Here is a scenario. One day, you ask the
universe – or perhaps some specific part of the universe – a question,
and it answers directly…but not. The answer becomes a reflection of the
interest and intention which inspired you to ask the question. Over
time, the answer becomes a growing emotional response to the interest
and intention which inspired you to ask the question, and that answer
came from many who observed the internal discussion and could not resist the urge
to interject. The progression of events became a heated debate, fueled by more
observers and salted with the beginnings of divergence of opinion, unaware of what
began the discussion. The universe should not be able to punish you for
asking an innocent question.
This was the ‘first’ scenario I experienced, telepathically, fifteen years ago. It happened in a context where the world around me demonstrated no awareness of what I was experiencing, but "minds within my mind" closely resembled the identity and a plausible hidden agenda to influence among people I was already familiar with. I decided to deal with the world on it’s own terms, while speaking openly about the fact of my experience and some observations, if not-so-many details. I endured seven years of becoming familiar with this scenario's intricacies. I’ve also, now, endured a few years in which I could look back on it while other matters became more prominent.
Here is a second scenario. One day, the universe – or perhaps some specific part of the universe – asks you a question, and it asks directly…but not. The situation is not so simple then, because the quick-answer becomes the question which the "universe-whom" asked the question seeks to inspire in the next who asks. The question the universe asks becomes an individual threat by becoming a social threat. A social process becomes initiated, then grows and mutates away from any defense of relevance to the original question. The universe should not be able to punish you for not satisfying a demand to protect indefensible assumptions about you.
This was the ‘second’ scenario I experienced, and I still can’t make up my mind how much of it I saw coming. I don’t care, because it has been a very long time since I have had the luxury of giving a flying fuck about anybody’s ideas about determinism. We would all be dead if I hadn’t dealt with it dismissively. Not everyone tries to think that hard. That isn’t to say that I wasn’t also compelled to deal with things intelligently. In this case, I knew I had to push the world to deal with the experience on my terms, because the only future I could let myself seek required that those around me be protected by my experience and awareness of what influenced them. We could only learn a delicate emotional dance, and I needed to begin with the most brazen and dangerous personality-play I have ever attempted; because I knew what was coming, and people needed to become liberated, then focused, in their response to it. The consequence of failure would have become anarchistic slaughter.
I exposed early work with a couple of epistemological models I was exploring when this began, and was subjected to the deliberate sabotage of them in everyone's behavior. There has been discussion of whether anyone should be allowed to hear about them again, but I feel that the genie is out of the bottle and the damage needs to be prevented from recurring. People respond to telepathy from the context of their existing beliefs, without always seeing the dangers of them, while any kind of atheism ignores the dangers that atheism presents to any atheist's unwillingness to believe anything.
Divergence of opinion is dangerous when opinion is defended in flagrant disregard of the best evidence. Divergence of opinion becomes a polarization of emotion which becomes antagonistic and violent if the danger of it isn’t recognized and contained. Telepathy amplifies this hazard due to its intimacy, and the extent to which divergence of opinion is able to expand this hazard.
I am not the first to imagine our social relations as a tapestry of consciousness, or spirit, or to consider the meanings of a distinction among them. Because of my experience I chose to focus on various facets of the way relationships become polarized, the value of either avoiding or seeking a polarization of relationships, and the characteristics of intimacy and defensiveness which would contribute to polarization. I considered the ways in which waves pass through a tapestry, or through a fluid; saw it as interpretable as emotion which either sustains a comfortable calm or becomes a storm; and considered how the best condition might be sustained or restored through a sudden adaptation. I considered the ways in which one might sabotage stability for selfish aims; then conversely how such sabotage might be contained, diverted, diffused and subdued. It needed to become something understandable to children.
A tapestry becomes understandable while visualizing waves within it. A pebble or a raindrop moves the surface of a pond, but teaches nothing to either the pond or any witness. A quilt of personalities connected by various kinds of relationships, faced with a disturbance within any one of those personalities or relationships, will amplify and sustain a ripple through everyone-else's lives which will reflect within the domain of that quilt in any number of ways. Such ripples may become either healthy or destructive. We may know each other, or we may not. A meditator heard the drop, saw the waves, then thought, "Which pebble? Which raindrop?" A sudden transition from a ‘normal’ sense to a telepathic sense would become a shock. If, suddenly, anyone who felt their own lives through the lenses of family, work, leisure, attraction, reputation and mobility became naked before the world, everything they might have relied upon would become a hazard.
