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

Yes, that's about right.

There is no objective observer. Observation is creation in its entirety. (Though I prefer terms like 'production' or 'building', as we are just experiencing relationships between things that aren't really there. The relationships are life, and the things that aren't really there can be considered shadows of the Absolute.)

You're very welcome, by the way :)


It is what I find brings me satisfaction and sense of completion or wholeness, though it is never complete of course.

We are each compelled to busy ourselves with something. The systems that we adopt are our way of organising perspective. From this, a sense of existence we call life. There is nothing that is without a system, from sports, religion, business, abuse, art, creative writing, learning, exercise, biology, and everything else.

A person involved in any system is also building, but most likely unaware of doing so. For me, I am more aware that I build my reality so focus my efforts in ways that I think will be a more compelling sense of existence in all directions of time.

That is to say, I build to make a more clever and convincing distraction.


Could you be more specific?


There is no need to produce anything for anyone else, or even interact with them. It is more natural to focus on your immediate environment.

We are not naturally social beings, for it is how Chaos spreads. We generally seek to avoid society and 'being social'. The Cult has convinced most of us, I think, that humans are meant to be social, friendly to strangers, etc. (It supports their ideology and the narrative of serving 'the common good'.)

We are meant to be social with... those immediately around us, not people outside your clan. Being more social actually sickens the self and diminishes society.

There is a limit to sociability above functionality. Most of humans' mental and emotional problems come from being social with others. How could this be so when everyone is a part of your perspective? The more social we are with people outside our clan, the less social we are being with our own clan (and immediate environment).

The Agents of Chaos are some of the most friendly and sociable people in the world.


Don't get your entertainment from the sways. Find something else to fill the void that would be there without them. Condition yourself to find a sense of existence in simple things. An analogy of this would be someone who needs increasing amounts of sugar to get the same result that they did the first time. Wean yourself off of the things that aren't useful.

Some people turn to social media to get their sense of existence and create all manner of drama. Some people might take up a hobby and pour themselves into it. They are each supporting their sense of existence to the same degree, doing what they find necessary to do to give life to their being.


My pleasure.

I've used the same understanding to produce many billions of dollars in value. There's nothing to stop you from doing the same.

Perhaps, begin to think of money as a kind of sense of measurement rather than a physical thing. Think of it like you would the size of a container of milk rather than the milk which fills the container. You can then adjust the size internally to fit your needs. Most people would think of money as the 'milk' and then focus on getting more milk. This can work, yes, but when you're able to visualise the 'containers' that hold it you can translate this in your everyday life and begin to get a new sense of value. Would you rather spend 40 hours a week making someone else rich or a total of 40 hours in a week in September inventing a new gizmo that you then license to an entity that needs it? In the former, you're looking for a certain quantity of milk. In the latter, you're making an ever-expanding container. I hope this makes a bit of sense.


I'm not sure that I have. It may have to do with me being more interested in the process of building rather than seeing what it is I'm building. Oftentimes I have no idea until much later.


On the lighter side: acceleration of the current narrative. 'Sustainable development', AI, crypto, social credit, experimental drugs, transhumanism, the 'apocalypse'.

On the darker side: Superhumanism (building at the same time as writing), a new United States of America (kind of, but with a ~200,000 BTC prize pool for competing 'states', in preparation for the next few years), helping and understanding my grandma, working on the new issue of Metaphy, exploring the metaphysical world for ideas.

I'm helping to take Chaos to its logical conclusion so that something else can be more realised.


Thank you. This forum has all ready been a tremendous help to the process. It has also shown me how to better-operate in a world of Chaos. To thrive in the belly of the beast, as it were.

Aside from that, however, I tend to build by my lonesome. I don't want to be responsible for driving anyone out of their mind, such as certain aspects of this work might work as the impetus for if discovered.

There would be no life, for there would be no perspective.

To reach true 'equilibrium' is to reach the Absolute. Something that is beyond any perspective.

That is why it is feared and avoided.

The sayings, "Fear God" and "Idle hands are the devil's workshop" are both pushing in the same direction.


Peak wholly is the Absolute.

Peak wholly makes you spontaneously disappear :)

That is why I add Chaos to my cup of water in the morning (measuring first before stirring).

Just as you don't really want to __________but only feel like you do, I don't ever work to reach true equilibrium, though I am very comfortable with not ever having existed.

Imagine a man with no past memory.

How would he piece together his life?

How would he understand himself?

What would be the benefit of piecing together his life or understandi himself? What would be the purpose?


Take a look around where you are right now.

What would be the most astonishing technology you sense around you?

How could you use this technology more consciously?


Imagine there was a kind of computer system that collected datapoints on every person on Earth in order to model them inside the system. Its goal was to predict the behaviour of each abstract person and develop a mirror civilisation, a kind of artificial intelligence 'twin' for the entire planet that becomes a new world.

Further, imagine that your AI twin was intended to be the metaphysical inverse of your physically-based self, and a 'metaverse' the home of your twin (rather than a place where your physical self goes online with VR glasses). Then, imagine that you have been living at least 50% of your time in the metaverse for the past 20 years.

