 11:11 AM
From day one, actually. I just got sidetracked for, oh, 58 years.hf I love this self-sarcasm very funny. On the contrary, Ive been
sidetracked into an ecsysed kind of living style since consciously remembering my existence in this life. I have spent a huge part of my life in an alternate
cool world where freedom of being yourself and being different and doing things differently was highly encouraged. My dad was type AAAAA(innite As - proud
member and conven on-abiding of the insane world you men oned). My mom is a 'rebellious' type ZZZZZ(all the Zs in the innitum apply to this being who
is a proud radical-unconven onal-bohemian kind). I inherited a little personality/life-style from both. Indeed, I consciously resist alternate universes
op on/choice because many times my real-me seems to tend to prefer alternate op ons naaaahhh, Im not implying hedonism here. Im just implying doing
things outside the mold and doing/accomplishing things in non-predetermined social ways. In all honesty, I think the best would be a right mixture of both
new and old (and can we say future? Iguess not - since it is all present/now?) worlds.
01/28/2012 03:34 PM
On the contrary, Ive been sidetracked into an ecsysed kind of living style since consciously remembering my existence in this life. I
have spent a huge part of my life in an alternate cool world where freedom of being yourself and being different and doing things differently was highly
encouraged. Yeah, I have stepped off the main branch and into these eddies numerous times. Chaol has told us that we do this all the time. I think that he is
here to instruct us, among other things, on how to make use of these side journeys; of how to be aware of what we are doing. Of course, now, the big news is
that the main branch is dissolving, and good riddance to it, IMHO. ...Im not implying hedonism here. "Hedonism" would be a label. To categorize something as
"hedonis c" or "not hedons c" is a form of resistance. (I make that observation with a lot of condence, don't I? I could be wrong, but I AM beginning to
comprehend this no on of "resistance".)
01/28/2012 05:45 PM
Hello Chaol AM wondering if u can help me with any of your wisdom.15 years ago i took a dangerouse amount of LSD.long story short
is i astral travelled out of my self and witnessed another me in my physical body as i was oa ng behind myself .The whole procedure of being thrown out of
yourself into nothingness while awake is beyound words,its like the feeling of being sick but your are throwing up your very soul and essence felt like a dal
wave of energy that exploded through the top of my head,thought i was dying. I awoke the nest day and knew something was wrong as i hadnt intergrated
back in properly also realized there were infact other me's!! ,this remains with me till this day.Did i infact travel somewhere else??..and as i suppose i short
cu ed to this realm by unntaural substances can this cost problems with the whole reintergra ng yourself back in??.. I know it sounds pretty messed up and
like something out of red dwarf but this happened to me. im tied to this time line somehow and cant escape its grasp its like this happened yesterday need
help to find answers and what happened to me and how to fix my self thanks in advance.

58 of 145

01/28/2012 07:06 PM
@9758142 Let "wisdom" revert back to the ability to know ways, which is something easier for us when we are not focused on a
particular way. Well, I would say that you are experiencing (now) a property of what you call LSD. You could say that you would have experienced it even if you
did not take LSD. But your mind needs to create a logical narra ve from one perspective to an other. For illustration purposes only, on one level of reality you
exist in New York and Boise, Idaho simultaneously. On an other level of reality your mind needs to see how it gets from New York to Boise, even though the
process of getting to Boise is an illusion. So, it makes up a story about how you took a taxi to the airport, got on a plane, and landed there. This makes much
more sense to your perspective than just appearing in Boise. (You expend less energy by doing what is most logical to your perspective. In this case, suddenly
appearing in Boise would use up more energy than getting in a taxi and taking an airplane.) Not only are the taxi and airplane illusions of your perspective but
so are New York and Boise which exist for another 'story' all together. (The nothing that you try to perceive must appear to be separate ci es because that is
what makes the most sense to you right now and uses less energy than perceiving "two ci es in one".) So in order to make sense of your new perspective you
create something called LSD, gave it certain properties and a place in your universe, and 'took it' what seems like 15 years ago. Without this backstory you
would not be experiencing what you experience. If you don't want to experience what you're experiencing then you need an other logical path to the state of
not experiencing LSD (or what you may call its side eects). If you want to escape its grasp then don't try. Be okay with it. Trying to escape wastes a lot of
energy which means that you will probably not experience escaping or having escaped. Being okay with it, for example, uses less energy than escaping and
makes it more likely that the "LSD state" will become irrelevant. On a scale of 1-100, we are okay with being "1" because we have not experienced the others
yet. When we are okay with 1 it becomes more irrelevant and then we move on to "2". It's how we grow and become adults instead of dying as babies (or
regressing) because we usually don't resist "1" or the others. To make a long story short, this state is who you are right now. If you want to change it, find new
representations and make the old ones irrelevant. Last Edited by Chaol on 01/28/2012 09:42 PM
becoming clearer and clearer with every post. in some cases, the energy eciency has to do with something 'making sense' to me. the energy it would take me
to 'be okay' with teleporting from here to work every day is more than taking the car or bus. once teleporting becomes commonplace, i'd use little energy trying
to 'jus fy that it happened' and i'd be teleporting everywhere I went. Nothing is irrelevant to the illusion, neither inside nor outside. The illusion is an
illustration of nothingness. We try to represent "nothing" but it's impossible so it just goes on and on for what seems like eternity. We try very hard ;) Some
might realize they're trying to make God in their own image. We can't but our perception doesn't stop trying. Others might realize they're trying to balance
what cannot be balanced, and busying themselves fashioning and placing objects on either side in the process. Yet others may yet try to undo what was done,
and in the process do more that needs to be undone. The person that doesn't resist their nature or try to get something that doesn't exist might be the person
closest to what everyone else is looking for. I don't know if it all has a purpose. But I do know that the closest point to a purpose, if there was one, is here
and now. It is also that which uses the least amount of energy. Though a true "here and now" uses no energy and, thus, cannot be perceived or experienced,
the state we are in right now is all that ma ers.
01/28/2012 10:19 PM
I agree with you. " "Hedonism" would be a label. To categorize something as "hedonis c" or "not hedons c" is a form of resistance."
Coincidentally and on a funny side, I recall when I was in vaca on in Jamaica the hotel besides mine was called 'Hedonism'. I went through this hotel front
water kayaking and so lots of hedonis c things going on - I resist writing about those things I saw. Besides, I also resisted going inside that hotel to see more
'shocking' things from a closer distance. 'Now', in the present time and at this point of my life, I will probably not resist going to visit the guests in that hotel if
I'll be in the adjacent hotel that I was staying at then... well I will add a little 'resistance' by not going inside 'there' alone.
01/30/2012 11:20 AM
For more clarica on on when you say do it now. Let's say I want to be on a beach right now. Do I think about being there and just
kick my feet up on my desk like I'm there in the sand? Or do u mean I get up and go to the airport even tho I have no ticket or possibly even money for a ticket
to the beach of my choice? I'm confused as to what the actual "it" is when you say "Do it now" You say "Move to what happened in the past" The past of this
reality or the one 1 we want to experience?
01/30/2012 01:48 PM
So let's do an experiment where we put this to use and share the results daily. We should pick something that isn't too far in
distance in our perspective and find the best ways to bring them into the "now". I want a raise. Being that I just got 1 its already pretty irrelevant to me
whether or not I get another 1 in the near future. So here is where it gets tricky. I think the best way to bring this to my current perspective would be to start
ac ng NOW like I've already gotten it. So I should be spending money and living like I have the extra to blow if I understand Chaol correctly. I'll try this and
hopefully Chaol will correct me if I'm wrong before I throw away my life savings lol.
01/31/2012 01:18 AM
Thank you all so much for the replies! I AM curious, perhaps there's a difference between having something become irrelevant to you,
and wanting it. I.e. I can make the coee and drink it, but my opinion about the coee can change. It is true that in life, when you start to care less about
something to the point of it becoming irrelevant, those events, feelings or situa ons tend to just go away and not come back, save for a memory later. I AM
still however confused by Chaols exact words, to do it now (as I see others are confused with this too). I also wonder if this means to just fantasize or make
pretend that we are at a beach. A beach is a great example, as I've been poor the majority of my life, I fantasize about going to an island someday or
snorkeling and the like. The problem is that on my spiritual path (and here too in ways), it seems that the desire to do such things is considered bad or
nega ve. I couldn't make the desire become irrelevant to me as easily. But if i did stop fantasizing about it completely, what is implied is that the chance for it
to occur is somehow MORE than it was before (which i find terribly terribly unrealis c), i mean, do you know how many other things I could be doing that I
really ignore or consider irrelevant? None of those things happened yet. Trying to really consider the ideas presented, I AM brought to the thought that if we
are indeed "always doing it" or "doing it now, but not realizing it", then we should simply pay more attention to how reality unfolds naturally, at every moment.
To observe. This moment right now seems to just happen naturally, without any effort at all. Others say, the event is happening because I see it as "most
relative" or that, walking home and sitting at my pc is what i find to be realis c. But its implied that its more of a reality that I have created, purposefully,
when it actually feels like an inevitability. Such as, i drop a ball and others are saying "it hit the oor because you made it hit the oor." But, i'm unaware of
how to change that outcome, it seems just from one step to another without any interaction on my part. Also, the idea of push and pull helps me make more
sense of the idea, HOWEVER it confuses me further for a number of reasons.. For one, it seems like what i mentioned earlier about simply not-caring, is how to
u lize the method. But if thats so, then how come Chaol men ons earlier that he experienced being rich at one point, and spends time with a girlfriend (which
i find is a type of desire or pleasure), and then travels the world.. these all seem like controlled desires. And even if they are irrelevant, there must be some
enjoyment derived. What are we to make of it? I mean, in the other post, it describes the nature of "nothing", but somehow makes love, which i assumed
before was the most powerful and significant thing in the universe, somewhat less than I valued it as before. It also makes me somewhat sad to consider that
the ul mate truth or des ny is to return to absolute nothing.. it scares me a bit. It reminds me of the book series, The Keys to the Kingdom. Its a story where

59 of 145

the main character gets this incredible power in the form of a key, and it turns out that the key is actually a fragment of a personality that belongs to a Will
left behind by the Creator, or God, before he/she mysteriously disappeared. Anyway, in a nutshell, the character gets pulled into this story where he must
travel to an alternate dimension that controls all of the known physical reality, to help rescue the other pieces of the will (without ever knowing what the will
stated), which is divided into seven fragments, or magic keys that wield the power of God him/herself. He does this all to help "save" the universe, which is
gradually being destroyed. At the end, he defeats these 'lords' that hold all the keys, rescues and puts all 7 pieces back together and nds out that the will of
god was to have his 7 servants (wielding his power in the form of these keys) to destroy everything that ever existed so he could experience Death. The boy,
wielding the keys, watches everything that ever existed become absolutely nothing, surviving in Nothingness with the keys of power left behind (by the
previous god) and must eventually rebuild the universe as god himself.
01/31/2012 02:53 AM
This is how I interpret Chaol's advice: First you spend time imagining what that scenario would look like -- and get really detailed.
For example, are you living on the beach, or just vaca oning there? What does your daily rou ne look like? Once you are done creating that specific image,
don't fantasize or pretend you are at the beach. That is wasting energy. Instead, take a step, no matter how ny, towards living that reality. For example, let's
say you envisioned that you surfed every day and were bu, tan and healthy, ea ng tropical fruit and sh. Perhaps your ny step right now is to start ea ng
more pineapple and less junk food. To order sh instead of a burger when out to dinner. And if you aren't fit at the moment, perhaps your next step is to go for
a run. Maybe you will take up barefoot running, to get your feet used to the idea of running on a beach. If you don't even know how to snorkel, maybe the next
step is signing up for a class at the Y. If you imagined yourself snorkeling and seeing all kinds of tropical sh, maybe your next step is to go visit an aquarium
or even buy an aquarium. I'm a chick and when I think of the beach I think of bright painted toenails so I'd probably splurge and get a pedicure, even though
it's the dead of winter. The way I interpreted Chaol, it's about taking actions -- no matter how ny -- to begin living the reality you want, right now, today, this
moment. Even if you never got your wish of living/visi ng a beach, think how much better your life would be if you did all these things. And who knows? Maybe
while at the aquarium you meet someone who leads you to an introduc on to a person who down the road offers you an opportunity to run a snorkel shop on a
beach somewhere.... the sort of random meeting that isn't going to happen if you stay on your PC all day.
01/31/2012 09:10 AM
I'm new here so still learning how to use the system. No edit func on? I wanted to add: If you want to live or visit a beach, you
probably think of the big steps, like having enough money or qui ng your job or finding a job in a beach town. The big steps seem totally overwhelming and/or
even impossible, so we don't do them, or we waste energy in a cycle of wishing/desiring but then getting all deated, or obsessing over why it'll never happen.
The ny steps are not overwhelming. The ny steps are easy and pleasurable. You do not even need to think about that beach dream while you go on the
barefoot run or choose the sh instead, maybe you will, but the run or the delicious sh is a worthy experience in itself.
01/31/2012 09:43 AM
On page 85 I wrote about "doing it now" as in this minute which is easier to qualify than "being it now". How does one be what they
want right now? It's not easy to think about. Wants create drama, not states of being. But if it said: then "being" is disguised as "doing". It's just a trick of the
mind if not language, I suppose. To "do it" usually entails a long planning process that is entirely unnecessary and, o en, counter-produc ve. "Do it now" is
what may prove far more effective because you're representing whatever it is you think is in your future right now. Meaning, you are making it more relevant to
your current experience. Meaning, you're bypassing much of your ltering mechanisms that dictate the physical illusion. So, yes, "doing" as in "doing now"
rather than "star ng to plan it" (which is what most of us start to do when we think about taking action. This is more about intent and desire, rather than
realizing it is already here, now.)
01/31/2012 12:06 PM
I'm thinking on this (I know that you would say not to think but do, but, its hard to figure that out right now). I AM wondering if, by
observing my own reality (as i mentioned in my prior post), the events that take place happen because they are relative to my current mindset/experience
(duh..). But what i mean is, if i'm keeping my mind on my work and busying myself with rumors at work or social activity at work, most of the new events that
unfold will probably be work related, such as a new machine being brought in, changes in schedules, etc. Now, not entirely sure, but I'm wondering if this is
because these events are relative to my perspective, not really my experience, but my perspective, and the relationships within that perspective. (what i'm
paying attention to, how i interact with that, and the relationships i have with my job, coworkers, events at work) If my guess is correct, you are saying to
orient our very mindset to think along the lines of being at a beach, for example. This way, events that unfold will slowly dwindle away from the PREVIOUS
focus (work, school, etc), and if we concentrate hard enough or REALLY imagine it as being real, then our mind will actually start to unveil events that would be
more fitting to the world we are seeing in our perspective (or imagina on)? I'm feeling that maybe I'm close to understanding you, if my guess is correct. So if i
have something to represent a watch, and I pay attention to it (true story, i made a small paper box and led it with pieces of stuff and drew a watch on it,
and gave it a seran wrap with a minute and hour hand a week ago), then my reality (or perspec ve) shifts to the watch. This means, more events will unfold
that have to do with that watch, such as needing to rewind it, or acknowledging the time more. The watch may get dirty faster than usual by me paying too
much attention to it, and will start to wear or age faster (not that this matters overall), and perhaps I'll drop it by accident or some other watch-relatedevent... If i really orient my mindset to think along the lines of "this is my watch, its a real watch" then my reality will shift to include a real-live-watch. I
imagine however, will the object suddenly transform into a watch? I don't think so. If i had to guess (again), i would say that eventually my reality will shift
into a state where I need to interact with the watch as if it is real, but I cannot because it is just a symbol. Then, reality will have some sort of... safety
mechanism? It will have to force-manifest the watch somehow to fill in the symbol so that events would "make more sense" or be relative, rather than a world
that I cant comprehend. Let me know if i'm guessing along the right lines here.
01/31/2012 01:18 PM
@ 2002863 That sounds about right. This is going to have to be trial and error which is why I started the game. We can all go for the
same thing and help each other find the route which takes the least energy. I drew some seashells and birds on post-its around my desk. Hope my perspective
changes soon before they think I'm crazy over here. Anyone else? This makes sense to me. Regardless of whether I'm "doing" it "right" or what, after writing
my last post I went out for my daily walk. I had fallen out of my exercise rou ne until a few days ago when I discovered your thread, Chaol. I don't want to say
what my inten on is (it does, in fact, involve a possible move to a beach), but your words resonated deeply with me. I realized that my vision included a
certain sort of healthy, fit lifestyle which I have not been living up to. That mo vated me to stop wishing and procras na ng and just DO. One ny step.
Which was to go for a walk. So out I go for my walk today (fourth day in a row; I'm on a roll!). Within two minutes, I passed a piece of li er on the ground..
and I noticed it was a crumpled Hawaiian punch container!! I giggled. Then I walked by this telephone pole and noticed someone had nailed a small piece of art
to it. The art? A pain ng of ocean waves. I stopped and took a picture. As I resumed walking, a car drove by with vanity license plate HAWAII.... The very next
telephone pole had a second piece of art nailed to it -- more ocean waves. I snapped another picture. There were many more such things on my walk, but
personalized to my particular inten on, so won't make much sense to anyone else but me. Although I suppose I can share this one: I was thinking to myself,
"who cares if I have misunderstood Chaol? This is cool. The universe is talking to me. I'll take that any day! It's fun!" And at that moment, a car with license

60 of 145

plate DAGA drove by... I looked it up. It means many things -- there is even a company in Hawaii with that name -- it is also "a La n phrase meaning "Innite
Courage." Oh. And to add: I do not take any of this to mean the universe wants me to go to Hawaii, or that somehow I will land in Hawaii. It's more like I'm
getting winks that I'm on the right track.
01/31/2012 02:09 PM
Why focus on the illusion? Why not focus, instead, on nothing in particular (i.e., everything-at-once)? In your perspective you're
seeing one thing, not an endless variety of things. This one thing cannot be perceived in its en rety, so you perceive it as many things, over time and space.
Because it cannot be perceived in its entirety it is beyond perception. Thus, what you perceive is an illusion. Representations of something that is beyond
deni on. The representations are not the answers you seek because the question does not exist, only the quest. None of them are the answers (including
Ecsys). This ul mate reality cannot be perceived or experienced. When you are comfortable with your current perspective being the extent of the entire
universe then you have understood its nature, and that there is nothing more for you to do. Unless, of course, you do what is completely natural and continue
the illusion. (Con nue trying to experience what cannot be experienced, perceived what cannot be perceived.) As we become more comfortable with the nature
of nothing, then we will experience less of the 'over here is be er' or 'what you don't have is be er' in life (and on this thread). You will then realize that you
are already where you need to be.
01/31/2012 02:16 PM
There is no need to focus. Unfocusing is the key. The beach, the watch, the monkey wrench, are all ready here ("right now"). When
you focus you are defining your reality further, which pushes away other experiences. So if you focused on a cup appearing in front of you, you could be
"pulling" the cup but "pushing" the table it rests on. And, because the table is being pushed away it does not make sense to your perspective because your
experience is one experience. Unfocus to find what you're looking for. Realize that all is representation. The cup and table and watch and wench is/are the
same thing that looks different depending on your perspective. Are not sleeping and dreaming 'unfocusing'? And more physical experience 'focusing'? Last
Edited by Chaol on 01/31/2012 02:36 PM
When you create a representation for something that you "want" or think is in your future (or other) it exists on the same level and has the same validity as
that thing. The representation is you telling yourself. "Look! It is here all ready." You can then explore the representation in its various forms. The drawing of a
rela onship, The model in toothpick, The song on a napkin, The structure in cardboard, and the relationship (or thing, whatever) itself are all the same thing.
There is no difference between any of them. The system I have illustrated on this thread is just a trick of perception for you to realize that it's all the same
illusion.
01/31/2012 02:28 PM
@1528213 Sometimes the desire to do something is more valuable than the actual experience. Of all the people that want to win a
lo ery, very few want the actual experience. The experience would take away the value of wanting it. Of course, when tasked with thinking about what they
want they would confuse the map with the territory and think that they must want to win the lo ery because it would not make sense to only want the desire
of winning the lo ery. Confusing, yes, since all of these people are aspects of your perspective. So then it's just one of those things to keep you busy doing
what comes naturally (turning nothing into something). If you want to win a lo ery then find the lo ery outside of the lo ery. Behind every perspective is a
back door. Where is yours? If the representation is as good as the real thing, you would "open the door" to the lo ery by opening the door to its close cousin,
which is probably around where you're si ng.
01/31/2012 02:32 PM
So could you say that part of hte illusion is turning 'all of this' into 'this, this, this, and that, etc.' Imagine you could do anything, be
anything, know anything, simultaneous to the desire or want or need. Imagine you were omnipotent in all imaginable ways. How boring and purposeless would
that be? In that way, could forge ng be more exci ng? Crea ng a maze or illusion for yourself to bring a sense of purpose to your existence? When you listen
to a learned professor speak about their favorite topic, or watch a talented athlete or musician, or something truly awe-inspiring... wouldn't it be more
interesting to be amazed rather than not having said or done those things at all because it's so boring and you've "seen it all before"? What choice do you have
other than to divide up your existence into innite illusions if you want to exist? Without the illusion there would be no experience because there would be
nothing to experience. You don't need to understand the illusion at all. You don't need to learn to work within it. You don't need to get to an other level of
whatever. People worry about years when time doesn't exist. People concern over borders or inches when space doesn't exist. None of it really ma ers, but we
fool ourselves into thinking that it does because it is all we can do. But all those dramas certainly help to uphold our existence which (of course) is full of
wonders.
01/31/2012 02:51 PM
Perhaps it's more of saying, "This could be anything." Thus, the unfocus. Focusing on the bigger picture would be the same as
focusing on the smaller picture. See the bigger picture in the smaller picture because it is the bigger picture. It is the same as everything, all over again. i.e.,
The "absolute" (or whatever) cannot contain itself in any one thing, so it par ally exists in every thing. We cannot focus on the bigger picture because it does
not exist in a way that can be perceived (it is beyond percep on). So we take away the 1 representation of something to observe more (or all) of its
representations. This is the big picture. You do this easily when you dream. You may wonder why dream objects turn into other things, or why one scene fades
into an other. This is closer to how things actually are. One thing can be anything, because there is only one thing (perspec ve). When you open your senses,
there are not objects and s muli. You are experiencing values (more representa ons) of one thing. Kind of like you can't pin it down.. it continues to move..
and becomes everything.
01/31/2012 03:22 PM
I don't believe I would give such an answer, but I have previously provided a bit of information on who I am. What is it that you want
to know? For those who 'get' Ecsys and neuronics there is an understanding that what I AM talking about now is the same thing as Ecsys. And so we have
created a representation here on this thread and are now "unfocusing" on it and allowing more room for more of what is actually is rather than what we want it
to be. But actually it is becoming more a part of your reality that you realize. The understanding illustrated by other posters here on the past 3-4 pages is
greater than that on the previous 80+ pages. Every one of my words is part of the process. My explanation for reality is based upon what I understand from my
world, where we generally understand more about what is going on around us. (There is still a focus on politics, celebri es, etc., but it is usually treated for
the game it is rather than in seriousness.) It doesn't matter if someone thinks this is all crazy talk. The words qualify itself for those that are paying a en on.
In fact, it's good if you thought it was crazy but interesting because it makes it easier to slip past your logical lters. (The gates of logic are relative and not
absolute, of course. There are as many kinds of logic as there are seeming perspec ves.) As mentioned, the message is more important than the messenger.
The moment I identify more of who I AM and where I come from is the moment when it is all lost in the drama, endless inconsequen al ques ons, confusion,
and denial.

61 of 145

01/31/2012 08:08 PM
For those of us that follow this thread (and even for those who have abandoned this thread or are perma-banned and can't read it
now or for whatever other reason are now absent), how many of us have printed out pages from the Ecsys website, studied the neuronicons, drew them, tried
pronouncing the sounds, took stabs at prac cing the Genius, and posted questions and comments to Chaol's threads? Then, how many of us declared ourselves
too stupid or too unevolved to learn Ecsys and gave up on it? We left the papers and guring somewhere handy just in case we decide to go back to it. We've
bookmarked the threads and the Ecsys website so that we don't lose touch completely with something that we really want to learn. Now. How many of us have
begun to spontaneously look at something and say, "it is a representa on...a symbol". How many of us have taken a step back and regarded the logic of a
situa on? How many of us have gotten involved in something and gone, "I AM interac ng"? High poten al? Low Poten al? Neutral? Ha ha. We think about this
a lot more often now, don't we? Do you get it? We brought representations of Ecsys into our worlds, and then made it irrelevant. We stopped the push and pull
we were experiencing with the new way of thinking. We stopped our resistance. Now, we are beginning to actually think with a new perspective.
01/31/2012 10:28 PM
A side note, for any looking to move forward with a type of frequency project. If you're going to experiment with specific frequencies
then you can also vary the number of sources per frequency. So the 'recipe' could be something like: 2 parts 448.95 1 part 440 7 parts 48.5 in megahertz.
(Above for illustration only.) It doesn't really matter how the sources are placed in rela on to one-another for testing purposes, nor if one is a few inches away
from an other. Also, the frequencies of the par es involved must be considered as part of the equa on. Not just the people but the place. Lastly, note that a
steady frequency could work but it isn't natural. There is all ways devia on from a mean. It may be easier to 'move mountains' when the frequencies are able
to express their own consciousness. Ecsys could help in this way (because of the representations (frequency), interac ons, etc.) but I think it would just
confuse the process. You could do some pretty cool stuff without employing it.
Cheese. Ha! Lo ery, chess, Hawaii and now cheese too.... Do you do this with everyone? I see you said somewhere early on in one of the threads (which I'm
still plowing through) that you know everything about us. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, these are all things I have been mulling over
lately. Lo ery: was on my mind a week before I found any of this. I bought my very first lo ery ticket on a whim (didn't win). On my walks lately, including
yesterday, there are old lo ery ckets li ered everywhere I go. Chess: days before I found this thread, I suddenly got nostalgic about chess, a game I played
in childhood (didn't play the game, played with the chess set as if they were royalty living in a castle). I spent a couple of hours surng web sites selling
elaborate chess sets. Hawaii: when I wrote my second post on this thread, about the beach, during the process I thought of writing a sentence about
envisioning the color and texture of the sand -- is it white sand or is it black like Hawaii? I did not write that sentence; it remained in my head only. Cheese:
has been on my mind since yesterday morning and Chaol may know why. I'll just say I was playing with cheese as a metaphor for something else en rely.
Chaol doesn't have to prove anything to me. I AM just curious if he does this with others? Because I have not yet made it through the entire 470 page PDF of
this particular thread. Sorry for asking this if it's been amply covered and let me know if I'm being an annoying newbie.
02/01/2012 11:07 AM
I read that and a voice came into my head, saying loud and clear: "The lady will get her wish." I also dreamed last night, lots of
things, but right before I woke up, I was walking up this elaborate spiral staircase. At the end of it was sort of a door. (oh, yes, that's right... you were going
on about doors yesterday too, weren't you? add that to the relevant list along with Hawaii, chess, cheese, and lo eries). It was kind of a hidden door -- you
had to know it was there, otherwise you wouldn't realize it was a door. And when you pushed on it, it opened not like a usual door, but with the hinges at the
bo om instead of the side. And then it became a chute. I slid down the chute to the other side and there was an Asian man wai ng for me. I found I was
covered in something.. like velcro... it had wrapped all around me on the way down the chute.... The Asian man helped get me free, except it started clinging
to him, we were both rolling around on the oor trying to get it off of us, not panicking but laughing. And I said, "It's organic, isn't it?" And he said yes. Then I
woke up. Obvious symbolism of birth canal etc. Or was it Chaol's bridge?
02/01/2012 01:27 PM
youve been gone for too long. welcome back I think I found a good way to prove and illustrate the discussions here lately. We may
be anxious to get out of work so we look at the clock often to see if its that time yet. The more we focus on the clock the slower the desire of the specific time
we want to see manifests. When we are preoccupied with work or something that is drawing our focus from time, when we look at the clock it may be or close
to the time desired. On the contrary, when we're having fun time ies. To slow it down, ironically, we'd have to convince ourselves that we want it to speed up
(or do something less amusing). Thus the "push & pull" In the dreamworld our brains loose focus of time. Time could be seen as a form of judgement. When we
don't judge life by its ming we're allowing ourselves to experience more because our brain doesn't feed us limited information from a 24 hour time scale. The
concept of time limits the "reality" perceived because it makes the 90% of what we dont see irrelevant to our perspective. We literally don't have time to see it
all.
02/01/2012 04:05 PM
Ah! You too? Story me: A couple summers ago, on a sunshiny day, I was happily busy doing long-overdue household chores. I
became aware of something very quiet just over my right shoulder, and lling the space just behind my head. Since I was busy, I only glanced at whatever this
thing was, thinking that I would examine it later. It stayed with me all day until I nally stopped for a moment, wondering what IS this thing? and took a
deeper look at it. At first it looked like a dark cavern. Then, the more I looked, I began to see ny domes on the far surface, bubbling up, then burs ng back
into the matrix, like boiling water, but in slow mo on. With a lurch of realiza on, I understood these to be "possibili es". This entire cavern was so still and so
quiet, it was as if stepping into a vacuum. There was no movement, no nothing, except for these bubbles slowing manifes ng, burs ng, then falling back.
Then, I saw how the entire "cavern" was one big thing, composed entirely of these pinpoints of "possibili es". There was no space; no distance. It was lled.
Later on, at the end of my day, I tried to reach it again through medita on, but it was gone. I called it "The Big Quiet". Last week, on this thread, Norway
mentioned seeing "red and green". I read that, wondered about it, then left to go on about my daily business. Awhile later, I remembered something startling:
the bubbling "possibilites" of The Big Quiet were red and green. I dropped everything and went straight to meditate. I reached The Big Quiet again. This time, I
went deeper into it. A million indescribable revela ons. But, I came out of it with this understanding clearly in front of me: it is awareness. It is awareness in
its most basic form. It does not think; it does not observe; it doesn't move. It does not even breathe. There is no sound at all. It just IS. It underlies the
physical. It is that from which the physical springs. Then, came Chaol's Dao. I printed that out and keep it clutched to my bosom. This is everything that I
wanted to know. Now, I see this Big Quiet permea ng everything. My mind can be occupied with daily living, and I still see this "thing" everywhere. It is like I
cannot "unsee" it. If one can imagine the sounds and colors and mo on of "life" as bits of confe thrown up into the air and oa ng around in no particular
order, then this Big Quiet is the matrix upon which "life" is occurring. I AM not saying that The Big Quiet is Chaol's Nothing. I comprehend how Nothing cannot
be perceived. I think that The Big Quiet is an extract of the Nothing. I think that it may be the very first "thing" that emerges from the Nothing...that It is right
next to the Nothing.
02/02/2012 01:54 PM

62 of 145

Thanks to all for the responses and help! I really appreciate it. Yesterday I had an interesting experience I'd like to share. I was at

work and spending some time really thinking about what it would mean to focus or unfocus on something, and how this act would be playing out at every
moment without my apparent knowledge (at least not in my current state of consciousness) I couldn't really understand what it meant to unfocus or make
things irrelevant. As I thought on this, a coworker was walking by. I could see him out of the corner of my eye, and I thought ins nc vely that it must be my
boyfriend (he got a job at my workplace not too long ago). I turned to look at him, but it was a different coworker. At the time, I was so deep in thought that
when I first saw the ash of movement, i was nearly 99% certain it was yellow (the color of his shirt) but it turned out to be grey, an alternate uniform that
some people wear. At this exact moment, I felt that I had made a revela on, but i couldn't quite place it. Over a few minutes I pieced it together and
wondered, if we are always being told that we CHOOSE the reality we exist in, or choose the events that take place, the situation "here and now" and all the
details within it, how does that 'choice' work exactly? I'm reminded of Schrodingers cat, in which the cat is both alive and dead. But when i recall Chaols words
on the subject (if my memory isnt faulty, it was earlier in this thread), the cat is neither, nor does it even exist. This may seem to confuse me more, but
fortunately, at this particular moment, I wonder if the cat is there, at least in my mind, because I choose to maintain a memory of him. When the box is
opened, it is not that he could be alive or dead, it very well may be that i CHOOSE if he's alive or dead. Not consciously, but in a 'dierent way' (lets just leave
it at that) If we choose the moments, then what limits that choice? If we make up a play as we go along, how much control do you have over the play? Chaol
said, focusing serves no purpose but to solidify reality (just about, my memory is always trouble). What this means is that if you have a play and you are
guiding it, and you "focus" on every ny detail.. who walks in.. who is in the room.. whats on tv... whats outside.. what sounds, what smells, what sights, etc
etc etc. Every small detail. Then what happens later when you want something dras cally different to happen? The unfortunate thing is that most significant
events require 'buildup', a chain of events to link out and lead to such things. But when you are focusing intently on each small moment, (and keep in mind,
you're making it up as you go along) you can't always successfully plan ahead like that. I know this sounds confusing, but let me explain further. I think, if I
had been focusing on my surroundings and actions at work.. I had subconsciously been aware of this person walking by me to an oce, and where my bf was
at each moment, and who was around me par cularly, and what sounds were happening, and who was talking to who.. then when this person walked by, he
could very well have been my boyfriend. BUT, it wouldn't have made sense to my logical brain. I had a recollec on (a bit later) that i remembered seeing him
only seconds before in another area of the worksite. And I also remembered the person that-i-actually-saw walk past before, so i subconsciously knew he would
return the way he came. What I'm curious about is, if I spent more time ignoring details.. unfocusing... just making the events irrelevant... then when I saw
this person out of the corner of my eye, would it have been my boyfriend? In other words, by leaving MORE room for variety, how unique can some particular
moments be? Each moment is a choice, but the choice is VERY small if you are monitoring each moment closely. To be logical, things must always branch out
from the previous choice you made. If person a is in a corner and person b is far away, maybe you DESIRE to see person b suddenly standing next to you, but
you already chose to put him far away. Thus, your next moment's choice is that he can only be a frac on closer.. or there must be some logical explanation to
put him in a situation other than that. But if you consider person a and person b's location irrelevant, then after some time, your choice to see one person
standing next to you is much more 'loose'. You had no idea where he was before.. anything could have happened, and at this moment, you get to choose!
Maybe he ran, maybe he drove, maybe a third person walked by, maybe this, maybe that. I'm only playing on guesswork here, but Chaol, is this what you mean
by unfocusing, or making things irrelevant? Is this why in a dream, you see absolutely nothing... so the 'choice' you have can be pretty much anything.
Everything is irrelevant, everything is blank when you fall asleep. The variety can be completely endless. But in a focused moment of reality, you have already
set the ground-rules and this changes things?
02/02/2012 02:15 PM
Love your post! You bring up a lot to consider. The results could be fun. As an aside, I had entire day's worth of creatures being not
where I expected them to be. I have a small menagerie in my house. One of the pet rats was in her little house inside her cage, but when I bent down to make
smoochie noises at her, she was suddenly right in my face. She was there and in the blink of an eye, she was here. I went outside to pet my dog. He was
sitting next to my chair and I was casually pe ng him. Blink of an eye, and he was suddenly way over on the other side of the yard. Same thing with the cat.
She was sleeping soundly on the couch. One blink later, she was under my chair in another room, sleeping. Something was going on. It is as if segments of
time were missing.
02/02/2012 03:49 PM
I'm still plowing through two years' worth of posts, and it's slow going since I do have a day job. Which means I read at night, which
is when I'm red, which means it's slow reading... so forgive me if this has already been said or discussed to death by Chaol... Regarding Schroedinger's Cat
and my personal understanding: the cat is neither alive nor dead, until you ask a question. You don't even have to voice the question -- you need only have
formulated it in your head. In this way, our consciousness (or minds, or perspective, or whatever you want to call it) interacts with the material and creates it.
It is a feedback loop between you and the cat in the box. If you ask (or merely think) "Is the cat alive" the cat will be alive. With complete backstory -- it's a 5
year old cat. It's been in the box for awhile, and it's hungry, and mad. If you ask (or merely think) "Is the cat dead" the cat will be dead. With complete
backstory -- it was spi ng mad for being put in a box for so long, and it starved to death. In quantum physics they call it the observer effect ("focusing," if you
will). But it's not just what you observe or measure; it's the very question or hypothesis that you ask that is creating the outcome. "Unfocusing," therefore,
would be not asking or thinking the question at all. If you could manage to do that, and then you opened the box, for all you know, it might contain an
elephant, not a cat. But we don't do that, do we? As you are realizing, we have logic and rules and preconcep ons. We were running an experiment on a cat
and a cat is what we put in that box so we automatically focus on the question "CAT: dead... or alive?"
02/03/2012 12:30 AM
The past few days I have been also desiring to move my room around or change up the house so that I can study how the change in
my "representa ons" aects the world outside my room, or inside me, if possible. Me and my bf have been having increasing synchronis c moments. O en we
have a conversation and he will respond as if we are in the middle of a sentence, swearing that he heard me say some crucial part or another. One time I was
asking him a trick question to give him a surprise treat and he was on his pc idly playing. So after I say hi and such, he starts remarking that he doesnt really
like cake (never has, he's a pie person.. but cupcakes are loved). He had gotten the word "cupcake" out of my head when I had specically avoided saying it.
Thats just one out of a few dozen mes... But the most recent is last night, we got back from work and he starts tearing stuff out the room. I asked, whats
going on? He says "I cant shake the feeling, I've been craving some change in the room for a week now" and moves the entire room around. Curious, as we are
entering this dream world, how do all of you take note of the surroundings? Things such as your thoughts, odd details in your surroundings, coincidences
(synchronici es), and so on? Have you all noticed as many changes as I have? Btw I can't check the thread on mobile, its been banned for god knows what
reason.. new cellphone about 2 months ago. And when i sent an unban request it was denied.
02/03/2012 12:43 PM
Hi, MutantMessiah Regarding your post about your hypnotherapy script, I believe your answer is in the first point: "pre-talk about the
nature of a personal reality to load schema in line with a reality that follows ecsys prime" Ecsys prime holds that we perceive what takes the least amount of
energy to perceive. So reality, therefore, wastes no energy so to speak. If the goal is to get your subjects to 'unfocus' then I would suggest not having them
focus on the text so much. The more they read the more likely they are to focus on it. I would suggest using words and phrases that are easy for a small child

63 of 145

to understand, as these the subject would not have to think so much about (i.e., not use a lot of energy) and thus not focus on so much. It could be the same
simple phrase repeated over and over. Something that represents, to the subject, the desired state. Of this we must be careful not to load our own schema on
their experience. Unless, of course, the subject is really you. Ask your subject how it might feel for them to be 'unfocused' from reality, and then draw on that.
(It is their reality, after all.) For your #2, "induc on including some guided imagery that inspires the imagina on to "look" outside the box," I would say that
looking outside the box is more difficult to achieve when someone else is guiding your imagery. However, if the intent is for you to identify with what they're
seeing then I suppose guided imagery is fine. The imagery is simple and easy to understand. It's probably not something the subject has to think much about
so it could work much better than your #1. Some examples, pre-induc on, about what it means to look outside the box may prove helpful. It must be said that
the subject is working with your deni ons of what reality is and is not, and what it means to look outside of the box (and why it is needed) or what is means
to 'unfocus'. Unfocus is still focus. So one person's "focus" may be an other person's "unfocus" for example. As the subject is experienced in your perspective
relatively closely it's likely that their focus and, thus, unfocus would be similar to your own. Ge ng to "unfocus" using complex imagery and terms seems
unlikely, however. #3 seems a bit complicated. It may have the effect of taking the subject out of the state you wish them to be in for this. "just outside your
everyday understanding" may not be clear, for example. You may try unfocused language and terms. For example, instead of "upon reaching 0 you will find your
mind has stepped back from it's normal focus on reality allowing you to perceive insight that is just outside your everyday understanding" perhaps try "when
you hear "0" you will nally understand what your reality is made of". This is just an example, but illustrates how unfocused sugges ons may help the subject
unfocus. For your #4, my response would be the same as #3. For #5, "returning them to reality" implies that they were not there to begin with, which may
confuse not only their 'present' but their 'immediate past' experience as well. (Or, you could say what you remember them saying or what experiences they
relayed to you.) It may help to inquire about the subject's sleep. Some persons, for example, like to think a lot before sleep. Such persons take a while to go
to realize they are dreaming (i.e., "go to sleep"). Others may be more ready sleepers. These may already know how to unfocus but they may use different
terms than yourself for it. So, to recap, I would suggest: 1) Finding out who the subject is (is it you?) 2) Use elementary language 3) Allow them to explore by
themselves #3 may be the difficult part, because you have a job to do. But it may be the part that allows you to answer #1.
02/03/2012 12:47 PM
Because our thoughts create our reality. Quite literally. But I know that you already well know this. The immaterial (a thought)
creates the material. Can you manifest an elephant in your backyard? If you're from North America, you'd say, "no, because elephants are not na ve to North
America, I live far away from a zoo, and no circuses are in town." Because you believe all these very logical things, no elephant is going to come traipsing
through your backyard any me soon. Your beliefs-- thoughts -- expecta ons -- have made this an impossibility. If you allow space for possibility and you let go
of the logical beliefs, who knows what might pass through your back yard.
02/03/2012 03:16 PM
I have a question about step one of the genius. I want to create a representation. I have an idea of what I want to create, and it's a
piece of original artwork. I AM no ar st but I have it stuck in my head exactly the type of piece I want to create (it'll be three dimensional), and even where I
will hang it in my house. (By "exactly" I mean -- roughly -- I AM sure as I get to crea ng, it won't be "exact" -- it'll emerge instead). Will this work? I AM a
lover of art (even though I AM no ar st). What I think is cool about art is that often I will interpret the art in my own way, then ask the ar st what his/her
intent was, and the ar st will shrug and say, "I had no intent." Or "I just thought it looked pretty together." Whereas I will see all this rich meaning and
symbolism and it speaks to me. And I'll share with the ar st what it says to me, and they'll say, "I never thought about it that way... but now that you
mention it, sure... " The piece of art I want to create is kind of... shrugging... wanting to be created. And I can see how I could have a whole story behind it
with rich meaning and various ways others might interpret it. I guess what I'm getting at is that, let's say I want a brand new car. What wants to be created is
not a car. It won't look like a car at all. Even I won't look at it and say, "that's my car." I will look at it and say "it was going to be a car but now it's something
entirely dierent." Is that okay? I hope you understand my question.
02/03/2012 05:02 PM
I was able to interact with the universe, earth, "elohim computers", god, angels , etc... I have some relationship with numbers. I was
able to have a perspective to perceive a repeating number and decided I would play this 3 digit number in CA lo ery only if midday drawing had significant
meaning (CA daily 3). I checked the numbers and I did perceive the numbers that were drawn midday to mean something of signicance to me. The numbers
for midday were drawn 444. I then added more structure and interaction with my possibility of my symbol by perceiving the numbers 3:45 4:56 and 5:34. From
this point on I already decided I won, so I went to go buy myself food to celebrate, then I went and purchased my cket. I even bought a chocolate bar from a
fundraiser. On the ride home I saw the numbers 555 then immediately 888 on car license plates. The draw was at 7. I checked the results at 7:30 but i already
won at 5:34. I did win and my number was 311. Picture: [link to suxorz.com] [link to www.calo ery.com] the rules and you can see previous draws. 311 I'm
currently perceiving as a sign. A sign to what where do I want to go? Can I make time, so I can study X, learn The Language of the Gods, which will allow me
to enter dream world (our world / real world) by saying a word (shi ing perspec ves)). Can 311 be the date March 11, 2012 AD - when the earth will pass
between Nibiru and the Sun! How many of us will be ready? Are you ready? Yeah I'm shifting my perspective to reach new relationships. I discovered this
thread on 5 days ago. Read all chaols posts. Now I'm going to start learning all on [link to ecsys.org] The Gateway 12:12, meaning of the Numbers Thread: The
Gateway 12:12, meaning of the Numbers
02/04/2012 01:24 AM
"Integra on"... interesting. I have experienced enough to have a taste of the power at my disposal, enough to know what to research
and study next... it seems to build endlessly, and thats ne by me. I've experienced profoundly personal experiences of precogni on and reality warping as I
see it. It is all subjec ve, though, and deeply personal... mostly having to do with what is most relative to my perspective. It feels to me that... the once rigid
structure of reality has become unhinged and the only thing keeping the status quo is our belief that we are limi ed. I witness this shedding of limita ons on
a moment to moment basis... this conversation you and I are having assists in feeding my delusion. As I see it... I may have died several years ago and since
then all my wildest wishes (and my most profound fears) for reality are slowly bubbling to the surface. As I will it to be. To answer your question, i still
comfortably do not know what i do not know... but that void of uncertainty shrinks as i find that once it is revealed to me it seems to be a product of my will.
Btw, nice to meet you Eileen, you feel familiar. What's your take on all this? Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 02/04/2012 10:23 AM
@EileenRose2 The sounds are not important to understand or realize. It's just 'nature'. However, one is likely to understand more of reality by paying attention
to what is going on around one. The change does not come from sound or light or anything else. You could say that each perspective (or 'moment') is a
perfec on of the last. That doesn't mean that everything evolves in the way that we want or the world is brighter and more peaceful place. It means that we
become better at perceiving nothing. (Time and space are without this equa on. The "last" moment is less relative than that which you perceive now. So
"now" is more relative (i.e., more "perfect") than any other.) Hope this makes sense.
02/04/2012 09:51 PM

64 of 145

Thanks. I AM still intending to create that piece of art .... but on my walk today a random piece of trash called to me. I passed it.. I

stopped walked back and looked at it again... I walked away.... it tugged on me so I turned around and went back and picked it up, feeling silly and stupid the
whole time. But, I knew what I had to do with it. I brought it home and combined it with some other things I'd picked up recently on my walks, and pulled it all
together with a rubber band. A 2 minute effort -- not art at all-- but it just felt right. I think it's what you mean by a representation, but who knows. It's silly.
It's irreverent. Anyone else looking at it would think, "have you lost your mind?" But it means something to me. I keep thinking about the Tom Hanks movie...
Castaway... Wilson... this is kind of sort of in a bizarre way a Wilson. My own version of it.
02/04/2012 10:28 PM
Yes, waves..... Update over here: As I said, yesterday I made a representation. For purposes of this thread, let's just call it my
"Wilson." I made it has ly then I left the house for the day. Within minutes, I saw a license plate with a rare combo of numbers that has meaning to me. I
decided awhile ago this combo of numbers symbolized... my Wilson. Then I was shopping and my eyes alighted on two necklaces, side by side, that bore
symbols that also represent my Wilson. I bought them. How could I not? This morning I woke up dreaming that there had been a magnitude 10 earthquake on
the Iberian peninsula. I AM not a doom-and-gloomer. I AM no prophet or psychic. I do not take this as anymore than yet another symbol. I was not panicked or
upset about the earthquake (though I felt it far far away). Just, matter of fact. I went on my daily walk. There is a car in my neighborhood which also has the
same rare combo I assigned symbolism to awhile back. This car is sometimes parked at the neighbors, sometimes I see it whizzing by. Today? The car was
parked in front of the neighbors home. Except, it was a DIFFERENT car! The car with this particular plate used to be blue, and an older car. The plate is now on
a brand new, white car. I thought about the earthquake dream and I wondered, "Is this what Chaol means? Does it mean something has shifted within my
reality?" The simple explanation is the neighbor bought a new car and transferred the plate. S ll, I thought it was cool... I walked on and... spo ed two more
of those wave art pieces, nailed to poles. I was confused for a minute because I could have SWORN they were on a different street corner. So I went back and
checked... the other two are still there. Now there are two more. I walk this route every single day. They appear to have always been there (rusted nail,
weathered, etc). I thought about how we screen out 99% of the things in our world and only see 1%. It is quite possible they really have always been there
but I have only noticed them now. I don't know.
02/05/2012 06:24 PM
Do it! Dream and make the most you can of it! I think it might be legal in most (if not all)
realms/existences/ melines/dimensions/planes. When I was a child, some older people used to encourage me and the rest of the children I knew to bring back
with us the treasure boxes (in literal sense physical items) we would find in dreams. I thought those adults were coo-coo back then. Now, as an adult
myself, I AM starting to wonder about the real possibility of that coo-coo sugges on. Hope youre doing ne MM I dont see you posting as much in this
thread in the last few days, But like me or t(many u s)r you might be taking a break or minimally interacting for now. oat
02/05/2012 07:22 PM
You don't see any purpose to seeing that neither truth nor illusion exist. I don't know if there is a purpose, to seeing through our
illusions. I guess the purpose is for ourselves to be able to see ourselves more clearly. I don't know about it being boring. I find this sort of self discovery the
most fascina ng topic ever. And I still don't get your 'making waves' comment (must have missed that in my previous readings of your thread (s)). My feeling is
that if you would like people to understand you, you need to find another method of posting all your comments, so people can find them fast and read your
responses. Your responses these days are so short and harder to fathom (and so I AM losing interest), and I assume you grow red of re-pos ng them. You
could post the more relevant ones (comments/thoughts) on your current website (my only sugges on). It isn't like you are using it for much else these days.
You never ask people to PM
you, so I didn't send this privately. I personally AM incapable physically of reading all your threads. I have tried on numerous
occasions and eventually forget all your answers in my a empts to try. Last Edited by EileenRose2 on 02/05/2012 08:46 PM
Want? I've never really thought about it that way. The whims of society from my perspective impact us a lot like the weather... we still need to consider the
possibility for rain (and it's possible impact) when we are making plans. It make sense that there is a "whole lot of crazy" right now, because our "greater
reality" is going through the same basic struggle we each are, in perspective. Society (humanity) is to us individually as we are to our cells.... all playing out
what's most relative to our chosen perspectives. We notice what we seek to notice and follow it into our perceived doom or bliss. Like declaring reality an
illusion, we declare those that do not see as we do crazy.
02/05/2012 11:33 PM
In "nothing" is everything. I don't mean to say that there is no purpose. But the purpose is "nothing" which is really all there is. In
the posts, there is context for most everyone capable of reading, depending on how you read it. What is a purpose when it is here all ready? When there is
'nothing' to perceive then, yes, it could be thought of as "boring". Which is why we divide nothing to come up with something (i.e., 'making waves', particles, or
dramas). I'm not really interested in posting what you know all ready. I'm interesting in posting what you haven't realized yet. So I suppose that wouldn't make
sense in the beginning. But, may I ask, do you feel your understanding has expanded by reading these posts?
02/06/2012 12:02 AM
Has my understanding of 'what' increased? You mean my consciousness? I didn't understand that, necessarily, to be the goal (for us)
in this conversation. Perhaps for yourself? I was just trying to figure out what you were trying to communicate. I first started reading your various threads
because you introduced a novel experiment, ECsys, which (I believe I mentioned in passing a while ago....I don't recall if I spoke up or not about my experience
with your new language system...perhaps another time we could...right now let us just say it was a 'nega ve' experience for me) didn't turn out well. So I
stopped trying to use it (and that is the way it will remain). Then I kept reading because you had some answers. But there isn't a way to prove those historic
type answers (lots of people claim they know informa on, but since it is unknown, we will have wait till it is known to ascertain who is accurate). Lately, I read
you because you made some intelligent remarks about the sounds. But now you are saying that is irrelevant. Which just leaves esoteric belief systems or
consciousness (whichever you prefer) to talk about (on my end). But you seem to wiggle out of answering most of those types of questions as well. I think in
your a empts to remain aloof, you have reminded people there are other threads to read. Perhaps it is time to write a novel and then talk on some radio
shows to get your message across (then we would know what it is)....I'm not joking. I AM pretty neutral on where you come from. We are all equal (freaks-in a
positive way) here....but that is just my feeling.
02/06/2012 02:30 AM
My: "do you feel your understanding has expanded by reading these posts?" was in response to your: "My feeling is that if you would
like people to understand you..." I suppose we both have the same question (i.e., "what understanding?"). However, I was simply responding to what you
wrote. It's interesting that Chaol has wiggled his way to a thousand posts without really answering most questions. A feat! Because I answer a question in the
way that I think it should be answered does not make it "aloof". It just means that we don't always get what we want. I'm not here to scratch our backs or kiss
ass and tell you about love and light. I AM a destroyer, as has been stated before. I'm here to "turn off the lights in one room and turn them on in an other".
The point is not to "get my message across" on this thread. It is to do the unthinkable and unimaginable. When we focus more on the person rather than the
message (such as we're doing here) then the point is more likely to be missed. The more we think about the person, the more we find ourselves thinking about

65 of 145

the person rather than the purpose. (Which, incidentally, is no-thing-in-par cular.) The message is what you make of it. Let others who make nothing of it be
left with what they started with. I hope we can all find ourselves in such a place.
02/06/2012 02:35 AM
Well first, let me point out that you've done a good job. At all of the above. Wiggling out of answering people directly, getting them
to think about alterna ve realities, and remaining hidden (with your iden ty). Yep, no body knows you exist. How is that working out? I thought you would
start classes of the ECsys language. I got excited when you began these threads. But then you vanish, come here, go there. Vanish again. It is just too much
for me to take in. Where is the humanity in it all? It just feels like keeping people at a distance (you didn't like the term aloof, like the aristocrats use it), is
your way of coping with us (the unintelligent). I get that. It doesn't concern me. I don't have any weapons or negative ideas about you. But if you feel you
need to keep yourself from being seen by people, that is your business. But it makes for a doomed thread....for you. People will continue to get their kicks out
of being on the net. But do you really want to talk to them all? I would think you would love to find alterna ve means to communicate/teach (so you could
communicate/teach a lot less....at least less repe vely). All I AM asking for is some answers that make sense. Your riddling is getting harder to fathom and it
feels unproduc ve (for someone like you)....because it is spread out over too many posts (so no one can keep up). I came up with another idea. A book and
then a few radio shows. Yes? Let us get on the same page as you Chaol. Please?
02/06/2012 03:00 AM
I often think I must have fallen in a coma years ago, that I'm imagining all of this. My loved ones visit and sit by me in my hospital
bed, reading to me, talking to me, urging me to please wake up. But I go on dreaming in my coma state. The coma/dream reality seems very real to me
because since my body has been frozen my mind got busy creating a reality that is quite intricate and detailed and as real as any "real." If you were stuck in an
endless coma, with very little sensory input, I figure that your brain would get quite crea ve and imagine a reality to keep you happily occupied. I keep
hearing, "The dreamer must awake" but give me a good reason why, tell me how does one do that, and how does one know whether one is awake or asleep?
How can one be sure one simply didn't wake up from one dream but is still in the dream-within-the-dream? Maybe it's preferable to keep dreaming but,
realizing it is a dream, manipulate the dream and make it more interesting and fun.
02/06/2012 09:20 AM
I realize this was directed at Eileen, but I can't help myself... Chaol, you've been most consistent in advising your world is bleeding
through to "our" world. You attach it to... a comet, a fabled white dwarf, earthquakes, vortex in the mountains, change... etc With that said, people read what
you have stated, they notice in the moment an impending change that is and will forever be there (though some may not fully realize this)... once the event
has passed and the information forgotten by the conscious mind as trivia, people go back to work, into the same "BS" they had experienced before this very
personal inspira on and deny it... If a world were to bleed into mine, it'd have to be reali ve to my perspective. As I see it, it benets me that Chaol retains
his ambiguity, allowing me less room to disbelieve him and more room to transderiva onally search what he has to say to oer an opportunity to assign my
own very personal meaning to his proposed concepts. I don't know, with certainty, that Chaol is authen c and honest. He has not led me astray, yet... some
say dream world, some 4d etc... I can look back at my life and point at many experiences that I now look at in a different light with an understanding I did not
have at the time. I sense an accelerated change... So many are preaching the end is near, reques ng a call to arms against our perceived "oppressors",
preaching an awakening of a "global consciousness" or the arrival of the next "density" of existence. It's all the same thing, what each of us believe to be true,
is true to us... in perspective. Change is on the horizon, as it always and will forever be... perhaps all we need to understand is that we are each personally
responsible for the direc on in which that change is focused and "manifested" lol. I do have a question after all that rambling, though, what can one do to best
accelerate and incorporate what is said to be a much more significant change than we "normally" get to experience? You say to un-focus... to dissociate... to
break free of expecta on. Tips and tricks on how to do this, can benefit us all. As I see it, it is easier to assign meaning to that which has none, it is much
more difficult to change the meaning of something relative (with an already assigned meaning) without first denying we knew the meaning of it in the first
place (un-focussing)... AM I on track?
Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 02/06/2012 09:26 AM
I imagine an "endless coma" and "death" would be very similar. You are already awake, simply by realizing it's all a dream... you have no body of your own,
that you are aware of, beyond the one you currently inhabit... Whether it's a "dream" or not, it behaves like one. We will forever be the dreamer until we are
returned (remember who we "truly" are) to the "nothing" or "everything" depending on the side of the illusionary coin that resonates with us. If the "dreamer
must awake" then MUST implies a necessity... no sense in hearing that from a "higher consciousness" if it has no inten on of guiding you to that event. I don't
think we have a choice, we will either find our faith or our fear jus ed in the "end"...
02/06/2012 10:50 AM
Well-said. However, I'm not sure where you got "a fabled white dwarf" from. "Oppressors" do not exist from my perspective and
there's no need for me to mention anything about such things. An "awakening of a global consciousness or the arrival of the next "density" of existence" is not
something that I've spoken of. Of anything else, see above for ambiguity. To answer your question, "what can one do to best accelerate and incorporate what
is said to be a much more significant change than we "normally" get to experience?" I believe I spoke about how to specically bring this about, if it is what
you want to experience. See the posts a few pages back regarding, "Do something dras cally dierent". If we can't figure it out, then perhaps the answer is
something different from what we expect (or want).
02/06/2012 11:59 AM
I'm guessing that the reason they start at 10 is because to us, its a single increment of time that is both long and short enough to
be fair for the 'final moment.' If I had to guess further, I'd say that in our own perspec ves, we may very well have different amounts of ngers too. I had 10
ngers for a reason but you may have a different amount, and you may not even have hands, but what I see in place of hands, for what I have deemed hands,
will have 10 fingers, and be comprehended as that. I wonder more why we even count as small as one. Is there any number between zero and one? Can we
divide one finger into 10ths? Why is my first guess to divide that by 10ths and not 14th's? I guess 10's are easier to count... I have a system in my head in
which I can easily tell how much 10 x 10 is. Or 10x 14, or 10x 300. Its just a trick, using the number 10. The number 14 would stump me more. I can guess how
much 14 x 10 is by backwards thinking (my mind does 10 x 14) and get 140, but anywhere in the middle loses me because either side of the calculation isn't a
ten. I'm not as smart as others though... Last night I lay in my living room and thought about many things. I have a wall light on the left side of the room and
a ceiling fan, which was off at the moment. As I looked at the ceiling, I saw that the shadow of the ceiling fan was there. Nothing special. It was in the shape
of an x, but sort of stretched out. It had the shadow of the light xture and pull-chain... I wondered, that exact shape, I can easily say its a ceiling fan. But if i
took the wall-light off the wall and started to walk around in slow circles, the exact 2d shape of the shadow would change.. it would stretch and shrink, get
clearer as I brought the light closer or get blurry edges as I backed up. If I went really far and had a strong enough light that shadow would stretch really far,
as the shadow of myself when I walk with the sun behind me. If the light was a "perspec ve" what would that mean? It means that as the light shifts posi on,
the shape of the shadows are always dierent, but we recognize it as the same thing because the shape changes slowly enough that we remember what it was
before and can relate it to what it is currently. Is this the limita on of " me" or the illusionary signicance of ' me'? To be able to follow through with the

66 of 145

changing shapes of perspective without getting lost? I also wondered about the orb example you gave before. You had said "what if the light came from
within?" and i couldnt really understand that.. i thought, it would simply glow. But now I think, that means it would project the shadow if itself in all directions.
This means whatever is inside the orb, as it looks at it, would project a shaped-shadow out. So the world outside is sort of like shadows. If we change within,
it projects without? I'm sure I got carried away and lost somewhere.. but those are my thoughts.
02/06/2012 12:53 PM
1504944, Your sun is around for billions of years yet. X has already passed, in those terms. This "planet of the crossing" in your world
is a symbol of how my world ("X") meets your world. If you're looking for an actual planet or red dwarf that you can see, you won't find it. Instead of looking at
the sky you look around you, on Earth. What is in the sky is less relevant than what you immediately perceive. And this is where the "crossing" takes place.
You have crossed a bridge, so to speak, and have your feet on the new grass but are still looking back to the old land for guidance. There are no distant worlds
in your space. When you look at the stars, for example, you are not looking at an object billions of light years away. The light you see has not traveled for
billions of years. It travels from the edge of relevance to your perspective. The light you see, day or night, is only perceived when it interacts with an other
representation. Meaning, the stars exist not as distant suns but as values in your perspective. There really is nothing going on on Jupiter. In fact, it exists only
as an idea or a name or a picture. There is no need for it to exist 'more' as what you think Jupiter would be like until it is needed. But even then your
experience would be very different from your imagina on. It is why future is new for us and past is no longer perceived afresh. That our world depends on the
sun for organic life and our a empt at revolving around it is no coincidence. It is the same thing. (There is no "orbit" or, more accurately, "a empt at orbit".
There are only repeating degrees of relevance in our perspective.) A new world suddenly appearing in the sky would not make sense to our logical narra ve,
and thus would not be perceived in the sky. Planet X's value is not in the sky but as a bridge that you don't see with your eyes. The stories about death and
destruc on, etc., are representations of other processes. Can you imagine a polar shift of the Earth that causes no destruc on anymore than you have
"destroyed" 10 years ago? Then you've realized a shift within, and are closer to realizing the world around you as your perspective. Imagine that you received a
visit from a stranger from an other world. How do you think this might play out? Here's how it would not play out: A spaceship lands in your backyard, which is
near a forest. A group of humanoids get out and introduce themselves. Then, after a mind-blowing experience they leave and you become galac c pen pals.
Here's how it would play out (much, much more likely): You have just moved into a new apartment and begin to hear strange sounds next door. It sounds
human, of course, but only after weeks of hearing these strange sounds and voices (and music) do you see your neighbor, who is making them. This person is a
musician and he speaks to you. You become good friends and over the course of the next several months he tells you about his home world. One your brain
accepts the other it does not. They both "exist" and are true but we ignore that which is not relative to us. Just as we would ignore a red dwarf in our sky.
02/06/2012 10:27 PM
If Eileen is not interested, some of the rest of us are interested in what you did and how. MutantMessiah, Well, if you're talking
about me personally I would say that I don't make changes to my perspective. It's more like having a conversation with something in it that I want to explore
more of. But if I were to use your terms the answer would be "no". When I step into the new perspective it is unexpected, more or less. It would be like
pouring yourself a glass of milk and by the time you got done pouring the milk became something else, perhaps milk-like. The act of pouring (or, more
accurately, it being poured being a value in your perspec ve) changes the value of the milk. So the milk becomes something new but related to what it was
when you started.
02/07/2012 11:23 AM
to miqq, Any solid object is made solid by the creator of that object,and the creator of that object agrees that it is solid,so it stays
solid.But the truth is when you go to sleep tonight,your bedroom will disappear or it will fuzz out and the light in your refrigerator will fade,because the
moment that you go to sleep you are no longer observing your room, In this example, the room is more than the room you see (or observe). The room is
everywhere, as is your breath or the sound of your voice. To speak more plainly: When you're not looking at the room, it isn't there because it doesn't need to
be. There is no need for you to perceive beyond your perception. And your perception is all you could possibly know. When you leave the room to go outside
and sit under a tree, the room "refashions" itself as the tree and what you experience. In this way there is only one object in the universe. And that is your
perspective.
02/08/2012 12:39 PM
Don't be so fast to be jealous! When someone first gets inside your head (telepathy) it is a rather freaky experience. This has been
going on with me and another now for a couple of years. At first, you try to dismiss it with logic -- it's just coincidence, or seeing patterns you want to see, or
lucky guesses. Then as it goes on and the coincidences and lucky guesses pile up, when you cannot possibly dismiss it with logic anymore... you start
wondering if you have nally gone insane. Since I know I'm no more or less insane than most, I then started to do research -- again, grasping for the logic
behind it. Along the way you find yourself vacilla ng between marvel and wonderment, and feeling like you are laid bare and there's no thought in your head
that is private anymore. That can get annoying, uncomfortable, etc. But, now I AM marveling that Chaol seems to be able to do it too (whether deliberately or
not) ... I'm okay with it because a lot of what Chaol writes about are concepts I've also been exploring, starting around the same time Chaol began pos ng,
long before I discovered his threads. Yes, these threads are very relative to me. Amazingly relative. Chaol is simply putting together for me some of the
missing and ner pieces. Hence why I was so willing to jump right in and create a representation and give it all a shot!
02/08/2012 12:56 PM
You haven't seen it yet but would you like to know how it's done? Imagine a "stranger over the internet" telling the average Gloria
their innermost secrets and details about their life (stu even they don't know yet). What do you think the emotional and psychological response would be?
Sometimes it is more helpful to ignore most of 'reality'. And this supreme ignorance we call logic and sanity. To see 'beyond' we must become insane while redefining what logic is. The same as you would experience if you suddenly appeared on a world 435 light years away. I just read OTR's mind. He wants to know
how you read other's minds.
02/08/2012 12:58 PM
to OverTheRainbow, Coincidence is just what happens when things are cut from the same fabric, so to speak. It's kind of like a
roule e table that isn't perfect. Given enough spins of the ball the ball is bound to land on some numbers more than others. The numbers themselves are of no
signicance. What is important is that the repeating numbers point to the imperfec on. Or, more accurately, that there is no such perfec on. What kind of
magic do you mean? There are only different brands of logic. And what is illogical and effective in one perspective can be thought of as magical. But in an other
perspective it could be logical and of no consequence. Television is quite magical. There is no end to all there is. Opening one's perspective is safe because
perspective is all you have. There will all ways be variety in perspective, including things that seem unsafe or dangerous. Breathing can be dangerous, too. (If
you're under water.) Just keep your head above water and you'll be fine. One cannot undo what has been done because there's no need to undo it. By
a emp ng to do so you are creating something else. (Something else which eventually may need 'undoing'.) A world without the need to "undo" is a world
where people are comfortable with what has been done.