There is nothing good which can come from a growth in fear and it is foolish to avoid noticing obvious sources of fear. One of them is religion, which I describe only as a body of beliefs which come from a historical source of a body of beliefs, and a will to learn how to live amongst a body of people who are still willing to defend any such body of beliefs. Learn set-theory now, not only because of mathematical reasons. Start over, and learn set theory for epistemological reasons. A wise protagonist can imagine and curate an indeterminate "antagonist-set" which describes and contains the population of defenders of beliefs which don’t necessarily claim a divine, authoritative or accurate source, while remaining influential due to a cultural comfort with such beliefs. Such a protagonist may also curate any number of indeterminate sets which fall within a "defender-set" who share common-cause with the protagonist. It is necessary to interpret every one of any sets within this application of set theory dynamically, due to the dynamism of human behavior and motivation. So-many bodies of beliefs become threatened by changes in perception which render them either partially or fully indefensible. We fuck this shit up more and more together.
Because I’m a martial artist, and because I like making things understandable for children, I describe perception in terms of "The Mask of Zorro;” as a lesson, a swordsman’s-metaphor of the ‘Master’s Circle’. We seek to have a complete sense and command of a circle which tightly encompasses our flesh, then arms reach out, we gradually expand outward in awareness, only if the practice becomes as reliable as our sense and command of that which is intimate. If we objectify our visual, auditory and tactile senses and the dimension in which we can rely on these senses, and then experience a comparison with a similar telepathic sense which may distort senses of location, identity, proximity, emotion and intention, we discover difficulties of adaptation. Our social contract needs to become adjusted to protect the safety and integrity of our relations with each other. Existing beliefs then become a threat to the protection of such an adjustment. We know we need to change and we are in this together.
A specific kind of threat which exists in religion is so-much of prophecy, so many idealizations of personalities and identities from history, so-much protection of an obsessive requirement that all of these expectations be fulfilled and satisfied. If people defend their beliefs against the truth of their experience too far, the fanaticism just naturally escalates conflict. I can fully describe the arguments which discredit many assumptions, but few believers of anything want to hear that they must let go of something they have believed since they were children. What I have discovered is a means of interpreting how we have striven to protect history, and also to distort it, either superstitiously or deliberately. Another thing I have considered is a comparison between the depth and breadth of any actual experience of life in the universe, and the distorted fragments of dogma we interpret it with.
Since money and influence are no less considered objects of piety in our cultural tapestry than gods and devils, the advance of a telepathic awareness needs to consider the juxtaposition of the complete set of such influences, and the degree to which they become conflated within any particular voice. But how the hell do any of us analyze all of that shit? No way man…until I started playing with a notion I call Domain-Theory. Then I suddenly had to be crazy enough to socialize discussion of it, because everything started happening too fast. Somebody dumped a beehive of rhetoric over it. I must emphasize that Domain-Theory and rhetoric can’t play in the same school-yard without killing each other and anyone who gets caught in the battlefield. That might have become all I say about Domain Theory here, because I’ve already pointed at the danger of it, but people have heard of it anyway so I’m compelled to provide damage control.
It is the hidden dangers of telepathy that I intend to address very carefully. A personal attack can either be direct or it can become an attack on the perceptions a person is surrounded with. Telepathy may allow specific very subtle kinds of attack which people need to become able to recognize and defend themselves in the face of. What is more important, though, is for all of us to commit to never allowing ourselves to attempt such attacks, because of the immense danger of them.
In all cases, what defends each of us best is a personal will which refuses to betray our core values in our behavior. If I hear an unrepentant psychopath say, “don’t blame me, the Devil made me do it,” I can respond directly, “no, you let the Devil make you do it.” My experience is such that I can rely on myself not to act with an intention which betrays my core values, having repelled attempts to invoke such betrayals consistently. If I hear any number of influences strive to deceive or extort my intentions into self-betrayal, my experience has also led me to methods of discovering true intentions so that I can restrain unwanted responses. My need of this is less, now, because very many influences which have striven in those directions have been contained or eliminated. But what is needed now is to prevent certain circumstances from creating new destructive influences. This requires a deeper understanding of what we perceive as ‘magic’ and issues which relate to it within personality, culture and influence. “Angels” and “Demons” become interpretable within these beginnings, rather than the fairy-tales of history. So do personalities which gain reverence or awe from outside observers, and those who listen to them.
I have become characterized as a prophet, an angel, a mystic…any number of kinds of criminal, and a “demi-god awareness” for the obvious reason that those who wish to establish my insanity only need to discover which ego-trip I might let myself fall for; while those who defend me seek to defeat any dispute of their best opinion. I can ward off interest in any such ego-trip by simply saying that I saw a clear need to defend people from something they couldn’t anticipate as well as I had, and I behaved according to the necessity. Meanwhile, I have observed people demonstrating abilities I could never have anticipated any of us acquiring, some of which I appreciated more than others. What I could not ignore was that warriors would become warriors, pushy people would become pushy, submissive people would become recalcitrant, and all of them would become each other in some way. Bullets don’t carry ideology, nor do those who dispense them, but re-tellers of every tale always establish an ideological context – often a delusional one. Meanwhile, I might become expected to fulfill an anticipated identity or events of a prophecy, and people might strive to protect or refute that expectation, while never caring what I think of any of it. I can never blame myself for that. It’s all Rock and Roll.