The more information it collected on your physical self the better it could model your being and 'lock on' to your metaphysical self.

That is to say, a machine was built to trap your metaphysical self in the physical world, and the selves of everyone else. To build a false metaphysical world so that it could be controlled.

My question is this... if you buy a sandwich and use your Sav-On points card, would your AI twin enjoy the sandwich in the same way you would?

For bonus points, how does 'the selfish ledger' relate to blockchain?

Why does the Cult want to use blockchain technology for a person's (everyone's) identity?

An other thought experiment.

Let's say that there was a 30-day robot competition of 20 different teams. The teams, in total, had 100 robots of different skills and abilities.

Of these 20 competing teams there were 19 led by robot designers beset with severe mental illness. This particular mental illness gave them an advantage in the type of robot competition they were successful at; they were able to think and design like killer robots. All 19 teams wanted 1 particular team to win: the team that was able to make robots the fastest. They worked together to devise a robot virus to destroy and/or harm the robots of the other teams, including their own robots. The game was survival of the fittest, even if they made up their own threats.

During the competition, 50 robots across the 19 teams were rendered useless, while an other 20 were harmed so badly they could not compete. With only 30 robots remaining, the 'chosen' team made up 20 of them.

With such little resistance, the robots of the 'chosen' team were able to rapidly build other robots to such a degree that, by the end of the competition, there were no other competing robots left.

Let's go back to the day of the competition. What should have happened?

Tough pill to swallow, but it got down, it is known the most efficient groups are of about 60 people, then things start to break down. How does a population of 14 billion manage?




Re: the bold, what's the "milk," then? Am I the milk? Or is the milk irrelevant



I can't even imagine what more there could be that'd serve as an impetus for insanity. What you have 'given' all ready is insane-making. I said a long while ago something to the effect of I'd personally be willing to go insane (considering I all ready feel it, 'others' all ready perceive me as it, and I've fared insanity all right in the past). It seems that the relatively-slow but very frustrating process of 'figuring it out' from where I am, which I'm not even sure I can do, is equal to the insanity of direct exposure



Spawn's exercise, but I thought I'd give a crack at it, especially since I have the notion that if I were to succeed in my endeavors that I'd have to piece some things together as I don't remember the finer details of 2012 (my schedule and such, though that's part of the reason I chose spring break), and that'd be part of the drama.

I've thought about it, but won't post my answer bc it's Spawn's.

Is there an exercise you could share with me you think fits me?




Hm, don't particularly like that. Though, doesn't the selfish ledger model mirror, in effect, the metaphysical process? Where the actual metaphysical Self interprets information from all points of itself and produces supply to meet interpreted demand?

My understanding of the 'evolution' of technology from the point that we 'split' with our more metaphysical understanding is that it shows us what we do ourselves naturally



The difference between doing what we do naturally with technology is doing it through a proxy, in the case of the selfish ledger, G00gle. It could be said that everything has its own intention that may or may not be independent of what it was "created" for, Google certainly does, as does the blockchain. Doing what we naturally do through an authori-tative proxy subjects the process to the proxy's intention. The proxy's intention influences the decisions of the user to meet its own 'end,' manipulating the AI "twin," which manipulates the physical user, which manipulates the actual metaphysical self.

The seeming intention of contemporary media and the blockchain is to "pin down" identity. You see it everywhere, that no one is allowed to change their opinions without being called a hypocrite in the social feedback system surrounding the proxy. If we want to look at it in terms of control we can, but it seems that blockchain (and the shopping algorithms of other media) seeks to pin down consciousness into a set identity at given points in order to maximize profit in a debt-based financial system

But no, the AI twin (nor the actual metaphysical self) would not experience the Sav-On sandwich the same way



All 19 or all 20?

The one team not afflicted with the severe mental illness could have refused to participate and instead used their skilled robots for other things

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/06/2022 05:26 PM

That's about what this Earth's population would be without much of the Cult's doings if we took out their toxins and their media had little influence. (Over the past couple of generations they have exerted more influence on Maria's world, but that's an other story.)

The Earth could easily sustain a population of 10x more. It is not so much a management problem as a 'Cult problem'.

When people have the law written in their hearts there is no need for artificial government beyond mediation and swift and just punishment for venturing outside the common law. People can manage their own lives far more efficiently than any artificial government can.

"But what about schools? What about hospitals and roads?" it might be asked. State indoctrination isn't needed, of course. A school is whatever system one is learning in. Hospitals are businesses. Roads are made by consensus. Why encourage the breakdown of society by building highways? When everything a person needs is within 2km of where they live and produce, modern roads serve little purpose.



The bold is your capacity to receive economic value that you've conditioned yourself to be compatible with. The milk is what most people consume to feel economically nourished - at least until they are thirsty again. It would be like living in a house made of red brick in the early 20th century and paying to have electricity installed versus living in the same house and realising that it is all ready as electrified as it needs to be without the intervention of artificial government.