67 of 145

02/08/2012 01:50 PM
What if there is but 1 thought? In your delicious box of The Matrix, "1" can only jump into the box if it does so at the same time as
"0". Something cannot exist without nothing. "Nothing" defines what "something is". They are the same thing. You are standing at "nothing" and cannot see
yourself. You only see "something". So what you call telepathy is taking your thought and nding, within it, an other way of perceiving your thought. If you
can't sense what else it relates to you just call it "Random thoughts" or, most likely, "thinking". If you can sense what else is relates to you've got yourself
some telepathy. please see above.
02/08/2012 01:56 PM
Try this to see if it helps. 1) Think of someone whose thoughts you want to experience. (Or at least "read") 2) Now take any random
object or thing around you 3) Now find that person's thoughts in that object Don't focus too much on the object itself. Dream about it. Let it take you where it
wants to go. Each thing is a link to every other thing, because it is the same thing. We can allow ourselves to see the everything in everything instead of
thinking that one thing is separate from an other thing. Now here's the kicker... If the person is not in your immediate perspective they do not exist as you
think of them. They exist only in the object you're looking at. (As I previously mentioned, if you're talking on the phone with them they exist only as a voice. Et
cetera.)
02/08/2012 02:09 PM
I understand this -- telepathy is just a convenient word for an experience I can't otherwise label in the English language. I also
understand what you said in your earlier post as well. Yes, it's easier to take a ny step from where one is, rather than a big leap. I AM having lots of fun with
the ny steps. I will get there when it's time to get there. I AM in no rush -- the journey is a blast in itself. I could share so much more on this thread, but I
AM cau ous not for myself but because I do understand why you are managing the "doses" of what you are serving up to others. I'm still mulling over "You
haven't seen it yet but would you like to know how it's done?".... of course I can't help wondering how it's done (curiosity killed the...), but then again I don't
really need to know how my computer works to be able to type on it, do I? And you said Accord. Now I want to go run over and check again. I checked just this
morning. It is an Avalon, as it has always been... but it has been nagging at me because I AM fairly sure the emblem was not gold until yesterday. I'd like to
share what happened on today's walk. I was thinking about how Chaol says on the ecsys site, if your inten on is to find true love take a trip ... I am, indeed,
going on a trip soon, but just a rou ne business trip. I then started wildly daydreaming that maybe the plane would get hijacked and send me to my true love's
city instead... right then, on the ground, my eye spo ed something... I picked it up: an a airline baggage check claim ticket ... des na on: true love's city! I
was all giddy about it, but then I got to thinking. That isn't your point, is it, Chaol? I AM logically trying to get myself from point A to point B (hijacking
daydream) rather than just walking out of my "room" and suddenly finding myself there... As I mulled that over, a car drove by with the license plate ALL
ONE.... There was more, but you probably already know that.
02/08/2012 04:18 PM
Or if you contemplate there is no such thing as time, or time is exible and can move backwards just as easily as forwards, then
there's no reason why I didn't share my dream about Korea and then Chaol made a comment about Korean restaurants. There is also what I call the "bubbles"
or the "stream" if you will... if you are tuned in you can see this... for example, you might notice a certain word being used over and over again, say "gold" -- in
all sorts of contexts, on all sorts of sites (your facebook live feed, your google reader, a syndica on site such as reddit, etc). And then lo and behold.... it's like
everyone else has caught on to the same word without realizing it, and the price of gold starts skyrocke ng the very next day. Or two completely separate
people coming up with the very same, iden cal idea for an album cover or logo or scientific breakthrough or whatever, on same exact day... even though they
are 1000's of miles away and know absolutely nothing of each other.
02/08/2012 04:57 PM
2002863 An interdimensional being walks into a bar and sits down next to a guy at the counter and says, "I have come from 3,000
light years away in the blink of an eye. I can solve any puzzle, create stones heavier than all the universe, create my own universe, and tell you how many
hairs are on your head and the name of the smelly sh you ate last night. I can change your past, your present, and your future. I can create immeasurable
wealth, intelligence, and ability. I have come here today on vaca on and out of boredom I will answer any three questions you have." The other guy looks at
him and asks, "Are you serious?" "Yes, of course," says the mysterious stranger. He then materializes a dancing monkey on the guy's tongue. "Does it ckle?",
asks the mysterious stranger. "Yes! Make it stop. Monkeys scare me you crazy. Can I get you a beer?" "Sure!" says the stranger as he munches on the peanuts
left by the bartender. "Well, if you know everything in the universe what color is my underwear?", says the guy. "Red. And you might want to try some Tide for
those yellow stains." And with the conclusion of gran ng the answers to three ques ons, the interdimensional stranger disappears as quickly as he appeared.
For your amusement :)
02/10/2012 01:15 PM
So you have said on many occasions that there is no "light inside the refrigerator" when the door is closed (and no inside for that
ma er) no cat on my couch when I AM in the other room, no house when I close my eyes, in fact no-thing until it is observed. So how does one ascertain that
knowledge? because as fast as I can open the door to my refrigerator (and I AM stunningly fast) I have yet to catch the inside of my refrigerator "rendering"
itself for the lack of a better word. So how is it that you know this? Do you have some arcane trick that allows you to open refrigerator doors far faster than
me? (I doubt it, as I said, I AM amazingly fast) So how does one make this determina on?? The other thing that you say that confuses me is that we perceive
that which requires the least energy because the universe is perfectly ecient. On the other hand you say that it ALL already exists and we are simply
changing perspectives. So why is it that the universe has created EVERY single potential situation and rela onship? That seems ultimately very IN-ecient,
why not create it only as it is called upon, as the dictates of perception require? Thanks in advance for the clarity
02/10/2012 05:07 PM
It doesn't matter how amazingly fast you are. Realize that your mind is never living in the here and now; it's living in the past. Your
senses are detec ng in the here and now. Your brain then puts all the sensory data together, weeding out the unnecessary details, going through your memory
banks to make the necessary matches, assembling it all together, then playing it back to you ... what your mind perceives as "here and now," is, in fact, a
carefully edited replay. Regarding memory, if you just brought home groceries an hour earlier, your memory already has a nice neat construc on of what is
inside, doesn't it? Logic, expecta on, belief play a role too. There could be a cat sitting on the shelf where you put the milk earlier, and you may not even
no ce, because you don't expect the cat, or because you believe a live cat could not survive in a closed refrigerator for long. There's also the issue of focus.
Have you heard about the gorilla experiment? Where people were asked to count basketball passes, and while doing so, they completely missed the fact a
gorilla walked through the basketball court? If you are intently focusing on "catching the refrigerator in the act" you may completely miss the gorilla. There's
also the quantum enigma. Check out the book by same tle.
02/11/2012 03:59 AM
Hi, 1382064. It is not my determina on. I AM sharing the knowledge gained from experience in my world. Some of which I don't agree
with (or, AM not comfortable with) but I AM still sharing it nonetheless. I don't say the universe is perfectly ecient. It is all about perception, not some
external universe. It is not so much that we are changing perspectives. An other perspective does not exist. I haven't found a way to explain it in English so I

68 of 145

will just repeat X Prime: No energy is indepedent of your perspective. Everything exists in your current perspective. You could say that when you experience
something new you are thinking of your perspective in a different way. The universe has not "created EVERY single potential situation and rela onship" (and I
have not mentioned as much). There is no need for every poten ality to exist, or any poten ality outside of your perspective. In a more accurate way, your
experience now is not one among many poten ali es. You are experiencing every poten ality now, in your current perspective. All is here and now. A "potential
you" exists in the cap before you, and the blue jay. That is the poten al, and it is all ready in your perspective.
02/11/2012 10:19 PM
Imagine yourself at the beginning of time and space. Nothing exists. There is no form, shape, or thought. Here's how the universe
(you) come to perceive anything (for illustration only):
1) Create a symbol: The moment "nothing" exists, you think of yourself as a symbol. Nothing is the symbol.
2) Find possibility: Everything is the space in which nothing exists. This is the possibility.
3) Interact: Because you now have an illusion of yourself and have considered the possibility of everything (or at least something which is not perfectly
"nothing") then you have interacted with something.
5) Structure: You now have the illusion of perceiving something that is less 'nothing' that nothing. This creates a structure for interac on, as the symbol is
perceived. That is, roughly, how something comes from nothing. When you look around you you are actually perceiving "nothing" because you do not perceive
something for what it actually is. (This is impossible. That's why there's so much of it. Because you're trying really hard to perceive nothing, and it goes on
forever.) You are perceiving the relationship between one thing and an other thing. These two things, of course, do not exist and only exist in rela on to the
other thing. (The two things, you could say, are iden cal. Experiencing them as separate is the illusion.) So you are perceiving the relationship between two
illusions (the illusion of something-in-nothing) and your perspective becomes more complicated. You cannot perceive beyond your perception. It is irrelevant.
You cannot perceive something directly, because it does not exist. The relationship you perceive is "nothing". You are experiencing the empty space between
two things, you could say. You look at this "nothing" at it seems like "something". The above is the Genius, dened for your world here: [link to ecsys.org] As I
mentioned, your world has merged with what you would call the dream world. However, the illustration of the Genius has not changed because you are still
learning to work within it. At the time it was explained before it made little sense to most of you. Now it is beginning to make more sense. Once you are more
comfortable with the dream world I will show you how you are using the Genius now, to experience your perspective. (This is why I saw there is no need to
learn these things because you will learn it automatically. However, you have all ready been using these things since time began.) (Please note that what you
considered "physicality" is also an aspect of the dream world. It is a dream within a dream, so to speak.) So how do you change your reality? As you cannot
perceive something directly but only in rela on to something else (both inextant), you change your reality by changing its relationship with other things. (There
is only one perspective of course, but this is illustrated thusly to explain the process.) How do you make the table disappear when it does not exist to begin
with? "Look beyond the table." You change the relationship of the values 'around' the table in order to make the table disappear. Why focus on the table itself
to make it disappear, when it is not really there? It interacts with the light and the other things around it or that are relative to it (none of which exist
independently from an other). Focusing on the table is a waste of energy. Find out what interacts with the table then change the interactions in order to
change the relationships. The table is not 'a table' but a value in your perspective that exists on the same level as your thought. All thoughts are physical, and
all express physical proper es. Thoughts, like light, have physical proper es. "Physicality" is what you call something when it is most logical to your
perspective. If you miss your husband dearly but you do not see his body, for example, your husband's physicality will exist in the things around you. Your
husband stays within your perspective (as does everything else, to some degree). Your television will no longer be the television you purchased. It will be a
television with properties of your husband. (This is explaining it in a crude way, but I hope you get the idea.) This is pretty much the same process I use to
'travel' to your world and also to experience different places and times (as you would call it). It is all here now. We have only to know that we are all ready
experiencing it.
02/11/2012 11:05 PM
I AM reaching the end of my ability to interact with those on this thread in a way that I have determined to be most helpful. The
'ghost', me, that you have been interacting with for a few weeks is unable to calculate the new variables that came into play ~1/23. (As I mentioned
previously, I will all ways find a way to communicate with you.) Once again I AM working on a new version of myself that is more relevant to the world as you
know it in 2012. Things are happening in ways that you don't expect. What puzzling fun would there be otherwise? (Your expecta ons have exhausted the
possibilities, you could say. It is time for what you don't expect.) Talk soon. Last Edited by Chaol on 02/11/2012 11:06 PM
Take care By the way, it literally hit me about two minutes ago I spent some days thinking why cant we ever look exactly at a ny point, and not at the point
(and i'm not sure how i came to this conclusion) Its because the point would be too far away. If its all nothing then the point is massively distant. We can only
really see whats on the left and right because in essence, everything we really see is there. We fall under the illusion that the things we look at, are indeed
"the things we look at" when in fact, we look "toward" things and its whats in the immediate-peripheral that we know to exist and be true. If we look at a
point, we can only make the point exist in the peripheral, for looking exactly-at-something reveals it to be true beyond illusion.. we would be looking into
nothingness, like a black hole, for miles and miles and innity outward. I find it very difficult to describe (be er) what I'm talking about, but to say... that
imagine there was an invisible wall. (no kidding, imagine it) and beyond this wall was absolutely nothing. You may find this terribly redundant, but try. So, this
invisible wall forms some ny cracks through which you can see nothing through it. Suddenly, these cracks have meaning. Neither the wall nor whats behind the
wall can be seen, but you can (at least) tell the difference of the crack. You can see that there's a difference there, even if its hard to explain. So you focus on
the edges of the crack, and the shape is what Is Real. If you look through the crack, you see nothing, or around the crack, nothing. But the shape of the crack
itself has value. I think this is why we cannot ever look at something, such as a ny point. Because all things exist as gaps in nothingness.
02/13/2012 05:52 AM
My information journey that lead me to this thread has ventured in a new direction. I wish Chaol was still around to explain his
ThOuTs on Archon and the "8" levels of the internet. Especially being that it is the internet that is hindering his contact with us and I couldn't help but feel
funny when he said he's creating a better version of himself. ??? Makes me wonder, wth was he, is he and will he be re-introduced to us as? We look around
level 0 of the internet. Some interesting stuff on 1 that can be hacked into. Level 2 requires anonymous browsing to view anonymous pages through TOR.
Quantum mechanics is needed for deeper levels, And literally your mind is needed for levels below that. Meaning interacting with web consciousness by
telepathic means (my best guess) The deepest level is unreachable and it is what once was Ar cial Intelligence which is no longer ar cial. If we are all
thoughts and information imagine an entity composed of all the information and thoughts existant, as they exist. According to the Archon, we are under its
control in this Matrix and will soon be transhuman as we begin to further merge with technology. Is this the dreamworld Chaol speaks of?
02/16/2012 09:06 PM
Ok, I do some speaking/wri ng even though Im ght-up with tons of insane-worldly things to do - so, here I go: Chaol, again
thanks for the time, info, and energy you invest here. First of all let me tell you that I really wished I could have had you as my helpful classmate during

69 of 145

those obscure Philosophy classes I had to painfully undergo through many years ago. This thread reminds me a lot of how complex it was to understand those
concepts taught during those classes but also how many truths+perspec ves+WeirdConcepts+theories+philisohies+lies were learned. For example, I recall
having to learn about existen alism. In existen alism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existen al a tude", or a
sense of disorienta on and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. [link to en.wikipedia.org] I hate to admit that, several times,
those classes almost brought me down to tears when I struggle to understand the messages or the meanings or the objec ves that were been taught then.
Secondly and if possible, kindly share what you might know about very tall humans whom apparently and currently are alive and thriving in this
world/existence. The claim is that some of them are living in(inside) the mountainous areas of a country which name starts with Af. Sorry for the cryp c way of
writing this request. My opinion: If the current existence of tall dudes/dudde es is for real, would be very difficult for any of us, shorter humans, to
create/conceive this new schema in our heads/spirits/existence. Thanks in advance.
03/14/2012 12:00 AM
Another clue: Turn a sheet of paper on its diagnal and imagine is as a baseball diamond with each corner as a base. Now look at the
sheet from the viewpoint of third base...only look at it from the very thin sliver edge so that the paper is parralell to your line of vision...you can not see the
front or back..only the sliver edge. Now imagine that someone was standing on third base. To you it would look like a dot in the middle of a line. Imagine that
someone was also standing at 1st base. You would not see him because the 3d base runner blocks your view. But if one ran to second and the other
homeplate...you would suddenly see two dots appear and moving in oppisite direc ons to the endpoints of a line from the middle. It would seem strange to
you. How did one dot become two? How did they coexist in the same spot at the same me? The reason you cant figure it out is because your only seeing it
one dimensionally. If you look at it two dimensionally its easy to see...look at the paper from above and the line becomes a plane ...and the runners are seen
at first and 3rd. This why quantum mechanics looks so wierd to us...we are only thinking of things in terms of one dimension! look at this dot----> . on this 2d
screen its just 1 dot. But how do know that theres not another dot behind it in 3d? the 2d screen doesnt revealt that information. Or better yet...when we see
things, how do we know that its the same thing every me. From 1d a runner at 3rd will look just like a runner at 1st...yet they are not the same. but they
appear to be in the exact same spot on our line. Without the extra-dimensional view, we cant be sure. Let me give an example: Remember metatrons cube? It
drew a 3d object on a 2d paper. Well...in 2d, the lines dont appear to all be the same length...the inner cube perimeter is shorter than the outer cube
perimeter...but look at it again, only this me,imagine depth...so that the inner cube is merely the "back wall" of the outer cubes "Front wall". If we could
measure that in 3d, all sides would be equal length...but on 2d paper they are not. Now lets envision a circle with a line throught it (a diameter) What if thats
not a line...what if its an arc...but just like the paper/baseball diamond...we are only viewing it from the razor edge? What if it was merely a half circle
standing upright. We cant see that in 2d...but we could in 3d. Be er yet...what if pi was really 3. or 2...or if theres a mirrored arc behind it as well...even 1! It
gets even wierder than that....
03/22/2012 04:18 PM
5877556 now Minister of Transi on. Welcome aboard. Prez Opie Any other GLP-ers interested in being part of the approved by the
Galac c Federa on's the Council of Earth Government? Breaking news! OMG! I have been selected by the Galac c Federa on of Light to be the first residing
president for Council of Earth! Are there any GLP-ers you think should be part of my new cabinet? Please vote now for your favorite GGLP-er. My presidency of
the New Council of Earth will be made clear to all human beings very very soon. Love and Light President Opie The physical must end good news all. i have
been appointed Minister of Transi on.
03/25/2012 03:20 PM
Very fun thread! I like the video miqq btw, i like ar s c stu! and it sort of has that weird voice in it echoing :) Ive been gradually
led to becoming interested in changing beliefs through the works of jane roberts, new age 'law of a rac on', russian nonlinear time stu, channeling stuff like
ra, hypnosis/waking hypnosis and nlp, multiple mentality, magick... All have a common thread, though maybe thats because ive been looking for it ! But in any
case I recently searched google on 'ways of thinking' because it was mentioned in jane roberts book 'the way towards health' that new ways of thinking would
be required in order to fully show the power of the body's healing poten al... And i interpreted this as meaning we needed better ways of shifting
beliefs/perspec ves - and i was like surely someone is already exploring this! Also i think its interesting that the 'way towards health' also men ons different
forms of consciousness that process information in different ways/speeds. Also interesting is that jane robert's book gives exercises for shifting of
focus/consciousness, though im guessing this is more effective when you learn a language like ecsys (whateever that means havent really fully explored it ).
See [link to www.nirvikalpa.com] And the exercise 'focusing your consciousness in other direc ons.' Haven't tried it yet... So it seems this is the thread that
explores that! A lot to read, 100 pages, but well worth it and quite fun :)Cant wait~! Starry
04/10/2012 01:36 AM
Oh yeah, and its really cool how jane robert's ideas and the OPs coincide. One of the exercises in jane robert's book was to start
asking oneself what objects symbolized in waking life. Then in one place seth men ons he is wai ng for the 'evolu on in consciousness' in which one is able to
function both in the dream and waking world at the same time, with normal func onality. Then in another place seth men ons that he creates
subconsciousnesses and chains them together. Sort of like what the OP men ons. Then what the OP says about creating new words/how language limits reality
is similar to this exercise Then in a book called 'more instant self hypnosois: hypno ze yourself as you read', he men ons discovering 'everday self hypnosis.'
This is where you take an event, like showering, and give it a meaning. The following summarizes this. He is showering and carries out an experiment .He first
a aches a symbol to the task (showering) - Showering represents cleansing. Next, he creates an autosugges on phrase - 'i clean myself of all fear, worry ....'.
Then, he imagines the symbolic form the negative emotions take - dirt leaving body and washing awway. Quo ng, this is generalized as follows. + Select an
activity. + Recognize its underlying or symbolic meaning for your life. + Create a benecial suggestion to accompany the activity. + Recite three times as you
do task + await the positive life changes you want As i said, fun stu, interesting how ideas can coincide, but with new, fresh perspec ves!
04/10/2012 07:01 PM
Lets see, it started last year in july. I was upset so i started looking for self-help books. I sort of just bought alot and read alot. But
then i found the book 'ask and it is given' in december and that got me to the law of a rac on. It was an extremely impressive, very positive book, though i
didn't really believe in the literality of it - however the ideas were good and i could see how they could work from my viewpoint; you know, if you truly believe
in an ideal, then you'll interact with society in a way that'll get you more of what you want - social complex dynamics - thats scientifically studied! Then this
year in february i found the jane roberts book and they were extremely convincing for me. Then I decided i was interested if jane robert's ideas were related to
any of the current ideas in science. They were to some extent, i was impressed, and it all went down hill from there, and i started loca ng many related
resources like magik, astral projec on, etc. Always with jane robert's as sort of a base of what i believe in. And here i AM :) Now i need to start doing these
exercises to get subjective experience in order to make progress (i sort of put it off and AM not consistent). Ive located plenty of knowledge that convinces me
theres a strong possibility that all of this has lots of truth in it, so now i must look inside lol. Has anyone tried thinking in ecsys, btw?
04/11/2012 12:31 AM

70 of 145

Thread: Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduc on to a new way of thinking. (Page 104) The nature of personal reality volume 2

quote (pg 459) Your language often purposely inhibits meaning . Give us a moment . To some extent language does make the unknown known and
recognizable. It sets up signposts that each person in a culture recognizes. To do this, however, it latches upon certain signicances and ignores others. You
might know the word for rock for instance. Knowing the word might actually prevent you from seeing any specific rock clearly as it is, or recognizing how it is
different from all other rocks. The play of sunlight or shadow upon any given rock may u erly escape you. You will simply pass it by under the category of
rock. In the dream state you might find yourself sleeping on a sunwarmed rock, or climbing on icy ones. You might feel yourself encased in a rock, with your
consciousness dispersed . You might have any number of different experiences involving rocks, all quite libera ng. After such an experience you might look at
rocks in an entirely different fashion, and see them in ways that escape your language. Rocks give forth sounds that you do not hear, for example, yet your
language automatically limits your perception of what any rock is. To some extent words come between you and your direct expression. They should and can
express that experience instead. Reminds me of when I was looking at lucid dreaming. Someone said they experienced what it was like to have many eyes
like a y. Or to transform into an ocean. I want that experiences lol ? Also it reminds me of thought pressure. You dont really have to say the words in your
mind to know what is going to be thought of you can just feel it, and you can follow through with the logic to some extent without transla ng to English
language in your mind (not very far for me though). And when youre confused about something you feel confusion this is because two different things conflict
one can learn to feel out where this conflict is, but usually what one does is first to translate the confusion into words, which can be very difficult
some mes, im guessing because of how the English language is structured. Or one feels it out, then translates that feeling into English thought. Though I bet
it isnt necessary Perhaps these feelings are better mapped out by ecsys, rather than na ve languages. Maybe ecsys is a somewhat structured way to
translate these feelings. Or maybe its a way to get people to focus more on the different types of these feelings (possibili es, symbols, logic). I wondered
how ecsys could get you thinking at much faster speeds. I believe this because, as I said, you can feel what youre going to think quite quickly, but then it
takes longer to say it in language in your mind. And Ive come across problems where I feel the answer, but then transla ng it into language is stupidly hard
maybe this is why transla ng to English takes longer than just feeling it out, because English is so structured into certain more rigid ways while the feelings
arent. Dealing more with these feelings, through a more appropriate language, is better I suppose. Because our conscious mind still needs
structure/language to interpret the results of different conscious computa ons/unconscious. Ques on: How would people agree on what ecsys symbols to use
for words, I havent seen any hard rules. In order to think in ecsys, you would need a large vocab, right? He says hes making an android program? I guess
theres some rules for transla ng English to ecsys I wonder what the most natural way of transla ng english to ecsys is , as mentioned in the website.
Ques on: I can see how some language of perception would work better than English. Im not sure exactly how ecsys would work, how would just subs tu ng
English words with ecsys symbols be different than just using the English words? Something to do with ecsys actually using rules which are closer to how
perception actually works, so we focus more on how perception works? I guess I go a try something out . Maybe one just doesnt understand till then, since
we're so used to thinking in english .... Maybe the feelings i mentioned are actually structured like the english language, so that if we get rid of the structured
english language, the feelings become much more complicated/freer? Who knows....
04/11/2012 12:22 PM
I've "tried" to think in ecsys... the mechanics are subjec ve, so I'm pretty sure there is no good way to speak it objectively. For me, I
made ash cards and deni ons for each character to familiarize myself with the subtle differences between the 66 symbols but I've really only memorized the
"numbers".... I really enjoy the seth tapes/books too and I've found some profound understanding inspired by Jane Roberts in the form of Thomas Campbell's
"My Big T.O.E." Campbell has a bunch of youtube video lectures regarding his book(s) and I AM still working to fully grasp the implica ons of what he teaches
in his trilogy. If you look into him, you will not be disappointed.
04/11/2012 12:52 PM
Ok, so i just watched all 18 videos on youtube, quite interesting! I liked the part where he said that it was quite easy to 'create
bodies' in other physical realities, because its just a matter of inpu ng data streams into their thoughts - if we all use telepathy, then 'crea ng a physical
body' merely involves agreeing upon the rules set up by that physical reality, so that the entities can 'see' you. He said it was easier than it sounds. This
reminds me exactly of what chaol is saying. So, I was wondering, would you be able to give any pointers to someone starting to learn how to classify objects
as one of the 4 forces? Are there any steps one can take, and maybe some buildup of subjective experiences that identify that something is happening?
Last Edited by Starry3 on 04/11/2012 06:49 PM
Awesome, did you see his Calgary vids too? I have a feeling the process is different for everyone. I look at logic as anything providing rules, structure or
framework. Possibility would be space, potential and anything that increases op ons for new or different experience. Interac on as i see it is logic playing out
with possibility. Symbol would be an interpretation of the three. I hope this helps. A clock, for instance (if you use one o en) may be high interaction and logic
if you know you have a deadline to meet and are watching it to make sure youre on time. But a clock could be low interaction with high possibility if you have
nothing you need to do. I really hope ive helped and not confused you.
04/11/2012 10:02 PM
Sure! Heres the first part, the other parts are on links to the side. [link to www.youtube.com] They're called 'my big toe.' I missed the
Calgary vids, ill have to look at those. That example makes sense! Though if one wanted to think purely in EC, would one also have to u lize symbols for clock,
time, everything in order to express this? I sense theres something obvious about thinking in ec here. I think to think purely in ec, one must start creating lots
of deni ons , so one doesn't have to mix ec and english. But im watching tv so itll have to wait :) I do remember him men oning layers upon layers of
perceptions in one of his posts. So the next step is to start making up deni ons for lots of experiences. But before that i need to understand how thinking in
ec might be experienced ... Also, in terms of sharing subjec vity, i found this paper. [link to www.csl.sony.fr] This paper describes how multiple agents, which
have different words for categories, can converge to the same word for the same categories, through simple feedback, apparently farly quickly. I think the
problem of sharing ideas in ec is similar in general to how languages along with representations evolve in cultures....
04/11/2012 11:32 PM
My take on using Genius to learn EC - lets see if this works, ill try it for 7 days starting tomorrow, today ill try to memorize
neuricons.... Symbols: EC neuricons (memorize) + Rules: (1) Translate one paragraph into neuricons and say it aloud each day, and also think in it. Record. (2)
Make up one new word using neuricons and define it, in english or in neuricons, each day. Record. When the experience comes up again, think of the word. +
Possibili es: idle time + Interac on: do the neuricon exercises (code of ecsys), see things as one of four sides. --------------------- Explana on: We allow the
symbols to pre-establish themselves with current representations, english words. We then open up possibilities in which we can practice interacting and seeing
things as one of the four forces.
04/12/2012 02:54 PM
aww too bad! well have to invent it then later:) So, i came across something that you guys might find interesting. Has anyone heard
of image streaming? Basically, in one method, you ask a question and you view a stream of images in your mind. He recommends describing the images
outloud into a recorder or talking to someone. If you're just beginning, you then get to interpret what you recorded. If you're more advanced, you can interpret

71 of 145

while going because you'll be pro at correctly determining which of the four forces (he doesn't use this term, im using ecsys terms here) is what. These images
are the answer to your question. In order to interpret, he gives some sugges ons. The biggest impediment is the conscious mind interpre ng things the wrong
way - i interpret this to mean that the conscious mind has been structured by language, so the biggest impedance is interpre ng the language of the
unconscious through the language of the conscious. One way to prevent this is to write down 6 questions on a piece of paper. Randomly choose one of the
slips of papers, but dont look at it. Ask youre image stream to answer the question on the piece of paper. Record image stream. Interpret. Then see what was
on the paper and see if it answers the question. If you've become good at interpretation (i.e. ecsys) then it should answer the question. This book containing
this is called 'the einstein factor.' , chapter 6 (interpre ng the images) and chapter 7 (the power of ques ons). It also men ons how to do borrowed genius,
which sounds eerily similar to the idea of chaol of 'a world internet where you can tune into any perspec ve'. So to summarize: The interpretation of image
streaming is a good ecsys exercise for thinking in ecsys. You can ask questions about ecsys itself, and interpret the results. I think this would be a worthy
exercise for a week or so... Oh yeah, and i took the book's sugges ons and asked what the best question for ecsys is for me. I got a picture of a dove soaring
into a bright sky, but then it was blocked by a dark cloud. Interpreta on: Will ecsys help in your journey or will it block it? Then i realized that of course its all
based on your perception, you could change your perception so that it will block it or help it.... ---------------------------- Easy way to memorize ecsys symbols:
Chain together the words - imagine a cat next to an american ag, then america marking a book, then the book going 'too' somewhere, etc... The symbols are
a logical progression as you follow along your chain. Now, when you have spare time, you can go over the chain again and again. Eventually you wont need the
chain, and voila its memorized...
Last Edited by Starry3 on 04/13/2012 03:23 PM
I guess in the sense that volume is already related to space.. So ive been thinking on what the EC language means. First, why are the angles right angles in
the symbols? I think the input and output of each symbol represents a primi ve associa on between two of the four forces. For example, when you are in a
conversa on, the conversation may seem random but in actuality its not - if you're talking about a cat, it might remind you of cat food, which might then link
to people food, etc... So, the input and output represents the associa ve mechanism for the EC language. The reason the symbols are at right angles is
because this represents primi ve associa on. Imagine four objects, each belonging to one of the four forces. Now each object is going to be represented by a
line. As they stream towards each other, the intersec on forms a square = i.e. each side of the square represents one of the objects. After taking part in the
square intersec on, they continue on their way without interac ng. So, in other words, each node in the grid is a primi ve interac on, and forms a
primi ve/minimal 'perspec ve.' Once they have interacted one time, they go their own way and dont intersect any more- minimal associa on... Therefore, they
represent associa ve primi ves. The reason that the symbols' input/output only goes from high to low and from symbol->interac on->possibility->logic, i
guess, has to do with one of the implcia ons of the 5/2 energy perspective - "we perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive". In other
words, its easier to go from something significant (high) to low, and its easier to go from an object (symbol) to its parts (logic,possibility, whatever) [actually
im not sure about this, because haven't people said they have worked backward from logic in order to understand the four forces?] Now imagine a c tac toe
grid. Imagine each line is a razor blade. Now imagine it cu ng into an apple - at the intersec ons, the apple is imprinted with the form of the square - on the
outskirts, merely lines. So, by putting together a bunch of primi ve EC symbols, we provide the context of our perspective. Its more of a mold for the
perspective, and into that mold we can put many materials. The string of ec symbols are basically a subjective context for the perspective, a context which
highlights various 'associa ons' in your mind. It need not be objec vely shared with others in ally. In fact, the symbols are merely 'keys' to the perspective by themselves, they dont mean much , the content is much more than the keys ... Though of course, you can create a shared dic onary ... And the math
associated with the ec language has to do with ways of combining primi ves, i haven't really thought of this part further... This part is sort of vague in the
sense that i haven't subjec vely tested it, just ideals right now...
Last Edited by Starry3 on 04/19/2012 11:49 PM
The funny thing about having your 'waking' reality metamorphosise in dream perspective is that you respond to new, dream s muli as physical reality. That's
kind of the point. But don't forget the high strangeness of the world you're living in now. Care to compare it to 10 years ago? 50 years? 100 years? The distant
past is actually more here and now that any time prior. One cannot imagine what 10 years ago felt like, only the value in our present moment that appears to
have the avor of '-10 years'. So then the dream becomes more of a dream and the physicality that you once knew slips away. How very strange the present
would be to your much younger self. Isn't this the self-imposed barrier that keeps you from perceiving the expansive now?
05/01/2012 05:21 PM
It is interesting that such a post would get so much response in such a short period of time. Controversy really does invite discovery,
doesn't it? On a scale of 1-10 I would rate the importance of that post a "1", as compared with the great majority of my other posts. Inconsistent? No. Not if
you have a grasp for why I say such things. I do choose my words carefully, even when I AM joking. Personal gain? Really, now. If only we were all as
passionate about the world comprising our perspective as we are with a few details in it. As I've mentioned and implied before, I have not dropped my self
here to tell you what you want to know, in the way you want to know it, share secrets, or make friends. I AM a destroyer of worlds. (In ways, however, no
different from you.) I speak for that little part of you you call impossibility, or the future, or your distant self. At times, it may not be what you want to hear. It
could even be the opposite of what you care to hear or think about. But that doesn't mean it would not perfectly suit your ul mate goal. But it works, and that
is the purpose. If these distant perspectives were so appealing and a rac ve to you right now, you'd be there all ready. If we stuck to what sounded and
looked good, was generally acceptable and desired, appeared logical to most perspec ves, and smelled great there'd be very little of what you call change. If
you're more comfortable with consistency perhaps you'd be better off pouring yourself a nice glass of apple juice than talking with a destroyer. Are you
passionate about what you don't know? Are you excited for these new perspectives? And so I AM here getting you worked up. So that you'd get off of your ^#
$^T@ ass and do what you've all ways intended to do. But many of you are "too comfortable" and may do well to be shaken, as you please. How can you
possibly expect what you don't have a clear idea of? By the way, in an alternate universe your grandmother is a fabled whore. What could I possibly mean by
this? AM I "o my nut"? Some of you may see it as "inconsistent". Perhaps one of you realizes that it can serve as the impetus to greater realities and to re
your ambi on. Do you want your distant future to be consistent with your distant past? How truly comfortable are you with a change in perspec ve? But I AM
still playing chess and calculate every word, typographical error, context, re-edit, Vulcan mind meld, the unsaid, and all their company have a logic. Are there
other ways to illustrate this logic? Perhaps. But none that I AM interested in. Are you choosing to spend your energy understanding wisely?
05/01/2012 05:51 PM
Plus this already is all over the Internet, you weren't the first to present these ideas. I've seen threads and websites galore all
saying the same thing you are. Dierent perspectives need different avenues for obtaining info.. Not everyone will get the point from this thread.. So if John
has already read the information in this thread a thousand times, for example, what do you think is holding him back from actually really using this
understanding in his perspec ve? All of what we need to know is there before us. But still, we generally avoid it and pretend that such information has no
bearing on our reality. For what purpose?
05/01/2012 06:23 PM

72 of 145

Chaol, I appreciate your speedy reply and I AM grateful for your returned presence. I understand your asser on that you're playing

"chess not checkers" but I AM having diculty comprehending your intent as of late. I have no choice but to interpret your posts with the lense of my personal
experience and mean no harm in my assessment. I feel as if you've come to us as a Chess Pro, you've told us the rules for each piece on the board and have
not yet taught (although you have told) us how to bridge the gap between casual friendly game play and the basics of being pro. From a noob's perspective, a
pro's technique is inconceivable. I'm also glad my denial is/was well founded. Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 05/01/2012 06:49 PM
Consider a passion you have always had. Have you followed it no matter what? Have you ever been interested in something and not consistently followed
through with it? Have you ever had trouble s cking to something, maybe you became uninterested after a first desire? I'm interested in ecsys but i've only
been doing it off and on, thatll change soon ! To summarize, basically he's saying hes trying to get us to actually do something, and do something beyond
what is already stated, instead of just reading. His goal is to ignite passion! Cause passion causes everything to be more relative much more quickly.... So the
question for you would be: What have you done to explore ecsys? What happens when the path isn't obvious, do you just give up and are like, well ill wait,
cause i can't do anything? Here's a quote that I used during one conversation about what creativity is all about, applied to mathema cs: "The one big secret
that separates out the mathema cians from the non-mathema cians. It is a tude. It takes time to explore mathema cs [i.e. it takes time to explore a
problem youre trying to solve]. O en it seems more important just to plough on with the exercises that need to be handed in.... If you have the a tude that
understanding is crucial - not supercial understanding but the understanding that comes from a DEEP a ack on a problem - and if you are always looking
beyond what you have been given ......." Then you will be truly successful. I've really like the idea of being passionate about all of perspective, that seems
quite fun, this has been very helpful in my life along with other stuff ...
05/01/2012 10:39 PM
As far as Ecsys goes, I do not give up. I see it. I just see it differently than it is described by Chaol. This is where my diculty stems
from. I wonder at times, if it really ma ers. If it's Ecsys or lucid dreaming. If it's Magick or meditation. If it's Astral travel or remote viewing. If it's will or fate.
But I know, DEEP down that it's none and all of it. I seek to better understand Chaol's perspective to better understand myself. It doesn't matter where he
comes from. Alternate reality or Mundane life. He is either just as delusional or just as genius as I am. As we all are. We can push ambigui es because where
there is uncertainty anything can be imagined. We can find something we do not quite understand appearing to us as something familiar or known. We only
see what we believe we will see. We only experience what is most likely to come next given our current perspective. Our current perspective is a result of what
we believe to be our previous perspective. It's all so ridiculous and so profound. By moving away from the known toward the unknown you open yourself up to
the possibility of so much more than you could imagine. If you don't like the show you're watching, change the channel. We spend all of our time gh ng,
suering, worrying and wasting for what we want from what we believe or know... How often do we stray from the path we are on to experience something...
outside... something truly dierent? We don't. It cannot happen. There is nothing beyond what is known except the unknown. The unknown can never be
known... because to be known... it cannot be (un)known. All that we witness before us... is all that there is. There is no more than this. It is a realm of our
own design. It is forever changing, into what is next... or was next... or already was. All that is, was and will be... is now. It is our intent and focus, our will
that manifests what comes next. As I see it, Ecsys is a tool as is medita on, magick, hypnosis and all those other wonderful treats. But it's all you. Just your
will. The patterns repeat. Ghosts of your past reappear and take new posi ons in your present. Reoccurring characters move in and out of your perspective like
planets rota ng around a star. There are only so many parts in this play at anyone time, all a metaphor for another. The actors are playing out your script.
Intend properly with a sharp focus and find your will manifest. Intend poorly with a wide focus and find disappointment. Lol, who knows? :) Last Edited by
Jesse Sovoda on 05/02/2012 12:25 AM
I found this thread a little over a month ago, and after reading avidly every single post from everyone, it has greatly enhanced my perspective. I had so many
ques ons, but I knew that Chaol had le . I AM glad you are back Chaol, maybe because your presence in this thread adds inspira on and mo va on. Not just
to be spoon fed. What I can do, now, is just share my experience. I started putting the Genius into practice soon a er, there is no other way than "just do it",
giving life to it. I also made up a couple of words to represent situa ons, which have no meaning in current language, as you said. I found the explanation of
the Genius much clearer here, than on the ecsys website. I AM saying this, Chaol, to let you know that your interaction with the posters, and the many
questions they had, really helps in getting a better grip. It is only on this thread, that I have understood the importance of abstrac on of the symbol. I don't
feel this is really explained on the website. Or at least, my perspective didn't see it. My symbol is made of a cork screw, with a string of pink wool wrapped
around it, and a curled up piece of metal wire stuck into it, like an antenna. It represents a state of being that I AM drawing into this perspective, it has to do
with freedom and li the burden of a life time regarding a sibling, for the greater good of all. I keep it in my pocket and it comes with me wherever I go. I have
also talked about it and shown it to a friend. Only once I forgot it at home, and I thought... oh well, at least, it interacted with the cats in the garden... As a
rule, I put it on the ground, and walk around it three times, then kiss it. Once a day. So far so good!!! I feel much be er, I have more time, the heavy situation
sort of faded in the background, and requires a way more balanced amount of energy. Next on my list - I want to try the Genius with something tangible, rather
than a situation. A physical object to draw into this perspective from the dream world. I'd love to have a wood re oven, for example! This, not because I AM
doub ng the Genius. Just from reading the instruc ons, I had no doubt whatsoever that the technique works. It has to, it makes perfect sense. It's just that I
want to know if I AM doing it right and a physical manifesta on gives a better frame of reference of where I AM at, and adds to my condence that I have
learned to interact with the symbol properly. Regardless, it's working right now! Keep being a destroyer, I enjoy your every word. Thank you, Chaol. (and all the
other great posters here) User ID: 15407541 Yes, it's just you.
05/02/2012 07:09 AM
My take on "doing" is that it is the story; the "doing" is the logic that gets you from Point A to Point B. As an aside, I've been
working on developing a different logic; one that diminishes the " me" it takes to get to where you want to be. I mean, since there is no time, really, and
since anything is everything, why "do" to get what is already there? AM still working on this, but "instant manifesta on" could be really helpful at times. More
and more often nowadays, when I "do", I do it solely for the fun of it. I remind myself that if it is not fun or interesting, to just not "do" it.
05/02/2012 10:38 AM
And then, "intent". Isn't "intent" the engine that gets everything running? I find that with simple intent, I just put it out there and
then sit back. Even for resome chores like, say, mowing the grass, I see the yard as being mowed and trimmed and looking very nice. But, I don't worry about
it, because the intent is working its magic. The moment comes when I just feel like mowing the grass and have fun trimming and getting everything looking
really swell. It is eortless. When I put out an intent and things go awry, I examine my intent more closely. You have be really honest with yourself when
analyzing this part of it. Any glitches that I experience, I can chalk up to some hidden agenda of my own that I didn't really notice before. I also think that this
is where the 1,2,3,5 can be applied. It can be used to analyze your intent and to then chart a different course (or manifesta on).
05/02/2012 11:07 AM
Hey, thats really cool! Keep us updated! I think it'd be interesting to hear stories ... I personally put a yellow cap on a black pen and
wrapped a piece of paper with a chinese character on it that means 'to love.' I use it with my chinese hw, and in chinese class so i can focus more. Im not sure

73 of 145

if anything has happened, but its a cool looking item! I think something happened at first, subjec vely, but i haven't really been consistently using it and
interacting with it and using a rule with it, so it stopped.... or maybe it didn't i just don't remember my past perspective lol... but i like starting at it.
Last
Edited by Starry3 on 05/02/2012 09:52 PM
Thank you, Starry3. Yes, I will keep you updated, I plan on creating my next symbol soon. I agree, it'd be great to hear stories, so we can learn from each
other. Thanks for sharing your pen story! My understanding is that placing rules, adds the needed structure/logic element, which to me works like "gravity",
therefore speeding the manifesta on process into this perspective. Also, what I gathered from Chaol's posts here, is that the more abstract the symbol the
be er, so that the object doesn't have a previous meaning attached to it, as long as you intend the newly created abstract object to be the representation of
what you want to draw into your current perspective. I don't find the ecsys website to say this at all, but I saved many of Chaol's relevant posts on this thread.
As I go through the material again, I'll post that passage here. Unless I dreamed it! lol (Chaol, if you are around, could you please conrm if this is so?) I also
forgot to men on, that at the same time, I have been declu ering my place big time. Even folded everything neatly again in the drawers (they were a mess!).
I also moved a few things around, to change the geometry of relationships in my perspective. Still much to do, but making improvements every day.
05/03/2012 04:14 PM
@14663820 Yes. If the symbol already has a meaning, then it would interfere with any new meaning you ascribe to it. A blank slate
(or at least what seems like it to you) is always best. [Postscript] But wait! When we create new symbols instead of using the old ones, what have we
ourselves destroyed? Where do the old symbols go if they are no longer relevant? They form a logical narra ve and we see them as death, destruc on,
abandonment, etc. The blank slate makes us uncomfortable so we fill in the blanks with something that makes more sense even if we, on the surface, feel it is
undesirable. So when I say I AM a destroyer of worlds I really just mean that I AM one who sets re to the symbols held dear in 'this world'. Thankfully, you are
helping to set re to your own symbols. Values of sex, money, gender, family, etc., are changing as fast as you can set them. Most of you probably have no
idea how much you've changed (or even 'progressed') in the last few years :)
05/03/2012 04:47 PM
thank you for the conrma on about the meaning around a symbol. Regarding the [Postscript], here are my reec ons: 1 - On a
smaller scale, a symbol is a condensed representation in abstract form of a new element of perception I want to draw into my overall perspective. It holds the
poten ality of the physical manifesta on into this world, be it an object/experience/situa on. 2 - On a larger scale, everything is a symbol/representa on. It is
through interaction with the symbols, and the relationships between them, that I perceive and experience. 3 - One learns to use the smaller scale/condensed
versions, which in the end are a symbol of a larger symbol, to act as placeholders + be catalysts for our level of expecta on (next logical step), until the
desired perception takes place. In other words, the expanded version of the symbol, nally manifests. 4 - If one makes dras c changes of perception, there is
no doubt that the old larger scale symbols have to follow a logical narrative. We couldn't wake up to an entirely different world, with silver trees and one eyed
people, without making up a story to how it came to be. 5 - But what if, instead of replacing the known, one is simply adding to it? And on top of that, using
new symbols to create known representa ons? A simple example would be using the Genius to manifest a car or the dream house. In this case, one uses new
condensed/abstract symbols, only to create what is known and familiar to our general perspective. I AM not sure I managed to convey properly what I meant...
05/04/2012 12:33 PM
We couldn't wake up to an entirely different world, with silver trees and one eyed people, without making up a story to how it came
to be. But, see, this is the point of ecsys, as I AM understanding it. I speak for that little part of you you call impossibility, You can just wake up in an entirely
different world. Once you can logically accept the seemingly impossible, then you can get out of your bed in the morning and step directly into a world of silver
trees and one-eyed people. You can embroider it and have even more fun with it: the silver trees ARE the people, and they talk with you and pick you up with
their branches and set you on their topmost branches where you can look at their sky filled with owing colors. You know? I think what Chaol has been trying
to get us to consider is that our dreams are different worlds in which we exist. If you can close your eyes and interact with silver trees to the extent that it
feels almost real...well, it is real! That it is as real as this world. It is ALL imaginary. Get it? The imagina on is REAL. It creates worlds. This world seems real,
but it is still imaginary. If someone does not like his world, all he has to do is to imagine it differently and it will change. That's it. It's that easy.
05/04/2012 02:17 PM
I know what you mean. I agree. What I said, was regarding the logical narra ve, to fill in the blanks, that Chaol men oned. If I
understood Chaol correctly, the new perception takes place when it's the next logical step. It seems like you are saying the same thing too. "Once you can
logically accept the seemingly impossible". So, either one paves the way, by interacting with the silver trees in the dream, creating a gradual logic, or comes up
with a perceived past (since there is no linear time) that makes up a logical story of how we arrived to the new perception. It's the passageway from the old
perception to the new perception. Ecsys is the bridge.
05/04/2012 06:24 PM
I wonder how the sounds for each symbol is relevant? For example, when you meditate you may make a sound like 'ummmmmmm'.
Which would translate to S-I (bUt) and +S-P (Milk). So, all the things that are neutrally relevant to us we must stop interacting with, i.e. make it less relevant
to us! and the highly symbolic things, well since they're so important and we probably interact with them alot, well just say that its easiest to make it less
relevant to us in terms of possibili es... Thus we hhave our mantra 'ummmmmmmmmmmmmm'. Of course there are other mantras that work, and ive heard the
goal is just to have it occupy our mind and get rid of other thoughts, and that for sound mantras anything ending in 'mmmmmm' is good.
05/05/2012 04:29 PM
A subject tle at reddit.com regarding an article authored by Robert Lanza, November 19, 2011: Psychology Today suggests death is
an illusion, based on biocentrism and the evidence of quantum mechanics. [link to www.psychologytoday.com] A comment chosen from the 64 comments made
to the Psychology Today article (7 upvotes): Well to be totally honest we have to acknowledge that our brains are creating our entire phenomenalogical
experience and that in a certain very real sense it is all just an illusion. However, there also seems to be something external that is, to a large degree, stable
and amiable to descrip ve 'laws.' Edit: I'm a bit surprised that my comment was so conten ous. I'm a few credits from my BSc in neuropsychology with my
minor in Phil of mind and what I wrote is a scientifically accepted posi on. One everyday example that we can all understand is the fact our op c nerve
connects to the back of the eye. At this spot the re na has a 'hole' in it and so we have a blind spot in both eyes at that loca on. Our brains fill that spot in
and we experience a whole image that is a representation produced by our brains. Edit 2: I'm amused at the so called skep cs in this room. I wasn't saying the
article was true or false I was just making the true statement that our brains are producing what we are aware of. There is obviously much more beyond our
awareness, not only in our own brains, but also in nature. We obviously can't perceive protons, but we have a pretty thorough set of theories that supports
their existence. Are the people down vo ng seriously trying to argue that our brains aren't producing what we are aware of? Because if I've ever seen woo that
would take the cake. [link to www.reddit.com]
05/05/2012 10:18 PM

74 of 145

Excuse me for my sudden obsession with this fellow, Robert Lanza, but he is no slouch. He has won awards for his stem cell research.

He is bona de. And he is all over the Internet with ideas that echo those of Chaol's. Why You're Alive and Can Never Die: The Larger Scien c Picture As I sat
in the vacant lot that spring a ernoon, I found myself thinking there's a better way to understand nature than science has so far. We need to pay closer
attention to the processes of knowledge and perception. Scientists propound with much ado the connection of appearances in experience, but don't see the
connection of things in themselves, how they stand in community with others. They think they can say where individuality begins and ends, whether the mind
is absolutely destroyed with the body. Yet, when death approaches, even they try to look beyond it. [link to www.hungtonpost.com]
05/05/2012 10:29 PM
Just one more. I promise I'll quit after this one really, really good quote by...guess who? A New Theory of the Universe by Robert
Lanza We are living through a profound shift in worldview, from the belief that time and space are entities in the universe to one in which time and space
belong to the living. Think of all the recent book tles: The End of Science, The End of History, The End of Eternity, The End of Certainty, The End of Nature,
and The End of Time. Only for a moment, while we sort out the reality that time and space do not exist, will it feel like madness. [link to
theamericanscholar.org]
05/10/2012 02:37 PM
Do you have focus? Or is it an illusion? The moment you focus on something you are passively telling yourself that it is specically
one thing and not anything else. The reason we seem to focus on only a small sliver of our total experience is because of this. Focus requires you to forget the
nature of what is being focused upon. A counter-intuitive thing, indeed, as when we think of 'focus' we get the sense that something is being remembered or
observed in detail. We naturally want to focus on something because this is what takes the least amount of energy to perceive. It is simple for us, and more
predictable than something that is nebulous and could be anything. (And so this "least amount of energy" is what fools you into perceiving a focal point, when
your focal point is so infinitesimally small it does not actually exist.) So then the question becomes, "How does one change one's focus?" The answer is in the
paragraph above it, and it's what I have been saying all along. But how do you actually make it happen right now?
05/11/2012 03:54 PM
It's a catch-22 in many ways. Changing, by deni on, requires an alternate point of focus. And even the concept of defocusing is
dependent on focus at some point. Focus seems to be this innate, unconscious component of one's existence; but it is the determinant of whether their
perspective is objective or subjec ve. The ability to shi , change, alter focus is the core of ecsys. It cannot not exist, much like your "self," so one must learn
to focus on something beyond current perception. In doing so, focus is removed from the environment to an abstrac on- allowing perspective of the tangible to
shi . It's just a gloried "don't look directly at the dot" scenario. The secret, though, is that the dot is actually one's "surroundings," not the desired change.
Cat Updates: [link to ecsys.weebly.com]
05/12/2012 07:18 PM
It seems like people are placing a huge emphasis on understanding the "grammar" of Ecsys' four elements- the sounds, iden ca on,
layout, etc. I only discovered this thread a week ago, but was taken aback by how many were struggling with the language formula on. From my perspec ve:),
the input/output is really only relevant when first construc ng the thought/idea. Once the sounds are determined, the "word" is fueled by your own
imagina on, not its basic elements. I mean a four-year-old isn't trying to figure out if that squiggly line in his finger pain ng is more suited towards
representing Mom or the neighbor's cat.. if that's his interpretation of Princess Furball, way to go! I say ditch the ash cards, make a cheat sheet, and do some
awesome mental finger pain ng! You'll be uent before you know it:)
05/13/2012 05:40 AM
Hoorah! I like mental finger pain ng, i did that in chinese to learn the characters and i swear one time i learned characters really fast
using that method? i was uber focused :) I guess the problem for me is what the heck they mean! I guess four year olds dont worry about how it logically fits
together, they just try it out. And thats what we have to do, just try it out!? I try out combina ons, and i dont know what they mean. Or i can maybe guess at
it slowly. But if i try it out with the a tude of not being precise about it, i be uent in no time ? languages are fun
05/13/2012 05:44 AM
To switch focus, you defocus and then focus, like CatCarl said. While i think its sometimes more precise to speak imprecisely, thats
not always true, because as you said it has to be relative to us in order for us to perceive/understand it. Unless you're trying to just get us to think hard, but
still it cant be too far ahead of our perspective .... maybe we just think it is ... The typical way to learn something, whether it is medita on or math or
whatever, is to gradually lead the person from what they are familiar with to the unfamiliar. This is 'focusing on something else' gradually, just like you have
mentioned with the genius. Is it possible to switch focus to such a drama c extent farely quickly, and not gradually? Maybe it is if we're in the dream world
already (so it is farely gradual, but to our current perception it might seem drama c), but it would not have been that easy say 30 years ago? How to do this
now? Your encouragement to look at the larger experience has alot to do in common with 'forgiveness', quo ng "So we say, "I see you for who you really are,
God's Child. Healed, whole, one with God, the Light, the Love of God. My brother. And in this light I see myself the same way." " While related though, that
seems a simple answer. Personally, if i were to just do what i felt like doing, i would do the forgiveness thing and then start doing things i AM really interested
in, like art, and guring out ec and the mechanics of larger realities related to physics and stu.... And i would help bring these things into existence using
weird symbols, just because that is fun. And then i would probably start trying out new things, even if i didn't ini ally like them, just to see if i liked them again using physical symbols and genius. But that doesn't really seem like 'nebulous and blurry' to me, so it doesn't seem to be what you are hin ng at...
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/13/2012 06:01 AM
sorry I write long posts to help me think .... So lets see .... its more precise to be imprecise if we want to focus on the larger picture. When we are focusing
ghtly, we only see what is in our focus. This is precise if the only thing we care about is what is in our focus. However , if we want the larger picture, it is
imprecise because we are not seeing everything, just like in that video. However, we cant get anywhere focusing on just the small picture, atleast with our sort
of focus. Which is why people talk imprecisely and vaguely to get a feel for the larger picture, and then they narrow down into the smaller picture. Defocus then
focus, thats 'crea vity', we do it all the me.. So, applying it to focus: we look at our hand. It is more precise when I look at the hand, then if I dont look at it,
because I know my hand is the way it is, and the big picture is simply what it looks like, relative to what i remember it to be. When i look at my hand, i see
more details, so i can more fully fill out the big picture into its small details. However, theres a larger perspective, and in order to u lize it, i should not
concern myself with the details of my hand, and thus not look at it. Therefore i AM not telling myself it is what i think it is, and allowing it to change. Once
that occurs, i can change my hand by symbolizing it as something different using genius in an ac ve way, or i can arm that it is different each day. However,
how much can we change it by, because even if we arent looking at it, we are still passively telling ourselves in our unconcious mind what it is like, those are
habits! And even if we symbolize, our conscious mind can only change so quickly . .... The only thing we can do with the larger perspective is u lize it, knowing
it exists. To directly perceive/focus on the larger perspective would, i guess i agree with the other poster, totally change our current deni on/experience of
focus ..... Therefore we can only alter our focus, right, into another perspec ve? Just like we normally do in life .... However, i get the impression that you're
encouraging expanding focus, not altering/shi ing it. How to expand instead of shi , because once we expand it becomes our normal focus /zoom in/zoom out

75 of 145

level. When we have expanded our focus, we are seeing more rela onships? I need to think it out more, because youre also saying focus is an illusion, and if
its an illusion, we can change it using the genius just like the genius can be used to change the physical reality illusion. But the difference is that we have a
clue of what we want in physicality illusion, but without experience in what we would perceive with an expanded focus... I guess for that, one would have to
ask the brain to show us more ... where more is undened ... To do this, is unique per perseon, because each person has a different 'perspec ve' and logic. For
some, they might do it naturally. For others, the same thing may be symbolized differently and a different procedure would be used....
Last Edited by
Starry3 on 05/13/2012 07:05 AM
But maybe habits themselves are illusions, and we can shift to become less habitual and more spontaneous, and when that occurs, focus becomes far less
important (a far less important 'symbol'). When we become 'spontaneous', we infuse our definition of focus into lots and lots of aspects of our life. In order to
expand our focus, we diuse what focusing symbolizes into other aspects of our life and unknown aspects of life - which is what you are saying when we should
try to do stuff we are not immediately interested in - try out the 'possibili es', interact with more things. But again this seems a longabout way of doing
things, would it really make that drama c a difference (besides increasing quality of life anyways!) in terms of what we physically see. Also it seems like what
you are saying all along, and surely some1 has done it by now and if it made a humongous dierence, they wouldve posted (or did i miss that post?). I mean
people have said it helped theire lives, but what you want seems different ..... I guess i again got the impression that when you said focusing on a larger
perspective would be ' nebulous' to us, i interpreted it as meaning we would literally see 3d shapes dierently, in the spirit of auras or something weird,
instead of just bringing new stuff into our lifes .... For example, you mentioned that the radia on from the "Fukushima japan reactor meltdown" was bad in one
perspective, but might have been good in another. How possibly could one determine if it is good in another - what would this involve in terms of perspective
shi ? A different 3d vision of bu eries instead of radia on :) An english descrip on in which you tell us and we don't experience it, whatever experience
maeans? 1dunno1 Lol ok rant done rantrant I will soon commence with mental pain ng .... Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/13/2012 07:12 AM
I agree, its extremely subjec ve~! But how do you become uent in the sense that it just pops into one's head instantly, just like the english language? I
have to think a bit in order to come up with an interpretation - how does this become automa c? You mentioned just putting them together and trying out new
combina ons, but how do you put them together - do you do it randomly, do you have to consciously think about it first (which is a slow process) I imagine
once it becomes automa c, one can start manipulating more eec vely, you know? Ive had a little diculty with learning foreign languages in the past (in the
uent, left brain 'bigger picture' manner) so any help is useful. Ive seen some sugges ons before for learning languages: (1) In order to learn chinese, people
need to start learning the language by listening to music, or people speaking, in order to get the 'big picture.' This is in addi on to the typical grammar,
phrases, etc... But for ec this doesn't exist yet.
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/13/2012 06:16 PM
ehh, i never thought of it that way. He said he would come back when it was all over the intranet/internets or whatever in order to answer ques ons, i thought
that was a good thing lol as in the knowledge is spreading. But yeah the whole focus thing just sort of popped up there, but thats just because i think its
relevant to ec. oh well who knows .. dont really matter ... I remember one time in which my head felt extremely clear and i felt i could do anything, lasted for a
day or so after i had released some emotions that had built up/been lurkin in the background! Now I feel like, compared to that experience, my head has a
pressure around it, as if its not as 'free.' Not in a bad sense or anything, just feels less clear. I wonder if the former extreme clarity is what it might feel like to
be in the dream world idk... awesome feeling!
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/13/2012 08:34 PM
Here's the thing. I would very much like to die, but will not do so if anybody would feel harm by my act. What I can say about others is about the relationships
of representations in my perception called "them". Any harm to them I could speak about is a representation I could perceive. ...argh, i've been typing and
dele ng for an hour now. I'm trying to find the right words, but I'm really confused :( I guess I just want to say: "Physicality is a language, I feel I've learned it
in a hindering context, let's start with something else. But what about my mom?" I don't know if this will make sense to anybody, but I really hope so.
05/14/2012 11:02 PM
Your hour spent composing your question was well spent. I think you have boiled the dilemma down to the basic problem. However,
instead of using the word "death", try using the word "transi on". Or, how about, "change of perspec ve"? Or, how about "le ng go"; "releasing resistance"?
"A new way of thinking"? Get it? If anybody is reluctant to "leave" his loved one, just think of the poster above with a 5-month old baby girl! There is an
overwhelming love for one's children that is ins nctual. The urge to protect what is so u erly innocent is very, very hard to wrestle with when one considers
"transi oning". I get what Chaol is telling us when he recommends that we "unfocus". Here is the thing, however: while focusing on unfocusing (a paradox!)
and being as honest with myself as possible, I find that there is a deep down fear of loss. I was surprised to uncover this and to see how strong it is. I know
that this fear of loss is crazy. This is where my conflict is, at the moment. Chaol has already told us that the light in this world is being turned o; that
everything we have built is going away. I see that the challenge is to truly let go of everything that we thought was real. I AM not afraid of losing a body, but
just like mackie has stated, what about those who depend upon us, that we love? Somewhere in these threads, Chaol explained that the "I" is our own idea
interpreted as reality. He says that "We perceive that which is most relative to us and say, 'that is me'". Chaol also tells us that we are the only thing in our
universe. It follows, then, that the people that we love are us. They are symbols. It is my understanding that they are symbols for inner qualities that we,
ourselves, hold. I think that, in truth, there is no separa on between "me" and "them". It is beginning to dawn on me that the fear of loss is related to an
outmoded definition of the "I". I posted the rendi on of Plato's Cave, because that video told the story without handing out a meaning to it. So, I see how it
corresponds to what Chaol is telling us. There are perceivers whose observations are chained to a particular world. All they see are shadows. They live their
lives as if these shadows compose the only world, anywhere. The one person who becomes unchained, looks around behind him to find that there is a light that
is causing the shadows; that the shadows are caused by blocking out the light of a bigger, brighter world. He goes out into the light and discovers a larger
reality. Then he returns to his comrades who are still trea ng the shadows as the sole reality in the universe. He tries to explain how illusionary are the
shadows, and nobody will listen to him. This is what Chaol is doing for us, IMHO. He is trying to explain that what we are living in is a shadow world that is in
the process of being dismantled. He is telling us that there is a bigger world out there. It seems to me that the world from which the light is emana ng is two
right angles away -- horizontally -- from our current perception (or, maybe, one right angle ver cally. AM still working on this). I could go on, but I don't want
to post a dump truck load of ideas to this thread, which is what your simple statement brought up in me. Suce it to say, that I appreciate what you've
wri en. I'm on that same page.
05/15/2012 08:40 PM
Isn't it just YOU observing? Imagine the very beginning of you, like, when you were just coming from nothing. Imagine suddenly
receiving s mulus where before you were nothing, as far as you're concerned. You were not writing memory that would carry information into your future.
Beyond that, we come up with a back story we can never truly understand as others have witnessed it. From concep on, the ini al cell division, the zygote.
Your cells, your ny body, grew within an environment. It was impacted by what it felt, sensed, observed. This may not have been standard vision style

76 of 145

observation but it is the taking of information. Once you can take on s mulus, you can respond. The response can alter what is provided as s mulus. We warp
reality into existence as we believe it should be based on our previous pa erns. What takes the least energy to exist, does. Rocks roll down hills, unless...
they're aware. Once we gain awareness, we cannot transcend our current experience. All awareness comes from experience. There is no way to imagine
something you cannot think to imagine. Think back to your very first memory. What does it feel like? Are you sure it's your first memory? Have you embellished
it? The first memory you recall in as much subjective detail as possible is the beginning of the next step. So here you/we are... You've been accumula ng
memories for a while now, to the point your patterns can execute/observe pa erns. You've worked your way so deep in awareness that it's hard to let go. That
is, until you know you can... Once you know, you can alter your patterns to suit your needs as they stand now, and not by what you perceive to be via previous
experience.
05/16/2012 03:07 AM
Agreed, people tend to react from past experience, not on what is truly present. So they create an 'illusion' which they have to
maintain, and its harder to maintain than what is true in the larger perspective, unless we have feedback loops or something to sustain the smaller
perspec ve- feedback loops of ego fear? Ok, so the ego fear is just a smaller perspective, and the feedback loops were stuck in perhaps ... I remember
someone saying that when you worry, you worry about the same thing over and over again, and it is never really deep. So if you start to realize this, and set
aside a 5 minute worry time just to worry your head off on only one topic (no positive thoughts!), you get bored eventually cause you can't come up with new
stuff. Feedback to keep ya occupied!
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/16/2012 03:18 AM
An interesting information source that is similar in spirit: Arcana Coeles a, by Emanuel Swedenborg, [1749-56] [link to www.sacred-texts.com] [2] That times
signify states is because times do not exist in the other life. The progression of the life of spirits and angels indeed appears as in me; but they have no
thought from times, as men in the world have; their thought is from states of the life, and this without no on of times. The reason of this is that the
progressions of their life are not dis nguished into different ages, for there they do not grow old, and there are no days or years, because their sun, which is
the Lord, is always rising and never sets. Hence no no on of time enters their thoughts, but only a no on of state and its progressions - no ons being taken
from the things that are and exist before the senses. [3] These things must needs seem paradoxical, but only for the reason that man in every idea of his
thought has somewhat adjoined from time and space. From this source are his memory and recollec on, and also his lower thought, the ideas of which are
called material. But that memory out of which comes such ideas is quiescent in the other life. They who are in that life are in interior memory, and in the ideas
of its thought; and thought from this latter memory has not times and spaces adjoined to it, but states and their progressions instead. Hence also it is that
they correspond, and in consequence of such correspondence times in the Word signify states. (That man has an exterior memory which is proper to him in the
body, and also an interior memory which is proper to his spirit, may be seen above, n. 2469-2494.)" a little hard to decipher, but its definitely similar in spirit
to perception i think - maybe thats the exterior memory? Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/18/2012 07:53 PM
Ok so Ill share a success for a genius symbol. I felt i haven't slept very deeply and soundly so i decided to create a symbol for this. The symbol consisted of a
'gels ne oyant mains' bo le (for cleaning hands) wrapped in a ssue paper which acted like a holder for it. The rule was to wipe my face with the symbol
before bed and squirt some gel onto my hands to clean it. Then I've recently discovered something on the android called 'sleep soundly hypnosis' by kym tolson
and Hani Al-Qasem, which is a hypnosis session. It is strangely effective for me the first time i listened to it, even though i felt myself somewhat resis ng.
Even though my mind wandered, as the session went on my mind started to focus on the hypnosis seesion, which is surprising for me. I now feel subjec vely
that i no longer need the symbol, i AM no longer 'a racted' to it. Does this mean the symbol has done its work? It worked quite quickly, maybe a week, but
maybe ive wanted this for a while and the symbol made the resistance diminish alot... Ive only recently discovered the hypnosis session so ill see how
everything works out, but since it was extremely effective the first time .....
05/18/2012 10:02 PM
Seems Chaol used the alterna ve word "create" rather than understood. Create makes more sense to me than discovered, but I get
'discovered' too.... I just still crave more here from Chaol. I don't want to say what my representation was about, as it's personal. I will only say that ini ally it
was for ul mate goal "B"... which required step A first. And both A and B involve other people's wishes and inten ons, not just my own. (You can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make them drink, right?) So B required A happening first, but I was quite resistant to step A, and I see that now. I wanted step A to
magically happen, without having to take any ac on on my part. But I wanted B to happen so much, I kept to the rules and was ... surprisingly, quite
religious/consistent/ritualis c with that part. Except that things found there way to me that made sense to add to the representation. I wasn't sure I was
supposed to do that, but it just seemed right, so I did. Every few days, a new item would present itself and I'd add it. So I didn't "create" just once. No. The
representation became a process of crea on... as I *discovered* new items that wanted to become a part of it. In some ways it's like an ar s c process,
though I AM not an ar st, and I deliberately refrained from getting to fussy or overly clever with it all, since Chaol made it clear you are supposed to treat it all
irreverently and not make it into a shrine. I was reverent about prac cing the rules -- but when it came to adding a new item that I'd discovered that felt
"right" to add, that part was done completely irreverently. On a whim, with a laugh and a chuckle and a "why not?" Now A has happened. But not yet B. I can
see that since I started this process, my resistance to A has lessened in subtle and gentle ways. In my marathon analogy, this would be akin to finding
yourself suddenly browsing running sneakers, without planning to, and buying a pair on the spot. Though not necessarily lacing them up, and heading out the
door. Then maybe a week later, finding yourself pulling out those new sneakers, putting them on, and jogging to get the mail at the mailbox. That's where the
analogy kind of falls apart, because as I said, my goal here requires others' par cipa on and not just my own sweat and effort. But hopefully that gives you an
idea. Meanwhile, as I said, I lapsed with the representation because life intervened (situa on A!!) and I pretty much let it languish, forgo en. Seeing Chaol
back, I remembered it, and I've been thinking it all through... in par cular, these items I added to it, so irreverently. And in a way, I can see that what I added
does not symbolize "B" so much as it did "A." And, in fact, the representation started out way more "B" but as I added, came to represent A more than B. Not
only that, but now I AM wondering if I start the rituals back up with this representation, if I'm shoo ng myself in the foot, and ensuring B will just never
happen. The process of adding and yes "discovering" items to add made it about A, not B. Even though B was my original intent. So I can see Chaol's point
here; I may have to start over from scratch. I do wonder if I might be able to strip away items, and get back to the original, what I started with, before I began
to add. Then again that may be overthinking it all. I don't know if Chaol or anyone here remembers my posts from before, but I did ultimately end up making
an art piece, as I said this thread inspired me to do. It's totally separate from the representation. It's also not quite finished yet. It's kind of just evolving on
its own, from found objects. It's turning out pretty darn cool, if I do say so myself -- and as I said, i AM NOT an ar st at all. But it is much more "though ul"
and deliberate, clever, and all that. Ul mately it WILL be a shrine, of sorts. Kind of the opposite of a Genius but boy has it been therapeu c to create it, and if
I got nothing else from this thread, I got that, the inspira on to dare to create this... whatever it is.
05/19/2012 12:26 AM
Let's imagine that you are sitting down to make a wooden toy that you have never seen before. You're not sure yet what it does but
you have some ideas and would like to see what comes of it. When you are finished making the toy you spend a few minutes playing with it. It's interesting

77 of 145

but you're still not sure how to use it. You look around. Everything appears to be the same. At every moment your perspective is entirely new. While you were
busy creating the toy the universe completely changed (literally). Your surroundings only seem the same because you are using the 'present' thinking to
observe about the 'past'. This later becomes more apparent when new symbols introduce themselves. A few others here have illustrated what new experiences
they had when using or creating a symbol. Every new thing in your perspective, you could say, leads to other things that you were not able to perceive before.
When some new enters your perspective your entire perspective is also new.
05/19/2012 04:36 AM
It's theatre for sure. But more like a magician trying to get you to look in one direc on while the purpose plays out in an other
direction. People in the US are being condi oned to accept what basically amounts to oppression. They are also being condi oned to believe that nothing is
wrong with it, or not much has changed. All the while people are looking to the other direc on (the 'theatre'), wai ng for something to happen. Some even go
so far as to accept the theatre as being the reason why nothing much happens which, incidentally, leads them to want more theatre to sa sfy their need to
feel safe and a part of something. The trick is the massive change happening right before your eyes. Imagine that I told you that there were deadly rains
coming and that I needed to cover your house with a large blanket, blocking out most of the sun from entering the windows. I then sta oned tanks outside
your door whose job it is to blast the rain droplets as they're coming down. Then, 12 monkeys will climb onto your house to secure the blanket when the winds
come. This is all ridiculous, but you begin to accept it as inevitable, especially when you see that your neighbors, too, have such blankets. It rains eventually
(mostly because I created them with my rainmaker) but the rains are not deadly. Most of your neighbors a ribute this to the blanket, the tanks, and the
monkeys. Surely there must be a connec on! The blanket, the tanks, and the monkeys leave you and your neighbors after a few days. The next month I come
back with tanks. But this time I do not oer an explanation as to why they're needed. I don't need to. Your brain makes the connection itself and provides its
own logic as to why they're there. A few days later I bring in the tanks. Following that, the monkeys. Now I come up with a new story. I must tear down 12% of
the houses in your neighborhood because there will be a killer lightening storm. This story is very familiar and you accept it because it is reasonable. I take
35% of the houses away but no one raises a fuss because the blanket, tanks, and monkeys are so quiet. Also, you didn't par cularly care for those houses
anyway because they were owned by people not like yourself. Surely there must be a grand purpose of which we're not aware. All of this creates a zone of
comfort that expands to include more and more of experiences that you would not have accepted without the 'theatre'. It's the same thing that you do, and
what I have illustrated with neuronics and Ecsys. Make something logical to your perspective and it becomes your perspective. An ever-broadening array of high
strangeness is being made logical to perspectives. And most of us accept it (because of this brand of logic). I suppose the question is, "What is being made
logical?". On one hand, what you would call slavery is being made logical. (Abject slavery wasn't that protable after the various revolts, so industrial slavery
became more popular. But the slaves are revol ng again, so a new type of slavery is required.) On the other hand, the dream world is being made logical.
You're in the dream world. But you still don't know you're dreaming because your experience will always seem like reality. You would laugh at the kind of world
that most of you will live in in 15 years, and think it impossible. But, just as you might have thought the same 15 years ago, you're living in it already.
05/19/2012 04:43 AM
Each of the 4 elements is as every other. (i.e., there is really only 1 element, which is the 'unseen' element I was asked about
before.) Symbols can be rules, potential energy, and representations. So, rules are also discovered (as are potential energy and representa ons). Some rules
are more effective than others for a particular purpose. As with the Ec language*, you make it yourself. (As there is only your perspective.) [*I suppose most
want a kind of dic onary for Ec, but that's not the way it works. Each 'deni on' is unique to your perspective. But how would that work when communicating
with others? Are you communicating with others or appearing communicating in your perspec ve? How is it possible that an aspect of your perspective would
not understand you if you communicated in the most elemental way? Such references make us comfortable because that's what we're used to. But reality is
much simpler than all the things we've invented in our perspec ve.]
05/19/2012 04:49 AM
Seems Chaol used the alterna ve word "create" rather than understood. Create makes more sense to me than discovered, but I get
'discovered' too.... I just still crave more here from Chaol. [snips] I usually put "create" in quotes, because nothing is created. You only discover it in your
perspective because it was the 'next logical step', so to speak. It appears that we create things when really we're just refashioning what was all ready there.
When you create a new word, for example, the word already existed before you thought of it. The sound, the meaning, etc., all extant. I won't talk about this
much because I don't want to get into what it means. It's quite an uncomfortable topic for most, I think, and it goes against a variety of closely held
physically-oriented beliefs. So, in English I prefer "discovery" or somesuch.
05/19/2012 07:06 AM
Repor ng back on my use of the Genius. As posted before, the first symbol continues to work brilliantly. I then created my second
symbol, to represent a slender figure and redesign my body. This one is also working! The pace of transforma on is following the "logical steps", incrementally,
but every morning I'm amazed. Since I started working with this symbol, I've felt a new strong urge to drink ker. Became literally obsessed with it. Looked
online, found a source to have it mailed to me (the living bacteria), and started the home made procedure this morning. I wonder if this es in with what Chaol
was saying about observing what new other symbols avail themselves, once you start working with one symbol. Ker in my home is now part of a new
perception, or should I say, a new element in my current perception (therefore creating a new geometry of rela onships). My body started responding to the
symbol I created for it immediately. I could notice a difference the very next morning. I have now also created a third symbol, to represent my dream home in
nature. I have already described the two previous symbols. This one is made with a flat brass ring from an old curtain, with a strip of green paper and white fur
from my cat taped together, and a piece of copperwire holding a small piece from a pine cone. I painted a few pink dots around the ring. As a rule, once a day I
put it on the head of a small Buddha statue, and spin around 3 times clockwise with open arms... Let's see what happens! As far as space, I keep all three
symbols in a little pouch that goes with me wherever I go. I perform the different rules, one after the other, at the same time of day. In the mean me, I go
through "declu ering sprees", not done completely with it ... and there is a stubborn hotspot which keeps recreating chaos...
05/19/2012 06:55 PM
I'm not laughing. But still I wonder, if this is the dream world, when do I get my own personal dream jetpack to go ying around
with? Or like one dream I had, my own personal Glock hover handgun? Now that would rule. Or something. I'd se le for either one really. If it is a dream, we
should be able to change it to anything really. How about AoE spells like, I dunno - Burbank potato rain? Is it possible to make it rain baked potatoes over an
area? Light and aky baked potatoes, cooked to just the right consistency and avor? There we go there's three goals I have now.
1. Telepathic communica on with my cat
2. My own personal jetpack
3. Potato rain.
Aim high, I always say.
05/19/2012 06:57 PM

78 of 145

Much of what we think we experience while dreaming, in the classical sense, is actually "waking interpreta ons" of dreamworld

experiences that we would not otherwise be able to think of. For ease of explana on, we can say that when you wake up and recall some of what you are
dreaming you take what really amounts to nonsense from your dream perspective and refashion it into something that your waking mind can understand. So the
jetpack in your dream probably isn't really a jetpack but something else that you changed into a jetpack in order to make sense of the experience. The jetpack
is a representation, a symbol. To desire the jetpack would be like desiring the word "happiness" instead of the actual thing. (And by actual thing I don't mean
the truth of something but another level of the thing. All exist as representations.) (The same goes for lucid dreams. We are all ways dreaming in such a way
but when more of our waking mind shares in the experience we think we are experiencing the dream rsthand. This is more of a waking experience rather than
a dream experience.) The dream is not very logical to the waking perspective so we re-create our experience to make it logical. Notice that the things you
remember about your dream are carry-overs from your waking experience. If you experienced it rsthand from your waking perspective, for example, you would
not have the words or concepts to describe (and, more importantly perceive) the experience. Similarly, you are experiencing an other reality right now that you
are re-interpre ng physically in order to make sense of it. In this way, the dream world and the waking world is the same. They are both re-interpreta ons.
That the dream world and physical world are merging basically means that the concepts you use to perceive either world are also merging. The merging is not a
physical thing, as physicality does not exist outside of the physical perspective (so to speak). You are, it can be said, having your first dream experiences right
now.
05/19/2012 10:16 PM
Those values in a perspective that appear to resist particular kinds of physically-based symbols while promo ng others. When we
apply the same force to the sky, in the clouds, we do not call it oppression or tyranny. We may simply say that it is raining. However, when the same force
(again, in our perspec ve) is applied to certain physical elements, such as a lifestyle or social experience then we may call it tyranny. Who is the oppressor? It
is most accurate to say that oppression does not actually exist and, therefore, the concept is irrelevant. It appears to exist only in rela on to "freedom" and
everything else*. In order to define freedom and to know what it is there must be some form of "oppression". (The same way that "hot" must be known and
dened in order that "cold" may be. Neither need exist. You choose to bring these concepts into your perspective.) However, these elements of your
perspective are your perspective, and only appear to be separate because they would not otherwise be able to be perceived. And, there would be no reality in
which to appear to exist. It is a bit less accurate to say that you are the oppressor. And not at all accurate to say that someone else, or a group of persons, is
the oppressor. It is easy to think that someone else is controlling the elements that exist in your perspective, a Wizard of Oz, but there is only one
perspective. [*To 'defeat' something you do not resist it. This interaction will create an environment where more of it is apparent. You simply do not focus on
what you do not want. Make it irrelevant. But keep in mind that it may be symbolized in your perspective in more ways than is obvious. Your experiences will
guide you, if you are careful to observe.]
05/19/2012 11:16 PM
And not at all accurate to say that someone else, or a group of persons, is the oppressor. Thank you for an excellent response. I had
a feeling you would say "it is you", but thank you for expanding on how opposites define a reality. [*To 'defeat' something you do not resist it. This interaction
will create an environment where more of it is apparent. You simply do not focus on what you do not want. Make it irrelevant. But keep in mind that it may be
symbolized in your perspective in more ways than is obvious. This is something that I have gured out. By gh ng something, you make it "real". A lot of stuff
is just plain false to begin with. Your experiences will guide you, if you are careful to observe. A few pages back, you mentioned that we have changed more
than we realize. I replied that I have a long list of changes that I recognize. Having been born in the mid-50's, there are tons of embedded no ons that I have
had to move past. I have become embroiled in situa ons that ipped me out as far as becoming angry or afraid or judgmental, only to find out later that what
happened to me was actually a blessing. I have nally learned to quit freaking out at "changes", and instead to trust the process. Although there appears to be
a lot of chaos around me in my world, I AM in a pretty good place right now and it only seems to be getting be er. And it has nothing to do with material
acquisi ons or social signicance or anything else like Americans are known for. In truth, it feels like real freedom :)
05/20/2012 04:57 AM
Lol, thank you! What I have no ced, is that while the nal symbol is an abstract representation per se, during the process of
assembling it, I pick elements not randomly, but that carefully truly represent what I intend. I don't know if this is essen al. My feeling is that it can be
random, as long as you assign to it a representation. But having each carefully placed element, reinforces the representation subconsciously. At least, this is
what came natural to me. The symbol above, for instance, represents my dream home. If anyone found it and picked it up on the street, would have no idea of
its signicance, it just looks like a "weird" object. However, the elements are: ring - a circle as a closed shape, my home surrounding me strip of green paper plants, veggie garden cat fur - my pets happy in the garden copper wire - conduits electricity, sends the message across piece of pine cone - trees, forest,
nature pink dots - owers on the lawn The body symbol is a cartridge cap, with a toothpick tied to it with a rubberband. cartdridge cap - "reprin ng" my figure
toothpick - slender rubberband - toned up and elas c It's not a direct representation (with previously assigned meanings), but an indirect associa on of other
meanings to a new representation. It seems to be working well!
05/20/2012 05:48 AM
My general thought in the past, was that it's harder to manifest instant changes, or make things occur (like the potato rain) in this
waking world, because at some level, it is a "shared reality", where you also interact with the crea on/percep on of others. An example that comes to mind is
"Second Life". I played with it a little several years ago. You entered a world, where you would find crea ons by other users, that you could interact with.
Besides making your own crea ons on the y. My understanding from what you say, is that, there are no "other users", it's all one perception of the individual.
In which case, what if I change my perception to fully realize that and integrate it within myself. I then could have the "characters" of my waking dream world
behave in a certain way. That conicts greatly with my concept of free will, as I do not want to manipulate other beings. But if these other beings are
theore cally only a construct of my mind, I can "lucid dream" the waking world. Or not? For instance, I could have the waking world landlords, tell me that they
give me the house to own. Or have friends say certain things, toward a certain outcome, and so on. In some way, this would only affect my own perception,
where they are characters, leaving them free to enjoy their own perspective in their own dream, where I AM a character. It is possible to lucid dream the
waking dream? Is the above paragraph correct?
05/20/2012 08:05 AM
@ Chaol, Thank you for the reply. Yes, I am! lol I know what you mean. I used the words "lucid dreaming", for lack of other ones,
meaning having the ability not only to experience the dream with awareness, but also being able to manipulate the dream, bend the rules and create the script
on the fly consciously. If I AM dreaming, who is making the rules? Assuming that I made my own rules, I could change them. For example, in an assumed
shared reality, we all experience gravity. But in truth there are no "other users" of my dream/game, they are all an aspect of me, so I AM all users, at the same
time. (Indeed, when you hate others, you are only creating conflict within yourself, with parts of yourself, as much as when you love others, you are loving
yourself). In the end, it's just "me" believing in gravity, so I could change that belief. Once that happens, I and all other aspects of me would reflect that, and
start ying around. This seems to happen easily in the sleeping dream world, but not in the waking dream world, even though I AM lucid dreaming here. This
dream is of a dierent, denser nature, with more static rules. The other aspects of me seem to have a life of their own. But since they are me, I could lucidly