This was the ‘first’ scenario I experienced, telepathically, fifteen years ago. It happened in a context where the world around me demonstrated no awareness of what I was experiencing, but "minds within my mind" closely resembled the identity and a plausible hidden agenda to influence among people I was already familiar with. I decided to deal with the world on it’s own terms, while speaking openly about the fact of my experience and some observations, if not-so-many details. I endured seven years of becoming familiar with this scenario's intricacies. I’ve also, now, endured a few years in which I could look back on it while other matters became more prominent.
Here is a second scenario. One day, the universe – or perhaps some specific part of the universe – asks you a question, and it asks directly…but not. The situation is not so simple then, because the quick-answer becomes the question which the "universe-whom" asked the question seeks to inspire in the next who asks. The question the universe asks becomes an individual threat by becoming a social threat. A social process becomes initiated, then grows and mutates away from any defense of relevance to the original question. The universe should not be able to punish you for not satisfying a demand to protect indefensible assumptions about you.
This was the ‘second’ scenario I experienced, and I still can’t make up my mind how much of it I saw coming. I don’t care, because it has been a very long time since I have had the luxury of giving a flying fuck about anybody’s ideas about determinism. We would all be dead if I hadn’t dealt with it dismissively. Not everyone tries to think that hard. That isn’t to say that I wasn’t also compelled to deal with things intelligently. In this case, I knew I had to push the world to deal with the experience on my terms, because the only future I could let myself seek required that those around me be protected by my experience and awareness of what influenced them. We could only learn a delicate emotional dance, and I needed to begin with the most brazen and dangerous personality-play I have ever attempted; because I knew what was coming, and people needed to become liberated, then focused, in their response to it. The consequence of failure would have become anarchistic slaughter.
I exposed early work with a couple of epistemological models I was exploring when this began, and was subjected to the deliberate sabotage of them in everyone's behavior. There has been discussion of whether anyone should be allowed to hear about them again, but I feel that the genie is out of the bottle and the damage needs to be prevented from recurring. People respond to telepathy from the context of their existing beliefs, without always seeing the dangers of them, while any kind of atheism ignores the dangers that atheism presents to any atheist's unwillingness to believe anything.
Divergence of opinion is dangerous when opinion is defended in flagrant disregard of the best evidence. Divergence of opinion becomes a polarization of emotion which becomes antagonistic and violent if the danger of it isn’t recognized and contained. Telepathy amplifies this hazard due to its intimacy, and the extent to which divergence of opinion is able to expand this hazard.
I am not the first to imagine our social relations as a tapestry of consciousness, or spirit, or to consider the meanings of a distinction among them. Because of my experience I chose to focus on various facets of the way relationships become polarized, the value of either avoiding or seeking a polarization of relationships, and the characteristics of intimacy and defensiveness which would contribute to polarization. I considered the ways in which waves pass through a tapestry, or through a fluid; saw it as interpretable as emotion which either sustains a comfortable calm or becomes a storm; and considered how the best condition might be sustained or restored through a sudden adaptation. I considered the ways in which one might sabotage stability for selfish aims; then conversely how such sabotage might be contained, diverted, diffused and subdued. It needed to become something understandable to children.
A tapestry becomes understandable while visualizing waves within it. A pebble or a raindrop moves the surface of a pond, but teaches nothing to either the pond or any witness. A quilt of personalities connected by various kinds of relationships, faced with a disturbance within any one of those personalities or relationships, will amplify and sustain a ripple through everyone-else's lives which will reflect within the domain of that quilt in any number of ways. Such ripples may become either healthy or destructive. We may know each other, or we may not. A meditator heard the drop, saw the waves, then thought, "Which pebble? Which raindrop?" A sudden transition from a ‘normal’ sense to a telepathic sense would become a shock. If, suddenly, anyone who felt their own lives through the lenses of family, work, leisure, attraction, reputation and mobility became naked before the world, everything they might have relied upon would become a hazard.
There is nothing good which can come from a growth in fear and it is foolish to avoid noticing obvious sources of fear. One of them is religion, which I describe only as a body of beliefs which come from a historical source of a body of beliefs, and a will to learn how to live amongst a body of people who are still willing to defend any such body of beliefs. Learn set-theory now, not only because of mathematical reasons. Start over, and learn set theory for epistemological reasons. A wise protagonist can imagine and curate an indeterminate "antagonist-set" which describes and contains the population of defenders of beliefs which don’t necessarily claim a divine, authoritative or accurate source, while remaining influential due to a cultural comfort with such beliefs. Such a protagonist may also curate any number of indeterminate sets which fall within a "defender-set" who share common-cause with the protagonist. It is necessary to interpret every one of any sets within this application of set theory dynamically, due to the dynamism of human behavior and motivation. So-many bodies of beliefs become threatened by changes in perception which render them either partially or fully indefensible. We fuck this shit up more and more together.