Insanity, or mental illness, is just what we call an extreme friction between the systems our endoself uses and the systems our exoself uses.

100% of humanity has mental illness of some kind, but it is self-inflicted.

Using an example from popular culture, the crew of the Nebuchadbuzzard in The Matrix film would all be insane, including Neo. How useful each person's insanity works within the environment they operate in is the important question.

Without our insanity, we would not be able to focus on our so-called physicality. (There is no real physicality, which requires mental illness to perceive. With perfect mental health, one does not perceive anything.)

Meeting a neighbour and commenting on the lovely blue sky above your heads, there are a number of crazy things you're doing with your Self. You're 1) sensing that person as being separate from your Self; 2) that there is a sky; 3) and the sky has color, and the color is blue; 4) that the sky and color you make up in your extended imagination does not have an endless variety of other qualities.

We've written the play, produced it, thrown ourselves into the lead role, filled all of the other roles ourselves, are now acting it out and pretending we didn't do any of it.

Patterns are how we sense existence. (Patterns that we just make up.) We need consistency in order to see the patterns (that aren't really there). I cannot just present an entirely new set of patterns -- they would not be noticed. I first have to make them relative to what is all ready there, then build a narrative to reach them.

We do this as we 'move through time'. That is how we experience (seemingly new patterns).

My purpose? Same as anyone else's: to sense existence. It matters not how it's done, just that it is done. You could say that, for me, the way that I am compelled to do it is, coincidentally, what breaks down the old reality and builds a new one (with a logical narrative that could be interpreted as the 'end of the world' and all that).

If I presented 100 new things in a world all ready filled with 200 new things, they would be ignored rather than perceived; the patterns would be too different. If I presented 1 new thing, it would most likely be perceived. 5 new things is pushing it. There is a sweet spot between a quantity of things that can be sensed and a quantity of things that would be ignored, and that sweet spot, if integrated into this world, would be kind of what the world is now. A world where truth is stranger than fiction. A dreamworld that seems to go on for ever.

You find yourself on an island with a person you have a love/hate relationship with, or so you feel. You've been knowing them many years -- seemingly forever. In some ways you feel like you can't live without them. In other ways you feel like they're holding you back. The both of you are stuck on the island, with few options of escape. There is a nearby volcano. Indeed, you can't help but stand on it. Because of the strange sounds and smells and animal behaviour, you both believe that the volcano will soon erupt.

There is, within eyesight, an other island some distance away that has a large mountain and what looks to be a cave. You surmise that you will both be safe from any lava flows. You knew that you could swim to it if there was no other choice.

However, there is a problem. Your friend just broke several ribs earlier that day, having fallen from a coconut tree to get food and drink for the both of you. Unable to swim that far for months and unable to swim with you, it would seem that one of you would need to stay behind.

The volcano begins to erupt. You still have time to make it to the other island. Your friend's situation seems helpless. Yours isn't. You have strength, a knife, food, supplies, and conviction.

What do you do?

(Don't answer just what sounds good. What is the first thing that comes to your mind?)

I have had this sensation plenty of times in dreams. Piece life together by finding myself in others and things around me. And dream-life just seems normal. The man with no past memory, his life is found in finding himself in immediate surroundings. Purpose is interaction we are bond to chaos.

What things and people can I introduce on routine, that will shape reality towards my liking? Or perhaps what new interpretations and actions should I take on the immediate surroundings of opportunity. Realities destroyed by no interaction as realities are created by choosing chaos.




When I am on my routine at work, I'll have to replay this text in my mind and see if I can give a proper interpretation as I have none right now.


Before reading your thought experiment. I imagined my dream self being stuck mirroring my physical at my work routine(not inversion). And consciously trying to send dream self on a task, while I remain at work. I don't think he got the mission done that sob. Damn or did he, and so I didn't get to experience that succession of the task. Is SpawnAI living my inversion dreams. I will get him. Insert Liam Neeson quote. ….. so I now imagine that SpawnAI has been living 50% of his time in physical realm with me. – What can I do with that thought, how can I manipulate a part of myself to manipulate reality.



That jackwagon SpawnAI is using my Sav-On points card reward kick back while I am trying to save a free lunch. Chaol lets get him! If hes enjoying those free sandwiches, while I am paying the price... Well at least someone is having a free time! He owes me. How do we shift favor in physical realm. How to create the illusion of luck?

The plan:
[link to youtu.be (secure)]

The model is designed to mirror it, but does not. The Cult doesn't really know about the metaphysical world. Their minds are incapable of considering it, you could say. They've done well at convincing others that they have certain powers, but it's all fiction.

Nearly all of their rituals, practices, etc., are dis-information. They goal is fear in the general population, so they create narratives to make it happen.


This bifurcation point (around the time of the 'Industrial Revolution') was more about the choices we made. The advanced technology was the carrot.

People willingly chose to leave behind the Old World because of (mostly) the new wealth and economic opportunities that new technologies made possible. Very few were forced (before the 20th century).

In one way we focused on physical technology, bringing us to the Earth we know today. In the other way we focused on metaphysical technology, which is Maria's world, the other Earth.