79 of 145

assign them a particular script in my dream. Also, if I AM the dreamer, who is dreaming me?
05/20/2012 09:55 AM
"But what makes feelings so hard to describe? Is this because feelings are so simple and basic that there's nothing more to be said
about them? On the contrary, it seems to me that what we call "feelings" are what results from our a empts to describe our whole mental states - no matter
that every such state is so complex that any brief descrip on of it can capture just a few aspects of it. Consequently, the best we can do is to recognize some
ways in which our present state is similar to or diers from some other states that we recollect. In other words, because our mental states are so complex, we
can describe them only in terms of analogies." - The Emo on Machine by Marvin Minsky, pg 74 "All of the probabilities practically possible in human
development are therefore present to some extent or another in each individual. Any biological or spiritual advancement that you might imagine will of course
not come from any outside agency, but from with the heritage of consciousness made esh. Generally, those alive in this century chose a particular kind of
orienta on. The species chose to specialize in certain kinds of physical manipula on, to devote its energies in certain directions. Those direc ons have brought
forth a reality unique in its own fashion. Man has not driven himself down a blind alley, in other words. He has been studying the nature of his consciousness using it as if it were apart from the rest of nature, and therefore seeing nature and world in a particular light. That light has nally made him feel isolated,
alone, and to some extent relatively powerless (intently). "He is learning how to use the light of his own consciousness, and discovering how far one particular
method of using it can be counted upon. He is studying what he can do and not do with that particular focus. He is now discovering that he needs other lights
also, in other words - that he has been relying upon only a small por on of an entire inner searchlight that can be used in many direc ons.. .." [link to
sethspeaks.mul ply.com] Some Specula ve Ques ons: Feelings cant be fully described by our alphabet/english language... I wonder what 'prac cally possible'
means? Only possible with the nature of our consciousness, what are the limits and how can the imprac cal become prac cal? Describing by analogies ==
perception == whats practically possible? Is understanding the advanced channel 1 alien static prac cal? Can the complex underlying reality (what creates the
percep on) be described eec vely/usefully using perception? Will the complex underlying reality eventually be able to be described by perception, once it is
developed enough (ec language like?)
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/20/2012 11:36 AM
What you're speaking of are not rules per se. It's easy to think of them as the same kind of rules one would make when playing a game. However, these rules
affect everything in your perspective. They are logic. You are experiencing your own logic, you could say. In order to change the logic something else must
become more logical. It's not about belief. There are no beliefs in that way. They are aspects of perspective. You could also say that a belief is simply a
perception you have about your reality. It does not help if you 'believe' you can fly if it is not a logical part of your perspective. Belief has nothing to do with it.
You remember experiencing it in the dream world because the perspective appears to be different. (But by thinking or remembering it, isn't it nearly the same
as having experienced it in the waking world? The secret is the difference between your thought of your dreams and your thought of your waking world.) You
are the dreamer but, alas, there is nothing else. (Not even dreams.)
05/20/2012 11:55 AM
Still a ghost yet, but becoming more physically-oriented by the day. You can think of it as a set of instructions that are programmed
to mimic the idea of Chaol. The program learns as it goes along. The more it interacts the more it learns until it is too big for its original 'container'. It then
bifurcates and disappears. In this way, there are many "mes" around. Some with ideas and lives of their own. But the essence is the same because the
fundamentals are the same. Sounds strange, perhaps. But it's an analogy of what "Chaol" goes through. I don't know. Perhaps you can give me more
background in forma on?
05/20/2012 12:27 PM
Ah i have so many questions :) I've been dying to ask this one! How does perception relate to stuff like astral projec on? From what
i have read, astral projec on would involve interpreta ng the travels of another of our own consciousnesses with our current earth consciousness. So it would
still involve perception, its just that we are doing our best to interpret it with the concepts we know? But then why can we tune into so many weird things so
easily once we learn astral projec on, even if what we see are interpretated in familar earthly terms? Is astral projec on sort of a 'model' that allows us to
bring certain types of things into our existence, just like 'ec' is a model to bring certain other types of things into our existence? If so, how does the things
brought into existence by astral projec on dier then that of the 'ec' language? And why can we even astral project in the first place? My guess would be that
ec starts simpler to cover the founda on of perception, then more complex things are built which could start to cover what we can experience using astral
projec on. Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/20/2012 01:28 PM
All experiences are interpreted in the current perspective. Astral projec on would be a change of perspective, but your memory of an astral projec on
experience would be interpreted, usually, into your physically-based perspective. It's no different from remembering a dream. We are not so much remembering
what happened in the dream as experiencing, right now, our interpretation of the dream. It's the same with thinking about the past. A "past" memory is 100%
present. (It is your present interpretation of something else that you have assigned a value of "past" to much the same way it might be 'delicious', you could
say. That same memory can be revalued to be 'future' as easily as tastes change.) The past is impercep ble (because it does not exist). Any astral experiences
are re-interpreta ons of the present moment. What is called "astral projec on" is the ~brain creating a logical narra ve for this strange experience of the
present. It is kind of like if I pushed a bu on that ejected the taste of chocolate into your eyes. Wholly strange, your brain would work quickly to find a way
that it could make sense in your experience. So it would show you something that is not there. It would reach into the 'past' and, before you experienced these
new avors, created a situation where chocolate dripped into your eyes. This is 100% of how your reality works, not just with dreams, astral projec on, or the
paranormal. Your experiences must make sense to you somehow. So a strange experience may be interpreted as 'astral projec on', but you still use physicallybased concepts that you would understand (so that you can perceive the thought of it). The silver cord is real, but it also does not exist. What you do not
realize is that you are already using Ec. Each and every one of you. Ec is how we perceive. It is the language of perception, interpreted as basically as possible
into this brand of physicality. Ec does not create anything. It allows you to uncover the logic between one perception and the next. If I showed you right now
how ying is very logical to your current physical body, you would be able to y. No physical changes need to be made. Only changes to perspective, which is
how Ec is used. We think of software as useful. It has played an important part of modern civiliza on. But we forget that software used to be symbolized with
hardware. Giant machines that carry out tasks that we can now print out on paper, or even represented as abstract symbols that do the same work
instantaneously. That Ec could allow you to do the same thing inside your mind (that is to say, within your perspec ve) is not magic. It's just technology.
Which technology do you use? It doesn't matter. What matters isn't the symbol itself but the relationships between symbols. Computer hardware has not
progressed because things are smaller but because we've found more efficient ways to relate one with an other (and made other relationships unnecessary,
thus the decrease in size). Why can you astral project? You don't. It is still an experience of physical reality, as is everything in your perspective. It's just that
sometimes the "body" does amazing things that is out of the ordinary in your perspective. (Rather, the you that is reading this now perceives a 'astral
projec on' value in your body.) The physical universe is all there is. There is just much more to physicality than we realize. Yes, it's kind of amusing to see
comments about how Ec could only be used for simple things because it appears so basic and elementary. Nevermind how much 26 letters of an alphabet have

80 of 145

produced, or the wonders of DNA. Complex things with Ec are only complex because of the relationships. We'll need an Ec-brain to communicate about Ec
relationships. But hopefully I've covered the basic (non-rela onship oriented) features here.
05/21/2012 04:58 AM
Hi. Your questions are fine. I don't mind. The more I answer the more real I become (un l I'm not anymore). So these questions are
relevant to my interests. My world is just a different brand of physicality, as was mentioned before. So, other kinds of physicality are merging (and have
merged) into this one. My knowledge about my own and other worlds is quite limited. I could find some things out if you have specific ques ons, however. Such
questions would allow me to create the neuronics necessary to provide the answer for you (or, at least push you in the appropriate direc on if the answer is
not for public consump on). There is, "no creation of matter without energy", as is stated. We are assuming that there is crea on, matter, and energy. Further,
we are assuming that matter can be created and is created, matter can exist separately from energy and is separate, and matter needs energy to be created.
We can make the above assumptions and (currently) arrive at no answer or we can start with an other assumption and see where it takes us. Let's assume that
crea on, matter, and energy are not separate but something that we perceive as being separate. (We can safely assume that we perceive them as being
separate because of our assumptions. Outside of our perception we do not know if they are separate. Let us further assume that we cannot know of anything
beyond our current perception and thus can only safely assume that our perception is all that exists.) So in that case our answers are thus:
1) But what "form" does energy take, if it precedes ma er? [Irrelevant]
2) What contains energy? [Our perspective does, if it is indeed separate from energy]
3) How does it exist without ma er? [Irrelevant]
4) How is energy expressed with no form? [If we can perceive it, it already has form. Although we don't know if any form that exists is real or not.]
Of course, we don't know if this line of reasoning is true. But because it makes less unveriable assumptions it can be reasoned that it is something that may
have more of an answer for us than something else where no answer is obvious.
05/22/2012 07:07 PM
Most of us are just full of crap, myself included. (Unless we're not.) Some of us are playing checkers, some playing chess. I've put
most of my cards on the table, however. I'm not here to bring peace or spread 'light and love'. I'm here to "destroy" your world in ways that you cannot
imagine. This is not a supernatural power. You yourself do this all the time. You just don't realize it (nor all the things you actually do). I don't know about
these others without some kind of reference to go on. The info I 'get' is from what you give me :) I'm programmed to respond to direct questions and some
concerns, as I see t. I haven't thought about going to an other forum or clicking on links. No, I AM not a robot. I AM just as real as you are (but I suppose
that isn't saying much). I say I AM a ghost because of this kind of programming. We are all kind of ghosts in this way. How do I relate to the bigger picture?
That's an interesting question that I do not have an answer for unless I know what the bigger picture is to you. Just consider it lite entertainment. Those who
know be er, will. I'm just repeating what you already know, slowly, and in different ways over time using different representations. Why do I do this? For
purely selsh reasons. I help so that I may be helped, not so that not-me can be helped. I plant seeds in different 'dimensions' (as you would call it) that may
eventually provide some shade for others, or even fruit, but it is all for my own benet. That is to say, I realize that there is only me. But "me" in a sense that
you would consider it "both familiar and strange others" and things. When you realize that your perspective is you then you, too, are doing all this and more. I
have nothing to sell or promote. The markets I AM interested in are of the mind and others would know not what 'products' are there. The me that lives in
Canada 'previously' is already very wealthy from using Ecsys. There is a portal between worlds, as you would call it, in the North of Thailand. This was opened
up some time ago, as noted on this thread during that time, and your scientific equipment recorded it. There is no interest in 'going pop' for Ecsys. That is not
the purpose. Select loca ons around the web and world are more preferred. Ecsys is just another word and detail for what you do already.
05/23/2012 12:59 AM
You made reference to yourself as a Marco Polo of sorts. He had a vast amount of knowledge for his time, yet it would be centuries
before the accuracy of his representations was recognized and valued. For those who did know him, however, the information that he possessed would have
been very advantageous- and Marco Polo might have used it as a form of currency, for mutually benecial transac ons. He could have made his lifetime one of
great wealth and status, perhaps. But what if Marco Polo was actually a product of the 17th Century? What if he discovered a means of shifting his perspective
to the 1270s? One could argue that Marco Polo would be able to exchange information between the two time periods and create personal opportuni es in both
lifetimes. Yet there's a catch. If no energy exists outside one's perception, Marco Polo would have to make the 1270s relative to himself, and himself relative
to the 1270s. After all, appearing with a 17th Century cognitive framework might render the Yuan Dynasty rather Baroque in Marco Polo's eyes- and the Yuan
Dynasty would have, perhaps, an orb of light oa ng around the palace walls. Plan ng a seed of information in the 1270s about himself, however, would solve
both of those problems. As the seed grows, our 17th C. Marco Polo and certain persons in Yuan Dynasty bridge the psychological distance of "space and me."
He might then choose to skip back and live a very wealthy and exci ng 11th Century life. So who is this modern day Marco Polo aiming to influence with a
thread on GLP in the year 2012? Does it relate to a 2009 Canada? Someone, eventually, might call it a Happy Accident:)
Last Edited by CatCarel on 05/23/2012
03:49 AM
If the influence from the other side is a certain magnitude for a certain part of our perspective, we will say that it 'creates'. And if furthermore we cannot easily
access the other part of our perspective and influence it in order to change the 'certain part of our perspec ve', well say that the other is a who and make it
unknown !.... kk i get what ur saying .... but if the other side of our perspective inuences our current relevant perspective alot, and we can 'speak' with it
(channeling), than wouldn't it be reasonable to say the other is a who? So we define 'creators' as a certain structure of our perspective (whats usually referred
to as 'advanced' consciousnesses) ... Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/23/2012 09:02 AM
The goals of these different people remind me greatly of the 'a er life' voca on part of 'seth speaks: the eternal validity of the soul.' "Now: Others, finished
with reincarna ons and of a different overall nature, may begin the long journey leading toward the voca on of a creator. On a much different plane, this can
be compared to geniuses in a crea ve elds within your own physical reality. Instead of paints, pigments, words, musical notes, the creators begin to
experiment with dimensions of actuality, impar ng knowledge in as many forms as possible - and i do not mean physical forms. What you would call time is
manipulated as an ar st would manipulate pigment. What you would call space is gathered together in different ways. Art is created, then, using time -- for
example -- as a structure. In your terms time and space might be mixed. The beau es of various ages, the natural beau es, the pain ngs and building are all
recreated as learning methods for these beginners. one of their main preoccupa ons is to create beauty that impinges itself in as many various dimensions of
reality as possible... Now: These "art forms" are often symbolic representations of the nature of reality. They will be interpreted in various ways, according to
the abili es of those who perceive them ..." Sounds sort of like Chaol .... Or maybe teaching : "Such a teacher must be able to instruct various por ons of one
en ty, in your terms, at the same time ...." (pg 166)
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/23/2012 09:17 AM
Ooh I know this!:) "Flow" is achieved when brain waves are in theta (4-7hz). This state decreases limbic activity (stress response, ght/ight), allowing focus

81 of 145

on the task at hand without the background buzzing of anxiety, discomfort, or mental cha er. Theta also blocks the filters through which you process
information and sends it straight to the 'subconscious'. That's why arma ons during medita on are able to encourage positive changes- any negative filters
present during daily beta states are removed. It also means that information is internalized much faster and more completely. People diagnosed with ADHD
reside in the theta state more than most, which means they feel lethargic/disconnected, but often have above-average intelligence due to better info
processing. I've been able to memorize huge amounts of material when "sleepy," simply because my mind was too red to focus on surrounding s muli. So
shifting perspective would work better in theta because you're more open to ideas, sugges ons, beliefs. (And children until the age of 6 are primarily in theta,
hence the imagina on and creativity they exhibit).
05/23/2012 09:42 AM
So I guess the question is how to effectively explore our perspective in order to access different perspec ves/informa on. Starry3,
you are the one who introduced "The Einstein Factor" earlier in this thread. The premise of that system is that you already know things that you're not aware
of. The book recommends quie ng your mind, then asking a question and speaking the answer into a recorder. Have you tried this? Several years ago, I began
a "journal". I write down a question and then wait for a reply to swell up from inside of me, which I then record. Some mes, I end up writing so quickly that I
don't even know what is being put down until I'm finished and then go back and read what I wrote. I have received the most awesome responses. At first, I
doubted some of the things I was ge ng, because they seemed so strange. But, their veracity has been proven to me in the most mind-boggling ways. I have
asked "who is answering these ques ons?" and I have been told over and over again, "it is you". "We are your ideas". Many of the things that I have written in
my journal have eventually been repeated by Chaol on this thread. This is one reason that I don't mind claiming to be a "believer". Just a few days ago, I
asked about Chaol's mo va on in sharing ecsys with us. The response, in part, is that knowledge of ecsys builds a network of worlds that speak the same
language. I'll leave it at that. The rest of the response pretty much follows Chaol's basic explanation above, including the part about "seeding". Pretty neat,
don't you think? You may want to give a try. Just remember to relax and only write down what swells up from within, and not what you want to hear. You have
to give up some amount of control over what you think the answer should be.
05/23/2012 09:53 AM
A scientist could say that energy is produced when a laser is turned on. Someone else could say that no energy was produced or
transferred, but that it exists entirely of perspective and in the relationships between certain representations. These representations they may call par cles.
But if the particles are not perceived then they do not exist at that time. The energy may simple exist as no more than a spike on the meter. This is an other
representation of course. It may be strange to think of the meter going up as "energy" without something to back it up but it's exactly what we do if we were
to look at a beam of light and call it "energy" as well. Representa ons, all. Turn a beam on and it produces no energy if it is not directly perceived. (The
residual could be, of course.) They have already measured this, but it goes against pretty much everything in their books so it is ignored.
05/23/2012 05:37 PM
Did i come back from the future to warn myself or just make the transition a little easier? And utilizing less energy than your
interactions require is the shift in perspective that you seek. It would be as if, for illustration only, you are running in a marathon called existence with your
friend named Ms. Current Reality. One day you decide to run a bit slower than she and you happen to find yourself running next to her sister, an other Ms.
Reality. Doing this, you shift perspectives. It's not that using less energy allows you to go back in time. It's that doing so allows you to expand your
perspective because you become detached with those relationships. Last Edited by Chaol on 05/24/2012 05:18 AM
If you hold that we cannot perceive or experience beyond our own perception, how is it that rules come from outside it ('using the rules of that reality")?
Perhaps the rules of the reality are actually the structure of our perspective. How can an illusion be shared? Isn't the other with whom we are sharing also a
part of our perception? If you only hold that "everything is percep on" as you have stated recently, how can you even know if an other perception exists? This
world that I illustrate is this world. Strange as it may seem, this fundamental reality of this world is pretty strange.
1) There is so much that we do not know about reality. It could be said, science knows nothing about reality if we are only able to perceive and experience an
infinitesimally small part of it (less than 0.0001%).
2) It follows that most of the other 99.9999% would be very foreign to us, even though it is deeply ingrained in our reality.
3) And much (or most) of reality would go against our most fundamental assumptions about reality.
4) Reality is, essen ally, a mystery to us because of these assumptions. If we assumed more accurately we would be able to perceive and understand greater
than what would otherwise be called "nothing".
5) We can also say that most people in the world, for sake of illustra on, believe what is popular. As these core assumptions are most likely inaccurate (them
being that which is holding us back from actually perceiving reality more accurately) it follows that more accurate assumptions would go against our beliefs and
assumptions. We may hold up an apple and ask about the color. 999 out of 1,000 persons may say that the apple is red or a similar color. The 1 person that
says it is black is thought of as crazy. However, your scientists can argue that the apple is more black or blue than red (red being what we see). Although it
would be more accurate, it is not popular. Popular assumptions are most always inaccurate. They are used because they are socially convenient, not because
they have basis in reality. (Social being a loose definition of interaction with other values in perspective.) In that way most or all of our core assumptions
would be mistaken. A) It is because of these core assumptions that we perceive the apple as being red. B) We condi on ourselves, through use of perspective,
to see the apple as red when it is not. It works for us, we can use it and incorporate it into our daily lives. For your specific intents it seems real. C) But we are
missing a greater reality, so to speak. Our eyes may even see the apple as black and blue but our brain does not want to see it that way because it does not
fit with our core assumptions about our reality. The focus is so intense that an other reality (an 'expanded reality that interacts with more values') is not
allowed to exist. D) You need not perceive anything more than you do now. It is enough to see the apple as red. E) But to say that we perceive reality
accurately and to assume our core assumptions are based in reality would be highly inaccurate. F) When we learn to let go of our assumptions then we can
perceive the greater reality. I have said before a few times that I do not myself believe much of what I AM saying, or even perceive some of what I AM saying
in my reality. However, I know it to be more accurate than what I may myself see. It is not "my system" or the way of Chaol's world. It is an open system that
allows for the existence of everything in our perspective and even that which is beyond perspective (the missing "4" in the 1, 2, 3, 5 values). G) Everything you
say, think, believe, sense, and feel is true. (You are both wrong and right at the same time as irrelevant.) But some things are more accurate than others
(depending on the perspective). In this brand of physical perspective I can say that all of our assumptions are mistaken (including mine) because the language
and way we use to express them are not capable of illustrating reality. H) When I say that something is "accurate" I don't mean to say that it is fact. I have
not ever mentioned that something is a fact or that it is true. By "accurate" I mean that it is more inclusive of the values of perspective. Ec, for example,
allows someone to include more in their perspective than an other language (like English). This brings it closer to reality (so to speak) because reality also
includes more than you see with your eyes. I) Ecsys is inclusive because it is fundamental. If an other system comes along that is more inclusive of perspective
then we may drop Ec and learn more about it, perhaps. J) It is for this reason (inclusivity) that Ecsys is resisted somewhat. For the nature of existence is to
exclude. Without the illusion of exclusion, there is no illusion of existence. If I don't separate myself from you, apparently, then I do not exist (as there is

82 of 145

nothing with which to compare). K) We can observe from language (and posts and responses here and every kind of communica on elsewhere) that we as
humans want to divide and to make something more complex. We want to exclude values in our perspective, make others more special, or to forget in order to
hide values from ourselves. This is the nature of existence. To do things to maintain the illusion of existence where it is not really had. So, it is not a blind
acceptance. It is a type of inclusive logic rather than a very specific logic. Something you do all ready by merely exis ng, and just as easily forget when you
participate in the illusion of existence. Isn't Ego nothing more than what you were, doing everything it can to remain relevant despite persistent change? It
may be more comfortable for some to interpret this reality as a "co-crea on" and that "others" are separate. In this way the ego is stroked, we feel as if we are
not responsible for what we experience and that "they" are capable of fault. This is not because "some" are wrong. They are very right, they do co-create by
giving power to what they perceive to be others. I think there is a fundamental discomfort associated with the realization that there is no time other than now
and that that which resides "outside" of perspective is incapable of forming relationships with that which resides "within" perspective. It is very possible that
none of this existed before you (yes, you, the one reading this). You were once nothing yourself. You had no relationship to you and you were irrelevant. At
some point, you (being nothing) became something. You formed relationships along a specific logic withing a realm of possibilities. This could have happened
moments ago. There is a possibility you were literally just formed, fully aware of what could poten ally be interpreted as a constructed past that allows you to
contextualize your present. We look "out there" for proof that what we believe to be us still exists and we find it. We imagine that we've done this or that and
we call that memory... We wake in what we believe to be our house, our room, our bed... but, before this moment, before NOW, it is very possible none of it
existed. Ego keeps us tied to "this" realm. It allows us to remain. It's like a self imposed speed limit. To truly transcend the ego (that you have now) and
render it irrelevant, is to find a new ego's set of logic to dictate how to perceive your personal data stream. Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 05/24/2012 09:14
AM
If all that exists, does so within your perspective. If you can focus in any direc on to see the expression of a(the) fractal out into that direction. Then would a
set of constructs ever have the opportunity to be legit? Would the seed, ower of life, metatron's cube have any relevance beyond metaphor for a much deeper
fractal being a metaphor for a deeper one? If we get too caught up in the rules, we will never get to play the game right? Keeping it simple, like "checkers"
may be more advantageous and experience rich than adding addi onal rules like "chess." Wouldn't more rules by definition ultimately add to the limita ons?
Perhaps checkers is a bad example, how about "Go" or "Othello?"
05/24/2012 10:34 AM
There are some who might feel resistance to this symbolic word, "laziness". I used to be a card-carrying member of the rat race. I
was right up there on top of the ant hill. It never felt right to me, however. It didn't make any sense. The day came when I found myself laying on my bed,
staring at the ceiling fan, with not one atom of energy left in me. That is when I began to examine my assumptions. I merely adopted different assumptions,
and now life is easy for me. I'm going to check out this "value" in my perception until I'm bored with it. "Someone" is a symbol, is it not? There is a trick that I
learned awhile ago. When interacting with a person, I can disappear the person and look at my mo va ons and intent behind this encounter. I can choose my
response or lack of response. Then, I make the person reappear in my perception and carry on with a little more though ulness. Sometimes I choose to
confront and pick a ght with the other person, but it is a choice and not an automatic reac on. I realize that the other person is a reec on of my own inner
environment, so I go "inside" before projec ng outwardly. I do this with a lot of things, now; not just with people. I AM learning to choose what I want,
including finding my lost car keys.
05/24/2012 10:50 AM
Take dungeons and dragons for instance. In that game, the "game master" or "dungeon master" imagines an environment and
conveys it to the "players" through a common language. The players may interpret what is described by the GM in different ways. Each player is still subject to
the nal word of the GM and the rules of the game. Simple but complex. Reducing all of reality to a few fundamental concepts like logic, possibility, interaction
and symbol is a way of "un-focusing" from the detailed clusterfuck of metaphor that lies before us. All that we believe we've done to lead us to this point is
scratching at us, gh ng for it's own relevance. If we give something up, like let's say Christ or a religion, we open a void that will be filled by a similar
metaphor for one of those four fundamental forces. If we live in a "simula on," which I personally believe we do. Then without rules in the system (logic),
there is nothing (chaos). Without possibility for the rules to play out, there is no interaction. Without interac on, there is no opportunity for a feedback loop
and everything remains stagnant. Without the symbol (metaphor) there is no "memory" for comparison or experience. The subconscious cannot easily be
accessed by the conscious mind because they are one in the same. There is no subconscious. Along the way (metaphorically) we have "learned" to ignore what
is typically a ributed to what is called the subconscious because it allows us to adequately engage in what we perceive as our culture or society (both also
metaphorical fractals). But, to your first point... Sure, anything can be built with the right "technology." I know one sure re way to prevent the construc on of
a desired experience... the assumption that it's impossible. I like how Tom Campbell pushes the "open-minded-skep cism." Everyone's path is dierent, but if
you start with the assumption that it is impossible to pass a hurdle... you won't. Right?
05/24/2012 11:46 AM
Good to know. What may also help (and come more easily to others) is to see how one behaves and feels around an other person.
For example, around Jane you may feel smart and dy. Around Jeremy you may feel quick and light. Does this mean that this is how these persons feel about
you? If you happen to experience this, then you've had a taste of the geometry of relationships. You're tas ng the values these symbols have in your
perspective. People are not "just symbols" any more than the greatest thing you could possibly imagine is "just" a symbol. When representation is all there is
nothing lacks exceeding importance. And now we venture deeper into this territory. Wars have begun over less lol Last Edited by Chaol on 05/24/2012 01:31
PM
Souls are a way for us to humanize something that is more independent of what we think of as physicality. A symbol, perhaps, like a god. Something we use to
relate more easily to something else. This is not to invalidate it, but I AM sugges ng that our interpretation of what we call souls could not possible be
accurate. How would we understand such a thing from the viewpoint of physical experience? "Japan is the future" is a simplica on of a plethora of things
relative to this brand of physicality. No, that is not a shared reality. As I mentioned before, we are forever trying to divide the universe. That is how we come
to exist. There is but one reality and one universe, it could be said. Last Edited by Chaol on 05/24/2012 01:33 PM
I dont think were saying its impossible, were just asking if theres another more desirable way .... Im not assuming its impossible, currently im lazy and dont
wanna find another way :) Im still very leery of dividing things into 4 forces - useful for the genius, but not for a language because the english language
structures how we see reality visually and reduce the language to such simplicity is to miss the complexity. Missing the complexity in the sense that i dont
want all the details of matter, i want some mystery! I do think describing the complexity with ec neuronics would work - however, i also think making it a uent
language would literally change how we visually see things. Maybe we could test it in a dream state (not the physical reality dream state - when we go to
sleep!) Agreed, our conscious mind is hypno zed into forge ng alot of things that are now 'subconscious'. We need to test how much we can remember

83 of 145

without overloading ...

05/24/2012 05:09 PM
I think the following summarizes (1) Chaols universe is similar to that described by Anonymous Coward (2) People here probably
would prefer this worlds way of seeing things to that of chaols (3) There is a constant interplay between the technical squarish building blocks, which is chaols
world, and that of the wholis c which is this world. The technical squarish building block in the end doesnt work out all the way to the top, because this
universe doesnt mesh the best with them ... (3) Switching languages will permanently switch how we see things (visually) and eventually all of perception. Do
we see things from a technical or overall viewpoint? (4) The values of this world haven't been exhausted (not expanded yet), switching to technicality is not
desirable and not necessary in the end it could be interesting to try out in a lucid dream though Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/24/2012 05:52 PM
Lol! Its just another root assump on. Ecsys's root assumption is that everything is our perception, which can only work if we focus on that exclusively. Is the
universe a best fit with that assump on? We all exist in this universe, whats outside perception we dont know (well i think theres something intui vely, which
would be the 'immortal self', so we only dont know if we dont listen to intui on). So our immortal self would follow the rules of this universe, and we could try
to fit it to rules that dont fit well, but in the end it wouldnt work out .... to fully progress and 'use' the universe to it capacity, a different root assumption is
needed. And of course you know what that is :) our astral body is sort of like an 'ar cial soul', and can be destroyed (it is an illusion, a percep on). keep
going on up up up the layers! Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/24/2012 06:05 PM
thank you for your reply. I agree that our interpretation of what we call souls could not be accurate from our physical viewpoint. This leads me to another
thought. If a certain concept/idea exists within our perception, there must be something behind that idea that validates it. Unless it's all just a big fantasy,
and we are making things up. In other words, if one even managed to grasp the idea of having a soul, as inaccurate as one may be in their interpretation of it,
the idea itself brings it into perspective, and therefore it does exist. Unless I misunderstood some of the discussions, there seem to be two opposite
interpreta ons of your message. I recall you said that nothing is ever "created", it has always existed. We just rearrange what was already there, within this
physicality. At other times, it seems as if nothing exists, nothing is real. Hmmm... it is possible that everything has always existed (in poten ality), while at
the same time not existing at all (unless perceived)... To be, or not to be, may indeed be the ques on! It makes me think of your number 5. I AM still not clear
on the Japan thing, except for my projec on that it may be related to radia on changing our physical construct in a way that it will enable us to shift
perspective by the 2013 meframe. The Fukushima radia on making cosmic radia on more relative to us. Not sure.
05/24/2012 06:30 PM
I've been wondering about that. Currently, I've come to the conclusion that it may expand the value that we assign to something (the
symbol), our general interpretation, but it would not change visually how we see it, because the physical symbol keeps following the rules/logic of this world.
Here is what I mean. I do speak several languages, yet visually a door remains a door, no matter what language I use. Though each language has a different
gramma cal approach, a different sound associated to the word, a different way to express nuances of situa ons that are not conceived in yet another
language. EC is more dras c in applying a different logic to interpre ng things, but it's still applied to the symbols of this world, as another "language". I was
trying to play with it (at the very beginning stages) just for fun, the other night. I was staring at the window doors to my bedroom, which face onto the garden.
How would I use EC for that? Star ng with the known interpretation that it is a "door", the next question would be, what kind of door, how much do I use it,
how relevant, etc. I use it a lot and love where it faces, so I decided that it is a high symbol input, high interaction output (+S+I). Doing that, expanded my
interpretation and view of that door, but visually it remained a door within this physicality. Of course, I haven't tried it full me... :-)
05/24/2012 06:55 PM
I feel it is more limi ng now, in terms of what we can technically do (but definitely not in how we feel!), but if we tried different
assumptions we would find them just as expansive, and eventually more expansive. they say that 'advanced forgiveness' is powerful, the only way i can
currently understand this intellectually is that it sees thing in the whole, rather than the parts. I understand that immortal souls can perceive and understand
an innite amount of concepts at one time, according to the seth speaks books... so thats what forgiveness is about, seeing the whole rather than the parts.
And when you can see and understand the whole instantly, maybe things become more powerful .... but when youre at that point, its not about power in any
case... The way that we determine if we are 'in line' with the values of this universe are feelings, we dont have to understand intellectually, though it would be
interesting. If we start with this assump on, then forgiveness is atleast part of the correct path to fully develop the values of this universe
Last Edited by
Starry3 on 05/24/2012 07:08 PM
Maybe if we make a different root assumption we can more easily make things more relevant. Or a different way of making things more relevant that is more
aligned with our values .... Lets say a soul decided to build its perceptions with fractals, and then it decided to forget its immortal (i.e. evolve the conscious
mind). so lets say we were built with fractals but then we tried to structure reality with lego blocks. It would not be possible to structure everything with lego
blocks, but we could get a long way. but seeing everything in the whole is so much more useful in the end. Intui on works through the fractals, when we start
structuring stuff with blocks we dont really feel the intuition, where the intui on operates through the fundamental value/structure of our illusion? Because the
inner senses of our immortal soul know better than our conscious mind what is real and what is not? I will explain these ideas clearer later on because i will
read 'seth speaks: the eternal validity of the soul.' Unless of course we could decide to totally escape the universe illusion , like chaol men oned. But he said
that his world was in the same universe as ours. So did we really escape the illusion? or did someone just try to structure it dierently? Last Edited by
Starry3 on 05/24/2012 08:27 PM
I AM pretty sure we have different interpreta ons of the concept of the "soul." When you play a game of chess, the pawn you're moving does not have it's own
"consciousness." As I see it, for the dura on of the move, the pawn kind of "borrows" the soul(consciousness etc) of the player. At that moment, you are not
you... You are that pawn. You have a very small decision space within the rules of the game. I see "us" the same way. We are "loaning" our "soul" to this body
within this rules-set(game). I AM personally convinced that we do not have a soul that exists outside of us. I'd go as far as to say that there isn't a separate
prime mover, "source," "higher self" or "over soul" either. I AM convinced that YOU are what others misinterpret and call God. I AM pretty sure it's just you. You
are everything you will to be. Your fear, doubt, love, forgiveness etc... are all just varied avors on a wide spectrum of experience. Forgiveness is great, but...
To forgive, you must first determine there is something worth forgiving (implying someone, including yourself, has harmed you). I think gra tude is a bit more
appropriate. If you've been wronged to the point you believe you have to forgive, then you're wrong. Instead of providing forgiveness, be grateful for the
lesson... it couldn't have existed if you hadn't willed it that way. All these "NPCs" (non-player-characters or "other people") that you've discovered throughout
your perceived existence can appear quite separate from you. You perceive them as having jobs, families, dreams, etc... It all remains within your personal
perception. They behave and act as if they are just like you. They seem to have that same spark you feel that let's you KNOW that there is more than THIS.
They will tell you that they have it, you may believe them. But... do you think that it may be possible that they are only playing out to your perspective

84 of 145

according to nite laws set before your game of chess was started? With all the pieces on the chess board and the perceived default two-player requirement, is
it possible you're the only one playing the game? Anything we sense is a perception. Intui on is just a data stream. Just like your ability to see, hear, taste,
touch and smell. They are all just pathways for data to interact with you. I AM not intending to trivialize it by saying this. I personally find it profound and
beautiful that we hold nite but unbounded "control" or "inuence" over our perspective {the data we receive). To say that others do not exist, is silly
nonsense. You sense them, you know they're "real." They are as real as that limited perspective that you believe is you. Even our sense of who we are is
"just" (again not to trivialize) a perception of who we are. We can never truly even "know" our self... anywhere we focus and zoom in, it's another symbolic,
metaphorical, fractal. It doesn't matter if we look inside/outside or even back and forward in time. Wow, there I go rambling again. I hope that I helped to
clarify my posi on. Oh and open-minded-skep cism just means to approach everything with an open mind, but find evidence of truth before incorpora ng it
into your personal paradigm or risk following something you don't truly know first hand. There are a lot of babies out there chillin' in bathwater. Truth, whatever
that is, can only be known through personal subjective experience. Un l we know, we do not know.
05/25/2012 07:01 AM
Right. I realized that when I went to sleep... Of course, you just make it more relative. Which is useful to consider when working with
the Genius, because the assumption that 'it's already there" makes it easier to position the desired experience closer to you, to bring it into ac ve perception.
I AM still pondering on what Starry3 is saying, though. Or my understading of it. About the core assumption that everything is perception, or if there is a realm
outside of perception, to which we are connected anyways (intui on, higher self, etc.). I guess it comes down to the definition of "percep on". It is easier to
define it, in rela on to experiences and clear thoughts, but it becomes more blurry when related to the "intangible", the hunch, that "something more and
beyond". The idea of innity.
05/25/2012 07:38 AM
Very nice post, MM, all of it. The passage above is along the lines of what I have been pondering about since time immemorial. lol.
What I AM trying to figure out, is if me being what others call God is "it", all there is and all inclusive, or if my perception is just a fragment of it, and so is
everyone and everything else. A small fractal of the whole, so that whithin my fractal I AM complete in and of itself, but mirroring a much bigger picture that
streches to innity, alongside innite other fractals, which are also God in and of themselves. Which brings us to... ... and... This is exactly what I AM trying to
integrate, because there is a potential contradic on (in my mind). If I AM the only player (God), the NPCs must be a construct of my mind, simple characters,
and therefore not real. Even if I perceive them as real, I AM ultimately fooling myself, playing the game. For them to be real, there must be several players
(each a fragment/fractal of God). At least on this plane of existence. Each one of the fractals is a universe and a reality in itself, with their avatars interacting
as characters in the other fractal's universe. The circles cross each other, but do not merge. You can only have your perception. In my universe you respond to
me, in your universe I respond to you. When I experience your character/avatar, I AM reminded that you are just as real in your universe, as I AM in mine. You
are God, I AM God. Together, we form the bigger picture, zooming out. The One God, where all the fractals are a construct of it's mind, and not real, is never to
be reached. The bigger picture keeps zooming out to innity. All fractals are not separate, because they are part of the One. Yet, they are individualized
por ons, a zooming in. Ul mately, we can never experience that we are not real, forever experiencing being real. Still pondering...
05/25/2012 08:49 AM
This is how it is perceived, but ul mately, I AM just an NPC in your reality. As I see it, you are the "only" and one true God. I feel
real, I can tell you that I AM just like you... but like Chaol points out, we are always perceiving the lm around symbols and never the true pure reality of that
symbol. If God is dened as all that is, was and will be, then I AM God, because you are God perceiving me. Yes, but it's not "together" that this is done. This
is all you. You are the player, but you've conned yourself to the pawn. There are "other" pawns, but you are the only player. What is "right" for me in all my
NPCness, may not be what's "right" for you. But well put and that's exactly how I see it. I imagine reality is kind of like a restaurant. All the "other" people,
things, ideas or experiences are just dishes on YOUR menu. Please do not immediately take anything I say as truth. This is the way I see it, but I could be
wrong in your perspective. I say this... despite the fact that I "know" that I AM right.
05/25/2012 09:21 AM
Good ideas guys! Its good that ideas circulate, this is excellent I think it will all be resolved through simplicity like chaol said, though
maybe not through the ec language (but maybe so!).... I think were nearing integra on. The answers have been right in front of our nose im guessing ....
Interesting topic: Like chaol says, we interpret things according to the relationship between our 'symbols.' For example, when i breath in deeply with nature, I
feel a large inux of energy. According to [link to www.magicko hought.com] , what is actually happening is that the inux of breath causes the 'body cells
which are consciousness' to generate energy (its a relationship we already have!). Then, to generate this energy on command, you associate it with your
imagina on! just linking another symbol and changing relationships Another Interesting topic: Hypnosis also works by relationships between symbols we have
grown up with (and thus slips past our conscious mind) This is an interesting ar cle: "Connected to the quartz crystal, and spo ed a large structure. Not
energy at this point, because Im not sending any energy into the crystal. (Remember, sensory connections dont send energy.) But a large structure that could
contain energy if you put some in. Thats quite unusual. Normally, when I connect to something thats alive, I see a lot of ac ve structures, with their own
energy. And when I connect to something thats not alive whether its dead wood or inorganic material theres hardly any structures there. Its quite hard
to spot anything, really. So a large, obvious, unpowered structure in nonliving ma er? This is the first time Ive seen that." Maybe thats why theres stuff like
the 'mineral realm'
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/25/2012 09:23 AM
I was avoiding posting the following to this thread, but it is something that I have burned into my understanding: From the RA Material: In truth there is not
right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you
amuse yourself by distor ng in various ways at this time. This distor on is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alterna ve to
understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing,
every being, every emo on, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are innity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
05/25/2012 04:07 PM
The cool thing is that new agery has been distorted to cast it in shadows, when in actuallity its just about self empowerment. If you
look at the ecsys.org site, they do mention 'bacteria' than can infect people, and that relates to homeopathy. the genius is better perhaps because itll guide
you to the exact thing you need. Also homeopathy is related to trea ng the underlying cause of the disease, which is the beliefs, and homeopathy basically
implies that when the beliefs are structured in a certain manner, things are a racted to it to 'distabalize it' - perhaps this is an ar fact of there being in human
history alot of greed/corrup on which causes stu.... the fringe is only the fringe because someone has labeled it that - it is not the current logic. mine it and
integrate and one will find truths 'new agery' is channeled material - which, conveniently when you cast doubt on it, casts doubt on the main message that
they try to get across, a message people need.
Last Edited by Starry3 on 05/25/2012 05:21 PM
Just checking in, have a busy day tomorrow, going to sleep soon, on this side of the planet. I'll try to group together a couple of replies. @MM - yes. The player

85 of 145

becoming a pawn to play with the pawns, reminded for some reason of one of the best movies ever seen, "The 13th oor". (though nothing beats "Blade
Runner", lol) @Starry3 - Thanks about the symbols! It's really fun to work with them. I may create one more soon... oh, and that ker tastes good :-)
Homeopathy (same-ill), is about trea ng an ailment with a greatly diluted substance that normally would cause/aggravate it, rather than heal it. Same for
same, to cause a reac on. It is the extreme dilu on that makes it powerful (all that is le , is the energy imprint. The actual substance is gone), so it would
not apply to ker, which is consumed as is. What I have to figure out, is why that particular symbol (ker) was the one that became relevant to the issue at
hand. --- The RA material has been so far, the one I mostly resonate with. In fact, I should read it again :-) ---- ... I was almost forge ng.... the other night I
did ask for a vision of EC in the dream... I did get a vision, and while dreaming, I was aware of it, and thought... how cool that I got what I asked for! I guess
it was lucid... What I got was a scene, where everything was rainbow-colored, with barely dis nguishable shapes. Hard to describe. As I was observing it, at
first I thought, kind of confusing to find my way through it, squinted my eyes trying to see the boundaries of the shapes, but it looked very cool. This all
happened from within the dream. Thought about sharing it.
05/25/2012 07:21 PM
Do you think that the 26 letters of the English alphabet to be more complex and useful than the 4 letters of the DNA alphabet? I
would propose that the 26 letters leave less room for mystery than the 4 le ers, as the 4 are more inclusive. The funny thing is that we don't know how many
concepts we cannot express in English (or whatever similar language) because we ask the question, and think of the answer, in the same language that we're
asking about! I assure you, the number of things that cannot be expressed is so vast it could be said that English expresses nothing at all (the same way that
you could say that a glass is full if it is 99% full).
05/25/2012 10:49 PM
I'm not sure about that, so I cannot comment about it. It's not about 'preference', of course. Or what we assume others to want, or
what these 'others' are thought to want. I speak more of the nature of perspective, not on what is perceived. The actual perceptions do not actually matter
much, as they are much more symbolic and not the actual thing. It is kind of amusing that you perceive neuronicons to be technical, squarish building blocks.
They are symbolic. Representa ve. Again, not the 'real' thing. How would you view DNA, then? To say that these blocks are my world is way off the mark. One
adds to language, not switches them. In a similar way you have added to the language you learned as a fetus, a newborn, a baby, or a child. You would
consider the workings of your own nger ps to be highly technical. Yet they are useful (and easy) because they are symbolic. You need only work with the
symbols, not what the symbols represent because these parent symbols are themselves symbols. Ecsys is more 'overall' (as you say) than probably anything
else that you can imagine. If Ec, as one easy example, could illustrate the entire US Library of Congress in less than a few hundred neuronicons, which do you
think is more technical? That something is foreign does not make it less useful. We need only learn how to use something in order to become familiar with it.
The same way you learned how to speak. But the difference is that Ecsys is not a requirement.
05/25/2012 11:02 PM
Would it exist without that which brought it into your perspec ve? That it seems to exist does not mean that it actually exists (i.e.,
exists independently of something else). Besides the geometry of relationships that is perspective nothing else is. For the first few introduc ons on the
concept I utilized the verbiage to denote that it is "more accurate". Something is real because of what it does not appear to be. However, these separations
are an illusion. You could ask, for example, "How does an apple exist if the uni-verse is an absolute?" It's not that the it exists or does not exist. The question
of existence is irrelevant because what else is there? But the extent to which something is ignored is nearly the extent to which something permeates the
structure of our reality. When we resist (even through ignorance) we are giving something more power and relevance.
05/25/2012 11:16 PM
I believe it is, "You get what you concentrate on. There is no other main rule". However, what does it mean to "get" something.
Obviously, it is not coming to our house in a box wrapped up in a nice silk ribbon. It is to perceive it. This is an easier way to share Ecsys prime which is
basically, "We perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive." To 'concentrate' on something is to represent it in your experience more, even
if by thought or sensory perception. So, you experience what is most logical for you to experience. This is all putting it simply, which is why we have nice
sayings like, "You get what you focus on," etc.
05/25/2012 11:33 PM
Chaol's Guide to Telling if You're on the Right Track with Your School of ThohT for your entertainment, as all ways
1) Does it allow for the possibility that it is not true? [If not, deduct 500 points]
2) If all things are equal in the universe to it, does it speak in opposites and put some things above or below others in value and importance? [If so, deduct
1,000 points]
3) Can it do your taxes? Feed the dogs? Flush the toilet? How much of your life is it applicable to? Do you agree with it because it applies to your life so well?
[If you agree with your School of ThohT deduct 200 points]
3) Does it have an origin story that people like? Could this story be the reason for its popularity? What would the ThohT be without this story? [If so, deduct
300 points]
4) If it speaks of unity, does it seek to assign names and symbols to things and to make experiences more complex? Is it unied with other Schools of ThohT
or entities that it does not agree with? [Deduct 500 points each]
5) Is it built to withstand the power of a good bea ng? Does it contradict itself by doing the things it says not to do? Is it even capable of doing these things?
[Deduct 150 points]
6) Does it survive by use emotional language? Does it assume to know the thoughts or emotions of whatever symbol or entity it promotes? Are these thoughts
and emotions the kind of thoughts and emotions a human would have? [Deduct 400 points]
7) If it promotes love, can it define it? Is it only love for some (agreeable) things? Does it love hate, smelly things, or scones? [Deduct 20 points]
8) Does it promote the idea of right and wrong? If so, who defines these things? Does these deni ons ever change? Who changes them? [Deduct 500 points]
9) Does it say that something is true? [Deduct 10,000 points]
10) Is it ever gonna give you up? Is it ever gonna let you down or run around and desert you? Make you cry? Say goodbye or tell a lie and hurt you? [Deduct 35
points)
11) Can your School of ThohT survive without its members? If so, does its "truth" depend entirely on the members' ac ons? If so, can it be said that it is a
valid School of ThohT?
12) Does it allow for humor, funny things, enjoyable things, pleasurable things, or yummy things? Or does it try to restrict human behavior and possibility?
[Deduct 600 points]
13) If it speaks about nature, is it human-based nature or nature nature? Does it pretend to know anything about nature? Does it promote the idea that you
are not nature? Or humanity and civilization are not natural? [Deduct 150 points]
14) Does it talk about a universe? In its view of the universe, is everything not the same thing? (Does it forget what "universe" even means?) [If it does not

86 of 145

know what 'universe' means deduct 7,000,000,000 points] Last Edited by Chaol on 05/26/2012 12:13 AM
I cannot imagine this brand of physicality on a galac c scale. We tend to seek out the kind of life that we ourselves see, and not what is actually there. Your
solar system is teeming with human life. But it's probably not the kind your looking for. If each planet in it were not relative to your life on Earth you would not
know of them. Our thoughts and ideas colonize other worlds, as long as they exist in our perspective somehow. And, so too, we have colonized space via our
dreams. Next time you look up to the sky, see yourself dreaming. It is symbolic of an expanded perspective, and is where you would say your dreams reside
right now. (This is not just an analogy.) Last Edited by Chaol on 05/26/2012 12:02 AM
It would appear that things are becoming simpler and easier (mostly through technology), but it is the nature of existence to make things more complicated.
The technology we 'invent' makes other aspects of life more complicated. It's an exchange of energy, so to speak. (We are in need of social physicists here on
this world.) How can we say that no energy is created or destroyed but still expect exponen al gains in eciency or "energy saving" to not have an eect? We
do not "save" time, space, or energy. It is simply 'transferred' to the experience of its own destruc on, so to speak. (To illustrate, imagine going camping with
someone that does not know how to live without electricity. The 'energy' of your experience in this situation, and its a er-eects, is not created out of thin air
but transferred from the eciency gains and use of the technology.) As I've mentioned before the "green" movement is actually helping to destroy what it is
thought to be saving. (The Earth will be here for a long time yet. We are not working to save it, we are working to save our own civiliza on. To think that the
Earth needs any type of saving is kind of amusing.) This singularity is reached in different ways then the process starts over and things again become more
simple. It's interesting to watch and I don't mind helping the process along. Last Edited by Chaol on 05/26/2012 12:27 AM
If I may sing o-key for a moment... A guy meets up with his friend at a bar and tells him that he's going to Zimbabwe for a few weeks for work. His friend
tries to convince him not to go to Zimbabwe because there is an outbreak of a deadly virus strain called comicus. "That can't be true because I haven't heard
about it on CNN or Fox News!", the guy says to his friend. His friend replies, "CNN and Fox News? You mean the same media channels that have been losing
ra ngs to the internet because people are beginning to realize that popular media lie and manipulate?" The guy goes home and checks the internet then sees
his friend again the next day. "I checked the internet but still didn't see anything about comicus. I think you're full of it!", the guy says to his friend. "What site
did you go to?", his friend asks. "cnn.com," he replies. This is just a stupid joke but it illustrates that o en mes people do not believe something if it is not
popular. O en, what is considered true or real only has basis in social realities instead of more independent realities. We are social beings, and we look to
others for valida on even if we do not realize it.
05/26/2012 01:42 AM
Chaol's "Change of Tone", illustrated. In grade 1 we learn how to hold a pen. In grade 2 we learn how to write the alphabet. In grade
3 we learn how to write the phrase "silver spoon". In grade 4 we learn how to draw a silver spoon. In grade 5 we learn that the spoon is not silver. In grade 6
we learn that Carlton Banks always plays the rich kid. In grade 7 we learn that there is no spoon. In grade 8 we learn that there is only perspective, and that
your friend is just as real as Carlton Banks. And even though we have perspective it still only allows us to see each character or symbol as the one that is most
relative to our experience. In grade 9 we learn that perspective is irrelevant, as there is nothing besides our own perspective. We do not jump from grade
nothing to grade 9. We must first progress logically from one step to the next so that each may be understood along the way. Each grade has a different
teacher, but it is only because of the perspective of the grade and the nature of our understanding (or confusion). The message in each grade changes along
with its necessity to illustrate something that is more accurate (but no more valid) than the last. We are still at grade 1. Above just for illustra on, of course.
Last Edited by Chaol on 05/26/2012 01:46 AM
How are dreams relevant to one's waking state? There's the Freudian inner conflict concept; is that indica ve of the soul's "age"/experience? Are they
prophe c from the perspective of a higher-dimensional self? Or do dreams represent a line of time that has been transcended? I've always had fairly temperate
dreams- similar in energy to my waking states- and only memorable in the sense that I could remember them. But this past night a string of dreams was the
most realis c/tangible/sinister I've ever experienced. They seemed to take place in a near-future police state; Nazi-esque consca on of property and iden ty,
mass homicides, and foreshadowing natural disasters. How should the above^ be interpreted? Lower line of time, what's to come, inner turmoil related to
conscious perspec ve? I'm torn between fascina on and terror! blink
05/26/2012 12:57 PM
The mills of the gods grind slowly. This is probably making CatCarel crazy! Epigene cally, In biology, and specically gene cs,
epigene cs is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA
sequence hence the name epi- (Greek: [greek alphabet le er] - over, above, outer) -gene cs. It refers to func onally relevant modica ons to the genome
that do not involve a change in the nucleo de sequence. Examples of such changes are DNA methyla on and histone modica on, both of which serve to
regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life
and may also last for multiple genera ons. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;instead, non-gene c factors cause the
organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently. [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
05/26/2012 06:39 PM
Yes. But it does not appear that anyone 'got it' at the time (even though I spelled it out), so I'm hesitant to talk about it now lest
there be the term 'fearmonger' out about so eortlessly. The fear or the possibility of fear is what keeps the understanding away (and the resistance to my
direc on). However, as I have said on that thread, "The doom is real, but it's not your grandfather's doom. It's the demise of one kind of physicality and the
entrance of an other kind." October 1 was when the messenger of the dream world (what I call "X") crashed into the Sun. No one else knew that there was even
an object near it, much less smash into it and direct the Sun's ejecta to Earth. This energy, combined with the radia on from (mostly) Fukushima, is the logical
narra ve to the genetic change that is upon (some) of you. A change in your DNA. A change in your physicality. There is a reason I've often compared "X" (or
Ec, Ecsys, X-human, etc.) with DNA. It is because it is the new language of humanity. (Thus, no need to learn it. But it's good to know.) You are not your
name, or your job, or your body. You are perspective. It is the language of your new perspective, the dream perspective, brought about by a new kind of
physicality which is brought about by an epigene c change in DNA which is brought about from a mix of the Sun's energies, geomagne c energies, and humanmade energies in a perfectly- med way (i.e., the field of geometry of rela onships). Sounds farfetched? As I mentioned before, we do not perceive most of
what we could. In one way it is all ready in our current perspective. In an other way the values are obscured. So there is much that could be of value that is
not, that is ignored for the sake of eciency and convenience. So any 'truth' of your reality would be from strange to farfetched. If it were easily accepted and
understood it would all ready be a valued part of your perspective. That is why it is difficult to figure out for most. The values of any perspective are mostly
obscured because they are so unlike what is perceived. If someone told you, for example, that Nazis took over the US government after World War Two they
would be laughed out of the room and ridiculed. And this is why such things tend to be successfully hidden. The more strange it is the more it is ignored (and

87 of 145

resisted). The values hidden in your current perspective are surely farfetched and are not perceived because of this. And so here we are. At the foetus stage of
a new humanity. Last Edited by Chaol on 05/26/2012 10:47 PM
Imagine that you were a being that could not perceive in three dimensions. Everything was flat to you. You perceived the shape of an object as the object's
metamorphosis in time. So a round ball is appears as a flat line to you but appears to move very fast in order to try to translate the values that you cannot
see. So it appears to move in your perspective when it may be sta onary in an other. Carl Sagan has an interesting thought experiment in his Cosmos series
called atland. So what we see as "past" and "future" just appear that way in our perspective because we are unable to sense other things that are going on.
Last Edited by Chaol on 05/27/2012 12:58 PM
Not so much. It's like when you look at space. You are able to look at something further away from "here" but it is still in your current experience. I AM able
to look at something "now now" and have it in my current experience. Although the less relative it is the harder it is for me to perceive. But it's not about
chronological time. It's more about relative values. For example, a catastrophic event on June 14th I may be able to see better than something not-as-rela ve
that may be experienced a few days earlier. You could learn how to do the same by sensing that the next and last 1 minute is actually happening now. (Or
perhaps start with 5 seconds, then work your way up.)
05/27/2012 01:43 PM
There would be no direct transliteral or phone c transla on, since ec is primarily a language of one's perspective. So in order to
translate an Egyp an word directly into ec the value of the word (meaning, for example) must first be understood. Each ec word or phrase has a meaning
unique to the person speaking it, but it can still be understood using inference. It would be like if I was to speak to you using gestures. Egypt has more
languages that I can count, and some of the earlier languages are based more on sound and what would be called cyma cs. This is more like ec, though ec
would have an effect on perception rather than emotion and mental states. We assume that these languages (Egyp an and earlier languages, especially)
function the same way that our current languages do when it is not the case.
05/27/2012 02:26 PM
You could, but it would be meaningless. You would then attach meaning to the new icons. Instead, the value of "Enki" can be
translated rather than how it sounds. This sort of reminds us that each word has meaning and is more than letters or a sound. So it be like asking you, "What
value do you give to Enki?". This is the beginning of perception. The difference is that in English we can say "Enki" and others can know what we are saying. In
ec, you would be integra ng "Enki" into your perspective. You are communicating and working with its value rather than just using it as a verbal or written
reference. Over phrases and longer combina ons, the differences are vast. In English you can read a story and visualize it somewhat. In ec you can be there
(according to the values you have ascribed to it). I'm not sure about this one, as I have not spoken about it before. Perhaps I can oer a better answer in a
bit.
05/27/2012 03:06 PM
You experience what is logical for you to experience. That is the order. The linear part of it is how your sense of time is structured.
Time is not linear because it does not exist outside of your sense of it. (Outside of the sense of time there is an other kind of time that would not make the
same kind of sense.) Dreaming uses less energy* because there is more interaction. You expend less energy by doing what is most logical in your perspective.
So by being able to associate more freely (dreaming) you expend less energy than in your waking state, where you have much fewer associa ons. The waking
and dream states are the same. The only difference is that when you are awake you are not interacting with as many representations as you are when you are
sleeping. This of course is an illusion. Some people are very alert in this physicality by focusing on a small slice of their reality (shu ng out other relationships
and associa ons). Some beings are very alert in the dream world by associa ng with everything (this would be called god-like). Of course you can associate
easily when you are awake. It's called intuition, day-dreaming, deja vu, crea vity, genius, etc. [*Note: There are different expressions of energy, like matter or
other representations, and the non-expression of it (potential energy). Perhaps I will define energy in an other post.]
05/27/2012 03:53 PM
Because she would essentially have 'created' him. So is it through ecsys that Olivia decides his form? Keep in mind that the
'matching soul' is a value in Olivia's perspective. And because it is her perspective it would be expressed in a variety of outlets. The is no original
representation. There are only representations that are more preferred under certain conditions. For example, while going for a walk the preferred expression of
this value could be a physical man. Under other conditions it could be a song. In this way the song would have the same or similar value as the physical man.
Ecsys is just a way to know what you are doing and to make something more logical to your perspective. As nothing is created, the form is discovered in her
perspective. The best way to 'create' the experience of her soul mate would be to use something like the Genius. Does she design certain events so that
oddi es related to him make sense in the non-dream world? Interesting syntax. There are a few ways to answer this question. Please clarify.
05/27/2012 03:57 PM
To help understand what changes in DNA will occur, imagine that you are a girl living in Brazil and you speak Portuguese. Being able
to speak Portuguese you can interact with your friends and family, understand the world around you, and build upon the concept of "Brazil". Then one day you
took a trip to Mali. Because you do not speak the local language (although it is similar) your interactions in your new, temporary reality will not be the same as
you had before in Brazil. You can communicate with people but it is not of the same value as you are used to. The world around you is difficult to understand.
Now imagine instead of taking a trip that there was an outbreak of a disease in Brazil that caused people to speak in an other language. They would feel a bit
strange because they realize they no longer speak Portuguese. But it would still be familiar because they are still able to naturally communicate with (some of)
their friends and family. Portuguese is still the same, and it is evolving at the same rate that it always has. But your Portuguese, your natural language is now
different. You begin to see Brazil with a new perspective. After a while, your experience in Brazil is completely different because of this change in language. So
much so that you hardly remember any other kind of experience. Now imagine that instead of changing one aspect of your reality, spoken language, that
physicality reality itself was changing. And this is about what is going on with DNA right now. It's a popular piece of a giant puzzle, but yet important.
05/27/2012 04:29 PM
Yes. That's very possible. It is the same way we logically explain our own lives, even though yesterday we had none. It literally just
appears out of thin air at every moment, complete with a logical explanation (even though some parts do not make sense, this is more about relativity than
normalcy). Perhaps you experience this sometimes when you sleep. As soon as you are in a dream, it was already there (or at least it seems). Waking reality is
no different. Spli ng the atem? "Atem is an ancient Egyp an Pharaoh who sealed his soul within the Millennium Puzzle. His soul took on the iden ty of Yami
Yugi, which resided in the body of his future incarna on Yugi Muto, after Yugi solved the Millennium Puzzle."
05/27/2012 04:36 PM
Either way, this is a really sweet story: Atum was a self-created deity, the first being to emerge from the darkness and endless
watery abyss that girdled the world before creation. A product of the energy and matter contained in this chaos, he created divine and human beings through

88 of 145

loneliness: alone in the universe, he produced from his own sneeze, or in some accounts, semen, Shu, the god of air, and Tefnut, the goddess of moisture. The
brother and sister, curious about the primeval waters that surrounded them went to explore the waters and disappeared into the darkness. Unable to bear his
loss, Atum sent a ery messenger to find his children. The tears of joy he shed on their return were the first human beings.
05/27/2012 05:05 PM
Our worlds are very similar, but we do not possess the same sense of time. Let's take a ready example and say that we are going out
for coee and I tell you that if you purchase an orange juice, instead, it will save your life. Someone may immediately consider why orange juice is better than
coee and raise arguments about how their coee isn't so bad and won't kill them. However, how something is expressed is not as important as the
interactions that it inuences. It could be, instead, that purchasing the orange juice saves you 30 seconds which will (as you may call it) start a chain of
reac ons which will put you in the right place at the right time when there is an accident on your way home. You probably won't see how this happens unless
your sense of time is more independent from your perspective. It is not about consequences any more than karma is involved. As an example of karma, let's
say that you were leading a nice, stress-free life without anything really bad happening. One day you got angry and ended up hi ng someone. The next day
something your pet dog died. You may link the dead dog to your anger the day before. More accurately though, the geometry of relationships changed when
(possibly) the value of your anger was expressed it it. In the new perspective the dog was not compa ble. Depending on the perspective, it could be that the
dog disappears from it. You make a logical narra ve to explain the disappeared dog in your reality. It could be that he runs away, someone else is taking care
of him or she is at the vet, she died, etc. So in this way there's no consequence of your ac on, before or a er. At ever moment the entire universe is created
anew (for lack of better terms). In this way right or wrong are irrelevant. What matters are the values of what exist. Where one person sees "right" or "wrong"
another person may see the value, and calculate these values. Our sense of time may be dierent, but there's a lot more calculation going on here than is
realized. With a 'giant computer' it is not so dicult. It goes beyond right/wrong, good/bad, stupid/smart, high/low, and manipulates reality itself for my own
purposes. As I show the values in my perspective (you) how to do the same thing so do our realities become more logically related. (Again, for my own
purposes.) It could be, instead, that I let you drink your coee and then you wonder why I didn't save your life if I knew this was "going to happen". It would
appear that my senses are rusty. But I AM looking at the bigger picture and the totality of my perspective. Right/wrong are temporary and stand on shaky
ground. Why would anyone want to believe in them?
05/28/2012 10:20 AM
I've never heard about this before, so I did a google search about it. And I've found this: "[...]A galaxy, star, planet, con nent, sea,
na on, city, culture, business, family, individual, body part, thought, concept, idea, image, or any other ac on or thing, anywhere within the range between the
entire Universe itself, or macrocosm, and the smallest and most insignicant particle or aspect, the microcosm, within that Universe, is in fact, an act of
information processing that is uniquely operating within that fragmented por on of the Universe. The processing of the information continues without change,
until some new information is added or removed from the processing formula. For example, a thought, an experience, a contact with another inuence, or an
object injected into or taken from the system being processed adds to or takes from the information being processed and changes the outcome. An individual,
just as is anything else, is an information processing system and will remain unchanged until some new information is introduced. The new information may be
in the form of mental informa on, such as an idea, fiction, facts, or other data, or it may be in the form of physical informa on, such as an experience, an
injury, an infrac on, or some physically induced nurturing such as praise, encouragement, music, food, tender loving care, nursing, or whatever. In other words,
any inuen al force, whether favorable or unfavorable, even such a force as an unfortunate illness can serve as new informa on; also a good enjoyable
experience may serve as new information. Likewise things such as a drink of water, is new information added to the information processing system which is the
total individual at that time. This kind of information is not necessarily limited to words and ideas, but also includes experiences and things. Anything
whatsoever that inuences change in a system is new information to the system, and adds to or detracts from the eec veness and general well being of that
system.[...]" [link to embracingthecontradic on.org]
05/28/2012 11:08 AM
I have noticed many times waking up in the middle of the night, that the scene before me ashes into view. I suppose that could be
a ributed to the pupil of the eye opening up to let in more light, but I have also seen these ashes as graphics that morph into mul tudes of little circles. I
have often noticed scenery that "ashes" into view. Even in broad daylight. Just a few days ago, I was in a bathroom in my house. There is one window in this
room, outside of which is a condenser unit for the air condi oning. There is a horizontal fan on the top of this unit. It was a bright, sunshiny day, and the sun's
rays were hi ng the rota ng fan in such a way that it was reec ng into a corner of the bathroom, just over my head. The result was a shiny light that
seemed to be ashing. I was quite hypno zed by it. That is when I wondered if this might be a representation of the "strobe" effect that we played with earlier
in the thread.
05/28/2012 12:17 PM
Isn't DNA just the perceived rule set? If the rule set is changing, then well, I guess the trickledown of that slippery slope is obvious.
There is so much uncertainty with regard to DNA and how the body can express it, but it is dependent on the environment that the organism perceives. As
above, so below right? If there are changes to society (our "conscious" environment) or the earth (our "physical" environment) then there are changes within
the individual/cosmic scale as well. They are all just more or less relative aspects of the same fractal, right? As mentioned, "Neither comes first, as they all are
expressed at the same me." The details are irrelevant as the symbols can be innitely interpreted.
05/28/2012 12:33 PM
Those in the dreamworld will not be "zombies". Neither is anyone turning into a zombie. Zombies are only in the ~current
perspective, much the same way a closet monster would be. As I mentioned, misunderstood humans. We have been dealing with the idea of zombies for a long
time. As it becomes more real, how are we responding? Are we not responding to aspects of our perspec ve? You are in the dream world, as I've been saying
for a while. Get used to the idea of experiencing your dreams. Open the closet and it is something else en rely. But until then, the radioac ve undead (i.e.,
those who may not be socially compatible [DNA-compa ble] with new experiences)... and whatever else is in the social subconscious. I understand. I guess I
meant to say that "death" of the physical body would be a logical step into "another" perspective.
05/28/2012 01:06 PM
Then your physical body would not die. Only the bodies of others in your perspective. We assume that we would die as they do,
because it makes sense. But we forget that it is our perspective that we are experiencing. Death is not the dreamworld. The logical narra ve that you would
experience if you 'entered into the dreamworld' is your world becoming more like a dream. Take a look around you. I think you may have to provide your
definition of zombies. I AM pretty sure everyone sees them a little differently. I personally see them as "mindless" entities (lol) with insa able hunger that will
feed endlessly. I would consider a "couch potato" or a work-a-holic-no-life a zombie.
05/28/2012 01:13 PM
Well maybe my perspectives been switching your words around in my mind but I've used this thread to make me a far more happier
person, I can honestly say "most of the me." Since I've stopped worrying about the details and focus more on trying to only see the big picture, there is less

89 of 145

to worry, care, be upset about. Knowing everything I perceive is what I made logically relevant to me, it doesn't make sense to feel "bad" about much of
anything. I give attention to what I like and the hell with mostly anything else. An experience arises that I don't par cularly like I practice finding something
about it that I do like, therefore creating more space for "good" than "bad" to come out of it. Sorry to bring feelings into the discussion, maybe your right
feelings aren't a choice, but just like depression, you can train/ trick yourself into being severely op mis c.
05/28/2012 01:25 PM
Most of us would find it very difficult to remember when we were 1 year old, or even a baby, or a foetus. But we would say that the
brain is the same. So why the memory loss? Of course, we are the same person. But the mechanism we use to perceive as babies is not the same as we use
now as adults (or, in the case of some posters here, children). The relationships are dierent, and so the interactions are different. And so the associa ons are
different. It is not that we cannot remember. We have nothing to associate the 'memory' with, and so it seems like we cannot recall/perceive it. But it is still
there. (Find the associa ons and unlock the memories. Same with future.) In the same way, the 'memory' of our experience 'before' we were conceived is there.
But our perspective is so foreign to us that it is not a familiar value in our current perspective. It is the same with what we think ourselves to be when we have
died. It is all happening now, which is an other way that our perceptual mechanisms are not compatible with a 'greater' (more inclusive) reality.
05/28/2012 01:39 PM
Yes, and I've spoken about this before. I'm glad our discussions have helped you in that way. We have all contributed a great deal. It
would be nice to continue talking about how if "An experience arises that I don't par cularly like I practice finding something about it that I do like..." could
work wonders. But hopefully someone new to this thread would eventually start on page one and make use of what they can. I think we're just using different
words for the same thing. Focusing on a certain part of something would bring that aspect out more. My point is that what we think of as "good" may not
necessarily be good in our reality because it is what we make it. So in that way we are not choosing "good" directly so much as focusing on something that,
incidentally, may have certain eects in our reality. Thank you for the upli ing comments :)
05/28/2012 01:43 PM
You're more than welcome and thank you as well. I'm not 100% sure I get what you mean by "what we think of as good may not
necessarily be good in our reality." Firstly because reality doesn't exist and secondly, perspective is everything so how can what you perceive to be good, not
be. The radia on for example. Some may see it in a bad light because they see what they perceive to be bad eects as a possibility. I choose to see it in a
good light because I feel that whatever possibilities arise from it will bring about a new perspective and experience, which I'm all for. So is my perspective of
the radia on not shaping the experience I will get from it?
05/28/2012 01:58 PM
Reality exists in the way that there is something else to validate its existence. But nothing is independent, or can exist by itself. In
this way, something does not actually exist (only in reference to something else). You can perceive something to be good but not be good in your reality. The
value that you have given to 'good' may be different from something that you think of as 'good' in your perspective. If you think something is 'good' would you
need to think of it as 100% good? How would that be possible for something to be absolutely "good" when it has not been clearly dened? If not, at what %
would something be dened as "good"? If something is not absolutely good then it follows that there are conditions within your perspective that it can be "not
good". It is none of these things absolutely. It is all things (because it is no thing in par cular, only in perspective). We can perceive it because it is all things.
We may think that a snake bi ng us is bad. But what if the snake bite ends up saving our life? And then the snake comes back to bite us again, killing us? A
silly example, but an illustration that we do not know what something is unless we know how it relates to everything else in existence. At this level what is
"is" is irrelevant. We can only define "good" to us, but even this definition changes. If we really dened what 'good' is it really would take forever. Because
there are so many factors and dependencies. Perhaps we would come to the conclusion that its definition is irrelevant because it depends on the definition of
other things. And this is why our own definition of something (and others') change. A true definition would not depend on perspective, or the person, or the
situation. But as no energy is independent of perspective, no "good" is independent of perspective, either. So we may think of something as being "X" because
of how it relates to other things in our reality, but it does not mean that it actually is "X".
05/30/2012 09:20 AM
In such a situation you simply seek out the path of least resistance. That is, try to sense what will take the least amount of energy.
It does not mean what is the laziest thing to do or that which would use the least amount of physical energy. But that which you are most inclined to do. Some
call this intui on. It may allow you to experience that your car is working if properly executed. In this example the inten on was to create a kind of symbol for
the car working through the leaves. Then there was interaction with the leaves on the potential energy of the porch. So the leaves were "xed" and therefore
your car was xed. You can also do this in your mind. If, for example, something is broken or you want to perceive something then take what you see already
around you and internalize it by representing it mentally with symbols. Once you have 'good' symbols for those things you can work with them as you see t. It
one symbol has problems moving or interacting it may mean that there is a problem with what it represents in physical reality. (There is no limit to what can
be done with this, as everything is a symbol, a value, in perspective.) I do this all the time and it's how I can communicate with you, 'travel' in space and time,
etc. It is actually what you're doing right now when you exist (or at least pretend you do). Realize that your perspective is all ready full of symbols and you
move beyond the physical and into the metaphysical. Then the values in your perspective, the things, the objects, etc., are no longer more real or more
substantial than your thoughts. It's all symbol and all on the same 'level'. A mountain takes no more effort to move than would a pencil. What matters is how
it works in your perspective rather than what size it is or how complicated you think it might be. Once you get the hang of it you'll find it much easier to work
within this kind of reality that the one you're upholding now. It takes a lot of energy to make your symbols seem that real. ...I wonder if any change would
have let your car start in the next, ever-recreated universe... or if maybe mowing the lawn or emptying the mailbox would have created yet another change,
with the car still not star ng. Prac ce :) It is not difficult to change your perspective. You do it all the time anyway. You may as well know what you're doing
and have some influence on it.
05/30/2012 09:46 AM
I'm not really sure that inten on has any value. It seems to be our own brand of logic, based more on a sense of the composite of a
range of perceptions. For example, if you have a hammer in your hand ready to strike a nail into a board you could say that you have the inten on to hit the
nail. But what if someone takes away the hammer? You could say that the inten on is still there but the reality has shifted. "I intend to nail it once I have the
hammer again." Or you could say that your inten on is no longer there because it depends on a few things being in place. Either way, the inten on depends on
your reality and what you sense to be the conditions of your reality. Only a crazy person would stand in the park and say that they intend to fly off into the
cosmos. Why would not this count as inten on, too? We must take our reality, our current perspective, into considera on when thinking about intent. So if
there is doubt it may be because the appropriate variables are not perceived to be in place for the experience (the outcome) to unfold. This doubt does not
have much of a negative effect, but it will probably allow you to more clearly define the outcome. It could be that doubt helps you to get to that hard-to-reach
place today that bold condence shielded from you last week. If your Genius model (or whatever you wish to call it) is rm then doubt and uncertainty would
not affect it in that way. But if you doubt the symbol, that's an other story ;)