Because I’m a martial artist, and because I like making things understandable for children, I describe perception in terms of "The Mask of Zorro;” as a lesson, a swordsman’s-metaphor of the ‘Master’s Circle’. We seek to have a complete sense and command of a circle which tightly encompasses our flesh, then arms reach out, we gradually expand outward in awareness, only if the practice becomes as reliable as our sense and command of that which is intimate. If we objectify our visual, auditory and tactile senses and the dimension in which we can rely on these senses, and then experience a comparison with a similar telepathic sense which may distort senses of location, identity, proximity, emotion and intention, we discover difficulties of adaptation. Our social contract needs to become adjusted to protect the safety and integrity of our relations with each other. Existing beliefs then become a threat to the protection of such an adjustment. We know we need to change and we are in this together.
A specific kind of threat which exists in religion is so-much of prophecy, so many idealizations of personalities and identities from history, so-much protection of an obsessive requirement that all of these expectations be fulfilled and satisfied. If people defend their beliefs against the truth of their experience too far, the fanaticism just naturally escalates conflict. I can fully describe the arguments which discredit many assumptions, but few believers of anything want to hear that they must let go of something they have believed since they were children. What I have discovered is a means of interpreting how we have striven to protect history, and also to distort it, either superstitiously or deliberately. Another thing I have considered is a comparison between the depth and breadth of any actual experience of life in the universe, and the distorted fragments of dogma we interpret it with.
Since money and influence are no less considered objects of piety in our cultural tapestry than gods and devils, the advance of a telepathic awareness needs to consider the juxtaposition of the complete set of such influences, and the degree to which they become conflated within any particular voice. But how the hell do any of us analyze all of that shit? No way man…until I started playing with a notion I call Domain-Theory. Then I suddenly had to be crazy enough to socialize discussion of it, because everything started happening too fast. Somebody dumped a beehive of rhetoric over it. I must emphasize that Domain-Theory and rhetoric can’t play in the same school-yard without killing each other and anyone who gets caught in the battlefield. That might have become all I say about Domain Theory here, because I’ve already pointed at the danger of it, but people have heard of it anyway so I’m compelled to provide damage control.
It is the hidden dangers of telepathy that I intend to address very carefully. A personal attack can either be direct or it can become an attack on the perceptions a person is surrounded with. Telepathy may allow specific very subtle kinds of attack which people need to become able to recognize and defend themselves in the face of. What is more important, though, is for all of us to commit to never allowing ourselves to attempt such attacks, because of the immense danger of them.
In all cases, what defends each of us best is a personal will which refuses to betray our core values in our behavior. If I hear an unrepentant psychopath say, “don’t blame me, the Devil made me do it,” I can respond directly, “no, you let the Devil make you do it.” My experience is such that I can rely on myself not to act with an intention which betrays my core values, having repelled attempts to invoke such betrayals consistently. If I hear any number of influences strive to deceive or extort my intentions into self-betrayal, my experience has also led me to methods of discovering true intentions so that I can restrain unwanted responses. My need of this is less, now, because very many influences which have striven in those directions have been contained or eliminated. But what is needed now is to prevent certain circumstances from creating new destructive influences. This requires a deeper understanding of what we perceive as ‘magic’ and issues which relate to it within personality, culture and influence. “Angels” and “Demons” become interpretable within these beginnings, rather than the fairy-tales of history. So do personalities which gain reverence or awe from outside observers, and those who listen to them.
I have become characterized as a prophet, an angel, a mystic…any number of kinds of criminal, and a “demi-god awareness” for the obvious reason that those who wish to establish my insanity only need to discover which ego-trip I might let myself fall for; while those who defend me seek to defeat any dispute of their best opinion. I can ward off interest in any such ego-trip by simply saying that I saw a clear need to defend people from something they couldn’t anticipate as well as I had, and I behaved according to the necessity. Meanwhile, I have observed people demonstrating abilities I could never have anticipated any of us acquiring, some of which I appreciated more than others. What I could not ignore was that warriors would become warriors, pushy people would become pushy, submissive people would become recalcitrant, and all of them would become each other in some way. Bullets don’t carry ideology, nor do those who dispense them, but re-tellers of every tale always establish an ideological context – often a delusional one. Meanwhile, I might become expected to fulfill an anticipated identity or events of a prophecy, and people might strive to protect or refute that expectation, while never caring what I think of any of it. I can never blame myself for that. It’s all Rock and Roll.
No comments:
Post a Comment