The idea isn't to bring back the Old World or the wisdom thereof, however. The Old World has served its purpose. The New World we've had over the past few hundred years has also served its purpose.

We are building to bridge between the two worlds (that has been there for a couple of decades) in order to fuse the two together.

There is a reason that men were able to vote and women were not in many Old World cultures, being able to sense more of the exoself and its needs. There is also a reason women took care of the home, being able to sense more of the endoself and its needs, even as far as being able to give birth to an other person.

The Cult has taught the Old World some things, just as it has learned from the Old World. This is the cycle of things. Neither is good nor bad. We can measure by utility and effect.

The circus of modern society is not the answer, of course. There is little value for society in most of the social experiments we have seen over the past 100 years. We will learn that certain choices will lead to our destruction. Not in theory, but in practice. Chaos distracts us from being the Absolute so that we could have life, yes, but too much of it destroys what life we have made.

It takes a vision of seeing 'the good in evil' and 'the evil in good', so to speak, in order to make something that can last far longer than either world combined.


"Public ownership" of everything, by way of a public ledger for everything (and control of said ledger). All dressed up in nice clothes, as usual, such as openness, accountability, equality, decentralisation, etc.

The "control of the means of production", by way of control of the identities of those who produce. (With the real means of production being not factories or machines, but the individuals that operate them.)

The purpose? As all ways with the Cult, to diminish the Self.


When one is surrounded by those with mental illness, one would most likely think that the mentally ill way is how things should be. The 20th team is also affected by mental illness, but in the worst way: the other teams want it to be their saviour.

Just when they think they are at their strongest point from the house of cards they have built, they are at their weakest.

And what if those teams were countries?

I thought the only use of artificial government was basically food and water distribution?

Who would be administering the punishment, what would a punishment be? I'm personally not a fan of punishment and reward systems, as they encourage or dissuade action in relation to fear of authority. Natural consequences are a different story, but they're not punishments.

Plus, assuming the common law is The Law, stepping out of that would be acting in separation, right? But if the common law is The Law, everyone around the person acting in separation would understand that the person and the action are themSelves, and it would be a question of rearranging relationships than punishing, I would think. It seems to me that punishments rearrange nothing, as they don't actually address the "why" of someone having done (or not done) something.



I'm not too concerned personally about the "what about" questions, I see (in theory) how those things would work without government. My question was more about how a large population would work if everyone stuck to their own clan. But I see now that there would probably be "links" between clans.



I see, thank you



That all makes sense, thank you.

Though I'm seen as "insane" relative to the contemporary norm (which is, of course, also insane), more insanity brought on by exposure to more of this content would not be helpful. I'm already having some difficulty with the current insanity, described before as paralysis. I don't understand how to operate in either mode, any more.



This reasoning makes sense, as does the reasoning regarding keeping things vague or presented in such a way to dissuade certain aspects of perspective from being interested in it. Though I understand and accept that it's necessary, it is frustrating, I wont lie



I can give my answer now that Spawn has

The way I understand it, the "past," being a value of the present, is sort of like an "explanation" for the present. Seeming to not have a past would make the present very confusing, in deed. The man can do one of two general things, with various outcomes and potential twists: attempt to reconstruct who he seemed to be based on what he observes around him, or go forward and make himself someone new from scratch.

I think the former is more likely, but I think it also depends on what's surrounding him. An amnesiac who wakes up in the hospital to find they have no information on him for whatever reason may be more likely to decide to start fresh. An amnesiac who wakes to find hiw wife, teary-eyed, at his bedside may decide to find out more about who he was, who his wife is, who his kids are, what he did for a living, etc.

The purpose for either is to feel alive, both scenarios pose massive problems. Trying to navigate a world without the identity of a past is difficult, especially in 'this reality,' where you generally have to have identification in order to work (and, typically, one must work to earn money, to feed themselves, to live). With an identity but no memory, the man would struggle to identify with the identity. Feeling like a fraud is an excellent way to sense life (I'm familiar).



Hehe, did you "read my mind" for this?

First thing that comes to mind, I'd swim. Second thought, being alone on a deserted island seems miserable, even with my strength, supplies, and tools; death is a wonderful way to drastically change perspective (I assume). But who knows if that rationale would supersede the survival instinct



re: the bold, would that not be the case in the New New World (the one that follows this New World)? Since the Old World has served it's purpose. I can see how a lack of womens' rights was beneficial in the light you pose, but I must say I'm resistant to going back to that. Though, I'm opposed to the idea of "rights" in the first place.

Seems a trifle, considering, but I'm curious.



I see



Does the 20th team see themselves as a savior? I would assume they do, if the other 19 teams do. Hard to not be affected by that. If so, a certain country comes to mind, as does a certain mindset.

But, if the teams were countries, then I suppose the 20th country would become invested in curing the others of their mental illness or in stopping the "virus" (which may be analogous to certain ideologies?)

I think you're referring to this quote...