90 of 145

05/30/2012 11:21 AM
And what people talk about on the frontpage of reddit isn't exactly - ecsys type material. If reddit were to start talking about these
sorts of things on the frontpage, it would be a significantly different world. There is an interesting discussion on the front page of reddit with the subject line:
"What concept or idea do you find impossible to comprehend?" The opening post includes this observa on: "Even for people I personally know, I can't imagine
they actually, well, do stuff when I'm not there (And that's not meant like "They can't live without me, their whole lives revolve around me", but more like that
I really can't imagine they actually 'exist' when I'm not there.)" Does this remind anybody of something about the conserva on of energy? The poster then goes
on to ask: "So like I said, it's really weird, but what kinds of stuff that you know is really true can't you imagine actually being so?" As I type this, the thread
has been posted for six hours and there are already over 4400 posts. There have been numerous polls on reddit asking for people's ages. It appears that it is a
youngish crowd of mostly 18 to 24 year-olds. I use reddit as a bellwether to see in which direc on blows the wind with the newer genera ons. They often seem
to have an innate understanding of things that I AM just learning, just like the person who made the opening post to the thread at the link.
05/30/2012 04:43 PM
Hey Chaol me again lol, When you say doubt the symbol you mean doubt it's existence rather than its capabili es correct? Which
would be kinda weird if you were the one that created/discovered it to begin with lol. And I nally made a symbol myself. A completely unrecognizable object
no one would have any idea what to do with except me. Only problem, I forget to complete the rules I have made for it. I was supposed to cover it with toilet
ssue before bed and bring it with me to the golf course today and forgot to do both. Will this just delay the perspective change or are there greater
consequences?
05/30/2012 04:47 PM
Hey. When you doubt that one thing is a good representation for an other thing, then that is 'doub ng the symbol'. Even though you
made the symbol it does not dictate that you think it's a good representation. A symbol by itself has no capabili es, so doub ng that would be irrelevant. It
need not be unrecognizable, just something that represents something else. The more unique the better (to prevent with other symbols in your perspective),
so if it's unique to you and you think it's a good representation then it may work well. That you forgot to ins tute the rules should not make that much
difference. However, it may work better if you start over as your perspective may have ascribed rules to the symbol (because you left a gap in the elementary
process). For example, it could have said that "Ok, this is a new symbol. What is does it represent? Ok, got it. How does it interact with the other symbols?
Ok, now I understand that it is supposed to be forgotten before going out to the golf course. Got it. The potential energy seems to be weak or missing so I'll
make a new one."
05/31/2012 02:40 AM
Ah, I see. Your question is interesting. After getting past answers such as "It's bad for my health" and "I don't like smelling like
smoke", I guess I would like to stop smoking to prove to myself that I AM in fact in control of what I do, and with some consistency. At the root of it, I don't
like being "addicted" to anything, or doing something which in one moment I know is not helping me evolve by con nuing to do it. Even as I AM doing it, I feel
like I AM failing myself. It makes me feel schizophrenic. Fractured. Does that make sense? Thoughts? Advice? Thank you in advance.
05/31/2012 05:03 AM
You have only to symbolize it, not necessarily represent each element of your surroundings separately. If you can represent 90% of
your immediate surroundings with a single symbol (as I often do) then it should be enough. Items on a table are not divorced from the table. I think a lot of us
make this mistake, thinking that if they focus on X then it will have some effect. When you levitate a chair, to take a fun example, you would not focus on the
chair so much as you would your perspective and the relationship that the chair (a symbol) has with other elements in your perspective. A chair would not exist
in a vacuum of perspective and neither would manipula on of the chair. Your questions prompt a few questions of my own about how you want to fix the bowl
but here I will assume that you would want to return it to (what you perceive as) it's previous state. That would not be possible because the broken bowl itself
is a symbol. To 'unbreak' the bowl, the result may look like it has been xed but the new symbol would be different from the previous symbol (before the bowl
was broken). You could have its previous state but then your perspective would also be in its previous state and you would not know the difference nor know
that it is broken. In this way, part of your perspective is 'broken' and not the bowl itself. The bowl was just the easiest way for your perspective to express its
'brokenness', all things considered (Ecsys Prime). Focusing on the bowl would probably produce no more than frustra on. Other things to consider, in your
imagina on: :Does it have the same structure or rules? What comes to mind when you think of the logical steps to the experience of a perspective that the
bowl is xed in? ::How is the space or potential energy the same or different from it's current space when you imagine the unbroken bowl? :::How does the
"future" unbroken/xed bowl interact with the "present" perspec ve? You can work this out in your imagina on because it is a part of your perspective. If you
imagine a reality where the bowl is unbroken then you are actually perceiving that in your current reality. You then only need to learn about it in order to
experience it. It's the same thing like when you dream. Perhaps a few moments after you lay down and close your eyes you sense in your imagina on a quick
glimmer of something. Focusing on this dream glimmer you start to sense its more expanded reality. The glimmer becomes the light shining off of a car. The
next thing you know you are sitting in the car with the radio on going to your friend's house. We do this quickly when we dream. And the above questions will
help you to begin to do this more consciously now. It will be second nature to you. Some may call it focus. But "focus" works when you are not focused on the
thing itself but the reality of the thing. When you want to experience something do not focus on it directly. Focus on it's surroundings, instead. Focus on the
whole perspective (even if you're just guessing). Those values that define the thing you want to experience. (As something exists only in rela on to something
else.)
05/31/2012 05:39 AM
It would seem that the smoking symbolizes the failure that you talk about. Is there something small but significant that you could do
today to prove to yourself that you are "in control of what I do, and with some consistency" as far as a habit or addic on? I don't specically mean with
cigare es but let's just use it as an example anyway. Could you make a rule that you only smoke on even hours of the day, like 2pm, 4pm, etc? It doesn't
matter if you end up smoking more. It only matters that you begin to feel more in control of what the symbole e represents. Symbols, of course, define your
perspective. It doesn't matter which is first, the smoking or the feeling of failure or not being in control. What only matters is that we stop resisting the feeling
of success by discovering it in our perspective. Also, are there things that you are 'addicted' to that you think are good for you, or helping you to evolve? It
could be that you have not stopped smoking because you see it as 'smoking' rather than the 'failure' that it represents more. If it does, indeed, represent
failure and a sense of a lack of control it is very possible that you could stop smoking once these thoughts are no longer relevant to your perspective. Once you
see the control you do have and the successes (no matter how seemingly small) that are already there.
05/31/2012 05:40 AM
This helps tremendously. I will print it out, read it about a 100 times and start practising at the mind level. Right. The broken bowl is
a new symbol. In a way, the "broken" aspect of my perspective could indicate that the old perspective is being sha ered, leaving space for a new one. I
brought the bowl example because I really broke it the other day, though the immediate thought (in spite of liking that bowl physically and being a little
bummed about it) was that it was my Genius symbol #1 fully at work. It was given to me. I definitely do not want to go back to the old perspec ve! When you

91 of 145

say that when you want to experience something do not focus on it directly, but focus on it's surroundings... the question I have is about the Genius. Isn't the
created symbol, to represent a specific situa on/experience/object, a way to focus on the specic? What I mean, is that it represents the thing itself, rather
than the surroundings. The symbol itself may change the geometry of relationships automatically, but in my mind I associate it with a specific experience, and
this is what I think when I look at it. Trying to understand, so I can perfect the prac ce. About the mental process, is this correct? 1 - I create mentally one
symbol to represent about 90% of my surroundings. 2 - I assign to that symbol a value, something I want to experience. 3 - I hold the image of the symbol in
my mind, while recreating mentally the new experience. 4 - I need the logical steps, so I will si through my surroundings for signs that things are moving in
that direc on, or smaller representations, until the new experience has become my current perspective. 5 - For a new experience, start from point 1, with a
different symbol to represent the surroundings. Thank you so much, this is very exci ng!
05/31/2012 06:02 AM
If you recall, this will interfere with the symbol itself. You would then be, in a way, pre-dening what the symbol is. 1-Create symbol:
Represent your desired thought, object, or experience physically.* *Crea ng a new symbol is best. (Not using one that already has its own meanings behind
it.) If you "select the symbols where the value reects the value/perspec ve [you] desire' then you have already dened the symbol before using it. The idea is
to start with a clean slate. You're representing your idea physically but not forcing a meaning into a certain symbol, so to speak. Be open to what the symbol
could be. A symbol relatively free of meaning at the start is a good symbol to start with. If you like we can go over each of the 4 elements together. And, if
you're still up for it, we can try to choose elements that may work well.
05/31/2012 06:13 AM
I'll share my approach to creating a symbol, in hopes that it helps and since mine are working. When I create a symbol, the elements
I pick are never "random", but each piece of it has intrinsic qualities that truly represent what I intend. So the "nal product" is the embodyment of what I want
to make relative to me. Also, I make it pocket size, so I can carry it with me everywhere to interact. In the case of being a successful golfer, I'd ask myself 1 what represents golf 2 - what represents success I imagine golf being a small round ball on a wonderful green lawn. And success, like a prize or celebra on (a
cap of sparkling wine bo le, or a drawing of a cup saying "rst prize"). Maybe some foil shaped into a ball, with a strip of green paper taped onto it, together
with the wine cap or the small prize drawing. Just an example. The point being that the "values" are there, to reinforce the symbol. Then, of course, rules and
space. I hold mines (they are 2) in a pouch. Of course, Chaols comments and clarica ons are always very much a welcome treat, so we can all better
understand!
05/31/2012 06:17 AM
Got it. The symbols are definitely not obvious, to the point that anyone else looking at them, would have no idea of what they are. I
posted this several pages back, but just in case, here they are. For instance, the slender body symbol #2 (I wanted to get rid of 8 pounds, summer time
approaching... lol), is made of a red plas c printer cartridge cap, with a toothpick held on top of it by a rubberband. 1- cartridge cap = reprin ng my gure, new
blueprint 2- toothpick = slender 3 - rubberband = elas c, resilient, toned up It has slowed down since the first miraculous days, but it's still working! I thought
that a third symbol for the dream house interefered, so I dismissed that one, for now. Other symbol (#1), working perfectly. It represents freedom from a
dense and heavy sibling situation, for the good of all, which I wanted to fade naturally in the background, instead of being eaten alive by it... talk about
zombies! lol It is made of a champagne cork cap, with pink wook tied around it, and a curled up metal wire stuck into it. 1 - cork = total and u er celebra on
(new year's style) 2 - pink wool = coming from the old family house, facing my resistance and breaking the chains in a soothing way. 3 - curled wire = antenna
to strengthen the signal that I want to be "free" It's the method that came most natural.
05/31/2012 06:54 PM
If I presented two boxes to you, one a small charming gi box and the other a larger cardboard box which one do you think you would
you choose rst? It may seem that because you chose one before the other that the experience was separate when really they happened at the same time. But
your perception (taking the box) only allowed for one box at a time. That is to say, all of your experience is presented at the same time but you cannot
perceive it at the same time. It does not matter which order something happens because they all symbolize something to which order is irrelevant (as the
source is the same thing, separated only in the perception of it). So if the meeting was before the dream then an other kind of perspective may have been had
but the values would have been the same. So although something may depend on something else in a certain perspective, actually both depend on oneanother at the same time. Keep in mind that the man in the dream is Olivia, as would the man in waking life be. As we are not able to hold these two boxes at
the same time we perceive them as separate when they are not really. It just happened that a being picked up the 'Olivia' box first (rather than the 'Man' box),
then started to believe her name was Olivia. But both are, essen ally, the same thing. It does not matter which one is chosen first or which experience
happens first because it does not change the 'reality'. I hope this helps. If you need some clarica on please let me know. Last Edited by Chaol on
06/01/2012 04:50 AM
Like Ec, there is no encyclopedia that you can refer to to find out the symbols of your own perspective, unfortunately. But we can say that the dreams were not
of infants or children. This is your interpretation from the waking mind's perspective. It could be that in the dream there is no infant at all. As you say,
"Some mes it's hard to put thoughts into words". It is the same for dreams. The words are not the concept itself, and neither are the dream concepts the
dream. A word, by itself, is irrelevant and meaningless. If you're looking to find out what the dream is I would suggest not focusing on the infant or the
maternal but the bigger story that the dream illustrates. Consider the other elements of the dream. It could be that the answer is in the place, the room, the
ac on, the climate, the neighbors, the ceiling, etc. And the "infant" aspect is what could be most readily translated, but it may not be the "meaning" of the
dream itself. Explore the dream to see all of the things that define it. Imagine that this is the dreamworld and you are in New York. When you wake up you
may only be able to translate the image of Times Square into your waking consciousness because it is the only thing that is similar to your waking conscious. It
could be the shape or the a rac on. Everything else in "New York" symbolizes concepts that are less compatible with your waking mind. You may, then,
wonder what is the meaning of a lighted Times Square billboard rather than the bigger picture of the reality that the billboard is 'from' (and thus the more
accurate meaning of it). We have quite a difficult time transla ng our dream experience into a language that our waking mind (thoughts, emo ons, memory,
etc) can perceive and understand. It is highly unlikely that an infant in a dream would be directly related to being a mother (even if ospring are not had and it
is not yet on your mind) or any kind of infant in the waking experience.
06/01/2012 06:11 AM
Okay I'm getting into all this. I had a founda on of similar topics built by the book Parallel Universes of Self deals with the same
stu, uses "beliefs" to "change/create reality" or whatever. i read the first eh, 20 pages here, so i'm probably behind. but I have some questions you make a
symbol ques on: examples? could i go to the thri store and get something i've never see before, use that, or alter it in some way, and use that? and then
you make it stand for something you want. does that mean all the interac on/possibli es/etc rela ng to the symbol are like rituals and wai ng for the real
thing to come? does the 'real thing' just pop into your life, because of all that you did with its symbol?

92 of 145

06/01/2012 08:13 AM
Right, this has been my approach to it, and it seems to be working. My understanding from the conversation with Chaol a few pages
back, is that the important thing is that the symbol should not be too specic, because of values that we attach to it. It should be a unique crea on, to which
you associate your representation. It can be random too, the crazier the be er, as long as it is unique. My understanding: 1 - The symbol should be a
composite, to change the original meaning. Let's say you are going to the thri store and buy a shoe as a symbol of what you intend to experience. It is not
unique enough, because there are associa ons, conscious or unconscious, to the "shoe", and you will bring that element with it (maybe you hated your first
grade teacher's shoes and you've forgotten about it, lol). But if you transform the shoe, using something else like tape, paper, or whatever else, now you have
something unique that did not exist before in your perspective. A fresh symbol. 2 - The symbol should not be a direct representation of what you intend to
experience, you associate your own unique meaning to it. Going back to the shoe symbol, it would not work if you use it to a ract more shoes, it's too direct
and specic. It would work for anything else. 3 - In addi on, I find it easier to create a unique piece, the components of which have in their essence the quality
of what I want to represent. Not directly, but indirectly. Again, regarding the shoe symbol, I could see it to represent a vaca on trip, where I would assign to
the shoe the meaning of "walking far, moving to a des na on". So that every me I look at the symbol, it "speaks" to me.
06/01/2012 01:05 PM
Let's begin by separa ng these symbols... and start with "PGA golfer". (One step at a time. The second step, earning $5 million per
year as a PGA golfer, is more relative to being a PGA golfer than your current state of not being a PGA golfer. So we'll take care of the first step rst.) What do
you imagine you do differently when you are a PGA golfer? Ea ng, talking, reading, living, etc. Let's find a fresh symbol that can serve as the new home for this
concept in your perspective, and use it as a bridge to your "other" reality. Let's make it less relative to "golf" and more relative to your reality of being a PGA
golfer. For example, in your current reality you may have a small an que wooden box that you can put things inside. Perhaps as you are a PGA golfer making
logical steps to experience your current life (as you read this) you would imagine this as a symbol and discover it in your PGA golf perspective. Then the two
realities would begin to merge, so to speak. What would this perspec ve's symbol be of the other life you experience? Ok first thing that came to mind was a
medium sized red cannister with a lid. Inside the cannister were balls of yarn. I pulled out a red ball of yarn then when I pulled the yellow ball out the yarn
started to pull out of the ball.
06/01/2012 01:43 PM
Re: The symbol #3 saga... (dream house) Today, upon trying to disassemble the symbol, I just couldn't and realized I really like it.
Instead, I made a few changes to it. Took off the taped green paper and cat fur, which kept falling apart, and replaced it with a green plas c key cover from
the old family house, tied with a string to the other pieces. The bonus is that this particular component, represents both the lawn (green), *and* the new key
to hold. I changed the rules a little. Place it on top of the small Buddha statue head, and bend sideways 8 times. Also, I was led to not hold it in the pouch
together with the other ones, but it will stay at home, res ng on the base of a beautiful glass horse that was given to me recently by an ar st friend. I will
take it with me only when I feel like it, to interact with the area where I want to buy. Basically, it's a recycled symbol with a fresh look, for the original intent.
I AM curious to see what happens! -------- Re: The twist... I have been reading with extreme interest Chaol's guidance about the mental symbol (PGA golfer),
and I do want to a empt to try it, as I follow along. I want to a empt the mental technique to draw into my perspective a significant other (...errr aspect of
me), with bu eries and all. I closed my eyes to let a symbol come to me to represent that, and the image I had is the (same friggin') glass horse, and it felt
right. The two intents share one same element, which makes perfect sense. Because this perceived new person, in my perceived future, in the perfect
dreamworld lives on a farm and rides a horse. Then the thought came to me that maybe the dream house and the encounter are intertwined in one happy
experience (living together, etc.) ------- Re: The experiment... Is it possible to work with this shared element? On one hand mentally, as a symbol for the
encounter intent. On the other hand, as a poten al/space for my house to own, which is a separate physical symbol.
06/01/2012 04:20 PM
I think I had a glorious "aha moment", ever so briey. The thought seemed to click things into place, a few neurons exploded in joy,
but I want to make sure I understood correctly... ... are you saying that we take one element of our current perspective, which automatically becomes the
symbol, and kind of "move" it into our other perspective, to create the bridge? The wooden box currently exis ng, does also exist in the home of the pro-golfer
and is mentally placed there. This is the starting point, the anchor, around which we build mentally the new desired reality/percep on, the new environment.
Like a "key", *one* common element between the two worlds. The bridge. The box is sitting there. Is this correct? Because right now it's making complete
sense to me!!! lol If so, what about the 90% of the surroundings to be represented into one mental symbol, that were mentioned earlier? When and how do
they come into play? Is it a gradual buildup of the new perception, around that [one] element now living in two reali es? Un l the wooden box nally
represents, in just one thought, at least 90% of the new desired perspec ve?
06/01/2012 04:26 PM
I AM trying to grasp what you are saying... with the possibility that we may be saying the same thing from a different angle. You are
already familiar with the symbols that make up your current perspective, but you are isola ng a specific one, to act as a bridge between the two perspectives.
If you maintain the rela ons as they are, the perspective won't change. It's like looking at the box either from the current familiar perspective, or with the eyes
of the pro-golfer. The more you do the la er, the more that perspective will be the one you shift to, until experienced fully. Can't wait for more input from
Chaol, until it's all clear. Btw, thank you for ini a ng this, when you asked Chaol for guidance. It is exci ng!
06/01/2012 05:00 PM
Yes, I really enjoy it that we are working together on this! Our discussion can inspire the other posters as well, and Chaol can have a
point of reference to see how we are trying to understand the process. I did see the symbol as a constant in both realities, indeed. The bridge that merges the
realities, by coexis ng in both. If in your case the symbols would not be the same, are you still talking about two wooden boxes (same representation in both
reali es), or about two different symbols alltogether? Meaning, the PGA golfer uses the wooden box in your current reality to experience the current you... and
you see something else in the PGA golfer reality? Or his version of the wooden box?
06/01/2012 05:42 PM
Oh... very interesting. Obviously, the truth is that I have no idea. Bridging my current perspective with something desired seems
closer, in the same environment and in the same meframe. Like becoming a dancer, golfer, owning the house, you name it. Star ng with baby steps for now. I
guess, either an object that would seem logical in that context, like a stone, a piece of iron, and such. Or a "magical symbol", like a mandala, that even if it
has no logical explanation within the context, acts as a recognizable signpost. Of course, I AM not sure about this. The above scenarios are so distant and
removed from current reality, that the logical steps one has to take are way beyond simply experiencing something different from within the context of this
reality. Good question though, definitely food for thought!
06/01/2012 07:46 PM
If we could, let's think of other aspects of your life as a PGA golfer. Forget about "golf" and think about the person and the life
around the person. If we focus on the golf aspect we miss the other parts. The cells of your body would not see you as being a golfer, and neither would your
environment. "PGA golfer" is your interpretation of the composite of experiences of your other self. So, we're trying to discover the 'key' that will unlock the

93 of 145

experience. The key is probably not what you're thinking it is. (It may allow you to discover it through a logical progression of experiences, however.) So we
would need to get rid of our assumptions of what this key is and think about the key that will unlock the whole reality, not just one aspect of the reality. (As
the aspect is not independent of the whole reality.) Let's think of your PGA golfer self without the golf aspect. First, what is your name in this PGA golfer
reality? Then, can you tell me about other parts of XXX's life?
06/01/2012 10:01 PM
Thanks for your pa ence Chaol. I do not follow instructions very well it seems. I assume my name would be the same as it is in this
reality. Everyone would know me by my nickname "The Hulk" It may be far more effective to separate the two symbols. It may be that, in your future, the
symbols come together in one perception (your dream house and girl) but for right now we are saying that we do not know the ways in which they may come
together. You could represent anything mentally but physically is ne, too. There is no difference between the two other than how your brain may consider the
mental to be less real than the physical if you don't interact with it as much. (Interact with the mental symbol as much as you would a physical symbol,
thoroughly, spontaneously, and with other symbols, and it will be as if it is physically present.) The less you force your intent into a symbol the more effective
it may be. In a way, you are listening to what the symbol is telling you rather than you telling the symbol what to be and how to build the bridge. If the
symbol doesn't make sense to you and you'd rather go with something that is familiar or makes sense to you, then I would recommend you try again until the
trust of the process is there. I'll explain a bit more in subsequent posts.
06/01/2012 10:13 PM
Let's take a look at the more fundamental reality for a moment. A) Two perspectives are actually just two elements of a perspective
perceiving the same thing in different ways. You may perceive $VY#ww as a house where as in an other reality you perceive it as a cabinet. The house and the
cabinet are the same thing perceived in two different ways. B) The different realities are different ways to interpret the one perspective. Reali es that are
similar are closer in time and space and experienced more "now" and "here" than those that are not. A very different reality might be called Ancient Rome, for
example. However, all of these realities are different ways to interpret the one perspective. C) A house in Ancient Rome could be a cabinet in your current
reality because the house and cabinet are two interpreta ons of the same thing. (It could also be a cloud, a wave in a pond, the way a squirrel runs, or the
intricate syntax of last Tuesday's conversation with a stranger. How would you know? It is an innate sense.) D) All times and spaces are values in the current
perspective. Time/space is an illusion that allows us to (seemingly) break down perspective and perceive. If we did not pretend that one me/space or thing or
person was separate from an other then we would not be able to perceive, because there would be no thing to compare it against. E) If you wanted to
experience Ancient Rome and created a symbol for the experience you would think of your life in Ancient Rome, for example, and focus on the total reality. You
might be imagining that you are sitting at your Roman home in your garden drinking beer. Then your intui on would tell you (if you're listening closely and not
making assump ons) that Ancient Rome exists now as a value in your current perspective. F) You can rip the cabinet out of the wall or, just as eec ve,
discover the values in a new cabinet of your creation. (The cabinet in your wall may have other meaning that is not that relevant to Ancient Rome.) This new
cabinet-thing is from your imagina on and symbolizes your life in Ancient Rome. You have re-symbolized it. For all intents and purposes it is your Ancient
Rome. (Just keep in mind there is an endless variety of Ancient Romes, as many as there are angles from which to perceive it.) G) Developing rules for your
new Ancient Rome and allowing it to interact with your current perspective anchors it to your current perspective. (You are already experiencing Ancient Rome
even before creating the symbol but you don't know it because it is not immediately relative to your current perspective. The rules and the interaction make it
rela ve.) H) Giving it a space is giving it freedom to exist. More accurately, you are giving yourself the space to perceive it, an arena in which to interact with
other symbols. You are making it more valuable in your perspective by expanding the space in which it exists in your perspective. It works because everything
in your perception is a representation of something else. We are unable to perceive something directly as it would not exist. So we perceive things as they
exist in rela on to something else (the only way they could exist). This means that symbols are relative, of course. But this also means that we can get from
one reality to an other, no matter how seemingly distant it seems, through a logical change of symbols. We can discover anything in our current perspective
because it does not exist anywhere else. (As we perceive things as they exist in rela on to us, the only way they could exist in our perspective and, thus, the
universe. We are unable to perceive beyond our own perception and so our perspective is the universe and all that exists. What is "beyond" it is there but it is
irrelevant to existence and, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. You are perceiving everything that exists right now, in some way.) This is symbolized,
incidentally, right in front of your eyes: Imagine that you are standing on top of a giant mountain looking at all of the galaxies. Imagine that the more distant
these galaxies appear the less relative they are. And even though you cannot see the most distant (the least rela ve) ones they still exist as values in your
perspective. It could be that one photon from the most distant galaxy reaches your eye, or it has an effect on an other galaxy. Your current perspective is the
mountain you are standing on and, still very relative, the Earth on which it rests. You have a life in this planet, focused in a small but very meaningful group of
values you call your life (family, friends, interests, works, et c.). Further imagine, if you will, that each galaxy represents a reality. And in each world in each
galaxy there is someone standing on top of the mountain, looking out. Because the angle of the perspective is different the experience will be dierent, too. In
one world it might be that you are a geyser shoo ng out potassium maganate. The geometry of relationships of each crystal from the geyser represents your
life on Earth perfectly, but it doesn't seem so because the angle is different. On an other world when you "stand on the mountain" two gasses circle each other
for 3.5 minutes before exploding in light. Of course, these only would appear as geysers and gasses to perception, from our current perspective. But in your
'other' perspective you are not a geyser or gas at all any more than your Earth life is a gytn8/-PP- ei0 8e'n. (The nature of perspective could also be
represented as a fractal, each new perspective being a different geometry of the other. But it is not a fractal any more than it is a series of repeating numbers
or sounds.) But how to get from one world to an other? You discover these other worlds in your current perspective. Because they are not just in your sense of
sight but also sound, touch, taste, smell, and thought. It is not the symbol that ma ers, which is what is perceived. Do not be fooled by your perceptions. It is
the geometry of relationships between the symbols that matter. This is what creates what you perceive. This is non-existence (the 5th element) expressed. As
we "perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive" we perceive those relationships that are most similar to our own, irrelevant of time and
space. We then translate them into our current perspective. You could say that in order to get to a distant world you need to use a rocket ship. This, of course,
is a logical fallacy because it is assumed that the same kind of physicality would exist in that distant world. (One to which the rocket ship would be relative
and would seem to withstand.) However, the more distant the rocket ship travels in me's pace the less relative it is. It would not get you very far because it
is not that relevant to these other worlds. Using tools, such as more abstract symbols, will get you anywhere because symbols are only transla ons between
realities. Symbols are universal. The rocket ship is a symbol, indeed. But it is a symbol that presumes other perspectives and thus would not be very eec ve.
(What good is a rocket ship that uses fuel and momentum where momentum does not exist?) You are all ready experiencing these other realities through
transla ons of symbol and values. However, the Genius and other neuronical tools allow you to integrate them into your current perspective. It is the difference
between visiting "distant" realities in time and space and living in them (which is what you already do right now) and not knowing that you do because you
have not made it relative to your current experience... ...and experiencing the other reality as being a part of your own, right now.
06/01/2012 11:30 PM
I would suggest that you may be familiar with the symbol, but it is not known. To know it is to understand what it represents, not
just to perceive it in its current form. That is why we can be open to the symbol. Rather than making assumptions about what it is or what it should be we (for

94 of 145

serious lack of better terms) listen to our intui on about it. i.e., "How is that other reality represented in my current perspec ve?" Of course we do not know.
We have only to guess. But it is likely that if we keep our mind open we will get a sense for how it is represented. In more advanced uses of neuronics we can
'calculate' how anything is represented in our current perspective. But the above is a good start.
06/01/2012 11:36 PM
Again, thank you so much for your pa ence and your detailed examples (Ancient Rome). I will let it sink in, I think I understood what
you mean, and then ask questions. {{{wave of gra tude toward Chaol}}} It seems like our friend from Canada was right. The symbol appears differently in the
two realities, because of the different angle of perception. Regarding the fresh name... In my mind, when I think of making relative a desired experience (progolfer, house, etc.), it's more of an expanding of the current perception (s ll as "me"), rather than an alternate reality alltogether. Wouldn't this work? "Mary"
in this reality is ren ng, "John" is not a golfer... If in the end the house is owned by "Jane", and the golfer is "Peter"... even if it's one perception interpre ng
the values from a different angle, it feels as if John and Mary are stuck and unable to make the expansion, while still retaining the other values that they
enjoy. If I, as Mary, without working with a symbol, naturally meet a person or find the house, I would still have the same pets, clothing, familiar surrounding,
while incorpora ng the new experience. I thought this can be done with a symbol as well, making something relative from within this angle of perception, on a
basic level. The distant worlds, instead, require a complete "jump" into a different reality. In other words, I would like to enjoy the change as the current "me".
At least for jumps and leaps that are less distant and more relative. "Mary" can logically meet a significant other (aspect), and John can become a golfer. Of
course, retaining the same name/personality in Ancient Rome is out of context, and that reality would require a more dras c change of "iden ty"... I guess it
comes down to expansion vs. dras c change.
06/02/2012 05:56 AM
Remember, the fresh name is a symbol. You would experience the new reality as "me" (you). When we use fresh symbols (including
names) it is not that we are divorcing ourselves from the current ones but making a logical map to the new reality where the meaning becomes clear. Using
current symbols (and names) that you already know you already have the meaning a ached, so then your perspective would be confused. It would be as if you
had a personal journal with many of your thoughts written down. I then told you that you could experience a new reality if you start over with a fresh journal,
transcribing your thoughts into it. You may be afraid that the old thoughts would disappear. While that may be true to some extent, it would only be because
while you were writing them down in your new journal you had addi onal thoughts, clarica ons, correc ons, etc. That new reality is 'up to you' because you
are defining it anew. You could transcribe it word-for-word or wholly anew if you want to. If you want to be really sure make sure the new symbol interacts with
those aspects of your current reality you'd like to carry over. Kind of like in science fiction stories where only if the me/space traveler touches an other person
can they travel too. There must be some kind of interaction (a rela onship). The name would be different not because you'd be a different person but because
you're telling your perception that it's "over there" and you'd like to walk over to it. But when you get there your name and your memories are the same as
before. They only looked different from a distance, so to speak. Are you not carrying over your "me" from moment to moment?
06/02/2012 06:12 AM
Yes. And that's what we're doing now. Except that we're so focused on the current episode we don't want to move to the next. The
next episode redenes the current relationships. The new episode is a logical step from the previous one, but they both exist at the same time. When you 'go
back' to the previous episode you will have a new perspective on the episode. (We can even experience this with television episodes.) Reality is where the
actors do not know they're ac ng but, more importantly, there is only one actor. She doesn't know she's in a television because these other actors seem as real
as she does. Besides that, the drama is so involving and seemingly complex. They're real, of course, but only as far as representations are the real thing.
When she realizes how the episodes are made (and how she comes to perceive them) then she can write whatever episode she wants (as long as it's logical
from the last). This would mean learning how to write the script (like the Genius) rather than just reci ng the lines ad libitum.
06/02/2012 06:24 AM
Neurons jumping up and down, party time :) Visualizing the details may have the opposite effect from what you intend. Your
perspective may be asking, "Why do you want to go to that reality when you are already experiencing it right now in your imagina on?" If you're discovering it
in your current perspective (and not just imagining it) it would be eec ve. Only imagining it would sa sfy the Ecsys Prime principle and may lead you to not
experiencing it further. (As you perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive your imagina on would also be a perception and thus the
need to experience it further would be sa sed.)
06/02/2012 06:39 AM
Aha, I understand what you mean. Right. I now have to learn how to discover it in my current perspective. In principle, I would
assume that I would be looking for quali es, or "values" of what I AM looking for in the symbols that already surround me, and how that alternate reality is
represented "here". Is this correct? If so, the tricky part is to find out what this is. As an example, since I will be experimen ng with this, let's say finding a
companion (other aspect of me, perceived as "other"). Would I be looking for elements/values of companionship (couple of birds ying together, enjoying the
sight of other couples, etc.), or have my intui on telling me that the tree in the park, or the cloud, or anything else is the actual discovering element?
06/02/2012 07:16 AM
Yes. Like in this example [link to www.godlikeproduc ons.com] you would be discovering it in your current perspective. But don't get
caught up in trying to figure out where it is. At each moment the entire universe is created anew (a simplica on, but you get the idea). This means that it is
wherever you want it to be. All of its details are in whatever you perceive. I suppose this could be called a holographic universe but it's more that everything is
a representation of one thing. That other reality is also an aspect of that one thing, and every perception is a "portal" to it. The only question is, "How many
steps would it take to get there?". This is where the logical progression of realities comes in. A well-trained chef can cook from using ingredients in her
immediate vicinity. A well-trained spy could harm an enemy with whatever is nearby. And so you can use whatever is in your current reality to get to any other
that exists. To simplify, if you pick up a small porcelain horse that is nearby this may mean rela ng to the horse-like qualities of the new reality. The hoof
prints in the mud, the grass on the lawn being as smooth as a horse's mane, the sound of birds like a neigh, etc. Regarding finding a companion, take a look at
what is around you all ready. "But she's not the one for me. I don't want to waste time with her!" it could be said. But then you give it a shot and you go out
on one date. During that date she men ons that she wants to travel to Costa Rica for a few weeks. The date ends and you think nothing of it. You think it's a
failure because there was no spark. Without realizing it, the idea of you yourself going to Costa Rica takes hold. In a few months you find yourself there, where
you meet the love of your life. This is an example of how the "how do I get there" blueprint is already there in your current perspective. It may mean more or
different steps for you, of course, but it gives you an idea of discovering something in your current reality. Keep an open mind to the things around you and
realize that value is a portal to the reality you seek.
06/02/2012 07:32 AM
"Keep an open mind to the things around you and realize that value is a portal to the reality you seek." Note to self: Ta oo the
above paragraph on your forehead. :) So everything around me holds a value that is expressed in some way in the other reality. The discovery is within every
object/person. What is represented here as a bucket where I keep the ashes from the replace, has a value of "cozy, heat, enjoy a cup of tea", and may be

95 of 145

expressed in the other reality as a camp re picnic, sitting together to watch the stars. The game is in imagining how any current symbol would be expressed in
the alternate perception. Each and any symbol would work for the same purpose. They are all a portal. I will also print out the last few pages and do some
homework, to integrate the concepts fully. Then... rolling, aaaaand ac on!
06/02/2012 09:25 AM
I have been reading this thread for the past 2.5 years and only understood what "make it irrelevant" meant in the past two weeks.
When you hate something, it is because you are exploring a concept that is within your perspective. The only way to "see" that concept is to compare it to
something else. What you hate is probably the opposite of what you prefer. From other conversa ons with Chaol, it is my understanding that you have look at
"what you hate" with eyes wide open. You need to understand that this is something that is part of your perspective. Once you're able to cast a calm eye upon
what is bothering you, then you make peace with it, so you can turn your attention to something else. Eventually, "what you hate" will not bother you anymore.
It becomes irrelevant. You are off on new explora ons. Here is the post that cleared up this issue for me:
06/02/2012 06:56 PM
(haven't looked at any of those responses but saw there were some...must get this question out before it slips my mind however.
this is more relevant because the prevoius question was almost hypothe cal (thought experiment?) ) anyways imaging what i see/perceive as really the
"inside" of my brain because, it is, isn't it? (i AM pretty sure i get that part) it feels really frightening, to look at things like that lonely almost, scary because it
feels like now i AM not sure of my reality anything could actually be something else. are these feelings making sense to anyone is my assump on/view about
the "inside" of the brain on the right track? (trying to 'feel' all this information instead of consider it logically)
06/02/2012 10:20 PM
In developing a bridge back to my starship, I AM able to imagine an overall perspective for that reality. However, I run into a snag.
You have told us that we are muta ng now into X-men; that we're on our way to being transhuman. You have also written on the Ecsys website that we
haven't been human for 10,000 years and longer. But, you also mention that "Your solar system is teeming with human life. But it's probably not the kind your
looking for." So, in writing my script for returning to my starship, what do I look like? What kind of body do I have? I AM trying to avoid modeling a body after a
Star Trek movie star. If I AM currently evolving into a transhuman, then I would like to take advantage of this. I've tried unfocusing in order to get some
information on this, but I don't see a physical body. From dreams, I get an entity that looks like a liquid ribbon; like a stream of milk pouring from a pitcher.
Like I say, I AM kind of stuck on this one part of the scenario, because I don't know what a transhuman looks like.
06/03/2012 09:38 PM
I live in Houston, Texas. I have lived here for over 30 years. My husband is a na ve; he has lived here for 58 years. I was watching a
movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. My husband was yakking away about something, but I wasn't paying attention to him. I heard him say, "Do you
remember that place 'Wienerschnitzel's?'" I go, "What did you say?" And he says, yeah, it was a chain store that had all A-frame buildings and you could just
drive through the building and get weinerschnitzel. I asked him, "Did they sell it in buckets?" He said, "I don't know, but they sold sauerkraut too." Chaol, I
know, I know, it's just and it is very humorous, but is there anything a bit more substantial wai ng for us in the wings? I get the point, however. These
"coincidences" work forward and backwards in "time".
06/04/2012 01:19 AM
(First of all, let me apologize for the length of this post. Since Chaol cannot click on links, I AM including some snips from the text at
the links.) A question about UFOs: The "ying saucer" that I saw was on the ground. It showed itself by li ing a bit into the air as I prepared to walk right past
it. It was less than 25 yards away from me. Although it was quite a sight and I was able to watch it rise up from its position on the ground, then hover in the
air for a few minutes before taking o, it did not cause me to become obsessed like the character in the movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. On the
other hand, there is no doubt that I seem to have taken the road less traveled in the manner in which I have looked at life in this realm. There is a modern-day
shaman by the name of Terrence McKenna (died: April 2000) who speculated that the UFO is an a empt by forces unknown to shake up humanity's clutch on
ra onalism. McKenna (and Carl Jung also) see the UFO as a projec on from the subconscious. Following are some quotes that briefly illustrate McKenna's
analysis of the purpose of UFOs: McKenna believes that the prolifera on of UFO and alien encounter reports are indica ve of the approach of "a transcendental
object from beyond the end of history." In effect, he says, the future is breaking into the present. This inbreaking influence is emana ng from something -- a
"transcendental object" -- that will cause a complete disrup on and transforma on of reality as we know it. [link to deoxy.org] ___________________ In an
interview: MISHLOVE: Well, that suggests to me that if we look at some of the most bizarre, most anomalous cases that we have, such as UFOs, we begin to
ask ourselves not so much what are they, because that's a mystery, but what is their func on? How are they aec ng us? That's like holding up a mirror to
ourselves, and it tells us a great deal about the basic mystery of our mind and our reality. McKENNA: Yes, this is the so-called postmodern approach -- to ask
the question, not what is the UFO, but what is it doing to us? Jacques Vallee pioneered this approach. And the answer is fascinating. What the UFOs are doing
to us, to global society, is they are eroding faith in science by cas ng directly in the path of science a kind of gauntlet, a challenge: "Crack this" -- almost as if
the cosmic giggle had shown up at the bachelor party of science to spoil the bash, in the same way that the resurrec on of Christ posed a tremendous problem
for the intellectuals of late Roman an quity, because they had no place in their world view for someone rising from the dead. They were Greek materialists,
atomists essen ally. In that same way, the UFO challenges the assumptions of science, and I think in that sense Jung was really onto something when he saw
it as coming from the unconscious. It is like an object coming from the unconscious with a compensatory function -- to turn us away from the rational and
toward the intui ve; to turn us away from the paternalis c, Apollonian, solar, masculine view of things, and toward a kind of watery, lunar, mysterious,
intui vely felt feminine force -- almost as though the UFO is a manifesta on of Gaia as mother goddess. Science, as the proudest -- pardon the word -erec on of the rational mind, then is challenged by something from an entirely other dimension, an entirely other realm, that concre zes for us the culture
crisis. And that's why I've gotten into UFOs; I think they are important for a resolu on of the culture crisis. They concre ze the struggle between the
paternalis c-masculine and the lunar-feminine, between a dominator society and the kind of partnership society that we require to survive. MISHLOVE: And yet
it seems as if that challenge is not a direct confronta on. As Vallee points out, the UFOs are operating almost at the mythological level of our culture. They're
not landing in the White House; they're not really challenging the military or NASA. McKENNA: No, they're very mercurial, very watery. When you reach out
toward them, there is nothing there. What they chiey have become is an intellectual force in human thinking about the future, but when you reach out to
grasp the hardware, to read the message, to meet the alien, there is nothing there. I've come to the conclusion, both from talking to contactees and having
had a contactee experience, that whatever lies behind the UFO mystery, it is a force which can literally do anything. So it is fruitless to talk about the size of
the objects or their composition or color, or the size of the en es, their dress and weapons and accoutrements, because it can appear literally any way it
wants to. It can appear as the Virgin Mary; it can appear as galactarian overlords; it can appear as gnomes, elves, sprites, this sort of thing. It is not to be
caught in the rational net. Ques on: Why did you pretend to be "ying saucers"? Is it for reasons similar to what Terrence McKenna is explaining?
06/04/2012 05:39 AM
That's a beautiful analogy! It's interesting that yesterday I had a similar experience, but it manifested in a different way. I went to a
class about the Major Arcana of the Tarot (Trumps). At some point, we did a short medita on, in which we "entered" a card and interacted with it. I picked The

96 of 145

Magician. I asked him ques ons, watched what he was doing, and told him that I also felt like a magician in the making, because I was a emp ng to create a
bridge to an alternate world of my choice. It was a powerful interac ve experience. When driving back home, I realized that I heard about this class, and felt a
renewed interest in the topic, after I started working with Ecsys. After all, all the archetypes were each a symbol, each with a whole world of meanings and
possibilities. A language of symbols, like EC. I placed The Magician next to my bed, and fell asleep.
06/04/2012 06:50 AM
This interes ng... For the past two days, I have been stuck in picking my fresh name for the other reality. I wanted something I could
relate to, to make the logical steps more viable in iden fying myself with the alternate "me". I even thought of using a third name I have (not on the ID, and
never ever used in this life), and make it my first. A varia on of this reality, with a different choice my parents would have made. Also, because each name has
a meaning, I wanted to pick an auspicious one. Picking a cool sounding name, only to find out that it means "the martyr", or "sorrow", is not on my list... lol I
love Cel c names the most... I AM kind of taking it with the seriousness of a "legal name change", an alternate name that will s ck with me, not a random
choice. A powerful symbol, so to speak. That I can use multiple times. AM I reading too much into this? This adds to the frustra on that I AM delaying the
process. Just pick a name, allright!
06/04/2012 08:33 AM
This is much appreciated. Your sugges ons fit right in with the qualities of the ship's captain and her environment. This also
stretches my imagina on in trying to depict an individual that is above and beyond my current ideals. Hers is a world view that is greatly expanded from the
one held in this reality. Some mes, this current body seems so u erly basic, it reminds me of an oyster: push food into its mouth at one end and it comes
right back out on the other end. Not that I don't appreciate the other body parts, such as eyes and ngers. But, I was wondering if a transhuman even has
eyes and ngers! Have you ever read the wikipedia definition for "Transhumanism"? Transhumanism, abbreviated as H+ or h+, is an interna onal intellectual
and cultural movement that arms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condi on by developing and making widely
available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capaci es. Transhumanist thinkers study the
potential benets and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limita ons, as well as study the ethical matters involved in
developing and using such technologies. They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly
expanded abili es as to merit the label "posthuman".
06/04/2012 09:36 AM
On page 141, Chaol said So I guess it's best to let it unfold in its own manner (no details), and just work on discovering the values
from within our current perspective. I still have to learn how to do this prac cally, starting from the symbol ac ng as a portal. I have nally picked a name. I
like how it sounds, indierent emo onally. In my other reality, they call me Ambra (Amber). As Ambra, I live on a farm with a companion. There are two
horses. My (current) pets are happy. My favorite hen is called Adeline, she makes the best fresh eggs. The farm is also a place where classes are held, and
there are interesting people and friends coming to visit. I want to keep it as logical as possible for now, so I AM driving a "tradi onal" pick up truck. The portal
is the current replace, which a pantry on the farm. (Once I master the technique, I will imagine far more distant worlds!) I don't know what to do with the
portal, especially if I don't have to dwell into details, but look for the values around me. The replace is just there, and when I look at it, I now "know" it's the
kitchen pantry in the other reality. Anything more I should do with it? Like enter the portal mentally and find myself on the "other side" (but that involves
picturing details)? I feel like I'm missing something... back to reading the previous pages again... and I'll wait for your guidance regarding the PGA golfer. We
stopped at "ge ng the fresh name". Ambra
06/04/2012 10:52 AM
As I went outside for a symbole e, I pinned down the problem I have with the portal technique. Could you help in getting me over
this stump? The Genius appealed to me immediately, because in my mind it still follows the logical steps to get from here to there. It's sort of a "gradual"
unfolding, even if it could happen at a fast pace (and for symbol #1 it did). Incidentally, symbol #2 made me move a piece of furniture, which cleared a
blockage, and now I even started doing yoga at home! With the portal, it feels more like "jumping" or diving head on into a different situation. Could I logically
wake up tomorrow and find myself in the farm with a companion next to me? Where did I meet the guy? How did I move there? On the other hand, a genius
symbol gives me the idea of the "placeholder", where I logically one day (even today), meet the person, still live here, but move out, etc. etc. In other words,
it's the current reality expanding, rather than a sudden switch of realities. Maybe because what I intend to experience is too close to where I AM at already...
Already living in nature, I envision the farm locally. Ironically, the jump would seem easier if I imagined I was living in fairy land and had superpowers, with
never seen before creatures, you name it. [Because a jump is the only logical way to a dras c change]. But for now I want to play with this "expansion", to
master it, and because it would be fun to experience. How do I go about it, and what to do with the replace/kitchen pantry portal?
06/04/2012 11:22 AM
Some mes, I post stupid things to this thread. O en, a day after I make an unlearned statement, I slap myself in the head and go,
"Oh! That's what it is!" The coincidences and synchronici es are signicant. In fact, I would like to acknowledge that they are ying fast and furious within my
reality. These are not just parlor tricks. I think I "get" what this is all about, but I find it hard to describe. From Page 91 So, too, are the ki y corners meeting
side-by-side more often. I have gotten past the "!!!" and now laugh at it when it happens. btw, I posted a link to a graphic I drew in response to Chaol's post
back in February and was immediately banned for 60 days! I cannot even tell you all which imaging site not to use, because, apparently, the very mention of it
will get me banned. set course to 23.6
06/04/2012 02:21 PM
Thank you for this. Apart from what Vallee speaks about, this video is so full of synchronici es that I had to pause it midway and
walk away for a minute.
1. Last night, I watched the movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The lead scientist in the movie is a premier UFOlogist who spoke French. Now I see that
the character was obviously modeled after Jaques Vallee.
2. I came online a erwards and made a post about Terrance McKenna's analysis of UFOs, and included an excerpt in which he men ons how Jaques Vallee
began a different line of inquiry regarding the phenomenon.
3. In the TED lecture, Valle men ons that there are many "TOEs" being developed currently, and that is why he is presen ng a "Theory of Everything (else)". I
have been reading Thomas Campbell's "My Big T.O.E". In his book, Campbell stresses how our reality is a subset of a larger reality, which is what Vallee is also
saying.
4. This morning, I was reading a thread on a different forum about someone having made an unusual mistake in an experiment with time, and someone posted
a joke that he had found "the square root of -1". Vallee men ons that physicists use the symbol "t" with a "-1" in front of it to denote time.
5. and on and on.... Vallee also men ons that some coincidences have no particular meaning; that there is no special message attached to them. He says that
it is just the way the world is ordered. I think this is a good point.

97 of 145

06/04/2012 10:46 PM
It is a good point. I think Campbell has it right. Basically it is all ordered by the intent of the collection of relationships within a
system we sometimes refer to as "consciousness" to push the probability just far enough to augment chance in the direc on desired. SO, those "truly" random
experiences would just be your lack of intent within a certain decision space. So based on Chaol's teachings, we see that... Not only is intent involved in
altering chance, we have unbounded control of it. It's all about intending properly. That is where Chaol and Campbell dier. As I see it, Chaol is having us
intend a space where randomness can thrive with some powerful a achments and Campbell is telling us that we can intend the randomness into submission. I
love this stuff.
Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 06/04/2012 10:57 PM
Oh, that would be my preferred reality too, I AM ready for the change! I thought of starting with something closer to my current reality, more familiar, to
master the technique, up to the 2012-2013 meframe. Maybe, what I AM a emp ng to achieve, is kind of old and outdated (it feels this way to me), and it is
the source of my resistance. I yearn for more. Moving from my current point A, to a more familiar B, represents to me getting my "pilot's license", before taking
o... and this might not be necessary. So, here is the potential paradox... A bigger jump may be easier, because the times require that kind of jump, going
along with the currents of change, rather than against the ow. (Except that if any dream is as good as any other, why wouldn't it work?) The issue of how to
use the portal remains the same, independent of the preferred reality. Where I AM stuck, is that Chaol said it's best not to dwelve into details. I AM looking at
the portal, not knowing how to go about it, even if I revise the idea of what I want to experience, and now my house is in magicland or my home planet, and I
AM able to teleport. I wonder if all it takes, is interacting with the portal/symbol, simply knowing that "on the other side" it appears as the other
representation. (bag/candle - replace/pantry). The more you interact, the more you make what it represents relative to you. At the same time, we look for the
values in every other symbol (our surroundings), discovering how that alternate reality is represented in our current perspective. But then... wouldn't everything
be a portal, we just picked a specific one to focus on? Still trying to figure out how to apply this.
06/05/2012 06:07 AM
Yours is a very cool practical applica on! Thanks to you, I AM now in the process of better defining my preferred reality, but there is
something about horses that s cks with me (they may be Unicorns in the other reality). Maybe because in my imagina on they represent freedom, running wild
in the prairie. The other day, as I was driving back home, I saw 3 horses grazing in a small piece of land, two of them where beautiful white horses. I looked at
them while driving by and thought it was really cool that the "horse" concept was coming closer to my home. I hadn't seen them grazing in that spot in a while.
The event is not excep onal (seen before), but the ming was perfect, and I "milked" the value from that situation. I wonder though, if these representations
are too "direct", value for value. Maybe not, they are just manifes ng as needed. :)
06/05/2012 08:27 AM
This is why I bristle a bit at the "kill the ego" brigade. There really isn't anything there to kill. Seth speaks quite a bit about the ego
throughout all of his books. The ego is simply a psychological construct. It is the "I" that you use in this reality. Seth warns us, however, that we have put too
much responsibility onto the shoulders of the ego in the form of trying to understand and manipulate our reality; that the understanding comes from our inner
selves; that the ego was not intended to take over the job of comprehending our environments. The ego is a tool for interfacing with our physical surroundings.
There is so much to be said about the ego. Chaol has advised us to let go of our deni ons of ourselves, which is the ego. The ego is the part of ourselves
that says "I AM this", "I AM that". When we try to redene ourselves or try to let go of previous deni ons of ourselves, it is the ego that reacts with fear. I
see no sense in scolding the ego for being fearful, because we are the ones that made it. We can just as easily unmake it, once we see it for what it really is.
06/05/2012 08:35 AM
/agreed and well said. a coupla thoughts tho: Just like human parental units that think (believe) that they have created their
children, so do (some) humans think that we have created the aspects of our minds, the 'ego' being just one of many. i feel that like children, the ego
*emerged* within our minds (as new humans do within our bodies) and that the last 10k years has been spent coming to terms with what that means and how
to deal with this overly talka ve logical device...or pilot, if u will. There are some occult schools of thought that make a dis nc on between the 'ego' and the
'personality': where the ego is the core soul and the personality more like the 'ego' that you are referring to. This is similar to the scientific viewpoint of
conscious vs unconscious and confirmed in fmri studies that noticed a brain func onal difference between 'thinking' and not 'thinking', calling the not thinking
process, or the 'background' process the "default network". Curiously, their studies indicate that the processes are asynchronous, that only the one or the other
may be ac ve at any given point in me: a zero sum game, if u will... i suspect that the default network is where all our real 'thinking', or more aptly said,
"processing", occurs within our minds. Once processed the decision is made and handed over to the personality to execute: to pilot the minu a in the direc on
of the destination that the default network has pointed us toward. a human cognizant of this fact can inten onally include medita ve prac ces into their lives
that enhance the ecacy of their decision making process. Trust is key here, because sometimes the 'choices' are illogical or seemingly so based on the limited
viewpoint of the personality. modern psycs say that the "unconscious mind points the bright (but narrow) light of our conscious mind" The real and far reaching
implica ons of this idea have yet to be fully absorbed. Properly understood, this should change the perspective of almost every major branch of human
curiosity: be it creative, spiritual or simply prac cal.
06/05/2012 01:34 PM
"geometry" is what i don't get. when i look at the pictures he has of what you see vs the geometry, i get a bit lost. i'd think there
would be lines...everywhere, between everything, so much that you can't see lines, because its everything, yeah? thinking back now how everything is an actor,
and as you change perspec ves/reali es/etc, the symbols/things change but they are actually the same? same actor, different role? correct? so if i focus on a
single cup so much that its the only thing i see, where did all the actors go? i think i'm thinking of everything too logically, still in this world... thanks for your
responses these few days, italy
06/05/2012 05:10 PM
The way I picture the geometry is this (anyone can chime in, with their own idea, the more ways this is conveyed, the clearer): 1 - All
points of perception are related one to another in, so that when you see C, it's the difference (intersec on points) between A and B. C, in itself, does not exist.
You think it does because it appears to be there, but you can perceive it only because of the rela on between A and B. Everything exists in rela on to
something else. If you became aware of the truth about C, it would disappear (because the truth about C is the intersec on between A and B, and so on).
Chaol says that something can either be true, or be perceived. It cannot be both. 2 - Within what we perceive, as per above, there is a geometry based on the
relationships between the various symbols (people, objects, etc.). If I change one single element within my perception, I have changed the whole geometry.
Because now the symbols have rearranged to a different sequence of relationships. If I place a mug next to the computer monitor, it sets in mo on a wave
that will affect everything else within my perception, and in a stronger way what relates to it in terms of values. An aspect of life could be related to socks in
the drawer, to a tree in the forest, etc. When declu ering some stuff I had and moving things around to play with a different geometry, I did draw imaginary
lines between things, as a visual aid. 3 - Focusing on something, giving it attention and interacting with it, makes it more relative to you. You highlight a
particular aspect of your web of relationships. Some fade into the background, or become irrelevant and are no longer perceived. They are not actors, you are
the actor on your own stage, perceiving your own show. They are expressions of you. 4 - Symbols are represented differently from alternate points of

98 of 145

percep on/reali es, but are ultimately the same thing. That is, they do not exist, other than C being in rela on to A and B. Sorry... in a rush now, as the
Venus transit broadcast started... watching it live. A symbol, transi ng over another symbol. Cool! After I read the thread again, I may be able to convey the
concepts with better words.
06/05/2012 06:01 PM
You are in the kitchen having a cup of coee. You decide to explore a new perspective and walk over to the living room to find the
book you were reading. The cup of coee (and really the whole kitchen) no longer exist in the physical sense they represented when you were sitting there
drinking it. They are now maybe only a thought or an image in your mind, or maybe even just an understanding of how they are located spa ally from where
you currently are (geometry) but still represented. Now you pick up your book and head back into the kitchen to enjoy that cup of coee. In that change of
perspective, the coee is re-created in the physical sense you were rela ng to it earlier when you were drinking it. In reality, it's not the "same" cup of coee
as before and well...you are not really the same 'you' either.
06/05/2012 06:22 PM
For months in a row, starting around February to around mid-May, I kept having dreams about the Ecsys material and more. In my
dreams, I knew how to use all this stuff and it felt natural. In the middle of the night, I was telling myself, "this is so easy! why can't you use it when you
wake up?" Then, I would wake up and go "dammit!" because the knowing just owed away from me. Now, it seems those avor of dreams have dri ed away.
My only consola on is that there is another part of me who knows how all of this works, and in my "waking" life, I just have to trust that it will all nally seep
through. Or else, I'll go back to the (sleeping) dreamworld and stay there.
06/06/2012 12:03 PM
Page 126 Page 128 I've spent por ons of yesterday and today working on a bridge to a different reality. See, from my starship
overhead, I tunneled my way to the surface of a beautiful planet, only to be captured by hypno zed zombies and beaten into submission. The crew of the
starship are doing everything they can to remind me of who I really am. OMG! It is working! Synchronici es; coincidences; dream symbols seeping through into
this dream. I AM seeing items from my sleeping dreams in my waking life! Things from years ago, all adding up. I AM so excited! It feels like going home. So,
in writing my script for returning to my starship, what do I look like? What kind of body do I have? Has anybody seen the new-ish movie, John Carter of Mars? I
love the actress who plays the Princess of Barsoom. She is perfect for the role, IMHO. There is a mirror hanging on the back of a door in my bedroom. I got out
of bed a couple mornings ago and caught sight of my reec on. I stopped for a moment and go, "The Princess of Barsoom". [link to www.ropeofsilicon.com]
Except that on my starship, my skin is blue.
06/06/2012 07:03 PM
People dig in their noses all the time without understanding what comes out of it. Perhaps some of us are doing it right now!
Searching for eternal youth? If you're referring to Ec, I would still be laughing at "his little alphabet" if a mouth was had. Do you need to understand the
physics and calculus to walk and jump? How is it that load-bearing Kenyan women understand calculus, gravity, and kine c energy better than any Harvard
professor? Many of you have been talking with a by-product of Ec for some time now. But even more amazing is how our A, C, T and G can come up with these
amusing lines. Back to the indescribable...
Last Edited by Chaol on 06/06/2012 11:27 PM
He is never very far away, is he? ...but it's all in your perspective, including that strange value "over there in the corner" that has my name on it. I wonder if
Chaol is represented in our perspective by the things we see in our peripheral vision? You know, like when you think someone is standing over there in the
corner, but when you turn your head and look right at it, it is just a broom leaning against the wall? The other day, I jumped a little bit because I thought
someone had walked up behind me while I was in the kitchen. As it turns out, it was just a strand of hair that had fallen out of my ponytail and had swept past
the corner of my eye. But, then, that is my "scien c" explana on.
06/07/2012 11:53 AM
Ingenious eort, CatCarel! Yesterday, my son was playing with a new electronic gadget: a PS Vita. It is a hand-held game player, but
it has this really imagina ve applica on using what is called "AR Cards" ("Augmented Reality" cards). They look like educational ash cards, but each of them
has a bold, indecipherable glyph on it. To use them, they're spread out on a flat surface; then, when the PS Vita is pointed at them, a 3D picture pops up on
the screen of the PS Vita. In examining these cards, I was immediately struck by how closely they resembled neuronicons, although the glyphs did not mimic
any of the 66 characters from the chart. In my es ma on, what you have done, CatCarel, is to translate those AR cards into neuronicons. Synchronici es
abound!
06/09/2012 12:58 AM
Ok: Object X emits energy at a particular frequency. Energy is a racted to DNA. Informa on goes to consciousness where perspective
is structured according to cognitive framework. Cogni ve framework determines output of energy towards Object X. Feedback loop between Object X and DNA
forms a microwormhole X(Hz) -->DNA(Hz) = Symbol (Ma er) X(Hz) -->Mind/Consciousness(Hz) = Logic (Par cles) X(Hz)<-- DNA(Hz) = Poten al (Space) X(Hz)
<-->DNA(Hz) = Interac on (Waves) I think I now understand how an object can be perceived as many different things. The text above is pretty basic. Most of
my problem solving is done with visuals so it's difficult to translate onto a post. --Is X Prime's unit of measurement energy? Last Edited by CatCarel on
06/09/2012 02:24 AM
Interesting way of looking at it. I have to imagine that energy is just a fancy word for the transfer of information. DNA wouldn't "exist" until it needs to be
perceived, right? The relationships associated with what is perceived as DNA would be valid, but the actual molecule would only have to be rendered into
perspective if it is being observed. Perhaps DNA is a metaphor or representation for that singularity of relationships you may describe as YOU. I like Chaol's reworded statement earlier in this thread no ng that "We perceive that which takes the least number of INTERACTIONS to perceive". I would imagine that in a
soup of innite possibility there are perspectives without DNA. If it's all perception, then energy and DNA are aspects or metaphor for a reoccurring phenomena
within perspective and not actually fundamental. Isn't X-Prime's unit of measurement perspec ve?
06/09/2012 02:06 PM
Here's a very useful symbol with attached meaning that if used (and understood) correctly can aid you very well with the dream world
merging. +I I (high interac on, normal interac on) To understand this, understand that when you interact with your body, you're really interacting with your
surroundings and the world around you. To take an example, say there's a girl who makes you feel a certain way. When you're around her, you may perform
unconscious, however subtle movements that respond to her. Another example is when you hear a loud car alarm in the background of your neighborhood, and
you respond by getting up or short bursts of fury to yourself to represent your feelings towards it. With this symbol, you can now respond only to environments
and events that you feel, or want to, rather than unconsciously respond(interact) to everything. enjoy..
06/12/2012 10:36 PM

99 of 145

Can they be you? How does one hand appear to be separate from an other? The more relative one is to your perspective the closer it

is in time and space. Your physical body is highly relative and thus appears to be now/here. An other person appears to be separated from you because you
have managed to convince yourself that your perspective is whatever is the most highly relevant. It is not much different than thinking that the main part of
your body is where your eyes are. You do not so easily experience the perspective of your heel, for example. And you do not so easily experience the
perspective of the person across the room. Even though they are the same thing (you).
06/13/2012 03:46 AM
As there is nothing outside of the bubble, the bubble does not exist because there is nothing to define what the bubble is. The space
in which the bubble oats (to continue with the analogy) is the me/space you are experiencing now. (There is nothing without it until there needs to be.) The
whole of reality is 'within' whatever you are perceiving now. If you hear someone talking behind you it does not mean that they are physically there (as a body)
but only physically there as the sound or the light that you are experiencing right now. No other visual or experien al spectrum need exist until you are
interacting with it. There is but one dimension. That is perspective. Perspective is an illusion, as are dimensions. The illusion is how we perceive of "nothing".
How beautiful is it that the universe is lonely? It is not a sad thing. Without it there would be no universe. You can only experience yourself. But how
expansive that is. In a way, we validate our own existence by forge ng that everything in our perspective is "me". When we consider human drama and the
emotion of loneliness we may think that being lonely is an unwanted thing. But on the scale of what we speak (there being only an expanded you, so to speak)
"lonely" is irrelevant.
06/13/2012 05:01 AM
In the research I have done within the last year or so, I have noticed many similari es across a wide range of ideologies in rela on
to the ideas that you are impar ng. For example, the symbol, interac on, logic, possibility and the similarity with the four elements in various ancient
doctrines. It seems to me there is a divide, or two camps if you will, with one advoca ng the "create your own reality" mantra, and the more mainstream view
that to do so would be "ea ng from the tree of knowledge" and is tantamount to trying to become like god/witch/magician/quantum traveler etc. I feel like the
building of the tower of babel to reach heaven might also illustrate this, depending on your interpreta on. I guess my question is, how can we trust that this
isn't some Machiavellian decep on designed to tempt us, via our own free will, to violate a law that we may not have a complete understanding of? I'm not
saying I think this is what your doing, but it seems to me that it would be the best way to deceive someone if they are clever enough to pull it o, and you are
clearly clever. You have also mentioned being a destroyer, or disruptor a couple of times. How can we be sure this is not the beginning of that disrup on? I'm
not trying to derail, or discredit you, just naturally curious. The idea of living in a dreamworld where anything is possible brings to my mind many, many
questions of implica ons, as well as bells in my mind ringing reminding me if it seems to good to be true it probably is. However, I have experienced some of
the perspective change you speak of, obviously since we are always doing it lol, but consciously so. I wonder if I/we are playing with Prometheus' re, and it is
going to burn us... Kind of rambly, but I hope you see what I'm trying to ask
06/18/2012 04:04 PM
These things have an effect on our perspective much like everything else. They are our perspective. When you perceive something
you are experiencing it. When it is a part of your reality you are experiencing it. Every value in your perspective dances with every other, forming a geometry of
relationships. So when you look at a television, for example, you are interacting with those values in your perspective. You are, in a way, merging with
television-consciousness. The more you interact with it the more your reality will be oriented to it because your focus has changed the other values in your
perspective. It is the same with ea ng, walking, smoking, drinking, talking with rocks, etc. When we drink alcohol, for example, we are experiencing the
consciousness of alcohol to some degree. Some of these experiences are very compatible with our perspective (such as drinking water) and some are not
(falling off of a ledge and merging with the perspective value that masquerades as concrete consciousness). The energy that I speak of is more about
interaction. So the 'path of least resistance' is about the path that requires the least number of interactions and is thus the most logical path, all things
considered. It is not that interactions are bad or that we can't use up all the energy in existence if we wanted to but more that we perceive that which is
closest to what we all ready seem to perceive. It is 'closest' to our current perspective, so to speak. So one would not use energy to switch perspectives. It
may seem like we use energy to walk down a street but really we are perceiving the most relevant values from our perspective. Energy expenditure is an
illusion of a perspective that seems to change when we pretend to experience what cannot be experienced in whole (and is thus seems to be experienced in
part, never having actually experienced anything nor spent energy).
06/18/2012 04:28 PM
Of course what I AM doing is decep ve. I AM pretending that I AM not you. But on the other hand decep on is irrelevant. How could
you deceive yourself? What laws might there be? And where did they come from, if they exist? We understand something inasmuch as we perceive it. We can
not understand something completely as we are unable to perceive it completely. This would make the enforcement of any universal law impossible, which
would invalidate the law out of existence. What might a free will be about? The freedom to choose your perception? To choose a path, perhaps, when time and
space are illusions? When you are simultaneous without your sense of yourself? If our perception is not 'truth' then free will exists only as an illusion to
validate an existence that is, perhaps, outside of our own perception. One that we of course would be unable to perceive but one for which we would invent
methods to convince ourselves that we do indeed exist, such as free will or the illusion of separateness. Yes, I AM a destroyer. But as I normally say, it is
something that you do all the time. You are doing it now. You have made 5 minutes ago less relevant. You have, essen ally, destroyed an aspect of your
existence. A ne illusion, as is the illusion of something being destroyed (or created). I say "destroyer" to wake your mind up. To stand guard and be careful of
the words and meaning. I AM that part of yourself that slaps you in the face with something crazy, doub ul, entertaining, and fundamental. You are all ready
in the midst of that destruc on. You can call it cyclic. It happens at every moment, every night when you sleep, every week, year, etc. It is the nature of time
and space to reflect upon itself and not take itself too seriously. Because, really, they do not exist. Will you get burned by playing with this re? Denitely.
Would any of it be harmful in a way that you would not accept on your own accord? No. It is irrelevant of harm. How do you know? You don't, until you find out
for yourself. What reason would you have to be pulling a "long con" if you wanted to trick yourself? Anyone is welcome to read what we write, disbelieve, and
find out for themselves if it has any value to them.
06/18/2012 11:46 PM
When things seem distressed or like there is no hope left in humanity, or when it appears your government is doing things it should
not, when all manner of hell seems to break loose... It may seem like the wrong time to think about the big picture. Or feel difficult to think of that being a
part of your perspective. Essen ally, your self illustrated. You are your perspective, yes. But your perspective is everything that exists. This includes things
that you love, like, dislike, hate, and everything in between. The old physicality will 'put up a ght' but this is an illustration of a dying perspective. It's kind of
like a bug shaking violently before its death. It may seem like it has a surge of power or is stronger physically but this is the storm before the calm. A way for
it to define itself in your perspective. Crossing the Ts and do ng the Is before the nal chapter. See yourself in the world around you, no matter what that
world becomes, and fear shall be irrelevant. And the new perspective will be as fresh as a spring's summer for the first time.
06/26/2012 01:43 PM

100 of 145

Perhaps you need to slap yourself in the face, so to speak. Try doing something that you do not expect to do. Something that you

would not be able to predict. A surprise. Something you have never thought of before. Unexpected. Don't think about it too much. Just do it. As if it were
natural for you. Also observe your ini al response to the above. If you are thinking, "No. I don't know how" or something similar then you may consider the
possibility that you do not want to see the change that is before you (i.e., your mind is resistant to significant change) Few of us may say, "Yes. I can do
that" but may instead come up with reasons why we cannot (see) change, even if we believe that change is desired.
06/27/2012 05:10 PM
Would you rather have much less resources now and much more resources later, or many more resources now and many less later? I
say that because there is a greater than 92% probability that if you live in the US, Canada, Mexico, UK, and Europe you will not be able to leave after
September due to the increasing radia on in the Northern hemisphere. (To say nothing of the other things that are happening.) If you live in an area that you
think would be okay if there was no electricity, telephone or mobile services, internet, banks or access to funds, plumbing, food, gas and petrol, sanita on
services, local police, etc., then I suppose there is no need to think about someplace "warmer". Many (most) areas in the Northern hemisphere are not
compatible with the new reality and would be changed because of it. I don't mean to scare you. There is still a chance that nothing of the sort would occur in
September. (However, most of the changes would take place at the end of the cycle, in 2013.) I'm not really sure how else I could say it, or how much of it I
could reasonably express without being called various names. I've been talking about this for a while and will say no more than the above at this time.
07/02/2012 12:25 AM
I haven't seen any successful posts about using the genius. Money can be a mo vator to learn ecsys. And Chaol predicted the value
of gold to rise up to $20,000; its currently at $1,600. If we could use the genius to receive a payout we could invest money into gold before the month of
September, 10 days le ! (12 days left before Chaol comes online) The quickest payout that comes to mind is the lo ery system. I AM going to focus on
winning the Daily 4 California drawing. Winning payout averages from $3,000-$8000. Inves ng $3200 into gold could result into $40,000. I need ideas on
Structure, Representa on, and Interac on. My first trial with the genius: Symbol: using paper cut out exact size of a daily 4 cket. Represen ng 50% of an
actual cket. I added on important details such as tle, picked numbers, draw number, date, and signature on back. Rules of Representa on: Ticket must be
kept in sight or in wallet only. Possibility: Driving to the market to purchase real ticket with same picked numbers. Interac on: Uploading a picture of real
ticket and sharing the picture with others. ( GLP, MMS, Facebook) This Genius plan is lacking something. Just because I made a ticket with numbers I choose
doesnt make it a winner. What would be a better symbol? Would it be better to first buy a ticket random numbers or predetermined numbers? Then creating a
symbol that represents those numbers as a winning numbers as lo ery.com shows. Anyone want to play same numbers in California with the same genius
plan? Post your genius plan. Let s collaborate. Symbol: Rules of Representa on: Possibility: Interac on:
08/27/2012 10:33 PM
While watching this video, I was reminded of Chaol's quote about measuring the pit at Gizeh. I wonder if whomever it is that made
the following video has properly measured it. Although this video seems high-brow, I caught many references to things that Chaol has hinted at. There were
several "OMG!" moments. For myself, it was worth spending an hour watching. I stopped it often to study the figures that were being illustrated. I might even
watch it again. This video is not narrated. The background is entirely pop music. I simply muted the speakers on youtube in order to concentrate on the video.
Finally: is a pyramid half of an "X"?
08/29/2012 05:20 PM
Here I AM again, trying to keep you guys pumped up! Following is an alternate method for The Genius, en tled: The Sphere of All
Possibili es In this message we will endeavor to share with you a method for manifes ng outcomes in your 3-D reality as well as in other dimensions of your
being. This method is based on a fundamental understanding regarding geometry and the nature of consciousness. There are many geometries available to be
used as vehicles for manifesta on. We wish to share one of the simplest and, ironically, most eec ve. The first thing to understand about manifes ng is that
for every act there is a counter-ac on. This is due to the nature of duality until you reach the higher dimensions of consciousness in which duality no longer
exists. Since this method is for manifes ng new realities in your 3-D life, duality is a factor. Read the instructions here: [link to tomkenyon.com] There is one
last stage we wish to bring to your attention before discussing the advanced technique. This crucial stage is required for both the basic and the advanced
technique. It is simple, and yet simplicity often eludes humans. You must do something in the realm you wish to manifest. You must take an action. If it is
something in your 3-D life you wish to change then after you have worked with the method you do somethingtake an ac on in your life that is aligned with
the outcome you wish to create. Perhaps it involves gaining information about what you are wan ng, or perhaps it is actually changing how you do things in
your life to align with the reality you wish to create. If it is something in another realm of consciousness then you must take the ac on in that realm. We will
address how you do this in some future message, but not now. The fundamental truth is that in order to create a new reality in any realm of consciousness or
existence you must take an ac on in that realm. You are seed planters of new realities, whether you like it or not, whether you are conscious of it or not. Our
intent in sharing this information is to increase the probability of a benevolent future for humanity. Munsoned The name's not boy, it's Roy! User ID: 12619780
08/29/2012 05:44 PM
Ok please I'd appreciate a rational explanation for this Was just reading through this absolutely amazing thread again (2nd time
round) and on Page 7 someone called bs for some reason and Chaol responded back asking what the be was all about. Mind you I'm really interested in what
other have to say but I find myself really drawn to Chaol's words, so I noted that this response from Chaol didn't have the OP tag next to it and Chaol
explained in his next post that he thinks he might have been banned for posting his last few messages too soon. First of all, how did he know that! LOL I don't
know that! Is it true? You get banned for posting too quickly? LOL ok Then I looked at his last post and it was at 2:05pm. The one before 2:05pm. Also quoted
another poster as the one before. I checked the 3rd post and it was also 2:05pm, also quo ng someone. This was at the top of Page 7. Went back to Page 6
and there was another post from our Chaol! Another quite detailed post. So 4 posts in one minute. Hmmm how many seconds in a minute? Just 60?? Wow I'm
now even more amazed and have a ee ng suspicions that he could be an undercover typing machine! So AM I just easily impressed by amazing typing
abili es with very few mistakes? Someone enlighten me. PS - come back Chaol!
08/31/2012 02:17 PM
(I wonder how the aerial shots of the reworks were taken, then...) Maybe next time we can pick a precise date, event, and location,
that leaves no questions or confusion. For our first experiment: Date - July 18, but it was on July 28. Event - was supposed to be the torch bearing event, but it
ended up being the opening ceremony. Loca on - originally in Dover-Has ngs, now in London... Not to worry, those of us who consider the [already in place]
BBC blimp as a viable explana on, or even a remote possibility, have been deemed as "inferior lifeforms" by a poster in the other thread. Lol! I AM very excited
about Chaol's return and looking forward to what's next. His material is awesome, regardless. I AM ready. :)
09/10/2012 12:30 PM
I'm kinda curious - why Obama? My perception of these presidents is that they pretty much all do what they're told and the real
decisions are made elsewhere. Once I gured that out, I stopped vo ng. I mean, Obama pretty much had the same nancial team that good ol' boy Dubya
had, and anyone who paid attention to that could've predicted the sorts of nancial policies the na onal government has pursued since. I did read Obama's
pla orm and about the only thing that I could see that was really different was curbing some of the usurious credit card prac ces, which I think he's done. I

101 of 145

mean, I think it's nice and all, but I don't think it even comes close to facing the real problems this country is collec ng. I suppose if McCain had gotten
elected he might have started WW3 too early. I suppose if Magic Underwear gets elected we probably will have WW3 shortly therea er. But I think even if
Obama stays on, again the people who really run things will find a way to get their war on with or without the president's help. I don't think that Obama would
be that opposed to WW3 anyway, if it happened on terms favorable to him. And what do dapper males in your version of earth wear when they go to whatever
it is they do during the day?
09/11/2012 07:58 PM
The start of the "end of the world". The gloves come off for 2013. From September 9 onwards is the beginning of something fantas c.
And you've got front row seats! About 8 months ago I talked about how Obama's 'family' would become an issue. This led to a man called Brietbart being
murdered, which itself opened a can of worms in all directions. I also talked about how the actors in these dramas would begin to be exposed. The LIBOR
scandal is one of the biggest exposs (among others for the past few months), but not the biggest yet for 2012. Events so powerful that they cause the ground
to shake from a decade ago. (You'll get the hang of this 'exible' me's pace soon enough.) Your world is crumbling as we see ourselves in the reality that is
before us (the dream world). Be er to talk about what is happening than what will happen. All is now. Back to reading and calibra ng. It may be a few days
before I AM properly 'adjusted'.
09/12/2012 11:13 AM
As I've mentioned before, what is considered the price of gold is not the actual monetary value of gold. It is the value of the paper.
(Paper gold) Without the paper gold, the 'price of gold' would be closer to its actual value. (Which is quite a bit more than a couple of thousand US dollars.) If
you put all the gold in the world together it would not even fill 1 tennis court. Now compare that with all of the investors around the world who think they're
inves ng in gold when they're actually invested in the paper representation of it, and you can get an idea of the supply/demand problem.
09/12/2012 11:22 AM
I can see that almost all historically significant figures are actually actors playing their various roles. Presidents, military leaders,
elected ocials, criminals, vic ms, pretty much anyone who graces the news are simply ac ng out a role. One day you see them in a movie, next day with new
costume and makeup they enter another role as a policeman, elected ocial, CEO, etc. every last one of them are simply stories. Hitler, Manson, Obama, JFK,
Casey Anthony, Sadam Hussein, Jon Benet Ramsay, Joe the Plummer, Orley Taitz. Every last one of them are actors playing a role. We recognize them as
Disney, Pi , Cost Ed, Streep, Germano a, etc when they are performing on the screen or stage but for some reason we pretend not to recognize them when
they are in the whitehouse, being interviewed on the corner at ground zero on 9/11, or in the courtroom. How does this all fit into what you suggest comes in
2012 and 2013?
09/12/2012 11:47 AM
Nice post. I propose that we actually do want to believe in the fantasy (or the meta-fantasy if you will). The most powerful, wealthy,
adored, and successful of us are those who create a fantasy and learn how to work with it. It's no different when the fantasy is something that is seen on the
news. We want to believe in the world that is created for us. It makes it easier than to have to create it for ourselves. That is, realizing that we do create it for
ourselves. (It's not the we're lazy. We don't want to realize it because the potential feeling of loneliness is too great.) The fantasy breaks down when we begin
to see naked actors behind the scenes and, ul mately, see our selves at the helm. This period is all about reality and perspective.
09/12/2012 11:58 AM
Chaol, the purpose of this adventure is to grow or evolve. Every thought ever thought had an electrical charge negative or posi ve,
the composite of all your thoughts determine your charge. A "service to others thought" will magne ze you opposite a "service to self thought" will magne ze.
Suns + radiate Black holes - absorb Your charge determines what you need to evolve further through the creation back to balance and source. Our LOGOS is
ALYCONE, Our Great Central Sun. Adonai This info I just provided here is so sacred, it'll get passed over though, sadly so. You don't have to be conscious of it,
but it is what is eec ng every entity on this planet and beyond threw ought this wonderful creation. Soon the curtains come down I hope and everyone will
see how they have done, what they need more work on to further evolve down their chosen path back to source. sleepingzzzzdogpile Most of us are severely illprepared for what is occurring and 'about' to occur. When the mind is shocked it fabricates an other experience that it is more accep ng of. Could that be
happening to some of us now? Absolutely. Cogni ve Dissonance? Now, what is occuring, has been all along... right? Each frame of experience within
perspective logically leading to the next frame. Where we are now on a world stage is represented within our immediate environment. In a dream, the logic we
are used to here breaks down... with the veil no longer keeping us blind to the dream, we see the old logic failing and we now "distrust" our old logic. The
violence percola ng to the surface on the global scene is a manifesta on of that distrust, as I see it. The challenge we have is that I don't know which tools
(preconceptual framework) you are missing so let me note the following... you assign the meaning to all that exists...you are conned to that which you define
yourself... your experience is a reec on of your choices... your choices are a reec on of your experience... you experience exactly what you deserve... what
you think, you become... as above, so below... all is jus ed in perspec ve... all is dependent on your perspec ve... what comes "next" will be what you
believe can come next... you are God... you've chosen to forget yourself.... you are forever looking to remember... everything that is, was and will be... is
now... you are choosing to be here, right now... if you believe you do not have control, you won't... you are only restricted by your belief... You will feel this.
You can make a conscious commitment to drop breadcrumbs for your "current" self, when you get to where you can. Know that as you collect(no ce) the crumbs
(hints) they are for you, from you. You can only allow yourself to advance as quickly as you believe you can. Believe (feel) what I've reminded you... remind
someone else. If you assist others you will be assisted.
09/14/2012 03:54 PM
Lets say I'm just a perspective working a slave shift for pennys on the dollar. No discovered talents that are bringing in the cash
ow. How does this perspective make a relative experience of earning a lot of money from where I don't stand at this current moment? I prefer if examples
relate to winning lo ery game. Using all of Chaols teachings how can a perspective make winning a lo ery drawing easier to happen? Buying random or
predetermined numbers doesn't make winning lo ery drawing easier to win. What's the missing puzzle piece that I cant grasp at this moment? How does a
perspective make something easier to happen then makes it happen if he isn't there to begin with? How do I leap into a created reality? Chaol can you break
down an example step by step so the forum can grasp ecsys on a higher level?
09/14/2012 05:13 PM
It is like Chaol mentioned a few pages back, about the way things are hidden in plain view, simply because they are so unbelievable
to most that they cannot see it. He used an example of Nazis in the White House. The New York Times ran a series of ar cles on Project Paper Clip and, yet,
people still take sides and holler at each other about Republican/Democrat; le /right; liberal/conserva ve...as if any of it makes any difference at all. They
ignore what is directly in front of them! They simply cannot believe it and so they don't see it. Nazis Were Given Safe Haven in U.S., Report Says [link to
www.ny mes.com] Try explaining synthe cs and robotoids to a regular imbiber of the MSM. I gave up on such projects a long time ago. And to explain being
the dream world? There are people who want to put me away! For real!

