Collisions with Mass

From one perspective, life is a series of collisions between life-energy or thought, and mass. When it loses, life energy becomes mass-like end entropic. When life-energy wins, mass becomes ordered and takes on aesthetic characteristics of order, complementarity, or harmony.

The characteristics of life energy are instilling order, rationale, flow, understanding and admiration. The characteristics of mass are condensation, chaotic order, inertial resistance to movement, absorption.

Possibly a sense of inspired combat is the lowest emotional level at which one can successfully seek to convert or attack mass. From there down, where destructive anger sets in, mass is winning and the spin into apathy begins.

# # #

The Structures of Being

There are examples of affinity structures -- hostile attitudes, what one will do when one decides to be open, and how much of the river one will let in. Sometimes interesting exceptions arrive "unexpectedly" -- for example, the often overwhelming sense of love that fills one to overflowing when a child is born. Nothing prepares you for it. The levees just fall down and you got momentarily swept away. Maybe those levees were under-built, but then again, maybe you had no business putting levees up against your own heart in the first place.

There are, too. examples of reality structures -- what the organizing postulates of perception will be, the pragma of "what is", and the kinds of things that are more real and compelling than other things; whether it is a leg of lamb to cook or the grace of a flower or the miracle of quanta linked across space, or the postulated order of a Divine Hand, or the compelling chaos of Entropy, or the rarified postulates of Manifest Consciousness, an individual builds his reality along the lines of these organizing postulates. Perhaps part of this is postulated methods of changing realities through decision, persuasion, emotional hysteria, force, violence, or correct estimation of effort. Some folks have a reality that is people, by design, with opponents and dangers. Others primarily see friends and opportunities. Some see only overwhelming dangers. How does this work? What are the building bricks of "a dangerous world"?

There are examples of communication structures, such as postulated screens and definitions of what good communication looks or feels like, what gets in and what is reflected without consideration, and what is an important signal and what is an unimportant signal, and what signals are to be left invisible.

There are also postulated methods of communicating from the telepathic down to the most violent. There's a whole family of codes you agree to give the nod to, and methods you will find acceptable for sending messages and receiving them. There are lots of ways of sending messages you may decide aren't in your selected set, and those messages won't arrive or even appear on the radar while those decisions are in play.

In addition to these constructions, there are ways to expand the boundaries of your own choices, assuming you are willing to.

One way is to make a habit of spotting things you have not noticed before.

Another is to intentionally look for things you like in your day to day life. People forget that this can make a difference.

Another is to seek out communications and opportunities for communicaitons, or look for communications you would be willing to receive. Another is to practice sending acceptable communications to strangers, or to places and people you usally avoid.

You might be surprised at how your talent for architecture and design opens up.

# # #

Dream State, Possibility, and the Confusion of Universes

Even in well-cleared conditions beings can find normal life in the material universe dampens and inhibits their creative powers, because of the compulsive averaging of space and objects. Makes a spiritual powerhouse feel like they are locked into a kindergarten of Mongolian screamers.

Under such conditions, day-dreams, dreams, and imaginings often are used by the individual to find some territory in which to exercise his sovereignty. These are interesting, make a wonderful escape from the stresses of averaging, are a fun playground and keep one in touch with at least a part of his creative ability.

However they can easily be confused with perceptions of higher planes of commonality, which they are not.

That is, one can mock up, as an imagined scene, an interplay of beings based, for example, on the Great Theta Pool in which all beings are One Being, and decide this love-nest of viewpoints is the true Source of the Universe.

This mockup, because it fills various scarcities for admiration, can be quite compelling and look Eternally True.

But it is no more true than a cluster-f**/* impression of a volcano going off millions of years ago is "true".

It is, in short an artifact of one's own universe as a sub-division of one's entanglement with the common ground. Dramatizing the commonality of it does not make it a higher truth or a more reliable perception, but it may make it more addictive as a temporary certainty.

There Are ALSO architectures which govern the operation of common ground, the core postulates of participation in the physical universe space continuum, the agreement to have certain kinds of particles impose certain kinds of perception for example ("when my attention hits X I will perceive Y" decisions.)

These act as pragmae -- base filters as to what the operating system of theta - in-space will do when presented with certain common inputs. One of the great joys of life is discovering how shared these are, because it reassures one that he./she is real and among like beings.

The truth is one is among like mockups of beings, each being in truth being so different from any other as to bear little comparison. While we all maintain viewpoints and make postulates, once you slip past the pragmae, you are outside of the territory of "likeness" and it gets highly interesting. Getting very clear about what is your own, what is anothers, and what is dross of the commons is an excellent idea for your spiritual power.

Administrative Note: As of January 2006, readers are invited to leave comments on any of these poor essays. Thanks, A.

Your Reality, Our Reality

A common early perplexity is between the two views of "objective reality" and "my own reality vs. your reality". Phsyical scientists are quite sure that the latter is all opinion laid down on top of the former, evanescent and not certified.

Students of metaphysics sometimes get quite carried away with the liberating concept that "it is all there because I say it is" but this doesn''t explain why, when they decide they will get fortunes handed to them by strangers, the strangers never show up. When they decide they will meet the perfect partner, they get someone who is allergic to their favorite food and who snores. In other words the average illusion doesn't leap to quite as energetically as it should if they were truly the commandant of its configuration.

An answer mentioned previously in these pages is that a belief, not matter how heartfelt, will not override a prior creation, inside which the later belief is being created; so when you decide you are going to override the trends of material averaging, you will be frustrated if you are doing so from within your uninspected agreements with the mechanism of material phenomena.

So what are these prior beliefs? When you look at a bookshelf or a brick, what determines your experience of it?

One is the decision that certain points mean withdrawal or deflection. This happens all the time on a usually uninspected basis. You send attention out, it meets a wall, the wall "means" "attention stops here", and hey-presto, your attention stops and you can't see through the wall. Each solid seems to do the same basic stunt based on your own agreement that that is how your attention must operate when in a common space.

When you sit watching a movie in a theater, the forms projected all subscribe to a basic mechanism -- light bounces off screen to create illusion. Different dimensions, colors, rates of change and subtle combinations of these will manifest as all the realities in the universe, from death on the waterfront, a battle of space ships, hand-to-hand combat amongst the pygmies of the Amazon, or a portrait of colors generated by gigantic nebulae on the fringes of a far-off galaxy. Doesn't matter; in every case the forms are telling you how to stop your attention. When you do, you "carry back" the frequencies of the particular stop and make up a scenario including it.

The physical universe thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to perceive it, you subscribe to the basic mechanisms we are probing here. Once you have done so, a huge array of different experiences reveals itself, one which you could spend lifetimes exploring, all based on the fundamental kind of transaction. But they are not really "different" experiences in one fundamental sense; just as all movies seem different once you take back the reflections and create a scenario out of them, it can appear that you have a huge series of different experiences in the same movie house. But it is all the same core experience e-- someone sends light onto a screen, you get the light, you agree to the light limitations imposed on your attention (everybody knows you can't "see through light", right?). These limitations define colors, frequencies, shapes, and degrees of solidity to which you are now also subscribed.

Bingo. Infinite experience. All coming from a core set of transactional postulates that govern what your attention will do when it hits a wall, sees a plate, or feels the touch of a finger on your earlobe.

# # #