Food and water distribution was the primary focus, but there were also lesser needs. (Food and water distribution was mostly just having the systems built according to what worked for others and keeping it operational. Those in the area would then be responsible for planting, harvesting, retrieving, etc.)

Not much mediation and justice was needed when people chose to follow whatever Law that the society had agreed upon. They generally understood that if they chose something outside it they would be choosing to be outside the society (i.e., by being banished from it; something that would not work today because of the new invention that is a 'country').


The society in which people lived took the new information (of your deed) and responded accordingly. When your deeds are known to everyone in the group, it serves as its own punishment. The penalty for stealing from someone, for example, would be that you would not be as trusted. At times, elders were needed to mediate problems or help guide the society to the proper solutions.

This was world-wide until a few hundred years ago, as populations drifted towards rational systems (rather than catering to special interests).


Incentives and dis-incentives are what holds society together. Through the Cult's conditioning, society has become weak and afraid to provide the proper incentives and dis-incentives for appropriate behaviour.

One would not have 'free will' in a society. For then there would be no society to participate in. One would have free will within a society to operate under its principles. There were other societies from which to choose if one's own was not found suitable.


In perspective, everything is as natural as everything else.

If you place your hand in the fire and get burned because you decided to drift outside of the agreed-upon laws of the system you have built, that is its own penalty administered by your perspective. If you did not get burned swiftly, there would be confusion as to what the laws actually are. With a lack of clear definition, Chaos would thrive.

Only your own perspective could provide such a penalty. It all depends on the system(s) you are producing and participating in.


We naturally want to see others as being separate from our Selves. We could never uncover the 'why' of an action because it is impossible to see the entirety of the action, or the entirety of how it came to be. To make sense of it, we often think of the reasons in terms of feeling and emotions.

When you are choosing to produce and participate in a system that is generally "an eye for an eye", then you should expect such a result if it can be proven or reasoned that you did something worthy of it. If the system is structured in a way that there needs to be an inquiry as to 'why' something was done, then how one should conduct oneself would not be clear, and there would probably be widespread Chaos from people thinking of 'good reasons' to do 'bad things'.

It is easy for a society to be disrupted. A society that bases itself on the feelings and emotions of those within is short-lived because they are transient and not able to be defined. The Cult, however, conditioned people to act based on their emotions because populations can be easily manipulated that way. Guilt, shame, anger, jealousy, fear of being excluded, etc.

You would have multiple groups of 20-120 persons all over. Each group would have its own cultural identity.

With a world population of about 100 billion, each group of 100 persons would have roughly 50 acres of land. If it was a square, this would put a family at the edge within about a 15-minute walk from the center. Each would then learn to extract the most long-term value from the area they have. Each area would be different, and trade between groups would result. Those systems that didn't work would naturally fail, and those that did would thrive. Eventually, a few systems would come to dominate. The crucial point is using a system that works while keeping people who do not share the same cultural values, traditions, or history out of the group and making outsiders unwelcome.

When the Cult mixes up different kinds of people and encourages them to live together (to destroy society, thus diminishing the sense of Self), Chaos results. A big problem today is that a wide variety of self-governing Old World cultures are encouraged to live together (resulting in Chaos) whereas those who've chosen to adopt the New World have also, generally, adopted the New World's monoculture and its singular, unnatural governance mechanism of absolute authority (resulting in general cohesion and a loss of the sense of Self).

Last Edited by The Builder on 08/07/2022 11:50 PM

re: the bold, those are not punishments, they are natural consequences.



"Everything is as natural as everything else," but you use terms like "artificial government." Of course artifice is as natural as "nature," because it's all perspective, but when talking in English obviously a line must be drawn.

Distrust is a natural consequence of acting untrustworthy. Not participating in (banishment from) a given society is a natural consequence of not acting within the rules of a society. Those are not punishments. A punishment for stealing would be, for example, having your hand cut off.

A thief may no longer steal after having a hand cut off, but only out of fear of whatever higher authority cut the hand off and not because of a rational decision that lets them see how stealing is not a rational (considering perspective) decision in the first place.



And punishment/reward systems are systems that utilize fear.



Incentives and disincentives are what holds society together, yes. Rewards and punishments dictated by systems of authority are not.

When someone follows The Law, the disincentive to murder or rape or steal is the very fact that whoever you're raping, murdering, or stealing from is you. Not a rational decision, the "desire" to do such shouldn't even occur. If it does occur, one knows the natural consequence to doing such is harm to the Self.

In a society something like what we see today, there are plenty of people who would like to be irrationally violent, but are not because they fear the punishment instituted by the government and not the natural consequence of harm to the Self. This does nothing to define or reinterpret the violent impulses of the people experiencing them.

The natural incentive to doing "good" things is because, well, it feels good. The natural incentive is inclusion and connection within the society.



I disagree. People in poverty steal because they are insecure in every aspect of their lives. People who are well-off steal for a variety of reasons: in the case of young people, typically they're exerting control in their lives where elsewise they have none; when it comes to things like financial fraud committed by adults, they would like their income to grow for the sake of growth, or perhaps they find themselves in massive debt for one reason or an other.