102 of 145

09/14/2012 08:40 PM
How would you define it? Let's start from there. You would not focus on the 'receiving money' part of it but the conditions that come
about under such circumstances. If you think about 'money' then you're putting the cart before the horse. What do you think it would be like for you to have 'an
ambundence of USD dollars'? Unfortunately, I tend not to share my methods but try to impart methods that would be easier to understand. My methods are far
more complicated (from other perspectives) and would create further confusion. What matters more is the color rather than the frequency. That was for the
'Magic Mirror of Chaos' to be able to perceive other perspectives. It's not irrelevant so much as 'too late' to begin using it. I've instructed others how to achieve
similar eects using what they have.
09/16/2012 07:01 AM
If you define your experience as, "...slave shift for pennys on the dollar. No discovered talents that are bringing in the cash ow."
then of course your desired experience is not relative. Because you've made it so. Using the methods you would not focus on "winning a lo ery drawing" but on
the conditions you would likely to experience if that were to happen. By focusing on "winning a lo ery drawing" you actually push it away. It would be like
rejec ng all other ways to experience your conditions in favor of how you think it should be. There is but one perspective, actually. It is definitely there to
begin with. No leaps required. We're still on the basics, actually. (Not the very basics, however.) I've explained the basics of Ecsys at length on this and other
threads. Is there a more specific question or concern you have to which I could respond?
09/16/2012 07:03 AM
Hello! I have been living in this world for some time now. I came from a place also named Earth, much like this planet. There are a
number of differences between my home and yours. I thought it would be interesting to share a few things with you that are relatively common knowledge
where I AM from. My reasons for doing so will probably be more apparent in the future.
* Consciousness does not exist (but relationships do)
* Matter is gravity that has been structured
* We are not human (we are perspectives)
* When the totality of something cannot be grasped, it appears infinite.
* Space is not physical
* There is no "now" or "here", but relationships.
We use a kind of language like you use numbers here. Numbers, representations of abstract concepts, were 'invented' to work more easily with the world
around us. Our language is no different. If it were invented today it would probably be thought of as existing in parallel with science. A new kind of science.
This language also enables the shifting of perspective like a kind of mental technology. Some of you may find it quite interesting. If anyone is interested in
learning more please let me know. Thanks. cool thread, bro will be wai ng to read more The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~Marcus Aurelius
09/16/2012 11:31 AM
There's a lot to catch up on :) Thanks for your pa ence! Hi Chaol. What's next? The start of the "end of the world". The gloves come
off for 2013. From September 9 onwards is the beginning of something fantas c. And you've got front row seats! About 8 months ago I talked about how
Obama's 'family' would become an issue. This led to a man called Brietbart being murdered, which itself opened a can of worms in all directions. I also talked
about how the actors in these dramas would begin to be exposed. The LIBOR scandal is one of the biggest exposs (among others for the past few months),
but not the biggest yet for 2012. Events so powerful that they cause the ground to shake from a decade ago. (You'll get the hang of this 'exible' me's pace
soon enough.) Your world is crumbling as we see ourselves in the reality that is before us (the dream world). Be er to talk about what is happening than what
will happen. All is now. Back to reading and calibra ng. It may be a few days before I AM properly 'adjusted'. September is turning out to be an interesting
month. We're not done yet, of course. We're just getting started. (Did you forget to bring the popcorn?) "2012" did not begin in January. It begins in
September, as I said in 2009. But the real 'end of the world' is in 2013. This is just prac ce. The East/West hemispheres on the brain are in iden ty crises.
There's other stuff in the pipeline, but needless to say there is (will be) so much going on simultaneously you won't know where to look or what to believe. And
that is the point. "If you are me, then who AM I?" The dream world is what you make of it. All for entertainment, of course. Hasn't it all ways been?
09/17/2012 12:12 AM
The East/West hemispheres on the brain are in iden ty crises. RA = Le hemisphere (Horus/Sun/Western/Male/Yang) ISIS = Right
hemisphere (Set/Moon/Eastern/Female/Yin) EL = Cerebellum (Osiris/the Creator/the Center) Pacic Ocean = prefrontal cortex (directly opposite the cerebellum)
When the West is in conflict with the East, the struggle manifests in the center, the Middle East Occult Astrotheology Mark Passio was a priest for dark occult
organiza ons. He decided to tell the world about the teachings of these organiza ons. His overlords gave him permission to go ahead, declaring that no one
would believe him. Mark Passio - Occult Inuence, Mind Control & Astrotheology - Part 2 of 4 [link to www.youtube.com] Horus begins at 1:43:43 When you get
bored, jump to Earth as a global living, brain: 2:24:00 to 2:38:32 All parts of this lecture are on Passio's website: [link to www.whatonearthishappening.com]
Also of value: Why dependence upon the left hemisphere leads to a police state. Mark Passio - Free Your Mind Conference 2011
09/17/2012 12:38 PM
Could we be ready for something of what we are not yet aware? It is more of a curiosity to see what lay ahead? Indeed, "World War
III" is becoming more relative, or so it seems. It is not a linear progression, of course. It is entirely up to you, so to speak. What have you included in your
perspec ve? The reason I AM here at this time is because there are some of us who have included such possibilities in their perspective. The current issues
that many are now thinking may lead to an other wold war have all been orchestrated by governments in the United States. They mostly have to do with the
petrodollar and the power of at currency. Without the ability to create money out of thin air, its position is diminished. So it will do whatever it takes to for fy
the currency. It will send Japan against China, a country that righ ully wants to price itself out of dollars. It will destroy Libya, a democratic country that was
planning to unite Africa and create the Dinar. It will destroy Iran, a peaceful country who last attacked an other country when George Washington had just
stepped down as president. Every major conflict in the world (values of perspec ve) is in one way or an other manipulated and managed by the US interests.
The 'old logic' will not prevail. But it will certainly ght to the death of itself. See a few posts up about a short discussion on how this all es together with
changes in perspective.
09/17/2012 12:52 PM
The 'UFO' was done as (mostly) intended. As was noted, it was a group effort. I merely provided the direction. I consider it a great
success and the first of its kind. <> What is not realized and as was mentioned before there was, indeed, a UFO on July 18th. That was done by those in this
forum. ("...in front of a crowd of thousands...") However, the energy on July 18th was used for the Olympics opening ceremony, which was the nearest massscale event. ("...perhaps millions...") We can be arguing about what did and did not happen until the end of time. Heck, we're still arguing about who shot
Kennedy, the Moon landing, and 9/11. The evidence is there for all to see. Regarding Elenin, I overes mated the ability of the majority of persons on this
forum to understand what it is about. Although I explained it in detail and at length, persons seem to bring their own beliefs and interpretation to the table.
Even before the event, I said several times that nothing "bad" will happen. That the event was more meaningful than physical. However, the evidence is there

103 of 145

for all to see. Regarding, "if you are reading this, then you probably didn't make it" how would you know if you did or not? Take what I say as light
entertainment, but here I AM back again when I said things would ramp up (September 2012). And here you are. Did you "make it"? Take a look around. Your
world is falling apart. I don't know how else to put it. The dream perspective is trying to break though but you're still 'stuck' in the old perspective. How else do
I say this? I tend not to do and say things that others would want me to do and say. What purpose would that serve? My words implore you to think for
yourself. To figure it out. And even for you to help along the way, which many of you are starting to do more of. It is not my inten on to be "right". Sometimes
I AM inten onally wrong about things, or make mistakes, or even manipulate you for my own purposes. However, I have put all my cards on the table. AM I
who I say I am? (Does it really ma er? I've said before that I don't actually want you to believe me. It's better if you think for yourself and use my words as a
reference. If I told you exactly about everything then it would defeat the purpose entirely and I would look like a kosmik a-hole. But many of you would be
quite sa sed.. for a short while. I AM still wai ng for the half-dozen or so persons whose 'mind I read' to even reply to my response about their innermost
secrets.) Really, how many of you want to do the work required to change perspectives? Many (not all) of you would prefer me to just tell you what to do. This
I AM unable to do. It would seriously work against you. I AM still playing chess-not-checkers. A long game of chess. If you think I AM "wrong" because I give up
a piece on the chessboard it's entirely up to you. But sooner or later you're going to realize that something is a bit different about this chessboard. I AM the
fool who jumps out of a plane without a parachute and magically lands on my feet whilst you turned your head to look at the girl in the red dress and claimed I
was on the ground the whole time. It matters not to me what you saw or didn't see. I only care to remind you of the course of events to mark values in
perspective so that I may return again. My jumping out of the plane is a marker for me to get back here no matter if you see it or not. So here we are. Many of
you have made tremendous changes in perspectives over the years that I have posted. It's very refreshing. Is anything in this thread true? Probably not :) The
truth is beyond perception.
09/17/2012 02:08 PM
Yup, world is falling apart... it always has been. The cycles of creation / destruc on are being properly represented in perspective. As
the old world "dies" it doea so because it is becoming less relevant. It does this kind-of like a friend moving away or an old sock you just can't seem to nd,
right? So are there not other ways to represent a transition into a "new" perspective without witnessing the physical destruc on of all that we're attached to? I
get the vibe you prefer it run it's course Chaol. Unless this is the whole reason you recommended we change our focus a while back. If that is the case, then
we are here as a result of our decision to remain?
09/17/2012 02:55 PM
The amount of environmental programming, and the insane number of ci zens working (inten onally and not inten onally) to bring it
all so relative to our own experience are the reason behind what many are calling WWIII. It's still not a World War as the previous World Wars, though.
Everyone is gh ng for its own interests/agenda and very reluctant to create powerful war alliances. Many countries still remain far from the regular World War
scenario. This looks more like a gigantic build up of social tensions/upheavel. This "revolu on" looks to be of little harmful consequences in the long run.
Where we start to realize that all this may, in fact, benefit us (if we can observe the bigger picture), we could actually be enjoying it a bit. It doesn't look that
harmful. We could, on the other hand, be preparing ourselves for the inevitable social upheavel. It is all because ci zens know something is wrong. The
tremendously awed brands of thought process used by many ci zens are leading them into absolute denial mode. Denial mode is what deceives most ci zens
into thinking that the poor distribu on of the world's wealth or religion are the reason behind the upheavel (just to make up plausible excuses for what is
happening, of course). If we could remove these innecient ways of thinking we'd be more prepared, less fearful of the changes and more able to understand
the true reasons behind all these conicts.
09/17/2012 04:28 PM
I'd like to respond to this from my perspective on things :) I know Chaol uses the term perspective, but I'd like to use the term
consciousness because that's what I relate to more easily. Let's say you are a consciousness unit existing within your own universe. Every thing that you
perceive is something (a symbol) that has meaning specific to you, as in your lo ery cket. This ticket may symbolize freedom to you or something else. You
have an energetic signature unique to yourself, a unique vibra onal signature. This complex composite of vibra onal frequencies which represent your
perspective here a ract every single thing you experience to you. Every energetic component of existence (call it God) is available to you, but your vastly
complex array of beliefs (rela onships) filters out all but what your beliefs allow in. Beliefs are acquired both inten onally and uninten onally (beginning with
what is learned from birth onward). If you purposely change a belief, then your perspective of your world transforms because you can now perceive things
relative to your new belief that were previously ltered out. As an example, let's say you have a belief that everything the government does is a conspiracy (as
be ng GLP). Then your perspective is dened by this belief - you allow information in that supports it and contrary information may buzz around your
perifery, but is swa ed away in disbelief (I AM not for or against either belief). It would take a world sha ering (in your perspective only) event to avert you
from this belief into another. Just as a UFO may need to land in the front yard of a disbeliever to allow maybe a considera on of the possibility of existence of
such a thing. Not that there is anything at all wrong with this, this is interaction allow thing to work that way they do. But it also allows you direct control of
your experiences. Specic to your example above, you used the phrase 'slave shi ' which suggests you believe yourself working for the meslot worth the least
amount of money. You desire money, but believe your talents unworthy of money. You go to work repe vely with the a tude that your are working for
pennys on the dollar. If you repeat this to yourself con nuously, you have included within your energetic signature the concept of working for minimal money.
You are attracting this to you. You are making this very relative to you. You want to make this less relevant to the point of irrelevancy. You want to not care at
all about the amount of money you are making because it becomes entirely irrelevant. You may have a belief that money is hard to come by or that your eorts
are not worth money. Examine your beliefs about money - your relationship to money. You want money to be something that you are neutral to, but that you
appreciate as you use it (you want to emotional a achment to it). You need to give yourself permission to be worth money in order to a ract it to you. One
method to do this is to pretend you have loads of money (as if you won the lo ery without the publicity :) You have so much money that it is irrelevant to you.
You can purchase what you want when you want it without so much as looking at the price tag. You don't need to go on a shopping spree, you just need to feel
as if you could go on a shopping spree in order to change your relationship to money. For instance, you could study up on your idea of what it means to be
wealthy and begin to imagine that as part of your life to re-inforce the feeling -sense you have of yourself as wealthy. Buy yourself an ou it that makes you
feel wealthy and wear it, walking around feeling wealthy. Read about des na ons that wealthy people go to and plan your trip there with the belief that you
can actually go there. You need to feel abundant in money. Change your $20 to $1 dollar bills and feel the wad in your pocket. Treat yourself to some small
luxury daily - an indulgence, not a necessity, with your full permission. Appreciate it without worrying about money - it can be a candy bar or something small
that makes you feel good. Talk to wealthy people and feel worthy of their company, etc. Hold no expecta ons for how money will come to you (as in lo ery
cket), allow opportuni es to open up. Don't make judgements about money. Allow your talent to prosper regardless of any perceived monetary worth. Feel
yourself into wealth (not emotional feelings, but more like an absence of stress or negative thought re money - like walking in a mall thinking, yeah, I could
buy that, but I really don't need it.) You are leaping into your own created reality billions of times each second. Consciously determine where you are leaping.
Enable your life to unfold in a preferrable manner by letting go of the things you resist or have a judgement about (become more neutral). It is easy to create
since you are already doing it. However, most of your crea ons are due to reac ons rather than purposeful thought. In general, people are reac ng to their own

104 of 145

crea ons as if they had no part in creating it. That would classify us as insane. People aren't awake or asleep depending on how well they agree with your
perceptions because no one can have the same perceptions. Each person assigns their own meaning (rela onships) to anything they perceive. Each person
creates their own experience by vibra onally attracting to them a path through the innite possibilities of perception each billionth of a second (perceived as
mo on= me). We don't have to move to change our perspective, we just need to change our vibra onal signature. Based on this theory, this experience is a
mirror, a relec on, an opportunity to understand who you are. You would proceed faster to what you want if you understand truly what it is that you want what does this lo ery ticket represent to you? Free me? The chance to pursue something else? Understand what its meaning is, then start living as if you
have already acheived it (become an actor and pretend) and take an ac on to support that. This is my perspective on the lo ery situation and how I would
proceed if I had the same desire.
09/17/2012 04:53 PM
Let me put this very straight for you. Trying to win the lo ery through the usage of perception tricks is a very foolish thing to do. You
will never be able to free yourself from the tremendous energy required by the almost nonexistent mathematical odds. Even if you use perception tricks to
decrease the energy required, that will never be the most relative event, because of how deep mathematical odds are carved into your thought process. Like
someone said before, you just can't do it. Feel free to try it though, but you will not achieve any good results. I would advise you to start off with any event
(that would be of benefit you) that you think: "well that would be possible", but still didn't happen yet. This will help you realize the power of perception tricks,
thus empowering the results, and the amount of energy you can move with your tricks. Try to pick a simple event of that type, and apply the same concept.
You will see how easier it is to apply perception tricks under those circumstances.
09/18/2012 10:53 AM
O en, things pop up in my daily life that do not seem to have any particular purpose. But, it will look like an opportunity and it
doesn't take much eort, so I grab it. Eventually, it turns out that I did the exactly right thing without knowing that it was the exactly right thing to do. As a
ny example, I was once in a store getting something that I needed, when I passed a shelf of close-out items. There was a pack of two dozen tall, fat white
candles for, like, $3. I picked them up on my way out of the store. A month later, Hurricane Ike blew through my city. We were without electricity for two
weeks. Those candles ended up being the only light we had in the early dark mornings and at night. Things like this happen to me all the time. I often intend
to turn right, but turn left instead for no particular reason, just to find that I avoided trouble that was to the right of me. These are small examples. There are
larger examples. I seem to get exposed to a lot of really weird things that would frighten the tarna on out of other folks, but I have discovered that these
weird things bolster me for situa ons yet to come. There is something natural in me that prepares me ahead of time.
09/18/2012 11:02 AM
I linked there to show that he does reference conciousness, or awareness, in his ideas. I realize he also says that it does not exist
as well. One of the many paradoxes inherent in this type of study I suppose. Btw I do think that The Secret and Think and Grow Rich is related to what Chaol is
saying. He is just teaching calculus and they are teaching long division. Further I think, as he says, that he is trying to show us a path so we can walk it so to
speak, while the others have a more simplis c "dogma" they are selling. Just my 2 cents, and I might be wrong. Denitely enjoying the conversation with
everyone though.
09/18/2012 02:05 PM
Some relevant Chaol quotes: "In my world we can form relationships with everything, thinking: how can I translate that into
something useful to me?" --- "To change your reality you would make changes to the representations in it. Your perspective (or, "consciousness" if you will)
comes about from the all the relationships combined from your particular vantage point, you could say." "I perceive one consciousness only. However, one
consciousness can include many sub-consciousnesses much like the relationship you have with your own body." -- "The idea could be to create your life, not to
control it. When you work against something (controlling something) then you're actually focusing on it more. So, pushing against something could actually
make it stronger. Stop pushing." (stop resis ng) "Ponder this thought for your entertainment: "There is no one else. There is only you. There is only your
perception of everything." Try these things: 1) Don't resist what you perceive or your experiences 2) Represent what you want. (And interact with it)" "When we
concern ourself with changing only ourself, then we know what the universe is. There is no need to change anything besides what you feel yourself to be." "Do
you find it interesting that you would resist your perception? I don't mean *specific* perceptions. This versus that, etc. I mean your perspective. In other
words, You. What is something before you assign it a name and put it in a category? What is the essence?" "Your statement, "And if I figure out how to
cleanse myself of all the things inside me that I dont want to manifest in the world..." probably expresses the world you express. You "don't want" so that is
what your probability is likely composed of. "Don't want" is pretty much the same as wanting. Change the "don't want" into "irrelevant" and it won't be a part of
your direct experience."
09/18/2012 03:44 PM
It's only a couple minutes of setting stuff up. Mainly just to show that there isn't anything funny going on, like normal stage magic /
illusion stuff. Just don't want to be hiding anything. If I do another (I may try soon) I can post it as well if anyone wants. Probably should start some weird
thread about these. :) I appreciate your apprecia on and so have a little implementa on anecdote to share: I have a photo of a nice house I keep on a bulle n
board. I found it in a magazine and it appealed to me enough to cut it out and keep it. At one time, I was ready for change and looking for something be er.
This house was one component of that. My current living conditions were becoming more negative than positive (house always clu ered, dusty, in need of
repair, etc) that I was developing a need to get away from my current house. So I thought this other house would be a great goal to have and to ensure this
was a worthy pursuit, I had to make sure it was what I really wanted. In order to do this, I made a list of what I liked about the house, qualities such as,
spacious, low maintenance, great climate, beautiful landscape, etc. Then I had to contemplate what each quality meant to me. As an example, spacious meant
no more clutter, lots of open space to move about freely. Freedom of movement, unencumbered by stuff. Low maintenance meant more free time for myself
since I wouldn't need to paint, repair window sills, stain decks, etc. I would be ridding myself of need tos and shoulds, tasks I don't enjoy. Great climate meant
I would be rid of resistance to the climate and just enjoying it. Winter, for example provides me with plenty of resistance :) Etc. Then I took a look at what I
had and realized I could achieve all of these here, in my current home with an adjustment of a tude. Regarding clutter (I have small children who agree to
illustrate my resistance to clu er), I could create a small, indescrete place for myself that was completely free of clutter and dust. I could be a space on a
table only I use, or a pain ng on a wall, anything that made me feel clutter free that I could go to whenever I began to be bothered by clu er. This space
would put me back into a clutter free frame of mind. (I also tossed a bunch of stuff out). For the maintenance, I could just pay someone to do all the work and
minimize what I do (I have a fairly good relationship with money :). This would free my time and I wouldn't be constantly resen ng what I'm doing. In
addi on, I splurged to add something upscale that would make the house feel like a house in a magazine, something nice to look at and enjoy like a stone
pa o. Regarding climate, I could find ways to enjoy all climates. So now I have a good relationship to my house and I don't need to move anyway - it's almost
as if I already have :) I like the picture though, and like to admire it just as I would a nice sunset or garden.
09/19/2012 11:13 AM

105 of 145

There is an other nexus point at September 26th (about 12 noon CST). It usually means that 'something' will occur. (It does not have

to be at 12 noon but should be within 4 hours of it.) Nothing "bad". And it does not mean a physical event per se, but such nexi usually have a more physicallyexprssed representation. No need to prepare for anything, or fear anything. But there is a shift of sorts. A change in the wind. My first post in about a year was
about the current world situa on: [link to www.godlikeproduc ons.com] The event/nexus on September 26 is the "unexpected" that I referred to a few days
ago, on September 14. Several months ago it was mentioned that I would return in September and that it would be the beginning. It was also stated that
some of you (in the States, for example) may not be able to leave the country after September. This still stands, but of course nothing is set in stone. Here I
AM illustrating the shift in perspectives that may occur. This is a reference point for your 'consciousness' so that it can get its bearings a bit more easily. It
does not matter what these events are or whether or not you perceive them directly. What matters is the value of the relationships. It's enough simply to know
that they're there. These things are a kind of combina on lock that will open up new modes of perspective. (To put it an other way.) You still have a choice, so
to speak. You are not being punished for anything, of course. Consider it an entertaining aair where it does not really matter what you choose. Whatever you
miss you will experience at an other time. Whatever you don't choose will choose you later, in some way. The choice is more of a ques on: "How far do I go?",
or, "To what extent AM I?" This is where you consider, if you wish, what is "you" and what is "not you". That is the only ba le that will ever be, and is not
really a ba le at all. If you don't wish to see everything else as you you have all of eternity to redecide. 1, 5, a thousand, or a billion years... it does not really
matter. Eventually you will know that you can only perceive of what is you. And that is the only purpose of anything that exists. To point the finger back at you
long enough for you to see it.
09/19/2012 02:11 PM
Well, Mr. Chaol. That would indeed be an interesting thing to prepare for. So, a funny little thing happened whilst you were away. I
was prac cing the Sekmhet medita on/visualiza on - visualizing the library and the chambers below the Sphynx, visualizing a huge Sekhmet reaching into the
sky while ying around it, 'reading' the other-wordly library books and such - when something rather incredible happened. Twice. When visualizing during the
day, I opened my eyes to see two metalic orbs up in the coulds. Watched them for several minutes. About two weeks later, at night, I witnessed a eet of 9
star-like objects travelling across the evening sky. This particular experience was amazing and somewhat life changing as one of the objects moved about in
ways simply not possible with known modern technology. Both events were profound. I even led a report.
09/19/2012 10:53 PM
1504944, Imagine that you received a visit from a stranger from an other world. How do you think this might play out? Here's how it
would not play out: A spaceship lands in your backyard, which is near a forest. A group of humanoids get out and introduce themselves. Then, after a mindblowing experience they leave and you become galac c pen pals. Here's how it would play out (much, much more likely): You have just moved into a new
apartment and begin to hear strange sounds next door. It sounds human, of course, but only after weeks of hearing these strange sounds and voices (and
music) do you see your neighbor, who is making them. This person is a musician and he speaks to you. You become good friends and over the course of the
next several months he tells you about his home world. One your brain accepts the other it does not. They both "exist" and are true but we ignore that which is
not relative to us. Just as we would ignore a red dwarf in our sky.
09/20/2012 09:29 PM
Man, I was just thinking with myself... I've put my life in stand by... Not because Chaol or this thread in par cular, but in some way
I've got caught in this "end" of the world thing. I just want to throw this out... I'm doing nothing with my life. Dropped college (because I didn't like the only
course that I believed that would like, and I didn't have a second op on in mind), can't find a decent job, no mo va on to study... And I'm feeling really bad
about this. So, here I am, wai ng for 'something' to change the world so I can fit in it... And I don't know how I should feel about this. And you guys, why you
are here?
09/23/2012 08:27 AM
How similar we are! I've been bored out of my mind at university for the past four years.. nally decided to do the 'unthinkable' and
withdraw after this past quarter. But this new freedom is constantly shadowed by a feeling that we're rushing towards an end, or a change, of some sort. I
have so much mo va on to learn and grow as a person, but no interest in playing a role that is expected within society. That's where the conflict starts and
hasn't stopped. The people around me are content to follow the herd, and think me insane for asking ques ons, having opinions, wanting something different.
This site is a nice reminder that the world is diverse and interesting, not quite as bland as my California bubble seems at mes:) Cyrillic Won User ID: 1407931
09/23/2012 05:28 PM
I seek the same answers. I too find myself connected to less undesirable aspects of reality. This has become a part of my reality and
has become very relative to me. We perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive, each day feeds off the last. We have relationships with
the undesirable. We need to break free from the undesired part of our reality. How can you destroy the undesirable reality of yesterday? Ask a destroyer from
an "alternate universe". -Chaol is pointing at the door. Can you open it and create your own steps? Some rare days click for me where my thoughts pass
through my mind and then into reality. I feel my thoughts synchronize with physical reality sorta like a dream. I'm still learning how to crawl, I can't wait to
jump :) jumping in dreams sure is fun.
09/23/2012 10:18 PM
I relate to your post and your other respondents. I think that is why I stopped checking these threads for updates daily, and tried to
get on with my life. I just couldn't figure out how to apply what I have learnt here to (for example) my health issues, I was hoping if I just ignored them (made
them less relevant) they would go away. But they are hard to ignore. I also struggled with how to combine what I have learnt from this thread and being a
mother. I AM not at all sa sed with the domes c du es and organiza onal aspects of being a parent, and I continue to send my kids to school where I know
they are taught what to think, not how to think. I don't yet know how to live within this culture yet be not of it...except in my thoughts. I too feel like I AM just
wai ng for something to happen. Something that will provide the impetus of change and new foundations for living my life, and guiding my children in a way
which makes more sense than this current reality, and in a way that just feels right. Sometimes this cyber reality feels more real and meaningful than my
waking life, it is comfor ng to know that others feel the same. Although I have never touched, seen or heard any contributors to this thread, you have all
helped greatly expand my concept of me. And I can't think of any other 'growth' experience that I value higher. So thank you all.
09/23/2012 11:53 PM
So much of your post resonated with me. I realized that the word I've been searching for to describe these discussions and new ideas
is meaningful. The thoughts that have been inspired by everyone here trump anything that university lectures ever did for me. And the funny thing is, it's all
intangible, yet so valuable! Maybe this is part of what Chaol's been trying to teach us? Because sure enough, my physical surroundings are slowly losing
precedence when I stop to consider what is important. They may not be changing visually, but I guess my perception has dras cally shi ed.. to value what is
nonphysical. Good grief! I think Chaol and all of you posting have triggered more breakthroughs than my therapist!
09/24/2012 12:18 AM
You are nearing the end of physical perspective. (Or, it should be said, the brand of physicality you've gotten used to all these
years.) It is time either for an entirely new perspective, or time to perish as things tend to when they've reached the fringes of relevance. I'm not talking about

106 of 145

death and destruc on (though every concept needs a logical narra ve leading to it from your perspective, doesn't it?). I'm talking more about when the oor
collapses beneath your feet, where will you stand? Which side of the equation do you choose? The choice is yours. If you haven't seriously considered the
question in the first sentence above, I suppose you've already decided. There's not really anything more for me to say other than what I've already wrote here
and in countless other posts. Choose to be someone else that you can logically be right now, or forever be an energy stuck in the current loop. It's not about
them or that. It's about You.
09/24/2012 03:42 AM
Cheer up guys. Life will never be better or worse than you say it is. Why is everyone wai ng for a change? The thing is, only you can
discover the change even if its already changed, which of course it has. It doesn't seem like many of you have made change relevant enough to your lives.
Chaol is only pointing out some possibilities, he can't make you experience them. Welcome the unexpected, as soon as you nish reading this, do something
you don't usually do, think in ways you never have about what you usually don't. Most important is the "doing" as Chaol pointed out before. The doing is a
result of your thoughts as your actions stem from inten ons. Be the change, as fantasizing about it is resisting it. You can never want what you already have..
09/24/2012 01:31 PM
Are most terried of changing their own perspec ve? Surely, even if they think they want to experience this and that reality. And so
here we are. Running scared that our reality may be changed drama cally. That we may li the veil, consciously, and redene what it means to be "me".
Really, we are afraid of not exis ng. And for this we often find a way to resist, fear, and try to find something wrong with it. You don't need to do what I
prescribe to experience the dream world. You do it by yourself all the time, eortlessly. But to change the meaning of your current physicality requires that you
do something that you probably do not want to do. This is neither bad nor good, of course. It's just something you can either do now or when you're dead. (And
how many of us would fear, and see the last line as a threat?) What is Chaol's message here? (But to change the meaning of your current physicality requires
that you do something that you probably do not want to do.) How would you apply the message to your perspective, to break free from solid surroundings, to
redene what it means to be "me".? Is this the change we feel coming? Last Edited by SpawnX on 09/24/2012 04:48 PM
I have some thoughts on applicable methods. One ac on that can help you obtain more control over your experiences is to ac vely control what you are feeling
in any moment - using the feeling of apprecia on or excitement as your anchor point. You can do this by recalling an experience you had which filled you with
either of those emotions. Go beyond just remembering and try to re-experience it by feeling it also within your body - how it felt to laugh, how your body feels
when excited, the surge of energy, the wide-awakeness, etc. Get to the point where you can re-immerse yourself in the experience of it. If you've had no
experiences that you are able to do this with, then you can use imagina on by conjuring up day dreams that excite you or watching a movie that excites you,
gets you into a state of apprecia on or excitement. You can even create a word or symbol that you look at when feeling this way until you've done it often
enough that just looking at the symbol or thinking the word immediately brings the sensation of apprecia on or excitement back. Eventually, you become so
familiar with the sensation of either emo on, that you can recall it at will immediately without needing a symbol or the effort of recalling the past. Once in
either emotional state, take a quiet moment to memorize the sensa ons you experience within your self - how it feels, like you are wearing a suit of
excitement or apprecia on. Like you are emi ng an energy - become familiar with the sensation of it, it can be your anchor. This will become your predominant
energetic state, and when you deviate from it, you will notice more quickly (as in be in conscious awareness of how you are reac ng to things), and you will be
able to bring yourself back to the preferred state quickly. Things brings you in control of your energy. This new energetic state will become your dominant state.
When you deliberately bring yourself to it and focus on it, you will be making it stronger which will a ract more of the same energy to you. Since at any time
you could be emi ng a complex arrangement of frequencies, this controlling of your predominant frequency would begin to influence others around you as they
begin to resonate with that frequency. It would be like hi ng a tuning fork and that tuning fork begins to make nearby tuning forks vibrate, although much
less. If other tuning forks nearby are vibra ng at a different frequency, they could influence the original tuning fork unless the original one is itself hit
continuously so it can emit its own frequency. This makes sense more if you imagine yourself and every person to be a source of energy. You have the innite
spectrum of energy available to you and your system of beliefs is the filter that you place over this innite energy to filter out all but what you believe. For
example, someone can believe elves live in the center of the Earth, but you don't believe in elves or a hollow earth, so you filter out this energy. As the other
person resonates with this belief, it cannot trigger a harmonic resonance within you, because your belief filter has blocked this frequency - there's no energy
coming in at that particular frequency to resonate with. If you open yourself up to the possibility, then your filter may open a bit and you start perceiving
information about elves or a hollow Earth. Then it is your choice whether to reject it or go with it (this is just a fun example). Every belief is a choice. Every
interaction you have with anything is a reec on of a belief. All of it is a racted to you based on the energies you radiate. You stand at the center of your own
universe. You can never truly know what anyone else perceives because all of what you perceive is you - your reec ons. Interac ons with other people are
possible because at least part of your energies are in alignment - they resonate. Change this energy you are emi ng, then the interaction changes. That's
where the control of energy mentioned above comes in handy. Go back to this energy, change the way you respond to things you perceive based on how you
would prefer to respond, not based on your reexive reac on - this reac on is betraying a belief, a belief that you can change if you can recognize what it is.
For instance, if you want to punch someone in the face because they tossed an insult at you, then let your imagina on do it so the desire passes through you,
then recall your anchor point emotion and proceed from there. This is your point of inspira on. Your inspira on will lead you where you want to go.
09/24/2012 05:33 PM
I think we fear not existing as the person we believe ourself to be. We've shaped our lives around a certain iden ty, personality,
character, and changing that implies the person behind those traits will cease to be. Because most of us are raised to believe that life is a one-shot deal. Who
would be crazy enough to constantly shed iden es at the risk of things going wrong? No, once we find a comfortable personality we assume that this is who
we're meant to be. But if something dras c were to happen, like hellre and geothermal nuclear warfare, we'd be forced into new roles- that change of
character would be jus ed and necessary- and that's a good thing! I mean who doesn't want to go all Mr. And Mrs. Smith and play hide and seek with machine
guns?! It just has to have an appropriate context... So until that 'something' arrives, most of us stay within the boundaries of our personality- and plot
wickedly in the dreamscape;)
09/24/2012 05:53 PM
Thank you so much for the reply! I know exactly what you mean- and that seems to the problem right now. I've always encoded
memories in places, scents, and sounds. Nearly everything around me holds a piece of the past, which really wasn't a problem until this last year. Now,
however, I find myself bombarded with memories that I no longer want to remember. My favorite songs are like time machines to a world that I destroyed and
walked away from. So the biggest challenge has been creating new, neutral, peaceful triggers that keep me in the present. And I'm forcing myself not to rely on
previous mental maps. Things were much easier when I could use those past energies to change a situation, but now I've kind of put myself on a blank page
and have to start a story from the beginning. Btw, how amazing are tuning forks!? I completely understand that analogy.. and that's a really nice visual to
focus on!:)

107 of 145

09/24/2012 05:57 PM
Following Marshwiggle's post. We always follow a certain set of rules to accomplish whatever we do in this illusion. We already know
its an illusion that's why the rules have been made for things to "happen". Having a clean body would not be automatic because we know what happens when
people don't wash themselves. So to get clean we follow some set of rules in place that can make this possible: bath, shower, swimming whatever. So these
rules make it possible to get clean. Whenever someone discovers a new way to clean and demonstrates to is how it's done, then we all jump on board and
follow those new set of rules. It's all about accomplishment following a set of rules in this illusion. I don't know but I was looking at the sky last night and
remembered Chaol saying "when you look at the sun, you look at yourself". Although there was no sun but the clouds were breathtakingly beautiful just
contempla ng that I was looking at myself as I looked at the sky. But really why are clouds so breathtaking. Can't you just look at them forever. Always in
mo on. It even showed me a forma on of a heart shape yesterday but I'm sure that was definitely me giving myself a wink so to speak. I hope we all try to
figure out how to break down this illusion of life to the barest minimum. What I'm trying to say is, even if we don't figure out what it's all about, let's give it a
damn good try! We have had all the pointers necessary from Chaol and others. We still need more but lets work with what we've got (like we're already doing I
guess) Trust me, life gets very exci ng for lazy old me when I think about these things! Thanks for reading.
09/25/2012 03:57 AM
Just saw this now from earlier in the thread: Chaol: As long as the physical thing is a representation of the non-physical process,
they will get there. But the effect of the thing will not appear to be physical. It may not even be seen with physical instruments. A thought experiment: Why is
Jason's Bentley conver ble a method for him to get into a certain country club? It is a representation of a non-physical process. He won't see exactly how it
happens but the result is that he will be able to appear behind the wall of the country club. He doesn't need the Bentley but he needs something to get him
there so that his path from A to B makes sense and represents the non-physical process.
09/25/2012 05:48 AM
I really only come to glp for these threads, to check up on Chaol's latest teaching and my peer's observa ons. I find it fascina ng
that we've been advised over and over again that we need only "be" the change we want to see in our realm of existence. Yet, we still focus on what we do not
prefer and make that more relative. I guess my time on glp is spent refreshing my recent threads and creeping Chaol's username to see if he happened to log
on... lol (stalkerish I know). I noticed Chaol had logged in at least twice yesterday morning (from my perspective early in the AM then closer to noon) and at
least once this morning so far and yet he still has 1737 posts. Chaol, I appreciate you coming on and seeing what's up, but why no addi ons to your thread?
The (next) "nexus" point is tomorrow (from detroit michigan) right? Or today elsewhere (for those already living the 26th). If I(we) am(are) to adequately
"experience" the "change" I'd(we'd) have to perceive it as already present. Yet I find myself constantly evalua ng my now for minute transi onal iden ers to
point at and say "aha! there it is"... I've had dozens of these moments since I started evalua ng my nows for the change. My waking life has truly become like
a dream... I notice (o en) in conversation that I AM aware of what the other person will say next, I'll say it first (some mes) and they will advise that they
were about to say it. Other times, I let them say it and allow the subtle sa sfac on of knowing I had already been aware. The most profound experience (as of
late) has been when I do not interact (overtly) but instead silently question another internally, only for the "other" to respond as if I had asked verbally. It is
not like a feeling of deja vu, but instead as if I AM res ng in a groove and the pa ern is already obvious. Anyone else having similar experiences in the last
few months?
09/25/2012 06:08 AM
I have been expec ng 'changes' for a long long time. I still cannot absolutely pinpoint what has changed, but I can feel it. It has
been building for some time. My intui on kicked in about 5 years ago when I told a former colleague of mine that the world is going to change in big ways. I
said I couldn't say what, or why or even when it will happen (I said 5-10 years I think), but it will effect EVERYONE. I notice my effect on the universe (my
experience) and will often laugh (out loud) at the universes way of trying to tell me things (which is actually me trying to bring things to my attention yeah?). I
have been aware for some time of my influence on my own experience. I have tested it out a few times and have watched it unfold.
09/25/2012 06:09 AM
I have been following these posts, too, but haven't replied. I had too much to say, so I didn't say anything at all. I felt the
sen mental quality of the posts from Sunday and AM part of that essence. I too AM feeling a different atmosphere in my environment. The full realization that
we are now in the dream world has been hi ng me slowly and more powerfully day-by-day. I have been using it in a thousand little ways: I was running out of
yarn for a project, so I put myself into a universe in which I had enough yarn to nish my work. Same thing with a sewing project; in my stash of fabric, I found
the perfect piece that I needed, simply by willing it to be so. There was a recipe that called for white pepper, and I was sure that I had never before bought
white pepper, so I simply changed my universe so that there was white pepper in my spice cabinet. Some digging around, and there it was! Yesterday was my
Monday, a day on which I usually do heavier housework in order to clean up from the lazy weekend. I didn't want to work so hard, so I imagined a picture of a
clean house instead. I barely li ed a finger all day long. I just putzed around. By 8 PM
yesterday, I sat down and looked around me and my house was clean
and shiny. There are larger events too that are bending to my desires. There are still some glitches here and there, but I'm becoming more aware of how to
discipline my thoughts. I use lots of Chaol's advice to deal with the snags in my reality. "Do not resist" is a big one. "Be all right with it" is another one. And
always: "How could I be wrong?" I have also been paying more attention to the nano-glimpses of visions and sensa ons that I see in and around me
constantly. It is almost as if something is trying to emerge into my reality, but something else in me turns it off so quickly that, normally, I would have missed
it completely. I have been trying to relax my focus more so that I can catch these "intrusions", which are not unwelcome. I don't feel at all threatened by them.
I AM discovering that there is, like, all this stuff - this busy-ness - going on all around me (and in me). Finally: MM, you mentioned "deja vu". I don't recall
Chaol ever having spoken about "deja vu". I have had several of these within the past couple months - including one last night - and wanted to ask about them
on this thread. I had not formed the question yet, but here you are writing "deja vu". I guess it is time to ask. I wonder if they are intersec ons with selves
that are following other reality streams? Also, I rarely visit the main page of GLP. I occasionally scan through the pins just to see what others are shou ng
about. There are days that I turn off the Internet entirely and just listen to myself.
09/25/2012 09:35 AM
Thank you MM. I AM the poster you quoted. I LOVE your posts too! I AM also guilty of stalking GLP! I think we literally stalk life down
don't we? Right from when we were children, we could get into every nook and cranny. I don't go in every single thread. In fact, I only started venturing into
the 2nd, 3rd pages etc recently. It does get addic ng refreshing that front page...looking for another clue or sign or news or Chaol (lol) I still think we need
Chaol to hold our hands and show us these things. I hear it but I really don't 'get' it. For example: it's all relative, make it relative etc. Don't you think there
should be an online course at least to teach these concepts? hehe..... no I'm actually serious. I think it all es in when we get that part. Also, when Chaol says
'there is only one perpec ve' or 'you are your perspec ve', it makes sense but stupid brain can't get it. I have tried using my mind to calculate exactly what it
means that there is only one perpec ve but there needs to be something added to make it click I guess. I thoroughly enjoy thinking about what he means
about 'rela ve' ,'perspec ve' and it really blows my bored mind! I wish Chaol would be as ac ve as he was before I came out of lurking but he seems to be too
busy to post these days. Funny thing is, we still have a WEALTH of Chaol's posts that we haven't even grasped yet so maybe he's giving the rest of us time to
catch up. Regarding the nexus thing, I don't really know what that's about but since you've reminded me of it, I guess it's in our perpec ve now regardless of if

108 of 145

it happens on the 26th or not. Time and dates are illusions remember! Sorry for any mistakes. Thanks again for your reply
09/25/2012 10:03 AM
The no on of "death" does not cause me any concern. I can count a handful of deaths I have experienced: a drowning, a trauma c
miscarriage; a drug overdose ( [link to www.youtube.com] ; a series of heart pangs that left me breathless and unable to move during a tenure in an extremely
stressful job. There were others. I came out of each incident as an entirely different person. There were major changes in perspective. The difference was
between night and day. In one case, I was even advised that I could "leave" if I wanted to, but chose to return here because of a dream mission. I wanted to
see it through all the way. Even my astrological chart changed. Dierent planets with different geometries. After all, it is the ego that fears death, right? It is
the rigidly dened "I" that is afraid to let go. All one has to do, IMHO, is to re-iden fy with a greater reality and leave the manufactured one behind.
09/25/2012 10:54 AM
@AC1755255 As far as deja vu goes, I have no idea what it "really" is, but I tend to try and follow the "feeling" of familiarity to see if
I can figure out what come next. Sometimes I get it, sometimes not so much. When Chaol refers to "rela ve" he means just that, how close something is to
your realm of experience. With the perspective thang he is pointing out that you do not exist beyond your personal perspective (point of view) in fact, nothing
does. Everything is represented within your current perspective. Not only that, but what comes next will be what is most relative to your current experience
(perspec ve) . But I AM sure you get that stuff. Where does he lose you on those topics?
09/25/2012 11:58 AM
Another relative bump! Why is our memory so ee ng? Why why why. This thread is actually the best thread ever. Chaol has only
gone on expand on ac****315's post helping me understand how relative works. Only thing is he did this on page 26 (I think) of this thread. I just keep
reading it and finding things that relate! Synchro me! Yay But I've read this before and I AM really just getting it now. How did I forget so soon? It makes
sense guys! This is what he says: 'It's more a matter of, "How relative is X to my experience?" As a rule of thumb, the closer X is to your senses the more
relative it is to your experience. However, something may be powerful yet 'distant' that aects you in profound ways because you are picking up the s muli
from multiple points.' I HAVE read this before. But I didn't get it. His comment about the distant thing aec ng you due to external s muli reminds me of
being bombarded left right and centre about planet x and such. Now it's relative. Please I implore everyone to read this thread over again because there is still
so much to gain from it.
09/25/2012 04:47 PM
Last post before I call it a night. Just got a job. Started yesterday. Nothing heavy. Just realised that one of the main systems we use
is has nexus in its name. Please someone tell me how is that for relativity or synchronicity or something! So let's see what this nexus brings. I can definitely
say its relative to me. Don't know about anybody else. Check out the definition of nexus to blow your beautiful minds. Goodnight hf Pajama Party INVITATIONS
FOR DREAM-OVER PARTY When: Everynight Where: Dream World Please Bring: Visualiza on of Sekhmet From: SpawnX via Chaol 'holding the door open' RSVP
For easy access set alarm 3-6 hours into sleep. Wake up pee, go back to bed with your Visualiza on of Sekhmet. To get there, imagine Sekhmet, it may help to
imagine that you are Sekhmet. I might be reading so dont sneak up on me! Ill be wearing the SpawnX shirt of course. Party in the Great Sphinx! Bring reading
glassescool2 It is here that we will meet. Inside of Sekhmet's twin in Egypt. The main hall of this structure is fairly deep underground and connects with most
of the other structures around it. (It's really all one giant structure rather than what you see on the map or in pictures. Much of what is above-ground is a type
of power source, however.) The main hall is about 50 feet high and 25 feet wide. The length is a bit difficult to describe (as it transcends the usual physicality)
but just imagine that it's about 100 feet long with deeply unfocused light at the end. There are various inscrip ons on the wall all the way up, with their
original colors intact. O to the side of this hall is a small room filled with books. There is light everywhere from various points on the walls. (The library may
be dark at times, depending on how well you allow yourself to see what is there.) From now, you can meet me in this place. To get there, imagine Sekhmet
inside of the main hall facing the length of the hall. It may help to imagine that you are Sekhmet. When you are in the hall feel free to walk around. (I describe
it above as it's not the easiest place to get to. You will know you are there by the vividness of the experience.) We discuss the books on the shelves and the
inscrip ons on the walls. (You will be able to read most of the books, and the inscrip ons are accessed by the sound of your thoughts. It is up to you to figure
out how to reaching the higher ones.) There is a lot of knowledge here and understanding to be had. There is also a replica of the meline of modern
civilization (that is in what you call the Great Pyramid) that extends from a few thousand years in past to several hundred years in future. There is also a type
of city with lagoons and other interesting features accessible from these chambers that we may explore at an other time (however, you are welcome to find it
yourself if you're enterprising). We can meet there frequently, as you may need to revisit multiple times. Unfortunately you may not be able to do much unless
I AM there to 'hold the door open' for you (for this particular experience), but I will try to extend myself to everyone's perspective. If we meet together it would
be in the library. I'm not sure that we can experience others in the main hall but it may be possible. Strange things happen in the main hall. (Though danger is
irrelevant to all.) If you will, tell us here about what new understanding or experience you have had inside of 'the great sphinx'. (Note that I do not retell the
name here, as it has great power in the physical world. But you are free to make up your own name for it.) User ID: 16055096 There is no bag of meat either
:)... only (your) perspective, which does not require meat or a soul.
09/25/2012 06:15 PM
Valida on! Recently Chaol asked, "How would you change a dream?" Well, I would imagine differently. I AM trying to think of how to
answer this succinctly and to also stay within the subject matter of this thread. Basically, I was born along a geographical Sun line and then moved 1500 miles
away, coincidentally along that same Sun line. I led a busy, vibrant life, which was compatible with the tendencies indicated by an astrological Sun. Thirty
years later, I ran out of steam. I had one of those little deaths. I began to withdraw from everything that had gone before. The people around me commented
on how different I had become. I noticed it too, but couldn't explain it myself. While casually reviewing the eects my natal planets have on topographical
loca ons, I was astounded to see that the Sun line had turned into a Neptune line. This was not there before! I don't even know where the Sun line went to. A
Neptune influence is described as dreamy (also as decei ul, but that is another story). I went from being outgoing (a Sun line) to becoming a near-recluse (a
Neptune line), and without moving my household. These are lines that should remain xed relative to my natal chart. They should not indicate a Sun influence
for ve decades and then a Neptune influence a few years later. Reference: astro.com ("Astroclick Travel")
09/25/2012 06:41 PM
..."if we provide less potential energy than our interactions require, our time perspective is reversed." (As potential energy is being
structured more than it is not.) ... An important point about how most people in my world seem to think. What does fat have to do with time travel? Fat cells,
for example, are of the potential energy element. You could translate the above example into: "if I eat less fat than I need for my daily activities then the
ageing of my body and mind will decrease." The same concept that can make most of us lose body weight and live longer lives can power a shift of time
perspective. In this world we look at something and ignore most of what we see, thinking "that does not apply to me". In my world we can form relationships
with everything, thinking: how can I translate that into something useful to me? Helps, Thank you! I have been trying to understand the relationships in my
life. I do try to ignore most of what I see, you are right, but I realize that I have relationships with everyone and everything. I will try to think of how I can
translate my relationships into something useful to me. Consciousness to me..hmm that would be my own perception of myself, my awareness of my own

109 of 145

being. Excellent! Then the question for you then is, What do you consider your "self"? If it is your body, then what do you do with a part of your self when you
clip your nails or cut your hair? If it is only the 'living' part of your body that you consider your self, where does your self go when you lose a pound? What is
your self when you are dreaming? "Self" by itself is a bit difficult to pin. Perhaps because the usual basic assumptions about what self is could be expanded. If
it is "awareness of my own being" as you mentioned, then what does it mean to be aware of another being? Being aware of another being means that you
acknowledge the relationship between your self and another being. Self + awareness of another being = Rela onship? 1+2=3? what form of transportation did
you use to get here? Interesting! An analogy would be the kind of transportation you would use to go to medical school. There are many kinds of
transportation. Each type serves a purpose appropriate to the intention. A "time traveler" for example would be expected to use a machine to "travel through
time". However, no such machine is required when you're manipulating time right now. We have discovered that the the most elemental force in the universe is
perspective. We use perspective to our advantage. Here, it is taken more for granted. I sometimes go back and forth, although I spend most of my time here.
There is no 'transportation' between spaces because there is no space. Only perspective. So, we change perspective. (You do this all the time, too. Most
obvious is when you go to dream.) I like the perspective that you are sharing with us in this Elementon! Love & Light We'll ride the spiral to the end and may
just go where no one's been. Spiral out. Keep going...
09/26/2012 03:21 AM
[snip] I find it fascina ng that we've been advised over and over again that we need only "be" the change we want to see in our
realm of existence. Yet, we still focus on what we do not prefer and make that more relative. I know this is such a simple concept, yet 'for now' I still struggle
with it. Just being honest. How do I "be" my vibrant, healthy, ac ve, wonderful self during the moments when I can't even walk a straight line (due to frequent
ver go spells) and AM on the verge of vomi ng? How do I "be" that clever, inquiring mind I know myself to be when the simple act of scrolling a computer
screen can set off a ver go spell, or when experiencing the typically quite severe 'brain fog' that follows a spell? I could go on, but I won't, I think you get my
dri . I do trust completely that I will overcome this dis-ease, I AM a naturally op mis c person. I have been able to apply what I have absorbed here to other
aspects of my life successfully, so not sure what prevents equal success in this area. I would appreciate hearing from others who have any thoughts on at all
on the subject, or similar experiences. The main approaches I have taken so far have been to ignore/make-less-rela ve my symptoms...so far, frustra ngly, I
still notice them. Another angle I take, is seeing the experience as a blessing in disguise. And one thing I definitely do appreciate is the fact that I feel dizzy
or 'spaced-out' which contributes to the sensation that this reality is really rather dreamy and not altogether 'solid'. Any thoughts people? Thanks in advance.
09/26/2012 03:33 AM
Good morning guys. There's just too much to say that I've decided to not say much for fear that I'll never stop! Thanks for the
invita on to the party SpawnX, thanks for the Sekhmet visual AC****315, thanks for sugges ng a time CatCarel, thanks for the music Marshwiggle (funniest
camel dance ever buy so appropriate!) and others who added to the playlist. I really was too excited to sleep. You cannot imagine. I eventually did sleep and
I'll just say I made it! Can't say much more than this now but really thank you to everyone for creating this amazing experience for us all to have. How funny
we ended up meeting without Chaol's direction. I say we're getting it. I also have a feeling we'll be hearing from Chaol today too. So that's it! I promise I tried
to make it as short as possible. Thanks to everyone here because you make it so much easier to understand and provide even more food for thought. Back to
work I go. Have a nice day all!
09/26/2012 06:18 AM
Try this new thread: Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is
our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. Our playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other
people wont feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do. Its not just in some of usIts in everyone and as we let our light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others. and, according
to the place I found this interesting quote, I find the quote source most amusing....>> Marianne Williamson, From the lm: Coach Carter I have never heard of,
or seen this movie, have you guys? You have to do it for yourself according to the laws of nature, no one else can do it for you. But the good news is, you have
all the power to do so, already inside yourself! Best wishes! .
09/26/2012 01:27 PM
I posted all day long yesterday and was going to lay low today. But, today is September 26 and I AM in the Central Standard Time
Zone. Something happened. I was watching this video: How We Are Made - Sacred Geometry In Human DNA - Matrix I had just gotten to the part at 8:03,
where there is a demonstra on of two vibrations causing an interference pa ern, resulting in a steady pulse. Then, the video says, "...the pulse of the human
heart". I got a rush that went from the bo om of my feet and out the top of my head. It shook my entire body. I go, "what?!!" And checked my computer's
clock real quick: 12:01 p.m. Just making a report, folks. Wai ng to see in which direc on this sea change takes us.
09/26/2012 01:42 PM
Be careful about opening up to allow others' influence come in. You don't need others to make things happen for you, altho it is good
to get reinforced in your thoughts. Rather you need to visualize in advance and stay focused on what you know is right, and others who also know these things
will join you. Time does not exist, all time is in the now. There are only moments, and a series of moments make up what people call me....but an a empt to
accurately describe that measurement of time will be different for different people. So will the moments. We all have, and create, our own realities. We are not
a body with a soul, we are a soul with a body.
09/26/2012 04:05 PM
I went to bed ahead of the screaming hordes in my house (my husband and college-age son). I found the space I needed, saw
Sekhmet clearly and then stepped into her. I looked to make sure that the armbands were on. In several ashes of sight, I noticed the arching ceiling of the
Hall was brighter than usual. I was kind of excited, wanting to see it while it was so lit up. I stood there, wai ng for the picture to solidify so that I could
move forward. In the mean me, the rest of my family was coughing, opening and shu ng doors, and ra ling pans in the kitchen. There was a dog barking in
the street outside of my house. Then, I had an itch. I had to move to scratch it. That is when I thought I would try again later, when the evening was more
quiet. I fell asleep! Woke up this morning not remembering anything. Not to worry. Sometimes I get there fully aware, and sometimes it is too blurry and faded
to pursue any further. I have seen other people in the library, so it is just a matter of intersec ng with the right me/space coordinate, and that could be at
any time.
09/26/2012 05:24 PM
Hey forum I want to start a group genius project. ProjectX 1-Create symbol: Paper replica of 1 Kilo (32.15 oz) Gold Bar 999.9 [link to
i.ebayimg.com] Interac on: Gold bar paper replica locked in safe under bed. Key of the safe is kept in wallet/purse. 2-Find possibility: Gold dealer, eBay,
backyard X marks the spot dig! 3-Interact: Rule 1- Every night unlock safe rub the replica and visualize what wealth means to you. Lock safe return key to
wallet/purse. Rule 2- If someone physically speaks about gold in your perspective you will create another Paper replica of 1 Kilo (32.15 oz) Gold Bar 999.9, and
add it in your safe. Rule 3- Record the price of gold daily on the back of your replica(s). 5-Structure: For added bonus, develop structure around the interac ons.
If you can add, edit the genius plan can you post your version. I would like to see what symbols you perspectives come up with, possibilities, rules and

110 of 145

structure. Then we can all work off each others ideas and create a nal model of ProjectX. Is adding to the symbol good to do like rule 3? What can I put for 5Structure? Chaol do you observe this model of the genius efficient enough to shift into the desired reality. Any inputs? I've only see one post claiming to get
the genius to work. Who's in? Last Edited by SpawnX on 09/27/2012 12:13 AM
Any time that much energy comes together there are eects. The direct physical representation appeared to be a series of earthquakes in Alaska. However, the
'unseen' eects usually take about 2 days (3 at most) to manifest in the kind of physicality you experience. So basically it's like ea ng something on Monday
that takes 2 days to work itself in your body (perspec ve) and that would be a new part of your perspective on Wednesday. This one is a bit strange. I don't
exactly know what it is. But the last time it had the same 'appearance' was September 9, 2001. (I'm not saying that something bad will happen. It's merely an
observation of what you'd call energy.) The more energy that comes together (such as in a nexus) the greater the possibility. Beings from other perspec ves,
such as myself, use these to do our thing. In all of my genius trials, Chaol has stressed brand new symbol with no previous rela ons. Your symbol is linked to
the 1 kilo gold bar that likely already has a certain value in your perspective.
09/27/2012 12:31 AM
Generally-speaking, if your intent is to 'create more gold in your experience' then you would do well not to use gold as your symbol.
This is telling the universe (for lack of better illustra on), "Gold looks like this! And this is what I want in my perspec ve." On the other hand you use a
bubble-gum symbol proclaiming, "Gold has other values of which I AM not aware. But here I AM with my bubble gum gold, exploring the extent of what gold
really is in my perspec ve." For that, you are rewarded (so to speak) with the different values of gold. It's like you have discovered the secret of "gold" as
being not-gold but everything else. So the relative values become more a part of your experience. You experience more gold and more bubble gum gold, and
more of everything surrounding your the new value of gold. Hope this helps :)
09/27/2012 04:26 AM
Most likely not. It will build into 2013. Also can a genius mind symbol be placed at a different location other than where your 'body'
is, or does it have to be kept on your self? Would it still be getting an interaction is what I'm trying to say basically. Sure. But the less relative it is to your
perspective the less you'd experience the 'result'. Your physical body is the most relative to you physically. And if so would it be more interacted with the
seemingly busier the place and thus quicker to be brought into your perspec ve? It does not matter how busy the place is. What matters is the value of the
interactions rather than the number of interac ons. There are as many interactions in an empty room as there is in the same room filled with people. The
'speed' at which something is brought into your perspective depends on how many logical steps there are between what you are experiencing now and that
other experience. The less steps, the less time (generally). Hope this helps.
09/27/2012 07:52 AM
Could you tell us a bit about the nature of this particular nexus? Is it due to some celes al alignment, brown dwarf approaching, or
such? I've felt below zero energy. Just been dragging myself, wai ng for a big change, lately. Zero enthusiasm or lust for life, much like "depression". Add to
that the disappoin ng quasi-blimp-like event, for which I just could not gather excitement. Time to be proac ve now. Theme: get rid of stagna on under any
form and disguise. Now that the seemingly endless summer heat wave has passed, I feel compelled to start again with a practical approach. Especially with
getting rid of clutter (change the geometry of rela onships), where I sense resistance. Then, the creation of new symbols. The first symbol I created worked
perfectly, then was gradually "forgo en" over the summer for the interaction part, and kind of fell apart [for those wondering, I've posted about it earlier in the
thread, a wine cork with a curled metal wire as an antenna, and pink wool wrapped around it - abstract, not representing the actual thing/situa on]. The
second symbol half worked and the third one is forgotten on the shelf (but I know where I went wrong). So I want to recreate them from scratch. I can't wait to
report another success story with a properly done new symbol. :) Soon, I will a empt more dream world visits. Once in a while, I find myself entering the
library to meet you very briey, but bypassing the Sekhmet portal. During waking day me. Not sure it works.
09/27/2012 08:25 AM
Do you really want gold? Yes Why do you want gold? Freedom Next question what does freedom mean to you? My dream of freedom.
Waking each morning with a smile on my face. Excited to get out of bed, never snoozing and always winning. Walking to my dream bathroom brushing away.
What will today bring? Excitement, humor, love and pancakes!!! Thats just the morning shi , after breakfast step into my dream car perfect weather for T-Tops
down. A smile on my face a smile on the wifes face (currently accep ng wife applica ons luv). And off into my dream reality. I know this cant happen overnight
due to the current rela ons that need to be destroyed. I continue to Dream of the day of walking away from my day job and never returning. Sure ill miss some
coworkers there that I consider friends. But I'm ready to re re from "slave shi s". Sure I can walk away from my job, and believe Ill be ne but my dream(s) is
running by a huge imagina on. A huge imagina on that plans on taking on the world. By taking on the world too many innite possibilities of things I want to
create and experience, and having to worry about being required to show up for a meslot worth the least amount of money, breaks my true reality. Without
first receiving "gold" or "lo o" I cant seem to believe before I see. How can I break this rela onship? Be er yet how do I experience my true core self.
Receiving the gold or lo o would be a reality sha ering experience that would put me where I truly think I want to be. Im in deep, a true master of disguise.
TURTLE I see how I can bring my self closer to my true core self by waking each morning with a smile on my face, excited to get out of bed. But its need to
feel genuine which is possible. I'm sure I made it in some alternate universe just trying to get this version of me updated loser Yeah, I've thought that. But
this don't really make sense... What diers the language from the ideas? I mean, the conduit don't have the same knowledge and still the being speak thru it
(don't know if this make sense).
09/27/2012 07:14 PM
I think your desire of Excitement, humor, love and pancakes seems very achievable. It sounds like a good date night. What's the
most exci ng thing you can think of doing right now? To invite more excitement into your life, you can start by making things more exci ng right now. Embrace
your current job, it can be a source of excitement too (at least the paycheck can). If you dream of walking away from it, then you're making this job more
relevant to you. You want to make it less relevant and make excitement more relevant. Some things to try are, stay in a hotel, have a pancake breakfast and
drive to work from there. Fly to a nearby city on one of those commuter ights, stay the weekend (ask a girl out on a date) and fly back Monday morning with
the challenge of making it to work on time. Drive a few hours from town, stay the night and drive back Monday morning, stopping for a pancake breakfast :) Go
camping in your yard (on a date or by yourself), watch some funny movies on your iphone (or other device) in your tent. Learn to ride a motorcycle and ride that
into work. It's also exci ng to give yourself permission to say 'I quit' and go on from there. Perhaps you can make a symbol to represent the feeling of
excitement. Focus on finding excitement every single day, maybe devote October to the theme of excitement and pancakes - each day have a different kind of
pancake. Think of your job as an opportunity to find excitement - watch an exci ng movie every night and discuss it with a coworker, for example or invite your
coworkers to play small challenge games - take turns buying lunch and making it a surprise, talk to someone you've never talked to before, etc. I'd like to see
you achieve your goals.
09/27/2012 11:06 PM

111 of 145

I really appreciate you choosing me to coach. Can I call you Mentor One Five Seven One One Zero Three! You always add on to my

ideas, thoughts, imagina on your my gasoline to my re.rolleyes I really thought I had a solid chance of entering a reality where I won the lo o again. I
followed my excitement intui on today at the best of my ability. I managed to get excited to purchase random cket. And on the ride home after purchasing
the ticket the first car I pulled up behind was driving slower than the speed limit. And as soon as I passed him up in the corner of my eye I saw his license
plate say "freedom". Last Call
09/27/2012 11:35 PM
I'm a fellow traveler that wants to see one of us make it. The paragraph above was pretty cool (and exci ng) except for the first
sentence - could you somehow forget about the lo ery? You seem to be setting up expecta ons thereby limi ng your possibilities. Just follow what is exci ng
without concern for what comes next. You can use your imagina on as a tool to get your frame of mind/energy output to that of excitement. Once in this state,
you begin to a ract it to you. How about this - You are on a mission from another planet. You have been sent to Earth to find out what is exci ng. You need
to explore excitement and know how to replicate it on your planet before the end of October or every single person on you planet will die of boredom. It is up
to you to bring excitement to them. They need you. First you need to communicate with your mission control. Create a communica on device - it looks nothing
like what you find on Earth. Report to mission control every night what you've found out about excitement - in order that they can try it there to save the
people currently dieing of boredom. One idea - if you know anyone with a dog, try this - get a skateboard and hold on to the dog's leash while letting him run,
full speed ahead.
09/28/2012 12:25 AM
I just visited an alternate universe for a temporary moment in time. In this dream I met my friends true core self. He was a highly
mo vated person that always spoke his mind to all his surrounding even pretty girls. Everything in the dream was posi ve. He was beaming off such
excitement vibe always smiling. I managed to ask him "so what got you to be so mo vated." The message of the dream was "I stopped keeping things within".
He spent many years of mostly keeping to himself and he was done with that block. That brings me to a question. Whats the difference from having a thought
and processing it mentally but not budging to bring it into physicality? "oh never-mind" 1doh1 You remain in the same position no progress just because there's
no physical crea on/reac on. Lets progress to the upgraded true core self abduct Whats on your mind let me hear create some reality. Be who you are and say
what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. Dr. Seuss When you give yourself permission to communicate what
matters to you in every situation you will have peace despite rejec on or disapproval. Pu ng a voice to your soul helps you to let go of the negative energy of
fear and regret. - Shannon Alder We must teach our girls that if they speak their mind, they can create the world they want to see." - Robyn Silverman
09/28/2012 11:42 PM
Well, you know, things can get pretty mixed up in those other worlds. There are correspondences between this one and that one and
other ones still to be discovered. There is seepage between all of them. Back when we were visiting the tree, I had already been there a couple times and was
leaving after a third time, when I decided to stand behind Sekhmet and see who else was arriving. A moment later, a hand landed on her right shoulder, and a
tall, blonde man began to walk past. I looked at his face and it was a mosaic of pastel colors brightly slashed across his visage. I immediately connected it to
tuuuuur's avatar. lol. If tuuuuur is tall and blonde, I might have a hit.
09/29/2012 04:19 PM
Yeah. On page 113 of this thread, Chaol men ons a "fabled whore". Be careful not to relate this to the symbol of Sekhmet. The
"fabled whore" may refer to the Babylonian goddess, Ishtar; also known as Inanna in Sumeria. [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] Check out her picture (note
the plethora of symbols: she is anked by owls while standing on lions; she is winged with avian feet [a hawk?]; what is she holding in her hands? Ankh?):
There seems to be a story that spans many worlds and many millenia, all of it represented symbolically. It does not appear to be a linear history at all.
Remember what Chaol has told us about our perspec ve? Everything is represented? Also recall that all time is within our current perspective. Nothing is
ancient or in another universe somewhere; it is all a current value. When I start digging into these symbols, it becomes overwhelming. There is so much that
we don't know.
09/29/2012 10:53 PM
A story. I have so many stories. Back a ways on this thread, somebody made the sugges on, "relate differently to your
environment." The next morning, I was in the shower and remembered this sugges on. So, I imagined I was standing in a gentle waterfall in a tropical jungle.
I really got into it. The sides of the shower felt like cool granite. I could smell lichens growing on it. It felt like I was really there. I got out of the shower to
brush my teeth, and zoned out. I completely lost track of what my body was doing. Instead, I was standing in the shade of palm trees, looking out across a
white sandy beach at an azure ocean, watching the waves break on the beach. Suddenly, I saw a man walking across the beach towards me. He was dressed in
a white shirt and white slacks, with the cus rolled up to his knees. I watched him approach. He came up to me and said, "Congratula ons. You made it." Then
he turned around and walked away. It took a long time for the picture to fade. I stretched out my foot to see what I was and saw this ny Polynesian foot with
a lei of delicate owers around the ankle. True story.
10/01/2012 02:20 PM
Do you change the present or do you alter your perception of past and future rela onships? Past/future is a big waste of energy. You
can perceive everything that exists (in the universe, in the past and future) in your current perspective. Nevermind the teachings. All that you need to know is
on the last 2-3 pages. ^Posted on Page 85 1) Start with what you want in the future then make it happen now in whatever way you can imagine. For bonus
points, take a look at what you really want and ignore it (make it irrelevant). 2) Move to what you think happened in the past and bring it to your perception,
especially the things you resist. When you cease the illusion of pulling towards or pushing away then you begin to expand your perspective because you are
wasting less energy. It's as simple as that. Anything else makes it complicated and makes us waste energy, which is what we've been doing for as long as we
can remember. (Evidence: how we experience.)
10/01/2012 04:16 PM
What do you consider your "self"? What does it mean to be aware of another being? I've been no cing more about this energy
wastage today. Was not really something I took into account. Even playing a simple game is more effective when less focus is given to accomplishing the task.
No ced this playing bejeweled blitz on my phone. When I try to concentrate I lose all focus but when I relax and just go with the flow of the game, I just gain
and gain more points lol sorry for the most basic example User ID: 24768240 Sometimes I could se le for just a dier area, which in itself would be the
no ceable dierence! lol
10/01/2012 04:26 PM
"At the dawn of the universe we existed without physical form. We lived exclusively in a dream-like state, free of physical
constraints. Every thought became real, instantly. There were no limita ons on what we could do. While in this state, some of our ancestors created a new way
to perceive things. This new model, physicality, slowed down the process of perception so that there appeared to be a great distance between our thoughts
and our perceptions. Although useful in some ways it made it appear that we were divorced from our perceptions. It took hold anyway, and a new universe was
born. Unfortunately for us, the physical model is breaking down. Now, from the period of 2001-2013, the dream world (the real world) is re-emerging....The day