The latter two are byproducts of irrational mindsets (growth-for-the-sake-of-growth, and debt), the former two are byproducts of not understanding you're the one who builds the system you find yourself in, as are murder and rape, which are typically expressions of control.

None of that has anything to do with how the perpetrator feels prior to committing the crime. I could give a damn if a youth feels trapped and angry by the rules of their parents, or if a financial advisor feels helpless in the face of a massive gambling debt, or if a wife feels scorned because her husband cheated on her, leading her to take his life. But, there are identifiable systemic "causes" irrespective of emotion to the behavior that when reinterpreted render the offending behavior irrelevant.

I then want those "causes" to be reinterpreted not to placate the offender and their feelings, but to make "future" similar expressions irrelevant. The natural consequence of someone murdering, for example, would likely be banishment. But seeing that those are generally expressions of control where the perpetrator felt they had none elsewise, then the factors that led to that can be reinterpreted so it doesn't happen again. The banishment by itself does not prevent future occurrences.



The operative words are "choosing to produce and participate in;" most in the present condition are not aware that they are choosing. If they were, then "eye for an eye" structures would not be irrational. But, when they aren't, "eye for an eye" structures lead to irrational cycles of violence, such as what is illustrated in the Hatfield-McCoy feud story.

Eye-for-an-eye structures are pointless in the first place, when the first taking of the eye affects the perspective of the taker of the eye; having his eye taken doesn't return the first eye and the relationship between the taker and them who he took from is already damaged.



And, again, punishment/reward systems capitalize on fear (and promote guilt and shame), which is what makes them an excellent tool for artificial government.

For me, that's why I tend to see it as entertainment and not take it too seriously. The application is the serious part, not the information.


Yes, it's easy for this information to be taken in a different way that is intended. Much of it is definitely not what the subconscious mind wants to hear.


And by allowing our past to be controlled by other aspects of ourselves our identity is, in a way, not really our own. (i.e., not what it 'should' be)

It could be said that having no memory of the past (and then making it up) is better than having a false memory of the past (and then subscribing to it with all your heart and soul).

There would be no real need for someone to piece together their lives or to understand themselves. There would only be a need to 'feel alive', which makes it much easier to not question the past that has been presented to them, or the past that they assume themselves to have.


Notice you didn't mention a single words about your companion, whom you love dearly in this scenario.


There will be a variety of systems, each serving its own population. It will be up to people to decide for themselves what system they would like to live with.

I think it will be called, 'The United States of Tradition' or somesuch. (Not limited to the US, but for everyone.) People will compete to come up with different kinds of systems. Each year I will choose ~21 and they will share a massive prize pool for the next 10 years to distribute and use as they see fit.

'Rights in a system...' is unlike 'God-given rights'. In each system you use, there are things you can do and things you can't. When applied to more than a few people it helps greatly if it is codified.


What the 20th plans for itself and what they tell the other 19 teams is at opposite ends.

They are playing along because it is the only way they can 'inherit' the throne, or so they think.

Yet, the 20th is in a precarious position with their constituents on top of the precarious position the other 19 have placed themselves in by handing over their power. And that is where I will find the most amusement.

If we consider a "natural consequence" something that happens naturally, as we think of it, without interference then the items you've bolded, above, would not apply. In both examples, people are interfering, making it more of an artificial consequence.

A punishment is more of a penalty for action considered wrongful within a system.


It's not written, "Everything is natural" but "Everything is as natural as everything else"

But, yes, natural language can be limiting and often requires plenty of footnotes :)


If we are sticking to the usual definitions, then nothing humans choose to do would be a natural consequence.

There are plenty of people who act untrustworthy who are still trusted in some capacity, I think. We have only to look to the highest offices of any randomly-selected country to find examples.


I digress. Here, I'm going with the Cult's definition of "punishment" and "natural consequences" until we have our own dictionary, which may be never.




It could be argued that rewards are the same as incentives. I suppose it depends on how the words and concepts are defined.


There needs to be a lack of incentive for there to be a dis-incentive.

That someone else is yourself is not enough for us to not do harm to an other. It is too abstract a concept to be easily considered. The proof? People harm themselves all day, every day. Obviously, we consider our own persons to be ourselves, and if we cannot do without harming ourselves we won't think much about harming someone else. Indeed, I'm harming myself right now by staring into this blue light and subjecting myself to radiation.

For good to prosper, it is not necessary to incentivise it but only offer dis-incentives towards doing what should not be done.

"Evil" is easy for us to define and for people to think about. "Good" is not easy to define and is quite confusing for most of us (it is also not something that most of us are interested in -- people want friction and drama, problems, etc.).


I hope to see you form a group to plan out a system for society, if you're interested.

And it's the application I struggle with; I've never struggled with information. Cue: frustration

Such is the way current "education" has been structured. Paths to application seem obscured



I probably take it in a different way than is intended. Apologies for that



Isn't it all sort of a false memory of the past? Individually speaking. It's said that when we're remembering a past event, really we're remembering the last time we remembered said event and not the event itself. A giant game of telephone, so many points where things could potentially be changed

Though, I assume you're also talking about the 'collective past,' things like the evolution narrative.