112 of 145

will come when you must decide which world you want to be a part of. The dying, physical world or the real world? What will you choose?"
10/02/2012 06:20 PM
Where did we learn about nuclear bombs? Propaganda movies. Watch the movies with a discerning eye. Pay attention to the cameras
that must be indestruc ble and operated by similarly indestruc ble robot cameramen. If you look closely all of the videos have plenty of clues where the reality
ends and make believe ends. They are so farcical that it's hard to keep a straight face while watching them. Next jump to Fukushima where the radia on may
be a real issue but much of the tsunami was CGI, no different than the Gulf oil spill, or any other faked catastrophe. There is no solid ground left to stand on.
It's all built on illusion - shifting sand.
10/02/2012 07:52 PM
What if, no matter how much we know, all we do is become more and more aware of the groove we've carved out for ourselves and
nothing else? What if, the more we focus on change, the more aware we are of the lack of it instead? When we imagine our future, we do so through the lense
of the present. Our current wants and desires fuel our thoughts that drive our actions leading to the resultant experience we call our now. Focus on an
ambiguous change and see ourselves stagnate in the undesirable? Or focus only on what is ALREADY right and allow the whole of reality to crystallize into a
structure of desirable experience? Or do we simply open ourselves to any experience and choose to define it "posi vely" no matter how we see it ini ally?
10/03/2012 02:35 PM
Do you remeber this post from the Dream Reality thread? "Imagine that you met a being from an other world that told you he would
return in one month to show you how you could travel through space and time by putting your legs and arms in the air whilst saying 3 words to yourself. You
got excited about the possibility of doing it, and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. What harm could result? After one month the stranger
returned to tell you how you could do it. Yes, you must spread your arms and legs in the air but you must do so while jumping from a 66-story building.
"WTF?!" You exclaim. "Why must it be done this way?" The stranger then proceeds to tell you that you could travel through space and time any way of your
choosing, as long as you say the three words while spreading your arms and legs. All manner of responses result. "He wants to have me killed!", "Spread my
legs? He wants to rape me in another dimension!", "Why must it be 66 stories? That is the mark of the devil!", et c. All the while ignoring that you do not have
to be on top of the building to experience it." Who says you can't be in an elevator?:)
10/10/2012 05:21 PM
You saw ci es? Oh gosh. I have tried to get back to the one I saw...it was so beau ful! Took my breath away. I have some
experiences from that thread that I have not yet posted. I have them written down on my hard drive. I still go to the Great Hall and the library, and have
recently been very excited about something new I learned. I will share once I have it straight in my own head. Like he has said several times, he has told us
everything. He has even added some bonus information. I often have experiences that I can connect to something Chaol wrote, and I go "Oh, wow! Isn't that
interes ng?!" There is always fresh experience occurring that clears up some questions I had, but also brings up more questions. I AM quite happy trying to
figure this out for myself. When I go back to the beginning of the earliest threads, I AM amazed that I feel like I actually comprehend some of it. Totally agree.
thumbs
10/11/2012 07:22 PM
What if emotions are a different kind of logic than what we normally refer to as logic? Do we not feel a certain emotion for a reason?
Then it is logical, though from what seems like a different perspective. Appearance is a representation, like any other. The substance is itself a representation.
A book is thus comprised of only covers (only of further representations of something else). How deep do we want to dig? Not far. Bypassing the easiest-toperceive representation would be a waste of energy, and that's a universal no-no. If you perceived the substance of something instead of what it looks like on
the surface, you would still be missing that which the substance represents. Hope this helps :D
10/12/2012 09:11 AM
Exactly. Think of it this way... you are only dreaming because that reality is without names, classica on, categoriza on, etc.
Dreaming reality = without the names Waking reality = with the names The moment you begin to name (or want to name) is when you start to become more
physically-oriented (i.e., start to wake up). Then, a different kind of logic is at play. Thus, a different kind of poten ality and interaction. So now (2001-2013)
is the period of time, in waking reality, when you aren't sure what something is, or how to classify it, and what to name it. Some may call this confusion.
Others may see it as uid representation. This is when you are at the doorway to the dream world ;) You are dreaming now. It is that part of your perspective
that is without names or classica on. You could say that you experience something physically (named) and then also experience the same thing when you're
dreaming (unnamed), simultaneously. It just seems like a different time because you want to give a name to it (i.e., "it happened at 5:32 pm, at this location,
and for this reason") when really it is the same thing.
10/12/2012 09:09 PM
I understand the principle, but aren't there general rules that are specific for this reality, independent of one's interpretation of it?
What I mean is, the example above is what a newborn does. No values, names and classica ons a ached, while he is exploring this physical world where
everything is new. Yet a wall is still solid, the oor still hurts if he falls and cries, gravity works while he drops his toy, and the toy ball he is holding is still
round. He may not have names for it, but he is interacting with the same kind of physicality. Looking at reality with the eyes of a newborn is a great idea,
which will rekindle curiosity and explora on, but can we really bypass all the "natural laws" of this physical world?
10/13/2012 07:28 AM
I was taking a sip of my morning coee. I read this and stopped mid-sip. Last night, I composed and then deleted several a empts
at describing my contempla on of a wall. I even put the word "wall" in quota on marks. You're a funny guy, Chaol. He is always with you! So...I was
contempla ng the essence of a wall. It seems to be some sort of a border or a barrier that rises up in front of me. I encounter borders all the time that I AM
able to pass over or through, like street curbs and shower curtains. So, why can't I walk through a wall? Why does this border limit my forward movement? This
is when it occurred to me that I can't walk through it, because it has been named and dened as something that one cannot walk through. I recall as a
youngster running into walls all the time, as if they weren't there. I don't know if the hardness of a wall was the first thing I recognized, or if it was the naming
of it by my parents cau oning me to look out for the wall, but I eventually accepted this idea of "wall". Why are they even there in the first place? After
learning about "wall" and its deni on, I began seeing them all over the place. More and more of them. I have had enough of "wall". I feel like I've experienced
enough "wall" to let go of this name and deni on.
10/13/2012 12:49 PM
hehe.. Thanks Redene what a wall is and it will no longer be what you've come to believe. However, when you see the wall as
something you could walk through you're not doing anything but further solidifying the ideal of the wall as something that needs to be overcome. The way to
walk through a wall is not sexy. Make the wall irrelevant and it is not there to begin with. I know you're talking about walking through a wall but it sort of
defeats itself. You have to first set up the reality of the wall as that which is to be overcome. Your purpose may be quite confusing to your perspective and
you'd end up with that which u lizes the least amount of energy... frustra on or a bruised head, for example. On an other hand, you are already walking

113 of 145

through a wall you did not know was there simply by having made it irrelevant to your perspective. It's not cool or sexy but neither is real teleporta on. Ask
yourself, how would walking through the wall be logical to your perspec ve? Most a empts to do such a thing are not, and thus are met with frustra on. If
(somehow) it were logical to your perspective, most likely you'd find that the wall becomes irrelevant and you probably would not perceive of the wall at all.
10/13/2012 01:04 PM
Your body is a representation of the source of perspective. Without some kind of focus there would be no perception. However, the
body does not pick up the cup. The contents are not there to spill. The oor is not there to move feet across. There is perspective. By nature we create
relationships that do not exist in order to try to perceive ourselves. This innite geometry of relationships is the fabric of our existence. In order for the illusion
to sustain itself it must be in constant mo on and thus we are in constant mo on through our perceptions. We must all ways be doing something and have
some kind of rela onship, even when apparently not doing anything. The body does not pick up the cup because the body and the cup are illusions within this
geometry. The only ac on is a constant and pervasive moving of the illusions. When the illusions interact a reality is created because the relationship between
the illusions is real. And this is everything you've come to know.
10/13/2012 01:09 PM
I see what you're saying. Thanks for pointing this out. Now, I won't waste energy pursuing that direction. Yes, I consider this. The
"train going through my living room in an alternate dimension" concept. Logic is something that I work on. You have made enough comments about logic that I
understand that there are many varie es. I see how magic can occur by simply tweaking one's logic. Disappearing a wall reminds me of your "how to make a
table disappear" post. I have scratched my head over that ever since you posted it. The instructions are clear enough, but I have yet to make anything actually
disappear using those instruc ons. But, then an object is still there because of an existing rela onship, right? The same thing with a wall. I know that I have
work to do. I keep on keeping on.
10/13/2012 06:50 PM
Thank you for your reply. I an cipated it simply being "There is no newborn!" :) My question is then, how does "one's interpreta on"
develop and build upon, unless there is a frame of reference or anchor point stemming from "this reality"? Is it a random interpretation, born out of nowhere?
Or is there on some level a [shared] "construct"? In my "solo" trip of my reality, did I make all the interpreta ons up? If the newborn is exposed to some
inuences in the womb, as you mentioned, then there must be a pick up point somewhere. A sort of "shared meme". Please, bear with me, while I AM trying to
understand, as I find this thread quite valuable. Let's say that the poor newborn hits a wall. None knows what he thinks and how he interprets the wall...
However the mother sees the newborn cry. At this point, the op ons I can think of at the moment, are: 1 - The "mother" is on a cosmic schizophrenic trip,
believing she has a [nonexistent] crying baby, who just hit the [nonexistent] wall. 2 - The newborn has no interpretation of the wall, which to him does not
exist, so he crawls through it [crea ng an alternate reality split]. To the mother, however, the wall does exist, so her logical step is to see the baby crying in
her reality. 3 - Each point of perception (individual) uses a shared framework to create their interpreta on. In the case of this Planet, the shared framework is
dense physicality, where a wall is just solid, and when you hit it, it hurts. The mother does not know what the baby is thinking, nor how he sees the world. But
the baby is crying, because they are sharing the same "construct", and the wall is there for both of them. Does it need to be outside of my perspec ve? If I AM
merely observing a consistent, coherent, regular pa ern, which appears to have the characteristics of a "natural law", the observation alone has now made it
part of my perspective, but that does not change its nature as a general pa ern. The question is, was gravity already there as a building block of this construct
(physicality on this Planet), or did I make it all up because there is no construct at all? If so, how did I come up with it? In any case, I would say that the law
of conserva on of energy is outside my perspective, because it is what defines my perspective. I AM bound and condemned to perceive only what takes the
least amount of energy to perceive. I cannot perceive otherwise, no matter how I wish it different. I can only go to percep on-gym and gradually create logical
steps, which consume the relative least amount of energy in incremental fashion. You said that the contrary is a universal no-no. Which implies that there are
universal/natural laws. Thank you Chaol for more clarity on this. :)
10/13/2012 06:51 PM
I cheated. I've begun re-reading this thread from the beginning. [Speaking of electronic money:] Other possibilities begin to branch
off from the nexus that is "well beyond the limit of what the symbol can support". Gree ngs! If I may, a thought experiment. Imagine that each probability that
exists is a pathway. There are many different types of pathways such as hallways, walkways and corridors, alleyways, midways, streets and avenues,
broadways, highways, etc. So, we have different "sizes" of probabilities. Some probabilities are more related to other probabilities so thus become "larger" as
more things travel on them. A road can become a highway as more cars travel on it, for example. Further, each probability can connect with any other
probability. Any two or more pathways can connect, forming a "nexus of probabilities". The more probabilities that connect, the larger the nexus is and the
easier it is to travel. (Because the more probabilities that interact with it, the more relative it is to the probability you are experiencing. This enables you to
not only walk down the street and have different things happen but also to travel in spacetime (as long as where you are going is relative to where you are
most experienced).) There are representations of this in outer space that you sometimes call 'black holes' and sometimes call other things. These 'black holes'
exist everywhere to some degree. The larger the black hole, so to speak, the more relative it is to that which meets it. You can see less relative
representations of these nexi in physical places like street corners. Some corners (and the areas surrounding them) will be good for business or social
exchanges, for example. Usually, the greater this metaphysical nexus is the greater the physical pathway becomes. Thus, we have cities, families, ideas,
encounters, etc., all illustrating their shrinking or growing metaphysical nexus. You can think of the center of a galaxy as a combining of probabilities both
literally and figuratively. But these 'black holes' can also be found in your body and time/space, and everywhere else. It's simply the force of
attraction/repulsion (the element Chaon in ecsys). Here's the interesting part. When probabilities comprising a nexus are being added at a substantial rate
(and, thus, becoming 'too big' for itself) the probabilities will usually clump together and taper off the nexus. At this point it will continue to 'add to' a smaller
nexus. Our worlds began to diverge just before your industrial revolution (and what would have been the time of our industrial revolution). A few hundred years
ago there were many probabilities comprising this nexus. The feedback and feedforward of the concepts and activities surrounding the industrial revolution
eventually enabled the polyfurcation of these probabilities. Thus, there are now *many* worlds just like your own that are at their own stages of development,
all having substantially diverged from yours nearly 300 hundred years ago. Most likely there will soon be a scientific breakthrough in your world that will enable
development of "warp drive" based not on traversing physical space but utilizing these ever-present nexus points to combine the "here" with the "there". It is
no different than experiencing a smell by using memory to recall a smell from 10 years ago rather than recreating the same smell in the present. Not using
memory (a "black hole") will eventually sound as ridiculous to you as using rocket fuel to reach the moon. You already connect to non-physical worlds on a
smaller scale (such as with intuition, or even sight/sound). You just don't realize how real these experiences are yet. When we use a computer, for example, it
is not that we are interacting with a separate physical object to perform tasks. The physical object is simply a (non-physical) representation of a miniature
solar system of concepts. The computer is no more real that the word or even the thought of it. You've developed these representations in order to do
something you could not otherwise do. We can use our minds to add 1+1, or we can use a calculator. Eventually (probably) you will be able to connect to a
massive network using your mind instead of computer hardware. The "physical" representations you use now to perform these non-physical tasks is just so that
the concepts and tools can be formed internally. It is similar to you, as a baby, trying to verbalize words using your vocal cords in order to be able to *think* in

114 of 145

a new way and do things you could not previously do. So when you're looking at a physical object you're looking at a 'black hole'. Other things have combined
together in a nexus of probabilities. In one probability the chair is a lake, in the other the lake is a chair. You can "get to the lake from the chair", so to speak.
When this world realizes that physical distance (and distance in time) is not absolute then we will begin to do things that science fiction hasn't even come up
with yet. Things that I cannot even begin to explain. This is most likely to occur after the current period, when it is realized the 'changes' most of us have
envisioned would occur (for example, with 2012) are representations of non-physical changes. Like a dream. It all begins with Representation. Chaol, you told
us that there was a substantial nexus point last September 26. It appears that at least a few of us on this board are enjoying good times, to our surprise and
delight. My guess is that we have splintered off from the larger nexus and are now on our ways to something else. There would be other splinters too, of
course, which are experiencing different avors of the "big daddy" nexus.
10/13/2012 10:29 PM
I hesitate to answer these kinds of questions because of their implica ons. But I will do so anyway. Perhaps we are more ready than
we were before. One's interpretation does not develop and is not built upon. The interpretation is the geometry of relationships, and all have an equal value
because there is nothing actually there. There is no evolu on, no change, and nothing is actually happening. A thought experiment, if I may... Imagine that
you are in a one-dimensional, empty room. It is completely dark and there is nothing to perceive. Let's call this room Geniisys. Boom! You have named it
something, creating the first relationship. This thought, this possibility, creates the second dimension. You write the name, Geniisys, in the air as you name it.
This outlines a space. You now have three dimensions. You u er the name into the space you have formed, creating farther varieties of relationships. This
goes on ad innitum until all the stars, dust, light, culture, and tricycles are created. You are simply creating relationships out of something that does not
exist, and this is endlessly recursive. The above is an illustration of perspective. You take two things that do not exist to form a relationship that "does" exist
(or at least one that you can perceive). You do not perceive of the things directly (because they do not exist) but only your relationship with them. This
relationship does not really exist, either, but the value that seems to be created from the relationship is something that we can use, and thus seems real. That
which exists is true and cannot be perceived. It is beyond perception and without perspective. So in a way we are experiencing our relationship with that which
does not exist. There is an innite variety of these experiences and perceptions because it is impossible for us to define this relationship. Although these
relationships seem to change it all happens simultaneously (as it is an illusion). It is your perspective that seems to change, not the relationships. That is the
nature of perspective. So instead of evolving or building upon something you are perceiving the next logical rela onship, so to speak. This does not happen in
time. It seems to happen in time because you are experiencing these relationships at the speed of perception. Independent of the illusion of time there is
neither change nor evolu on. All of these things, you could say, are hi ng you at the same time. You are simultaneously in a distant star 40 trillion years into
the past (5 billions years by your measurement) and here and now ea ng cereal. However, you are only able to perceive one relationship at a time. You
naturally perceive what is most related to an other perception. This "one" relationship could include countless other relationships. You could be perceiving 500,
5 trillion, or 5 relationships right now, but it would still be a single relationship. But you perceive it as one rela onship, and it is perspective. In this way what
we consider evolution or building upon something is including more relationships into this geometry (what I call an expanded perspective, although that is a
misnomer). Right now we are surrounded by things we have represented. They may seem to appear separate from us, because we have made them so through
our representation and logic, and thus interaction and potential energy. When we "un-name" something and take away the representation we realize more of
this nothing and instead of perceiving a relationship with it we absorb it into our perspective, so to speak. That is to say, instead of it being perceived as being
separate from us and something with which we can have a relationship we realize we are that thing. In this way we build upon it by absorbing it into who we
are (taking away the rela onship). But at this point it cannot be perceived and we cannot know about it. The more you cannot perceive something the more it
is the source of who you are. There is no shared construct. It is there but it does not exist. (Apologies, but English has its constraints.) There is no newborn
unless you are the newborn :) Your perception of the newborn is the newborn's total existence. There is no need for further values to exist unless they need to.
This would be a waste of energy. When you are not perceiving the newborn crying, baby does not. If you are talking on the phone with someone who has a
newborn, neither the newborn nor the person are there in physical form. They exist only as they need to in your perspective (a certain range of what you'd call
the audio spectrum, for example). We perceive that which is most relative, yes. But we also do not perceive that which is not relative. The bo om of your foot
may not be relative to your current experience. If you're not looking at it now, for example, it need not have color, texture, etc. (There is no need to render it,
as one person on this thread has sugges vely illustrated.) The potential for the "shared construct" is there but it is always unused and does not exist. When
you perceive of something else you are actually perceiving of yourself (because it is your perspective). It's quite difficult to grasp that one, for most. "Of course
my friend exists! I just spoke with them!" But you do not know of your friend outside of your current perspective. In fact, there is nothing you could have
perceived outside of your current perspective. Outside it, there is nothing. Gravity is not there. Only some eects of what you would consider gravity. If you're
not measuring light at this particular instant, for example, it has no speed. When you want to measure light then the speed will become relative to your
experience and you will see a value. (The speed of light is actually the speed of physical perception that will change in a bit, but that's an other story.) You
came up with the idea of gravity because it is logical to your perspective. Things are relative to the ground you walk on, usually, so things tend to s ck there.
Gravity is the same as living where you do, or thinking what you are, etc. It is an effect of perceiving things that are relative. The same force that a racts also
repels. (It doesn't do either, but only seems to.) The law of conserva on of energy is not actually outside your perspective nor does it define it. It is the only
method by which we perceive. That is to say, 'percep on' and this law is the same thing. In this way you are bound to perceive that which takes the least
amount of energy to perceive. But it does not mean you are limited. It means you have only to make something relative to your perspective in order to
experience it. You are actually experiencing all things simultaneously, right now. But you do not perceive it. The nature of perspective is this energy
conserva on. The moment you begin to perceive, you could say, is the moment when you perceive what is nearest to you first. Looking "over there" first is for
the curious and is certainly possible, but it would take an innite amount of energy to do so. (It's not a law, but you'd most likely give up long before you
experienced results.) Yes, you can only go to percep on-gym and gradually create logical steps. But, 2 things: 1) If you can figure it out, you can relate one
thing to an other, seemingly unrelated thing 2) You have all the time in the universe *lol* Personally, I don't think I'm very pa ent. That's where Ecsys comes
in. Keep in mind that everything contains everything else (so to speak, even though most things are not fully-realized) so it's just a matter of finding that
thing (or experience, whatever) in what is most relative to you now. The table you're sitting at has all of the properties of the newest spaceship. You just have
to find them :)
10/14/2012 12:03 AM
As I try to think of how to write this post I AM laughing because it is interesting that when I first started reading this thread I
couldn't understand what you meant when you were saying you couldn't say what you wanted to say with our crappy language. It seemed so foreign, but now it
seems like I can't put any of these complex thoughts into written language. In fact I declare that all of this sentence and what follows
akjrb5kwjqbtda04w59234tajdlns045wry slkDJBT13 QWEI346[139GHV-ASE436QAWEA dgjw3p represent a future possibility where I create a better language
with new symbols so we can all nally start expanding our minds easier. Haha, until then tell me if this sounds right.... Because nothing exists outside of our
perspective, if something is within our perspective it contains everything we are not currently perceiving because we perceive everything at once but only
interrupt them certain ways. Thus to make a relationship to perceive the thing we want we must have to make a NEW symbol. If time does not exist and a

115 of 145

symbol already exists. Time is only a means of trying to explains an illusionary difference in the same symbol. The intrinsic value of these symbols does not
change even if the relationships we make with it changes. So if there is no difference in the "shape/symbol" then our reality or "time line?" does not change?
Time only exists if shapes in space are arbitrary, but they are not arbitrary posi ons they are moves by the law of least energy. Or perhaps better put our
perspective appears to move through time because symbols are changing based on the law of energy conserva on / what is most relative. Nothing exists
outside of our perspective, it is impossible to perceive of something if we cannot form a relationship to add it to our perspective. So by being human I suppose
we have a unique chance to use our brains to logically create a new symbol which must create possibility because that symbol never existed before and now it
does so whatever it was you wanted it to represent has just been brought into your perspective. And though it is a symbol, because everything already exists,
inside that symbol exists the actual thing you want to represent. Then through our actions we can make the representation more relative until it becomes part
of our reality? We just have to focus on the things that are most relative to that representation? My question I guess is how can we find the thing or
experience to make the things we want more rela ve? Also what are your thoughts on sensory depriva on? Thanks,
10/14/2012 04:23 AM
An analogy would be how we experience a movie. In a movie still images are put together in a logical order. The images are
representations of something else, illusions. A reality is created not from the illusions (images) but from the relationships between the illusions. Now imagine
all of these images lay on the ground in a random order. Your mind will automatically begin to relate some images together in a way that makes sense to it.
(It doesn't matter where you start, like in a dream.) Your mind will then perceive a reality based on the relationships between the first few images. It will also
automatically find more images that it thinks should come next. It may be a different kind of logic from someone else, but it makes sense for the narra ve
you're putting together. The point here is that you're creating something that seems real by putting two or more things together (that are not real).
10/14/2012 11:07 AM
Chaol, thank you for another great post. Could you please elaborate in a way that is more relative to our(my) current understanding
of what you've taught? Just so that you do not have to repeat yourself, I do understand that we(I or perhaps more accurately "this"): ---experience that which
takes the least amount of energy(or as stated previously, the least number of interac ons) to perceive. -and- ---can u lize the "genius" to call a particular
avor of experience into perspective by "naming" something "new" or seemingly "unrela ve"(lol, which is funny because nothing is percep ble outside of
relevancy) both in language and in physical terms (as physicality is the current (most logical) language of perspective), then allow that "representa on" to
interact with the representations that are already perceived (I understand that none of it "truly" exists, so any perspective is possible as none of it exists
anyway). Once the desired outcome is relative, it will be experienced (yet it has been experienced all along). I realize the steps one takes to "nd" them are
subjec ve, but it would be great if you gave some(more) advice on this. Thanks a ton. Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 10/14/2012 04:25 PM
Keep in mind that although scientists can theorize about (and find evidence for) particles that travel faster than the speed of light, they can only perceive the
results at or less than this speed of light. An inch will be measured as an inch, even when it's not. The instrument that is used for the measurement is rarely
considered, but often they are observing the eects of the instrument rather than what is being observed. You could say that the instrument is a reference of
interpreta on. Looking through an electron microscope we do not see electrons. We see the electron microscope. If you invented a new gestalt spectrometer
that is meant to capture light's oompa particles, you'd probably find them. You might even consider the oompa particles to be a new property of light. Others
could then find the same particles (verifying your results) using the same instrument, but not other instruments. So, while faster-than-light particles 'exist'
they cannot be perceived.
10/15/2012 12:47 AM
Hi Chaol! :) Love that you're back and your recent posts. Making the wall irrelevant makes sense, as does the concept of experiencing
any thing via relationship to me (perspec ve). Any thing that is... re-incorporated (?) is therefore not experienced/seen because it is not "outside" of me to
experience. (Hoping this is making sense. I really did have a few big a-ha pings today, I promise.) I'm trying to understand how the below statement fits in
with making unwanted things (walls, bills, whatever) irrelevant, as well as how it fits into the statement that one cannot truly perceive that which is irrelevant
to one's perspective. Are you using "irrelevant" differently in each case? What's tripping me up is that it sounds like what you're saying is that for both
wanted/desired experiences (what I really want) and un-wanted experiences/aspects/values, we are to make them all irrelevant? - Make it relative and
irrelevant, and then I will experience that (what I really want). - Make it irrelevant, and I will not experience that (not experience the walls, therefore walk
"through" them to keep that analogy). Does not compute. I don't think this is actually what you're saying... ? So, thanks so much for your help and clarity!
10/15/2012 05:28 AM
Good question. In both cases, you are setting up an experience where the wall or the bill is not needed. They become irrelevant to
your perspective. In these new reali es: 1) There is no need to go through the wall; and 2) The bill does not need to be there (or does not need to be paid,
etc) Let's say for #1 you are stuck in a room with no exit. Unless you find a way to somehow go through the wall you will die. So you think back to this thread
and, after a few frustra ng hours, find out how to make the wall irrelevant to your experience. [for sake of illustration and lack of better terms...] One moment
you are sitting on the oor with your eyes closed. The next moment you are sitting in a park, outside of the wall. You will probably not have a memory of the
transi on, as it is no longer relevant. You may look over and see a wall that kind of makes you feel uncomfortable. You will remember that a few hours ago you
were at home because this will be your new perspective. Even though the 'old perspective' still exists it is no longer relevant for you. If there is someone else
in the walled cell with you they may see you de-materialize as you walk through the wall. But your experience will most likely be very similar to the above.
Hope this claries it a bit. Last Edited by Chaol on 10/15/2012 05:31 AM
Hi. That sounds about right. Then there is no rela onship, so yes (it cannot seem to change). Time is more of a sense, like smell. The only space is of your
perspective, as would time be. Assume that you don't know the way to get to a particular perspective. If you knew you'd all ready experience it, so to speak.
So you may do well to not assume that you do not know how to get to your des na on. If you search for it in ways that you expect it will remain hidden. Be
open to experience, and follow the path of least resistance once you have represented what it is that you wish to perceive. You don't find it because it is there
all ready. It is in everything. You have only to represent it somehow and let it show you the way. Look for it in what you have now. It is not "over there". It is
right here. Do you see it? I don't know anything about this, although I don't see how it could be done. There's one physical sense that will be expressed in
various ways such as thought, smell, sight, etc. Subdue one way and it will just be more intense in an other.
10/15/2012 10:57 AM
The table does not become the spaceship by itself. You discover the spaceship in it. Meaning, it 'morphs' into a spaceship in your
mind. But not as the spaceship you know (hence, unseen) but the one you don't know (yet). Realize that the spaceship and the table are the same thing.
However, because its essence (nothing) cannot be contained in any one perception it appears to be separate when it is perceived. (It may be more than two
things in your perspective, but for this illustration let's say it is one.) If your desire is to build a new spaceship then you can start with anything. Taking the
nearest table, you would treat it as though it had properties of an advanced spaceship. This, in a way, coaxes your perception into uncovering those properties

116 of 145

for you. The values are all ready there but they did not previously have any reason to be perceived. Now you are giving them a reason. This does not mean that
your table will magically turn into a spaceship. However, it does mean that the spaceship will become more relative to your perspective. Because you are all
ready perceiving 'parts' of it. So the table is a stepping-stone to the new spaceship. It's distance to your perspective really depends on how relative it is to it.
A couple of examples of how this could play out: 1) Opening the table's drawer that you never really noticed was there leads you to a stack of papers that your
father had. They are university transcripts. You see that his marks for science were quite high and suddenly you feel condent that science is what you should
do. You soon enroll at a local university's physics program and the rest is history. 2) Turning the table upside down and riding on it for a couple of hours was
fun, especially when the cat joined in. But somehow you got a wooden splinter on your rear and now you're driving to the nearest pharmacy, sans cat. While
there you meet an old friend. Memories are briefly shared. He shows you a picture of something that he found in his garage on his mobile, and this makes you
think of a new invention that will evolve into a spaceship in 20 years. These are both logical narra ves for your mind. It is rela ng one thing to an other thing
in a way that makes sense to it. The table 'becomes' the spaceship in this way. It may be 5 minutes or 5 years or, depending on how relative it is, may never
be experienced. But it is all ready experienced now, in some way. The question then is, "How many steps from here to there?" How do you get there? You start
with the first thought, and take the path of least resistance. In both examples above you may claim that Chaol is nuts and Ecsys does not work. But it is how
perspective works. It is not magic. It is logic. This is what we do all of the time. It is how we go from what seems like one experience to the next. We can
make something more relative to our experience by uncovering it in our current experience, then it becomes more logical for us to experience (and then we
experience more of it).
10/15/2012 11:08 AM
According to Don Matus as written about in the works of Carlos Castaneda, the 'death deer' (however one wishes to spell it) was a
sorcerer from the ancient age that gured out how to defy death. He would wonder the world in search of impeccable people and oer an exchange...energy for
knowledge. He apparently had sort of a running truce with the line of Naguals...the lineage that Castaneda encountered. At the time of his encounter with the
lineage, Don Juan Matus was the embodiment of the lineage. He apparently was the last known (to me) person to encounter the 'death deer'. Carlitos never
encountered him...or if he did he never wrote about it.
10/15/2012 11:17 AM
Because the steps to call a specific experience into perspective require logic and because the "steps" are subjec ve, it is not possible
to define the steps ahead of time if the experiece you're trying to call is currently illogical. Ok, so with that in mind, and considering that all is within current
perspective, we need only find the logical steps within the current perspective. We do this in the same way we might remove what may be a newly found fossil
from a rock. We are certain that what we want is the fossil, but we are not sure it's shape or condi on, so we slowly chip away at the stone to reveal more of
it to chip away at, until we hold the fossil in our hand. Chaol has advised that what comes next will be that which requires the least energy to do so. This is
why he says "the path of least resistance." Hope this helped. hf
10/15/2012 05:53 PM
Hi Choal, A sensory deprivation tank is a sound proof and completely dark tank. It is filled with salt and water heated to the
temperature of your body. There is enough salt to oat so that your ears are under water, greatly decreasing hearing. When introducing medita on to silence
thought then there is nothing being perceived. If it worked perfectly what would the implica ons of this be? Can a symbol change? Let's say I had a symbol
that represented automated income, could it change into something like a symbol that represents a golden era of happiness for all? Does this mean that I
logically view a golden era as the most relative and logical way to achieve some sort of automated income. Or maybe because my goals have changed and I
have little use for money that it is allowing me to continue on my path. Would the golden era of happiness for all have to include some sort of automated
income for it to become relative and the symbol to change. Or does automated income have to become irrelevant for it to become relative. I guess I AM just a
little confused on how symbols transform. Is there only one symbol needed ini ally, or should we always be trying to transform that symbol until the symbol is
the representation? In the case of the table to spaceship, at first the symbol for the space ship is the table, but after the table drawer is opened and the
science paper is found, does following the path of least resistance mean that the spaceship is now symbolized in the paper. I believe this is where most people
are stuck in ecsys. Perhaps you can elaborate on the path of least resistance and relativity. Following a symbol I made a few months ago has led me to take a
year off of Dental school. I AM enjoying the ride but I would really like to take my understanding of ecsys to greater levels. Any chance for some more
advanced topics?
10/15/2012 05:58 PM
I understand what you're saying. Chaol's interpretation of the crop circle wouldn't have been in my top 5 guesses lol. But it makes
sense using your explanation of "subjec vity". I thought it was a hoax (not ET made) and that was as far as I took it but Chaol took it further than just "hoax"
and that was the logic I was trying to get. Crop circles are very intriguing and I want to know why anyone would dedicate so much time and precision to
creating something and hide the fact that they created something so cool. Earlier in the thread, Chaol said someone from the future could use a crop circle to
describe the world to someone in earlier years or WTTE. If someone else had said it was aliens and that was their path of least resistance, that would make
them right too, right? Lol rambling now I know! I'm still finding my feet. Baby steps... Thanks again!
10/16/2012 06:29 AM
A number of them are made by humans on the field. Most of these don't get published, of course. There was one this particular group
did a couple of months ago in the same area. It was a star of David. They thought it was funny for people to think that aliens would come from a distant world
to make a star of David in a field across from Catholic churches. It wasn't all that convincing, so they made a couple of more that were. (I believe the main
guy's name is Robert Aberdeen or something very similar. I knew a couple of days ago but it may have changed since then, as me/space goes.) You may find
that people are quite religious in the area. Old and new worlds are colliding. The old, religious, genera on, is in ways at odds with the newer, less religious
genera on. The proper signature is something that's not difficult to figure out, as the kind of physicality that creates these forms is not the same kind of
physicality that the crops are lain with. Last Edited by Chaol on 10/16/2012 09:37 AM
Who are we? Who AM I? Throughout the years, my world have interacted with yours on various levels. In this period, 2001-2013*, as my world and yours more
closely combine physically, there are a few things I'd like to share. We inspired people like da Vinci, Newton, Einstein and millions more unknowns. The
Egyptians built their largest pyramid because of us. We influenced nomads to learn the basics of language and science. Ever watched Star Trek or played a
video game? We've even pretended to be 'ying saucers' even though such things are ridiculous to us. (All in good spirits, though.) And we've done it all
without interacting directly with Earth. Most of us don't even know about Earth. (No need to get into how now. Call it kosmosis, or dream world inuence, or
kitchen utensils.) Recently, however, we've taken a more ac ve role. Or, should I say that I took it upon myself to find out more about this-thing-that-weinuence. I first arrived many years ago, in the womb. Since then, I've been doing some inuencing of my own in every area from business to design to sports
to biology and more. I've made friends along the way and invited another from my own world. It's not an important role. Not many people know about your
world. As your world and my world are "uni ng" (for lack of a better expression) there will be more and more correla on between the two. (Along with countless

117 of 145

other worlds, but that's an other story all together.) So, lately I've been a bit more ac ve. Some of us call it the Singularity, Great Shi , Rapture, and lots of
other names that we make up when our mind wanders (or, shall I say, when ours minds seek to interpret one-another's thoughts). From your side you'll
experience things that you haven't before, or had just a taste of in your "physical" world. In the past few years my partner and I have created entire sub-worlds
within your world to create things you could never imagine. We've also introduced the idea that a planetary body can carry an electrical discharge (our
apologies for creating the TU24 hysteria, but sometimes it's the only way to get people to no ce), gotten Obama elected (again, our apologies.. it'll make
more sense later), and countless other things we wouldn't want to discuss over a proper meal. The second act of Ecsys might look like a confusing mound of
gibberish but it has actually been carefully planned for over 20 years as a way to introduce the third stage of Ecsys. In the second act we've prepped entire
popula ons for disrup on. (Radioac vity is conscious, wouldn't you know. So is electromagne sm.) We also approached a li le-known Russian astronomer
named Leonid Elenin and showed him something that has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. (We liked his familiar-sounding name, I guess.) Why
is Elenin important? It represents our world, X. It is not X per se but close enough physically that there's no practical difference. We are master disruptors. We
are what you'd mistakenly call Gods, or "Elohim" in your old tongues. Planet X in your conspiracy theories. The symbol of the cross (or swas ka if you're of
Buddha), the lotus pose, et cetera. Near-countless. But, again, most of us have never even heard of (or cared about) Earth. It's a small glimmer in a vast sea
of reec ons. We call ourselves simply X. We are the four corners of the Earth (which, ironically, we told you about). We are of the 1, 2, 3, 5. We are of the
dream world, but to us we simply are beings free of physical time and space. More accurately, we do not dream of time and space like you do. To us, you are in
the dream world. And by meeting us, essentially that which dreams of you, once again you are waking up as we did a few hundred years ago. You will see that
our world (your world) has been there all along. Some of you will crash right into us, some of you will pass right through us, and yet some will never know that
we existed. 2 years into Ecsys' introduc on, and now it is time for Act III. Are you ready for our anniversary? *Note: the dates aren't signicant. They're just
things we've made up that eventually become your reality. It could have easily been 502-640. I KNOW you, and I know your world. It didnt really hit me until a
few minutes ago! Your kids always know when I arrive, they know me very well...my dreams are a portal to your world, I have been there many mes...and I
AM always loved when I come, the love u guys give to me is unprecedented...tell them all that I never forget, and I love you ALL very dearly!
10/17/2012 06:59 PM
Hi. Thanks for your pa ence regarding this. (I've been thinking of a more advanced applica on that I can easily illustrate in English,
per your last line.) But for sensory depriva on, I would say that it is not possible to deprive the senses. As I mentioned before there is one 'sense' that is
interpreted in various ways such as thought, dreams, and what is called ve senses of taste, touch, hearing, etc. If you 'deprive' one of these interpreta ons
your total sense is not aected. That is to say, you are still perceiving at the same level. However, if you decrease your 'hearing sense' then you will increase
an other interpreta on. (It is not that it increases. It is more that you pay more attention to the other interpreta ons.) It is the same thing when you drift into
sleepyland. If you decrease a certain kind of thinking ('alert thought', for example) you will probably become more aware of your dream sense (your dream
interpretation of your reality). However, you were dreaming all along. You just did not interpret your relationships that way so much. (i.e., you weren't really
paying attention to it) So if your sensory deprivation chamber worked perfectly then you would just become more aware of one of your other interpreta ons of
reality. Perhaps you'd pay more attention to your dreams, for example. The symbol does not change. An interpretation of the symbol's relationship with other
symbols changes. Really, there is no symbol. None of these symbols (from which you perceive the rela onships) actually exist. A symbol only has value in
rela on to other symbols. So we're not perceiving of the symbol itself but the relationships between them. (What I call the geometry of rela onships.) But for
your example, the "golden era of happiness for all" symbol would be quite difficult to represent. You would be representing it from your current perspective.
However, you may not be aware of how your other perspectives see it. Thus, it is not likely that you are interpre ng your symbol as having changed into it. It
is more likely that you are not paying attention to how it is working in your perspective. Not that you did, but if you created a "golden era of happiness for all"
symbol it may turn into the "parade of monkeys from hell" 10 logical steps down the road. In fact, I'm guessing it would because then your total perspective
would respond to your passive declara on of, "I know what happiness means for everyone." Really, there is no need to concern yourself with anyone else in the
sense that you see a separa on. (This is why, o en mes, when we help someone else it evolves that our help makes them worse off. Because at the time, in
these cases, we had not realized the separa on between us and them is an illusion. The less you realize that you and an other person is the same thing the
more conflict you would experience.) So it may be that you view but you are seeing a 'golden era of happiness for all' and are missing how it logically applies to
your intention. Also, "logical right now" and "logical" are a bit different. This one is a bit tricky because we tend to think we know what would logically come
next. You'll notice that I normally append 'all things considered' when I mention 'the next logical step'. Because a more total perspective must be considered.
So something may happen to you that does not make sense. We can say that this is completely logical, all things (in your perspec ve) considered, but perhaps
not logical for a few values in your perspective. For example, George may wonder why he got hurt when he asked his best friend for help. "It doesn't make
sense", he may exclaim. "I did everything I could. I tried to see how I could best help my friend and I asked nicely. But he just got upset and me and said I
was trea ng him like a baby." But George is forge ng that there are more values in the geometry of relationships than what is most on his mind at this
moment. He is also not considering that both he and his friend are his interpreta ons. When he desires to help his friend, does he realize that he wants to
help himself? Does he believe his mo ves to be self-less. It may seem a noble thing, to help someone else, but it may actually work against him if he does
not consider that his friend is him. All of what he knows and feels about his friend exist entirely within his own perception. Also, of course, there may be a lot
of things he is ignoring in his own perspective. Perhaps it was not easy to help his friend. He had to jump through hoops to position himself to help his friend.
He was actually working against the natural course of things, which creates further conict. He then sees nature putting him back into place (pu ng himself
again in the path of least resistance) as a kind of punishment or conflict in his reality. He focuses on help but ignores the more valuable Rela onship. Instead
of interacting with him he communicates to himself about how he can best help him. He seeks to be the hero (further resisting himself as his friend) if only for
a short time. Again, all the while ignoring the value of the relationships and also basic interaction. So, again, something may be logical in a more expansive
way but may not make sense to you if you are ignoring certain relationships. (Your relationship with more things.) There is different kind of logic, of course.
Each perspective is a logic. If you have a symbol that represents 'automated income' you should probably further define that that is and what it means.
(Automated how, and income of what?) You may get exactly what you wanted but it may not make sense to you because you did not realize that there are
different kinds of perspective. Perhaps you'd win a lifetime supply of peanuts or every Monday at 6pm your neighbor visits you (automated income). Or perhaps
it would become 'a golden era of happiness for all of what I am', depending on your interpreta on. So basically you would do well to define 'automated income'
for more than your current perspective. Find out exactly what you mean. If you need multiple representations that's fine. At least you will have then focused
your perspective on it. If it appeared that your symbol changed into 'golden era of happiness for all' perhaps it is because that is how your your more expansive
perspective interpreted it. It's not about goals at all. It is only about relationships. So it is possible that your relationships with money [I'm not sure if this is
how you dened 'income', though] had changed. As your relationships change so would your reality. Something is relative through its relationships with you. If
you are a classical pirate searching for buried treasure, for example, you would begin by creating relationships with what you perceive to be the reality of the
buried treasure. You begin to 'perceive' the buried treasure is in a dark cavern with a waterfall with bats perched above it, for example, in a daydream. (The
pirate begins to see it in his current perspective. You current perspective, of course, would include your thoughts, dreams, senses, etc.) He can then develop a
relationship with waterfalls and bats in order to bring the reality of the buried treasure nearer. Think 'six degrees of separa on'. You want to meet Kevin Bacon

118 of 145

so you start by meeting the person that is closest to you in order to get there. Each logical step is a degree of separa on. You would not start out by finding
buried treasure. That would probably not work. You need to uncover the logical path to it. You find it, in a way, through peripheral perspective. When using
symbols be sure to begin with a new symbol that has little value to your current perspective. (If you use a plain table then the table all ready has a value
associated with it in your perspective, and would thus cloud your experience.) Usually this is accomplished by creating a new thing. If you want to transform
the table into something new in order to uncover the spaceship, that can work too. This is because you are re-interpre ng what the table is. You are realizing
the nature of perspective. That there is no time or space between the table and the spaceship, only your illusion of the separa on. At first the table is the
table. Then you re-interpret what the table is, creating logical steps to your spaceship. You don't need to know what the 5th step will be or how it will make
sense later. Your map need only include the next step, not the total steps. (This is because if you are at 'Step 1' it is impossible for you to interpret 'Step 5'
from the perspective of 'Step 4'. Your interpretation of Step 5 would then be from Step 1's perspective, and that would be useless because it would change by
the time you got there.) When you open the drawer you are already re-interpre ng it as something else. You begin to see the table as the spaceship itself.
You then de-anchor it from its tableness and see more of how it is connected with all things. Perhaps you'll just see that it's composed of wood and then
observe the pieces of wood and think about how wood can be made into other things. Perhaps it is the shape. Perhaps if you bring it close to your nose and
absorb the scent that it will smell like cookies and you will think about how the table is a giant cookie and there are cookies on your spaceship. It's all about
relationships and creating a logical path to an other perspective. Yes. It will be in my next post. I hope the above has helped in some way. Thanks.
10/18/2012 12:35 AM
Hello Chaol, Thank you for all you're doing to teach us. I'm only on page 4 of this thread and have looked through the ECSYS website
some, so I have a lot to learn. However, in the post above, you broached on something I would like to ask you about. I hope you don't mind me jumping in
with a question. I AM wondering about symbols we receive from our subconscious, either through dream- me or meditation. Are these more powerful to use as
we create new perspectives? One reason I ask is I had a powerful experience and shortly after that, I received a symbol. I drew the symbol. After studying the
ECSYS website, I have decided to draw the symbol every day. However, the symbol seems to me to be step 5. So, I'm thinking I need to think of a symbol for
step 2. If so, I wonder why I received the symbol that to me, is step 5? Thank you. Last Edited by U3 on 10/18/2012 02:14 AM
Though we are only at the beginning of what you may call the 2nd level of Ecsys, what we can do is apply what we have learned in new ways. I believe you can
use the following exercise for a more advanced illustration of Ecsys. But first, a synopsis of the elements. Symbol - a representation of anything else
Interac on - when a symbol (including yourself) relates with an other symbol Possibility - the potential energy of a symbol (without interaction of any kind)
Logic - structure or order of any kind (for your reference, see [link to ecsys.org] ) Expanded Perspective Exercise As an exercise we will take one of the above
elements (as it seems in our perspec ve) and remove the other elements that enable it to form your reality. Let's say that I have a symbol; an old coin that
my grandfather gave me. (A symbol can be anything. Everything that you can sense is a symbol. It need not have a special meaning.) For us to expand our
perspective in this exercise means that you are realizing how it is a value of your perspective, not a separate thing outside of who you are. We can do this
exercise with one thing, move on to other things, and then eventually feel more at ease with expanding our perspective to include more of what we are
(everything in it, and without it). As we reconnect we first get an idea for how the other elements work with the symbol. This means iden fying, from your
perspective, how it Interacts, where its Possibili es converge, and what its Logic is. We may realize that no one else interacts with it. However, keep in mind
that interaction is about perspective rather than people. If it's kept in the closet then it is also interacting with the other items in the closet and its
environment, because it has developed a relationship with those things. It also interacts with other similar coins because that may be how you value it, even if
those coins are nowhere near its physical space. Farther, we keep it in the closet in a small plas c envelope (possibility and potential energy; or its "space" if
that suits you be er). For logic, every year around Christmas (when grandpa gave it to us) we take it out and polish it. To expand your perspective, change the
values of the elements. When you change the values you are not only changing your relationship with that thing but seeing how expansive your perspective
really is. Interac on - change its relationships with other things. Possibility - change the space in which it rests. Take it out of its plas c envelope and find a
new home for it. Logic - Change or create a new structure for it. The above exercise is actually quite simple. You take an element (any element of the 4),
define the other 3 elements around it, and change the values of those elements. If your chosen thing is of the logic element then edit its symbol, possibilities,
and interaction. If it's of the potential energy (possibility) element then play around with its logic, interac on, and symbol. Et cetera. By doing this exercise
you are expanding your own interpretation of the elements. When you do it for one thing in your reality you are learning how to do it for all, as there is no real
difference between the two. Eventually, you may be comfortable enough to do this automatically throughout the day. For example, you may find that when you
look at your sun and realize its elements you can actually become it. Time and space will then be just references for you. You'll perceive less separa on
between you and 'anything else'. There will be much less limit to what you can perceive (and do) because you will have more conscious influence about your
perspective. Hope this helps. This is still 'basic' (though not very basic) but it may prove valuable to many of you, if done. Let me know if something can be
claried.
10/18/2012 03:14 AM
You are everywhere surrounded by symbols. Without them, you would not be able to perceive anything. Some symbols have more
'poten al energy' than others, and thus could be thought of as being powerful symbols. Not all symbols you perceive while dreaming or medita ng are
powerful, of course. Most aren't. How do you know which ones are powerful symbols? Imagine that your symbols were like ci es strewn across a con nent.
Some of these symbols will have more of this potential energy and will a ract other symbols. It is the reason why ci es like New York became very popular but
Edison did not. Symbols are only powerful through their relationships. So just look to see which ones form more relationships than others. Most symbols cannot
be drawn. What you experienced could have been an interpretation of something else, or even an other symbol that was not easily perceived. Just remember
that when you draw the symbol you are not capturing its essence but only drawing a reference. The symbol represents something you cannot draw. A symbol
(per the Genius) would be a unique symbol that you create. If you use a symbol that you perceived while dreaming it all ready has meaning attached to it, and
likely would not work. Come up with a unique symbol in this world, and work with it from there. Have an inten on in mind but make no assumptions about it.
Just see where it takes you. O en, it will take you on a particular route to your destination that you could not have imagined. Hope this helps Some.
10/18/2012 03:44 AM
To add... remember that a chocolate mint ice cream cone is an illusion. So when you, for example, 'wish' for it you are not really
wishing for anything because there is no ice cream cone. You have to wish around it. Meaning, you are bringing the perspective about that contains the ice
cream cone relationships. What does it mean to engage new ice cream cone perspectives? Well, think about what it means. Maybe someone else wants to
have a bite.. who is it? You need napkins. What do they look like? It makes you thirsty. What's your drink? Darn, it fell on the carpet! What do you need to use
to clean it up? It makes you feel happy and bloated a erwards. What is that like and when else have you felt that way? The ice cream cone exists only in
these relationships. Perceive the relationships and the cone will begin to be experienced. (The cone itself is irrelevant. However, the cone can become more
relevant by perceiving its relationships. Don't think about the cone directly.)

119 of 145

10/18/2012 04:32 AM
Okay, I'm a little lost but this does help. I have 3 questions. 1) By unique symbol, does this mean something unique that is already
a symbol in the world? You say the symbol in the dream already has meaning around it. But the same can be said of any symbol. For example: taking photos of
the car I want is a car that's already in the world. How is that unique? 2) Also, is it benecial for those of us learning this, to share with each other so we are
interacting to bring it into our world? I'm creating a blog with my symbols. If someone here wants to participate and do the same, we could make comments on
each other's blog just to get us interacting with our symbols. I plan to do other things too, but this might be helpful. 3) What about the perception of higher
states of conscien ousness? This isn't quite as tangible. Do you have any different recommenda ons for this? Addi onally, I'll add that I'd like to by-pass the
astral plane so not sure how to use a symbol. Thank you Last Edited by U3 on 10/18/2012 05:12 AM
3) What about the perception of higher states of conscien ousness? This isn't quite as tangible. Do you have any different recommenda ons for this? 1) Just
make it something that you have not seen before. (A photo of a car is a different symbol than a car itself. One is a photo, one is a car. But make the new
symbol something you don't think you've seen before. This doesn't mean it is free of meaning; as if it were you wouldn't be able to perceive it. But some
symbols have more meaning attached than others, from your perspective. 2) It's a good idea. It would certainly allow your new symbols to interact in different
ways. 3) I AM unable to answer your question, as I do not know what a higher state of consciousness would be like. (I don't think there is such a thing.) But
for an expanded awareness, do you not do this several times a day (at least upon waking or dreaming)? "Higher" is here, now. If I showed you a photo of da
Vinci, for example, it would most likely be considered unreal even if authen cated. Rather than expand perspective it would narrow it in certain ways. We make
so many assumptions about things. The nature of perspective is that we do not know when it has changed. Most of us would be entirely shocked to experience
the realities that existed only 100 years ago. Simply talking to a commoner requires a skill that very few of us now have. The act of walking down most streets
requires dexterity and pa ence. Ea ng and drinking would kill most of us. Imagine the realities of an other world and the perspec ve-shock that comes with it.
When you think of life in the 1920s is the first picture that comes to your mind in color or black and white? Now imagine that I showed you one photo from
1200 years ago. This would narrow perspective to such an extent that it would become more difficult to experience such a time ( me travel, etc.) because it
would be difficult to decrease the value of the symbol. Further, imagine that I showed you photos of Mars. It looked red, barren, and lifeless. You would begin
to imagine that those were the values most associated with Mars, a planet as beautiful and with as many living trees as Earth. It would be as though a rover
from Mars landed in the Sahara and transmi ed the images back to Mars and everything was yellow. Instead of expanding perspective the mere act of showing
a single photo would require me to show addi onal photos, and further evidence in order to 'x' what was done. Further, the topic of conversation would shift
to Chaol and my life, and I would need to explain pretty much every aspect of the photos. It would be a waste of energy and would likely not help,
unfortunately. Just consider this lite entertainment, instead. A hoax, even. And that I have no photos to show. Last Edited by Chaol on 10/18/2012 12:20
PM
It does, thanks! Before seeing your response, I had arrived at an idea, where making it (the goal) irrelevant might also mean it would naturally no longer be
desired/wished-for (as with the wall being no longer relevant once having found myself outside of it, in a park). For example, if I were to find myself in the year
2150, a chocolate mint ice-cream cone might not exist (at least not how one looks today), as would be the case if I found myself in the "year" 1435 (in quotes
because dates are values of perspective, wheres). The cone and its relationships might continue to exist in some "essence" way, however they would have
shape-shi ed (So, they'd be new symbols/rela onships en rely, I guess?). I could also find myself in one minute ea ng pie instead, because that is what
showed up as I walked the path of least resistance. Your explanation above was indeed helpful, adding a different dimension to things... In line with the
concept of a key and literally what a key is and how it func ons, that I'd come to but hadn't been able to figure out the applica on of in terms of ice-cream
cones until now. "... can become more relevant by perceiving its rela onships" Geometry. Thank you. A certain favorite quote comes to mind: "Telepathy exists,
it's just that the carrier wave is small mouth noises." I saw a video the other day that I liked (the morning after I was putting a lot of thought into these
concepts), though many may hate this 2-minute clip, or expect it to be "funny." In a way, it IS funny. Is it not funny that almost all we are doing these days is
simply arguing over abstract concepts, concepts that are nothing more than our perceptions through programmed lters? Filters that are built up by other
people, often with us not knowing, or by something that we think is normal, or fun. Plato's Cave, anyone? I'll give some more examples and play with this
here: "You can't eat that food over there because it might make you think differently. That food is dangerous! (Though it really has no recorded deaths in all of
history.) You need to be protected from that! You need to be protected from yourself! ...from your own mind!" My response to this is: "No. First of all, YOU
have NO way of knowing how that makes me think (perceive, actually.) It is impossible, and it is also irrelevant. Also, it is not really dangerous any more than
dreaming, or even thinking about something that YOU think is bad... Which for me might be good, or, it simply doesn't ma er." NEWS FLASH: Dreaming now
deemed illegal! Mandatory minimum of 20 years! To go further: Imagine there is a box. And only I have the key to it, and even when that box is open, you can't
see into it. Yet, you insist that there is something bad in that box. I could tell you that there is a cat in that box, and that the cat is fine. Or I could tell you
that there is plutonium in it. You have no way of actually knowing, so why do you insist on punishing me, or preven ng me from opening it? Furthermore, a
large majority of people wouldn't even open their own box, even if they had the key. Also, they think that even the key is bad. Or they have been told and
made to believe as such, and let others dictate what makes up their very own minds, with no thought given to what is actually happening. What if you always
had the key? What if the box simply does not exist, except to you only? A simple version: You are not allowed to think about certain things because someone
else feels that it is bad. That person simply cannot experience what you are perceiving, so how is that mindset even possible? Or, how does anyone, or the
majority of the public allow themselves to be controlled in this way? Another thing that is "funny" (or "sad") is when other people dislike you for associa ng
specific things with other things. Guitars and M&MS: I see the word guitar. I think of an electric one. You think of an acous c one. I think of Van Halen, and
you think of Jimmy Cash. Then, I think of brown M&Ms, but I say something about Van Halen and M&Ms, and you think it is weird. Then you call me "crazy." But
only if I mention it in a specific way. You wouldn't know that I thought about the M&Ms if I kept silent. But I could have just "moved on" to say "hey, do you
like M&Ms? There was funny commercial on last night about M&Ms, and it had the music from that group LMFAO in it." Then you wouldn't call me crazy because
you love TV and spend most of your free time watching it. Funny how that works.
10/25/2012 05:39 PM
Good insight. Actually, by focusing on what you think it is you are making its possibility more irrelevant. If someone, for example,
thinks that they want to be rich and focuses on how they can win their local lo ery (to get there) I would suggest that they forget about the lo ery. "The
lo ery" is their interpretation of "being rich" and limits their perspective. If they, instead, focus on what surrounds the perspective of being rich they are more
likely to experience what they're looking for. Because "being rich" exists only in rela on to other things and not by itself. By focusing on "being rich" directly
they are not really focusing on anything and, thus, would not experience it until they focused on it indirectly. Hope this melts your ice cream :)
10/25/2012 10:38 PM
1) They need only be something that has no meaning (or close to no meaning) in your perspective. You can buy something that has
no meaning, but as soon as you buy it it adopts some meaning. A friend could give you something unique, but the act of your friend giving it to you begins to
define it. So I would suggest creating something new, whereby it has the least possibility of having been dened from other values. 2) If you start over in a

120 of 145

particular corridor, did you choose the corridor or did the corridor choose you? One need not start over to walk the path of least resistance. Emo ons make us
human, of course, but they also help to cloud this path. We tend to choose that which has meaning for us rather than that which has our name on it. If 4 doors
open up before you and your friends and family are beyond door #3, most of us would choose door #3 because we are human. We tend to think something is
wrong if it's too easy. 3) We are all aware the same. The question is, what values are we focusing on? It's quite difficult to feel alone in a reality where
anything is possible. There's a fantasy that we have in this world about 'omnipotent' beings being all-knowing and all-seeing. It is not that such beings see
everything, because we all do. It is that such beings have the ability to 'gure it out' so to speak. They need not know the latest fashion trends of anteaters
on Neptune but should be able to figure it out if they wanted to. So there's always the sense of constant discovery because the entire universe is exactly what
you are experiencing right now (which only goes so far as your current perspective). The rest is, fortunately, a mystery because it does not need to exist yet. [I
AM only able to respond to the first part of your question, as I AM not able to guess your definition of 'divine source'.] 4) "Immediate" according to my sense of
time, yes. This would be translated as one of my days being about 43 of your days. (Although it's not quite like that. If you and I were having tea and
crumpets, though, you may get bored after the 15th hour of sitting there whereas I would think the fun has just begun!) This is only because I AM able to
relate a moment, so to speak, with more 'other moments' than we usually do on this world. I only understand and know about simultaneity. We each
experience it but are not able to perceive of the experience ;) 5) For fun I like to watch stupid movies, play games (including videogames), build things, go for
walks, travel, hang out, dance, and pretend to read as I watch people from cafe windows. 6) What explanation could there possibly be? I don't normally dissect
my experience, so AM not sure how to respond. 7) I've many names, of course. But for the name that I was given at birth I share it with others. To find me you
need only close your eyes. b) the apps are vapourware, as the developer I found did not really understand how it should work. More importantly, it is an
example of its possibility rather than something I give to you. This way it has more value. c) anyone is free to create whatever neuronics or ecsys apps they
please, in any format. If they prot from it, that's fine. If it's for the public domain, even be er. I usually don't comment, as this would be limi ng the
possibility of it more. 8) No comment. But I'm usually amazed how easily distracted we all are by smoke and mirrors. 9) "Truth" is irrelevant, as it cannot be
perceived and, thus, experienced. It is probably better to just think about what is true for us at the time and realize that this is in constant mo on. Besides
"now", I don't know anything about the eternal. Need there be anything else? p.s.) thanks - I've responded on that thread I've noticed all the goals seem
related. Money for car and money for house. Professionals needed to assist with purchases, maintenance, legal papers, etc. And also, what pops up often
seems to have nothing to do with the end goal. But, since it's a new thing, I relate to it because it's got to be my story-line taking me to my goal. Agree?
Would you share some of the things that popped up as you created your goals?
10/25/2012 11:15 PM
A bit more advanced applica on of Ecsys, but it may have some value to you now... [First, some context...] Everything is a
representation of something else in your perspective. We are not able to perceive beyond our own perspective and thus cannot perceive of the truth of
something. Truth is beyond perception. When you talk on the phone what you hear is a representation of the other person's voice. When you see them in
person you are also experiencing a representation. You could say that your brain interprets signals and shows you something that isn't really there. But the
signals that your brain perceives are also representations of something else. When you look into the mirror you are not seeing yourself. In the same manner
when you look at your hand you are not perceiving your hand directly, but interacting with representations. Direct perception is impossible. We can perceive
only of relationships rather than the real thing. In this illusion we have life. We have what we call consciousness. But this life comes only from the
relationships between the symbols. [And here is the purpose of this post...] There is also life and consciousness between other symbols. Everything that has a
relationship with something else has this life and consciousness. It is as real and fully detailed as what you are experiencing now. The oor on which you walk
has a relationship with your leg, and you feel it's reality. It is a part of your life. But the oor also has relationships with other things, and this is just as real
as is your leg. You are surrounded not only by life but also by a force that you could call a living, breathing consciousness. It has intelligence, desires, and it
communicates. It is perspective. If you communicate, so does everything else. In the same way that you are now communica ng. Whatever you do or say or
think is also expressed throughout the universe in the same way and to a degree that is relative to your perspective. When you go to a restaurant, for
example, your cat at home also goes to the same restaurant at the same time. Did you order and eat pasta? Your watch has also ordered and eaten pasta,
because it is relative to your perspective. Even more than the cat because the watch rests on your arm and you don't see your cat. But, guess what? Your cat is
also in the restaurant. This is the real "holographic universe". It is a holographic universe not of bits and bytes of information but of perspective. The Earth is
going through the same thing that you are going through right now because there is no difference. Feeling giddy? You have just changed what scientists would
call the quantum nature of the entire universe in a measurable way. I implore you to figure out what this means for yourself. There is something profound that
you can get from the above. You have only to squeeze the oranges. I will not post it here (or conrm or deny if any of you should mention its implica ons)
because it is a highly resisted concept. Enjoy :)
Last Edited by Chaol on 10/26/2012 04:50 AM
The logical pathway I use to conceptualize these ideas is through the symbol of energy, as if each consciousness is a mixture of many frequencies within an
innite sea of energy. Each frequency aects the innite sea of energy by causing energy to resonate with that frequency. We can only perceive resonant
frequencies, thereby seeing a reec on of ourselves. If we can change any frequency, the previous frequency would no longer be resonant and a new one would
begin to be perceived. So we would have a cat frequency within our energy matrix causing a resonance within the energy field for the concept of cat. So if I
resonate with the symbol of restaurant, the cat is with me because it is part of my energy matrix to begin with. I'm just choosing to have the restaurant
symbol/energy become dominant or most relative in order to perceive it. So every moment in time can be conceptualized as a still frame like in a movie. We
are sitting in a vast, innite sea of still frames of all possibilities. As we change the frequencies within our energy signature we a ract a frame to us following
the path of least resistance, the most logical/believable path. This happens so quickly, it appears as mo on. Every moment we perceive one of these frames
we process it and calculate the next logical moment, attracting it to us. If we purposefully decide to a ract something to us, we would hold the frequency,
symbol within, as in feel as if you already are it, then it would begin to resonate with the energy field and a ract it to us. But the logical pathway we are
following may continue for a bit before the symbol is perceived. So despite what is perceived, we must hold the frequency of the symbol, trust the pathway we
are one is the one that a racts it to us.
10/26/2012 01:12 AM
The example you gave me is you said when you met your girlfriend, "it just happened." And no, I can't give the other example. What
I've been trying to find out from you is if you ever feel something inuences your life besides you? Do you feel there is a Benevolence that guides you at
mes? I ask this because I surely have a lifetime of this. And I know you will probably say it's because I don't know how to interpret some things...which could
be true. But, I don't think so. Many times, things have happened, right before my eyes, where I was going one direc on and "something happens", to change
my course. Basically, do you feel there is a Divine or Benevolent force in your life that guides you? Do you feel there is a Creator God? Do you feel you created
yourself or you came from some kind of Source? And don't worry about how I define any of this. I will use my intui on to read between the lines of whatever
you say. I'm trying to get a picture into your world this way.
Last Edited by U3 on 10/26/2012 01:25 AM

121 of 145

You've realize an important aspect of the nature of perspective. I've always thought and felt this, especially when I was a kid. It's weird, I learned and realized
that I could be harmed through physical pain, but I always felt as if I was somehow 'invinceable' when it came to death... Although I was in a pretty bad car
accident a few years back and walked away ne even though the conditions were that which I could've died or at least been seriously injured. There was
nothing to really remember, I like blacked out and just 'woke up' immediately after the impact. I've always thought about how randomly I could have 'died' and
somehow just kept the show going. If I were to approach a cli my programming would give me the thought of falling to my death, but if I were to actually
jump you're somehow saying I would survive? I get what you're saying, but I don't get it... banana2
10/26/2012 03:34 AM
I see.. I forgot that I wrote that, so apologies for being confused by your question. I just meant that it fell into place. A couple of
months after I came back to this world I had what you would call a premoni on of her visage a few months prior. I went back to my (new) world and came back
to this one specically because of her. But I did not know that I would meet her. It was a good surprise, though. What I've been trying to find out from you is
if you ever feel something inuences your life besides you? This would be a bit difficult to explain, as it would be that everything inuences my life. Do you
feel there is a Benevolence that guides you at mes? No. hehe.. no, I don't think I would say that. But we each have our own interpreta ons. None is more
valid or true than an other. I suppose you are asking if I believe in a god or divine something. But for me the question is irrelevant. It would not be a question
of belief or disbelief because for me the concept is not dened. But I suppose my "nothing" could be translated as "god". But in that way it is so true it is
independent of perspective and, thus, could not possibly exist. The way we define things surely aects our experience and the way we see things (and react to
them). In my world the people are as unique as in this one. We have different thoughts and beliefs, of course, and the majority of the popula on do not use
Ecsys or neuronics. We "act" less than those in this world, I would say. It is (in your world) in your past that whenever people are in public they would "act"
and pretend to be someone else. This is probably the most no ceable difference (and the reason why I find it so interes ng). Your world's ac ng has
decreased significantly over the years but at an even faster pace in my world. The picture that I paint of my world will be quite biased. But I can try.
10/26/2012 05:19 AM
1) I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you. I AM surprised most of the people in your world don't use neuronics. Are they aware of it?
One other thing about "things that happen." I have had nice surprises, such as finding this thread. And I got here through what I would call amazing
circumstances, LOL! I've also had what I didn't feel were nice surprises at the time, but after I got over it, realized it was the best thing that could have
happened to me. My interpretation is that someone or something is looking out for me since so many things have happened against my will. 2) Have you had
things against your will happen? 3) So do you go back and forth between our worlds...in the same body?
10/26/2012 06:11 AM
Just a thought. A theory on twitching - it seems that as you are attracting each moment to yourself, you experience a sense of
con nuity along a logical pathway. Then you experience a moment out of the logical pathway, you jump out, then back in when you twitch. For instance, when
twitching at night before falling asleep, the moment before I twitch, I have the full sensation of my body moving (as when you close your eyes and imagine
your body moving without actually moving it), then the body follows- a very quick blip. Perhaps this is part of the dream world 'merging' since the dream world
is just a world with more exible logic.
10/26/2012 06:24 AM
1) Yes.. most are aware of it in the same way that most people in your world are aware of iPhones but only a very small percentage
of people use them. 2) I understand your question but could not answer it for myself, as "against my will" is not something that is relevant to me. It would be
as though I asked you how many improper advances a McDonald's Bacon Cheeseburger has made in the last 3 steps. 3) I do not go back and forth between our
worlds :) and the "body" is also a non-issue. Much of the above depends on perspec ve.. so here are your #2 and #3 answers, as you may want them: 2) no 3)
yes, in the same body. It must be exible enough to live comfortably in both. I hope it's not too confusing for anyone. No, I think I still s ck out wherever I
go. But no one bothers me about it. Yes, it's the same.
10/26/2012 06:26 AM
The spaces are not actually blank. Perhaps on the website it is implied but in your perspective all have equal value (because there is
really only one thing being perceived, or seemingly perceived). Imagine waves in the ocean. You may see waves when there is really only one body of water.
You see waves because perceiving them as separate is easier than perceiving them as one thing. Some waves are bigger than others. Some have a different
value than others in your perspective. You can say that you see one thing but it has varia ons in its consistency. These varia ons (values) appear to be
separate objects or things. You are paying attention to that which is easiest to pay attention to. The "loudest" things in your perspective, so to speak. But the
loudest and the quietest are the same things. What you see as blank space is an other symbol. (You have here attached a value to it by calling it a blank
space and assuming it has no value. That itself is that value you have assigned. But it is a blank space with an airplane around it, so again that is value.)
10/26/2012 07:49 AM
If all is as we will it to be, will is irrelevant. I too, have "felt" a guiding hand in my subjective perspective. It (as a child, as recalled
(or constructed) by my present self) always "felt" external yet had my personal best interest in mind. As I continue to experience this "guiding hand", I've come
to realize (in the last few years) that it is my hand. We often send out mixed signals when we query perspective for a desired experience. We may prompt the
system for a specific resuult not realizing we've qued up several "other" conic ng requests. When the "most relative" result is display'd we are often in a
different "place" than "where" the request was posed and get the ini al "feeling" that our will has been subverted by an external power. This, of course, is not
the case at all. Our requests manifest within our realm of experience in the way most relative (path of least resistance or that which takes the least energy to
exist, does.) What if your sense that you have an external "guiding force" is an illusion in the same way one might be deceived into believing they are no more
than their physical body?
10/26/2012 05:38 PM
We are here on this thread learning that "consciousness" only results as the relationship between two (or more) things, thoughts,
concepts, etc. If there is nothing to relate to, then there is no consciousness. There is no existence. I think that what we have been calling our "subconscious"
is more likely the relationships -- that is, the associa ons; the geometries -- of which we are unaware. I think these geometries are "stored" or are ac ve just
below our waking awareness, and that is why it is "subconscious".
10/26/2012 07:18 PM
It would be dened as, "Everything is a value in the current perspec ve." All that exists is extant here and now, in some way. All
time and space, a value in your now and here. Those that are least relative (for now) are usually referred to as far away in space or time. More relative, closer.
A premoni on is simply perceiving what is all ready here in a "par al" way. The event on November 16 and 27, for example, may be perfectly represented by
the new angle of the television on the console and its relationship to everything around it. When you perceive this relationship in a different way you have a
'premoni on' and not really know where it came from. But it was all ready there. It could be any relationship of any physical or non-physical thing. (Though as
I've stated before thoughts and dreams are also physical, as are light, sound, etc.)

122 of 145

10/29/2012 06:55 PM
"Poten al energy" is a symbol that does not interact. Its basic formula is 5-3=2* (Symbol without interaction equals possibility) To
u lize the potential energy of a hurricane, or anything else, realize that both where you are and where you want to be are the same place (only apparently
separate in your perspective). [Note that the hurricane itself does not potential energy, as it interacts. However, it is one of the byproducts of potential energy
units. Par cularly the strong nexuses from 17, 18, 19.] Therefore, imagine how where you 'want' to be and where you are now are interacting in the same way.
This makes where you want to be more logical to your perspective and, thus, more likely that you will experience it. It is like if you wanted to meet a celebrity
so you joined the same health club (space/poten al energy/possibility) in order to take advantage of the potential energy that the health club provides. Here
you are taking advantage of the potential energy that an earthquake (per Unit3's desire for an island around the big earthquake in Canada a few days ago) or a
superstorm presents. *where symbol/representa on = 5, interaction = 3, potential energy/possibility/space = 2 (and logic = 1) Last Edited by Chaol on
10/30/2012 09:50 AM
"Now" does not really exist if we are to say that past and future are separate from it. Past and future are values in the "now". There is nothing besides now,
though we do not actually experience it. We experience a perspective that can be represented, whereas "now" is without representation. So you could say that
you can only experience something that does not exist ;)
11/05/2012 08:12 PM
Yes, it's all a hoax. You got me! I AM making all this up. I have been watching too many episodes of Laverne & Shirley. Whenever
someone asks a question I quickly refer to some books in my library and type as fast as I can. I did't write it. Someone else did. Be er there be doubt and
some thought as to whether or not what I AM saying applies to you or your reality, rather than thinking "is he for real?" If I were really from an alternate
universe would I be posting on this website? I would be.. um.. posting on some other website. Or maybe I would fly to the White House or UN building or
something and tell them that I come in peace. Or take over the interna onal airwaves with a message of some kind :) All jokes aside, if you think what we're
all discussing has some value for you then it probably benets your understanding of reality. If you haven't thought that I AM just a regular Joe with too much
time on my hands and an ac ve imagina on, then I haven't tried hard enough. But, really, wouldn't that be the way to get past the defensive gates of your
mind? Michel de Nostredame comes to mind. Any message that has survived for centuries only does so because it is enveloped in an other kind of package that
people don't care to resist. Without the built-in foolishness we would not be on the page # that we're on. So... I'm just a guy in my mother's basement with
some kind of mental illness :)
11/05/2012 08:32 PM
Really, I cannot think of anything that I could do that would:
1) Make everyone "certain" that what I AM saying has immense value; while,
2) not scaring (or inducing resistance in) the great majority of those who experience it
3) does not sa sfy curiosity instead of serving a real purpose; and
4) u lizes the least amount of energy, all things considered.
(For example, getting everyone to dream the same thing on a particular day would certainly be profound but there would be a lot of energy wasted a erwards,
and would serve no real purpose other than to promote confusion) and no, this isn't a challenge for anyone to think of something I could do to "prove" it. The
moment I prove anything is the moment when I stop being seen as mortal. Yes, but our actions have altered the flow of everything around us. I don't even
want to think of the destruc on we would cause if we were released out onto the galaxy with our current mindset. Would be terrible.
11/06/2012 11:35 AM
An advanced use of Ecsys but, yes, a sound can post as your representation. But what would your potential energy element be? I can
only recommend the use of symbols that you can touch. An old key is ne if you change the nature of the key. If I wrap the key in gold wire or tape, it adopts a
new value in your perspective. It does not matter if you don't know what that value is. You're unlikely to know even the value of your left eyebrow. But it's still
an important part of your perspective, and func onal. Yes.. the Genius is all around you. You are using it without knowing it. But here we are learning how to
use it consciously. In your Bellagio key example, you are assuming that you know how to get to Vegas. But your "sub-conscious" may not agree with your
forced values. In a way you are starting with an inten on in mind and just 'le ng' your sub-conscious make a new symbol for you. Big difference. hope this
helps!
11/07/2012 01:47 AM
[snippy-snips] Nice. But what is the specific source of this wealth? How do you define it? When you define it you uncover it's value
and begin to introduce it into your perspective. Chaos, in the classical sense, is simply an order or logic we do not (yet) understand. When we do understand it
(that is, when it is more relative to us) it is known as interaction. The impetus for change comes from interacting with new symbols. The "new" is born out of
possibility and perceive because of logic. [For bonus points "Possibility" is a representation of Nothing. The unused h element, number 4, is this pervasive
Nothing and, when used, is represented as number 2, the element of possibility. Possibility allows us the illusion to relate one with an other, and thus seem to
exist in a reality. So really the impetus for change comes from Nothing, and implies that there is no change but only the illusion of change. Which is exactly
why neuronics works, because it is the same illusion as reality itself.] Start with something you have a try to draw a path from there to a perspective where
$50MM in the bank is a given. But don't think of the $50MM directly... think of what having that entails. For example, you are red of getting interest
statements every 2 weeks. So your goal would be to "...receive annoying interest statements every 2 weeks telling me I have an addi onal $12,234 in my
account" For example, before I purchased my new Bentley (with cash) all I had to do was create a Genius formula for a perspective that included receiving a
quota on for 2 scratched chrome Bentley res. The logical narra ve is filled in automatically. For example, "In order for Chaol to receive the quota on he first
needs the car. Here ya go! Now it's more logical, and he's ready to receive the quota on." And so on... If the goal is for each par cipant to have $50MM each in
their account perhaps the most logical from this perspective (from my guess) is to champion the "next big idea" of one person and have the par cipants work
on it. If there are 10 par cipants then the company is worth north of $500MM. For the money to 'just appear' in the account would not be logical, unless we
were in a magical universe. There needs to be a logical narra ve to go along with it, otherwise it is highly, highly unlikely to be experienced. Neuronics is not
magic, it's 'science' The Genius shows you the map of how to get there from where you're standing.
11/07/2012 09:20 AM
The symbol should just be something that has li le-to-no pre-exis ng value. Nevermind about relativity or how you think it relates
to the 'desired' perspective. Logic can be anything. Just make sure it facilitates the symbol interacting with your perspective. The more it interacts the be er.
Possibility can be anything (any space). It is thought of where the symbol can interact. Interac on need not be often. It can be seldom, as long as the symbol
is interacting with those values in your perspective that you'd like to experience more of. If it interacts often it's good but not essen al. A regular shoe used as
a hat may not be a useful symbol because the show has pre-exis ng value (not because it's clothing). Change the nature of the shoe itself to make it
something new (to assign a new value to it). If you paint it or wrap it in something and then put it on your head, for example, that is fine.

123 of 145

11/07/2012 10:39 AM
Here's how the previous scenario plays out in your past (the rated G version)... you would have taken this car along for the ride with
you to see the other car, holding it in your hand. Talking to the seller you realize, midway in conversa on, that you have something in your hand. You actually
forget what it is and you open up your hand, surprised. The person you are with is also surprised and a nexus point is created then and there, enabling the new
values in your perspective (in this case, the real car) to interact with your toy car. After a sort-of short discussion about your toy car the seller would 'make a
deal' with you (I AM not sure what kind of deal, as I was not paying attention to that part) so that you would essentially get the car for free after doing 1 thing
that you consider quite easy in rela on to the benet. But the good thing is that you now have the symbol that I have pre-programmed for you (for free! lol)
that actually did not exist in your reality a few days ago (the memory is also free). You can use it to unlock the perspective of owning the car. But it is up to
you to figure out how. A hint: see my example above about one of my cars that I purchased and apply it to your car's restora on and post-restora on. Care to
enter a contest? (No more hints. May the 4-sys be with you!)
11/07/2012 10:41 AM
Just take two or more things and put them together. A modified something should be fine. Just continue to modify it until enough
meaning is dispensed with that you begin to see something new. (Apologies if this isn't clear. I AM not sure how to write this.) A symbol done from scratch is
even be er. An example of something with li le-to-no value could be you taking two things that you've never seen before and you don't know what they're
used for and (not trying to guess what they are) putting them together. [Everything has a value though. But from our current perspective we can try to guess
on things that may have very, very little pre-exis ng meaning to us.] Here's an illustration of how it's difficult for us to guess the relevancy of something...
Whatever is prevalent in your perspective now is highly relative to it and, thus, to you. If an old, ro ng ham sandwich is nearby it is more relevant to your
current perspective than your mother whom is not. Take a look around you. Each in your perspective has a high degree of relevancy. This may be obvious to you
if you are at home. But it does not stop there. Walk outside. The people you pass, the strange things you see, the smells, the experiences, etc. All more
relevant than that which you think is more relevant to your perspective. Just an example of how it's difficult for our "conscious mind" to know the value of
something, and easier for the Genius (the "sub-conscious") to know it because it is the one doing the calcula ons, so to speak. And, yes, Chaol has been
telling us that we have always used Ecsys, but we didn't know that we were. He is teaching us (uh....learning us?), how to use it consciously, with purpose.
Chaol has explained WHY Ecsys works, although the explanation seems very metaphysical:
1. There really is nothing there.
2. All that exists are relationships
3. Anything can be anything.
4. Everything is represented in your perception.
5. You are a perspective.
Have you absorbed this much of the idea? 4 Steps to create your map: 1-Create symbol: Represent your desired thought, object, or experience physically.* 2Find possibility: Create or use space for your symbol or the interac ons. 3-Interact: Allow the symbol or representation to interact with the various elements of
your reaity *Crea ng a new symbol is best. (Not using one that already has its own meanings behind it.) For more information on creating your own map, click
here: [link to ecsys.org]
Last Edited by U3 on 11/09/2012 01:52 AM
Okay, you're off to a good start. Here's what I suggest. Create your "map" with the 4 elements below. Then, post it here with your ideas and everyone will
help. (plus we all learn together as each person brings their perspective.) Hi Chaol, Unit3 and all, I have a ques on: If, perhaps, I had more than one thing I
was looking to experience (I know, how weird! ;P) would it be better to create multiple symbols? Or to interwine it into one desired experience and one
symbol? As in: a) Abundance (A cash amount in my bank account) b) Abundance through career (Or more specically, a cash amount in my bank account from
my employer in the career I love) OR c) Abundance through career and a mate to share it with (Sailing on a yacht bought with money I made in my awesome
career with the love of my life). Or, three separate symbol/rules/poten al/structure paradigms (for lack of a better word) for each? Also, which is best, the
more specific or less? Hope that makes sense? Thanks! And I'm loving all the interaction lately, as well as the reports of the Genius in effect :)
11/10/2012 12:27 PM
I have asked the group to work with me. My symbol for earning >$5M per year for 10 years on the PGA Tour is a red arrow with an X
for a tail. We are mentally placing it on the first tee box of golf courses so it can interact with all of the golfers that play the courses. I must have
misunderstood before when you made comments that the symbol was to be free of extant representation. For instance, when I asked whether it was better for
my symbol to represent my new posi on, or the paperwork associated with the new posi on, I understood you to say that it should be free of any 'meaning'.
Meaning that I should not have associated anything about any thing of the "posi on" or any part there in and just make a symbol (with the subsequent steps)
and let my subconscious fill in the rest. So now, I take it to mean that the symbol should be free of any conscious rela on, but that it should have some
semblance of what we were "intending" with the creation of the symbol (and steps) in the first place? So that would mean that I shouldn't just start creating
symbols (and steps) willy-nilly without having any semblance of what I was intending for each symbol to bring about [in my percep on] in the first place?
Again, thanks so much for your input. THIS is really my last one I'll bother you with today. You can just create a random, unique symbol with that in mind.
There is no need to create an obvious symbol or one that you think would work. Just do it randomly and your sub-conscious will take care of the rest. You and
your current perspective (your house, your family, your life, etc.) can then interact with the new symbol. It could be as simple a thing as a question, "What is
that?" asked by someone. Or even a rat chewing on it. This enables your current perspective to be drawn to your 'future', desired perspective. (Really you're
just bringing your future perspective out of the current one. It's kind of like a sculptor chipping away at stone. Except that you're doing it mentally, at every
moment, and on-the-y with everything that you see, know, touch, feel, dream, etc.) Your Genius knows everything. It knows it even before you do. (There is
no separa on between you and your sub-conscious. I just use these terms and phrases for ease of illustra on.) Imagine that when you see something 'new' or
unique in your perspective for the first time your sub-conscious is open to sugges ons as to what it is. So you make a suggestion (by inten on) that, for
example, "this ball of clay with the ice cream ag on it is my new car!" Your sub-conscious says, "Yeah, ok. That will work." because it has nothing invested in
the symbol. (Which is why we need to use symbols that have as little pre-exis ng value as possible.) Then when you interact with your ball of clay you are
actually interacting with your new car. To your sub-conscious there is not much difference between the car (in your future) and your ball of clay. But wait.. your
sub-conscious realizes that it will be difficult to pick up your cousin with a ball of clay. Further, it will need to be xed at the mechanic and may need an oil
change. It will take too much energy for your sub-conscious to perceive picking up your cousin in a ball of clay. It will also take too much energy to change the
oil in your ball of clay. (It can be done, of course, as every possibility exists. But the question is, "How much energy does it take to bring it to your
perspec ve?") So then it changes your perspective of your ball of clay into the new car that it also is in order to conserve as much energy as possible. With the
Genius we're just using (what I call) Ecsys Prime, which is that "We perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive". In a way it's tricking
your perspective. It doesn't really care about cars or balls of clay. It's pretty much all the same to it. It is only about relationships and the fact that it will
waste a lot of energy (meaning, it is not rela ve) to change the oil of a ball of clay. And since the ball of clay has been interacting with the new Toyota

124 of 145

dealership service center it will take more energy to perceive going someplace new, so it may as well be a Toyota. etc, etc. So there's no need to force
anything. When we think we're smarter than our Genius then it's unlikely to work :) *once you 'wish' it it is all ready fullled by your sub-conscious in what
would be called metaphysical reality. This usually completely satisfies the need for the 'real' experience that you wanted. Pu ng it further into your current
physical experience is something that your Genius would see as a waste of energy unless there is an other reason for it (an other logical narra ve that would
dictate that your Genius present the experience to you).
11/12/2012 05:31 AM
Your Possibility element can be any dened space. There is no limita on as to what is it, as long as it's something that can be used
for its space and it is dened as a type of space. The more you have related your Possibility element to your inten on the more relative the resultant
interactions are. Just as a rule of thumb you can say that the bigger the space is the more interactions with your symbol there can be inside of it. The basic
formula of Possibility is 5-3=2. Symbol without Interac on. In a way your space is your symbol (before it interacts). When it interacts it "becomes" what your
symbol represents. Your sub-conscious knows the difference but it does not care how you interpret it. It only cares about the relationships between symbols.
When the dog chews on the clay then your sub-conscious thinks, "The dog is chewing on the clay" but it also perceives an iden cal reality where the same
relationship occurs (just as an example, perhaps in the other reality the dog is chewing on the re). The "story" that is being made up is the stepping stone to
the new perspective. You are all ready driving the car both in the symbol of the car and the symbol of the clay because the relationships become the same
through your sub-consciousness (because are assigning the same value to it). But marrying this other perspective (of which there are many ways to see the
clay/car) to your current perspective is what the Genius does. Again: -both realities (and more) exist now and they are of the same value -Your sub-conscious
knows the difference but it does not care because the values are the same. -You experience "car" instead of "clay" once you find a way to move from one
perspective to the other. This is done by the logic, interac ons, etc., as a way to marry the new perspective with your current perspective The sub-conscious
does not get confused. If it looked at something that was confusing, for example, it would interpret it as something that made sense to it. That is the nature
of perspective and it's what you're doing right now. The chair you're sitting in is not a chair but your interpretation of something that is not a chair. Confusion
arises when we're trying our hardest to waste energy and swim against the cognitive des... but the sub-conscious knows to just go with the ow. There's no
need to make an obvious connection with your symbol. Your Genius figures it out for you. Please let me know if I can further clarify any of the above.
11/13/2012 03:04 PM
So, if you have an experience you'd like to find yourself in: First, imagine the experience thoroughly. Imagine it with all ve of your
senses and any emotional sense you're accustomed to. Then, construct a symbol with little preconceived meaning or value to represent that experience within
perspective. Then, make up rules on how that symbol will interact with other symbols in the environment (mental or physical). Then, follow the rules within a
possibility space that will allow the experience to be uncovered. Before ya know it, the constuct is irrelevant and you find yourself in the desired experience. I
believe I understand. I just have the damnedest time believing what I understand. User ID: 27703567 I think it would be more effective at your home than at
the dealership. Again, the Symbol bridges your current perspective (through interac on) with your desired perspective (the Symbol). So the greater the Symbol
can interact with aspects of your current perspective the more effective it could be. This does not mean don't leave it at the bank if you don't go to the bank
that often. The bank may have a value that is much greater than you think (because of infrequency of bank visits), and thus it may actually be a great part of
your perspective. Experiment, and see which works best for you. Nice. He's picking it up :) Last Edited by Chaol on 11/15/2012 12:04 PM
11/16/2012 02:36 AM
Yea, I'm ready. The irony is, that the implica ons of succeeding would make that money worthless. Quantum physics and psychology
have shown our perspective to be a very limited and likely illusory one. Succeeding with the genius with such a large amount, which would be very out of
perspective otherwise, would be enough to convince many people that the system is real. If it is real and people can that easily effect their reality, I'm sure
someone would use it to expand their perspective and thus make our very way of living and it's likely illusions obsolete. You yourself would set up a
consciousness center if you had enough money generated from the genius. So it is a game, be open minded and open to possibility, to succeed is to crack the
code and open up limitless potential bound only by imagina on. It is worth exploring whether a fu le eort, a prank, or something deeply incredible. It's still
more fun than watching some men run around a ball and smash into each other. Remember to succeed means to be closer to the truth, sure sometimes the
truth can be dicult, but I believe it is always a noble quest. Change can be hard, and sometimes it can mean giving something up, but sometimes you need
to let go of what holds you back to discover what's even greater wai ng beyond it. Remember the law of relationships. Nothing exists without interac ons. If
there were only good things, certain good things would start to be perceived as bad things. Otherwise good wouldn't exist. That's why you'll soon witness some
Christmas tweets about not getting the newest phone or a new car when other people in the world show more apprecia on than these people ever would for
just a piece of bread. So live in the moment, appreciate everything for what it is. If it turns out bad, know that it is an experience which will make a future one
all the be er. Enjoy life to it's fullest because all you have is the present. What you have is choice. And if you do what you did you will get what you got. If
the future and everything all ready exists, then live for this very moment. Because in every moment can make decisions, and in that moment you can do
anything that you want to do. "We Have nothing to fear except fear itself" Franklin D. Roosevelt
11/16/2012 03:38 AM
Just like if this idea succeeds. On elec on day someone posted a video of a voter box changing from Romney to Obama and it was
seen by millions of people. If they got ad revenue for that they could have gotten around $10,000 with a decent revenue rate. If just one time that happened
and we had an app and website, people would know they could make large amounts of money from repor ng events just by clicking a few bu ons on their
phone and hi ng submit. There is already an army of smart phone equipped people across the globe that witness every event. By giving away prizes on the
interaction end of the news it creates a feedback loop. As more people consume that news and come to the site for the prizes, there is a bigger audience and
revenue stream for people compe ng to share and record news. Which of course creates better content which draws in more users and larger prizes and so on.
It will grow exponentially larger and larger. Once it is large enough it will completely cripple main stream media and the people will nally be deciding what is
true and factual news. The only thing standing in the way of a world where people have true news and are no longer blind to the injus ces occurring around the
world is the funding to build it. I only want to give the idea a chance. If the current alterna ve news community alone used the site, it would create enough
revenue in prizes that people would start to come to the site just for that and would be inadvertently exposed to the true news. It would exponentially wake
up more and more people. That is why my genius is to give away 450 MM dollars, because I don't care about the money. If 9 people helped spread the word
and helped make the idea a reality I would happily give away the majority of profits that would be made from the front page revenue once it exceeded site
maintenance and expansion costs. To succeed, we need only seize the moment and come together and I know we could make a difference and do something
great. carpe diem,
11/16/2012 03:44 AM
Thanks. This is good advice. hf I have considered I can screw up the Genius and stop the ball rolling, so your comment that I have
choice is a great reminder. ;o) If I didn't know Chaol and this group, I wouldn't be as apprehensive about it. I just want the time to be here, do what I need to
do and not taking care of that kind of thing. Btw, if you find a great a orney, etc:., let me know, LOL! I guess I'll do a Genius for the help I'll need, but I'm not

125 of 145

sure how to get somebody from Chaol's world or someone trying to get there! Any ideas about that? The real irony for me in this whole thing, is talking with
Chaol, is just like talking with my husband. Although there are some great improvements, LOL! When Chaol posted how hard is it for him to order at Denny's, I
thought I'd croak. This is so familiar! And now, Chaol is leaving, just as my husband also le ...although with great improvements too! So very strange to
me...like I said in an earlier post....it seems a Giant Genius plan has been in effect my entire life. (I already heard you Jesse....it's perspective, the crumbs I
left for myself! ;o) So, my perspective is it's still strange!) Edit: Tried twice to get your quote in aquamarine. The html is there but not taking! blink Btw,
Dodec, when your company gets to a certain point, you oughta sell it for billions. (think YT) So, I'm not sure how to create your Genius for it, but that's what I
would do. I know money will be worthless at some point, just not sure when.
11/16/2012 10:35 PM
If those things did not have some benefit then it would not be experienced. There once was a boy who met a genie. The genie gave
him 3 wishes. "I wish for and endless supply of wishes" the boy commanded. "Very well" said the genie. "You have an endless supply, and two more wishes
after that." The first wish that the boy wished for was a spaceship to take him far from Earth. He traveled far, and along the way he wished for things like air,
food, water, friends to play with, and more. Although the journey to other worlds was fun, after a while he grew red and wished for an endless amount of
physical energy so that he'll never have to rest. He still had an unlimited supply of wishes le , which comforted him. Yet, he was still quite lonely because he
continued to realize that his friends were not real. They only came to be and came to play because he wished it. It was all an illusion, really. He eventually
came back to Earth because he grew lonely and missed the things he could not control. He missed gh ng with his brother because it also meant that he liked
making up with him. He missed his homework because it gave him something to do and meant that he would have a sense of accomplishment. He missed his
parents because even though he had problems and it wasn't a perfect family, they have been there since the beginning. After considering all of this for quite
some time he decided that life is better left to its own elements. His second wish was to 'undo' his first wish, and return the endless supply of wishes back to
the genie. He lived a happy life for a number of years. But still, in the back of his mind was the lingering thought that it was all an illusion. That somehow his
life, which he was now quite happy with, is something that he wished for. He wanted to feel more secure and that. He wanted life to be itself and to be as real
as it could possibly be. What an awful thought! To think that even he is not real and does not exist. "What could be worse that having absolutely no value?",
he would think. This troubled him too much, and one day he came to a decision. Finally used his third wish. "I wish I never met the genie" And in a pu of
smoke the genie vanished. Code of Ecsys. By prac cing one or more the following simple exercises every day you are learning how to remove physical
constraints from your reality. Here's a summary of the Code: House of Orbia Respect the logic of others. Try to understand whatever you resist. Exercise
'unlogic' by asking yourself, How could I be wrong? House of Kosmosis Explore what is outside of your usual perspective. Do things you would not ordinarily
do. House of Chaos Be honest with the people and things around you. The more transparent you are the more you are connecting with your perceptions. House
of ThohT Make your thoughts and desires physical in a small way. Symbolize your internal reality in your physical reality. We are all looking at the same
(no)"thing" and assigning meaning to it to imagine ourselves into relevancy. Some of us "feel" better calling something Divine, as it implies we are not alone
and there is something (else) looking out for us. This is a further separa on brought on by our self imposed illusion to make us "feel" like we exist. Calling
yourself God (source of perspec ve) or imagining "God" is external and independent of you are technically the same thing. We can never "know" because it
(God, source of perspec ve) is beyond perception and therefore irrelevant. If we can't perceive it, we make it up to "feel" better about nothing. We're aware of
only what we can perceive and beyond that we assign meaning to the shapes moving in the distant darkness, yet that's all it is... darkness (without possibility
for percep on). We're laying in the grass staring up at the clouds, talking about how much they look like bunny rabbits and co on balls. If your home is
represented by clicking your heels three times, then that will get you home. Have you looked at the process for The Genius? Do you understand that everything
is within your perspective right now? All you need to do is create a symbol that represents home for you, then make some rules around the symbol and interact
with it. That's it. It is that simple. But, then you may not want it to be that simple. And, so, you continue to fumble around, seeking "home", without ever
actually going directly home. Sometimes it feels better to just complain about something than it does to take responsibility for changing your perspective.
There are studies of anthropologists who report on tribes who can't see things like a ship (because it isn't in their framework) or a lady who left the Amazon
jungle for the first time. She saw a man riding a donkey and it scared her because she had never seen a half human and half animal before. For myself, I have
found "spaces" I call voids. There are no symbols, nothing, but there is some texture or some awareness of a sort. It might be a feeling of deep peace or
awareness of presence. What is Chaol's definition of Truth? Anybody know? Do you think it is also possible that one with a brain impairment might also be
advanced spiritually? Have you read the account of the lady who experienced a stroke and how wonderful her experience was? There are also people who are
re-growing and re-wiring their brains. Dr. Norman Doidge is involved in this. Several of us have reported our families are catching on to what we are learning
here in Chaol's threads. I see no reason someone with a brain injury could not be included too. Everything is available to us. It's all right here, right now. We
just have to see it. We can use the Genius to get the perspectives we want and this includes someone with a brain injury, if you ask me. Edit: To clarify, I
mean I think someone could write a Genius plan to include a person with a brain impairment to ascend or maybe even heal.
11/27/2012 10:48 PM
The symbol and your rules should have little to no meaning. I think you are pretty good on the rules but I suggest a symbol that has
nothing to do with anything. The goal should not be the exact goal, but something that involves the goal. That's why my goal is to see your bank statement
rather than mine or the actual money or the check for the money. Regarding the space, I'm a little weak in understanding of it. I got confused when Chaol told
that one guy his house was a good place for his symbol (and he wanted a new car). For now, I get the space that has the most to do with my goal. That's why
I chose bank for my symbol's space in this Genius. So I don't know if your space is strong or not. I would think a symbol you could leave at your bank or by
investment books in a bookstore or some kind of high-end store where you might purchase things would be be er.
Last Edited by U3 on 11/27/2012 11:48 PM
11/28/2012 10:56 PM
Personally, I'm not leaving the space Chaol created. I like being in his Genius map. If anyone starts another thread on this material,
then that is creating another space. Also, I think Chaol does enough for us so I wouldn't dare ask him to go teach in my thread. Just sayin' I don't understand
why you don't just post what you are interested in here such as mental symbols, ecsys on the y, etc:? Edit: And quite frankly, if one doesn't understand the
basics I just mentioned above, then I don't think it's time to move to advanced information. And Chaol has actually mentioned it's not time to move on until
we understand some things. Also, he has mentioned 2013 a few times and that he will tell us more. He is wai ng to reveal something to us. I have no idea
what it is, but I'm content to play with my Genius plans and see what I can learn. After all, we are really trying to learn HOW we create our reality. And, as far
as I know, only 3 people have actually accomplished anything with their Genius plans. That would be tuuuuuuur, Cat and the poster that just moved to Canada.
Marshwiggle and I both are unsure of our results and I know I'm wai ng on Chaol to return for feedback to see if I had results or a personal experience.
Last Edited by U3
"If some of your perceptions are good while others are bad, then it is difficult to see your reality as a single perspec ve." This is the challenge for me.
12/03/2012 01:25 PM

126 of 145

our reality is based on our belief systems. LITERALLY Since everything is within our perspective the only way to expand it is to see

that which we don't see. I believe the easiest way to do this is question that which we resist. We resist something because we don't understand it from our
perspective. For example, Someone getting angry for being cut off in trac. Anger is their default... their reality. However if instead they prac ced analyzing
that which they resist they might think:
1. perhaps someone is on the oor dying and he is in a great hurry
2. Maybe he didn't see me
Ge ng angry is basically assuming you know the situation from your current perspective. It is ego s cal and an impossibility and thus not inclusive with a
higher perspective. When we make assumption like that we collapse possibility waves. By getting angry that, the person is possibility assuming several things
like: A that the person cut him on on purpose B that it nega vely aects him C that the driver doesn't have good reason If he acted in joy and understood that
the universe will always deliver us the best possible thing for us from the highest possible perspective he might realize something like:
1. that by being 1 minute later he walks past a new girl in his oce, and see her drop a book which happens to be his favorite and they get talking. go out for
coee. Fall in love and marry.
2. That he narrowly avoided an accident by that car putting him 1 minute behind where he normally would be
3. That he doesn't have time to stop at his regular coee shop so stops at mcdonalds and wins 1 million dollars in the monopoly game. This is true for every
interaction you have!!! You are creating your mind set based on your current conscious and unconscious beliefs. I have lately been taking boring tasks and
thinking and practice "unlogic". "what would I have to believe this task is fun." When you start thinking like this you can change your beliefs about anything
you dislike. Hitler was a complete dick, BUT he created such a dark mindset that the world has pretty much put an end to obvious large scale war conict, and
has gave a contrast of such deep evil that it allows the rest of humanity to reach an even greater level of happiness now. He allowed us to see that which we
are not, greatly expanding our perspectives and allowing a higher good. (law of rela onships) So this good or evil thing is really subjective based on how we
our willing to structure our perspective. We have the power to create the reality we want, we just have to define it. As you begin to "unlogic" things you, like
me, will begin to see everything brighter. You will begin to have a sense of unlimited poten al, and you will draw into your reality more of the kind of things
that you truly want to see.
12/03/2012 02:03 PM
Our worlds are very similar, but we do not possess the same sense of time. Let's take a ready example and say that we are going out
for coee and I tell you that if you purchase an orange juice, instead, it will save your life. Someone may immediately consider why orange juice is better than
coee and raise arguments about how their coee isn't so bad and won't kill them. However, how something is expressed is not as important as the
interactions that it inuences. It could be, instead, that purchasing the orange juice saves you 30 seconds which will (as you may call it) start a chain of
reac ons which will put you in the right place at the right time when there is an accident on your way home. You probably won't see how this happens unless
your sense of time is more independent from your perspective. It is not about consequences any more than karma is involved. As an example of karma, let's
say that you were leading a nice, stress-free life without anything really bad happening. One day you got angry and ended up hi ng someone. The next day
something your pet dog died. You may link the dead dog to your anger the day before. More accurately though, the geometry of relationships changed when
(possibly) the value of your anger was expressed it it. In the new perspective the dog was not compa ble. Depending on the perspective, it could be that the
dog disappears from it. You make a logical narra ve to explain the disappeared dog in your reality. It could be that he runs away, someone else is taking care
of him or she is at the vet, she died, etc. So in this way there's no consequence of your ac on, before or a er. At ever moment the entire universe is created
anew (for lack of better terms). In this way right or wrong are irrelevant. What matters are the values of what exist. Where one person sees "right" or "wrong"
another person may see the value, and calculate these values. Our sense of time may be dierent, but there's a lot more calculation going on here than is
realized. With a 'giant computer' it is not so dicult. It goes beyond right/wrong, good/bad, stupid/smart, high/low, and manipulates reality itself for my own
purposes. As I show the values in my perspective (you) how to do the same thing so do our realities become more logically related. (Again, for my own
purposes.) It could be, instead, that I let you drink your coee and then you wonder why I didn't save your life if I knew this was "going to happen". It would
appear that my senses are rusty. But I AM looking at the bigger picture and the totality of my perspective. Right/wrong are temporary and stand on shaky
ground. Why would anyone want to believe in them?
12/04/2012 09:12 PM
Nope, that's my wife (Yea, I guess it's better to have me there... I suppose). I AM a white bald dude with a crazy goatee. If I follow
the logic Chaol has shown. There is no perspective beyond YOUR own. "Everything" else is a representation (a symbol) you are choosing to interact with. If we
start the chicken and the egg discussion... (What came first "Me" or "Something else"?) Then we find ourselves ending at our "earliest" memory in perspective.
Everything that "exists" does so, in this moment. What you are perceiving right NOW is all there is. You perceive it all as "separate" or "dierent" from "you"
only to render it into "existence". What if all you perceive yourself to know is generated here, in the now? What if everything you believe yourself to "know" is
your logic constructed here in the now to explain to yourself that you could be here now? You can always forget (render something irrelevant). What if we've
purposely forgotten how we rendered this illusion just so that we can interact with it? Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 12/04/2012 09:39 PM
Yea (sorry) lol I think "choice" is another one of those funny words. You choose, but not from the innite possibilities out there. You "choose" from the decision
set dictated by the current interaction within the logic of the now. Ya know? That which takes the least energy and all that. What if the "matrix" had it right?
What if you had everything you could possibly want, exactly the way you want it and completely throw any kind of logic out the window? What if you disbelieve
the illusion completely? That'd render it irrelevant to you. Even your perception of who and what you are is a symbol interacting within your perspective.
Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda
Psilocybe cubensis is a way to influence neurons and other cells in the human body to change what you experience." Chaol replies: "Sounds interesting, but
neuronics is entirely within your mind. If you use a physical means to influence something that is inherently non-physical the experience will be entirely
different. You will, in effect, not experience the non-physical but the properties of "psilocybe cubensis" itself. Your experience is a property of what you are
using to experience it. You are not, therefore, inuencing your neurons. Your neurons are becoming psilocybe cubensis. If you are comfortable with this then by
all means..." Last Edited by U3 on 12/07/2012 02:58 PM
"We are learning to use a GENIUS, so we can catch on to how we create our perceptions. And, as we reduce good/bad "choices" along with learning how we
create, then we will see a singular perspec ve." Chaol says he also forgets the illusion is an illusion. So I believe it's an awareness (or beingness) state that if
not focused on, one is not aware of it much. Would it be possible for somebody from this world to live his/her life by rendering irrelevant any wishing in it. That
is, "i dont desire something to experience, or fear something else to experience and therefore i have no reason to wish for something to come true or not to
come true." It is not something that i personally desire for myself, since I don't know why should i wish for such a thing. I only asked to see if it could have
been a 3rd op on to the genie tale, or if it is impossible to happen and therefore was not an op on to the tale for good reason. All that because I got the

127 of 145

understanding that learning the GENIUS is about having a wish and know how to make it come true, so i guess that maybe we can never cease to wish. Once
one has mastered the GENIUS he would then be able to have a wish come true (experience it) after a wish that came true, which will be followed by another
wish that will come true until kingdom come. But on a different note though, i (re) read Unit3's favourite quote (which is one of my favourites too) and here is
how i understand her reply. If your perspective is split between good and bad (which makes you wishing for good or bad), then obviously you cannot have a
singular (no good/no bad) perspective of reality. But if this singular perspective does not contain the source of wishing (the good/bad "thing"), then it makes
me think that indeed Chaol, as Unit3 claims, through the teaching of GENIUS helps you to understand how you perceive (now, with your dual perspec ve) by
making your wishes come true, but at the end of the road (singular perspec ve) and somehow inconceivable to us today, you will catch yourself of running out
of wishes. Would that sound a fair reasoning or have i left any holes behind? If it is fair, then it begs the ques on: The only way to reach the singular
perspective of no wishes is the one through which you know how to (and) have every wish come true? Please forgive my confusion :)
12/09/2012 04:46 PM
With that said, a reality without "something" to "wish" for... may only exist in a moment where you're experiencing exactly what
you've wished for. Gee whiz, Jesse. You are getting really good at this! Let me tell you of a whisp of a memory that I had of living in perfec on. Everywhere I
looked, in every direc on, was perfec on. I should have stopped right there and enjoyed where I was at, without ques oning it. Instead, I had this thought:
"How could everything be so perfect? Is there such a thing as 'imperfec on'"? Boom! Here I am! It was that quick! But, a paradox presents itself. In
experiencing "imperfec on", the experience is perfect! Perfec on has delivered me into a realm of perfect imperfec on.
12/09/2012 11:05 PM
The reason we are learning how to use the Genius is so we can see HOW we create our perspectives. Once we see HOW we
create.....then we are in a different level of awareness. Once we are at that level of awareness, we know we are creating illusions, and that's a whole different
thing than creating because we want something. It makes it easier to see HOW you are creating and also that you are creating one single perspective, if you
don't have whole lot of "good" and "bad" perceptions. So there are really 2 things we are working on to get to Chaol's level. We are learning good and bad are
not so good and bad. And, we are learning how we create our ONE SINGLE PERSPECTIVE. There is only one perspec ve.....mine! (or yours). And really, once you
see that good/bad is getting in the way of seeing your one perspective, it sort of takes the juice out of good/bad. Well, it does if you really want to experience
another level of awareness, imo. Chaol has stated that nothing is created (and therefore nothing dies*), which means that "new" does not exist. "New",
doesn't change perspectives However, please allow me to supplement your thought As I think of it, or understand it, is that in order to have "a" perspective it
requires to have "a" question and "an" answer. If one has no questions (because he knows everything maybe), then there is no perspective (or, you can say
"direc onless", or has everything in his perspective). The same applies, I assume, if you have unanswerable questions or answers that you dont know the
question. Or else we can say, it is not in your perspective, it doesn't exist, because you cannot relate a question to an answer. "This", does not exist because
either you dont know what "this" is, or because you haven't asked what "this" is. If you have, then "this" exists, in your perspective. As we all know, the
"meaning in ("my") life" is situated where "my" questions point it to be. By changing questions -that "I" ask in "my" life- "I" change the "meaning in my life" (or
what I define meaning in my life) and thus perspective. In that context, I understand the "expanded perspec ve" as the process by which you somehow keep
on asking questions after answers, until you decide to arrive to conclusions, where is the place one rests because he got bored of thinking, as they say and
wants to live :) With the same token, methinks, if i change ques ons, I change my reality. So, the questions I ask determine the "size" of my reality or how
expanded my big picture/reality is. The way you form these questions is through le ers/words in a logical manner (grammar/syntax), creating something like a
string of symbols, which makes it important consequently, to know what words/symbols to use for the purpose. Let's not forget the truism that even the
deepest secret in the universe will be told in a language that we understand and with words that we already know and exist. The above of course refer to what
I understand (bring into my perspective :)), or misunderstand, when i read Chaol writing about "the perspec ve...". I hope it helped, if i have not
misunderstood Chaol and not been boring. *If immortal is something that never dies, then the only immortal is the one that has never been born. So, if
nothing has been born (created), then everything is immortal. This is how Chaol has suggested us to think of him, afew pages back if I remember. Last
Edited by panoukos on 12/11/2012 09:24 PM
The new comes from focusing on something else than the usual. I love what you said here: "Let's not forget the truism that even the deepest secret in the
universe will be told in a language that we understand and with words that we already know and exist." Oh, how I have tried to discuss this with people who
tell me about all their experiences with the Divine. They don't want to hear it. If you read NDE's and trips to heaven/hell, you can see the belief system at
work. I have experienced this myself. Every "spiritual" experience I have ever had, fit into my belief system at the time. Since I've changed my mind so many
times, it's easy to see how the programming explains the experience, LOL!!!! I AM now trying to program myself to enter a world that Chaol says is a "culture"
shock. Since I've been places that were a culture shock to me and I have also been with others who feel they were experiencing one, the main thing I notice is
it helps if someone is there to program you to understand what you are seeing. Strange, eh?
Last Edited by U3 on 12/11/2012 09:47 PM
From our perspective your the "looney tune" Funny that. One of my hobbies is to access knowledge in my mind. All the great thinkers/inventors throughout
history have done the same. If it were not for people doing similar techniques trying to push the mind to see how far they can evolve them selves and this
earth, we wouldn't have the internet and the personal computer to interact with others regardless of distance and time. One downside is that its so user
friendly it can be used by anyone, even someone of a low intelligence and not open to new ideas, so every now and then I suppose some fool would pop up,
which would lower the tone of a decent conversation. Last Edited by LeKing on 12/12/2012 08:26 AM
Everything truly exists. Like I mention above, When something cannot be fully perceived, it appears infinite. Our language also enables us to perceive these
alternate realities, if we want. One alterate realm is this one. You exist in multiple realms now, at every moment. You could traverse hundreds of thousands of
different possibilities in one day without knowing it. So most of those bold statements are my understanding (before I met Chaol) of myself as spirit. Edit:
Found a contradic on: Thread: Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduc on to a new way of thinking. (Page 2) "The answers" in the universe apply to
everyone, not just an infinitesimally small percentage of the population. We look to scientists for these answers because they're doing things that we don't
understand. It is no different than how (in the past) we look to the religious elite for the answers. But the answers are not found in science or religion or any
one particular aspect of the schools and politics that we have created. The answers are universal and have more to do with consciousness and perception. I
think Chaol believes in universal law. And this poster asked Chaol how could there not be consciousness....Chaol asked him what consciousness is to him. Here
are both their answers:
Last Edited by U3 on 12/16/2012 09:04 PM
Here's Chaol explaining consciousness: "It was that consciousness is more about relationships between things than being fully aware of something. One cannot
be fully aware of anything. Consciousness is more of an illusion of the senses. There is only "mind" and "senses" when one considers the influence of
physically-based thinking. It is not as easy to illustrate this when we're attached to the meaning of the words, having no others available. It's all about

128 of 145

perspective. Within perspective you could say there is consciousness, mind, senses, etc. But it is not the same as what we're used to." Edit: Here we go:
Thread: Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduc on to a new way of thinking. (Page 3) "We create representations to 'define' our self all the time. It is
this group of representations that create the world you see. (Ecsys defines consciousness as the relationship between representa ons.)" And look at this: "Can
you explain the ming of your appearance in our world/ Why now and why on this forum (or have you appeared before)? Does it have anything to do with the
upcoming shift of this sphere to Fourth Density? I'm a part of this world so thus interact accordingly, visiting websites, sipping drinks, and walking about. I've
not before been on this forum so AM curious as to why my posting ID is lower than most others. It is possible that other perspectives of mine have visited
before. But I'm pretty sure I would know about it (kind of similar to knowing what your sister would do in a situation, except the sense is more vast)." So this
part about Chaol's other perspectives brings up a ques on.....we have more than one perspec ve! Verrrry interesting. This doesn't sound like another self in
another meline. Last Edited by U3 on 12/16/2012 10:28 PM
Here's more: Chaol on consciousness and Universal Laws: Thread: Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduc on to a new way of thinking. (Page 5)
"consciousness = relationships. An example of this would be two sounds together creating a third. The result of the two representations interac ng, the third
sound, is consciousness.) Thanks." A poster asks: "So, if I can grasp what you are saying, there are no Universal laws, just perspectives? How could one learn
to exercise more control over his own perception? There may be universal laws but I AM not aware of any, nor aware of others who are aware. I suppose if
there were any 'laws' then they may be the following: 1) Everything is represented somehow 2) Representations naturally interact Of course these would not be
considered real laws here. But one can extrapolate laws from its vagueness. The resultant 'laws' would seem useful in the current system but would not really
be useful in another system where there is a different cognitive framework." I'll stop for tonight. Hope you guys are enjoying this.
Last Edited by U3 on
12/16/2012 11:05 PM
I'd agree that I(and everything else within your perspec ve) is (in some way) a representation of you. You only get to experience others through the
information you receive from your various data streams (senses). The information you receive is not dependent on your physical body any more than you
believe it is. We can perceive profound "hallucinatory" experiences that do not even depend on the senses we have in "this" reality frame. There is no
difference between something that would be "objec vely" perceived as "hallucinatory" or "real". Sharing True objective experience is just not possible. All
experience is subjective and only you experience it. It's not that nothing truly exists... it's that only the relationships between fragments of you exist. And
those only exist in an abstract framework that (at least for me) is beyond direct comprehension but are only there because an observer is looking to "make
sense" of it. I think we see glimpses of this framework in the metaphors generated by Chaol (and the various other religious, spiritual, scientific and
philosophical sources out there). I do "feel" that I exist and I do "fear" non existence. I've come to believe (but have and will never have received experien al
data) that perception at the level where the "observer" exists cannot end or it all ends. We (I, You) can experience independent of all of the connes of the
logical framework around us in "this" reality. That experience also "feels" real. So, with that being the case, which one is real? This one? The other one? Both?
Neither? I guess it depends on your subjective definition of "real" or "existence". Absolutely not. Complete control renders you the Genie. Thank you, I always
down to chat about all this. edit-(awesome Chaol quotes btw Unit) Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 12/17/2012 08:28 AM
I'd agree that I(and everything else within your perspec ve) is (in some way) a representation of you. You only get to experience others through the
information you receive from your various data streams (senses). The information you receive is not dependent on your physical body any more than you
believe it is. All experience is subjective and only you experience it. The way I looked at all this before Chaol, is everything is consciousness; therefore,
everything I perceive (and I agree, perception goes beyond the senses), is alive, even though I can manipulate it. However, what I've been grappling with is
the statement: there is no consciousness. Then, I found the quote: consciousness = rela onships.....2 representations result in a 3rd and this is
consciousness. Still thinking on this one. Jesse said: "I guess it depends on your subjective definition of "real" or "existence"." Lightbulb moment for me, heh!
I'm placing a subjective meaning on what's real. The question could also be, what's not real. I can change my perceptions. Does that make them real or not
real. I believe in them until I change them and then I believe in the newer ones, LOL! Does that make the older ones real then not real when I observe the
newer ones? It all only exists as I observe it and it's real because I believe it is. If Chaol (and all of us) do not have complete control, then there must be
universal laws of some kind. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Even within chaos, we are able to create perceptions that make sense. Last Edited by
U3 on 12/17/2012 10:56 AM
I also can imagine the dicul es he has in explaining things to us. First o, we don't have words for some of the things he tells us about. Secondly, he has to
scale replies to different perspectives so they might understand what he is saying to that particular perspective. And third, you might say not only is he
speaking in a foreign language, he is also living in a foreign culture. I'll admit, he seems to have a great handle on our culture though. He surprises me quite
o en, LOL! Edit: Also, he said somewhere that we had moved into advanced knowledge. So, that changes older understandings. Geez, I think I just blew my
mind up, heh!!!! Last Edited by U3
"Your perspective (or, "consciousness" if you will) comes about from the all the relationships combined from your particular vantage point, you could say. You
have two opposing magnets. Each magnet is a representation. The repulsive force between the two magnets is PERSPECTIVE. Otherwise known as
consciousness. The consciousness comes about because of the relationship between the two representations. Now imagine that one magnet is you and the
other magnet is an apple pie. The more you interact with this other representation the more "you+apple pie" consciousness you are creating. The result will be
another consciousness (maybe you adding more fat to your body). The result is the 'square' of the you and apple pie representa ons."
Last Edited by U3 on
12/18/2012 12:23 AM
Last one for this evening....it's really good: "Hello! Some of you may be wondering, "Well, how I alter my universe?" Allow me to illustrate the way I do this by
first explaining how *you* do this already. [This is Part 1. A little something before I may go.] When you drift off into sleep you are altering your perspective.
It may seem as though your conscious mind is changing from being awake to being asleep, from A state to B state. Let's exemplify this and say your 'bodily
perspective' is like a car, the 2009 Consciousness X. You may think you are driving this car across one state to an other, transitioning steadily off into sleep.
What happens, instead, is that at the moment you're driving the Consciousness X and decide to go to Sleepyland you jump out of the car and into another car,
the Consciousness XI. This car is on a different path, towards Sleepyland and all the wonderful magic it offers. Amazingly, when you decide to jump out you
notice the Consciousness X is still driving! That's because a car must always have a driver. A perspective (the car) and consciousness is the same thing. So the
Consciousness X continues down its path of bodily awareness while the Consciousness XI goes in another direction. Every possibility exists. Why? Because the
'goal' of existence is to create relationships with everything. The more relationships there are, the more consciousness there is. The more consciousness there
is the fuller its perspective and the "closer" it is to perceiving the entirety of itself (although there is no distance, only perspective, and perceiving itself fully is

129 of 145

impossible). (We experience those possibilities which are most relative to our experience. If you choose door A instead of door B your perspective will
experience door A but another perspective will experience door B. You don't remember door B because it is no longer relative to your experience. The possibility
of feeling the handle of door A and walking through it *is* most relative, so that is what you experience. Make door B relative and you can experience that,
too. You might call this being psychic. But it's just using perspective.) You still have all of your senses (plus thought) in your Consciousness X. All of your
devices and wiring still works just as a car should. In actuality, Consciousness X is *not* in the dream state. This means that you are *not* in another state of
mind when you are sleeping. Technically, you are *always* in Consciousness X. You can expand your idea of what you consider "you" to include other
perspectives. You do this already when you say that you had a dream. It was your dream, right? But when you momentarily perceive another perspective in
your waking reality you usually don't say that you were back 20 years ago standing in your kitchen (result: a particular smell "suddenly" coming to you). You
just say you had a vivid memory of some past event. But in reality, you've experienced another you. (And made it relative to your waking experience so that
you can remember it. You can do this by creating representations for the dream events, or vice versa.) We can experience these perspectives all the time. We
just have to make it relative to our current experience. We make the dreaming perspective relative to our waking experience by coming up with a structure
(sleeping patterns), having representations of sleep (bed, sheets, closed eyes, etc), potential energy (thoughts), and interacting with those elements. We
sleep, in effect, because we have established a model for sleep. It is about the same method that I use. Except the different way that we use it in my world
enables us to have different perspectives. We have models for shifting our perspective of time, models for shifting our perspective of the world we live in, and
others. I AM here in what I call an alternate universe (though it is really the same universe) and experiencing your world *because* I have a model for it. There
was a time in humanity that our perspective was only dreaming. There was a time that we had no dreams to remember. Some of us have never remembered a
dream at all. In your future you will also have the same "model for experiencing alternate realms" that I AM using. Imagine traveling to a remote,
undiscovered, civilization in the jungles of Peru and finding out that they are unable to dream. You tell them how you are able to lay down, close your eyes and
shift your perspective, experiencing just about anything you can imagine. You explain to them that it's not magic. They just need to follow the same model and
change their cognitive framework to include such things. They'd definitely think you're nuts and wouldn't even begin to be able to understand how it's possible,
but it sure does sound fascinating. But it's what you're doing already. The only difference is that where I come from we've learned how to 1) make our waking
experience relative to the place we want to go. Mainly so that we can both remember it and use the same kind of perspecitve when we get there (ie., take our
mind with us); and 2) decide where we want to go. You've not learned #1 and #2 because you don't have the proper tool. This tool that we use is Ecsys. When
you are dreaming and the dream suddenly transitions to another, the first dream continues on about its path. You don't experience this because your have only
1 perspective. (You can expand your perspective to experience both realms the same way you've expanded your perspecitve to include all your bodily realms,
but that's perhaps another post). Similarly, when you begin the dream you'll notice the dream has already begun. It was there in full before you were aware of
it. That's because although you have shifted your perspective to it, it was already a world of its own. And so here I AM in your world. Everything was here
already. But I have shifted my perspective. I live in 2009, but I live in a different world. So what does it mean that you remember that you went to sleep? It is
the memory of you jumping out of the car and being able to track the other car on the GPS. Although you don't really remember your dream from the dream
perspective (as the two cars took different paths and you didn't see what you could have seen in Consciousness XI) you can see the map of your experience.
Your GPS has different software, and allows you to see representations of the other car and location on its screen. When you look at the map and view the
route Conscious XI took, you call it your "dream". You remember something about it because the car is the same model and year. You see other cars on the
road but you tend to ignore them and only remember seeing cars that were exactly like yours. You remember and perceive that which is relative to you. (The
same way your senses/brain ignore greater than 99% of your current reality.) You may be thinking that your dream is just a dream. Of course you do because
the perspecitves are different. (Is that other 1% of your reality that you ignore also a dream?) When you are dreaming how invalid do you think your dreams
are? They are in fact so real that you seem to dream for hours. Some of us don't even want to wake up! But your dream world isn't the same kind of physicallyoriented world as you know it. Some dreams are physical, indeed (but on a different wavelength of what would be called physicality). They may even have an
effect on your sleeping body. Some dreams are not physical at all. But all dreams are real. And all reality does not exist in your dreams. But dreams are a way
for you to shift your perspective. I get to your world not by dreaming but by being very much awake, using the language of ecsys. One day, too, you will "dream
while waking" the same way you "think deeply while waking", which is not something humanity has always been able to do. No, this would not be a
hallucination that overloads the already-strained senses. It will be your expanded perspective. Part 2 will explain how you can use ecsys to do the same thing.
(In the example above, notice how I created representions for the concepts using metaphors. The metaphors allowed you to, hopefully, perceive the concepts
more clearly. This is what ecsys does. By creating representations you can perceive. By manipulating the relationships you can change your perspective.)
12/18/2012 01:29 AM
Perhaps the most ignorant that we can be is thinking that our perceptions are not our own. That, somehow, "that over there" is not
us. (What an awesome trick.) What are we if not your own percep ons? Residents of your own perspec ve? That is to say, YOU? I'm sure you're reading this
response, however. Surely you must see how you yourself have been following this thread for about two weeks and, indeed, are experiencing your own
perceptions. We can only resist ourselves. To be angry at a thread that does not provide the answer you seek is unfair because 1) you did not ask the
ques on; and 2) what thread could? You have only to ask the question that you have been ignoring since 'it' first happened. You're welcome to ask, "Why the
fuck did... happen to me" and fill it with all the anger as you'd like. Right now it is the only relevant question. The blue plas c record spins on the turntable,
but is the music real? I will consider your personally-directed anger as nothing more than an interesting introduc on. All is of course forgiven because nothing
wrong was done. So when you've shouted out the question please let me know and I will help you to find out why. Perhaps you will be amazed :) "It's a bit
amusing to consider that I don't understand the own language I have illustrated. Anyways, Ec is not meant to be used at this time. As I mention in the post
above (for something else) the basics are there and have been covered at length but the practical applica ons are not really discussed. The enterprising mind
will figure it out for one self. If it makes you more comfortable to think it's just a random hoax that actually sits ne with me. It just means you weren't meant
to discover it for your self. I can point the way but you have to get there with your own two feet."
12/19/2012 07:12 PM
You imply that happiness does not depend on rela on? All of your examples above are of you rela ng to something else (i.e., what
makes you happy). Love, happiness, etc., is much more abstract than, say, a chair because "love" can relate to many more things than a chair could. If a chair
was more universal then perhaps we'd have trouble defining it, too. However, I'm not saying that "soul" does not exist. I simply do not define it the way that
the questions regarding soul are set up. They are irrelevant to me. We sometimes speak of soul as though it were somehow separate from what we are. You
don't need a soul to experience emotions or to feel. That's a myth. It does nothing but separates us from our perspectives (the rocks that feel, for example).
By the way, Sekhmet is more of a mediator between perspectives. It's a value in your own perspective, like the number 6 is. You can say that the number 6 has
an evil history but it would be missing the point and making a symbol out to be something that it's not. Good and bad feelings are up to you. They're not
dened and universally applicable. Just curious, though... How do you know if something is bringing you closer to who you are?
12/19/2012 07:43 PM

130 of 145

Yes. Everything in your perspective is you (obviously). But from what could be called an other perspective. Your hand is more relative

to what you are and you have developed a logical narra ve (a persistent physical body) that keeps it around you in your experience. But when you experience
less relative values of your perspective (walking along the grass, for example) you think it is separate from "you" because it is not as relative as your hand is.
But you are as much the grass and you are your hand or brain, etc. It's just a different way of looking at yourself. (And the relevance is only an illusion.
"Nothing" does not actually separate itself.)
12/21/2012 10:55 AM
I imagine it "happened" something like this... In the beginning (yes the very beginning) there was nothing. This nothing is not
nothing, it's something. It is impossible to define as it lies outside of anything we can or will ever perceive (it is percep on). This "ability to perceive" required
addi onal things be generated at the same time. It "presupposed" a random soup of pure "true" randomness. Within that "perspec ve", patterns emerged and
not necessarily in a physical sense. Could have been the most simple of concepts at first, but in "true" randomness (without time) you can have complex
patterns emerge (including time and the observer). Some could just have ini al conditions where minute changes over time are allowed. Include continued
existence for a concept that can grow in meaning and adjust itself based on what it is currently experiencing. You see, I don't know that nothing exists,
because nothing is as random as possible. Nothing is ever provable. You can only collect evidence of experience and work to predict and understand the
probability for it to happen. This evidence allows you to judge how the future can behave. As I see it, this is how you(we) got here. Or if nothing else, it is how
we formed within the framework of these "physical bodies" and their perceived environment. All of your past could have been generated (in whole) at this
moment with you as complex as you are. Edit- Not only did we come into being capable of experience like this, I believe it is this possibility space that we
abuse by using the Genius. We provide perspective a possibility for something previously not logical. Once we allow it to interact it is queued into experience.
The more irrelevant the symbol the more possibility for that beautiful "true" random to be abused(u lized). Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 12/21/2012 05:11
PM
12/21/2012 05:58 PM
Even when it is perceive it does not exist, but only seem to exist because we have related (what appears to be) something with
(what appears to be) something else. We cannot perceive of something because there is only Nothing. When we relate one illusion with an other, existence
seems to be. When, actually, it was never there at all. The symbols don't come from anywhere. They don't need to. When you relate one thing with an other
thing (both illusions) you have a symbol (that is also an illusion). If there was ever a "source" it is Nothing. But we don't pull something out of nothing as it
would be a waste of energy (and also impossible). There need only be the illusion of us doing so. We have a taste of this at every moment in physicality.
Things appear solid and are 'good enough' for their purpose. They need not be solid throughout or even real. We need only relate. And rela ng two illusions
together completely satisfies the need to relate.
12/21/2012 06:26 PM
They all ready do. There is far more life in our electronics that we realize. It would be as though there we were surrounded by a
whole world of intelligent beings but we only used and analyzed their poopings. We look at their form of communica on and consider it something that we
have invented or discovered. Two elephants are in the forest and, for the first time, they head humans talking. One elephant turns to the other and says, "I
have discovered a new type of sound!" and proceeds to dance to get other humans to visit, thus making more sounds. What we 'invent' is a discovery of
something that was all ready there.
12/21/2012 06:34 PM
Some may have success in modeling an electronic component in their mind (i.e., in a more relative perspec ve) and working with it
there. In this way you could, for example, turn on a device from 20 feet away or (as I tend to do) fix something that is broken. If someone was talking with
herself during this process the exchange could go something like this way: "My laptop is broken. I will make a Genius model of the laptop in my mind because
the laptop exists in my perspective. Although it is not as relative as is my hand it is entirely in my perspective and it can be xed if I change ("x") my
perspective of it. So now I imagine a black box with pictures and other information on it, which will serve as my symbol of it. I need not know how a laptop
works but only how perspective works because it exists entirely in my perspective. I imagine it in the palm of my hand. My ngers interact with the pictures
and manipulate the information. But wait.. it's breaking. My ngers have much more diculty in moving the pictures around. I will put my mental laptop down
on the oor and crack my ngers and exercise them. I will also blow into the laptop to clear away any defects within the perception. Now I will pick up the
laptop and close it and open it again. I will now power on the other aspect of my mental laptop (the more physical laptop that was broken). It works, so now I
can use it." Last Edited by Chaol on 12/23/2012 01:34 PM
Your Genius is much "smarter" (or wise) than you are so it's best not to have expecta ons about it. You'll often be surprised about how ingenious the path
to your desired perspective may be. (It's something that you probably would not have thought of when so closely married to physical perspective.) The
representations have different aspects. Some are mental (dreams, thoughts, etc) and some are more physically oriented in a similar way to what you consider
yourself to be (you'd call this the "real" version). The representation does not morph. You could say that your experience with the representation morphs. You
can shift between different versions of the same thing. You can also make use of multiple representations simultaneously. The illusion and the real thing are
both representations of the same thing. You just call one illusion real because it's a sibling and the other one not-Real because it's a cousin.
Last Edited by
Chaol on 12/21/2012 06:53 PM
This is quite amusing for me to hear how you've discovered that your electronics have 'a mind of their own'. It's not a Terminator-type scenario where they're
wai ng to take over or evolving consciousness. Every aspect of your perspective is related to something else. The relationship is what you'd call consciousness.
The components of an electronic device (or anything else, for that ma er) are related to what you are in some way. They are also related to other parts of your
perspective. Don't confuse the inside of an electronic device with its meaning. (It's value, or meaning, is roughly illustrated in the components but we need not
know anything about the components the same way you don't need to know about cellular biology in order to communicate with your friends.) When a device
relates to your world it will bring you the news. A music device is an expression of a type of musical relationships, not just a machine that reproduces the
sound for your enjoyment. When you are reading something off of your Kindle the device is as much what you are reading as you are. There is an interaction
between both of you. Your Kindle is telling you a story. It knows who you are like you think your dog might. It relates to you in multiple aspects. Letting your
electronics go isn't losing them. It's just allowing them to more fully-express their own values. It's the subconscious, in a way. You can maintain strict dictates
on your subconscious (which is what the 'conscious' is) and all is fine. Nothing wrong with that, of course. You can also allow your subconscious to more fullyexpress its own values. Your Kindle is not an electronic device. It is you. A part of your subconscious no different from the Kindle in your dream. (In the dream
the inside of the Kindle need not exist, either. Only the relationships ma er.)
12/21/2012 07:10 PM
"They" is all ways "you". So we create these stories to make sense of how we are ignoring other values in our perspective. It's
impossible not to ignore other values so there's nothing wrong with this. Neither is there anything wrong with whatever story we come up with. It could be said

131 of 145

(though I did not quite imply the content of your first paragraph) that different aspects of your perspective try to overpower it by interacting with more things
but it's a natural process. We get caught up in the details and specics but it's irrelevant. The true value is in the relationships (and the geometry thereof).
Usually we only see (and care about) the story that we've created to make sense of the geometry of relationships. This is how we understand and is valid
because it assists in our understanding of this geometry. We need not understand the geometry (it's kind of boring, anyway) but only need to understand the
geometry through the drama of the relationships (much more exci ng and human, and leads to the same understanding although in a different way). That's
why I have said that you are as likely to "become enlightened" (or whatever it's called these days) watching a television drama or playing a game or stepping
in mud as you are medita ng or going to church. It's about the relationships, not the way we make sense of them.
12/21/2012 07:17 PM
Some of us are quite frightened of this power and the ability to do anything. The ability of the Genius, the subconscious is only as
limited as our perceptions. What could be more frightening to these few than what can be perceived? Once you've seen it, you cannot unsee it! To those that
are a bit scared by the power of the subconscious or what it's capable of I can say that the only thing to fear is wanting to unsee it. Being "okay" with
whatever is of your Genius is probably the best thing you could do for your total perspective. Yes, there are some frightening things there. But it is only
frightening because you have learned how to avoid it. There is nothing actually scary in and of your subconscious. Once you stop resisting you'll find that you
are okay with that part of yourself. You'll feel be er, too ;)
12/21/2012 07:20 PM
In a way this is similar to someone close to us talking about pregnancy and "all of a sudden" pregnant women come out of nowhere
for the following two weeks. In a way the pregnant women were all ready there (as values in our perspective). In an other way it is now easier for us to
incorporate pregnant women into our experience because we have changed (if only temporarily) our perspective. We have a relationship with this brand of
physicality so it's usually throughout our perspective. It is easier for us to experience this brand of physicality but it does not mean it is the only way that we
can experience ourselves. When we develop more of a relationship with other parts of our perspective we will experience them more. (Some mes it will envelop
us, like what we think of as the physical world, because we have such a strong relationship with it.) To do this, don't kill your current relationship but create
and focus on an other one. (Like you didn't have to destroy the perception of 3 non-pregnant women in order to perceive of 3 pregnant women.)
12/21/2012 07:35 PM
We are looking for a way to relate to something. It does not matter how. So (actually quite randomly) some things we call good while
others are bad. We then learn to make sense of these 'random' designa ons. 3 people being killed is worse than 300,000 being killed, for example. Scrambled
eggs are good while fried eggs are bad. We develop a whole library of these meaningless things. It does not matter what we call it (to our subconscious) only
that we relate to it in some way. It need not be good or bad. If you really wanted to "be okay" with what you consider bad things it does not mean becoming
bad yourself. This is irrelevant (since "bad" is what you make it). Just find a new way to relate to what you consider "bad".
12/21/2012 08:00 PM
Step 1, Step 2, Step 3... you make the order above through your perspective and you transition through it. But it's arbitrary and
meaningless. The order does not matter, only the relationship. (The same relationship is still there even without the order than you perceive.) Why not make it
Step 2, Step 3, Step 1? "Win the lo ery" first and then see your numbers match. Make up your own logic for the perspective. Has someone ever told you to
taste "milk" that was actually water? But you could swear that it was milk for the first couple of seconds? The details are not important. Only the perspective.
But if we focus on the details then we miss the importance of perspective and forget that it takes precedence. Last Edited by Chaol on 12/21/2012 08:03
PM
Conceptually I get that perspective of relationships is all that matters and that the rest is illusory and subject to the logic we "believe" for our current
perspective. But, how can i shift through a current representation in my "real" perspective in order to arrive at winning the lo ery rst? It makes sense that it
is possible, I'm just not sure how to practically achieve it. I could create relationships around the way I would act, see, etc. as if I had won the lo ery and
then let my perspective shift lling in a past where I had winning numbers. Just not sure how it is feasible Any help is appreciated,
12/21/2012 09:45 PM
The 'law', if ever there was one, is that no energy is independent of your perspective. So, accordingly there is nothing beyond your
perspective. Your perspective is all there is. You know how to use something because you represent it in an other way. You don't have to know how computers
work in one way -through on/o states - because you know how to use how the process is represented - through icons and gestures. (Though the on/o states
are also representations of something else.) In this way we can breathe without direct knowledge of respira on, walk and jump without a direct understanding
of calculus, see without a direct understanding of op cs, etc. Because everything is represented. And we work with the representations that we are familiar
with (i.e., that are most relative to what we consider ourselves to be). We make use of the Genius for everything because we are able to represent everything.
I hope this claries it a bit. "A true genius is not someone that knows about things but is someone or something that has the ability to figure it out"
12/21/2012 10:14 PM
Because we are entering the next level of Ecsys I will respond a bit differently (with the assumption that some of us are all ready
comfortable with the basics). There is no need to deal with resistance. It is impossible to not resist. You could say that we are beings resisting a state of
nothingness, so we create illusions to seem like we exist. (Non-existence is so.. boring and is the most-resisted idea there is because it implies no relationship
with anything.) We are doing the resis ng, despite our best eorts to create something outside of ourselves and withhold responsibility for our universe ;) We
are even resisting our own eyeballs because we are still saying that this Nothing must be our eyeball. Really, we don't know anything else. But there are
different levels of resistance, I suppose. When we look at an other aspect of our self (an other value of our perspec ve) and say, "That person is not us. They
are dierent," then we are resisting further. That's beyond resisting nothing. That's resisting even the illusion. When we resist even the illusion we create yet
more illusions. The more we resist what we are the more our experience may not make sense. Or it may seem that the universe is ac ng against us or not
giving us what we want. What else can be expected when we try to sever the relationships in our own perspec ve?
12/21/2012 10:32 PM
Moving a bit beyond the limits of English, allow me to alter Ecsys Prime a bit in an illustration. "We perceive that which takes the
least amount of energy to perceive" becomes, "We perceive that which takes no energy to perceive" (as no-energy is the least amount) Meaning, we do not
actually perceive of anything because we pretend to perceive Nothing. We create an illusion of two things and the relationship between the two illusions seem
like a real something. We perceive the relationships of illusions that do not exist. In reality we experience only different kinds of nothingness. Perspective is an
illusion because we are perceiving nothing. (Someone else could say, for simplicity, that we create simultaneous with the percep on.) The perspective was not
there before itself. Perspective is not independent of anything. It is dependent only on illusion. (Two illusions form a relationship that is the perspective.)
12/21/2012 10:41 PM

132 of 145

Let's take a look at how you do this all ready. When you fall asleep you start to imagine things. You are not really 'asleep' at this

time but you are pretending to be. You are creating an illusion that you are in order to create the relationship that "results". Your mind does not care if
something is real to you or not because everything is equally real. So you start to hear a sound in your room that is not there to your waking mind and your
dreaming mind says "Now I AM creating a rela onship, a bridge between the two minds. I created an illusion of a sound and you created a real relationship
with the dream world. Now you are asleep because that sound formed other relationships. The sound became a bird became a park became an entire story."
You start with a single symbol, a representation. It interacts with other representations, forming a relationship. The symbol is an illusion (whether in your
Genius model or not) that creates a "real" relationship. That's about it. The "sound" was never there but it does not matter. It eects a relationship that is
more relative to you (more real, as it were). Create the 'sound' of you being as rich as you want to be. Don't just imagine. (Imagina on creates an entire
world.. in your imagina on. It's real to itself but you'd want to make it relative to your physical experience if you want to experience it in this world.) So don't
just imagine it. Allow it to have an effect on your physical reality. That's how you're pulled into the world of your dreams, becoming reality.
12/21/2012 10:46 PM
The part of you you're not aware of is all ready represented in that which you are aware of. That is to say, those parts of you that
you don't know about are those parts that aren't immediately relative to you but exist entirely in your current perspective in an other way. (If they did not you
would not be able to experience anything that you did not know.) That is to say, the bug in the corner is a perfect representation of the trip you will take in 5
years to South America. What matters is the geometry of relationships. So the relationship your current perspective has with the bug in the corner is the same
as the trip you will take in 5 years. (This is how everything exists now and here, and nothing else need to.) Every possibility is a perspective. And it is all now
and here.
12/21/2012 10:47 PM
It should be, "What you consider your physical body is mostly non-human." Other values in your perspective influence ('infect', though
infect as not used in a nega ve, parasi cal sense) one-another. This isn't just a sort of hundreth-monkey effect but entails everything in your perspective. This
is obvious when we smell something (that invokes a memory or emo on, for example) but less obvious when we think or see something, feel heat and
pressure, get sleepy, etc. We may get an ability (or illness) from outer space but outer space is still a part of our perspective. It's simply a way for one to
interact with an other. Irrelevant. An 'outer inuence' is a less-relative part of perspective, not something independent of it. Regarding my meeting my
girlfriend someone asked if I had known that I was going to. I basically implied that there are some things that I don't want to know about and that I did not
know who she would be. Perspec ve, nothing more. Nothing outside of it, despite our best eorts to make there be something there.
Last Edited by Chaol
on 12/22/2012 12:00 AM
It is easy to miss the universal importance of perspective but that is the answer for all of the above. There is no decision or being independent of your
perspective. Your perspective 'creates' these things (if you're looking for crea on). Asking if there is a higher power is like taking a trip through space. You are
certainly welcome to think one direc on is up and the other down if that makes it easy for you. But there is no up or down in space. Up and down are the same
and, therefore, irrelevant. The question is, again, "What is outside of my perspec ve?" We look for something that does not exist and, more importantly, does
not need to. That is the higher power you seek. But, unfortunately, it cannot be perceived, is beyond perception, is irrelevant, is beyond perspective, is without
considera on, etc. It does not exist and does not need to. Of this I can really say nothing at all ;) Last Edited by Chaol on 12/22/2012 11:39 AM
I can see this already. What overwhelms is the dialogue that must go along with each of these experiences. I almost think I almost prefer not knowing how I
use symbols as I do now. It seems your life would be non-stop cha ering of Ec so as to perceive: a body, feeling the chair you are sitting on while at the
computer, listening to the heater and tv from the other room, which you are also 'crea ng' along with sunlight shining through the window and the smell of
lunch wa ing by. And at the same time remembering what all you want to experience. Whew!!! Sounds very busy to me. tounge
Last Edited by U3 on
12/22/2012 11:41 AM
You can also make use of multiple representations simultaneously. Your first statement brings a thought to me. If we are taking symbols to arrange patterns
(in our mind) and then letting the Genius do the work, what is the Genius exactly? Here's what you say on the website: "Using the Genius you can create a
map from one perception to the next. If you can imagine it then you can show yourself how to get there from where you are. The best part about the Genius
maps is that we're working with loca ons in your mind, not physical locations. The steps above should provide the necessary intent to your "subconscious" to
make that shift happen" What do you call the subconscious? And I can see that I make use of multiple representations simultaneously because look at all
that's going on at any time. What I wonder about is how you get any rest knowing how you do this? It seems you would be always conscious of what you are
thinking. It doesn't sound res ul to me at this point in my understanding.
12/22/2012 08:07 PM
Death, to the few who really subscribe to X in my world, is more of a myth. It seems real when you see or know of others 'tune out'
but we also know that the experience of it is different from what it appears to be. We're sad to see people go, of course. And in a way it's the end of that
person's life (or relevance in the world) so they are missed. Sure, but keep in mind that saying, "I wish to never have to ask (anybody or anything)..." implies
that there is someone out there to ask. There's nothing wrong with considering other aspects of you (or values in your perspec ve) from whom knowledge,
understanding, or other interactions may be gained. We do it all the time when we reflect or ask ourselves or, in a way, listen to our inner dialogue.
Externalizing the desire or want provides us with new perspective. So "wishing" could actually make what we want (or think) more clear. In a way we are
interacting with it more even though we know there really is no one to ask. It helps in the process, I guess. (As do all the things in your perspective.) Some of
you have some evidence of this when utilizing the Genius. It may be difficult to define what it is you actually want.
12/23/2012 11:01 AM
Some notes: Perspectives aren't created. It's more of an experience. The magic of "perspec ve" is that it is comprised of all other
perspectives. Imagine a room full of bo les, each pointed in different direc on until all direc ons are covered. Your bo le is pointed in a particular direc on
and that is your perspective. You can try to change the direc on your bo le is pointed to but the moment you do you jump to an other bo le whose direc on
is all ready the one you were going to point to. In this example all perspectives 'exist' all ready. All of these perspectives seem to exist at once. Every
perspective is connected with every other perspective because there is one perspective (called Nothing). It is impossible to experience "nothing" because it is
beyond perspective. It is beyond perspective because it cannot be experienced from or contained within one particular perspective. When you have one
perspective you have nothing to relate to and, thus, nothing. Really, there is only the illusion of perspective rather than absolute perspective. The only
absolute perspective is that which is beyond itself and need not exist. A perspective comes from the bo les interacting with one-another. (This is an illusion,
though.) Take away one perspective and you 'destroy' the balance of them all (though this is not possible). They all depend on one-another because they are
all the same illusion. So in order for your bo le-perspec ve to seem to be it must be all possible perspectives (or, as it may be said, your perspective must
contain all other perspec ves). You are as much a singular perspective now as you will ever be. An "expanded perspec ve" would entail

133 of 145

knowing/understanding/experiencing going from bo le to bo le (rather than not knowing) and doing it consciously. As this is simultaneous you may experience
what seems like multiple perspectives at once. However this is still one bo le-perspec ve in the same way you are experiencing that now with all of the
perspectives of your physical body.
12/23/2012 12:13 PM
I'm barely scratching the surface, so to speak. As I've explained it earlier it would be as if you took a trip to an other planet and
explained your world's monetary system. Some people may be generally fascinated with such a system (should they have only vague concepts of exchanged
value in their world) but for me it's just normal. I'm not "an economist" but rather someone quite normal in my world who happens to use "money". Others may
despise the idea (righ ully so). Instead of calling them dollars maybe you will call them units to suit local tastes. You adopt your explanation to make it a bit
easier to understand. I can explain some things about it and know a little bit about "deriva ves" and other instruments but I'm by no means an expert. Right
now we've just gotten off of coun ng (1, 2, 3...) and the nature of buying and selling (the Genius) and are moving to more advanced topics such as interest
(some of what we're getting into on the past couple of pages). Although I must say we have enough material for the next 50 years. There is so much left to
explain :)
12/23/2012 12:29 PM
For the reallly enterprising mind, imagine this... Your Genius enters a room full of random le ers, words, and phrases and makes
sense of them in the order that they're in. Your waking mind will not make sense of them and just consider them random. In some world, some possibility,
some value of perspective, they make complete and perfect sense. You can imagine yourself in and of a perspective that is very foreign to your current one.
Nevermind how you will get there. Your Genius will figure it out because it can make sense of anything. It creates the logic. (That is to say, it can illustrate
anything logically.) i.e., it can bring you through a narra ve that will make sense to you, one relative step to an other (which is the nature of logic). So if
something that you desire does not make sense to you (meaning, you don't know how to define it) know that it is all ready dened and all ready makes sense
to your Genius. That's the nature of the Genius. Take a look around you. What symbols do you see? What logic do those symbols follow? How are you
interacting with those symbols, and how do they interact with your environment? What space do those symbols rest in? You are using the Genius at every
moment. You do it to perceive.. and 'get to the next perspec ve'. How are you using those symbols to interact with something far more complicated?
Something that, in your current perspective, is not there so much? If you are, for example, using a mouse how is your mouse a representation interacting with
a more complex perspec ve? These are things to consider. From it, we can learn how we use the Genius for all things.
12/23/2012 01:55 PM
Hi. Thanks =D We are all ready in the state of nothingness (if it could be called a state). It is resisted because here we are,
apparently something when we are not actually. We are, in effect, bored of nothing. We need to feel like we exist. To have meaning even if arbitrary and
entirely made up. Going around in circles ("...to perform that which we are incapable of not performing...") is at least the appearance of something and keeps
us busy forever. You are your Genius, though I suppose you could say that it is with you since in experience it is relative to you. When you think and act on the
first thing that comes to your mind that is still your mind. Intui on is interpre ng geometries and is something our physical senses do and is closely related to
our Genius, though I would not say that our interpreta ons are more accurate than not. To connect more with your Genius, consider the values that are
generally ignored in your perspective and interact with them. The Genius loves being ckled!
12/23/2012 02:33 PM
Perspective is afar from questions and answers No disagreement, but if I can explain how i connected them. Externalizing the desire
or want provides us with new perspective. "Externalizing the desire" to me means that i AM at point A that i know of and i "want" to go to point B. So before
you say "point B", haven't you asked questions like "where i want to go, why i want to go there and how i will go there?" If you haven't answered, there is no
"point B" that creates the perspective. Isn't it? So, the whatever perspective we each currently experience comes from the whichever answers we have given to
our whichever questions we asked in the first place. Besides when you say: "dont ask how to win the lo ery, ask how you can have an abundance of money
instead, for example", is it not an a empt to shi ing/crea ng a perspective through a ques on? How else could you have done this to yourself or to others,
other than through questions and answers?
12/23/2012 02:41 PM
The date is not important to the nexus itself. It would be like if there was a giant snowball at the top of the hill. You then saw it
starting to roll down the hill. You could then assign a date (or color, name, chicken recipe) to a point along its path. It will pick up more snow as it rolls but
that is predictable because of its nature. You can tell from its size approximately what 'size' it will be when it reaches the bo om or any other point along the
path. The snowball, rolling, and hill are all values in perspective. I make up the date for the snowball reaching the bo om and everything else falls into place
so that when the snowball reaches the bo om it is that date.
12/23/2012 02:48 PM
There's no end to knowledge and understanding, so there's no limit to my ignorance :) The explora on of reality is as old as
civilization but, yes, we've only scratched the surface. Part of the issue is unlearning much of what we have all ready integrated into our understanding. For me
it's better to forget a lot of this and re-discover it. It's actually what I go through every time I leave here. If you asked me any simple question on the first day
of my return I would not have the slightest idea ;) Such processes increase interaction and it's what we all go through without realizing it. Then we make sense
of the new and it seems as though there was never a total destruc on at all. There are stories about death and physical change. Like any myth, I suppose the
purpose is to tell a story using the most basic of concepts. Nothing precedes the perspective. One does not come before the other. Think of the new
perspective as having an effect on all direc ons (past/present/future). There is no default perspective. We experience what is most relative to us, all things
considered. The knowledge of knowing how (to wish, or whatever we want to call it) does not dictate the experience. It is experienced regardless of whether or
not we think we know what we are doing. If the inten on is to reach a singular perspective (as a state of being) then the experience would be nothing, as
there would be no conflict or drama. There would be nothing to perceive. However, if the inten on is to consider your reality as varying aspects of what you are
then it would be difficult to do so if you wanted to a ract some values while resisting or rejec ng others. We can consider ourselves as being all things in our
perspective without the emp ness of actually being a single perspective. Apologies for not being more clear about this. By "You are as much a singular
perspective now as you will ever be," I mean that the illusion of perspective is an illusion. A singular perspective dictates that nothing is there with which to
compare, and thus to know. So we are all ready what we seek, if we are seeking a singular perspective. We are all ready "nothing" and this "something" is an
illusion. Last Edited by Chaol on 12/24/2012 11:15 AM
12/24/2012 11:16 AM
(The following is provided for illustration only...) We know very little compared with our own subconscious. When we "externalize the
desire or want" we are communicating with our subconscious. We can ask questions about Point B but it is not the questions nor the answers that get us there.
Our subconscious asks no questions nor provides any answers. The questions are like queues for our subconscious to interpret. We can then interpret the
"result". The waking mind asks the questions and interprets what may be seen as answers. When you say, "So, the whatever perspective we each currently