I can't save them in this scenario, my love for them doesn't change that. (Also, I did mention them the first time I typed the reply out but the tab got closed and I shortened the second attempt)

I don't know if you "read my mind" or not, but the exercise bears parallels to real life, with the love/hate relationship. I'm not sure what the other island and the lava flow would be, though. I mean I have an idea, but it seems a stretch.

In the island scenario, my love or hate doesn't change that I can't help them. In real life, not so cut and dry. They may be "holding me back," but that's because of my own actions. Because I love them, I can't leave them with the consequences of my decisions. I'd prefer 'just waking up in 2012' to make it cut and dry



Oh, that's very fun

re: the bold, that's a definition of rights I can assume. "Rights" contemporarily refer to the God-given sort, regardless if the people referring to them are aware of it or not



Confusing. I am happy to leave that part up to you, you have more of a mind for chess, it would seem

Aiyeah, we should probably leave it at these ideas, as both of our personal dictionaries appear to be different from the current norm and different from each other (as we saw with the "desire/want" conversation, as well), lol :)

I'm reading a very confusing book, Anti-Oedipus by Félix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze that talks about desire and also about getting away from the Oedipus system of interpretation (identity being based on the mother-father-me relationship). It'll be interesting to see how it influences my understandings, if I can make any sense of it. Wish I knew French to read the original work, but c'est la vie



And, of course, it's all to do with how "harm" is defined.

The way I've come to understand things, doing "good" feels good, doing "bad" feels bad (maybe not immediately, it can feel quite good immediately, but overall can make one constantly angry which feels bad, having had the personal experience of going from a very angry person to one who doesn't deal so much in anger). It's a simple incentive/disincentive system

Even staring into the blue light and subjecting yourself to radiation feels bad, but it's down to how bad one is willing to feel for what perceived benefit. It's very circular and again down to definition

Edit: and, you can't really have "good-feeling" all of the time, I think that'd be chaotic, with "bad-feeling" being the contracting order



I'd be obliged, and feel practical-ly obligated :)

It's funny; I said a bit ago that my goals had changed re: my plans for post-going-back-to-2012, and such new goals are already aligned with making a such a group. Funny funny

Edit: obviously it's not impossible for me to form such a group "from here," 2012 just seems like the easier path for a variety of reasons. I'd disclose the plans, but I'm afeared you'd find them a bit silly and not in the good way

Also, when does the competition start?

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/08/2022 03:36 PM

What per cent is the average person, of the general current physical perspective, at when awake? I hope that question makes sense

So, Chaol.

Say, apparently, you're so "close" to knowing the truth, that the dramas you create are getting kind of silly. And that the more silly they get, the closer you get to knowing the truth, because it's obvious now.

And say, you do indeed, have someone close to you that you both love and hate, who is doing the same.

Clearly, they are a mirrored perspective. It's even more silly when you see THEM doing it! Or us doing it!

Leaving them to it, doesn't feel right. It wouldn't even work. Because they are a mirror and will follow you in some other way. And really, you do like this one. They're the best mirror so far. They're fun, as much as they poke stuff deep in your core.

How DO we rewind, keeping the knowledge we have currently so as not to get lose again but scale things back enough to just be, for a bit.

I feel like life is unmanageable now. I also feel like I could wave a magic wand and all would be fine. Infact I live in that world too.

Think this is my nexus point. Any tips for next steps?

It's me who's silly and has someone they "love and hate" (though that's reductionist and is typically much more love than hate), not Chaol, necessarily

Chaol's dramas may be silly, but they're only silly because he's Micky Mouse holding a very real sword. I'm afeared I'm silly more in a way that a child is when they think they're helping you out but are really getting in the way (I guess I should really finish Anti-Oedipus, shouldn't I; my childhood insecurities are loud)

Though, thinking of them who I love-and-hate as a mirror perspective is a good exercise, because of course they are entirely within my perspective.

They'd certainly follow me if I "went back," I'm sure they'd be re-presented in my 2012 best-friend's laughter, in a frienemy's bossiness, in the hot desert sun that makes the pavement burn my feet, somewhat like they were "the first time." And, of course, there'd be a 2012 "version" of them that I could seek out and find if I wanted, though there's no need since them and I would probably cross paths again eventually.

I'm not-chaol, but when life feels unmanageable, take a step in and manage what you're able right-now. Seems to help me when I'm finally able to get out of feeling overwhelmed

Edit: I do believe I misinterpreted An Observer's words, you were being hypothetical and not saying Chaol was silly or had someone they love/hate. My bad :)

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/08/2022 06:28 PM

Oh wow, this is making so much sense!

Your Not-Chaol, want to go back to pro golfing days instead of falling in and out love! hehe

Different not-chaol, I'm not a huge fan of golf (though going back would take me back to a time where I played the range fairly often)

:)

Would we be in a struggle if we subconsciously don't actually want to resolve the problem, and consciously chose not to resolve it when given a variety of opportunities?