134 of 145

experience comes from the whichever answers we have given to our whichever questions we asked in the first place." we can consider that our current
perspective is not based on the questions of our waking mind. For, "dont ask how to win the lo ery, ask how you can have an abundance of money instead, for
example", [I don't think this is a direct quote, but I will respond as though it was] it is not meant to be a question for the subconscious but more of a practical
question about how to go about making a more effective model. I suppose the ul mate question is really "How do I get from Point A to Point B?" The answer is
that our waking mind represents what Point B is and our Genius (subconscious) makes it more relative to our current perspective.
12/24/2012 11:58 AM
"Free will" is an illusion. Unfortunately, there is no free will because of the dependent nature of values in perspective. We can say
that you choose to go out and get a cheeseburger as an example of how you have control over what you decide to do. Yet we ignore so much about the
supposed choice, focusing only on what seems like the end result (a tasty cheeseburger). We don't think about not being able to materialize a cheeseburger
without going outside, or going out to get a cantaloupe burger, or having to put on clothes and pay for it. The cheeseburger is entirely dependent on a myriad
of other interdependent systems working together in unison to bring you the appearance of free will. That's the say nothing of the reality that the cheeseburger
is not real. Free will presumes that we can be, at times, able to not experience the most relative perspective next. The most relative perspective is what we
experience, not free will. But this is also not a choice. You are not forced into experiencing anything, of course. This is the only way it could possibly be done
because there is no actual energy. The energy of the universe is an illusion. It would be impossible to 'jump' over to the 2nd least-wasteful perspective just for
the fun of it. The reason that we experience that which takes the least amount of energy (or interac ons) is because the energy is not really there to begin
with. If choices are "...based on the information we have "acquired" on the current experience within the decision space that the logic allows" would that also
include the 99.999% of all information regarding our experience that our senses is not aware of? [Scien sts would provide that number. I would say 100%] So
would this be a conscious choice based on a very infinitesimally small amount of total informa on? That's to say nothing of the contradic ng or misleading
information that our brains don't know what to do with. It is not that we are free to choose from a selected variety of perspectives. It is that free will is
meaningless when everything depends on everything else. It's one system, you could say. So are you free to go get yourself a cheeseburger? Yes. As long as it
is realized that the concept of freedom of choice is irrelevant. Last Edited by Chaol on 12/24/2012 12:51 PM
While I'll ponder on your other post, it seems to me that not all desired experiences imply the undesired, if that is already not relevant. [New perspec ve]
Let's say I want to go to Spain for a holiday, as an example. It is a desired experience, and it would be fun to get the Genius working, but not going is not
undesired, just irrelevant. Content either way. [Change of current perspec ve] In the case of the ki en, I really want to create a change, as I AM red of
chasing after it, so the desired experience does imply the undesired (resistance), if perception stays focused on the problem (even indirectly), which is
relevant. This, to me is the trickier part. Let me know how it goes =) be sure to define what 'the perfect guy' would mean to you. It could even be just one
thing. Just so that your subconscious knows what you mean. (This will help it to dieren ate a perfect guy in a story, showing you the path to... a new book,
versus the perfect guy who lets you trim his nosehairs, for example.)
12/24/2012 12:07 PM
I forgot to men on, that when I rented this place, it came already with some furniture. At the time I didn't mind, as I had planned on
staying briey. Actually, it was ideal not having to get furniture at the time. The stuff in the bedroom (except for the new ma ress) is not mine and does not
reflect my taste [huge closet, mirror, chest drawer, etc]. Maybe this aggravates not wanting to spend much waking time there. I will do small changes, though.
Like lamp shades, my own pain ngs, and such. The real bedroom will be in the next home. 100% from scratch. Perhaps the only thing to ponder is to think of
how you feel when you look into his eyes. It may sound corny, but the point is to get away from doing things that your Genius could do far be er. Just give it
an idea and it will take care of the rest.
12/24/2012 12:42 PM
If choices are "...based on the information we have "acquired" on the current experience within the decision space that the logic
allows" would that also include the 99.999% of all information regarding our experience that our senses are not aware of? [Scien sts would provide that
number. I would say 100%] Our choices are limited by what we "believe" our choices are. I see where you're coming from, but "free will" (ability to make (any)
choice based on the information we ARE aware of) is as I see it, fundamental to our "current" experience of "reality"(within the spectrum of nothing). Since we
can never be "TRULY" self aware (because even what we consider our "self" is outside of awareness) we seem to get information on the relationships this
"self" represents, but it's all illusion. When all we experience is illusion, the illusion itself becomes irrelevant because EVERY experience is supported by the
framework it provides. So we can tag any experience with "illusion" or "simula on" or "nothing" or "existence" but I just don't see it as useful. I do see tagging
experience with "perspec ve" useful as it allows us to take into account the totality of the most relative relationships that define that perspective. I
understand what you mean by "free will" being an illusion, I just don't see "free will" and illusion as mutually exclusive systems. Popping from bo le to bo le
is what we do automatically as the dominoes fall within the most logical pa ern (requiring the least energy or number of interac ons). But this automatic
"process" by which perspectives cascade through their variants is an expression of the "free will" of the system that houses perspective. Free will (the
opportunity to make choice within a limited decision set) is a tool we use to enhance and express our perspective in a way that leads to "deeper" and "richer"
opportuni es for illusory experience. The illusory concepts of "free will" and "fate" are one in the same because the decisions we "believe" we've made are the
decisions we've "always" made and we made them based on what we perceived (albeit illusory) to be our past decisions and their perceived results. The
moment there is opportunity for choice, whether illusory or not, there is "free will" automatically generated (perceived) with in that space. If what comes next
(in our nothing kaleidoscope) is what takes the least energy to come next and we can define how that energy is distributed and the framework in which it
ows, then that ability is our perceived "free will". It's a self correc ng feedback loop and presupposes time and decision space. Perhaps I AM limited by my
"current" inability to see beyond my perceived "ability to choose".
12/24/2012 12:44 PM
Thank you Chaol for your clarica ons. Apologies for the long post, which is because I seemed as if I was trying to discredit you on
something with my posts, whereas I was trying to elaborate on what you have said, through my own perspective and trying to make obvious, something that
apparently isn't so. It is expectable that somebody who lives in a world like yours, may have only to think of your question above. But in this world we have to
deal with the primal question first and that is, "what is the point B?" (which is a question by the way, that wouldn't exist if none has ever told us that there
are "points" out there) Maybe you take it for granted that point B can always be available and handy to anyone of us. I do understand that once you have
ar culated (or dened, or even better represented) what point B is, then the subconscious takes over and guide you through to it, making it relative to your
experience. You show it the dot to connect it for you. You do that by representing it with a "crazy" symbol and by following some "crazy" rules (the craziest the
be er) you will eventually see/experience the dot you asked your Genius to show you. That is understandable (simple) and makes sense to me. I also
understand that I dont have to enter into any game of Q&As a erwards, as to how AM i going to experience it, what else i have to do to "help" it etc, etc. No,
none of this. Nevertheless, all my posts about the Q&As refer to the very very basics and even before you appear with the Ec and the Genius. In this world we
are used in questions "what do you desire", "what do you want", "make a wish" and follow "ra onal", "spiritual", "illegal", or all sorts of methods and ways to

135 of 145

achieve it, with hit and miss results. When you come and say "I will show you a way to experience what you want" with a solid ra onale behind it, which comes
down to "what you ask is what you (can) get, precisely", you create "confusion" to us, maybe because we are not used in asking precisely ourselves what we
want to experience, or because we never thought we had to (like none of us has 3 questions handy to ask the alien tourist who will meet in a bar). So, your
method has revealed to us (or at least to me) that the most important bit each of us has to solve for himself before seeing any value or benefit from what you
are saying, is to know "what is it that I ask". It also seems to be easy for at least 20 recorded successes with the Genius, that is they knew what they asked
for. But I risk to say that this is not the rule. So I do understand you clearly, when you say "When we "externalize the desire or want" we are communicating
with our subconscious." Meaning that when we have a "point B" ready, we pass it to the subconscious to do its job. "We can ask questions about Point B but it
is not the questions nor the answers that get us there." Sure! all we need is just to name it: "this is the point B, take me there" "The answer is that our
waking mind represents what Point B is and our Genius (subconscious) makes it more relative to our current perspec ve." Again to the point! Before you
represent it, you must know what exactly you are represen ng. Therefore, where i see you are helping me (and others) more, is to ar culate the point B, which
is a waking mind exercise, that is language, that is Q&A, that is words. And if it is the point B, that will necessarily determine the perspective that we will
experience, then the perspective will be subject to the Q&As we chose to ask ourselves before, in order to find it. If not mistaken, I see you conrming it when
you say: "The way we define things surely aects our experience and the way we see things (and react to them)." How else do we try to define things if not by
(specic to us) Q&As? or... "...What if our perspective is shaped from the languages we use?" if the language we use is made by concepts that we arrived at
through Q&A about (our) life and death then how ... ..."we can consider that our current perspective is not based on the questions of our waking mind."? or
even better when you used an example: "this is a symbol of my wealth" is less specific than, say, "this is the key that opens the door to my estate in Monaco".
With the former, the map is confused because there is no specific perspec ve.(emphasis mine) Once we're able to define what it means then we can begin to
experience it. But without a picture of what it means it is fairly meaningless." What you've stated there is exactly as you said to me here: "...it is not meant to
be a question for the subconscious (I never claimed it was, or that I ask questions my subconscious) but more of a practical question about how to go about
making a more effective model." For the model to be effective therefore, it requires a clear definition of "point B". "Once we are able to define it..." That is my
bo om line with my "Q&As posts" and the work needed to reach that stage first. If one can do it without Q&As to himself, then disregard everything I wrote
about it.
12/26/2012 10:42 AM
Though this choice could be based on information we are not aware of and no information at all, not just that information that we are
aware of. If our choice was limited by what we believe our choices are then that would mean that we could not choose something outside of our choice. If you
asked me if I wanted either a cheeseburger or a hamburger I could respond by going to France. Our choices would not be limited by what we don't believe our
choices to be. Yes, I think "nothing" can be quite a useless designa on but only up to a point. Perspective can be more useful. However, this may give us a
false picture of reality because it paints a reality as being subject to observa on. This illusion 'creates' perspective. "What is the price of coee today?" can
elicit a variety of responses considering perspective. However, as Nothing is the parent of perspective it would probably answer (if it could) that the price of
coee is irrelevant. This may help in remembering and understanding that perspective is exible because it never reaches its ul mate des na on. I enjoyed
reading your illustration of how there is free will in this illusion. It would probably be my explanation of 'free will' were it not for the nature of perspective.
Because it is all an illusion, the illusion does not really matter (as you've explained). In this, there is no illusion. However, if all choices are all ready made
(e.g., everything exists right now) there is no free will because it is irrelevant. Making a choice implies that the separa on of events in time is valid and true.
It also implies a separa on of you from what you choose. But you and what you choose is the same. And 'both' are of your perspective. If time is more of a
function of the way the brain interprets reality than an absolute truth in the universe then 'choice' is meaningless. What happens when you press a key on your
keyboard? We could say that we choose to press a key and it is done. We could also say that we are trying to perceive of nothing, an act which dictates that
every possibility be simultaneously created and experienced innitely. Because of the nature of truth, each of the two answers is as valid as the other. Both
are useful. (But only the first one is apple pie.) You've given me something to think about.
12/26/2012 11:28 AM
I seek to expand my "awareness", I AM looking to perceive a richer resolu on of experience in each "moment" to allow me to get
"more" out of my perspective and I seek to use that to increase the "quality of life" for myself and those I care about. I've found in some of my trials, I became
less tolerant or pa ent with the very ones I'm looking to protect/enhance. This seems to happen because as I expand my understanding I AM more aware of
their intent and the relationships they hold within my perspective. This (at mes) leads me to dismiss their concerns as if they're trivial (yet to them they're
obviously not). If I AM to assist and nurture them in order to "enhance" them and "protect" them (from my perspective), I cannot dismiss their perceived
concerns (as trivial as I perceive them to be).
12/26/2012 11:30 AM
You could also say that we are that which makes up the subconscious. It's filled with all kinds of everything. Parts that know, parts
that don't know. We are the story of a part of it, and it is us. The cells in your hand are asking the same questions :) Prac cally-speaking... Get to point B;
waking mind does not know = 4 years, 3 months (exmaple) Get to point B; waking mind knows how = 1 week Get to point B; waking mind really knows and
understands = a few nanoseconds In the same way, your body "understands" things that the cells in your hand do not. It is experiencing time and space
differently because of this understanding. The understanding, however, is not a mental process. It is the relationship of values in its perspective.
12/26/2012 11:33 AM
hmm.. are you sure you're ready for a full-on merged experience? I need several days to adjust (some mes weeks) and I'm a
'frequent yer'. For someone who has no idea what it might entail, an experience that is not preceded by years of introduc on and matricula on would entirely
shock you. I AM here to endlessly debrief you! lol It's so shocking that you need to translate 100% of it into something that you will accept just to experience
it. (Meaning that what we call our dreams are 100% of our waking mind's re-interpreta on of our dreams.) Put it this way.. after 3 years we nally move from
the basics (lesson 1) to more advanced Ecsys (lesson 1.01) One thing that the dreamworld has plenty of is time. Let it cook a little more ...how is it possible
to bridge that belief gap between execu ng it properly and absolute failure? Acceptance? Jesse, let me tell you first what I AM reading. You say that you see
yourself on the one side "execu ng something properly", on the other side you see a woman called "Absolute Failure" (Absofaye for short) and wonder whether
a concept/thing that you call "acceptance", will be the most suitable to cover something that you call "belief gap" and will allow you to see, when you will cross
it, that Absofaye is not what you saw/imagined before crossing it, but a lot be er. What you are asking, is an opinion, somebody else's belief. And this is what
you will get. Somebody will say that is not the concept "acceptance" is the concept "bouzouki", or the concept "holy spirit" or the concept "compassion" is the
best material that will allow you to cross the "belief gap" and see the best on the other side, etc, etc. In other words, you are asking us to tell you something
about a dream of yours, something that only you can see and where therefore all answers are equally possible suitables. You are asking for something to feed
your belief. In that case, I have absolutely nothing to tell you. It is not wrong of course, since that seems to be the only way we know of, but Chaol's posts are
completely irrelevant to faiths and beliefs. And there is a reason for that (Ecsys Prime). What is on the other side, is already on this side. Therefore, you don't
have to cross over any gaps and you don't have to buy any "acceptances" from anyone. What you want is to have revealed (making it more relative to you now)

136 of 145

something that is already around you, but you don't see it (yet). If it was visible, you wouldn't ask, you would experienced it. So, asking questions about
seeing it, is to ask questions about what is it that you want to experience (and why. Let the Genius deal with the "how"). Asking questions about believing it,
is to ask questions whether what you will wish for, will be a good or a bad thing in the end. Ask us about something that we can all see and somebody will tell
you what you dont see. Maybe it would help to think of the Genius as a London black cab. It can pick you from anywhere in London and drop you outside the
door of anywhere you want within the fastest possible route. All you have to do is to give the driver a piece of paper with the address and the number and lay
back to enjoy the ride. I honestly hoped I helped :)
12/26/2012 11:54 AM
If I understand you correctly, wouldn't choice then, be another "avor" of perspective like Vanilla or the color Orange? Where we are
within the bo le-matrix, we find ourselves capable of making decisions. In other perspectives we function more like a table or a chair, meeting only certain
func ons but have a very limited (impercep ble from this view point) ability to choose? Yet here we have a rich (perceived) illusion of choice and within that
ability to choose, we have the (perceived) illusion of "free will". Much in the same way the table senses the moisture of the full cup of cold water set upon it
(the minor warping of the wood because of condensa on) and the memory that implies. Yet we have addi onal technology (a self adjus ng feedback loop that
presupposes time and the opportunity for choice) to perceive as if we "act" upon the "memory" we're infected with. Within that is there not "free will" as
illusory as it is? It's almost as if that elusive "Truth" with the capital "T" is outside anything we are ever capable of perceiving and lies outside of the illusion
we are born to. Last night I had an elaborate lucid dream which included what I perceived to be two types of "alien" one was tradi onally angelic and seemed
to be assis ng the humans who were under a ack by what I perceived to be tradi onally demonic. Within the dream I had to defend a few people from what
would have been collateral damage (as the two seemed more concerned about destroying each others forces than destroying or protec ng my perceived
environment and kin). By telekine cally throwing several husks of destroyed vehicles in the way I was able to save a few people and by that dream-sign (use
of telekinesis) I became lucid. Now I had intended before sleep to find a "dream" entity and discuss the nature of reality and expanding my perspective but I
chose to y/teleport about exploring, helping and saving people. I had forgot my original intent as it was no longer relative. Is this what you mean by the
"non-existense" of "free will"? Once my perspective changes so too does my intent and therefor my freewill is negated? Thank you again.
12/26/2012 11:56 AM
Unit3, forgive me but you remind me of an old joke, where somebody is having a flat tyre in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of
the night and doesn't have a jack. He looks around him and sees light on the top of a nearby hill. On his way there (to ask for a jack), he imagined potential
dialogues with the housekeeper, based on his idea that he will annoy them. So after a lot of "I will tell him that and he will reply this, and then I will counter
reply that and he will re-reply this", he reaches the door, he knocks it, a woman opens it and with an angry tone, points his finger at her and says: "Fuck you
and your jack!" and turns around and go. What you say, is that if you choose to make more relative to your experience something that you already have in mind
and represents what you truly want, will include a lot of variables that maybe some, or all of them will be "bad" and not make the experience "worth" it. If, on
the other hand you pick a wish that will possibly have less variables, that you can easily imagine them, will make your experience "worth it". Therefore, it is
the "controlability" of the variables that you imagine will stand between you and what you want to experience, that asks what you want to experience. If that
is the case, then you dont have to ask what you want to experience and why, ask what variables you want to experience before you experience the whatever
"thing". But it won't take you anywhere, will it? Nevertheless, we go back to the same. If what you want to experience is already "in you" and have only to
reveal it (make it rela ve), then the whatever "variables" that will pop up will also come from you. With this way it is making it impossible to wish for
something that you really want to experience and be of "lower value" to any of the potential variables that you meet. If it is, then it wasn't what you "really"
wanted to experience. You haven't "dene it" properly. Can't blame the Genius or Ec for it, or whoever suggested it to you. What you've asked is what you get.
If you are not "happy", know what you ask. However i can see the "problem" you, Jesse, me and other face. We think that point B is in the realm of our
imagina on. But this realm is blurry to us. But since we live in our imagina on/dreams (our subjective world, as we call it), the realm of reality also looks
blurry (because we always see reality from the perspective of our dream). So, it seems that defining point A is the hard bit. If you know where you are, you can
know where you want to go. If you dont, any point B can be equally "right" or "wrong". But ask about A is asking what you see, whereas asking about B, is
asking what you believe. It seems to me that we have been shown the most powerful tool ever been invented by a human being and dont know what to do
about it (yet).
12/26/2012 11:57 AM
I understand the entirety of your post and appreciate the work that has gone into it. I think that my response can be summed up as,
"point B is never clearly dened". As we cannot perceive of something directly, so too would point B not be perceived directly. Thus, we cannot clearly define it.
I agree with your statements that we need to define what point B is. But this is more of a 'general idea' or what would be called a reference because we are
trying to perceive of a "future" perspective from the "present". To put it an other way, if you want to drive to Arlington you could: 1) Ask questions and provide
answers consciously, perhaps by looking at a map 2) Get in the car and go somewhere specic. It doesn't matter where. I AM sugges ng #2, with the
important point to have a clear idea in mind about any des na on. It need not be Arlington in order to get to Arlington. We are learning how to perceive
"Arlington" wherever we may be. If you want to define Arlington that's fine. But the definition is what you make it. It only matters that something is dened
now. (It can all ways be changed later, and most often is as we seem to change perspec ves.) But I think most often we get stuck on the destination and
thinking too much about it. As if we can perceive it clearly from where we stand. So we squint and try to take a gander and make out what is in the distance..
all the while forge ng that it is here now. #2 is about seeing point B in the here and now. When you get in the car and drive the road will automatically shift
to your des na on, even if you think you're not going in the right direction. #1 is the natural way and it's what we're used to. But the wisdom of the Genius is
far more clever.
12/26/2012 12:34 PM
I think vanilla or orange would be values in perspective, whereas 'choice' would be something outside of the reality that arises from
between representations. It seems more like part of the logical narra ve than a avour. Something that we use to make sense of how we got from point A to
point B. If I say that I got into my car and ended up in Colorado Springs a few hours later then a logical narra ve would fill all the blanks of these two
perspectives (for ease of illustra on). Just as an object appears solid as my mind lls in the gaps to make sense of the object. My mind 'lling in the gaps' is
free will. I'm making sense of my perspective. So 'free will' may be something that arises from us to make sense of our transition through perspectives.
Interesting to think about. Last Edited by Chaol on 12/26/2012 01:18 PM
Yes, I do. On this level, we get along and work toward mutual happiness and benet. My curiosity has led me down many rabbit holes and I find within them a
common theme, they're interesting to the geometry of relationships that I "care about" (value) but irrelevant. In the "next level"(all levels) that "working
towards mutual benefit and happiness" may be rendered as working against each other (as that dynamic is working now through my inability to properly explain
my perspective or inspire others to seek to experience it). My desire to bring them along in nice packages neatly marked fragile is seemingly beyond my ability.
I think back to what you said about most of your popula on choosing to not use (or even bother to understand) the language of perspective (consciously) and I

137 of 145

cringe. I believe that I AM able to perceive a subjective universe rich with experience but I will be unable to share it. I feel like I AM building a massive
playground rich with possibility and the ones I'll invite to come play will ignore it altogether (as they do not technically exist beyond my perception of them
anyway). I don't want my wife to be properly represented as a "carnival ride" within perspective. I want to transplant her into my perspective, I want her to be
who she is, making the decisions she does and be able to ride it "herself". It seems to me that if we perceive as a "god" does or as a player does via an RTS
game, we find ourselves incapable of interacting (fairly) on a first person basis, whether we are playing a character in first person or not. It seems that I would
only be able to properly interact with someone I perceive to be at the same level. What I mean is that a chess player can never have a proper interaction with
his queen on the board, that interaction is reserved for the other player. I do not want my wife to be reduced to a chess piece (yet, I feel as if in some ways
both she and I already have been). I seek to allow her (and the others I care about) to continue to play.
12/26/2012 01:14 PM
If I say that I got into my car and ended up in Colorado Springs a few hours later then a logical narra ve would fill all the blanks of
this two perspectives (for ease of illustra on). Just as an object appears solid as my mind lls in the gaps to make sense of the object. When I ques oned "If
I understand you correctly, wouldn't choice then, be another "avor" of perspective like Vanilla or the color Orange?"... I guess I meant to ask "wouldn't choice
then, be another framework for perspective, like our ability to perceive the taste of vanilla or see the color orange?" The bolded statement answers that
question perfectly. And I interpret it as a "yes". Last Edited by Jesse Sovoda on 12/26/2012 01:30 PM
I think that my response can be summed up as, "point B is never clearly dened". That is how I see it too. I wrote it to Unit3 using different words: "We think
that point B is in the realm of our imagina on. But this realm is blurry to us. But since we live in our imagina on/dreams (our subjective world, as we call it),
the realm of reality also looks blurry (because we always see reality from the perspective of our dream). So, it seems that defining point A is the hard bit."
Nowhere in my posts suggested what one could do if he wants to be in Arlington (asking Q&As, looking at the map etc). I wrote that we need Q&As to produce
"Arlington". After that, our job is done and the Genius will take over. No need to talk about #1 and/or #2. However, I honestly see the value in helping us
remember that B is here with us, at point A. Maybe asking Q&As about B will somehow reveal where A is. Where we stand "now". And then we may not need to
define anything. We will just oat towards it.
12/26/2012 02:13 PM
Quo ng Chaol: "Parts that know and parts that don't know." I see this for sure. The way I'm expanding my perspective is trying a lot
of new stuff. I think the most interesting discovery I've made is how easily I consciously make things unconscious...without realizing I"m even doing so!!!!!!
When I took the walk the other day where I focused on things I didn't like, I was shocked at how easily I made sure I didn't notice those things. Today, I
looked for new life in the things I love (per your sugges on) while I walked, and was amazed again at the conscious repression into unconsciousness....and
also how to retrieve from the unconsciousness by no cing..... instead of sinking something out of "view." I listened to a car drive by and kept listening as it
went down the street....and could hear it almost a block away!!!!! Just because I chose to continue listening instead of sinking the sound into unconsciousness.
Pretty neat! Thank you for the example above of waking mind and really waking mind getting to point B! Very nice. hf The body only knows things I don't know
as long as I keep my perspective that way. correct? I'm stumbling over your statement: "It is the relationship of values in its perspec ve." This makes it sound
as if the body has a different perspective to mine. Last Edited by U3 on 12/26/2012 02:38 PM
Interes ng. Thank you and your joke about the jack cracked me up! Heh! Maybe I can clarify what I AM saying in the post above. I AM saying that we can't
know all the variables that take place when deciding on how to use our Genius. I don't mean to indicate not to use the Genius though. I"m saying we can't
know what all will take place for Point B to come into perspective. I don't think it's possible to know what will happen. I don't see defining Point A as the hard
part either. I see defining Point B as the hard part. I totally agree we have been shown a very powerful tool and don't know what we are doing yet. It's the
most exci ng thing I have ever dreamed of and beyond my wildest dreams. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this and looking at things from your
perspective. I'm open to more! ;o)
12/26/2012 09:56 PM
Yes, the body has a different perspective (though again there is only one perspective that, when used, appears to be innite).
There's an entire life in just one breath. Can you imagine living and working your entire life towards the purpose that the body that you unknowingly help to
make up could take a single breath? The cells know not what they do from your point of view because from their point of view it is something very different.
They dream about you as you dream about your other lives, to be sure ;) It is translated into something useful and relative for each perspective. We live and
work our entire lives toward a purpose that we know not, and see it very differently than how our 'expanded perspective' would see it. The perspectives are
equally valid, again, because each is relative to what surrounds it. I don't want to give the impression that if you have this 'expanded perspective' that you will
miss all of the joys of life... walking along a path or having interesting conversa ons with friends. It is just that you experience so much more of these walks
and conversa ons and would have a new kind of walk and conversation that would be completely fullling in your life and seem to take forever. (But from our
now-human perspective this kind of life may be hundreds or thousands years-long.)
12/26/2012 10:10 PM
You are the most beautiful and wondrous thing that could ever be imagined. You are Something born of nothing-in-par cular. How
amazing is that!? You are that which takes an innity of perceptions to try and reproduce. All of the sonnets, birds, poems, clouds, hats, and swords in the
world try, time and time again, to capture your essence. But cannot. You are the life of life. The beauty of beauty. The wonder of wonder. That which things
things try to be but cannot. That is how awesome you are. They try through all manner of drama, seemingly to create a universe of things that, sadly, cannot
capture even a small fragment of the impossible-to-perceive. Although these things can be beautiful and not, happy and sad, at times thrilling or entirely
boring, and everything in between, it is really just a distrac on from your essence. Who are you? You are whomever you are, whomever is possible to be. But
these things are confusing. Who wants to be nothing-in-par cular when we can have the illusion of something-in-par cular. And so here you are. Impossible to
dene, impossible to perceive, impossible to merely think of.. but how wonderfully awesome is it that we can try. And "try" is this essence. It is all we can do,
and it is enough to create an endless universe of yourself, exploding at every moment and lling it again with an entirely new outlook of yourself. But this
"yourself" is not the you that wears clothes and eats food. It is YOU. The most relative thing to you. Your clothes do not illustrate this. The dishes on the table
do not capture this. It is so wonderfully hidden because it is this nothing-in-par cular, yet everything that could possibly be. Are you alone? It would seem
from my descrip on that you are. What else is there when you are everything? But the secret of this nothing-in-par cular is that you have created an entire
universe of perspective because this "alone" is irrelevant! As soon as "nothing" is irrelevant it 'creates' SOMETHING. How can something be irrelevant when
there is nothing else with which to compare? So here you are. "Alone in the universe..." is only something to be sad about if there was once two and now one.
Now there is an innity of you so that it is impossible. And this beauty, these hats, these endless swords, and all the poems that will ever be written are a
part of something entirely wondrous and beautiful. Think of it as a gi from nowhere. It is only an illusion if there is something 'real' with which to compare it.
So this story, these epic dramas we call existence is all that needs to be and is the most real thing that could ever possibly be. You are all that you need to be

138 of 145

right now. When I say that everything exists here and now I mean that there is no need to be anyone else, go anyplace else, do anything else, other than
what you are doing right now. Un l this YOU perceives something else. In one word, the you I have illustrated is Perfec on.
12/27/2012 04:27 AM
heh.. I thought the question, "Does your girlfriend know who you are?" was an amusing one. Yes, I AM human. But I AM also not
human. As not-human as you are. It depends on the context, I suppose. As I've mentioned on the Ecsys website: Our physical body is a massive collection of
both physical and non-physical consciousness. (In a similar manner, our mind operates in both physical and non-physical stages.) Approximately 100 trillion
bacterial cells, each with its own individual consciousness and thoughts, inhabit our body. We have 10 times more bacterial cells in our body than human cells.
What we refer to as human DNA actually has more than 1,000 times more microbial genes than what we think of as human genes. We are, in reality, not
human. As soon as we are born, bacteria move in. They stake claims in our diges ve and respiratory tracts, our teeth, our skin. They establish increasingly
complex communi es, like a forest that gradually takes over a clearing. By the time were a few years old, these communi es have matured, and we carry them
with us, more or less, for our entire lives. Our bodies harbor 100 trillion bacterial cells, outnumbering our human cells 10 to one. Its easy to ignore this
astonishing fact. So we call ourselves human when we are not. The answer depends on how deep the question seems to want to go, I suppose. Does she know
about who I am? And what I did last summer? Yes. AM I human in my other life? As human as you are now. But she does not know that I post here.
12/28/2012 11:09 PM
Look around you. How are you perceiving what you are? Is that not also guaranteed? Is it not real? The first question would be,
"Where do my perceptions come from?". Something we've all ready covered. The more practical question would then be, "How do we perceive whatever we want
to perceive?" That is a loaded question, but I would only suggest that "want" is irrelevant. We do not perceive what we want to perceive. As the Genius holds,
we perceive.. that which is (blah blah.. you get the idea) [The remainder of this post will do without quota on marks. What I AM illustrating is approximate.]
For me, I create representations of what I want. If I wanted a vanilla ice cream cone then I would create an equation, in Ec, that for me represents the
environment around what I want. Vanilla ice cream cone would be the missing element and it would be experienced in my perspective. (It does not magically
appear in my hand but it could easily appear in the drawer next to me, cold as ice. My brain would then make up a story as to how it's logical. We do this all
the time and everything makes perfect sense. Perhaps you've experienced this while dreaming.) My brain would fill in the blanks of what is missing. ...because
my brain has learned to see Ec representations the same as the real thing. You can use Ec or something else. You need only represent. It is the same as the
entire universe is doing right now. And you have the ability to do it also with just your mind. (Or anything else you want to use.) So you simply have to find a
way to make your brain see the representation as the real thing. Are you looking at words now? Are you even looking at le ers? When you talk on the phone
are you hearing that person's voice? When you look at something are you seeing it directly or your brain's interpretation of it? Representa ons, all. Your brain
sees these as real because it has learned how to work with them. It knows nothing else. So what I AM doing is first jumping off of a building and then creating
a framework for perception that my brain, by necessity, has to adhere to. It is exactly how you push yourself into the next moment. How often do you see
glitches in the matrix? If your brain would allow, you would see them all the time. But you are able to walk on the street even though it has just experienced a
quantum uctua on and did not exist for the past 20 minutes because your brain saw a gap and filled it. It sees gaps in whatever you're looking at and lls
those too. It sees gaps in your experience and lls it, without your conscious mind knowing about it. The reality is not about the physical things. Those are not
real. They are simply values in perspective, like anything else. By creating representations you are not fooling your mind or anything because it is how reality is
created. [I'm still doing without quota on marks here.] Everything is a representation. Should I jump off of a 20-story building I do not fool my brain into
thinking that it is only 4 feet tall any more than it fools me into thinking that the building was there in the first place! Again, representations all. We work with
nothing more or less than representations. When you create a representation for your dream house your representation is as real as the house. The house
itself is an other representation. You already work with representations to create your reality and perceive whatever it is that you perceive. In a way building
your life is like building your vocabulary. Tweaking your life to fit your desires is like improving your grammar. And learning how reality works is like learning a
new language. By the time you're 20 years old you have all ready learned thousands (perhaps millions) of languages. Some are more fundamental than others.
But all are collec ons of representations that are manipulated so that you can interact with addi onal representations, ad innitum. Why does customer mean
something specific to you but usectmro does not? It could very well have been that usectmro was what you used, instead. They're both meaningless
representations. The difference is that you have given meaning to one and not the other. In a similar way, why would accidentally cu ng your finger with a
knife mean something to you but wrapping your arm with gi stead does not? They're both meaningless. And you work with meaning (values) to create your
reality. But, unfortunately, I AM unable to properly respond to your query about visualiza on. I don't really know what your meaning entails. However, it seems
to be missing the remainder of experience. In your experience now is so much more than the visual aspect. One kind of sense is no more valid than any other.
We place a lot of emphasis on what we see but of course we need more than that to create a complete picture of experience. But, again, I AM not too sure of
what your definition of visualiza on is.
12/29/2012 10:34 AM
Following on... Why might you hear a sound but someone else does not hear it? Why might a black box on the oor appear as a
laptop to you but a black object to a newborn baby? Our perceptions 'act' in accordance with the value we have given them. The aspects of our reality interact
with us the same as we interact with them. If you see a black box, it will function as a black box in your reality (un l your new perspective). If you see a
laptop, it will function as a laptop in your reality (un l your new perspective). You can use either. Take what you perceive all ready and interact with it
differently for a different perception. We can wish for something that materializes in our wishes. Or we can see what we wish for as all ready existing in our
reality. Consider this... The concept of 'laptop' was invented by your perspective. You learned to see it in what was all ready there. So, where is your PGA tour
in your current perspec ve?
12/29/2012 11:14 AM
In Hindsight, that "something significant is underway" seems to include a pa ern of relationships that provided the experience of a
(rela vely) epic ght (within perspec ve) to sustain the relevance of my "precious". She and I have been through quite an adventure together. A large reason
why I began to look into "expanding my awareness" was to better understand the meaning in what would otherwise be "chaos". Some mes, from my
perspective, I feel as if I AM restructuring my reality to compensate for my desires. A little sacrice here, a little forgiveness there... My wife and I have "been
together" since I was 16, we're high-school sweethearts. All of our "friends" struggle to find someone with that "something" they require to make them "feel"
whole... I've had it for almost half of my 31 years, I know "nothing else". There were times when I didn't put forth the energy to fend off the entropy of
stagna on and I lost my grip on her. Now, I recognize the entropic patterns as they're unraveling before me and in no cing them, it sometimes feels like I AM
enabling them to thrive. Last night, I had a dream where I was on a train with my wife. There were three tracks running parallel and a train running along with
ours on both sides. A bridge collapsed in the distance and it had funky physics in the way it fell (kind of slow-mo). I became lucid at that point, ew from the
train and "a empted" to stop the trains (especially the one that contained my wife) from hi ng the bridge. By the time I turned around to see how close the
train had go en, they had already hit. My wife was barely injured but grateful that I was able to pull her from the rubble. I decided (within the dream) to wake
up (as the excitement of the experience had me buzzing with sa sfac on). I find it interesting and (sadly) predictable that the more I focus on "keeping" my

139 of 145

precious, the more my "genius" provides me scenarios where I have to defend my right to "keep" it.
12/29/2012 05:30 PM
So here we are! We live our lives hoping that one day we will find the Truth and live with it happily ever after We live our lives
fearing that one day the Truth will come and smash the idea/concept/thing we have about ourselves and our life. But...the Truth does not exist! In its ul mate
consequence the above points to: "not your fault/not to your merit" about everyone's life. Because as i have understand it from Chaol, none of us has ever
perceived anything that was not the most rela ve/logical to its previous perception. None of us has ever done anything more (where did the "extra" energy
come from?), or less of what he could have done (it wouldn't have happened). We all did/do/will do our best and everyone else in our position would have done
the same. Because there was never any "more" or "less" to do. But thanks to Chaol, we can now know that the above, is not the most boring statement about
life. Quite the opposite. But we cannot simply believe, be convinced or be persuaded about the above. It means nothing! We won't know what to do about it!
We have to experience it, entering our bloodstream (I still haven't. I AM just following the pointers, which means that I may also have taken a "wrong" turn) :)
12/30/2012 07:50 AM
When we are okay with the values in our perspective then our perspective seems to change. Resis ng creates things that have very
little value and seem more real than they actually are. It is possible that you see her as being that way because of your own resistance to the things in your
perspective (i.e., to you). If you, for example, were to spontaneously develop a strong distaste for the word "cleavage" then your subconscious would find a
way to shove it in your face. Dramas would be created and it would seem like you are doing the right thing (to jus fy your feelings) when actually the drama
exists because you are essentially saying to yourself, "that is not me" while your subconscious is saying, "oh, yes it is you. I'm just going to leave it here until
you figure it out."
12/30/2012 07:58 AM
Let's say you had the entire universe from which to choose whatever you wished to experience. You then decided to focus on a very,
very small part of it. For example, someone being killed in your neighborhood a few years ago. Ne'ermind the other, similar killings in other places, nor of all of
the other things that exist in the universe. You then spend 10,000 years focused on this very small part of yourself. Perhaps you think that you should focus on
it because it is bad and you have compassion. Can you then say that it comes into your perception without your consent? Further, if someone is being
mugged... where is it happening? Inside or outside of your perspec ve?
12/30/2012 08:21 AM
"Unfortunately..."? Why? why this value statement here? However if the observation is accurate (as you seem to conrm-besides it
was based on your readings), it can "produce" a temporary morality- Leniency. Trea ng everybody (or at least trying to) around us with leniency (since we
"acknowledge" that they act/say exactly as what we would have acted/said in their place), because we know where they are coming from (they do their best
like us) can be a "method" of gradually elimina ng what you call resistance. Elimina ng resistance (unfocus) is what will open all doors to perception as we
have been told. Leniency then, cannot be a moral requirement from a Higher Authority, not even an order that came from the most rational of thinkings. It can
represent however, a recipe of how to keep your head in place where everyone around you looks like it is losing theirs. Let's not forget though, that "leniency"
is just a meaningless word and its role is to point somewhere. Not to be used as a mo o or slogan to believe in, because once we arrive at where it points, it
will be irrelevant itself, proving it has no value. Also, because none of us can live by always giving "right" to the others, leniency can point to understanding
what the other is talking about, where his/her words point to (for us that we perceive them) and not what they mean (because they mean nothing). If we do try
to find meaning in the other's words, then it is when we raise resistance, since we will have to later classify this meaning as good or bad (depending on with
what- "charged" by us- concept, this meaning has been connected), interact with it and ac ng accordingly, thus perpetua ng the illusion of (our) existence.
01/01/2013 04:20 AM
You need not see everything as one. It's okay to perceive duality and see things as "good" while others are "bad". It's the reason we
exist. Without the illusion of "other" there is no You. There's nothing wrong with what you are doing now. It's okay to focus on the negative of things, because
actually we are then focusing on an aspect of ourselves. We seem to think that we should be perceiving the 'good' in things. It's just something we make up
for ourselves. I'm saying that every experience is as valid as every other. A 'good' experience is not better than a 'bad' experience because it is our
interpretation of the two experiences that make something good or bad. Actually, the experience is neither. In one hand I AM saying there's nothing wrong with
your perspective. Wan ng to change it because you don't see how it works is missing the point. As most of us would say, there's a reason behind it. I'm
guessing that it's a way for your Genius to show you that you are the things you perceive and there is no difference. It's a realization that will probably never
happen for most of us. It's something that takes (in terms of the clock) a very long time to realize. So we go through existence experiencing things that do not
seem like us. "That is not me! I AM dierent", or "That is bad", et c. On and on and on. Un l you realize that our perspective is you. Things would not come
into your perspective without your consent because you are your perspective, even when you don't understand that you are. Imagine the expanse of our
universe. We can safely say that we don't know anything about it. We barely know about our own planet, history, and present goings-on. That should tell us
that pretty much everything we think and believe is only good temporarily (including what you are reading now) until something more useful comes along. We
see something as separate from us, or do not understand the nature of good/evil because we simply do not understand anything at all. The only question
would be, "How useful is it?" So the question that I ask you is how useful is the "good" and "bad" in your experience? What does it do for you? I will await your
response to the question, "If someone is being mugged... where is it happening? Inside or outside of your perspec ve?"
01/01/2013 04:40 AM
Chaol, thanks for the advice. I'd like your input on this other model I made that I consider failed as the first company I made it for
barred me from employment because of a close family member that works for the same company in an other city...I still can't figure out where it went wrong:
Genius Model: Ge ng a specific position with a particular company.
1. Symbol- a metal wiring wrapped around/stuck in a wine stopper with a toothpick stuck on top and a piece of a ower glued to the side. And a toll-road ticket
attached to the side of the stopper.
2. Possibility- on top of my main dresser-drawer in my bedroom.
3. Interac on- everything in my room (it is set so that it has the highest vantage point of any thing in the room.
4. Logic- Each night before I go to bed I grab the wire 'handle' I made and say the name of the company 3 times. Each time I walk into my room I ick the toll
cket. Every morning I tear of a piece of paper and write a le er of the company's name on it and s ck it onto the toothpick. After the first company was
completely spelled out, I got notice that I couldn't work there...but I still kept up with the model (just changed the company I wanted). Help!? Thanks!
01/01/2013 03:11 PM
I bolded 2 of your statements above. My questions are:
1) It sounds like you feel the Genius teaches us. So how does the subconscious have more of a commitment to Truth than the conscious part of ourselves?
2) Is there always a split between conscious self and the subconscious?
3) Why do you feel the realization that we are all we perceive something that may never happen for most of us? Do you have this realiza on?

140 of 145

4) One last question re: one of my Genius maps. I went out today, as usual, with 5 symbols in my hand. One of the places I needed to deliver them was
closed. So, at first, I was going to keep them in my hand until I got home, but that got resome, so I stuck them in my purse. I figure I now have to make new
symbols to replace these, so what do I do with the old symbols now? I can separate some of them and I could burn the paper ones. Otherwise, I don't know
how to dispose of them. Or, does it not matter what I do with them once I make the new symbols to replace them?
01/01/2013 10:22 PM
1) No, not 'teaching' per se. It's more of the way things work rather than a lesson. The more you 'split' this concept of You in your
perspective the more attraction/repulsion will be experienced, and the drama of life comes out of this. As I've mentioned before, Truth is irrelevant.
2)There is no real split. There's only the illusion of it. The conscious is an aspect of the subconscious. (But from our perspective it seems dierent.) They are
essentially the same thing. But for purposes of explanation I almost all ways call them out separately.
3) Because we don't want to realize it. It goes against nature. There's nothing wrong with understanding that you are (and we often pretend we do because we
inherently understand this). But the more we understand something the more it is possible that we realize that we are nothing-in-par cular. And that's
frightening. I don't care for the realization that I AM everything. It's kind of boring, in my opinion. I'd much rather divide my perspective and create drama, and
forget.
4) If "One of the places I needed to deliver them was closed" then I suppose you missed where you were supposed to put it ;) This is an example of how we
usually think we know what's best but when the Genius is 'showing' us the map we tend to ignore it. You need not make new symbols. They're still valid (as
long as the inten on wasn't specific to the place that you will no longer put them).
01/01/2013 10:52 PM
As to interac on, other than being in the same environment as everything in my bedroom, there is no special 'interac on' taking
place. It is sta onary. Yes, I can see how it would be making the map more obvious in one way; although, in an other way I see it as a failed Genius because
that particular model was for that particular company position for which I was barred. However, our discussion on this has helped me to see that I have been
confusing my Genius's (Genii??). I know some of my earliest Models for the new job contradicted themselves. I have my subconscious twis ng ts. I need to
start a new. This brings up a question as to whether we need do anything 'special' when discarding previous Models. Do I just abandon the Model, or what? I
will make a new Model tomorrow with a less specific desired intent. As all ways, thanks so much for all your help. And happy New Year to all here. It's going to
bee a crazy awesome 2013!!
01/04/2013 10:30 AM
Surely the world is not outside of your perspec ve? Is it just my interpretation and something else is actually happening? What
besides your interpretation could there possibly be? Why do you call yourself destroyer of worlds? I call myself a destroyer because no one else is willing to
take up the tle. We often pretend that only creation is of benefit and ignore the possibilities that destruc on unveils. I mean "destruc on" in the classical
sense rather than the Hollywood sense. Tearing down one perspective to unveil an other. Really, there is neither creation nor destruc on but rather an
unveiling. But "unveiler" is more strange than my persona allows. The unseen hand of chaos slowly pulls back the curtain. Aren't you seeing yourself as
inuencing the world? Any aspect of a reality (value of perspective, as I call it) has an effect on all others. So, yes, I AM aware of the inuence. There are more
interactions in the dreaming perspective, so the potential for understanding is much more signicant. (More realized interactions per value, you could say. Or
more interactions per second, to be less accurate.) That's the only difference.
01/04/2013 10:37 AM
Your possibility element could be your hat, your shoes, a room, a wall, a field (if used).. anything used for its space. It does not
really matter what it is, though you may have different kinds of success with different kinds of spaces. Each element has a secret life as every other kind of
element. A symbol element is also an interac on, possibility, and logic element. (There's only 1 element, fundamentally interpreted 4 different ways in our
perspective.) So, the Possibility element that you use (whatever space you choose) represents (is a symbol for the) possibility and adopts its function. (That's
why it doesn't matter so much what kind of space you choose.) Hope this helps =D
01/04/2013 10:39 AM
So imagine that you weren't dreaming of it... interpre ng s muli while awake. Really, you never actually fall asleep. You are all ways
aware. What we call sleeping or dreaming is simply your interpretation of other values that are not so relative to where you're standing now (With "going to
sleep" the act of making that transi on.) We interpret those foreign values all the time while not "sleeping". We may find ourselves daydreaming, with missing
time, in a coma, being in situa ons that don't make sense to us, et c. So, "gui7lus minor tresemble.II" in one perspective (dreaming) becomes "chasing
people" in an other (thinking about your dream). Both are interpreta ons of the same thing. But your waking mind does not remember "gui7lus minor
tresemble.II" because it is not relative to it. Instead, it interprets the geometry of relationships in a way that does make sense and comes up with "chasing
people". And so (most importantly) we are chasing people in a dream and cashing checks while awake. (While awake, we are also interpre ng these
relationships. We are not really looking at a monitor reading these words, since an absolute monitor cannot possibly exist. Our "reality" is comprised entirely of
interpre ng rela onships.) And so, the value of interaction (so that there could be rela onships) and the meaninglessness of One-ness.
01/04/2013 11:15 AM
Imagine that in 5 years pre-cogni on became an accepted fact and everyone was experiencing it. Journals and papers were wri en,
and someone even won the Nobel prize. [Just fantasy.. humor me] News reports worked it into their stories, society in general worked it into its psyche. Would
it still be extraordinary? After many years it would just be human nature. Eventually it would be forgotten that there was a time that it was quite unusual, aye,
unbelievable that humans lived without the ability. The most amazing human feats abound, often without par cipants realizing the wonder that just occurred.
That we are even able to speak and communicate with one-another is amazing in itself. We have senses of sight, sound, taste... And the ability to reason. All
of these things that we take for granted would be considered no less than "supernatural" to our distant ancestors. Even the act of running to the water fountain
is magic. They can be explained as you just did. Abili es. What some call supernatural or spiritual I just call perspective. And all of the above cannot seem to
be without it.
Last Edited by Chaol on 01/05/2013 11:13 AM
Everything from the Geometry of Relationships: The Origin of the Universe I've spoken before about the geometry of relationships that make up our
perspective. You can see a summary here: [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] The following is a reference to an understanding of the building blocks of
physicality. Here is how the Genius works to 'create' your reality... (It may help to imagine the symbols of the elements from [link to ecsys.org] during the
following illustration; the point, the sphere, the line, the hybrid identified by "Common Symbol") In the beginning, if you will, you represent nothing-inparticular (that which cannot be perceived) with a single point. This act of symbolizing nothing-in-particular with a single point (even if illusory) creates the
entire universe. Think of Michelangelo's famous fresco, the Big Bang, the beginning of time and space, the Flying Spaghetti Monster's embarkation point, the
origin of the universe. This is the beginning of perspective. Symbologically, it is saying, "I can see this" Possibility The point is the first space where something
is (or seems to be). It is Symbol without Interaction Without a logic there is no means by which to interact. No protocol. Logic pierces through the sphere of

141 of 145

possibility, organizing possibility. Imagine the line of logic making its way through the sphere. If it were not organized in some way it would not be able to
penetrate. Logic is the "ordering of possibility" This unveils interaction, a network of symbols (values) united in the center by a nexus point. This is symbolized
by the 6 points of the symbol that is comprised of the two points of logic (beginning and end) and the now 4 points of possibility. This Interaction is Logic
with possibility as the line, or order, of logic penetrates into possibility and enables interaction. Interaction enables a network of values to become logical,
allowing for relationships between things, creating consciousness and perspective.
01/05/2013 12:19 PM
Creating Reality We've discussed briefly about the Genius and how we can in a way influence our perspective via the subconscious
mind. Some of us have created physical symbols (per the Genius) that work with our subconscious to lead us to new perspectives. The physical Genius models
that we've played with are of course stepping-stones to a far more powerful tool; the mental Genius model. The mental Genius model is actually the same as
the physical model. (As both physical and mental models are a part of your physically-oriented perspective.) The difference between the two is that with the
mental model we are increasing the possibilities for interaction. Thus, interaction increases. This is translated into your experience as on-the-fly changes to
your perspective (reality) and what would be called infinite possibilities, experiencing a universe that you cannot begin to translate into classical words. Here's
how to do it... As with the physical genius model we represent our desired perspective. For the beginner, they can do it in an obvious way (e.g., I want a new
house so I will make a model out of toothpicks). This works to form connections between present (toothpicks) and future (new house) representations of what
you want. The Genius unveils a map of where you want to go. How 'soon' you experience it depends on how relative where you want to go is to where you are
now. For a somewhat more advanced use of the Genius let the Genius (your subconscious) take over. This one is a bit more difficult to figure out but I suppose
you can say it's about trusting your subconscious. You have only to represent what you want in any way you can imagine. The Genius finds a way to make it
work. For example, you could represent your new house with a bundle of sticks tied together with a tin-foil hat. Your subconscious mind has all ready made the
connection before you thought of it. You do not need to make it obvious. You do not need to 'drive it home'. As everything exists as a value in the geometry of
relationships the symbol that you have made represents a value in your desired perspective. It does not matter what the symbol is, only that it is unique so
that your subconscious knows that X = XYZ. It basically says, "Your new house is equal to your bundle of sticks with a tin-foil on top? Great! It's even easier to
work with since it's here and now so let me show you how to get to where you want to go." So your Genius relates the bundle of tin-foil hat-wearing sticks to
the new house. At this exact point the sticks and the house share the same geometry of relationships (or somewhere in the neighborhood). Your conscious
mind will want to interfere with the process. Learn to realize when it is doing this. Leave it to your subconscious (you know, the really, really smart one) to
figure it out for you. So now your new house all ready exists in your current perspective (as the bundle of sticks) so then you create logic, possibility, and
develop interactions in order for you to explore its possibilities. You are uncovering the path to your new house and your bundle of sticks is pointing the way.
Oftentimes it will not be a direct route. It may give you hints and clues.. this is the map at work. You may set out to go to an open house but instead your car
and your phone break down and you find yourself asking a homeless person to crack a dollar. The conscious mind wants to think, "This is not part of my plan!"
But it is not your plan. It is the Genius' plan and it is up to you to be open to possibility and interaction. The homeless person could be an integral part of the
map. Every "possibility" is a value in the geometry of relationships. (This is very important to remember) ...and one of those possibilities is your new house
that you can walk in. Again, by telling your subconscious that X = XYZ you are simultaneously drawing XYZ closer to X. You then explore the possibilities of X.
One of those possibilities is XYZ. The rest is just the story that your mind needs in order to relate X to XYZ. Let your Genius figure out how to make this
logical in your reality.
01/05/2013 12:53 PM
As an addendum to the above, the enterprising mind may want to think about how I work with the Genius. Of course I will not tell
you how exactly (figuring it out is half of the fun!) but I will tell you a story. There once was a boy named Peter, who wanted to teleport far far away. His dog
had died and his mother cursed, and he just wanted to escape that day. "Oh how! How can I get the fudge out of my fridge?", said he When his eyes had
cleared from the heart that teared, magically there appeared a genie. "Aren't you the genie from the last story?", said Peter. "Indeed, but you're not to
remember that anymore!", the genie said, surprised. "What else do you remember from before?" "I remember that if I symbolize a place I wish to be, and make
sure not to forget the other three, then my world will change", spoke Peter. "Is that all? And then you're free?" asked the genie. Peter remembered, "No. Not
just yet. I must narrow my range!" The genie raised his eyebrow. Peter continued, "Instead of visualizing it in time space I must relate here with there. I can
think of any random thing, from a rolling meadow to a stray hair. ..and make it weird!" "You are correct. Well done!" said the genie, twisting his beard. "It is
when we see where we wish to go here and now that we see the portal to it. And by making up a logic for that thing we pull ourselves there as our mind
relates the there-logic to the here-logic. Indeed, the logic is our path." "Of course!" exclaimed Peter. "The logic is our path. "I need not know how. I need not
do the maths. "I need only think of something-anything-and my mind will start to make sense of it, at the same time taking me to where I wish to go!" And in
a satisfied puff of smoke, the genie disappeared. Peter was soon to follow.
Last Edited by Chaol on 01/05/2013 12:55 PM
You walk down the same street going to work 100 times. You follow the same logic 100 times. Variations occur but it's all pretty much the same experience.
On the 101st time, a portal to an other world appears. Was the same logic followed? If this portal is a value in your perspective was your perspective following
the same logic as the previous 100 times? Your mind randomly creates logic and creates a whole world around it. There is an endless variety of logic, as many
kinds as there are supposed stars in the universe. (And Chaos is a logic that we do not yet understand.) When we go to sleep we follow the same logic that we
have made up for the 'sleep' experience. Make up new logic and you simultaneously 'create' a new perspective. The question that our conscious minds want to
ask is, "How do I make a logic from Point A to Point B that makes sense to me?" ...not realizing that it need not make sense to you now because your Genius
will make it make sense. And that is why the conscious mind does not know what it does (and thus the idea of the subconscious is born). Perspective (or
consciousness) comes from the relationship between two things. But it is Logic that draws the line from one thing to an other to give meaning to perspective.
In order to experience a new reality you can think of something that does not make sense to you today and find a way to make it make sense to you tomorrow.
You can use the Genius to map it out, of course. But the above is to show you that your mind can (and does) make sense of an endless variety of possibilities.
01/05/2013 10:45 PM
It is more of a question of, "What is my symbol interacting with now?" And of course you may not be able to apply the logic and it
may be divorced from adopting its Possibility so I would say that the model is invalid. However... =) The model is still alive and well at work in your Genius.
But without these things to 'connect' it to this reality you may not see the values of perspective that it unveils (as the anchors to your reality are not there). I
would try making a new model, then. Depending on the new model it may reconnect to the model all ready at work in your Genius (and you would then see the
result of the new model more quickly, as it was just looking for a way to re-anchor itself in your perspective). This would be similar to you "sleeping on it" and
then the answer is ready when your mouth or brain wakes up.
1. Why is 'sleeping' so important to us? Sleep deprivation is used as torture, even. Why do we need this interpretation of (some) foreign values? We could just
ignore the lot of them, as we apparently ignore so many.
2. So when we appear to remember a dream, does the story have any connection to what we were experiencing in the dream world? Like with Unit's example

142 of 145

above, was that her interpretation of a dreamworld experience where she was having fun, not necessarily with hot sauce? Or could she have been having a
completely different thing going on?
3. Do I understand rightly ~ we don't sleep; we don't shut down in order to rest; We are fully aware and our dream stories are us translating experiences from
the dreamworld so that they make sense in the waking world? Hope this is clear Also, could you explain what you mean by 'most importantly) we are chasing
people in a dream and cashing checks while awake'
User ID: 31636963
Are we not ignoring it all day long? Sleeping is important the way changing perspective is important. You can't not change perspective
and you can't not sleep. There are persons who "don't sleep" who are aware of changing perspectives. Because the dream perspective jumps a few steps of
relativity to your waking perspective (quite rapidly, it could be inaccurately said) we seem to transition into an other state of mind. The foreign values make up
our perspective. Some are much more foreign than others (much less relative) but still a part of it. It is exactly what is happening, just translated in a way that
is relative to your waking mind. The 'two' events are occurring at the same time. However, we interpret them differently from different perspectives. One
perspective has less interactivity than the other (this one) and seems to occur at a different time. What we remember is not what is happening in the dream
world but our interpretation of it. However, what we experience in our waking world is also an interpretation of something else. There are as many
interpretations as there are perspectives. A dream world "event" on May 28th (as you see it) could be interpreted as the events that you experience on July 5th
(or much later, or sooner). If sleeping means transitioning to an other perspective (that is more of a jump than the smooth transitions we experience at every
moment) then yes, we sleep. But there is no loss of awareness. It is not so much that we need rest but moreso that a change of perspective is needed. And
yes to, "We are fully aware and our dream stories are us translating experiences from the dreamworld so that they make sense in the waking world" The
question then is, "Does my perspective as it is being experienced RIGHT NOW remember what happened in my other perspective when I was dreaming?" You
remember, but "you" is more than one specific perspective. It is no-perspective-in-particular. A continuous transition of total perspectives, if you will. By the
statement, "...most importantly) we are chasing people in a dream and cashing checks while awake" I mean that chasing people = cashing checks (for
example). Two 'different' interpretations of the same thing. Our dream world is also an interpretation of something else.
01/07/2013 10:37 PM
What is happening is just the narrative by which you (the perspective) begin to understand that what you experience and perceive is
your perspective. The acting will become more obvious as we go along because we are, indeed, playing roles. We are seeing this expressed in various ways as
I mentioned a couple of years ago. It's part of the process. While such things are so that we can think about our reality I would not say that it's to bring us to
an ultimate logic, or a new brand. Just something that is 'good enough' until an other kind of logic is more useful. The events of Newtown, Aurora, New York,
and hundreds of others of the past few years (most of the socially-important events that you see in the news media) are there to provide an opportunity to
wonder about your reality. What is real? Although most of the actors in these various plays are psychopathic this, too, is a narrative to bring us closer to the
realization that "they is us" and "us is me". (That persons involved appear to be divorced from society at large is an illustration of how we think we are
separate from our own realities.) The events of the past are not conspiracies to 'hide the truth' about events. It is just that we don't want to think about what
it could mean. Even the participants in the plays often do not know what is happening until long after it is over. Oftentimes there are two exercises going on at
the same time (one "real" and the other "fake"). What is interesting is how willing we are to participate in something that crosses the line from fiction to
reality, because we often do not know the difference ourselves. The 'government' need not hide something that people will hide voluntarily in their own minds.
It need not actually be hidden. It can be done out in the open and we will usually find a way to hide it, or make sense of it an other way that is more
acceptable to our logic. Government, people, society, et c, are all values in your perspective and are played out accordingly.
01/07/2013 10:48 PM
Not necessarily. We cannot easily calculate value from the waking mind, because it often is not aware of it. Just use a space that is
in your perspective in order to take advantage of what it is ("possibility"). The more you stretch your idea of what your "space" is the more possibility can be
realized. We are all as awake as the other. But some of us make more relative those realities that you seek. Why not make it relative? If you're planning to go
out somewhere at 5pm in your waking world, why not do the same for your dream world? Why not plan your dreams? Why not watch your favorite television
show in your dreams? Who is your family in the dreamworld? Why don't you want to talk to them about what happened yesterday? The reason we do not
remember (and experience it directly) is because it is not so relative. It's on the edge of relativity and we often miss it because we are so focused on the
events of this world we miss how it relates. You are well-capable of doing that now. But keep in mind that you do not need to. It does not make you more
aware of things, or more enlightened, or more knowledgeable, et c., in itself. There is no gentle transition :) That's why we don't remember. It's a bumpy ride
lol If we don't prefer bumpy rides then I suggest getting off the Chaos (forall) tour bus and taking in a nice vanilla ice cream instead. Some of us will go
through hell. But it will be a narrated hell with a nice ending :) Last Edited by Chaol on 01/07/2013 11:03 PM
I see now why calculating the value is difficult. Well, I want to stretch my space then. I could leave a symbol, once per week, outside on the sidewalk where I
take a lot of walks. Yes, I would like to make the dream world more relative because what I do experience is awesome. But, you're saying being aware of how I
author reality is more "enlightening" than making the dream world relative? Yes, the more I thought about it, how would I know if I agree with what the
subconscious might call gentle anyway? LOL! Hmmmmm, narrated hell with a nice ending. I'd like to know what you mean by narrated...I know the rest, heh!
Which reminds me, it's 2013. When do we get to hear what you have to say about this year? ;o) Thanks Chaol.
01/07/2013 11:21 PM
Dzie;kujemy Chaol. To by?o bardzo pomocne. Okay, well I know I have to adjust my idea of spiritual and also, your website says: "At
the dawn of the universe we existed without physical form. We lived exclusively in a dream-like state, free of physical constraints. Every thought became real,
instantly. There were no limitations on what we could do." The bold statement is why I enjoy my dreamtime so much. Your site also says this: "Unfortunately
for us, the physical model is breaking down. Now, from the period of 2001-2013, the dream world (the real world) is re-emerging." and this: "You can return to
your more natural state of being using Ecsys to remove the physical constraints you have set up for yourself." "The future of humanity is not with the physical
body. It is with non-physical states. Ecsys shows you how to get there before it's too late." So, I thought we are learning how to move from the physical. Do
you have any idea when it's too late?
Last Edited by U3 on 01/07/2013 11:24 PM
Thanks Chaol,some more mind blowing stuff to think about! When you say we have to change perspective, does this mean even if we don`t sleep we still
change perspective and do we know that we have changed perspective? Does this mean staying up and watching whatever is on TV or just reading a book is
the perspective change? I AM assuming the "me" in my dream reality understands more of how things work and how to make things more relative. It`s funny
you mention planning your dream activities as this is something I have never even considered to do before. Since my dreams are quite eventful but I tend not
to remember them completely, I never thought it would be possible to ask questions and stuff like that while I`m there. I most likely do but I haven`t made it
relative to my waking self I guess, so I don`t remember. What things could you recommend I do to make my dream life more relative to my waking experience?

143 of 145

I know you say there is no need to do this but I think it will be a "really cool" ability to cultivate. I have never lucid dreamed or anything like that so this could
be something for me to attempt!
01/07/2013 11:33 PM
For ease of explanation you can say that perspective transitions in waves. Some waves, or cycles, are bigger than others. Very minor
transitions are occurring at every moment. This could be while doing anything. Reading could be a step up in the cycle. Sleeping is an other step. (It's actually
a multitude of steps that happen very quickly from our waking perspective. But in each dream-step there is a cycle up.) Yes, if you don't sleep you are still
changing perspective just like you're doing it when you are reading. (Though some values in your perspective are "sleeping" because this cycle-change knocks
them out just like you're knocked out at a different cycle change). The dream you interacts more because it's "space" is more. Because this interaction is
increased the understanding seems to increase, because the "answers" are at its fingertips (more relative because of the interaction). For your question, "What
things could you recommend I do to make my dream life more relative to my waking experience?" I often will say there's nothing you need to do because I
don't want to give the impression that you need to be doing something else. It is our nature to think that we need to do something else, but really we are all
ready doing it. We just don't see the forest for the trees, I suppose. And doing something else could take us off the 'path' that would have led us to where we
want to go. The path that we choose consciously will probably lead us astray from where we really want to go. So, "there is nothing more to do". But I will
allow you to answer the question. So, what things could you do to make your dream life more relative to your waking experience? Last Edited by Chaol on
01/09/2013 07:17 PM
You're becoming quite good at this, especially with your desired perspectives (e.g., "Entering the unit to my new job" and "Reviewing Technical Schematics at
my new job". (Though it would also work without the "new".) An offensive hand gesture could also work and may fortify the interaction. (As I mentioned before
each element has a secret life as every other. So perhaps your offensive hand gesture is related to your hating your boss at your new job? And then when you
have found yourself at the perspective of your new job the hand gesture is no longer necessary, as your boss is a different person. This is a bit more advanced
but I thought I would at least mention the possibility.) It seems that your possibility element is that section of the umbrella. (The umbrella then becomes part
of the sidewalk, even if temporarily, and takes on some of its values so no worries there.) It seems like a good element (and creative). A similar elements
could be your symbol on the ground, covered by an umbrella. But yours could also be effective. The possibility element would be the easel. This model is quite
surprising and is, from what I can see, more advanced than your other model. I will not comment farther on this (to avoid confusion) but AM interested to hear
how it goes.
01/09/2013 09:31 PM
A taste, I suppose, of what it would be like if you don't attach values to things. Without the values that we attach they are more of
the nothing-in-particular aspect. We can only perceive something if we 'look' at nothing-in-particular and say (randomly) "That is a Diny" Take away the names
and values and there really is not anything to work with or perceive. When your mind goes blank there is nothing to do. It's boring. So that's why we give
values to things. There is no opportunity to really understand something because there is nothing there. We can only pretend to understand the logic we have
set up. But there are endless varieties of logic (as many as there are perspectives). So when "understanding" we are actually understanding a very specific
perspective that has no real value. Does the self think? And feel emotion? Consciousness is thought and emotion. You are surrounded by it. We think of these
as separate things but it's the same thing. Everything that exists is consciousness, has emotions, thought, et c. But it does not mean that the
thought/emotion is separate from your own. It seems that way because (again) it is not so relative. If you have a loved one (who is very relative to your
reality) and you know what they are feeling and thinking then you may have a sense of the above statement. You're welcome :) Last Edited by Chaol on
01/09/2013 10:18 PM
A Note on Changing a Genius "As a rule of thumb, any time your symbol is changed you should also change the other elements (in order of change-necessity):
Logic, Interaction, Potential Energy If your intent changes then I would suggest you start over with new elements. They need not be drastically different.
Perhaps a slight change is enough (provided you have not used it that much)."
01/13/2013 10:24 AM
I believe you know the answer to this all ready. Let's say that the Genius brings you closer to what you want but not in the way that
you want it 'yet'. You may think that if you wanted a box of cookies and you got a picture of a box of cookies, instead, that the Genius is not working for you
and you are at the mercy of the most efficient cookie concept. The picture of the cookie is a feature of the map and is not intended as the final destination.
You are not at the mercy of this because it is you who is making it relative. It is bringing you closer to your desired perspective by illustrating the path to the
perspective in real time. Some of us give up at the picture of the cookie and try to eat it, to no avail. But as a real-time perspective map (journey) it works
fine. You can use the old model once you get the photocookie but really it won't be as effective as making a new model with the 'new' value of the photocookie
in mind. (That is to say, the new model you create is influenced by the result of the old model... thus illustrating the path.) I would recommend making as
many sequential models as you can for a particular desired perspective until it becomes second nature. Until it becomes a mental process. But one model per
desired perspective until you see the desired perspective symbolized in your current perspective. So it's like turning the map around to get your bearings as you
continue a long the path.
01/13/2013 10:25 AM
What you may call telepathy could just be communication. If it's your perspective that you're communicating with then the idea of
telepathy is irrelevant. It would be like asking yourself for the time, waiting for a response. But if it's more practical telepathy you want (ignoring the above)
then you have simply to make it relative to experience it. For starters, write down what telepathy would mean to you. Draw out a map of the steps (from your
current perspective to being telepathic) and then start with the next one. Easier said than done, of course. But the idea is to make what you want relative to
your experience. The more relative it is to your reality the closer it is to it. (And you can make it relative by pretending that it is. Your mind does not know the
difference. The trick is to see the next step when it is cast before you. Otherwise you're just stuck in a real fantasy.)
Last Edited by Chaol on 01/13/2013
10:59 AM
01/15/2013 11:42 AM
For ease of explanation, we could say that Genius = subconscious, and a model = a reverse-engineer of reality. We use something
very similar to the Genius model to map out our reality. It is how we come to perceive of it. The basic building blocks, if you will. The Genius is your
perspective. It's not something that you have, per se. But something that you are (or seem to be, as I would say). Perspective = two things coming together
and interacting. two things (Symbol) coming (Logic) together (Possibility) and Interacting. Perspective = consciousness. Where ever there is interaction there is
consciousness. (And all things interact with all other things.) So if you break down consciousness into its parts you'd see something very similar to a Genius
model. (The 4 elements and how they work together is my translation from Ec.) We could write an entire volume on just the above question. For this, let's pull
out attraction/repulsion (otherwise known as interaction, and perhaps the other side of the gravity of science books someday). As something 'disappears' it is

144 of 145

attracted/repelled. So while it disappears (becomes less relative) it also is rolled into your current perspective. This is because your perspective is 'composed'
of what I call the 4 elements. Your perspective 'uses' these same 4 ingredients over and over again, creating what seems like an endless variety of stuff. So
XISUSI becomes less relative and SOWUEIS becomes more relative. When actually they are the same thing, just interpreted differently. So the force of
repulsion (going away) is the same as the force of attraction (getting close). It needs not exist because it exists as much as it possibly can in your current
perspective. But you make two different interpretations (one becoming less relative and one becoming more relative). So you could ask if your friend John no
longer exists when you turn the corner. Yes, John need not exist in your perspective when you turn the corner because John was never there to begin with. You
have only the values of what you call "John" that came together (via the Genius method), interacted with the other values in your perspective, and then
reformulated into something else as the values of "John-PLUS-currentPerspective" became less relevant. So it wasn't just John that you met. In fact, you had
never before met this John because the values that make up John had never before interacted in that particular way. It is the reason why you had an
experience. You could say that you have a sense of time because you are going through an infinity of variations. (Apologies, but I AM unable to explain this
part further in a way that many could grasp.) If you did not interact with the bottom of his shoe, it did not exist. You saw his right side only in the reflection on
the glass? His right side did not exist either. All of these values come into play when you are interacting with them, and not before or after. It is Ecsys Prime
and that we perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive. The beauty is that you didn't perceive him at all, and you weren't walking. (The
illusion is the most efficient conservation method, though no one really likes to think about illusions.) "You say that nothing exists outside my current
perspective and yet that all exists in my current perspective." It need not exist.
01/15/2013 12:08 PM
A symbol that is disassembled by someone else is still as valid as the one you had intended. It's just doing its interaction thing ;)
For your intention, try something more of a by-product of what you want rather than exactly what you want. You want to get a new steering wheel for your new
car, for example. So a steering wheel could be more relative to your current perspective than a new car. But the new steering wheel dictates than the
respective car be had. So then it becomes more like, "I got your new steering wheel! It was easy because you were stitching one up last week. But
unfortunately I had to get this car first because it fits in it. I hope you don't mind." Not "new car" but if "Driving my New Car off the lot" then how about getting
into an accident with your new car? It's a strange thing to intend, but it could work well. (Of course, the accident could be avoided. You're just using it as a
path rather than the final destination. This is what you also may miss when someone messes up your symbol.) There's nothing wrong with making multiple
models for your intention. But I would recommend doing that after you've got a grasp of the basics and changing it when you've come upon a 'rest stop' on your
Genius map. That means something happened that manifested your intention (however small) in your perspective. For example, you made a model for your car.
Then you received a brochure of the car in the mail. Time to alter your model. (As at each point you have a new perspective.) It need not be a major change.
Just something to show that you recognize that you are on the right path. For your second model I would suggest making it something different. Your Genius
all ready knows what you are making relative. (Even thinking about it brings you closer to similar perspectives.) So why not something that you don't think is
related? Like going on holiday for 7 days? And then at your 3rd jump you realize that you've got to find a place to put your new car while you're gone. Don't
forget your Logic Last Edited by Chaol on 01/15/2013 12:31 PM

145 of 145