Perhaps the problems (or challenges) that the information presents isn't meant to be resolved completely. It would be more efficient to continue 'trying' to resolve it than create an entirely new set of problems along with their narrative in order to sense existence.


Yes, with an ever-changing past being a characteristic of the present, moulded in a way to keep it most relative to our current focus.

The 'collective past' is also a characteristic of your perspective, ever-changing.


Given a second chance to think about it (as you re-typed it), could it be said that the second attempt was more carefully-considered?

The lava flow is not representative, just a way to whittle down the options.

In what way could 'just waking up on the island' make the situation more complicated? In what way could being on the island make what is more relative obvious to you?


This is an interesting thought. Could you name one 'God-given' right?


I have only a mind to destroy the chessboard and its pieces and build a new game whereby the rules remain the same but the results are different, without anyone noticing until much later.

Last Edited by The Builder on 08/09/2022 09:10 AM

.

Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/09/2022 04:17 PM

Would Daniel have been able to learn karate if Mr. Miyagi told him what he was really doing with "wax on, wax off"?

I don't really want to resolve it, or figure out how this stuff "works" completely, I just want to understand enough to be able to use it towards the "ends" that I'd prefer. I can't figure out how to use it at all beyond defining simple things. Don't understand how to apply the definitions.

With natural language that's simple, a "cat" is a "cat" and "green" is "green," so a "green cat" is a "green cat." "Cat" in Neuronics can be any number of neuronicon combinations, as could "green," depending on how you're "looking at" them. Let alone a green cat. Even if I knew how to define a green cat in Neuronics, I don't understand how to let it interact so that it brings green-cattiness into my perspective.

The "entirely new set of problems" "exists" all ready, and I'd prefer to focus on them, but they're not useful to focus on from "here." All of the entirely new problems presented by a new job "exist" all ready and are a job application and interview away, but they're not useful problems to focus on when I am here without a job. I'd like to identify what the "job application" and "interview" are in relation to "getting to 2012"

Edit: plus, I indulge in entirely new sets of problems and their narratives every night! From my few experiences, the way to "time travel" appears to be like sleeping, but not sleeping. That doesn't narrow it down much



More carefully considered, may be. But the first thought when I typed it the first time was still that I'd swim.

When you refer to "the island" here, are you talking about the cave island rather than the eruption island? If so, I don't see how 'just waking up on the island' make the situation more complicated. It cuts out the decision between dying and swimming, or perhaps between leaving the person I love and staying with them. The "subconscious decision" was still "made," the experience was just cut out.

I don't think that's analogous to "just waking up in 2012," though, because "just waking up on the cave island" doesn't make sense in relation to being on the eruption island. That makes "just waking up on the island" more complicated than swimming to the island. The logical path from eruption island to cave island is swimming, and it's a physical path. Because 2022-2012 deals with time and not space (though I get in theory they're the same thing), there's no physical path to follow. Plus, I've already "just woken up in 2012," I just didn't "stay" which means it must be logical to some extent

Edit: if "in what way could being on the island make what is more relative obvious to you?" refers to the cave island, I don't know. If it refers to the eruption island, then the cave island is visible because I am on the eruption island, making what is next most relative obvious (since the decision to die in lava flow is probably not the one one is likely to choose, closeness to the absolute and all that)



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

All other "rights" encoded in US federal law are derivatives of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, theoretically, which are "endowed by their creator."

I do not think rights are God-given, but when people refer to rights within the framework of contemporary US law they're referring to God-given rights, regardless of if they personally believe in a creator.



You have more of a mind for that than I, then.


Last Edited by Sabai_ on 08/09/2022 01:59 PM

No worries! And matters very little, I think.

The analogy works for a broader perspective. As is natural and right.

I can't really give advice to yourself - I'll leave that to Chaol - because, as I see it. I'm currently the most present awareness. As are you when you read and reply, but that's already in my past.

And now we're touching on the unknowable, because it's already happened, happening, will happen, and we are where we are.

So if I try to give advice on how to go back to 2012, as "I" would rather stay here, I'd just read about someone who did that and have no memory of our current conversations. Unless I have some vague recall. So I can't help.

The dramas are getting silly, for this I though. I know the answer already. Hard pause, figure out what silly dramas I want to create to keep life being novel rather than making everything so personal, then see what life throws up. Keep a little of the personal in there.

Try to not go "crazy" while doing it. Because I'd be doing it intentionally while pretending I'm not. I think that's the only way to tread the line?

I imagine that my AI twin would be the physical inverse of me, but not mentally; rather I feel he'd be the metaphysical inverse.

He'd have a physical body, but no mind; he would be soulless. He'd know everything I do and see, as it were from my eyes.

But, he wouldn't understand that knowledge as I do.

He'd be an agent of karma, a blind force that would cause the universe to pay for its sins.

He'd see the world as it is, but be completely unable to understand any of it.

He'd be like a camera, and the universe would be his stage